NYPD Commissioner admitted that cops target minorites in stop & frisk

[jimnyc]

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?

One word against the other is hard to decipher, but when several people backup comments it is easier to believe. Apparently former governor Patterson was there and I'm wondering if he backs up the words of Adams, or if anyone else heard the comments...

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.

Paterson AND other officials were in attendance, and I'd be curious as to what they heard, instead of just one person.

[jimnyc]

he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.

[revelarts]

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.

So you think the whole thing is a false report maybe, no testimony to that effect?

[revelarts]

I've been searching, but can only find this quote on blogs and similar, and not anything from officials in attendance or the former governor.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/...in-minorities/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/ny...fies.html?_r=0

http://newsone.com/2333616/eric-adam...top-and-frisk/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...inorities.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595953048.html

[jimnyc]

So you think the whole thing is a false report maybe, no testimony to that effect?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/...in-minorities/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/ny...fies.html?_r=0

http://newsone.com/2333616/eric-adam...top-and-frisk/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...inorities.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595953048.html

Ok, fair enough, so the coverage extended beyond blogs. But has Paterson backed up these comments? Have any of the other officials done so? I understand that this is what Adams states, and don't know what to believe at this point as it's an accusation by one man, and I don't see others that were in attendance speaking up similarly. Why won't former Governor Paterson back up these comments? Who were the other officials involved when Adams says these comments were made, and where is there testimony?

You got me wrong on this one, Rev. I've not made a choice on this yet. But as you know about me from the past, I like a lot of facts before making accusations. I'd like more than the word of one person, who may have had an axe to grind. Why don't they just subpoena those involved for answers?

[Abbey Marie]

If Kelly did say this, he must be ready to retire.

[revelarts]

Ok, fair enough, so the coverage extended beyond blogs. But has Paterson backed up these comments? Have any of the other officials done so? I understand that this is what Adams states, and don't know what to believe at this point as it's an accusation by one man, and I don't see others that were in attendance speaking up similarly. Why won't former Governor Paterson back up these comments? Who were the other officials involved when Adams says these comments were made, and where is there testimony?

You got me wrong on this one, Rev. I've not made a choice on this yet. But as you know about me from the past, I like a lot of facts before making accusations. I'd like more than the word of one person, who may have had an axe to grind. Why don't they just subpoena those involved for answers?

It seems Patterson doesn't want to comment according to the stories.
no way to tell why

i can't give you any more info than is in the reports linked above. on that specific part of the story Jim.

there's a host of other evidence that some just blow by assuming that the the police are right to target minorities, that stop and frisking without any reasonable suspicion is GOOD police work rather than unconstitutional BS.

there are quotas of stop & frisk
no one seems to mind
there are quotas for arrests
no one seems to mind
there are some crimes that are tossed in the trash bin at the station to make the crime stats look better. no one seems to mind
They kept the names and info for those stopped in a database even though they committed no crimes
No one seemed to mind
All the above and more is admitted by some NYPD officers.

But all that is the innocents Blacks and Latinos fault for being Black or Latino and living in NY with criminals who are Black and Latino. You have no constitutional rights of assumed innocents anymore too bad ho hum.

Wall st bankers get away with Billions/Trillions,. 'Banks got to make money, it's the feds. and Democrats fault.'
Bankers money laundering Billion in drug money, company fines. 'that's interesting, no comment.'
Record corps of drugs in Afghanistan. '0-well the Afghans got to eat... hearts and minds you know.'

Latino/Black kid get arrested for nothing... 'well to bad, you should have been white. Suck it up and never say its because your black because that's racist of you to say so.'

[revelarts]

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.

SassyLady
Who causes the majority of crimes? Shouldn't the police be targeting those groups regardless of their race?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SassyLady For This Useful Post:
logroller (Yesterday),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

aboutime -rhetorically-
….Why would anyone feel a need to target minorities….
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aboutime For This Useful Post:
SassyLady (Yesterday),taft2012 (Today),Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (Today)



Do you see it now Taft?
I wonder

[aboutime]

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.

rev. Would you also be so serious if a minority, from the white race was walking through a known, black neighborhood wearing a hoodie? If you were a police officer in your squad car. Driving through such a neighborhood and saw three, or four white kids who were obviously not there because they lived there. Would you do the same thing to them if someone from the neighborhood called 911 to report three, or four strange kids walking down the street?????

Just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes with profiling.

[jimnyc]

It seems Patterson doesn't want to comment according to the stories.
no way to tell why

i can't give you any more info than is in the reports linked above. on that specific part of the story Jim.

there's a host of other evidence that some just blow by assuming that the the police are right to target minorities, that stop and frisking without any reasonable suspicion is GOOD police work rather than unconstitutional BS.

there are quotas of stop & frisk
no one seems to mind
there are quotas for arrests
no one seems to mind
there are some crimes that are tossed in the trash bin at the station to make the crime stats look better. no one seems to mind
They kept the names and info for those stopped in a database even though they committed no crimes
No one seemed to mind
All the above and more is admitted by some NYPD officers.

