New York City’s mayor and police commissioner are outraged at a recent federal court ruling that called the NYPD’s “stop and frisk” policy unconstitutional and a form of “indirect racial profiling.” The judge ordered that police be equipped with cameras that can monitor their encounters with New Yorkers as a sort of check and balance on their authority.
In light of the ruling, police commissioner Ray Kelly responded, “I think no question about it, violent crime will go up. This is not a program; this is something that is integral to policing.”
The Washington Post published an op-ed written by Bloomberg himself, where he defends “stop and frisk,” crediting it for the drop in crime in New York:
“New York is the safest big city in the nation, and our crime reductions have been steeper than any other big city’s. For instance, if New York City had the murder rate of Washington, D.C., 761 more New Yorkers would have been killed last year. If our murder rate had mirrored the District’s over the course of my time as mayor, 21,651 more people would have been killed. That’s more than Georgetown University’s student body, faculty and administrative staff.”
His op-ed focused more on why “stop and frisk” wasn’t racial profiling, citing statistics that show that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than others. I have no problem with those statistics. They’re just numbers.
But I don’t think that’s what’s at issue with “stop and frisk.” The practice is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. It assumes someone is guilty without having any evidence to back it up. We’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is why we’re also opposed to the TSA’s “stop and grope” policy.
There likely wouldn’t be this fight going on between Bloomberg and the courts if New York hadn’t eviscerated the 2nd Amendment. If people aren’t going to be allowed to protect themselves with a firearm of their choice, then they have no choice but to depend on the police for their safety. And that, in turn, creates a police state. If you get rid of the 2nd Amendment, you also have to get rid of the 4th Amendment.
If New Yorkers as a whole had a much more mature perspective on guns, they wouldn’t have elected a mayor that’s been so bent on taking away everyone’s rights “for their own good.” But so many of them have been brainwashed into being scared to death of guns. And that fear has led to stringent gun control laws in New York. If people can’t be expected to take care of themselves, someone’s got to do the “protecting.”
For this reason, New York City and many other places in the U.S. are drifting more and more toward a complete police state. In those places, incidents of crime might decrease in the same way that Bloomberg claimed happened in his city. But what’s the tradeoff? New York has essentially told its residents, “You can’t take care of yourselves. So, give us your guns, and we’ll give you security.” They’ve taken away residents’ freedom to defend themselves and their freedom to be left alone by the police. But they voted for it, and now they have to live with it. Maybe they’re OK with the idea of slavery. At least slavery provides “security.”