Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/nyregion/life-in-new-york-city-where-arrests-are-down-and-tickets-are-rarities.html

by danso • 12 years ago

140 182 12 years ago

Spooky233• 12 years ago

New York public employees cannot strike, so this is the labor action available to them.

The union should think carefully though. If life just goes on without the nanny-state tickets and other revenue generators, the thought process may change. Maybe more fare jumping and double-parking would be ok, and we can live with that -- but with 10,000 fewer policemen.

10,000 * $100,000 = less need for ticket revenue.

Zigurd3• 12 years ago

The effectiveness of cost-cutting in the NYPD would be multiplied if they started with the shiny toys first. Cut the number of SWAT teams, sell off the armored division's tanks, to Ukraine perhaps, and cut the spies and surveillance gear first, and you'll be able to keep a lot more of the useful police who might then be able to focus on boosting their solution rates for crimes people care about.

pionar• 12 years ago

Most of the shiny toys' cost (capex, training, maintenance) is not paid by the NYPD, but through grants/subsidies from the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism programs.

So, cutting that would be great, but wouldn't do much for NYPD's bottom line.

krschultz6• 12 years ago

I generally agree with the sentiment that police are overbuying toys, but if there is any city where the police are justified in having that kind of stuff, it's New York. The terrorists are not going to attack St Louis Missouri, but they have attacked New York multiple times.

I say this having just seen the NYPD bomb squad show up to investigate a bag outside my apartment this morning.

Alupis2• 12 years ago

sell off the armored division's tanks, to Ukraine perhaps

People like to throw this line around... but I've yet to see an actual tank in the hands of a police department anywhere in the US. What I have seen are a lot of Armored Personnel Carriers (APC), which have no weaponry and are basically just heavily armored trucks designed specifically to protect the personnel inside (from riot, projectiles, bullets, explosions, etc).

With that said, I have no issue with a police department using an APC in a situation where bodily harm may come to them (SWAT situation, riot situation, terrorist situation, bomb situation, etc).

And "riot" is not to be confused with "peaceful protest". Riots are bad; people and property get damaged.

rbcgerard2• 12 years ago

Sure the NYPD has lots of gear and toys - but all of that is a rounding error in the face of pension and medical obligations.

korzun8• 12 years ago

Yes, cut the SWAT teams in.. NYC. Send armored division tanks to.. Ukraine.

They should hire you to run NYPD.

pdabbadabba5• 12 years ago

I agree that this is not about the most serious infractions (though it should be noted that even arrests for violent crimes are down, just not so drastically). But we're not just talking about "nanny-state tickets" either. We're talking about plummeting arrests or tickets for robbery, fare-evasion, DWI, parking violations, and moving violations (speeding, running red lights, etc.), among other things. I don't see any future where the citizens of New York decide that enforcing traffic laws was just a failed social experiment. I think we're just seeing the entirely predictable lag between decreased (or nonexistent) enforcement, and the social consequences.

nickbauman3• 12 years ago

Maybe. Many pundits have been talking about NYPD's use of COMSTAT, stop-and-frisk and fighting the "broken windows" syndrome as being leading causes of the drop in crime in NYC. On closer inspection the crime appears to have been falling anyway for a number of possible reasons, some as simple as a change in demographics.

Now we have perhaps something of a controlled experiment going on regarding the alleged root cause of the drop in crime in NYC (and perhaps nationwide).

byerley2• 12 years ago

As someone who fancies libertarianism but who's wary of its effectiveness in practice, I'm hoping we get to see this impromptu social experiment play out long enough to gather some useful statistics.

Steltek• 12 years ago

Err, extreme things like that really need to be entered into democratically rather than a very small minority foisting it on a city of millions. Especially when we're discussing public safety. I hope this ends quickly and conclusively.

chipgap98• 12 years ago

They are still handling serious crimes normally. What they aren't doing is enforcing arrest, ticket, and summons quotas. I think this whole thing is going to backfire on the NYPD and demonstrate that the way they were doing things before was not in the best interest of the people living in NYC.

angersock3• 12 years ago

...you mean like the democratic way we all voted for the current system? The one where we all get to vote, without being turned away at the voting booth because we "registered in the wrong precint", or don't have valid ID?