But all that is the innocents Blacks and Latinos fault for being Black or Latino and living in NY with criminals who are Black and Latino. You have no constitutional rights of assumed innocents anymore too bad ho hum.

Wall st bankers get away with Billions/Trillions,. 'Banks got to make money, it's the feds. and Democrats fault.'
Bankers money laundering Billion in drug money, company fines. 'that's interesting, no comment.'
Record corps of drugs in Afghanistan. '0-well the Afghans got to eat... hearts and minds you know.'

Latino/Black kid get arrested for nothing... 'well to bad, you should have been white. Suck it up and never say its because your black because that's racist of you to say so.'

I wonder why none of the others will testify or comment. Do you think they are involved or complicit somehow?

I don't have a problem with the NYPD or any other department targeting people. If over the past 20 years, blacks and hispanics committed the overwhelming majority of muggings/robberies, gun crimes... then it only makes sense to target them more - but I think a cop still needs a reasonable suspicion.

Quotas, I'm sure some are true and some false, IMO. What would concern me more is looking at each case individually. What matters more to me that the case is valid. If a cop made a valid arrest and has valid evidence, and especially if drugs/guns or other contraband was taken off the street - then I really couldn't care if cops initially looked at this person because he was hispanic or black.

[revelarts]

rev. Would you also be so serious if a minority, from the white race was walking through a known, black neighborhood wearing a hoodie? If you were a police officer in your squad car. Driving through such a neighborhood and saw three, or four white kids who were obviously not there because they lived there. Would you do the same thing to them if someone from the neighborhood called 911 to report three, or four strange kids walking down the street?????
Just wondering how far your hypocrisy goes with profiling.

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.

[aboutime]

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.

Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?
If the police officers are doing their job, and protecting people like you?
Would you prefer they just ignore everyone who falls into the categories you named above???

[revelarts]

Tell us rev. WHAT RIGHTS have they lost, according to you?
If the police officers are doing their job, and protecting people like you?
Would you prefer they just ignore everyone who falls into the categories you named above???

There's no problem talking to any kids/people, they don't have to talk back.
There's no problem watching kids/people in public, they don't have to be intimidated.

If Kids are in their own neighborhood or in others neighborhoods, they don't lose their constitutional rights.
that's all AT.
Good or bad neighborhood. old, young, black, white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, biker, reporter, surfer or homeless no one loses their rights in America. At least that's the way it's suppose to be.

[revelarts]

I wonder why none of the others will testify or comment. Do you think they are involved or complicit somehow?

I don't have a problem with the NYPD or any other department targeting people. If over the past 20 years, blacks and hispanics committed the overwhelming majority of muggings/robberies, gun crimes... then it only makes sense to target them more - but I think a cop still needs a reasonable suspicion.

Quotas, I'm sure some are true and some false, IMO. What would concern me more is looking at each case individually. What matters more to me that the case is valid. If a cop made a valid arrest and has valid evidence, and especially if drugs/guns or other contraband was taken off the street - then I really couldn't care if cops initially looked at this person because he was hispanic or black.

I guess my problem Jim is I don't want the cops to break the law to uphold the law.
you are all about law and safety until the cops do the law breaking. then your like well the ends justify the means.

I Understand the sentiment but police powers are broad enough to allow them to do their jobs, it seems to me.
If they feel that they have to break the law daily to protect people, they should --as you've said so many times--- go to the legislators change the laws. They have no right, as LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, to break the very laws they swore to defend and uphold.

And harassing innocent people is not somewhere i want the police to feel comfortable going in any neighborhood. that's the very definition of a police state.

[jimnyc]

I guess my problem Jim is I don't want the cops to break the law to uphold the law.
you are all about law and safety until the cops do the law breaking. then your like well the ends justify the means.

I Understand the sentiment but police powers are broad enough to allow them to do their jobs, it seems to me.
If they feel that they have to break the law daily to protect people, they should --as you've said so many times--- go to the legislators change the laws. They have no right, as LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, to break the very laws they swore to defend and uphold.

And harassing innocent people is not somewhere i want the police to feel comfortable going in any neighborhood. that's the very definition of a police state.

I hear ya, and I don't think they should be breaking the law either. But common sense states to monitor those committing the most crimes. I still think they should have reasonable cause/suspicion before shaking someone down. But to profile down I don't take issue with. I'll give the cops some leniency in being aggressive in their searches for crime, but not to the point of having criminals chasing criminals.