your response to judge scheindlin's ruling? >> it is an astounding victory for everyone in new york city. she has very correctly and barley decided that the city is engaging in racial profiling. it is a victory for so many hundreds of thousands of people who have been illegally stopped and frisked over the past decade. >> to those who say that this is the reason crime is down and that the number of lives that whatbeen same -- saved -- did i hear one pundit say today year.0 murders a that this is a result of racial profiling. thing, there is no empirical evidence linking stop and frisk to crime reduction generally. secondly, this is a tactic that this murder rate reduction in the news -- is a little bit blurry. that is a statistic that spans the course of 15 years. it is not within the time period we are talking about. when mayor bloomberg came into office, the murder rate was already down to a very small number. they are taking credit for something that happened way before them, and they are blurring the math on the issue. crim

yet scheindlin doesn't like it because black males are involved. that's why they don't like it. >> you know, listen, i'm against crime just because i'm a criminal defense lawyer. >> i'm glad we are all against crime. >> the problem is that they're stopping 80% of all the people that they're stopping are black and hispanic. 80% is not the amount of people black hispanic that are committing the crimes. >> no, no that's because those neighborhoods are almost entirely 1 u '%. >> why can't they fault constitution, their inpersonalules that say you have to list a reasonable decision for the stop? it's the nypd. >> you know what? i will agree with you, the policemen on the street to stops and frisks should have a pad or a computer and says this is why i stop so and so. i agree. >> they won't do it. >> okay. wait a minute. they don't do it. >> one third, 36 pierce. >> now they will do it. had they done it before. >> so maybe something good. if they do away with this program. that would be a disaster. >> i don't disagree with you at all on that. >> all righ

judge scheindlin stated the city had... >> john: and here to discuss this ruling and another criminal justice policy decided today, i'm thrilled to be joined by two of my incredibly esteemed guests of this wonderful run, democratic strategist and contributor to forbes.com, mr. rick ungar. and republican strategist and partner at mercury, a bipartisan national public affairs firm, mr. tom doherty. welcome back to the show, gentlemen. >> always good to be here. >> john: great to have you both here. let me start with you, rick, what do you think of the ruling on stop and frisk? >> i think it was somewhat inevitable. no question that it was a civil rights violation. what's going to be interesting now is to see where this goes. people forget the supreme court does permit stop and frisk as long as there's a reasonable suspicion. question is what's suspicion? we know they went too far because we know that 88% of the people who were stopped and risked never got a ticket, never got arrested. so now we see where it goes. >> john: tom, are you surprised to see a judge putting a stop on it? >> a

. >> cenk: one last quote here that comes from judge scheindlins decision.he said targeting young black and hispanic men for stops based on alleged criminal conduct by other young black or hispanic men violates be bedrock princips of equality. that sums it up importantly. the due process clause that is in the fifth amendment, but also the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the fourth amendment. the whole principle is don't judge me based on what other people are doing. you have to prove it in each case or have a suspicion for the stop and frisk. to say blacks and latino commit some crimes. you're black or latino, i'm going to assume you're guilty. i don't know more of an u unamerican principle. >> not for black people. for black people it is very american. >> and we praise what she did. but because of that last statement it has not done enough yet. it should be gone. it should not be a statement. it should be a policy. i don't believe in that yet. >> cenk: they should scrap the whole thing. it should not be revived in anyway, shape or f

back on august 12th, you learned judge scheindlin ordered cameras in precincts where the city's stop frisk policy, they asked to reduce complaints by a whopping 89%. this could be a huge catalyst for taser, which has rolled out the evidence management platform evidence.com, kind of like salesforce.com that allows law enforcement agencies to keep track of digital evidence and video. the latest smart weapon comes with its own video weapon and locks every single thing the taser does with it. the end of july, it was solid. they have a tremendous potential to go overseas. it has been slower than in the u.s. plus the company is riding domestic replacement cycle. there is a lot to like here. involved with litigation. are we too late? let's check in with rick smith the co-founder and ceo of taser international, find out more about his company. >> good to see you. >> the last time you were here, you had a taser in your hand. this time you have something along your neck. it seems like an interesting product with police. >> it is. we are focused on police transparency and doing it with video. >