Don't kid yourself.

msandford3• 12 years ago

I'm in agreement though I hope they keep enough of a presence and focus on major crimes such that we don't start seeing an increase in murders or rapes or something to that effect.

raldi4• 12 years ago

What's the connection to libertarianism?

whistlecrackers• 12 years ago

Less taxation. Police officers are effectively just tax collectors.

byerley2• 12 years ago

I mostly meant anti-regulation.

I'm not sure we need strict laws regarding parking, public drinking, loosies, ect. Let alone aggressive enforcement.

I think parts of NYC are a good example of how enforcement can cause a more negative environment than the original activity.

ctdonath• 12 years ago

Drastic reduction in regulations outside of "actual harm" and objective "social order" issues. Criminalize and prosecute robbery, murder, theft, etc (actual harm), along with parking violations, traffic control, etc (organizing a lot of people functioning in a compact space, things get very ugly in a hurry if you don't), but stop the aggressive pursuit of "victimless" crimes like selling individual cigarettes without a license, stopping/interviewing anyone carrying something heavy in a pocket (to wit: potential handgun), petty drug possession, etc.

It's interesting watching such things over several decades: urban rush away from conservative/libertarian principles to highly regulated progressivism subsequently leading to a backlash which, for many/most practical purposes, amounts to a return to conservative/libertarian values.

splintercell• 12 years ago

You know the part where he thinks libertarianism means complete lawlessness.

donatj• 12 years ago

Sounds like a better place to be right now.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

If these minor offenses are not affecting crime then are they offenses whose only purpose is to generate revenue? If the city has not imploded then is that not sufficient evidence to get a discussion about the existence of these offenses?

morley• 12 years ago

I would guess that there hasn't been enough time for people to realize their minor infractions will no longer get punished.

maxerickson3• 12 years ago

One of the people quoted in the article says "Of course that’s a good thing, because the traffic officers just want your money," he said on Tuesday morning in Queens. "Now I have the right to park a bit more."

I suppose he still understands that he is not really supposed to park where he is parking, but it says something about his outlook.

msandford3• 12 years ago

Is the fear of punishment the only thing that keeps people from doing criminal acts?

1. People speed and park wrongly despite both of these being illegal

2. A huge majority of people aren't assholes all the time, despite this not being illegal

3. Murders do get committed though it's illegal

4. Most stuff isn't stolen even though it is very difficult to catch someone breaking into houses

There's a book called Three Felonies A Day which posits that the average American commits three serious crimes every day despite the overwhelming majority of those folks not meaning to. https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=three+felonies+a+day The reason for this is that the laws are written broadly enough that entirely innocent acts could be construed to be strict-liability crimes that require absolute adherence; intent does not enter into the equation.

If society is not falling apart even if the average American is in fact committing three felonies a day, then it stands to reason that perhaps the law as a whole is over-written and could stand to be reduced. This new informal policing policy in New York might end up being further evidence of such problems.

Further people have found that in many cases persuasion is much more effective than compulsion. In the UK they've found that they can replace speed cameras (which issue tickets) with radar controlled signs that display smiley or frowny faces and that's much more effective at getting people to slow down. The theory goes that compulsion is a very ephemeral threat and that the police can't be everywhere at once ticketing everyone who's speeding all the time and people know it. But just asking them to slow down with no threat is more effective since it's polite.

https://www.google.com/webhp?q=speed+cameras+persuasion+comp...

A similar theory was used to great effect by King Frederick of Prussia to get people to eat potatoes. Decrees did nothing to make people plant them, but declaring the potato to be a royal food and nobody but the king could eat it caused people to plant it either out of spite or a desire to flout the rules. http://www.historynet.com/ask-mhq-king-frederick-ii-of-pruss...

Spooky233• 12 years ago

There's two sides to the coin.

My dad worked for NYC during the Dinkins administration, which took a stance of not antagonizing the population with minor tickets and citations. His big story about the downside of this approach was a major snowstorm, which crippled the city in many areas. In his case, he was stuck at work at a public housing project for 3 days with the residents, because the city didn't ticket parking violations and the plows couldn't clear the clogged streets.

