Quite A Correction

As I paged through the Times and slurped my morning coffee, some was spilled on this correction:

An article on Nov. 21 about a Rand Corporation study on street stops by the New York Police Department referred incorrectly at some points to an overall figure and misstated the number of individual officers who were found to be disproportionately more likely to stop whites. There were 508,540 street stops in 2006 — not 508,540 people stopped — and 13 officers, not 9, tended to stop whites more often. The article also misstated the finding of a racial disparity in the handing out of summonses. Whites are more likely — not less — to receive them. (Go to Article)

The fun began when I clicked through to the article in question.  Although it is flagged as having a correction appended, the original errors seem to have been revised away.  However, the attempted revisions failed a couple of basic tests of grammar and spelling.  This is what the Times is currently offering (but I bet/hope it changes [Now you see it, now you don't - apparently the Times has undone their attempted revisions]):

City Police Stop Whites Equally but Frisk Them Less, a Study Finds

By Al Baker
Correction Appended

Whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on the street in New York City. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest black or to use force against them Hispanic people, but more likely to give summomses to whites, according to a study released yesterday.

Geez - the police are more likely to use force against "them Hispanic people"?  And what are the white folk expected to do with these mysterious "summomses", anyway?  I fear we are creating a city of scofflaws.

One might wonder what the original paragraph said; although the NY Orwellian Times has disappeared it, excerpts live on elsewhere, including at reporter Al Baker's original blog posting; here is the original lead:

Whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on the street in New York City. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people — or to use force against them — according to a study released yesterday.

The study [was commissioned] by the Rand Corporation in March after it was revealed that the police stopped 508,540 people on the street last year.

Just to keep on eye on the Orwellian Times, here is the current UPDATE to the original blog post, which repeats the erroneous sentence verbatim (emphasis added):

Update: Specifically, the report found that whites and members of minorities have a roughly equal chance of being stopped by police officers and questioned on New York city streets. But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest or give summonses to black or Hispanic people — or to use force against them — according to a study released yesterday. This pattern held across black and white neighborhoods, but was most pronounced on Staten Island.

Mr. Baker did link to the report itself.

MORE:  In the comments we are informed that the police are *not* allowed to issue a summons if a person cannot establish their identity (presumably with a driver's license, for example).

Comments

[MayBee]

But officers are more likely to frisk, search, arrest black or to use force

Is "arrest black" kind of like Coke Black?

[TM]

Is "arrest black" kind of like Coke Black?

I assumed it was a black thing and didn't feel comfortable going there.

[bgates]

I fear we are creating a city of scofflaws.
Scofflaws, no. Scoffpapers, perhaps.

[GarandFan]

As with all these "studies" I've read over the years, NONE answer basic questions:

1. reason for stop?
2. subject stopped have valid ID?
3. subject on parole?
4. subject on probation?
5. subject arrested for drunk in public?
6. subject arrested for drug influence?
7. subject arrested for outstanding warrant?

The idiots running the 'studies' are not cops. They are bean counters. I'm surprised they did not come to the conclusion that the "street stops" did not occur according to racial percentages of the population.

Like I said, idiots.

[clarice]

Just taking a guess here, but with the latest studies showing how many illegal immigrants there are here (50% in Texas;30% in Miami),how likely is it that officers might consider a summons to Hispanics likely to be ignored?

[Mike]

One other interesting twist is that the study says the differences in searching are slight and go so far as to say that "While there is a gap, this difference is much
smaller than what the aggregate statistics indicated."

Needless to say, the Times skipped over this qualifier to meet their agenda.

[jimmyk]

The idiots running the 'studies' are not cops. They are bean counters.

They are also not economists, who have understood for a long time how to "count beans" correctly. You look at percentage of arrests among those stopped for each group. Or the percentage of contraband among those frisked for each group. So if, for example, a disproportionate number of blacks were being pulled over, but of those pulled over in each group, a similar percentage ended up being arrested, then the cops are doing the right thing.

[Bruce (NYPD Retired)]

Bingo, clarice!

A summons may be issued "in lieu of" arrest, where the individual can be verified as to pedigree and residence. Where a persons pedigree CANNOT be verified, an officer is PROHIBITED from issuing a summons or Desk Appearance Ticket - he/she must be arrested and processed normally through the system so their ID can be established.

[Bruce (NYPD Retired)]

Bingo, clarice!

A summons may be issued "in lieu of" arrest, where the individual can be verified as to pedigree and residence. Where a persons pedigree CANNOT be verified, an officer is PROHIBITED from issuing a summons or Desk Appearance Ticket - he/she must be arrested and processed normally through the system so their ID can be established.

[hit and run]

A little Corner love from Andy McCarthy.

[Chris]

It's all in the "layers". You know, the fact-checkers and editors that separate the pros from the riff-raff and rabble.

[ian]

A few years back I read the NY State Attorney General's report about NYC police stop and frisk policies. The kicker was buried in a footnote: whites were more likely to be stopped without reasonable suspicion in NYC than non-whites, at least according to the analysis. Still haven't heard anyone charge the NYPD with anti-white racial profiling yet.

[cathyf]

whites were more likely to be stopped without reasonable suspicion in NYC than non-whites, at least according to the analysis. Still haven't heard anyone charge the NYPD with anti-white racial profiling yet.

I'm guessing the "whites stopped without reasonable suspicion in NYC" is a politically correct euphemism for "white people hanging about in black or hispanic neighborhoods, obviously there to buy drugs."

[ian]

Cathyf, maybe you should go actually read the report. A little effort can answer a lot of questions. It certainly beats guessing.

[Dennis D]

Stopping a Jewish Real Estate Salesperson in Queens must be as dangerous as stopping a car full of Hip Hop thugs in Spanish Harlem I suppose. Better search that Realtor who may have a SUBPRIME weapon in his car.