Strawman: Is That A Pistol In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?
3 months, 1 week ago
It’s called the Stop and Frisk Law—and it’s been in use in New York City since 2002. Quoting from nyclu.org, “Nearly nine of ten stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports.”
So, wouldn’t four million stops equal 400,000 criminals being apprehended? (Do the math NYCLU.)
Stop and Frisk, while under fire in New York, has even been considered in liberal bastions like Philadelphia and San (I can’t believe this either) Francisco.
Needless to say, Stop and Frisk is very controversial. And, depending on which side of the street you’re standing, it’s either very effective or very unfair. For example; if you’re Black or Hispanic, you’re probably not a fan-as over 90% of those citizens stopped are Black or Hispanic. If you’re a white, taxpaying, law abiding citizen (America’s newest minority), you’re probably OK with Stop and Frisk—as it’s been effective in getting guns off the street. In 2003 the NYPD confiscated 604 guns as a result of 160,851 stops. In 2011, the number of guns confiscated was 780. Hey, that’s an increase right? Yes, but it took the NYPD over 500,000 more stops to hit that 780 gun number.
And there’s the rub. The New York Civil Liberties Union makes the case that the law infringes on an individual’s Constitutional Rights—and one judge in New York has written a 157 page ruling that, in some cases, the NYPD has stepped over the line.
So, answer me this: why haven’t we heard of this law before? I floated the question by a number of my “politically aware” friends today. And to a man, none had heard of it. Which makes me wonder why, when Obama’s Attorney General filed suit against Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona in July of 2010, nothing was said about the Stop and Frisk law that had been in use in New York since 2002? They’re not the same law, of course—one dealing with the confiscation of firearms (NY), while the other allowing law officers to check those detained for citizenship papers. What am I missing here, other than some obtuse Obama rhetoric? Mr. Obama has labeled the Arizona law “misguided” and has implied the law “would undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” And here’s the best line of the bunch; “our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.”
Excuse me sir, but aren’t you the leader of the federally irresponsible? If not, may I say, you bear a strong resemblance?
So, tell me, if Stop and Frisk, while controversial, is still in effect today, why haven’t Eric Holder and his band of liberal mouthpieces filed suit against the State of New York?
Could it be because New York is a blue state-and votes (D) all the time? Could this be a political thing?
You tell me……