Bloomberg: Stop-And-Frisk Is Great; Start Targeting Blacks More, Whites Less


New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the city police department’s unConstitutional stop-and-frisk policy on his weekly radio show Friday, but confused his fellow liberals when he stopped to add this:

I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they say. I don’t know where they [opponents of the policy] went to school but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course.

Ouch. Bloomberg was basing his comments on statistics that point to blacks and Hispanics as the suspected perpetrators of 90 percent of murders in New York last year. The same stats estimate 87 percent of all stop-and-frisk stops targeted blacks and Hispanics, while 9 percent targeted whites.

Stop-and-frisk authorizes NYPD officers to stop citizens in public without probable cause and search their persons and their belongings.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • richcarro

    If it’s against the law then it should be stopped for everybody. We’re all Americans and should all be treated that way. It’s time for Bloomberg to leave office as he is becoming more senile by each day.

    • monizame

      the man said it the way it is

  • Alan

    Wow!!! And the liberals call us racists! With that sort of generalization is it any wonder the classes become further and further divided?

    • monizame

      did you ever stop to think the man is finally right on something???Amen

      • Alan

        I gave it a good deal of consideration only to reach the conclusion that it doesn’t make any difference. Why should only the Latino or Black races be subject to such treatment? Racial profiling is racial profiling no matter how you look at it.

        • garygerke

          99% of illegal aliens are Hispanics, FACT!
          What nationality should be scrutinized the most?
          Racial profiling or common sense?

          • Alan

            All I’m saying Gary is that everyone should be treated equally, not that those specific minorities should get a pass. There are more then a few whites out there that are reprobates themselves.

  • Anon.

    This policy is wrong on so many levels! It needs to go before the Supreme Court, as ineffective as they have become, on at least 4th amendment grounds.

  • Leon Barber

    Racial or any kind of profiling leaves a sour taste in your mouth. However, if vast majority of street crimes are being done by a certain sector, then that sector needs profiling. Another example, financial institutions, lot of white collar crime happening there, that sector needs some profiling. You just cannot automatically say profiling is wrong.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      But you can say un-warranted searches and seizures are wrong.

  • Richard Gibbard

    Did the blind squirrel Bloomberg finally find a nut?

  • CWA

    Regardless of the crime statistics, this overt violation of personal privacy and liberty is unConstitutional. I find it reprehensible.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Unbelievable. It figures that it would start in New York which has been the haven of Big-Government-Loving privilege-seeking Leaders since the colonies were established.

  • BearFlagNative

    Wonder where the ACLU is on this matter? Interesting they are so quiet eh?
    This is a complete and total violation of the 4th Amendment, an invasion of privacy, and in general is opening the proverbial door to major police misconduct “down the road”. Does anyone recall the current NSA issues we are seeing right now? I would think, that ANY SMART Officer of the Law would state emphatically “Not only, NO, but Hell NO”. Who does anyone believe would wind up holding the short end of the stick, once this winds up in Federal Courts?
    Unless the New York Police Department is totally different than ones I worked in for some 42 years, ALL the members of the Department who perform as POLICE OFFICERS, must have attended an Academy, where they were TAUGHT about LAWS, both State and Federal, PLUS NY City Ordinances (laws). I would hazard a guess that at least one small part of their academy law training dwelled on “Unlawful Searches and Seizures”. So going forward with this, NO Police Officer, Detective, Sgt, LT, Capt, Commander, Deputy Chief, Chief or whatever else title they might have can claim “No knowledge” if they are brought before a court on these matters. For a Mayor to be allowing this to happen, and even endorsing it, tells me that is a mayor who should be immediately RECALLED, as he/she IS NOT playing according to the “RULES”; and those rules are the United States Consittution and the First 10 Amendments.