The subject of this post is simple and incredibly complex at the same time. Is it the standard practice of NYPD to stop, frisk and/or search blacks in NYC much more frequently than they do whites? The simple answer is yes. The complex answer is no. The complex answer was produced by the Rand Corporation under contract with an NYPD-entity ( The NYC Police Foundation.) Do you believe the Rand Corporation? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
(Some background materials with links have been added long after the jump)

NYPD officers stop New Yorkers all the time; we’re pulled over for broken tail lights, for riding a bike without a bell, as we stand on the street. How those police stops break out racially is not the subject of this post – even though I personally suspect that were those stops ever studied, there might well be a disparate racial impact noted.

However, sometimes the way in which Police stop New Yorkers is more intrusive than others.

From the New York Times:

Lawyers for the city, responding to a request to unseal records of police surveillance leading up to the 2004 Republican convention in New York, say that the documents should remain secret because the news media will “fixate upon and sensationalize them,” hurting the city’s ability to defend itself in lawsuits over mass arrests.

Yeah, well; the City could have considered that before spying on a Martin Luther King Rally endorsed by sitting members of the City Council. One would think this would have been obvious at the time.

It gets better.

There's a big story in The New York Times today, confirming what many people involved have long suspected: the NYPD's intelligence unit infiltrated and subsequently filed reports on various Progressive left political groups in New York City that were engaged with the 2004 Republican National Convention under the pretext of stopping criminal activity in opposition to that event. This also provides a case study into government dysfunction in New York on several levels.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities. A police report on an organization of artists called Bands Against Bush noted that the group was planning concerts on Oct. 11, 2003, in New York, Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Boston. Between musical sets, the report said, there would be political speeches and videos.

“Activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda,” said the report, dated Oct. 9, 2003. “Police departments in above listed areas have been contacted regarding this event.”

In a heavily Democratic town such as ours, you would think that the laws of New York would reflect a population that prefers liberty over tyranny, freedom over oppression and the right to public assembly (as stated in the Bill of Rights). Even if a majority of New Yorkers feel this way, it is apparent that the lawyers for the city of New York do not.

Recently a federal judge issued a ruling for the police department to stop videotaping public gatherings and protests so that people who went out on the streets would not feel intimidated by those that are charged to protect and serve, not protect and spy.

On February 15th, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. resolved a 35 year class-action lawsuit by threatening to hold the city in contempt if the random videotapings occurred again. Nearly a month later the city's attorneys have started an appeal that claims the judge over-stepped his authority in limiting the police's activities. Their assertion is that in 2003 the city agreed to less restrictive rules because “the N.Y.P.D. never had any intention of agreeing to the incorporation of detailed operational guidelines into the consent decree subjecting itself to contempt for a plethora of potential violations.” Basically they find his ruling "an impermissable" order.

Crossposted from Joshing Politics

New York State’s capital punishment law is in limbo, but the federal courts retain the power to put New Yorkers to death. And suddenly it’s looking like a trend. Just days after the sentencing of Ronell Wilson, a jury in Brooklyn's federal court convicted drug kingpin Kenneth McGriff of hiring hit men to murder his rivals. Prosecutors are expected to pursue the death penalty.

As the Albany Times-Union reports, Wilson's prosecutors may have been trying to make an end run around the New York Supreme Court's 2004 decision overturning the state's death penalty - "forum shopping," it's called. The United States of America will still strap a man down and put the needle in his arm, if New York won't. Of course, the Wilson jurors were New Yorkers, so let's not let ourselves too far off the hook here.

As naive as it may seem, I still tend to assume that "the system" works more than it does not. So, as naive as it may seem, I was recently shaken by the words of several well-respected Black leaders and activists who condemned the New York City Police Department as being pretty much rotten to the core.

