Do fewer police stops increase homicides?
 

New study shows that if the police make fewer stops, there is an increase in homicides.

I guess defunding the police has consequences.

New Statistical Evidence Supports the "Minneapolis Effect" as an Explanation for Increases in Homicides

All crime numbers took off when cops were put in cars, and stopped patrolling on foot. Period!

When you have an unforgiving boss 9-11 your department has to be mobile to handle the calls. Best of both worlds mobile and foot patrol.

Under Mayor Bloomberg the NYC police did random (? not sure if I'd call it random) stop and frisk. They took many guns off the streets, and high crime neighborhoods saw a reduction in crime. Their claim was that it fell under the Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio). I do not believe they had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime having been, about to be or in the process of happening. It was stopped under DeBlasio (may have been challenged in court as well) and crime went up. There are ways to reduce crime, but some of those ways infringe on peoples rights (in my opinion). Interesting factoid about DeBlasio. He and his wife are getting a divorce. He said in an interview, that he wondered if her being a self proclaimed lesbian should have been a warning that they would run into problems with the marriage. Can not make this stuff up.

Growing up in NYC, I recall the foot patrol police. We would see the same officer after school each day. He was hurt in the line of duty and many of us (schoolkids) sent cards and even visited him when he was in rehab. School did not make us, parents didn't force us. He was just our cop friend. How times have changed.

This is easy. Giuliani cleaned the city up, DeBlasio turned it back into a city run by like minded mayors. Worst thing that happened was ending stop and frisk

Very true. Felt safe walking around the city at night and taking train home.

I was never a big fan of stop and frisk. It sorta smacked at some Nazi saying “papers please”. Yes, it did catch some bad guys and got guns off the streets but it also interfered with good people, minding their business, being frisked. Remember reading about one NYPD cop with an unusual shift who was stopped almost weekly walking home at 3am.
Stop and frisk was only one tool in Guilianis approach. The most significant one was to go after minor crime…turnstile jumping, squeegee guys and vandalism.

DiBlasio is separating not getting divorced. Still living together but seeing others. Yep, that should work out real well!

My uncle was one of our local foot patrol Bobbies.
I had to go to other areas to be a child menace to society!

I used to jump the turnstiles sometimes when I lived in Boston. I had a T-pass. But once in awhile - you're just approaching the turnstile and you can hear the sub car coming - you're holding your guitar case in one hand, and the flap of your purse is making it hard to find the pass so - just hop on over. I also would always check at Harvard Square, because sometimes the turnstiles weren't clicking in place properly and you could pull it back a click, and it'd let you go through - no charge!

The squeegee guys in NYC are the scourge of the city though. Oy vey.

Stop and frisk proved that you can reduce crime by violating people's constitutional rights.

All forms of crime reduce if city police over police traffic like crazy. Write intense tickets for any and all speeding, rolling stops at stop signs and right on reds, etc. City of Avondale in Atlanta has done this for years and it works. Drive just outside that city limits and crime is off the chain. Live within city limits and crime is to a minimum.

Didn’t realize carrying illegal weapons or drugs was a constitutional right. I’m more than happy for a police officer to stop me if it gets more criminals off the streets

First, I believe the people that were screaming defund the police really want retraining of the police and that requires more funding.
As far as crime a lot of crimes either comes from poverty, despair and just outright stupidity.
Maybe a TV campaign showing how most crimes are committed by morons would send a message.
You no longer want to be married, in the long run it's cheaper to get a divorce than turning to murder.
When it comes to stealing, get it through their thick skulls if you steal a million and get caught you will probably spend 10 years in jail. If you have half a brain, you can earn more than a million in the same amount of time and enjoy your freedom.
Lot of people are worried about what they teach in school these days, maybe the first thing the children should be taught is how to earn a living and have a decent life.

True words.

I think we see examples of that here in and around TV on a daily basis. Some of read asteriskasteriskasterisk
asteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk and nary a day goes by when there ISN'T a story about some guy being stopped for unreadable license plate, stopping at a stop sign with tires over the solid white line, burned out tail light, or whatever; K-9 gets called and "alerts" to the possibility of drugs in the vehicle or on the person, a search ensues and bingo! Another drug bust. The other biggie is petty theft: you can count on at least four stories per week where someone (or several someones) are caught at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Winn-Dixie, etc. with shoplifted items, arrested and processed for dollar amounts that seem puny to many of us. One of my favorites is a well-dressed, somewhat older lady who was caught on Wal-Mart store surveillance at one of those self-service checkouts not paying for her stuff. From the looks of it, it appeared that it was more a case of absentmindedness than theft. She left the store, got into a blue golf cart (surveillance had that on tape too) and left. I don't recall the dollar amount but I believe it was under $100. The interesting thing was that the cops asked, through the reporting publication, that anyone with knowledge of this woman contact them! That the cops would actually do that is remarkable. In cities and areas where many if not most of us come from, that is a belly laugh on the part of the cops rather than a track-down and arrest.

The cops around here know who the troublemakers and keep the pressure on. There is a fair amount of petty crime around here, but almost never anything major.

Never said better.

