
What I learned about stop and frisk from watching my black son - yogi123
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/what-i-learned-about-stop-and-frisk-from-watching-my-black-son/359962/
======
ritchiea
As a black NYC resident I'm actually surprised by this. Stop and frisk is a
major violation of the rights of those stopped without cause but I have
generally viewed it as more of a class issue than a race issue. I have never
been stopped by the police in this manner. I was once stopped by the police on
the iffy charge that I was in the park after dark while walking home late and
I told the officer I was cutting through the park because I had work in the
morning and I heard about muggings in the neighborhood and the park seemed the
fastest and safest way home. The cop seemed to be caught off guard and quickly
ended the confrontation. Furthermore, none of my (very middle to upper middle
class) black friends have complained about being victims of stop and frisk.

My studiomate who is a filmmaker actually spoke with some local teens who were
frequently harassed by the stop & frisk policy and I felt guilty that a few
meager class signifiers seem to get me off the hook so easily [0].

That said the author's other accounts of having to be cautious of
unintentionally provoking police do ring true my experience and stories from
my family and friends.

0\. [https://vimeo.com/87532909](https://vimeo.com/87532909)

~~~
kylewpppd
I don't like anecdotes like this because they back the assertion Stop and
Frisk does societal good.

It implies that police are able to discern the difference between "good
people" and "bad people", and that "stopping the bad ones" doesn't harm
society at large because "the good ones" don't get stopped.

This is hurtful to those who have experienced it first hand, and to those who
are seeking equality of all people under the law.

~~~
ritchiea
That's not my intention at all. I'm not saying anyone is good or bad. In fact
I specifically say stop & frisk is a violation of the rights of those who are
stopped. You seem to be assuming because I say it's a class issue that I think
it's okay. It's not okay. Someone's income or outward showing of societal
class should not mark them as a criminal. I don't think anyone should be
harassed by authorities for their appearance, whatever their class, race,
ethnicity, or whatever else.

What I am saying is that in my experience NYC police appear to discriminate
more based on class than on race.

------
memracom
Typical Americans. You have a growing problem with police corruption in your
country and you can only talk about race relations. Cops who do the things
described in the article are breaking the law in other ways when you aren't
watching. Recent events in New Mexico are a case in point.

You should be thankful that corrupt cops are racist because they can't help
giving themselves away by mistreating blacks. Until you folks break up the
corrupt police brotherhood and take back control of law enforcement, things
will only get worse.

Fix the root problem and minority males will cease to have problems like this.

~~~
ggchappell
> You have a growing problem with police corruption in your country ....

Do we? I'm not sure.

Certainly in recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of
well publicized incidents of police corruption (and use of excessive force and
various rights violations). But is this because such incidents are becoming
more common, or because they are more likely to be reported and/or publicized
effectively?

I honestly don't know the answer. I'd be interested in hard evidence on either
side.

~~~
larrys
"> You have a growing problem with police corruption in your country ...."

"Do we? I'm not sure."

Actually I find the parent comment such a wide generalization that's it's
almost laughable.

------
espinchi
I totally share the author's view.

If those stop-and-frisk are really needed, then, in my view, they should be
applied to different cohorts in the same proportion as those cohorts perform
crimes: maybe it's 60% for ages 18-30 and 30% for 30+, could be 90% males and
10% females. Only for population groups where crime rates change
significantly, of course. (Race may or may not be one of those.)

Would that make sense?

~~~
judk
100% of criminals commit crimes. 0% of non criminals do.

There are your ratios.

See the problem?

~~~
espinchi
Fair enough. However, there are statistical deviations that are significant
enough that it's fair to consider them.

In the US, 90% of men are incarcerated. Sure, maybe it's just because men are
suspect more women, therefore are caught with higher likelihood. But, given a
random citizen, is the probability that they will commit a crime not
significantly higher if they are a men? (Which is of course near 0 anyway,
don't get me wrong.)

------
lsiebert
I don't believe that Stop and Frisk is effective, but even if it was, I don't
want to live in a society which trades our liberty for that benefit.

It's not about the efficacy, it's about the sort of society we want to live
in. Because there will always be those that make arguments from pragmatism.

Freedom isn't easy or pragmatic, if you think about it like that.

------
vfclists
I just got my first taste of HN censorship from my earlier comment about the
reason why a white father insisting on describing his mixed race son as black
is quite wrong and the subconsciously racist intent underlying it, love of
offspring notwithstanding. I am rephrasing it and restarting it.