It made life miserable for the residents as well. Broken elevators left the elderly trapped in high-rise buildings for days. People with medical emergencies had to be carried by fireman down the stairs and down the street to an ambulance on an avenue.

One of the reasons for the current practice in NYC is the Mayor Giuliani did a complete 180 and aggressively enforced all sorts of laws. Chaos transitioned to order. The optimal answer lies somewhere in the middle.

king_jester• 12 years ago

In his case, he was stuck at work at a public housing project for 3 days with the residents, because the city didn't ticket parking violations and the plows couldn't clear the clogged streets.

This has still be case during some of the big snows of the past several years even with parking violations tickets.

Broken elevators left the elderly trapped in high-rise buildings for days. People with medical emergencies had to be carried by fireman down the stairs and down the street to an ambulance on an avenue.

This still happens every once in a while. Police don't generally handle these kinds of things anyway, as the 311 service handles a lot of building code violations.

One of the reasons for the current practice in NYC is the Mayor Giuliani did a complete 180 and aggressively enforced all sorts of laws. Chaos transitioned to order. The optimal answer lies somewhere in the middle.

This isn't accurate. Broken windows policing in NYC goes back to the mid-eighties and efforts to handle graffiti. Bill Bratton, the now police commissioner and comissioner during Guiliani's tenure, started using broken windows policing tactics and policies in the early 90s when he was at the NYC transit police.

Also, violent crime rates were already well in decline when broken windows policing became the major tactic and policy of the NYPD. It is not at all clear that broken windows policing is responsible or a contributed to that falling rate and to characterize Giuliani as instilling order on a chaotic city is laughable, as you could view many of his policies as instilling chaos.

psaintla• 12 years ago

At one point in the past enforcing these minor offenses served a legitimate purpose. NYC was leading the nation in violent crime and the city was in deep disrepair. Times Square, an international icon, was so filled with trash dangerous that people avoided it for fear of being mugged or killed. Movie theaters weren't safe places because drug deals would occur which sometimes lead to increased crime.

This is the NYC in which these minor offenses needed to be enforced strictly. There are a number of theories regarding the decrease in crime but I'm pretty certain no one can argue that the drastic measures were necessary. Fast forward to 2014 NYC is basically disney world for adult tourists. There definitely needs to be a review of how we police the city because the tactics currently in place are from 25 years ago. Hopefully the data from this slowdown will provide the evidence necessary to create change.

j_m_b• 12 years ago

I think this most recent trend in the police department has a huge potential to backfire. Perhaps this will highlight the fact that in the US, our lives have become over-criminalized and over-monitored by an increasingly growing police force and that we simply don't need so many officers and laws. This would be a good thing in America.

However, I hate the fact that this change was brought about by the deaths of people.

pdabbadabba5• 12 years ago

However, I hate the fact that this change was brought about by the deaths of people.

Amen. I also hate that this was brought about by, it would seem, police officers pouting about the public and the mayor finally speaking out against biased policing.

Edit: I know policing is hard. And frankly, I sympathize with a police officer who finds himself more intimidated by a black man on the street than a white man. It is racist and wrong to respond that way, but none of us are perfect, and these biases can be hard to suppress. But in the face of ample evidence that these biases are needlessly getting people killed (or, even more prevalently, to be disproportionately imprisoned), a police department has a duty to do something about it. I suspect this "something" will be a combination of training, change of internal culture (easier said then done), and altered tactics.

I wish we could have a dialogue where we admit that biased policing is a problem, but simultaneously refrain from painting all cops as racist brutes. I see our present predicament, though, as a result of cops' failing to see past the names they've been called by the angriest voices out there (not by the mayor, I might add) to the fact that there really is a problem in their departments that is causing unconscionable harm to black communities.

jxm262• 12 years ago

This was a good comment that I can agree with. I'm also genuinely curious what the reaction/outcome would be if de Blasio would be less apologetic and slightly more confrontational with the Unions. Or even if the governor spoke out more.. Maybe confrontational is the wrong word, but rather something more "truthful" as your post is suggesting. I wonder what it actually takes to make a major cultural shift in the police force.

fennecfoxen2• 12 years ago

I know policing is hard. And frankly, I sympathize with a police officer who finds himself more intimidated by a black man on the street than a white man. It is racist and wrong to respond that way...