. >> judge shira scheindlin doesn't have the expertise? she is a federal judge who also served as a united states attorney. mayor bloomberg certainly doesn't have her kind of experience. the truth is this program violates people's rights and the city of new york needs to stop defending it. today's appeal only serves to delay justice. joining me now is "new york times" -- a former "new york times" columnist bob herbit. thanks for being here, bob. >> appreciate it. nice to be here, reverend. >> bob, i want a quote from an article about you -- you wrote about the stop and frisk policy. and the quote i want to read you said, "imagine michael bloomberg being stopped on the street by police and ordered in contemptuous tones to spread his arms and legs wide and lean over the hood of a car. such humiliating treatment by the police has been a daily reality for staggering numbers of young black and latino new yorkers." i mean, why is the mayor continuing to defend this policy? >> you know, i pointed out in that piece, which is on a blog post that i

it's a form of racial profiling and we're thrilled that judge scheindlin in this exhaustive 200-page opinion recognized that the activities of the police and this policy infringes on the constitutional rights of new yorkers. >> i think the governor was saying in part that one of the reasons the crime has reached this 40-year low is because of the implementation of programs like stop and frisk. >> and i guess one of the things i'm saying is how do you account for the fact that crime has reached a low all over the united states, including places where you don't have stop and frisk? the reality is that crime began to go down in new york in the 1990s when dinkins was mayor, when david dinkins was mayor before we instituted stop and frisk, and all over the country crime has been going down. we're at astonishingly low rates of crime in the country. the question is can we begin to create some of the excesses like stop and frisk that the judge identified today. >> i want to show you both this. mayor bloomberg was quick to defend the policies of the use of stop and frisk, arguing that the law

and you say about scheindlin. >> the city one way. entertainment. have movies like death wish and movies like the warriors. you can't make those movies anymore in new york because they're a fiction. they don't represent the coon temporary reality of new york. >> bill: charles bronson was killing people like bernard gets who actually did it in real life. because it wasn't much crime and thought crime here. >> it's gone. >> not gone but under control to some extent. >> the idea that we are forfeiting this progress out of political correctness. it's about political correctness infecting areas of our culture that make it less safe. can't argue with the statistics. if you are a young blackmail you are going to be ignored statistics say 96% of the victims are black and hispanic and the suspect 97% of the shooters are black and hispanic. so he they -- the cops go after those type of people. and most of the cops by the way are minorities hispanic, minorities, they are not overwhelmingly white. president obama only say one life, we have an obligation to do i

judge shira scheindlin did not immediately end stop and frisk. instead, she ordered a federal monitor to oversee the program. the judge's opinion says that the city's mayor and police commissioner "have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting the right people is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the united states constitution." one of the plaintiffs in the case, nicholas peart, wrote about his multiple experiences of being stopped and frisked in a "new york times" op-ed piece. "these experiences changed the way i felt about the police. after the third incident i worried when police cars drove by. i was afraid i would be stopped and searched or that something worse could happen. i dress better if i go downtown. i don't hang out with friends outside my neighborhood in harlem as much as i used to. essentially, i incorporated into my daily life the sense that i might find myself up against a wall or on the ground with an officer's gun at my head. for a black man in his 20s like me, it's just a fact of life in ne

judge shira scheindlin said new york's stop and frisk policy violated the fourth amendment's protectioninst unreasonable search and seizure, and amounted to racial profiling. "no one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," the judge wrote. "during these stops, minorities," she added, "were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband." while not banning stop and frisk outright, the judge ordered a series of changes: officers in some precincts will wear mini- cameras on their vests to document encounters. she ordered a series of community meetings to get input about possible changes to the policy, and she appointed a federal monitor to oversee those changes. the judge's ruling prompted an angry response from new york city police commissioner raymond kelly. >> what i find most disturbing and offensive about this decision is the notion that the n.y.p.d. engages in racial profiling. that simply is recklessly untrue. we do not

in her nearly 200 page opinion, judge shira scheindlin said it amounted to indirect racial profiling 4th and 14th amendment. terry versus ohio. that's a 1968 ruling that said stop and frisk is permissible under certain circumstances. importantly, it's got to be based on more than an officer's hunch. mostly in new york, individuals have been stopped for so-called furtive movements. that means a person was fidgety or changed directions or walked in a certain way. maybe grabbed a pocket, or even looked over their shoulder. furtive movements were the factor cited in 48.3% of the cases where blacks were stopped, 42.2% for hispanics. 39.9% for whites. another important stat, about 83% of stops between 2004 and 2012 involved blacks and hispanics, even though they comprise just over 50% of city's residents. were the stops relevant? the nypd conducted over 4.4 million terry stops. 52% of all stops were followed by a protective frisk for weapons. a weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. said differently, in 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found. now, were the number of min