If the writer is white then the son is arguably as white as he is black, and
probably more white than black if the mother is an African American, as
opposed to an African immigrant. So why the insistence on the father labeling
him as black just because society sees him as such? Society can learn to see
him as white if white fathers insist on claiming whiteness for him. Why does
the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should
whiteness be exclusive and the father go along with that?

The real issue is the way society is programmed by calculated use of language.
If the One Drop Rule was switched around most racial discrimination would end,
because discrimination would then be based on shade of complexion not race.
Whites would be light-skinned whites, mixed race people would simply be
medium-skinned whites and most African Americans would be dark-skinned whites
from their slave-owning fathers. Or the definition could be reversed and white
people would be very light-skinned blacks. The idiocy of this defacto
continuation of the ODR is that is that it makes whiteness exclusive and black
becomes some kind of genetic taint, some kind of condition/affliction which
causes lots people who are 'white' socially, genetically and culturally for
all practical purposes to be labelled as 'black'.

That rule was made to ensure that wealth and privilege remained in the hands
of white people, to ensure the formation of a predominantly and visibly white
aristocracy and check the breeding preferences of resident or immigrant
European nobility whose appearance was visibly that of light-skinned blacks.
Take this instance of a prince of Liechtenstein
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU4/sa2MkgV1wkE/s1600/black_princess_angela.jpg).
If American had more men like his father in ranking positions, his complexion
might even be identified with aristocracy and how often would police harass
males like him and risk losing their jobs? By being labeled as black it only
helps rationalize the harassment.

What is there to stop white fathers insisting that their sons be seen as white
and have all the privileges that come with it and punish policemen who stepped
out of line? This father's refusal to view and label his son as white masks a
hardly unconscious reluctance to demand the same privileges he has for his son
and by extension __any other men of a similar appearance __. If they got to be
seen as white and also married black females the same privilege would be
extended to their even darker sons and this issue would simply go away.

The continued use of black to describe mixed race people, even multiple
generations of 'blacks' who are mixed is simply a refusal to accept the fact
that a white and Nordic-oriented exclusivity in a multiracial America is a
myth, downright anomalous and is actually Nazism of the worst kind. Isn't it
glaringly obvious how Hispanic is used to pull in lots of people who would be
Black, Native American or both under the One Drop Rule, ie 'light-skinned
blacks'?

Unfortunately the use of the term black by that white father is just a sop to
white exclusivity supremacists.

European is a culture not a race.

------
vfclists
If you are white your son is mixed-race not black. Why does the notion of
whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be
exclusive?

If the writer is serious about racism a good start should be to admit that
your son is also white then you could write an article entitled "What I
learned about stop and frisk from watching my white son" and a generation
later your white grandson by his black mother of course. That would get white
people to take notice.

~~~
adwf
I remember a comment I heard along similar lines about Obama when he was
running for president. Some people were saying that he's not actually black,
etc...

The simple rebuttal is: In 1950s America, which water fountain would he be
made to use? Which school would he be put in? Where on the bus would he sit?

Mixed race individuals get treated every bit as badly. So making the
distinction is not helpful when talking about racial abuse, it only serves to
distract from the core issue at hand.

~~~
jpindar
I believe the example Obama gave was: would a cab driver stop for him?

------
deedubaya
While I don't agree with the stop & frisk policy, let's all be honest: racial
stereotypes exist for a reason, fair or not.

This is a treatment of a symptom, not of the cause.

~~~
tzs
To those who down voted deedubaya, I have a question. Do you disagree with
either or both of the following assertions, and if so, why?

Assertion #1: common street and property crime, such as mugging, burglary,
robbery, car theft, car jacking, and such is more likely to be committed by
people who have limited money and limited advancement prospects than they are
to be committed by people who have plenty of money and plenty of advancement
opportunity.

Assertion #2: due to slavery followed by almost 100 years of legal and often
state enforced discrimination against black people, black people have
historically been significantly overrepresented among those with limited money
and limited advancement prospects. Although this has been improving since the
Civil Rights Act and other protections against discrimination, things have not
leveled out yet and blacks are sill very overrepresented at the lower ends of
the economic spectrum.

If you agree with both of these assertions, then why did you down vote
deedubaya? If both those assertions are true, it necessarily follows that
black people will be overrepresented among muggers, burglars, car jackers, and
the like. When a group is overrepresented in some activity, good or bad,
stereotypes tend to develop about that group and that activity. If we pretend
there isn't some reason behind the stereotypes, it is harder to address those
conditions that led to the stereotype.

~~~
deedubaya
Thanks for actually reading the comment and not jumping on the "this guy is a
racist!" bandwagon just because it is something I don't want to hear.