As a gay man who was damaged and corrupted by 40 years in the closet, I have no difficulty understanding the symptoms and manifestations of self-hatred, not to mention the pathetic and often-times frightening maneuvers used by self-haters to gain acceptance and invisibility among the so-called majority.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has challenged allegations of racism in the horrific Sean Bell shooting. Perhaps his most intriguing response has been to explain that the majority of police officers involved in the incident were in fact Black themselves. Kelly implies that it is illogical to accuse the NYPD of racism under such circumstances.

Some Black leaders have bitterly refuted this defense pointing out that the vast majority of "victims" of police shootings in this city are young African-American men. They contend that once an African-American puts on the NYPD uniform he ceases to be Black and in fact becomes Blue.

Chris Owens commemorates MLK, and includes a charming story about his mom, tearing up his principal back during his school days. That silly man hadn't known, one would think, that having Chris' mom up in arms really is severely ill-advised.

DMIblog also turns to King, here and here and here.

What is it with Albany and horses? The Times-Union reports on Shelly Silver's member items, featuring an annual tradition of $250,000 going to a charity headed by the daughter of the chairman of the New York Racing Association. He, in turn, offers his Saratoga home to the Assembly Democrats for a fundraiser every year during the races. Note: it doesn't need to be illegal to look sleazy.

The New York Times: Governor Spitzer wants New York to take the lead on stem cell research. Standing in the way, as usual, is Senator Roadblock, Joe Bruno.

Rochester Turning looks at the positions taken by local Congressmen on the Bush-McCain escalation plan to kill more Americans.

Left Behinds dissects the immigration debate with the use of a fiendish, heathen construct known as "data".

Quinnipiac polls Mayor Bloomberg, who receives a 75% to 16% approval/disapproval rating. The fallout from the Sean Bell killing is confined to Ray Kelly and the NYPD, viewed negatively by 34% and 40%, with approval at 52% and 53% respectively. That's down from Kelly 70% to 16%, NYPD 72% to 20%. Among blacks, the numbers are, unsurprisingly, worse: Kelly 32% approval, 57% disapproval, NYPD 23% approval, 63% disapproval.

Lastly, since I just noticed – not paying attention here, I guess – that The Politicker has a feature called 'Elsewhere', we need a new title for the daily news roundup. Suggestions in the comments, please.

Fred Dicker over at the Post brings us the startling news that ex-governor Pataki is demanding round the clock security, at state expense, to be provided by four full-time state police officers. Notably, no previous ex-governor has asked for, or received, a comparable level of protection, perhaps because it's not necessary.

The expense would amount to $20,000 a week; the matter is currently before the state Ethics Commission. Pataki's request would violate the statute that Alan Hevesi ran afoul of; and if you recall, the ex-governor (how I love writing that) came back to Albany from Iowa specifically to address that scandal.

Here's a thought: legality and ethics aside, methinks the ex-governor overestimates the degree of animosity (or any other emotion) he inspires. Simply put, people probably don't care enough to threaten the man. It's very hard even to imagine someone sitting in a dank basement somewhere plotting bodily harm to George Pataki; unless excruciating boringness inspires violence, the ex-governor should be quite safe.

I am quite pro-police. In fact, coming from California, I tend to think the cops should in general be more rigorous in enforcing laws. I have railed against Bloomberg for dicking around our cops during contract disputes and, as far as I am aware, the cops still don't have a current contract. During some protests I have carried a sign urging Bloomberg to give the NYPD and FDNY better pay. I was never raised anti-cop.

But when an unarmed man gets shot 50 times by the police, something is wrong.

Today was the March for Justice against excessive use of force by the NYPD against black men, most particularly Sean Bell.

Joy and I had aimed to join up with either the Democracy for NYC or the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats contingents, but arrived somewhat late and never met up with either. Instead we moved in at 59th St. and 5th Ave. where we could muscle our way in. We wound up just in front of the NAACP contingent.

Protesting with a small child is completely different than doing so alone. Most of my experience of the march was doing my best to avoid running into the people in front of me, preventing others from bumping into the stroller, feeding Jacob lunch and happily noticing when he fell asleep and how long he napped. So my experience was not typical.