Incoming New York Mayor Makes Vague Case for the ‘Proper’ Kind of Stop-and-Frisk
Writing in the Daily News, New York Mayor-elect Eric Adams is vaguely promising a kinder, gentler “stop and frisk” policing.
On the campaign trail, Adams had said that he didn’t fully oppose the concept of “stop and frisk”—the police practice stopping people with very little suspicion to make sure they aren’t carrying guns or drugs—but that he believed the New York Police Department (NYPD) had abused its authority with the mass targeting of minorities for searches. He agreed that the police had implemented “stop and frisk” in an illegal way, but he didn’t think the practice itself was entirely bad.
So how does he think it should work instead? In his Daily News article, Adams discusses an incident last week when two officers in the Bronx were shot by a suspect while they responded to a 911 call about a suspicious man with a gun. According to the NYPD, the officers approached a man matching the description they received and asked him to show his hands. The man, 23-year-old Charlie Vasquez, reportedly produced a gun and shot at the officers.
The threat was neutralized. One more gun off the street. One more blow against the bad guys.
Yet there are some in our city who would say these officers should never have confronted Vasquez, that he never should have been stopped and questioned.
This is quite the straw man argument. Let’s unpack it. These two officers did not, in fact, engage in any sort of “stop and frisk” at all. They approached a man who matched a description of somebody reportedly walking around with a gun. Before the officers were in a position to determine whether he was a suspect or even to question him, the man shot at them.
Article from Reason.com