How do African Americans in Queensbridge organize and perceive their security, in the context of the ‘Stop‑Question‑and‑Frisk’ program in New York City?

How do African Americans in Queensbridge organize and perceive

their security, in the context of the ‘Stop-Question-and-Frisk’ program in

New York City?

(SN: 12524689) 26th _{June 2020} Word Count: 26,855

Supervisor: Dr. Floris F. Vermeulen Second Reader: Dr. David Laws

MSc Thesis, Conflict Resolution and Governance University of Amsterdam

Table of Contents Acknowledgements (3) 1. Introduction (4) 2. Literature Review (11) 3. Research Design (30) 4. Theoretical Framework (33) 5. Other Side of America (42)

• An Ongoing Crisis (59)

• Social Movements & Police Brutality (62) 6. Conclusion (71)

• Turning Point for Real Change (75) Bibliography (77)

For those who took the time to tell me their stories and memories During these unprecedented times

I thank you

For the African American community in Queensbridge and Queens, New York Thank you for allowing me into your lives

Your determination to fight and voice injustice has been encouraging I look forward to making a change in our city

To my family

Who have unconditionally believe in me and supported me during this process I love you

Rest in Peace William Antonio Daniels “Kiing Shooter” 1992 - 2020

3. Introduction

Michael Bloomberg’s “Stop and Frisk” policy was a policing strategy that deployed officers to stop and frisk individuals, particularly in minority communities. The majority of those arrested, 80 plus percent were people of color, usually young African American or Hispanic men. The police encounters during stops were, at times, violent, cops throwing kids against walls or on the hood of police cars while shouting and using profanity (Lopez, 2020). The intention behind this practice was to deter people from carrying firearms and other forms of dangerous weapons in public. The policy enforces New York City’s strict gun laws that disallow residents from obtaining, carrying, and possessing firearms in public spaces. This has caused disagreement between advocates of proactive crime practices ⎼ those being in support of the program for its intention to minimize crime in public places ⎼ and civil rights activists, who argue that the program violates the Fourth Amendment which is the protection against unlawful police searches and seizures (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

In the years following Bloomberg’s departure from office, New York City’s continued drop in crime, suggesting that aggressive use of police stops was not critical to the city’s safety. This controversial policy contained lasting effects on both the NYPD and residents of NYC. Specifically, affecting the practice of everyday life for many African Americans. Increased incarceration, death of Eric Garnier, black lives matter, police body cameras, and DNA profile of non-criminals are many of the consequences and outcomes from the policy. Evidence has emerged of harm created by a system dedicated solely to control and confinement of its targeted residents. Andrew Hicks, a doctoral candidate in public policy at Harvard, claimed that “there are, in fact, long-lasting effects of exposure to high levels of stop and frisk.” Students exposed to aggressive policing were most likely to drop out of school and not attend college. This is because these students went to schools where the frequent stops and police presence was pervasively establishing a fear or distrust of authority, which might have impeded their education. Researchers found that increased police stop and chronic absenteeism correlate. All these kinds of disadvantages occur and build over time, worsening racial achievement gaps in society (Badger, 2020).

I am studying Conflict Resolution and Governance because I want to find out how the causes and consequences of conflict are examined in relation to the dynamics of public governance. Galtung’s concept of structural violence provides a framework in which to analyze persistent inequalities in outcomes and the impacts of controversial practices like stop and frisk. I think this is worth inquiring about in my thesis due to continued oppression and racial disparity in American society. I believe that all citizens deserve to be treated equally; however, in the United States, African American’s are excluded from social institutions that shape their lives. Additionally, I intend to link structural violence to social movements, being a primary social form through which collectivities organize their security by voicing out their concerns towards social institutions. My ambition is to continue addressing the systematic racism and social injustice in the United States. Equally essential to seek the truth and justice behind cases or policies that provoke doubt.

In my research, I want to focus on minorities, specifically African Americans, as they are incredibly marginalized and put at a disadvantage in American society. The case I will be examining is the discourse around the ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy and its long-lasting effects. Specifically, looking at how the policy, as mentioned earlier, affected practice in the daily lives of African Americans. I am interested in how African Americans in Queensbridge, New York organize and perceive their security in their community. I decided to study Queensbridge as I perceived it to be a compelling case for my thesis due to my familiarity with it. Growing up near Queensbridge and knowing many individuals who grew up there made it all more meaningful. Furthermore, I am also interested in exploring how the following motto “to protect and to serve” is comprehended differently by both the New York Police Department and residents of Queensbridge? So then, the gap in my knowledge pertains to why did the policy make it seem as being African American equals crime when in retrospect, African American’s are most affected by crime. This is compatible with how the ‘Stop, and Frisk’ policy changed the practice of everyday life in the African American community in Queensbridge and other parts of the city—as a result, making the intent and delivery of the policy as ineffective.

Research Topic

The stop-question-and-frisk program, in New York City, an New York City Police Department practice for temporarily detaining civilians.

Since its inception, New York City’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy has been subject to controversy. This pronounced debate comes from a system that permits police officers to stop, question, and frisk individuals who are suspected of committing, having committed, or in the action of committing a crime. The initial purpose of the policy is to protect the police and society. State officials and courts have reviewed the plan, recognizing racial profiling and violations of civil rights, but allowed the continuation of policy in New York City. The extension of ‘Stop and Frisk’ increased during Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure between 2002 and 2011. The number of individual stops in New York jumps from 97,296 to 685,724, creating public criticisms and calls for police oversight. However, Mayor Bloomberg defended his policy and argued that ‘Stop and Frisk has led to a rapid decrease in crime in New York City and rejected the notion of federal efforts to monitor the NYPD’s practice of the policy (Evans, D. N., Maragh, C., & Porter, J. R, 2014). This caused an attribution of causality, as Mayor Bloomberg indicated that the decrease in crime in New York City was due to the high numbers of stops.

Individual rights advocates stressed their concern regarding police behavior, suggesting the effects of police biases. Higher rates of ‘Stop and Frisk’ were correlated with specific neighborhood characteristics or demographic traits. Conversely, this leads to the discourse around racial bias in the NYPD’s policing tactics. Studies by both researchers and police departments proving that police stop racial and ethnic minority individuals more than whites. These studies support perceptions that once African Americans are stopped, they are more likely to be searched or arrested (Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A, 2007).

