Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Liberals/Progressives Use Black People

Dec 30, 2014 10:46PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
If you have stop and frisk in your city
Jan 8, 2015 1:03AM PST

and your city is mostly white and most of the people that get stopped are black, you don't have to feel like a victim.

- Collapse -
There's always a black heaven....
Jan 8, 2015 3:27AM PST

....called Detroit.

- Collapse -
And, like Ferguson,
Jan 8, 2015 6:44AM PST

if that city had stop and frisk and most of the population is black and then most of the people stopped are black, do you have the 'right' to cry foul? Same can be said for the gangs in places like Chicago, NYC, and Detroit.....if most who are stopped are black or Asian or Hispanic..........

You get the guns from those who shouldn't have them in the first place and crime goes down....

- Collapse -
I didn't say anything about Detroit
Jan 8, 2015 7:35AM PST

I did say that most of the population was white.

- Collapse -
But you can't see the reverse side?
Jan 8, 2015 7:39AM PST

What hypothetical city were you talking about that has a mostly white population and only blacks were stopped?

- Collapse -
Did you read my post?
Jan 8, 2015 9:57AM PST

I said mostly blacks were stopped. Does it have to be a certain city.\?

- Collapse -
I think I understand the challenge
Jan 8, 2015 5:31PM PST

The stop and frisk policy had nothing to do with the city as much as it had to do with the area of the city. It also wasn't based on race but on crime rate. Actually, the policy isn't new nor unique to the US. It's actually one of "stop, question, and frisk". If done correctly, the officer involved must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has or is about to happen. Of course that's subjective and open to being abused. The frisk part only takes place if the officer feels the suspect may be armed. It's for his own protection. Any stop and frisk event had to be documented by the officers during their paperwork time. The police department needed to measure the effectiveness of the policy to see if it was worth the effort and risk. I believe that to be a reasonable approach.

From what I read, one controversial aspect was that there could be a great disparity in the number of reports generated by the officers. Some had quite a few and some almost none. The police unions complained that officers could feel pressured into filling quotas and that not having enough paperwork could affect their reviews. That's one reason the policy was under internal scrutiny as well as media scrutiny. As for black persons being stopped more often than white persons, we get to decide whether or not it was color or the area involved that was the largest factor. If black persons were singled out in predominantly white communities or areas of the city, that's one thing...again, it would need to be high crime areas. If the majority of the population in the targeted areas were African-American, there should be no reason to dispute the math.