NYPD Commissioner admitted that cops target minorites in stop & frisk

[revelarts]

Ray Kelly admitted cops target blacks, Hispanics in 'stop-frisk,' state lawmaker testifies
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly admitted that cops target blacks and Hispanics for the city's controversial "stop and frisk" program to keep guns off the street, a state lawmaker testified this morning.
State Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, said Kelly made the startling admission during a July 2010 meeting in Manhattan with then-Gov. David Paterson and other officials.
Adams, a former NYPD captain, said he complained that a "disproportionate" number of blacks and Hispanics were being subjected to the controversial crime-fighting program.
According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."
Adams said he was "amazed" and "shocked" by Kelly's alleged remarks, adding: "I told him that was illegal."
He said Kelly responded by asking: "How else are we going to get rid of guns?"
The judge in the "stop and frisk" trial this morning invited NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to take the witness stand and testify about the controversial crime-fighting program.
During cross-examination, city lawyer Heidi Grossman tried to read from a written declaration in which Kelly denied making the remarks, but was blocked by the judge, who called it a "back door" method of admitting testimony from the city's top cop.
Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin then publicly invited Kelly to take the stand, saying: "If he'd like to come here, he's welcome in this courtroom."
The NYPD didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs in the case sought to use Kelly as a witness for their class-action suit, which claims the NYPD illegally targets minorities for stops and seeks the appointment of a court-ordered monitor.
But Kelly was barred from testifying after the city refused to schedule a pre-trial deposition on grounds that he's "too busy" running the NYPD, plaintiffs' lawyer Jonathan Moore said.
Moore said the plaintiffs would probably oppose any last-minute attempt to have Kelly testify, saying: "In civil cases, you're not allowed to do trial by ambush."
Moore also said Kelly would likely only offer testimony that had been "scripted" for him by city lawyers.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/l...KVwsEm8XvHJgNM



from Judges grand jury report that made the class action suit possible

"...It is Indisputable that the NYPD has an Enormous stop and frisk program.
there were2.8 million documented stops between 2004 and 2009. those stops were made pursuant to policy designed implemented and monitored by the NYPD administration...."
"...evidence shows that the stop and frisk program is centralized and hierarchical...."
http://ccrjustice.org/floyd


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...frisk-lawsuit/

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rfJHx0Gj6ys?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


NYPD quotas for stops, quotas for arrest.
informant cop "...we are not here to protect or to help..."
informant cop "...if you don't make arrest per month you are labeled a "ZERO"..."
"my sister wont come to my home anymore, because she feels like she's going to be stopped and arrested"
"...I've been stopped over 14 times frisked and not arrested..."
".. a review of your own reports show that more whites you've stopped have guns than minorities,..."

Mayor and Police Claim the program "works" "keeps people safe". where have i heard this before

Sgt Berrelly blows whistle that the much lauded Low Crime stats are because many of the harsher crimes are downgraded to lower crimes, he finnally turned over his to review and was punnished by being moved from his supervisor job to a new position midnight shift a a local precint.

"many crime reports were tossed out" "they disappeared" no crime report means lower crime rate.

[jimnyc]

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but have a question right off the bat:

NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly admitted that cops target blacks and Hispanics for the city's controversial "stop and frisk" program to keep guns off the street, a state lawmaker testified this morning.
State Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, said Kelly made the startling admission during a July 2010 meeting in Manhattan with then-Gov. David Paterson and other officials.
Adams, a former NYPD captain, said he complained that a "disproportionate" number of blacks and Hispanics were being subjected to the controversial crime-fighting program.
According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."
Adams said he was "amazed" and "shocked" by Kelly's alleged remarks, adding: "I told him that was illegal."
He said Kelly responded by asking: "How else are we going to get rid of guns?"

Have the others in attendance admitted to these statements?

[SassyLady]

Who causes the majority of crimes? Shouldn't the police be targeting those groups regardless of their race? I don't think minorities should get a pass just because they are minorities and it would be un pc to target them.

[aboutime]

Darn those NYPD cops. We all know. They should spend more of their time PROFILING Gray haired, blind, deaf, Old ladies with broken limbs in wheel chairs.
Why would anyone feel a need to target minorities who create, and practice increasing the Pick-pocket, purse-snatching, drive-by shooting, smash and cash robberies while Raising the Crime rates in their own communities, and on their own people???

HUH??

[taft2012]

The New York State Senate has now reached the statistical truth that a NYS Senator is more likely to lose his seat due to being arrested than being voted out of office.

But putting that aside, some background on Senator Adams.