There is an inverse relationship between the Constitutionality and effectiveness of New York City “Stop and Frisk.” There are two different narratives based on New York City’s fight against crime. First narrative rails against New York City Police Department aggressive and racist tactics. It is shedding light on what is wrong with the criminal justice policy. The police force violates the free Fourth Amendment case law, as well as placing a burden on crime control on poor

minority youths. The second narrative, New York City, set an example as being a primary American jurisdiction that reduced crime while reducing the number of residents sent to prison. Both stories are supported by empirical evidence. As a result, evidence suggests that aggressive policing, crime reductions, and decreased incarceration may all correlate. Even though New York City’s aggressive policing tactics did reduce crime without increasing incarceration, it exacted a societal tool that is proven to be morally unexpectable to New Yorkers and politically unconstitutional. “The NYPD brought a taste of prison to the street.” Thousands of innocent New Yorkers endured hostile police practices that one would expect in confinement (Bellin, J, 2014).

Research Question

Within such a protracted and complex history of violence, discrimination, strife, and lose, how do African American people organize their security? Moreover, what specific role does perception play within the context of security? What is the correlation between organizing, resistance, and the perception that leads African Americans to successfully obtaining their security? In answering these questions, this paper will aim to pursue the research question of:

How does African American in Queensbridge organize and perceive their security, in the context of the ‘Stop-Question-and-Frisk’ program in New York City?

The main component elements of this research are as followed: organization, perception, and security. These elements will establish the foundation of this paper and serve as the central guiding elements to the research and data gathering process. The objective of the paper will then be to obtain a deeper and more distinct understanding of how African Americans in

Queensbridge interlink organization, perceived security, and security, within the context of the ‘Stop and Frisk’ program. Organization relates to perception and security as they help shape perspectives and process knowledge in obtaining protection. This will happen by engaging with the African American community residing in Queensbridge, New York, via a series of interviews aimed at getting narratives of organizations and their perception of security.

Outline

The first chapter of this thesis will present a literature review, through which precedent literature and theories will provide a critical evolution concerning the long-lasting effects of ‘Stop and Frisk’. In doing so, this literature review will outline the relationship between the organization, perceived security, and security, as well as show how the misuse of the policy has contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. My research only adds to the scholarly conversation of police brutality and its impact in underserved communities, such as Queensbridge, New York. Furthermore, it will be highlighted that the inherent link between race, neighborhood, and police stop all help form the perception of security of specific collectives. As some perceive, they are targeted by the police instead of being protected by them, creating a public opinion. However, this chapter will also shed light on the phycological distress resulting from police encounters, causing significant trauma and humiliation.

The second chapter will plan a research design to engage with African Americans in Queensbridge. I will be exploring how they organize and perceive their security within their practice of everyday life in a community with oppressive police occupation. In doing so, I will highlight the critical information pertinent or relevant in the literature review and use that to formulate my semi-structured interview questions. The use of semi-structured interviews will justify my central method of data collection. The precedent literature review will contextualize the case selection (stop and frisk) and how the nature of security legitimizes for the study of the Queensbridge community. The research design will then address the COVID 19 pandemic, which altered the interview process, shifting to online interviewing. Finally, reflecting on the impact of COVID 19 on my research method and how it was conducted.

The third chapter will establish a theoretical framework grounded in theories of structural violence and social movement. This chapter will be used to limit the scope of the relevant data on ‘Stop and Frisk’ by focusing on structural violence and social mobility. Through this specific viewpoint of my framework, I will use it to analyze and interpret the data gathered in my

interviews. The first section will provide a framework based on Galtung (1969) article Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Indeed, essential in understanding the concept of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may oppress people realizing their full potential in

society. The second section will seek to transition from structural violence to social movement, through which minorities organize in a specific context to resist structural violence and help manage their security. As many underserved neighborhoods have tarnished relationships with the police, residents turn to social movements, such as community centers, to help with their

security. Due to the collateral consequences resulting from the misuse and overuse of ‘Stop and Frisk,’ collectives voice their injustice through social movements. Snow, Soule, and Kriesi’s (2004) literature The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements will seek to operationalize the central characteristics of social action and how each feature is exemplified. I will use their approach in chapter three and describe the book and its framework in more detail. Within this, I will be focusing on the following aspects: mapping the terrain, resources, and social movement mobilization, and leadership.

The fourth chapter will present how the interviewees develop their stories around how they organized and perceived their security based on their encounters with New York City Police Department officers. Also, how deeply the ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy continues to impact

individuals, groups, and communities in New York City. In doing so, the interview stories will be inductive, providing specific examples, formulating most of the context of this chapter to be quoted. Their quotes will be characteristic of how the interviews developed their stories by highlighting patterns and themes within their accounts.

The fifth chapter will serve to analyze the data of the preceding chapter in linkage with the outlined theoretical framework. The first section will present both theoretical and empirical evidence to analyze the data collected through a structural violence scope. The second section will build on the precedent by showing the ways in which African Americans can organize to mobilize their resistance towards structural violence and perceive security. The last part of this chapter will argue that the interviews jointly constitute to what Galtung (1969) attested to, “structural violence often breeds structural violence.” This can be seen in New York City, specifically Queensbridge, where the NYPD continues to use an old illegal police tactic to maintain authority between the residents and the police force. Moreover, individuals subject to ‘Stop and Frisk’ stops must live with the emotional, psychological, social, and economic impact on their lives.

Lastly, the last chapter will be concluding and summarizing the findings of the paper in relation to my research question. Identifying limitations and suggesting areas that need future research. Overall, this paper will argue that by incorporating theories of structural violence and social movement, it will help contextualize African American’s everyday life in relation to organizing their security within an environment enacting aggressive police tactics, such as ‘Stop and Frisk’. Racial profiling and searches based on illegal profiling is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. NYPD stop and frisk program impacts New York City, harming many of underserved communities in the city. This discriminatory and harmful abuse must end, and the NYPD should be held accountable, as their role is to “Serve and protect.”

2. Literature Review

Bias (targeting vulnerable populations)

Since the 1990s, a public debate immersed in the United States, there was a troublesome impression throughout the country regarding police harassment of vulnerable minority groups in their encounters with officers. Concerns were based around police stopping individuals based on their race. More matter was stressed on racial bias in pedestrian stops of civilians by police. This was a form of policing strategy, based in minority communities, attempting to enforce quality of life crimes by targeting illegal guns or drugs (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007). The lasting effects of stop and Frisk have translated into years of angry reactions within minority communities, as a result breaching trust with the police. This provoked a crisis of legitimacy, as the police motto ‘to protect and to serve’ became apprehended differently by minority groups. In New York City, the New York Police Department (NYPD) used aggressive stops and searches of civilians for numerous crimes as their crime-stopping strategy in the 1990s. The NYPD was recognized for the decrease in crime, however towards the end of the decade, a large number of complaints of misconduct towards minority communities were filed (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007).