Crime is crime all should be pursued
If someone breaks into your home and only takes a dollar are you going to call the police if not give me your address lol I bet no one gives me there address just an opinion and unapproved poll

Probably not in the Villages. Any murder near the Villages usually involves domestic violence of some kind. And the violence has already happened by the time the Sumter County Sheriff's Office employees have arrived.

Your source has a circulation of on only 50,000 subscribers and is a Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy Charles Koch. It is another source for conspiracies. Defund the police doesn't mean eliminate police or cut back their presence in vital areas. Stop spreading your garbage! Do some legitimate research before you post.

My suggestion: Quoting valid research to refute something that is presented, here or wherever, is a far more effective tool for making one's point than insults or anger are.

1. They never defunded police in Minneapolis
2. If you want a Minneapolis statistic maybe you should look at a Minneapolis news source. Minneapolis officials tout lower crime statistics in 2023 so far - CBS Minnesota
:mornincoffee:

And sometime you just have to point out stupid for what it is..........

What does the word "defund" mean in your world? According to Merriam-Webster it means "to withdraw funding from." So either the police will do more with less or they will do less with less which sounds a lot like eliminating or cutting back.

Please note that this "Libertarian publication partially subsidized buy(sic) Charles Koch" cited a recently published study that supports its position. Can you cite a study that supports your position?

Good post.

I'm no big believer in "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but I was there when "The Minneapolis effect" was taking place. The push was to take funding earmarked for the police and give it to SOCIAL WORKERS, who would then accompany police to various crime or potential crime scenes and work their supposed magic to somehow talk the bad guy down, thus either minimizing damage done at the crime scene or possibly even prevent the crime from happening. Some talk at the time about even having social workers respond alone. Fine in theory, but the two groups who got the biggest laugh out of this were cops and social workers, for what I think are more-than-obvious reasons.

Thankfully, it didn't pass. Cooler heads prevailed. But the fact that it was even seriously considered says far too much about the mentality behind it.

The only place that I know that has defunded the police is The Villages

Very hard to do since The Villages doesn’t have a police force

Agree. The whole Broken Windows thing worked.

Exactly. If you look at what has turned made some large cities like SF LA and Chicago virtually uninhabitable, it is forced soft policing combined with DAs who refuse to prosecute. If criminals know there are no consequences, they will act accordingly.

Unless you were black or Latino, NYC police wouldn't stop and frisk you. Seeing as you are villager and 99.99% of villagers are white, I can see how you might not mind stop and frisk since it would not affect you. The Constitution is supposed to protect everyone from unreasonable searches, not just citizens who are in the majority.

Choose one of the following:
1. Someone's privilege is showing
2. Someone hasn't thought this through
3. Someone is quite comfortable giving up their fourth amendment rights

For me, I don't see a difference between stop & frisk, randomly stopping and searching cars, or knocking on your door at 9PM and searching your house. Some would say, "if you have nothint to hide.." but I don't agree with that. While I would like criminals off the streets and out of society, I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches.

So if I’m white and don’t mind getting stopped and frisked to help deter the criminals, why should someone with darker skin mind unless they have something to hide????

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, would that search be unreasonable?

Because it's their constitutional right. Sad that many people never learned civics in school. Sad that immigrants who become US citizens know more about civics than native born Americans.

The accusation was that "suspicious manner" included simply being present on the street while black or brown. I believe at least one judge agreed that was the case.

I don't want to be stopped and frisked, have my vehicle searched, or have my home invaded because an officer felt my behavior was "suspicious." If I don't want it happening to me then I can't be okay with it happening to someone else.

If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, it constitutes probable cause. End of civics lesson

Sorry, but just being there is not suspicious. But apparently the grievance industry was able to parlay that into a lame excuse to end an effective policing tool

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it smells like a duck then sure, you could make an argument that it really is a hippopotamus in disguise.

The grievance industry looked at the data and the data told the story. I have no interest in researching all the statistics but the few that I've seen indicated that weapons were found in about 14 out of every 10,000 stops for "suspicious activity" and there was some kind of fine, arrest, or seizure of a weapon in only about 1,200 out 10,000 stops. If your "suspicious activity" sensor fails 88% of the time and is only effective at removing weapons 0.14% of the time then that sensor is seriously broken.

Was it an effective policing tool? I don't believe the numbers will back that up in an objective way. Subjectively, sure, harassment is an effective tool. But that goes back to my initial post: Is it okay because you know as a white man it won't affect you? Is it okay because you haven't thought about how else it might be used? Or, is it okay because you don't value your fourth amendment rights?

Stop and frisk is the result of a "reasonable suspicion ".

"Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer."

- The Law Dictionary, featuring Black's Law, 2nd edition

You want data? How about 76% of violent crimes are committed by a demographic that is 12% of the population. I’ll continue to support our law enforcement officers, thank you

And that is your justification for stopping black and brown people at a rate of one stop for every resident every year with an arrest rate of less than 1%? I believe that thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.

I support the LEOs when they abide by the L. Law enforcement already have enough authorizations to harass citizens without overstepping the law. When they go beyond that then they do not deserve our support. When laws are enforced in an unconstitutional manner then they do not deserve our support. Going further, when legislatures enact laws with no concern for the Constitution or that are clearly unconstitutional then they do not deserve our support.