Talk:Stop-and-frisk in New York City

What is the difference

This article should explain what is the stop-and-frisk program. Since Terry v. Ohio the supreme court said every police officer has the right to stop and fisk people with less than probable cause. What is different with how the NYPD conducts stop and frisk and other police departments? I can't seem to find any references.Racingstripes (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Racingstripes,

The Stop and Frisk policies in New York are notorious for being a combination of racially biased and ineffective, more so than the other states that have similar policies. Also, there have been a few news stories on specific individual teens in Harlem that have claimed to be victimized by the policy, along with recordings of their encounters ([[1]]). These type of complaints have brought a considerable amount of attention to the NYPD. Adamh4 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Racingstripes is on to something. Instead of only talking about the policy in New York City, why not change the name of the page to "Stop-and-frisk" or "Stop-and-frisk in the United States" with a section about the policy in New York City. This way we can add sections with similar policies in different cities, as well as point out the differences between them, how they vary from city to city.Firebird 62 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point of the original question: stop and frisk vs. Terry stop seem to be totally different: a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion, but AFAICT, stop and frisk detentions are fishing expeditions. E.g. IIRC, in 90% of stop and frisk detentions, there is NO evidence of illegal activity (I think I read that stat from this article). I'm not a lawyer, but that almost certainly fails legal tests of "reasonable suspicion". If so, stop and frisk seems to be blatantly illegal. So, if I may rephrase the original question, how can stop and frisk detentions be considered (legal) Terry stops as claimed in the introduction of this article??172.56.15.51 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs a major writing overhaul

IMO the whole article is somewhat in need of a complete rewrite, not to change the content or resolve controversy, but simply because the writing is not that great. JoGusto (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

The ACLU and the NYCLU are not reliable sources for content to this article. They are obviously biased because they have a current lawsuit regarding this matter.21:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Biased" and "unreliable" are not quite the same thing. As a party to the controversy, the CLUs are in a better position than just about anyone to represent the opposition to the program. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, representing the opposition clearly shows a bias.Racingstripes (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the ACLU [removed?}. The only NYCLU reference are to statistics that they derived from NYPD documents, and their numbers are in turn linked to these documents, so the "reliability" of these stats isn't reasonably questioned. 68.108.105.175 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The numbers are what the NYCLU say that they derive from NYPD documents. Which is unreliable since it is secondhand information posted by an organization that does not have a neutral point of view to the subject matter.Racingstripes (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So would the investigations and analysis of the New York State Attorney General's Office be a more "substantiated" or "unbiased" pool of data? (Cwt101 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

IMO the real problem posed by all of the above is that we are not going to tertiary sources for the basis of the article. Reports that argue one side or the other in what is a policy debate are not preferred sources for a Wikipedia article. Instead, the article should summarize a tertiary source which has already considered and recapped the pros, cons, arguments in favor of each, and has weighed all of this in a reliable and neutral way. THAT is what a Wikipedia article should be based upon. Otherwise, we are all here grinding some axe... We should be able to find some investigative journalism, preferably several articles, or a book or books, from which to draw the material, rather than writing our own book and citing the primary data sources. JoGusto (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs massive expansion

This article needs to be seriously expanded. It doesn't mention that by the NYPD's own stats no more than 1-2% of the people they stop had weapons(which is what this program was intended to get off the streets), that whites are the MOST LIKELY to carry a weapon on them(1% of blacks vs 1.4% of whites), and frisk qoutas the officers are required to meet. Turtire (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to make these edits yourself, as long as they are reliably sourced and neutrally written. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the fourth amendment should be introduced into this article. Although it is a topic of much debate, it has a close relation to the stop and frisk policy. The constitution comes up under “Activist and legal responses” when stating the police department adopted a policy, but doesn’t state anything about the 4th Amendment in particular.Firebird 62 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I expanded on the section "New York's transition from crime to safety" adding some statistical information from an online source as well as changed the heading to something that didn’t sound so bias.Firebird 62 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I'm going to add a history section to replace the "beginnings" section that was removed, but attempting to expand beyond new york city because the policy was adopted.Firebird 62 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to put a chart on this page like the one on the page “Crime in New York City”, showing how many stops there were yearly as well as some miscellaneous similar to the percentages of stops resulting in convictions. I don’t know how to make one or else I would. Come on people, their page is better than ours!Firebird 62 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Article bias

This article majorly expresses a single point of view. It is important for it to be reworded, and for new information supporting and criticizing this program to be equally added.--ɱ (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Every police department has a stop & frisk policy that is almost identical the NYPD's policy. Maybe there should be articles based those policies as well, or just an article on police departments stopping people on less than probable cause.Racingstripes (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy has received a greater amount of criticism because they have been accused of racially profiling more than the rest of the police departments across the country. I think that it is important for this article to stand alone because it has received so much attention. Adamh4 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the title of the section "New York’s transition from crime to safety" is bias in itself, or at least opinionated about the policy's effect on crime. Maybe we could change it to something more neutral like "Changes in New York's crime rate" or "The policy's effect on crime in New York". Firebird 62 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Firebird 62. Many would argue that New York is most certainly NOT safe. The title implies that the police's tactics have succeeded, which is a biased angle on the subject. Adamh4 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

The official name of this program is "Stop Question and Frisk", which is not reflected in the title of the article. To remain neutral, shouldn't we refer to the program by its official name? UncappingCone64 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that an irony?

Not being american I don't quite understand, is this quote supposed to be irony or not:

Consider this example: An abandoned building with a few broken windows. Alone it poses no threat. However a few vandals come along and spot these broken windows and decide to break more of them. The building, because of its condition later gets tagged with spray paint. Looking completely run down a few homeless people break in. With time, they light fires, destroy the inner workings of the building and become squatters. This domino effect is the premise behind the broken windows theory. Minor crimes, if left unnoticed, will eventually escalate in to bigger, more serious crimes.

Did the author of this theory seriously suggested that squatting is worse than breaking windows, lighting fires and "destroying the inner workings pf the building"? Why would you even do that if your intention is ultimately to live in that building, not to destroy it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qweoiu (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not encyclopedic or factual and therefore should be removed.--ɱ (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Currency

Added court activity through mid-August 2014 and current Newsweek article. Maybe the "out of date" alert can be dropped. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)