The NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy has reached it's boiling point. After a decade of complaints and growing tension between police officers and civilians, the controversial policy is at the center of heated debates concerning the effectiveness and ethics of the policy.
Local elected politicians across the five boroughs have come to the defense of their constituents who find the policy to be a violation of basic civil rights. Brooklyn Councilman Jumanee D. Williams insists that “the way Bloomberg and the commissioner have been using it is improper.” According to commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg Stop and Frisk is a crime prevention tool designed to remove drugs and weapons off the streets.
What started as a crime prevention tool in high crime areas, prompted abuse of police power, improper arrests and a lack of trust between police and civilians. There is no doubt that the policy leaves a sour taste in the mouths of those who have been stopped and frisked against their will. Of the 85% of minorities stopped and frisked in 2012, less than 10% of them actually had weapons or drug paraphernalia. These percentages explain why residents of the five boroughs are angry. In response to the statistics, the Department insists they only stop those who they believe are threatening and suspicious. This raises the question of what constitutes the department's definition of “suspicious.” Are Black and Latino males between the ages of 16 and 28 the department's definition of “suspicious?”
Civilians have animosity, they are defensive, fearful and feel degraded. “A living hell” is how East Flatbush Brooklyn resident Bryan Jackson describes the controversial Stop and Frisk Policy. Victims of the policy like Jackson, are spreading awareness by sharing their stories calling for an end to the racially bias program. Public outcry has launched a social movement, civilians secretly record the harassment on their cellphones and cameras then post them online.
The policy does have it's perks. Some inner city residents are content with the results of the policy. Increased police presence has left some residents feeling safer. Crown-heights Brooklyn resident Sylvia Walker says “I like to see my tax dollars going to something useful.” So far Stop and Frisk lead to the removal of several thousand firearms off city streets, but at the expense of certain neighborhoods and the dignity of inner city minorities.
The chance of a minority being stopped increases everyday the policy remains in effect. Those directly affected by the policy can expect an increase in police activity, it is estimated that by the end of 2013, 700,000 stops will be conducted. 680,000 were conducted by the end of 2011. Over the course of the past decade the amount of people stopped and frisked increased by 600%. Commissioner Kelly has stood by his decision to keep the policy. Its safe to say the war on stop and frisk has a long way to go until either side wins.
Local elected politicians across the five boroughs have come to the defense of their constituents who find the policy to be a violation of basic civil rights. Brooklyn Councilman Jumanee D. Williams insists that “the way Bloomberg and the commissioner have been using it is improper.” According to commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg Stop and Frisk is a crime prevention tool designed to remove drugs and weapons off the streets.
What started as a crime prevention tool in high crime areas, prompted abuse of police power, improper arrests and a lack of trust between police and civilians. There is no doubt that the policy leaves a sour taste in the mouths of those who have been stopped and frisked against their will. Of the 85% of minorities stopped and frisked in 2012, less than 10% of them actually had weapons or drug paraphernalia. These percentages explain why residents of the five boroughs are angry. In response to the statistics, the Department insists they only stop those who they believe are threatening and suspicious. This raises the question of what constitutes the department's definition of “suspicious.” Are Black and Latino males between the ages of 16 and 28 the department's definition of “suspicious?”
Civilians have animosity, they are defensive, fearful and feel degraded. “A living hell” is how East Flatbush Brooklyn resident Bryan Jackson describes the controversial Stop and Frisk Policy. Victims of the policy like Jackson, are spreading awareness by sharing their stories calling for an end to the racially bias program. Public outcry has launched a social movement, civilians secretly record the harassment on their cellphones and cameras then post them online.
The policy does have it's perks. Some inner city residents are content with the results of the policy. Increased police presence has left some residents feeling safer. Crown-heights Brooklyn resident Sylvia Walker says “I like to see my tax dollars going to something useful.” So far Stop and Frisk lead to the removal of several thousand firearms off city streets, but at the expense of certain neighborhoods and the dignity of inner city minorities.
The chance of a minority being stopped increases everyday the policy remains in effect. Those directly affected by the policy can expect an increase in police activity, it is estimated that by the end of 2013, 700,000 stops will be conducted. 680,000 were conducted by the end of 2011. Over the course of the past decade the amount of people stopped and frisked increased by 600%. Commissioner Kelly has stood by his decision to keep the policy. Its safe to say the war on stop and frisk has a long way to go until either side wins.