Previous studies imply the relationship between racial characteristics and racial composition of the suspects’ neighborhoods influence police to engage in stops, searches, or arrests. Gelman et al. (2007) identified the central role that behavioral cues play in policing and how their employment varies along with differences in identifying suspects. Police are most likely to not rely on behavioral cues when gaining suspicion of a minority suspect leading to a stop. Yet, police rely more on behavioral cues when viewing a white citizen as a suspect. Then, the spatial concentration and disparate impacts of crimes committed by minorities vindicate the police to use aggressive policing in minority communities (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007).

People of color, especially Black and Latino young men, are the groups of people most impacted by ‘Stop and Frisk.’ The Center for Constitutional Rights analysis of ‘Stop and Frisk’ data showed that race is the primary reason in determining who the NYPD stops, predominantly in neighborhoods with people of color. Even in areas where the population is racially mixed or white-dominant, Black and Latino are still more likely to be stopped than white people (Zamani,

2012). When dealing with similar crimes, Blacks and Latinos receive harsher treatment than Whites, being more likely to be arrested and have force used against them, whereas Whites would be given a summons instead (Zamani, 2012).

The lasting effects: The impact of Stop and Frisk on individuals

Scholars stress that the use of stop and Frisk has come at the expense of racial and ethnic conflict, compromised police legitimacy, and devastating effects on citizens’ emotional and physical welfare. When the police exercise ‘Stop and Frisk’ in a racially biased way, they are engaging in a violation of the constitution. Stop, and frisk tactics have overly targeted minority citizens in mostly poor communities. In 1999, New York state attorney general Spitzer stressed that 15% of the stops examined did not entail reasonable suspicion, thus unconstitutional. In 2006, the NYPD requested that RAND Corporation conduct a study on claims of racial bias. Results showed that racial disparity was present in more than 500,000 stops conducted that year. Of those stopped, 89 percent were nonwhite (53% were black, 29 Hispanic, 11 were white). “Forty-five percent of Black and Hispanic suspects were frisked, compared with 29 percent of white suspects; yet, when frisked, white suspects were 70 percent likelier than Black suspects to have had a weapon on them” (Morrow, 2016).

The discourse surrounding the NYPD’s stop and frisk practice almost focus on racial and ethnic disproportionality without really acknowledging what occurs during the stops: the use of force by police. The notion of proportionality arises, as residents tend to experience more severe police force than unnecessary, impacting their everyday practice. However, this issue lacks research, and as, a result it becomes concerning. Given that this issue has a far-reaching number of consequences, such as critical injuries and death to the officer of suspect, community disturbance, and the tarnished police-community relations. The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Freddie Gray’s in Baltimore caused significant civil disorder highlighting the point above. Law enforcement practice has historically been “conditioned by broader social forces and attitudes—including a long history of racism.” There is reason to believe that the police use force during encounters with ethnic minority communities during stop and frisk stops (Morrow, 2016).

Weisburd argued that “You can have a short-term effect on crime with Stop and Frisk, and crime goes down. But now you’ve alienated 260 kids that were stopped in ways that made them unhappy. It may lead to worse citizens in the future” (p.109). The quote above originates from an existing study that can be used to illustrate the discourse surrounding ‘Stop and Frisk.’ Moreover, researchers claim that negative encounters between the police and citizens can form feelings of helplessness, resentment, and anger among minority communities (Morrow, 2016). Several studies concluded that as a result of the disparate treatment of racial minorities in New York has caused for youths in NYC to distrust the police. It is making them feel uneasy when having encounters with the police and view the contact as unfavorable and adverbial.

A study led by Vera Institute of Justice surveyed the effects of young people’s perceptions of being stopped by the NYPD and reported several interesting results. First, 44% of adolescents from New York City surveyed stated they had been stopped repeatedly, nine times or more. Second, 29 percent reported being informed why they were being stopped. Third, 71% of young people claimed to have been frisked at least once, and 64% said they had been searched. Next, 45% reported an officer threatened them, and 46% claimed to experience physical force by an officer. Then, one out of four said they were part of a stop in which the officer drew his or her weapon. Also, 61% argued that the way the officer behaved towards them was based on their age. Lastly, 57% of people specified that they were mistreated due to their race or ethnicity. To conclude these findings, it is no shock that “88 percent of young people surveyed believe that residents of their neighborhood do not trust the police.” However, many studies have found that minority youths appreciate positive encounters with police and wanted police presence in their neighborhood, but their actual encounters with officers most of the time were aggressive and harmful (Morrow, 2016).

One in ten stops and frisks result in an arrest, affecting tens of thousands of New Yorkers yearly. Such arrest follows a cascade of collateral consequences, even if the individual is found innocent. Criminal convictions can result in individuals becoming ineligible for public housing, student loans, legal immigration status, and becoming a U.S citizen. Other consequences of arrests can impact work or losing a job due to being unable to show up for work, or the impact on a family if the breadwinner gets a criminal record (Morrow, 2016).

‘Stop and Frisk’ is the first encounter that specific groups in particular areas have with the police, which then becomes the point of entry into the criminal legal system. The legal system is an experience that plays a significant role in the way that individuals make sense of subsequent encounters with the police. Many plead guilty to unjustified accusations just to get out of jail quickly to avoid the convictions for more severe charges and return to their families. Several people stressed to the CCR that even the stops that do result in a lawful arrest, the fact that these arrests originate from illegal profiling means that people of color and other target groups are the ones who end up with criminal records. Having a criminal record creates a snowball effect. It follows you for the rest of your life, you start to have a reputation, and more arrests mean more prison time (Zamani, 2012).

Individuals from specific neighborhoods raised concern in existing studies such as Mark, a 27-year-old man from the South Bronx, stated that (Zamani, 2012, p.8), “White people use drugs in the same amount if not more than Black people, but it’s Black communities that are targeted, stigmatized, and put in the media on the front page.”

Unemployment is a consequence of being arrested, as it leaves people failing in the criminal legal system. By the time an individual is arrested, moved from the precinct to the courthouse where they await a judge, they have lost enough time to lose their jobs. People lose their employment due to not being able to show up for work. Once people are released, they have to start from scratch and search for another job to take care of themselves and their families. However, having a criminal record makes it more challenging to obtain a role, as well as making any future conviction increasingly severe. Once a person has been arrested three times, they become a felon. When a felony is attached to somebody, they now have a terrible reputation as a “hardcore criminal” and they can’t get a job (Zamani, 2012).

