Deaths by gunfire in the city are down dramatically, far lower than the national rate, according to a new study — and Mayor Bloomberg credited his policing strategies for the downturn.
The number of firearm deaths — which are made up primarily of homicides, but also include suicides and accidental shootings — dropped from 524 in 2000 to 366 in 2011, a city Health Department study has found.
That represents a 31 percent decline during a time when the NYPD drastically increased its use of stop-and-frisk.
Bloomberg aides said they expect the death rate from guns would continue to drop, pointing out that murders by shooting accounted for 57 percent of total homicides in 2012 in the city, which had 419 murders last year.
By comparison, 87 percent of Chicago’s murders last year were caused by firearms, a Bloomberg aide noted.
Murders caused by firearms dropped from 434 in 2000 to 240 in 2012 — a 45 percent drop — according to the mayor’s office.
In his weekly radio address yesterday, Bloomberg credited the city’s tough gun-possession laws and “smart, proactive policing that makes it much more likely that if you break our city’s gun laws, you’ll be caught.”
In cities like New York where the majority of murders are done with guns, lowering the firearms murder rate necessarily impacts the overall figures.
It seems like New York is doing something right.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
I think its a very good thing that the number of gun deaths in New York City are dropping.
ReplyDeleteNew York City's strict gun control laws have been in place since 1911 when the Sullivan act was passed. So I'm not sure of the validity of the Mayor's claim. If it were the case, wouldnt it also be responsible for the very high rate in gun violence in the years they occured?
While the Mayor gives credit to strict gun laws, the article also notes that the city's controversial stop and frisk policy was also implimented during that time, a policy which from reports seems to somehow happen much more frequently to minorities.
If the city residents are ok with allowing the police to stop and search them at will, then more power to them. I'm just glad I dont live there.
I thought the main point of the article was how well that stop and frisk policy works.
Delete"Bloomberg has long attributed the city’s precipitous crime drop in part to stop-and-frisk — a controversial policy that all of the would-be Democratic mayoral candidates want to rein in or abolish."
DeleteYou are correct. The whole article does more to suggest the stop and frisk laws have caused the downturn. The portion you posted, the quote by the Mayor is a bit more vague, and gave credit to both.
It will be interesting to see if after Mayor Bloomberg leaves office, (provided he doesnt get the law changed yet again to allow him to serve another term)the stop and frisk policy is stopped and then results in an increase in homicides.
It works very well at violating the 4th amendment too.
DeleteI ask you again, Mikeb, are there any rights that you won't sacrifice?
DeleteGreg and TS, the IV Amendment only protects against searches which are unreasonable. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
Delete-- the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
-- the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
Also, The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.
Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
-- Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
-- Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
As with most legal matters, the question of whether something is reasonable is not left to the defendant.
Also, The Fourth Amendment only applies to Government agents. IN Contrast to Private security personnel which currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.
For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct.
So, Hope you are detained by a cop, not a private contractor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm going to add that stop and frisk, like sobriety checkpoints, seat belt checks, and any other search performed on the street can be considered legal if they meet the above mentioned criteria:
Delete-- Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
-- Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
What takes these out of the realm of legality is if they are not. Short black letter is where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints are allowed toward that objective.
On the other hand, Fourth Amendment law is very complex: even for trained lawyers.
Courtesy of the Heller-McDonald decision the Second Amendment will soon be burdened with similar garbage. In fact, I expect the Second Amendment will become such a minefield that Heller-McDonald will be cursed by those who favour gun rights.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Laci, you get a lot more correct in your description of the current state of 4th Amendment jurisprudence (expectation of privacy, state actor, etc.) than you do in your descriptions of Heller and McDonald. I might quibble with parts of your description, but by and large, you correctly describe the state of affairs.
DeleteHowever, you gloss over and oversimplify the Stop and Frisk issue, along with sobriety checkpoints, seatbelt checkpoints, etc. These are part of the ragged edge of current jurisprudence--the area where I and others think the courts have been pushing the bounds too far, chipping away at the amendment's protections with new exigencies.
A full discussion of this is outside our topic of discussion, so getting back to stop and frisk: the two questions you ask are both answered yes. People have an expectation that their privacy will be respected and they will not be frisked without probable cause.
