Illegal for Cops to Identify Suspect by Age, Gender, Color or Disability

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#1
Reading the McDermott thread I was reminded of this story. Surprised there wasn't already a thread for it. Maybe because it was just so inevitable...

NYPD fights to fight crime with new ad, as Council tries to ban using ‘race, gender, or age’ to ID suspects

EXCLUSIVE

Cops might as well wear blindfolds if the City Council passes a bill that would let them use little more than the color of a suspect’s clothing in descriptions — or risk being sued for profiling, according to this provocative new ad (pictured) from the NYPD captains union.

The ad asks, “How effective is a police officer with a blindfold on?”

Doug Kuntz


And the answer is not very, says the NYPD Captains Endowment Association, which is fighting the measure, claiming it would handcuff cops and send crime rates soaring.

Union President Roy Richter — who is seen in the ad wearing a blindfold in Times Square — told The Post the bill is dangerous because “it will ban cops from identifying a suspect’s age, gender, color or disability.

“When we have wanted suspects and patterns of crimes, those are very important descriptive terms to let officers know who to look for.”

The ad warns that if cops transmit a description of a suspect that goes beyond the color of his or her clothing, they could be sued for racial profiling if the proposal becomes law.

The ad will appear in tomorrow’s Post, in addition to the union’s Web site, Twitter and Facebook — and provides links to contacts for City Council members to sway their vote on the measure.

The bill’s sponsor, Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn), and Speaker Christine Quinn are going to bypass normal committee process and bring the measure directly to a vote.

Detectives-union President Michael Palladino blasted Quinn for supporting the rare expedited process — and said his union plans to place ads in newspapers next week.

“The [union’s] ad will focus on . . . Speaker Quinn’s political decision to sell the security of all New Yorkers for votes. Where was the speaker and her legislation for the last seven years?” Palladino asked.

A rep for Quinn said she sent the proposals to a floor vote because a majority of council members supported it and Public Safety Committee chair Peter Vallone Jr. — an opponent — refused to let it out of committee.

PBA President Pat Lynch said the “so-called biased policing” package was a misnomer.

“Rather than focus on unnecessary laws, the council should be supporting its police officers — not attacking them,” he said.

“Racial profiling is already illegal — and should be.”

Williams and fellow Brooklyn Democrat Brad Lander, a co-sponsor of the proposal, say it would only expand the city’s existing racial-profiling law by adding other demographic groups that should be protected, such as the homeless and gay people.

They have said police are free, under the bill, to chase leads that include descriptions but cannot stop and frisk people based solely on those descriptions.

But the Bloomberg administration has warned that the bill could lead to an avalanche of lawsuits against the city by any members of a protected class who believe that they were profiled.

Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

kconley@nypost.com
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#3
Be sure to compost the dead unarmed crime victims.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,655
49,893
644
#4
 

HandPanzer

Vergangenheitsbewältigung
May 30, 2013
46,326
42,034
293
#5
Have we really come to the place where statistics and biology have to be ignored so we don't hurt any feelings? It's time to buck up you fucking children.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,856
373
#6
Suspect sounds like a profiling word. Let's go with 'person of interest'.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,655
49,893
644
#8
Let's be clever.

No Identification Gotten
Hard to Identify Suspect
 

Voodoo Ben

You gotta wash your ass
Dec 5, 2010
8,303
6,637
293
#10
and pretty soon it will be illegal for everybody in america to identify people by Age, Gender, Color or Disability.
 

kidconnor

55gallon hog
Mar 16, 2005
5,353
1,136
678
brooklyn
#11
Ridiculous.


Can't believe there are people that actually decided this makes sense.



Oh well.
Pass it.
See how it goes.
 

VicVinegar

Registered User
Oct 5, 2012
1,578
636
163
#14
So what is left?

"Six foot tall biped in jeans and a tshirt going east"

Wow that really narrows it down.
 