He is a retired member of the NYPD. He was the leader of a group of black officers that spent his entire career mouthing off about a litany of perceived racial issues affecting black cops. For years he'd speak on television programs, interviews by newspapers and magazine, constantly criticizing Commissioner Kelly.

Leaders of such groups are usually given a wide latitude to publicly discuss their concerns without repercussions from the Commissioner. And Adams took full advantage of this, giving the Commissioner "report cards" with all failing grades, and other such childish attention seeking behavior. Imagine if you were a Microsoft employee and went around doing interviews giving Bill Gates failing grades.... how long do you think you would have lasted?

But so it is with public employment.

However, in one televised interview Adams went beyond his normal race pimping and began discussing some specifics of the NYPD's counter-terrorism programs. Now to discuss these matters in a public forum or with the media, a member of the Department needs to first secure the approval of the Commissioner. If approved, very strict parameters of what may be said are laid out.

Adams did not get that permission beforehand, he shot his big-mouth off about things he wasn't well-versed in, and put a lot of crap into the public discussion that should not have been out there at the time.

Adams was brought up on Department charges, a court martial of sorts. And of course, he bellyached that he was being picked on because he's black, etc., etc. He was found guilty, saw the writing on the wall, and quickly retired. He won an election for the NYS Senate, and his very first speech on the floor of the Senate was a whining diatribe about how Senators are underpaid.

Is Eric Adams above lying and/or misrepresenting what the Police Commissioner said? I think the answer to that is self-evident.

[aboutime]

The New York State Senate has now reached the statistical truth that a NYS Senator is more likely to lose his seat due to being arrested than being voted out of office.

But putting that aside, some background on Senator Adams.

He is a retired member of the NYPD. He was the leader of a group of black officers that spent his entire career mouthing off about a litany of perceived racial issues affecting black cops. For years he'd speak on television programs, interviews by newspapers and magazine, constantly criticizing Commissioner Kelly.

Leaders of such groups are usually given a wide latitude to publicly discuss their concerns without repercussions from the Commissioner. And Adams took full advantage of this, giving the Commissioner "report cards" with all failing grades, and other such childish attention seeking behavior. Imagine if you were a Microsoft employee and went around doing interviews giving Bill Gates failing grades.... how long do you think you would have lasted?

But so it is with public employment.

However, in one televised interview Adams went beyond his normal race pimping and began discussing some specifics of the NYPD's counter-terrorism programs. Now to discuss these matters in a public forum or with the media, a member of the Department needs to first secure the approval of the Commissioner. If approved, very strict parameters of what may be said are laid out.

Adams did not get that permission beforehand, he shot his big-mouth off about things he wasn't well-versed in, and put a lot of crap into the public discussion that should not have been out there at the time.

Adams was brought up on Department charges, a court martial of sorts. And of course, he bellyached that he was being picked on because he's black, etc., etc. He was found guilty, saw the writing on the wall, and quickly retired. He won an election for the NYS Senate, and his very first speech on the floor of the Senate was a whining diatribe about how Senators are underpaid.

Is Eric Adams above lying and/or misrepresenting what the Police Commissioner said? I think the answer to that is self-evident.

taft. Everyone knows the old adage, in reference to your last question above.

"You catch more (f) LIES with (h)MONEY, than you do with (crooks) vinegar."

[Voted4Reagan]

yeah...Liberals want you to do stop and frisk in neighborhoods like Breezy point and Douglaston.

If you did it in Harlem would the majority of folks stopped and frisked be white or black?

they target high crime areas... not people.

[revelarts]

I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I expected as much from some you.


How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

OK, Rev lets have a healthy dose of reality here. That kid getting frisk 15 times should have figured out long before the 15th time that it is because his damn homies are ffing doped up , drug selling, murdering , robbing and raping bastards. If he is too damn stupid to figure that out he will be right in there with them soon enough so why worry about the guy?
I never give false cover to police corruption or misdeeds (as evidenced by my past posts) but damn if we can not fight crime directly where it is happening we should just disband all police and let's have Wild West lawlessness again.
The progressives toss out all these let's give dictatorial control and special status to minorities as if that solves everything. That would be chaos and plunge us into third world status overnight almost. The progressives are dumbasses from hell in my opinion. Always so damn ready to toss out the Rule of Law and common sense in exchange for some so-called super enlightened shit!
The minorities consist of individuals just as do all groups. Those same individuals get to make choices in life. THEY MAKE THOSE CHOICES AND BY EVERY REALITY SHOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Let's stop this excuse making for the many that choose what seems to be the easy way to make money--CRIME.