The impact of stop and Frisk also affects extended family members. Children, parents, siblings, and other family members are subjected to witness their family and community members being regularly profiled, disrespected, assaulted, forced to remove clothing in public by NYPD officers. Some families have to live with the effects of the arrest of a loved one, a burden that can be heavy for children (Zamani, 2012).

The Center for Constitutional Rights held interviews with fifty-four individuals who were subjects of stop and Frisk by the NYPD and is intended to provide a clear picture of the “human impact” of the police practice. Based on the interviews, the recurring themes were based on a wide range of belligerent behavior during the stops. The aforementioned behaviors consisted of inappropriate touching and sexual harassment, police brutality, trauma, and humiliation. These interviews shed light on how deeply this police practice affected citizens and the violation of civil and human rights abuses. The impact of these abuses can be demoralizing and cause long-lasting effects such as emotional, physiological, social, and economic harm (Morrow, 2016).

Implementation of ‘Stop & Frisk’

Terry v. Ohio 1968 was a crucial United States Supreme Court case that influenced the implementation of the policy. The case revolved around the ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy practice and whether it violated the United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court stated that the police practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public without probable cause is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As long as an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that a suspect may be committing a crime, about to commit a crime, or is planning to commit a crime, then it is justifiable as it is preventing a crime (Terry v Ohio. (n.d.). Since the 1968 verdict in Terry v. Ohio, ‘stop and frisk’ activities have become a crucial weapon in combating crimes for many police departments across the United States.

In 2002, when Bloomberg took office, crime persisted as one of the top concerns in New York City. New Yorkers were fed up as it was not long ago since the city hit its peak in murders in 1990. Coming into office Mayor Bloomberg incorporated the “broken windows” philosophy, which stated that police could stop all kinds of crime by policing the lowest level offenses (Lopez, 2020). Thus, Bloomberg, alongside Ray Kelly (police commissioner), vastly expanded stop and Frisk (Lopez, 2020). During the tenure of Mayor Bloomberg, from 2002 to 2013, the NYPD stopped and questioned individuals they suspected to be engaging in criminal activity on the street. Young Black and Latino made up the majority number of men who were searched and detained

for weapons that rarely appeared. In 2009, black and Latino people in NY were 9/10 as likely to be stopped by the police compared to white residents (Southall and Gold, 2019).

Although, during Mayor Bloomberg’s 11-year duration, there were 7,363 fewer murders in New York City compared to the 11 years before the Mayor taking office (Morrow, 2016). Before Bloomberg, Giuliani was New York City’s Mayor from 1994 to 2002. He also implemented the ‘Stop and Frisk policy’ which helped reduce the crime and homicide rates (Lee, 2016). However, this trend of decline started before Giuliani took office himself (Lee, 2016). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stated that violent crime rates began to decrease in 1989 and continued to decline through Giuliani and Bloomberg (Lee, 2016). Criminal justice experts claim that there are several crime factors that affect crime rates. Between 1994 and 2013, population, economy, and gentrification significantly impacted NYC’s decrease in crime (Lee, 2016). Ames Grawert, Justice Program counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, stated that not a single policy nor an only mayor explains the remarkable decline in crime (Lee, 2016).

Stop and frisk encounters in New York were recorded on UF 250 forms. This form provides information on the basis for the official statistics on Stop and Frisk. Officers may not have filled a form during each encounter; thus, the NYPD’s database may not capture all stop and frisks. It’s believed that the NYPD may have only documented only 70% of all stop and frisks. This was alarming because it suggested that the non-reported encounters may have been problematic. In 2012, the Civilian Complaint Review Board discovered that 20% of the complaints they received regarding stop and frisk stops were not recorded on a UF 250 form (Morrow, 2016). The effectiveness of stop and Frisk in obtaining gun seizures and arrest were modest and declined with time. “In 2003, for instance, the NYPD recovered 627 guns through 160,851 stops, meaning that 0.3 percent of stops resulted in gun seizures. In 2011, at the SQF policy’s peak, the discovery of illegal firearms declined even further” (Morrow, 2016).

Deterrence Philosophy

Deterrence theory has served as a core foundation for several criminal justice policies and practices throughout the United States. This theory is used by government officials to frighten their citizens from committing crimes. According to deterrence theory, people are deterred from committing a crime if they know it comes with specific and severe punishment. Proponents of deterrence believe that punishing offenders severely will make them reluctant from reoffending again. As the crime rates were on the decline in New York City, Mayor Giuliani and Bloomberg enacted ‘Stop and Frisk’ as a way to publicly generalize the deterrent effect, preventing others in the city from committing crimes. They believed this would successfully help protect society and serve to change behaviors in the future.

Deterrence based philosophy is the justification for the increased use of stop and Frisk between 2003 and 2011 in New York. Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham claimed that “people are rational actors who choose to engage in behavior only after performing a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the pros and cons by balancing the pleasure to be gained from the behavior against the potential pain that the conduct might engender, especially if punishment follows” (p.92). The logic behind this theory is that ‘stop and frisk’ stop crimes from happening via two mechanisms. First, due to deterrence, it causes a reduction in crime because individuals who have had run-ins with the police before will avoid engaging in the behavior in the future that will cause them to draw the attention of the police—refraining from engaging in suspicious or criminal activities. Second, through a deterrence outlook, citizens may refrain from criminal behavior because they have witnessed stop and frisk encounters and want to avoid the possibility of being stopped themselves (Morrow, 2016).

Low numbers of arrest and confiscation rates of NYPD stops are often a point of conflict in the discourse of deterrence. Critiques argue that the low “return” rates reveal that the policy is ineffective and strongly insinuate racial discrimination (Morrow, 2016, p.93). Critiques argued this because, in 2003, the second year of Mayor Bloomberg’s term, the NYPD managed to seize 627 guns over160, 851 stop and frisk encounters. A success rate of one gun for every 266 stops is not deemed efficient, nor does it fit with the reasonable suspicion standard. So, all the stops that resulted in unsuccessful seizers only served to impact individuals negatively. However, NYC

officials and the NYPD, claiming that the low numbers of arrest and gun seizure demonstrate the deterrent significance of the practice. “Knowing there is a strong likelihood the police will stop them, the argument goes, deters would-be offenders from carrying weapons and contraband or otherwise engaging in criminal activity” (Morrow, 2016, p.93).