Terry v. Ohio is the case that established the stop and frisk based on the exigency of protecting officer safety. To stay within the bounds, the officers need to have a clear reason to think that a crime may be being committed, or about to be committed, to stop the person and question them, and must have a clear, explainable reason to think the person may be armed before he may frisk the person. Even then, the frisk is only supposed to be for a weapon (though they may still be able to use evidence of drugs found during the frisk).
In Terry, the officer recognized tough toughs and thought they were casing a place--this allowed him to stop them and ask what they were up to. Because he knew they were affiliated with a local criminal gang, he thought they might be packing, so he patted them down before continuing with his questioning, and found a gun.
The problem with the stop and frisk program in New York is that it seems to be an abuse of the Terry stop (which some people think goes to far on its own). In this case, they are pushing cops to stop and frisk lots of young men. The charges of Racism are not surprising--if you're being pushed to stop as many young men as possible and frisk them for weapons, you're going to have to start coming up with something you can point to that gives you that clear reason that you need to stop and frisk them. You're coming up with reasons to stop and frisk, not stopping and frisking for a good reason. That is liable to lead to stereotyping and such problems.
All of that being said, the program seems to have been a success as far as helping cut down on gun violence. However, that puts us in the position to ask: Do we sacrifice part of the protections of the 4th Amendment just because it is effective in reducing crime? Or do we find another way to fight crime and protect our freedom as well?
A final comment--you close talking about the complexity of Fourth Amendment law, and the minefield that you expect to grow up in the future on the Second Amendment.
DeleteYes, the Fourth Amendment is complicated, but much of that comes from the court slowly chipping away at it. We may see similar chipping away at the Second if you achieve a change in the court (a complete reversal of Heller is unlikely since the Supreme Court doesn't like to contradict itself any more than the Medes and the Persians did). Otherwise, the law may develop merely by having the lines clarified, and occasionally expanded--i.e. marriage rights.
If that's the pattern, what we'll probably see is an eventual case protecting some measure of carry, cases clarifying the "in common use" language from Heller, and maybe something clarifying the "abnormally dangerous" dicta.
Sure, some of us will dislike some of these decisions and argue for broader interpretation, but at least the Second Amendment will be recognized and the fight will be over how much it covers, not whether it covers us.
This will even be the case if your side takes over the court. Since they won't want to reverse a precedent, they'll try to chip away at it and carve it down to nothing, but it will always be there. We may hate the later precedents, but even in this scenario, we'll love that Heller and McDonald are still there driving y'all nuts, and restraining you at least somewhat.
Laying hands on me on in my belongings is a search. Pointing a beam at me or using a detector that isn't what human genetics provides is a search. I don't give a damn who's doing it. Show me a warrant, put me under arrest, or get your fucking hands off me.
DeleteAnything less than that is a violation, and it's high time for Americans to stand up to this evil.
Last summer, I was in the car with my family returning from the Cirque du Soleil Show in Las Vegas to my brother's house. Traffic was blocked by the police doing a drunk driving inspection. They stopped every car and shined a light in the driver's face and asked him a few innocuous questions and either let him proceed or made him pull over for further tests.
DeleteI was so pissed off waiting my turn, I could barely contain myself. And sure enough the cop who checked me out was an arrogant asshole. "How are we doing tonight, sir?" Says he. "What's the problem, officer?" Says I.
We did a little repartee back and forth, in retrospect, I was being a bit reckless challenging him and his authority, but I couldn't help myself. Luckily, he let us go.
The point of the story is that I hate authority and I hate it even more when there's a bit of power abuse mixed in. Nevertheless, for the overall good, I accept the stop and frisk policy and as you well know, I favor much stricter gun control laws.
Up until that last paragraph, I had some hope building for you, Mike. You could see how the checkpoint was demeaning. You resented the invasion of your privacy and seizure of your person, you even had the beginnings of resistance kindling in your belly.
DeleteAnd then you repudiated it all and said that, nevertheless, you accept the abuse of 4th Amendment rights, along with the rape of the 2nd Amendment, so long as it serves the "overall good."
Too bad New York's stop and frisk program involves significant amounts of racial profiling--the colored folk will just have to deal with it--it's a sacrifice for the general good!
Words fail me. If I get my full feelings out here, my comment will be moderated out. All I can say is that the most vile type of slave is the one who can see the difference between freedom and slavery, who has the desire for freedom burning in his belly, and who suppresses all of this, not only choosing slavery for himself, but demands that everyone else accept the loss of their freedom so that they can all have the illusion of being more safe.