WAS A TIME WHEN THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS UNDERSTOOD THAT!
NOW WE HAVE A CORRUPTED POLITICAL PARTY CATERING TO THEM AND PROMOTING POLICIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO "PAYBACK" FOR EVIL DEEDS WE NEVER DID.--Tyr

[taft2012]

When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... .

I re-read the thread. I don't know who that was meant for, but I didn't see anybody say that.

[revelarts]

I re-read the thread. I don't know who that was meant for, but I didn't see anybody say that.

According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."


there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?
what i posted doesn't describe stopping crime it just shows harassment for being black or brown. I've post multiple items about bankers that have defrauded BILIONS and NOW TRILLIONS yet no one comments there, no outrage no call for police. but Young men who have done nothing deserve/should live with being harassed because "it's a high crime area". it's laughable.
It's the opposite of probably cause. the only cause is being black or Brown therefore i stop you, frisk you, ask you all of biz, and why are you are walking in your own neighborhood. I must assume you or your homeies have committed a crime. without ANY evidence. ZERO.

You shouldn't have been born black or lived in this area, the constitution doesn't apply to you here, even though none of this harassment is stopping real crime. And we have to meet a stop&frisk and arrest quota. And no one will ever believe you over me. it's all fine and sense so many non black/brown people don't have to be concerned about themselves or their children's false quota driven arrest.

I'm reminded of the "what would you do " episodes that where posted here a while back and the outrage over making whites look bad.
when all it showed was the attitude revealed here by some.
one showed a group of 4 white boys spray painting a car in a park. Some white passersby asked a few questions and were told by the kids to mind their own biz and the people walked off. no calls to the police i believe. In the same park, at the same time, there were 3 young black boys pretending to be asleep in a parked car. And the phones rang off the hook at the police station.
WHY? what crime was being committed? when the white guys were in plain view committing crime are they just young rascals? But black kids sleeping in a car, is perceived to be hard core criminal activity. In their own neighborhoods or elsewhere, they are targets.
that's just the way it is.

And it's wrong.

[taft2012]

there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?

No, I'm not seeing that at all.

Then again, I'm not a knee jerk liberal.

[taft2012]

According to Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."


there are few people that said that targeting groups is appropriate Taft. what thread are you reading?
what i posted doesn't describe stopping crime it just shows harassment for being black or brown. I've post multiple items about bankers that have defrauded BILIONS and NOW TRILLIONS yet no one comments there, no outrage no call for police. but Young men who have done nothing deserve/should live with being harassed because "it's a high crime area". it's laughable.
It's the opposite of probably cause. the only cause is being black or Brown therefore i stop you, frisk you, ask you all of biz, and why are you are walking in your own neighborhood. I must assume you or your homeies have committed a crime. without ANY evidence. ZERO.

You're believing bullshit, because you want to believe bullshit.

Stop throwing around your little buzzwords and catchphrases too.

Yesterday you were tossing around the fallacy that a warrant is needed for searches, and can't be done without a warrant.

Today the fallacy is that probably cause (presumably probable cause) is needed by the police to stop some one. Again wrong.

I know you want this to be real, but it's not. You're making it up.

I want to find Scarlett Johansson in my bed, but it never happens.

[jimnyc]

I expected as much from some you.

And then you'll wonder why most minorities don't respect the police. When you endorse the idea that all should minorities be harassed by cops daily just because they are black... Just in case... and to keep them in fear.
All assumed guilty of being black/brown on the street.

How many times is a young man with no criminal record suppose enjoy be frisked for no reason for walking in his own neighborhood? it's happened to some over 15 times.

but i'm sure some of you think they just haven't found out what he's done ..yet.

You didn't answer my earlier question. Did the others in attendance backup what the commissioner said, or are we going on the word of one person? If it were illegal as Adams said, I'm curious why no action. What has the former governor stated about his words?

[revelarts]

You didn't answer my earlier question. Did the others in attendance backup what the commissioner said, or are we going on the word of one person? If it were illegal as Adams said, I'm curious why no action. What has the former governor stated about his words?

the story only mentions the testimony -under oath- I have no other Info. the Commissioner was asked to give his side in court under oath and refused. It's one police officers word against another. police never lie so who knows what to believe.
It is illegal, and that's part of what the class action suit is about.
And are the police supposed to arrest the commissioner i'm not sure what your saying?
And if the governor backs up the commissioner or doesn't, if he wasn't there or have corroborators , what good would his comments be?