Despite the adoption of the ‘Stop and Frisk’ program by the NYPD and the optimism by Mayor Bloomberg, the program created skepticism about the effectiveness of the stops, and the impact on crime was modest. The effect of stops and frisks are not restricted to those who are subject to them or those who witness them throughout their daily lives. Such policy affects the entire city, as many communities continue to be targeted and mistreated. This directly or indirectly impacts all citizens of the city, as their opinion on the effectiveness of the policy is split (Zamani, 2012). Some support the policy because of the perception that it helps reduce crime and protect law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, others feel it is motivated by racial or age-based bias and limits the rights of citizens in public spaces.

A significant problem regarding NYPD’s aggressive use of stop and Frisk continues to have substantial damage to police-community relations in ways that may negatively impact public safety. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) findings, several individuals claimed they would not call the police if needed due to prior experiences that resulted in unproductive outcomes, such as the police failing to act or just turned against them. Many people interviewed by the CCR stressed that stops and frisks are the reason why communities hesitate to cooperate with police and allows for, “real crime to continue because the community and the police aren’t working together because the community doesn’t trust the police” (Zamani, 2012, p.15). Thus, many people expressed that aggressive police practice was a waste of public resources.

The stop and frisk policy made it seem like being Black equaled crime when, in reality, Blacks are more affected by crime. The sheer number of stops is excluding a lot of people who live in communities that are impacted by crime. How does the NYPD spend so many hours, energy and resources, to stop so many innocent people and result in the very minimal output? The number of guns recuperated from the stops is relatively small; thus, it doesn’t seem practical. A negative perception of the police means no sense of protecting and serving the people (Zamani, 2012).

Neighborhood

Neighborhoods play an essential role in the ‘Stop and Frisk’ program and the context of claims of racial bias. Historically, legal and social trends have established the stage for the discussion on race and policing. African Americans and other minority groups have become subjects to close surveillance by the police daily. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), stated that a location’s characteristics are significant in determining if one’s behavior is sufficiently alarming to warrant further investigation. “High crime areas” often have concentrated poverty, subsidized public housing, and dominant minority residents, which places them at risk for elevating the suspiciousness of their residents. Studies have implied that both racial characteristics of suspects and the composition of their neighborhood influence police decisions to engage in police stops, search, or arrest. Minority residents sense the formation of suspicion among police officers towards them, indicating that they are targets (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2007). Alpert MacDonald and Dunham instituted that that police are more likely to view a minority citizen as suspicious, leading to a police stop (Alpert, MacDonald, & Dunham, 2005).

Where one lives may influence their attitude toward police. Studies show that the location of residence, neighborhood context, and victimization may moderate impact attitudes toward police. “Kusow, Wilson, and Martin (1997) observed that residential location might affect perceptions of police performance more than race.” Individuals living in small towns may have more positive attitudes compared to those living in urban areas. Black and White citizens who live in the suburbs tend to be more satisfied with police performance than both black and white inner-city residents. Though, African Americans are still more likely to be pulled over while driving. Indeed, neighborhood characteristics play a significant role in determining public opinion regarding the police (Dowler, Kenneth & Sparks, Raymond, 2008). This is due to social class (Income & Education), those who have lower incomes, fewer years of formal education, and who rented homes held less favorable attitudes than citizens who owned their homes, achieved high education accolades and received higher incomes. The present findings correlate with the idea that contact with the police is an essential determinant of citizens’ attitudes. Police department agencies influence the opinions of their citizens through their contact (Frank, Smith, & Novak, 2005). Studies have stressed that direct contact with officers affect citizen satisfaction with police to a certain degree. Negative encounters with officers’ result in unfavorable perceptions of them, and

equally, positive encounters result in favorable opinions of police officers (Ferguson, 2008). This is significant in how African Americans perceive their security and, based on their demographic context, how they mobilize through social movements. So, citizens who live in suburban areas may experience a more positive interaction with the police due to their neighborhood demographics and less police presence, compared to minority citizens living in a poor neighborhood with heavy police presence. Police officers may alter their level of friendliness or respect based on the neighborhood demographics; if it’s a “high crime area,” they tend to be more aggressive bias.

Neighborhood disorder with a perceived higher number of problems was shown to be more likely to have negative opinions on the police. Living in “high crime areas” causes a lot of neighborhood disorder due to its reputation for gun crime, gang-related violence, and drugs. This refers to the breakdown of order and social control, undermining the quality of life and putting communities at a disadvantage (Gracia, 2014). On the other hand, neighborhoods with greater ‘collective efficacy’ higher levels of easy social control and social cohesion were linked with more positive attitudes toward police. Regardless of race, areas with high crime held a general level of dissatisfaction. Citizens in high crime areas may see the police as ineffective in the prevention of crime or believed the police presence and behavior were excessive. Black residents of low crime neighborhoods and perceptions of neighborhood safety were positive concerning the increase of police performance among blacks. Blacks in high crime areas feel like the presence of the police accord them with little dignity (Dowler, Kenneth & Sparks, Raymond, 2008).

Attitude towards the police

New York City’s Stop and Frisk program has been an NYPD practice for many years. A study of public opinion reveals citizens’ views of the policy. Several demographic factors were used to demonstrate the results of attitudes toward ‘Stop and Frisk.’ Minorities and younger citizens held fewer positive views, and these views were linked to living in New York City, having less education, being unemployed, having lower income, not being married, no children, having been frisked before, and indirect run-ins with the NYPD. The results gave perceptions of the demographic and experimental factors that influence attitudes toward the policing policy. (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015). Analyzing public views toward police is crucial for understanding

how police and citizens come together to address crime in the community. A neighborhood’s support of police is inherently essential to the safety of the public. Police usually count on the cooperation of the people to protect law-abiding citizens and efficiently enforce the law. However, if citizens do not have a positive attitude towards the police, they may be less likely to report or assist in resolving a crime. Generally, citizens usually hold a positive attitude regarding their local police; however, this positivity is not evenly distributed throughout society. These views are influenced by numerous factors, such as contact with police, indirect contact with police, media, demographic factors of citizens, and neighborhood conditions (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

Contact determinants, the citizen’s experience with the police, is a critical factor in determining attitudes towards the police. Studies found that people who had unsatisfactory encounters with the police were less likely to have a positive perception of them. Negative encounters with officers’ cause for unfavorable opinions of them. Conversely, positive encounters add to citizens’ positive perceptions of police officers. Police contact can be voluntary or, in some cases, involuntary, depending on each, it can affect citizens’ attitudes toward the police. Inadvertent encounters with police, those in which an officer randomly stops a citizen, results in more negative attitudes towards police officers.

