Print this post Print this post

Stop Being Frisky:
Why Trump is Right about Stop & Frisk

nypoststopfrisk1,714 words

In recent days, I’ve been hearing an abnormal amount of criticism of Donald Trump for “policies on race relations that basically amount to ‘reinstitute stop and frisk.’” As usual, the statements are being made in a tone that makes it obvious that the speaker considers it simply beyond the pale to question whether or not those stop and frisk policies were doing anything right. Compare: “His ideas on improving race relations basically amount to ‘bring back slavery.’” Since I’m hearing most of this come from normal people rather than rabid social justice warriors, I consider it worth addressing. So the point of this post is to quickly hand supporters a little bit of extra ammo in some of those conversations.

Anyone who is paying attention will have been aware for a long time now that the crime rate among the minority — and particularly black — population is in fact higher than the crime rate among the white population. They’ll also have been aware that victim and witness reports make it impossible to dismiss this as the result of biased police, because victims and witnesses actually record a higher black/white disparity than arrest rates do.

But even knowing this still isn’t enough to refute the possibility that a policy actually is racist. When we’re considering police shootings, for example, it’s an entirely possible hypothetical that blacks could be 2 times more likely to commit crimes than whites, yet 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, in which case only part of that 2.5x figure would be explained by blacks’ disproportionate commission of crimes, and finding ratios like these would suggest that blacks are still 1.5 times more likely to be shot by police because of racism. So, if you want to argue that there isn’t any institutional racism, you have to show that the first figure is larger than the second one. This is what I and a few other people like Peter Moskos have done with the numbers for crime and police shootings. And what people like Moskos and I who have run these figures discover is that once controlling for crime, it is white people who are more likely to be shot per encounter with police — it isn’t blacks who are more likely to be shot in a given encounter at all, at any frequency.

Still, we can’t generalize from findings about one event (shootings) to another (stop-and-frisks). A shooting will be a much rare more event than a stop; the threshold for convincing a cop to make a stop will obviously be much smaller than the threshold for convincing a cop to fire a weapon, considering if nothing else the different cost of mistakenly making a stop versus mistakenly shooting a gun.

This leaves us with a couple different related questions:

  1. Was stop and frisk enforced in a racist way?
  2. Was stop and frisk effective at reducing crime?
  3. Was stop and frisk constitutional?

With regard to the first point, even the critics of stop and frisk acknowledge that “Marijuana stops are more prevalent in precincts where . . . “high-crime area” justifications are more likely to be reported . . .” Without diverging into too much detail on the point here, I advise any interested readers to see the work of criminologist Frank Zimring or my essay on the war on drugs on the point that the war on drugs actually has been an effective tool for police work that has been successful at reducing violent crime — indeed, even including giving police the ability to use marijuana as a pretext for a stop in high-crime areas:

Marijuana was not a priority of the New York City police, yet they had a huge number of public marijuana arrests. Why was that? That was because they were only arresting minority males who looked to them like robbers and burglars and they used as a pretext the less serious crime arrest to find out whether the particular person they were arresting had a warrant out for a felony and was a bad actor. . . . The good news is that drug violence went down tremendously. There are a couple of different ways in which the police department measures the number of killings associated with drug traffic in New York; both of those measures that they use are down more than 90 percent so that the streets themselves have been changed, people can walk there, and the number of dead bodies associated with illegal drug traffic has gone way, way down.

Now to provide a quick rebuttal of the claim that stop and frisk was racially enforced.

We know that stops are more likely to take place in “high-crime areas.” But “high-crime areas” also tend to be minority areas in the first place, whatever the reason is for that being the case (it’s irrelevant to our purposes here).

So what would happen if we had a low-crime minority area? Would stops decrease in frequency?

We actually have a perfect case study for examining this question.

In Brooklyn, New York, the borough of Brownsville is 76.7% black and only 2.6% white. In Buffalo, New York, the borough of Kensington has a similar demographic spread: 82.3% black and 11.5% white. But despite such similar demographics, it turns out that Kensington actually has the lowest murder rate of all boroughs in New York, while Brownsville has the highest.

So, what happens? Does the frequency of stops increase from Brownsville to Kensington because Kensington is 1.07 times as black?

It turns out that the stop and frisk rate is 2% in Kensington, compared to 29.1 in Brownsville.

The frequency does, in fact, decrease — because Kensington has less crime — regardless of the racial makeup of its residents.

With regard to the second question, was stop and frisk effective at reducing crime?