Psychopath

Plata O Plomo
Dec 28, 2008
17,717
3,352
393
hell
#15
I guarantee you this if this passes the murder rate is going to triple.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#17
So what is left?

"Six foot tall biped in jeans and a tshirt going east"

Wow that really narrows it down.
That is upsetting to those confined to wheelchairs and beds.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,637
27,395
898
Seattle
#18
Public Safety Committee chair Peter Vallone Jr. — an opponent — refused to let it out of committee.
Gee, you think he may have a concern about, oh, I don't know, Public Safety?
 

kidconnor

55gallon hog
Mar 16, 2005
5,353
1,136
678
brooklyn
#19
Clothing works wonders in winter when its a black hoodie or black bubble jacket and jeans. Really singles people out.

Works better in summer when its a white tshirt and shorts.


Can't wait to stop grandpa for a iphone robbery a teen commited.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,919
5,330
838
Wilmington, NC
#20
Saw this exchange on Hannity last night...the NY Civil Rights Coalition dope derailed the topic so badly, Hannity pretty much punched out of the discussion...


You can tell the guy came prepared to debate this topic. Only problem, he was entirely dishonest and needed to act like a scumbag know-it-all. He immediately brings up the Tea Party and then doesn't let the former detective get a sentence in because he repeats the "Pssh, you didn't read the bill, so you can't talk."

But, here's the really dishonest, scumbag part. He says that everyone is getting worked up over nothing then gives a general example of some innocent bystander approaching an officer and saying along the lines of, "They can still describe to the officer what color their skin was or gender or whatever." Typical liberal "play on words". Yes, he's right, any one of us will still be able to go up to an officer and describe the guy that just robbed the bank and took off on foot. "He was a black male, black shirt, blue jeans, mid-30's, pretty tall with a gun and he was head on foot up Market Street." BUT...the officer cannot give that same description, when they radio it in. He'll only be able to say, "The person of interest is wearing a black shirt, blue jeans and is headed up Market Street and is armed." No mention of the gender or race, even if the officer was told that in the description.

Complete and utter bullshit.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#21
Saw this exchange on Hannity last night...the NY Civil Rights Coalition dope derailed the topic so badly, Hannity pretty much punched out of the discussion...


You can tell the guy came prepared to debate this topic. Only problem, he was entirely dishonest and needed to act like a scumbag know-it-all. He immediately brings up the Tea Party and then doesn't let the former detective get a sentence in because he repeats the "Pssh, you didn't read the bill, so you can't talk."

But, here's the really dishonest, scumbag part. He says that everyone is getting worked up over nothing then gives a general example of some innocent bystander approaching an officer and saying along the lines of, "They can still describe to the officer what color their skin was or gender or whatever." Typical liberal "play on words". Yes, he's right, any one of us will still be able to go up to an officer and describe the guy that just robbed the bank and took off on foot. "He was a black male, black shirt, blue jeans, mid-30's, pretty tall with a gun and he was head on foot up Market Street." BUT...the officer cannot give that same description, when they radio it in. He'll only be able to say, "The person of interest is wearing a black shirt, blue jeans and is headed up Market Street." No mention of the gender or race, even if the officer was told that in the description.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Here's what needs to happen - the first person who gets detained by the cops for wearing the same clothes as some suspect should sue the city and say that because of its restrictive guidelines, he was improperly targeted by police.
 
Dec 8, 2004
49,096
21,098
693
Maine
#22
Can't remember what city it was but I remember seeing some documentary or news story where they said the "pharmacists" at the various "drug stores without walls" locations wore the same outfit of a white t-shirt and dark shorts.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,919
5,330
838
Wilmington, NC
#23
We'll eventually get to the point where even describing clothes will be considered racist.

The suspect is wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans...
"Dark hooded sweatshirt, huh??? That's code for black, isn't it??? Mmm-hmmm."

Gotta keep protecting the criminals, I guess.