On the other hand, citizens who contact the police voluntarily have more positive attitudes regarding the police. However, according to empirical research, there is an inverse relationship between contact with police and attitudes toward police. When citizens initiate contact with police, which results in a negative experience, they tend to hold negative feelings towards police officers (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

Indirect contact with the police also affects citizens’ attitudes toward them. Studies display that a lot of citizens do not have much contact with police officers, so the experience of family or friends in their lives have a reflective effect on their perceptions. The personal experiences that their family or friends have had with the police are expressed in forms of stories and conversations. These indirect experiences become the primary source used by others to assess the police informally. So, if the indirect experiences are negative it will result in negative attitudes, and vice versa (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015)

Mass media is another essential factor that plays a role in citizens’ attitudes towards the police. It’s another means through which stories about police and citizens’ encounters are spread. Media portrayals and broadcastings of stories involving police and citizens interactions have a strong influence on public opinion. Everyone nowadays has a cell phone with the capability of cell phone video. Videotaped police and citizens encounters have become a popular source of news over the years. These videos are posted on social platforms that hold millions of views, which affects the public perception of police. Studies show that those who use news media platforms tend to believe that police misconduct happens regularly. Another study showed that news media consumption of police experiences involving misconduct did not alter attitudes toward police, but it increased the perception of police being guilty (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

Demographic factors have a significant impact on citizen attitudes toward police. When social class (income & education) is taken into account; it can affect citizens’ attitudes toward police. Studies have found a positive relationship between income and attitudes toward police (Dowler, Kenneth & Sparks, Raymond, 2008). The CCR perceived that low income or working-class citizens are more likely to be targeted and harassed by the NYPD. This is in part due to poor communities being less likely to fight criminal charges, pay tickets, or take action against the NYPD for false arrests (Zamani, 2012). As a result, the NYPD uses this to their advantage as they often bend the rules and abuse their authority during encounters with citizens in these communities. The treatment individuals in NYC receive from the NYPD depends on their status in society, so if you are part of the lower class, you’re at a disadvantage as the police know you lack the recourses to fight back legally. A lot of people who spoke with the CCR claimed that they believe the address shown on their ID is a factor in establishing how an individual in a police encounter will be treated. As a result, due to the fear of being stopped by the police has led people to alter their clothing styles to avoid being perceived by police as a low-income individual (Zamani, 2012).

Age another demographic factor that plays a role in establishing attitudes towards the police. Youth tend to express less support of the police compared to older adults. African American youths have disproportionately more contact with the police than other age groups. Also, youths are more likely to be subject to the unnecessary police force and harassment during police contact, all of which influence their perceptions. Youths seem to be more critical of police compared to

other age groups, especially when they come from urban neighborhoods, and believe that crime is an issue in their community (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

A neighborhood’s condition influences attitudes that citizens have toward police. Characteristics of communities and their requirements are one of the most critical factors that foretell attitudes toward police. Residents who live in urban neighborhoods, concentrated with poverty, unemployment, and street crime, tend to be more distrustful of police and are subject to a higher chance of arrest compared to residents of suburban neighborhoods. Studies have proven that residents from areas with higher rates of poverty tend to have negative attitudes with police. Equally, those who live in communities with higher levels of life are more satisfied with police (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

Stops and frisks have impacted the lives of the youth in many communities in New York City. Many of the people who spoke with the CCR expressed how youth are unfairly targeted by the police practice, especially those of color. The CCR’s stop and frisk data confirm that individuals aged 25 and under made up 55 percent of all stops in 2011. Laverne (Zamani, 2012), a 43-year-old African American woman living in the Bronx expressed that, “the young ones are getting stopped all the time. It’s become a way of life to them.” Furthermore, the CCR documented worrying reports of children being stopped by the NYPD on their way to and from school, making kids feel like criminals. This is part of the broader phenomenon of creating a process that lures low-income children and children of color from the school system into the criminal legal system (Zamani, 2012).

Public attitudes toward police have an important effect on society as a whole. Favorable attitudes correlate with a higher likelihood that citizens will help police in addressing crimes. Whereas those citizens who hold negative attitudes toward police are less willing to cooperate with police, thus less keen on reporting crimes, and more likely to display resistance towards police authority. Unfavorable attitudes toward police expand the social divide between citizens and police, forming social movements against police, especially in high profile events involving police violence. Occurrences of police killings of unarmed minorities have affected some individuals in how they perceive the police—leading to public riots and displays of violence. The relationship

between police and citizens is essential in maintaining public order, and public opinion towards police has a significant influence on that liaison (Evans, Douglas & Williams, 2015).

It is crucial to note that attitudes about police are influenced by attitudes toward the criminal justice system, political institutions, and society. However, in this study, I am interested in attitudes toward a specific police practice, ‘stop and frisk’.

Finding a safe/secure home

Usage of home in the sense of the neighborhood as a point of focus for stop and frisk allows one to identify the sociopolitical consequences of the practice as a mass phenomenon. The feeling of unsafeness caused by the insecurity of the homeplace is an essential mechanism of discipline and communication from institutions of power. It reminds citizens to act accordingly as well as forming a narrative in which the object of the stop is made as criminal (Wright, 2016). Bell Hooks argues (1990), the purpose of the practice has no right to have “access to private space where we [Black people] do not directly encounter white racist aggression.”

“The idea of home…. carries critical liberating potential because it expresses unique human values,” augured Iris Marion Young (1997, p.135). Here, she argues that home is a site which “supports one’s life activities” (Young 1997, p.149). The aforementioned quote demonstrated by Iris Marion Young stresses the importance of the conception of the home as an environment that supports one’s ability to reach their full potential in society, without limitations. A real home allows one to feel recognized as a citizen of their community. The development of liberation, establishing an identity that helps the process of expansion of one’s agency (Wright, 2016).

Young recommends a vision of the home that is characterized by stability—allowing residents to know a place intimately. There are two levels in the materializing of identity in the house. Initially, one’s belonging is arranged in a space that supports their bodily habits and routines. The maintenance of a safe, self-created home allows individuals to form themselves in time and space as powerful agents. Other complementary arguments stress that a homeplace is a place of self-creation where African Americans emphasize their moral status as human beings, but also a site for resistance towards structures of oppression. This is important because the creation

and maintenance of such a homeplace allow an individual to attempt self-liberation. The process of being free which requires the ability to imagine oneself as a whole person. Living in a secure homeplace which adopts physical and mental integrity from which the individual can become free (Wright, 2016).