For a long time, there have simply been no studies that asked this question while adequately controlling for all the other changes that took place over the period of time in which stop and frisk policies were adopted. However, if we dig far enough, we can find some information:

The only study that explicitly poses the question “Does stop and frisk stop crime?” was an unpublished paper by Robert Purtell and Dennis Smith that relied on monthly precinct level data from New York City from 1997 to 2006. After controlling for a large number of variables including the effects of hotspots policing, Purtell and Smith found that stop and frisk helped reduce robbery, burglary, murder, and grand larceny . . . While other researchers have looked into similar questions as the one posed by Purtell and Smith, they do not isolate stop and frisk as a variable and instead combine its effects with other police strategies like 1) firearm reduction, 2) hot spots policing, and 3) order maintenance policing.

So it looks like what is quite literally the one and only study that asks whether or not stop and frisk actually stopped crime strongly suggests that the answer is “Yes.”

Finally, was stop and frisk constitutional?

The Wall Street Journal actually had to fact-check Lester Holt’s “fact-check” of Trump’s claim that the ruling that stop and frisk was unconstitutional came from a “very against-police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Their conclusion? “We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.” Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog elsewhere notes that “Mr. Trump, technically, is right that the general tactic of stop-and-frisk was not deemed unconstitutional. The ruling in the civil-rights class-action case Mr. Trump was referring to didn’t order an end to the practice of stopping and searching pedestrians suspected of criminal activity.” And as Rudy Giuliani writes in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed:

Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down — that is, a frisk — of a person’s outer clothing. In many places, this practice is called a “Terry stop,” based on the decision upholding its constitutionality.

As usual, the “whites as oppressors, nonwhites as victims” narratives not only target whites on false premises, they harm nonwhites also due to their own violent ignorance of reality.

At the same time as it is true that blacks are disproportionately responsible for violent crime, so it is also true that blacks are disproportionately the victims of it. As Heather MacDonald notes  , while blacks constituted 78% of shooting suspects in New York City (despite being only 23% of the city’s population), they were also 74% of all shooting victims. So it isn’t whites who are the primary beneficiaries of these “racist” policies in the first place:  while whites committed just over 2% of the city’s shootings, they were also under 3% of the city’s shooting victims. Minorities make up nearly 80% of the drop in homicide victims in New York’s record-breaking crime decline from its highs in the 1960s through to the early 1990s now to current historical lows unseen since our grandparents and great-grandparents were in their prime.

As MacDonald concludes:

To be sure, thousands of innocent New Yorkers have been questioned by the police. Even though such stops may have been justified given the information the officer had at the time, they’re still humiliating and infuriating experiences. But if the trade-off is an increased risk of getting stopped in a high-crime neighborhood versus an increased risk of getting shot there, most people would choose the former.

Well, most sensible people would — but most people aren’t sensible. Instead, we’re at the point where it’s a significant point of condemnation in an election that someone thinks that we shouldn’t be too worried about inconveniencing some blacks if the result is that it means we can also stop a lot more of them from killing other ones. The truly vicious moral condemnation is all too often reserved not for blacks who kill other blacks, but for whites who agree with the idea of doing something to try to help stop it.

For whatever it’s worth, stop and frisk probably isn’t the most significant consideration with respect to whether violent crime will rise or fall. Murders in New York have, in fact, decreased since the period of time during which the rate of stops was at its highest. But it would be fallacious reasoning to leap from this fact to the conclusion that stop and frisk is irrelevant. Specifically, it would be an instance of post hoc ergo propter hoc—like claiming that, because we have longer lifespans today than we did a few centuries before cigarettes were invented, cigarette smoking must have no impact on a person’s lifespan today. In both cases, the reason for the apparent lack of trend is because variables other than the one you’ve identified have more impact on the outcome in question—not because the variable you’ve identified has no impact on the outcome in question at all. Furthermore, one reason that violent crime tends to fall is that a lot of violent criminals have already been put away—an effort which increased use stop and frisk most certainly contributed to in the past.

The only controlled evidence we have strongly suggests that, all else equal, an increased use of stop & frisk does in fact help to reduce violent crime. So while we shouldn’t exaggerate how important stop and frisk is in the grand scheme of things, we should also be prepared to point out why Trump isn’t the one being ignorant when he suggests that it does—and can continue to do so.


If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)


  1. Raym
    Posted October 15, 2016 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    This has been very helpful. Thank you.

    Also, according to the Freakonomics people the primary reason crime fell in the 90s is that Roe versus Wade having passed in 1972 which led to many more abortions and these abortions disproportionately impacted high crime demographic groups (such as poor blacks).

