So the Bloomberg-Biden exchange on stop and frisk was a pretty comprehensive fact mess from both sides. Some accuracy mixed in with a bunch of inaccuracy. Here is a breakdown (1/4):
Bloomberg is misleading when he cites a 95% cut with no context. That occurred in year 11-12 of his tenure, after a 605% spike from 1-10; 1 thru 12, there was a 97% increase. And he doesn't mention the court pressure. Or that he was a stop-frisk advocate long past his mayoralty.
Biden is right that Bloomberg fought against having a stop-frisk monitor. But Biden is wrong to suggest Obama or "we" sent the monitor. A federal judge appointed the monitor, a lawyer from a private firm; Obama DOJ did endorse the idea to the judge, but it wasn't their call. And:
Biden is wrong to suggest that the independent monitor was the reason stop and frisk was curtailed. Because Bloomberg appealed the August 2013 ruling, the monitor didn't really get to work until November 2014. By then, the number of stops had already plummeted.
Totally possible fear of a future monitor was one reason stops fell. Regardless, Biden's claim is that Obama sent monitors and told New York to cut it out and then things changed. Obama didn't send the monitor, and stops fell pre-monitor.