Stop and frisk has proven to impact the essential elements of a safe home negatively. Citizens feel out of place and lost. Individuals who live in highly surveilled neighborhoods and fit the criteria of suspicious or fit for being stopped feel the sense of not being adequately located, as they become noticeable for police intervention. The police surveillance becomes normalized while the practice of stop and frisk is built as out of place. Cresswell (2003, 1906) “argues that the construction of being out of place is an indication that the individual has committed a transgression by violating the “common-sense link between place and the things that go on in it (Wright, 2016).” Stop-and-frisk marks the actions of daily life—standing, talking, walking—as transgressive. And yet, these actions are marked as transgressive within one’s home territory, compounding the harm done to the individuals and communities most affected by the coercion of the carceral state.” This ties well with how African Americans in Queensbridge organize themselves within their daily lives. Social movements, such as community centers, help mobilize their residents in efforts to secure their safety and avoid contact with the police.

Many individuals shared with the CCR that they felt as if they were “trespassing” at home. The NYPD would harass residents outside their buildings, asking for proof that they live in their building or were accused of trespassing. Young residents believe that trapping themselves inside of their apartment was the only way to avoid being harassed by the police. This then leads towards a sense of normality for residents who experience daily harassment from the NYPD. An environment so saturated with hostile police occupation, that being stopped and harassed by the police had become a daily routine. Residents who spoke to CCR explained that harassment was so frequent that it wasn’t a topic of conversation anymore, it was expected. Their environment is incompatible with a free society (Zamani, 2012). The presence of stop and frisk alters one’s homeplace into a set of physical and mental insecurity, also disrupting the process of self-liberation.

Living under surveillance

The idea of ‘home’ for many African Americans means being watched by the police in their practice of daily life, making them anxious about their security. Living under surveillance is an outcome of ‘Stop and Frisk’ as the cops observe for criminal activity. Many residents of color feel that their communities are under siege due to the stop and frisk practices. People who spoke to the CCR compared specific neighborhoods in NYC to “occupied territory.” A region under substantial police occupation with community residents that are at odds with the police department. These policing practices have formed a more significant separation gap between the NYPD, and the communities they police are unable to go about their daily lives without experiencing harassment by the police. Member of the population do not feel protected by the NYPD, and many thinks that the real issues in their communities are not being addressed, in part, because focuses its resources into stops and frisks (Zamani, 2012).

New Yorkers who interviewed with the CCR expressed that the presence of the police in their neighborhoods is so intense that it impacts every aspect of their daily lives. They argued that just being in the hallway, stairwells, elevators, in front of their building, on the corner, or while driving, put them at risk. Police encounters became part of resident’s daily activities in specific neighborhoods. Thus, some have incorporated routines to prepare for police encounters by always carrying their ID or piece of mail to prove where they lived (Zamani, 2012).

Many New Yorkers would avoid driving or walking on the street as much as possible, taking public transportation to avoid being stopped while walking. Several people shared to the CCR, the feeling of not being able to fully engage with their neighborhood due to the NYPD being on the block all day, forcing many to stay indoors. Residents hold this constant fear that police will intimidate and harass them. Stuff residents would do in their community, such as sitting on their front porch or going to the store, which is a risk factor. They expressed that their agency is limited because of police presence in the street all the time (Zamani, 2012). Living under surveillance erodes the resident’s freedom and damages the social composition of societies by opening the door to flawed and illegal practices of citizens of the community.

“High crime area”

The justification given by police to residents who experience heavy police presence within their neighborhoods is due to the high levels of crime. The term “high crime area” was first used by the Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams. Under existing Supreme Court guide, reviewing courts are permitted to consider that an area is a “high crime area” as a factor to evaluate the rationality of the Fourth Amendment stop (Ferguson, Andrew, 2008). The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Kim, 2017). The goal of this amendment is to protect citizen’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by government authority.

Citizens in “high crime areas” have different Fourth Amendment protections than they would in other areas in the same city or state. This development presents a crucial difference regarding the equal constitution protection for all citizens. Equal protection is addressed in the fourteenth amendment, guaranteeing all citizens of the United States, “equal protection of laws” (History, 2020). The term “high crime area” has become a familiar rational in legitimating the police conduct of stopping an individual. However, the Supreme Court has never defined what exactly is a “high crime area”. Judicial courts or police officers rarely explain why a particular area is considered to be a high crime. Rarely is there any analysis on what objective, valid, or empirical data the police have based their conclusion on. The high crime area designation is almost never empirically supported with facts or evidence. Thus, citizens, Fourth Amendment constitutional protections are distorted without proper reasoning to support the change (Ferguson, Andrew, 2008).

The NYPD tells residents the reason why they are being stopped is that they reside in a “high crime.” This defies the supreme court’s ruling declaring it unconstitutional to prevent an individual from merely being in a “high crime” area. The NYPD is known for citing “high crime area” as a factor in justifying their stops, even in neighborhoods with lower crime rates (Zamani, 2012).

The NYPD reported a peak in numbers of murders and shootings in Astoria’s 114 precincts, Queens. Deputy inspector Oswaldo Nunez, commander of the precinct, identified the violence at Ravenswood and Queensbridge houses. Deputy Nunez claimed that many of the shootings were from rival gangs, with between 15 and 30 members. There are five known gangs in Queensbridge houses and hold a longtime rivalry between gangs based in Ravenswood. The killings and shooting among the gangs are over minor issues, stressed Nunez (Law, 2018).

“A lot of the shootings are over disrespect,” Nuñez said. “Trivial things. It could be about a girl, a history of not liking each other. Retaliation. It’s hard to pinpoint” (Law, 2018, para. 10)

The community has taken measures to deescalate the violence by adding more NYPD officers at the public housing at night when most of the crimes occur. More officers are being assigned to street duty and even working overtime hours to help reduce violence. However, Nunez argued that the level of crime fluctuated year to year, “I think we’re having a bad year; crimes goes up and down” (Law, 2018, para. 17). Communities with high levels of crime and gang affiliation lure the attention of the police, increasing residents’ contact with officers as police aim to restore order and reduce levels of crime in which they tend to misuse or overuse their policing tactics, which can have lasting effects on the community.