she ruled -- judge scheindlin ruled it unconstitutional. she didn't stop it. i wish she had. she's trying to reform it. i don't think there is a way to reform a grossly unconstitutional policy like stop and frisk in new york. you know, is there hope for the future? i don't know. because the bureaucracy, the state, the government takes and takes and takes and if it is basically merged with business interests and new york's the best example of that. ray kelly's perfectly happy to take away your rights if you're black or latino but if you're wall street, well, he literally has a joint effort in downtown and in the wall street area where they, you know, they have video cameras all throughout the town. the people guarding the cameras against movements like occupy wall street are both cops and private security for the top banks like citigroup, goldman sachs, jpmorgan, et cetera. in new york city, the cops are basically merged with the business interests and they're united in opposition to the actual citizenry. >> john: what do you see as being a potential solution to this, cenk? >>

and what was so important about judge scheindlin's ruling is that she says very clearly that you cannot violate the fourth amendment by just stopping people for these vague crazy reasons, such as furtive movements. >> right. >> or saying that you thought that people were in a high crime area, you know. all of these really bad reasons that were used, that weren't based upon any constitutional principle, a reasonable suspicion. and it was very important that the judge talked about the poor training, the poor supervision, the of police officers and the fact that they were encouraged to engage in these policies of racially profiling african-americans and latinos. and what is really important is that this also ties into attorney general holder's speech yesterday where he is now calling on, you know, these new policies to stop charging people for these minor offenses because what we're doing is we're overcrowding our jails. we're feeding the prison industrial complex, and we're not really stopping kriech inpi >> and we're overcrowding jails with people for minor offenses while people are that

so, case in point, you've got judge scheindlin in new york ruling that the practice of stop and frisk in new york has violated the constitutional rights of minorities. and here's part of her opinion. "the city's highest officials," she writes, "have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner. in their zeal to defend a policy they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting the right people is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the united states constitution." you strongly disagree. why? >> i do strongly disagree. this case cries out for appeal. the judge has indicted the entire new york city police department, 35,000 officers, of racial profiling on the flimsiest of evidence. you look at the expert for the plaintiff and what he found. he looked at 4.4 million stops over a ten-year period. he found 6% of them were, in his opinion, unjustified. in the trial itself, there were 4 plaintiffs, there were 12 witnesses, there were 19 stops. the judge herself foun

district court judge, shira scheindlin, in each case a person's life was interrupt and minorities werereated differently than whites. suggesting that blacks and hispanics were subject to the with force even though whites were found with more weapons and contraband. she wrote the city acted with deliberate indifference with the nyc making unconstitutional stops and unconstitutional frisks. new york city mayor supported nypd. he said he thought whites were too often and minorities too little, reverse what critics claim. most of the candidates running for his job joined the chorus against stop and frisk. it appears the nypd will have to stop the practice. a third party must be brought in to oversee changes. we haven't gotten reaction from police commissioner ray kelley. he has a news conference planned at 1:00 this afternoon. we'll bring you the results of that news conference. jenna: very interesting to see what's next. rick, thank you. >> reporter: sure. gregg: brand knew word on the health after u.s. missionary held prisoner in north korea. >>> cleaning up after deadly western floods.

. >> and i think the main problem, the bottom line is here what judge scheindlin said.from her ruling. this is the bottom line. whatever you think about the effectiveness on different programs to end crime in these communities, she said the stop and frisk case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk on deterring or combatting crime. many police practices may be useful in fighting crime, but because they are unconstitutional, they cannot be used, no matter how effective. >> and i think the judge's ruling corroborates with communities, it corroborates with what kendrick lamar knows in his brilliant album. i'm so happy we started on that note. and i think when people talk about at their dinner tables, about stop and frisk, i want people to talk about racial profiling and racism. it's no secret that 99.8% of the people stopped don't have a gun on them. we have a policy that's supposed to somehow keep us safer when only 0.2% of the time a gun is found. so the question becomes not do we like stop and frisk, it's do we like and endorse and accept racial profiling? tha

unrelated it just so happened yesterday, a judge in new york city, judge shira scheindlin, after four-monthrial, she shocked the city officials in new york city by finding that new york -- the practice of the new york city police department, mayor michael bloomberg's pride and joy, the so-called stop, question and frisk policy is dead wrong and she said the new york city police have to change that. she if say they have to end it but they have to change the policy because right now, she said it is pure racial profiling. she pointed out her decision was based on a review of 4.3 million stops. went through all of the paperwork the police department had for 4.3 million stops between 2004 and 2012. and what she found, of course, is that the practice is without a search warrant, police stop people, frisk them for guns and then search them for any other contraband, drugs or whatever, without any search warrant, without any legal warrant or justification for doing so, no legal grounds for doing so and not only that, the people they're stopping are based on the color of their skin. 83 -- during thos