  2. Jim
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Agree with Dov and Will Windsor.
    A couple of other points:
    1. Let’s let the cities fall apart, because in the case of New York City with intense policing protecting and guarding the self-deceiving white liberal they can site erroneously that the “multicultural toilet that is modern NYC is ‘working’.” They deliberately blind themselves to the fact that it ONLY works due to the AGGRESSIVE, and MASSIVE 40,000 plus mini-army that is the NYPD keeping the animals from tearing it all down.
    2. Its a good thing that most of the crime involving murders is non-whites against non-whites, lest they turn on us as in the case of the Soros funded BLM movement…
    3. I want the police of this anti-white regime who have been active participants in covering up the disparities of white on black crime to be hobbled, since they are most likely the first batch of globalist government useful idiots to fight against whites to support the multi-culti madness…
    4. The instability serves our ideas better, since it shows the reality of the situation as the composition and culture of a city changes so does its realities. The city is the microcosm, and the nation is the macrocosm, this can be pointed to for demonstrating the insanity that is globalization and multiculturalism…

  3. Dov
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    As I like to say, you can’t have a Mayberry PD with Baltimore demographics.

    Thank you for the article.

  4. Buck Dodger
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    A stock market crash, drastically reduced tax revenue from Wall street necessitating a cutback in police department budgets and an exponential increase in black crime. In the last cycle these events lead up to the public demand for aggressive policing. The cycle is about to repeat a new.

  5. Will Windsor
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Or course Stop and Frisk is a great policy for reducing crime. If you want to get guns and criminals off the street, then the obvious course of action is to have police patting down black and hispanic gang bangers roaming the streets.

    The problem is not about policy, but the will to act. If we wanted guns removed from inner cities we could get Judges to sign search warrants left and right, all day long, for police to clear out neighborhoods. But it’s not about crime.

    The greater problem is blacks. Efforts to contain black criminality only kicks the can down the road. Reducing crime only prolongs the inevitable and keeps the system moving. How about we let the liberals get what they want and have the blacks turn every city into a warzone.

    These cosmopolitan cities are hellholes anyway, why not let the Left’s chickens come home to roost. We’re one step closer to the Ethnostate each time a city turns into Detroit.

  6. SPQR
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Violent crime has fallen continuously in England and Wales since 2003 at the latest (1995 at the earliest) (

    This trend was broken last year, 2015, with violent crime rising 27% on the previous year. Police blamed, among a couple of other things, being told to perform less stop and search. (

  7. Theedrich
    Posted October 12, 2016 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    Has Hillary signed a pact with hell? In days of yore, there were tales of such signings, but today we ascribe all such things to overheated religiosity in the Dark Ages. But what if such a thing is really possible? Given the incredible, deliberate media and governmental obfuscation shrouding the history of the banshee, the international criminality of every type surrounding her, the hysterical adulation of her mindless followers, and her truly preternatural corruption, perhaps it would be a good idea to consider seriously the play of an ultra-human Dark Force in her rise to the summit of power.

    Hitherto it has always been assumed by various religions that the incarnation of discarnate evil would be a man. But if a human embodiment of evil is indeed possible, then that assumption may be grossly mistaken. For there is no one in human history who has evaded the truth so successfully as the witch now clutching at the mace of power

    And when the devil’s mistress takes over the White House, we may be sure that there will be hell to pay.

    • Matthias
      Posted October 12, 2016 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

      I think it’s possible. I try to remain sceptical when confronted with the so-called occult, but have read enough well-sourced books during the years which also mention the links between powerful families and the practice of dark magic or human sacrifice. Not only in the Western world, but also e.g. in India, where centuries-old links exist between the sphere of political power, certain dynasties and a variety of esoteric sects and practices (e.g. the Aghoris).

    • uh
      Posted October 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      You don’t need the myth of the devil when you have the fact of the politician.

    • Kelly
      Posted October 14, 2016 at 6:44 am | Permalink

      This can’t be analyzed through a christian perspective. Charlemagne forced the conversion of our European ancestors at the point of the sword and that ideology must be thrown off and the understanding of our ancestors embraced to begin to understand. This is Ragnarok.

One Trackback

  • By Crime | Pearltrees on October 14, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    […] Aedon Cassiel, "Stop Being Frisky: Why Trump is Right about Stop and Frisk". 1,714 words In recent days, I’ve been hearing an abnormal amount of criticism of Donald Trump for “policies on race relations that basically amount to ‘reinstitute stop and frisk.’” As usual, the statements are being made in a tone that makes it obvious that the speaker considers it simply beyond the pale to question whether or not those stop and frisk policies were doing anything right. […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above