Queensbridge, America’s largest public housing project, is located in West Queens. Beginning in the 1950s, government policies separated the middle from low-income residents in housing sites. Queensbridge transitioned into a predominantly low-income housing project, also has experienced their share of violence and crime over the years. By the 1980s and 90s, Queensbridge became a hub for drugs and crimes (Giurgiulescu, 2013). In 2018, the NYPD and Queens District Attorney Richard Brown joined forces to end a massive drug bust. Twenty-two residents were arrested on drug sale and weapon possession charges. Drug dealing has plagued Queensbridge for years, flooding the streets with drugs, and luring kids into criminal activities. NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill argued that for New York City to reduce crime, it’s imperative that they identify and dismantle narcotic organizations (Woodward and Staff, 2018).

Leaders of the community who work with residents of Queensbridge and Ravenswood Houses asserted the high level of the current tension between the respective gangs. “It seems as if the territorial beef between Ravenswood and Queensbridge has been ramped up,” said Bishop Mitchell Taylor. Bishop Taylor recognized that the “beef” or issues between the two gangs had been an ongoing problem for the community for many years; it was nothing new. He also praised the works of 114 Precinct, especially the line of communication that was linked with the public housing community. “I think the NYPD has made great strides in terms of public outreach and communication, but there’s always more to do,” said Bishop Taylor (Law, 2018)

The president of the Ravenswood Houses Tenant Association, Carol Wilkins, stressed the increased police presence in the community. She argued that the key to overcoming violence in the community is to “build community.” Wilkins continued by stating, “There’s so much hated, and we’ve got to open our eyes as a community and combat this hatred” (Law, 2018). Residents who live and work in Queensbridge deserve to be safe from drug distribution and violence.

Communities Taking Action

The aforementioned attitudes and tensions between minorities and the NYPD have led to communities to take action. New Yorkers are united against these discriminatory police practices and are working together to establish methods to ensure community safety and individual security without the help of the police. They begin by educating minorities about their rights and offer support to victims of police abuse. A lot of neighborhoods have community centers that are linked to other organizations that are working to ensure community safety, holding police accountable for misconduct, including “cop watch” programs that act as community patrols. Such programs have prevented people from being arrested or summoned before things escalate. The following organizations will be looked at further in more detail in my empirical chapter: Jacob Riis Community Center, Black Lives Matter of Greater New York and Campaign Zero.

3. Research Design

Methods used and connections

In my research, I tend to depict the struggles and oppression of African Americans due to the political policies and institutions prevalent in New York City. The New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) aggressive police tactic ‘stop and frisk’ had and continues to have a profound effect on individuals, groups, and communities across the city. These policies and institutions are examples of structural violence. Where are political agendas framed through narrative forms: what are the problems in our society and what should be done about it?

My thesis is based on how African Americans in Queensbridge organize and perceive their security within the context of ‘stop and frisk.’ I plan on conducting numerous interviews with young African American men who have been stopped and frisked by the NYPD as well as citizens who are living under the weight of the unprecedented outburst of this practice.

I hope to obtain data on how deeply these practice impacts individuals and the widespread abuse at the hands of police officers. The NYPD stop and frisk program affected thousands of people in New York City, and its lasting effects continue to have an impact on minorities, specifically African Americans.

To conduct research regarding the policies and institutions, I will have to review academic literature: news articles, peer-reviewed articles, Ph.D. dissertations, and books. The academic literature is critical in identifying the issues associated with being an African American male in specific neighborhoods of NYC. Also, I will further analyze the relationship between NYPD officers and African American males. My research is a descriptive analysis of the lasting effects of ‘Stop and Frisk’ and how it has altered practices in policing and the daily lives of African American’s. To successfully answer my research question, I will conduct semi-structured interviews. The data obtained will be qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative data will consist of experiences and anecdotal data needed to answer my research question, which can also be helped by some quantitative data, consisting of reports, obstacles, and real-life situations. Both forms of data will contribute to richer representations of experiences, obstacles, and real-life consequences in NYC post ‘Stop and Frisk.’

Participants

My interviewees are residents of Queensbridge and Queens, New York. I interviewed six people, of whom will entail young African American males with different demographic characteristics. Growing up in New York City allowed me to form a diverse network of acquaintances. Personally, knowing all the interviewees from my childhood, with whom we shared memorable moments. This served as a form of comfort during the interviews, allowing the interviewees to open up and feel with a safe zone. At the same time, there is a possible downside to personally knowing my participants who may have affected their responses. There is a possibility they gave me specific answers because we are familiar with each other. Unfortunately, due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19), I will not be interviewing NYPD officers as the virus prioritizes their availability. However, they will be an essential feature of my research.

In conjunction with the social distancing guidelines, interviews were conducted via Skype. During the duration of the interviews, I took notes and recorded the conversation, which was then fully transcribed. Next, the transcribed interviews were analyzed through a coding scheme, which reflected themes in the literature review. The interviews will be valuable in answering and analyzing the effects of structural violence and social movement in New York City, precisely Queensbridge, in terms of how African Americans organize and perceive their security.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews are crucial to my research as I want to provide a platform for residents of NYC to be heard. Via interviews, a deeper authentic understanding will be obtained regarding the perspectives and frustration of African Americans being gaslighted. I will be able to relate to most interviews as I understand the problems prevalent in specific communities. These residents are practitioners in their daily activities by living an unusually structured life to avoid confrontation with the NYPD. The semi-structured interviews will consist of open-ended and close-ended questions. The intimate ended questions will be useful in gathering demographic characteristics of the participants, where the open questions will allow them to explain their perspectives. As a result, this will allow for new ideas and themes to be brought up during the interview as a result of what is said. Interviews will be more collaborative rather than interrogative.

Interviews will be coded by different themes about the ones formed with the literature review: race, neighborhood, public opinion, bias, security, collateral consequences, organizations, and contact with police. A color will represent each theme, and I will highlight parts of the interview that fall in each theme category. Coding makes it easier to interpret the responses from interviews. Assigning codes to words and phrases in each response help follow the reactions, which in turn helps me better analyze and discuss the results.

Ethics Statement

The nature of my research is sensitive, as it entails positive and negative factors. I will be interviewing residents of NYC who have had encounters with the NYPD and getting to hear their real-life experiences. A lot of these residents have been gaslighted for years and experienced trauma by the police due to their race, thus making these personal experiences delicate. In order to ensure their safety and privacy, I will suggest the option of using pseudo names (depending on the interviewee). This will give them a sense of security and create a comfort zone for them to share their personal experiences with me. Additionally, I will ask for verbal or written consent regarding their participation in my research.