Tennessean said it for me. Mikeb, if you're being honest, you have good feelings. Why can't you see how you'd belong better on our side? If there are any common characteristics to gun-rights advocates, it's that we're suspicious of authority, especially when the potential for abuse of power mixed in.
DeleteTennesseean did a fantastic job- I pretty much ditto his/her remarks. Laci did a fine job explaining 4th amendment protections, yet never broached how Bloomberg's policy violates it. Yes, I have an expectation of privacy walking down a public street. And yes, the reasonable person standard would apply as most people would agree that their body is private, and there needs to be strong probable cause for a government official to touch it. Most liberals will stand with me on this one. Only the most ardent gun control supporters (who see this as gun control over anything else) seem to find it acceptable. Even Rachel Maddow is against "stop and frisk"- one of the few times I agree with her.
DeleteI find sobriety checks to also be a violation, though grayer. One's body should have stronger protections than one's car when engaged in licensed operation on a public provided road. Body and home should be held to the highest standard. Still, if officers have no reason to stop an individual car, they should not be allowed to do so, but the degree of probable cause can be weaker than body and home.
I don't know how old you guys are, but I was on your side probably before you were even there. I'm a Viet Nam era veteran who became extremely disillusioned about the government way back then.
DeleteT., don't you think it's a bit overly dramatic to liken strict gun control to slavery?
On its own, it is but a step in that direction. My point is the slavish mentality that is willing to sacrifice liberties in exchange for security. It's bad enough when a person does this in one area, whether it's a staunch civil liberties defender who is in the tank for gun control, or a Republican who supports many civil liberties but is willing to sacrifice privacy or due process in the name of unachievable "safety" from terrorists. I would accuse both of these of having a slavish mentality, at least in the area of concern.
DeleteI am even harsher on you and others like you because you demonstrate that you see government overreach, but you excuse it at almost every turn: You dislike 4th Amendment violations, but you suppress this because it might make you safer. You periodically acknowledge that gun rights are rights, and that your proposals would infringe on the 2nd Amendment, but you accept that because maybe it will make you safer.
You acknowledge the problems with Obama continuing and expanding Bush's war on terror policies, but you dismiss our objections to the same--we're just racists--and I can't see that you or the rest of progressives are doing much to stop this state of affairs; in fact, you want to expand some of them: keep the no fly list, and apply it to other rights too, because it might make you safer.
At every step, I see you and other progressives talking about your skepticism of the government, but you always turn to it to fix every problem, be it poverty, violence, rudeness, etc.
If you think I'm wrong in my assessment, By ALL MEANS, Prove me Wrong. I would like nothing more than to see you and other progressives stand up to the growing power of the government rather than going along with it when your guy is in. (And, in case it doesn't go without saying, conservatives stand up to even when their guy is in.)
With those credentials, you should be on our side, Mikeb. But for some reason, you accept the idea that government is able and worthy of controlling guns.
DeleteT., of course you've got a rather lengthy justification of your remark about slavery. Wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention more honest, to just say "yeah, that was kinda dumb."
DeleteEasier? Yes. Honest? No.
DeleteAs I said, if you disagree with my statement, prove me wrong. Otherwise, I'm left with your words and advocacy here, in which you have continued advocating for the erosion of liberty and accepting every infringement thereof so long as you think it will bring you some more security, whether that is an infringement of the Second Amendment, the Fourth, or any other liberty.
It's hyperbolic to the point of dishonesty to say gun control is equal to slavery.
DeleteI'll let you have the last word, counsellor. I know you always will. It's one of your trademarks along with never giving in an inch to the opposition.
What you don't realize is such extreme tenacity is a fault which makes your entire argument suspect.
There were 515 homicides in NYC in 2011.
ReplyDeleteFor all you bean counters, here's a link
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2011_murder_in_nyc.pdf
orlin sellers
NEW YORK (AP) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg is vowing to appeal a federal judge's ruling that the New York Police Department violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers with its stop-and-frisk policy.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg said at a news conference Monday that the judge displayed a "disturbing disregard" for the "good intentions" of police officers.
The mayor says the judge didn't give the city a fair trial.
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly says the notion that the police department engages in racial profiling is "recklessly untrue."
http://news.yahoo.com/bloomberg-nyc-appeal-stop-frisk-ruling-180925966.html
He appealed and lost his big gulp ban also I think.