Most days it’s a good idea to ignore whatever it is the right-wing New York Post tabloid is putting on their cover. But when it’s suggesting New York City is seeing the beginning of a scary crime wave, curiosity gets the better of you.
Turns out (surprise!) the Post is mostly full of it.
Their story is that the Bloomberg-era stop-and-frisk law enforcement policies have been curtailed due to the recent court ruling that the stops violate the constitutional rights of the innocent mostly people of color who are targeted. The Murdoch-owned Post leads with this:
New Yorkers–duck!
Since Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional three months ago, city cops have made nearly 12 percent fewer gun seizures.
Get it? You’re more likely to get shot, the Post seems to be telling New Yorkers (and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the city). The police are seizing fewer guns, so there must be more guns on the streets–hence the cover headline, “Return of the Guns.”
But there are several problems.
For starters, seizing fewer guns doesn’t mean there are more guns on the streets. It could mean there are simply fewer guns to find–which would be good news, not cause for concern. And overall gun seizures declined during the Bloomberg years, when stop-and-frisk exploded.
More importantly, it’s problematic to link stop-and-frisk to gun seizures at all, since so few guns were ever seized (New York Civil Liberties Union). In 2003, when the policy accelerated, there were 604 guns taken in 160,851 stops–a success rate of 0.3 percent. By 2011, there were 685,724 stops–and only 780 guns were found, meaning that guns were not found in 99.9 percent of all stops.
And stop-and-frisk is a relatively minor way that the NYPD gets guns off the street–in 2011, a typical year, 77 percent of illegal guns recovered by the police were found by other means (DNAinfo, 8/13/12).
The Post looked at how this not terribly effective policy operated over a rather small window–from August 19 to November 3–to try and portray a more dangerous city.
But even in the New York Post, some facts can creep into a discussion. The paper admits:
Still, overall, serious crimes are way down in the Big Apple so far this year compared with the same period last year. Murders are at an all-time low, with 248 so far this year. And shootings to date have plummeted nearly 22 percent.
The latest statistics on stop-and-frisk indicate cops were already reining in their use of the practice, too.
The number of NYPD stops from July through September, the latest stats available, decreased more than 50 percent from the previous year. That came amid a months-long downward trend.
Did you catch that? The New York Police Department has been seriously curtailing the practice of stop and frisk for months now–and the crime rate is, in the Post‘s words, “way down.” Now that’s a story–just not the one a paper like the New York Post wants to report.
But we all know the truth, if it bleeds, print it anyway, because ‘good news’ never sells papers; and the purpose of the NY Post is not to provide a news source.
@Padremellyrn: You’ve nailed the NY Post and other major media outlets as well. The Post, Fox News, etc. are lie factories that delude the public in critical issues. The only practical and legal way to resist their influence on the electorate is to boycott their major advertisers, which for some reason or other are never mentioned in this site.
I loved the first line that basically any paper not towing the liberal line should be ignored.Classic.Anyway all these facts are fuzzy math.Im a constitutionalist /tea party and I do have some problems with stop and frisk along those lines.But Im not stupid enough to question whether or not it works.As the cops on the beat.Ask the people who live there.Ask the criminals.Look at the real stats.It works.Most people like it who live there.They see the results.The bottom line is that with the law in place you have less thugs feeling comfortable(from being stopped)even with keeping their guns hidden.Hence less guns being carried.Less crime…etc
The Liberal Line = Telling the truth in journalism
Anything less is propaganda!
Free spirit did you honestly write that you believe the liberal line is telling the truth?My good man the liberal line is saying anything you need to say.Truly the ends justifies the means with you lot.If what you say is true…than Obama and his people are not liberals.Because they are stone cold liars on a level we have not seen before.Clintons I never had sex with that woman pales in comparison.Or maybe the definition of truth has changed?Simple question.Why does the liberal press demand that he stop protecting in AG on fast and furious with exectutive priv.Why dont they demand he answer on Benghazi?On the buy up of ammunition.On the bamacare debacle?On his promises on the nuclear option?On his hidden school records for christ sake.Glen Beck did 2 hours of Obama lies(he had 5 in the can)I could literally go on all day.And the liberal press runs interference for him.Always.Never questions any lie he tells.No matter how obvious.Remember Paul Ryan outlining how Obama care would collapse.So far he is dead on.Where is the truthful press you speak of?