"Wrong" maybe, but it's also statistically sound. Police 3 to 4 times more likely to shoot a black man but black men are 5.6 times more likely to shoot a police officer. (source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/kent-osband-what-statistics-say-... )

I think the relevant point from my source's editorial is this: "While these inferences aren’t fair to the vast majority on either side [(police or civilian)], they are rational responses to fear and uncertainty. As such, neither legislation nor indoctrination can banish them."

So I'm not sure it's fair to call police officers racist. It's certainly not old-school Racist in the form of a deliberate and systematic oppression of a minority or an opinion that they're genetically inferior.

(Disclaimer. This post is meant to provide insight into behavior of people, only. No specific public policy recommendation is hereby condemned or endorsed.)

nervousvarun4• 12 years ago

It's all relative I guess. Here in the Nola we desperately, DESPERATELY need more cops.

nickbauman3• 12 years ago

New Orleans has had quite a history of corruption in its police force. Are you sure?

RDeckard• 12 years ago

Why is nervousvarun's post downvoted? Is Hacker News also a cesspool of over-sensitive, ultra politically correct liberals?

mitchell_h• 12 years ago

I'm from STL, about 3 miles from where Michael Brown was shot, closer to where Martin was shot at the mobile station....If NYC wants less police we'll take them.

Our police forces around here are so busy with 911 calls they barely have any time for proactive policing. There's very little patrols and fewer proactive citizen engagements that aren't because crime has flared up in that sector.

mc32• 12 years ago

Apparently one of the reasons cited by some is that the decrease is due to police doubling up -not patrolling solo, due to perceived possible threats from possible crazies, and this doubling up has taken away availability to address non crucial policing matters...

frandroid• 12 years ago

Not that patrolling in pairs saved these two guys' lives...

nerfhammer2• 12 years ago

NYPD rarely patrols solo

source: http://forums.officer.com/t146829/

hoggle• 12 years ago

So is this a return to pre 9/11 or pre 1990s standards ("Broken Windows Theory")?

wheelzr• 12 years ago

It's a direct response to De Blasio's asking police to implement Broken Windows policies. They are sending him the message they aren't taking his orders anymore.

rev_bird• 12 years ago

Which, to me, is the scary part of this whole thing. Before, it was only implied that the police weren't accountable to anybody -- now they're literally turning their back on the head of the municipal government.

krschultz6• 12 years ago

I think it is a bit too soon to tell what will happen. Keep in mind it has also been bitterly cold, crime is generally down when the weather is like this no matter what.

pdabbadabba5• 12 years ago

It is bitterly cold this week, but it hasn't been the two weeks prior. And the article itself includes the relevant reported crime statistics. They're down a little from this week last year, but nothing like the decrease in summonses.

Check out the infographics.

pyrophane2• 12 years ago

From the Times editorial board:

If the Police Department’s current commanders cannot get the cops to do their jobs, Mr. de Blasio should consider replacing them.
He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities.
He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to uphold city and state laws.

I could not agree more.

ams61102• 12 years ago

Or maybe he could just show them a little respect.

krschultz6• 12 years ago

Every police officer takes an oath. It generally goes like this:

"On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."

I'm missing the part where there is an "if my mayor coddles my feelings the right way" line in there.

rbcgerard2• 12 years ago

respect is earned not demanded.

Furthermore, the duty of "respect" is for public servants to the duly elected representative of the people they serve, not the other way around.

charonn0• 12 years ago

It's very hard to respect the petulant and passive-aggressive behavior they're displaying.

angersock3• 12 years ago

He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to uphold city and state laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

ovulator• 12 years ago

The ruling

"[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

They still have the duty, but it does not necessarily apply on an individual basis.

AcerbicZero• 12 years ago

While your link is not exactly pertinent to the above conversation, it does highlight how vulnerable people can be to violent action, regardless of police presence, and it serves as a reminder that personal security is in the hands of the individual, not the state.

uiberto2• 12 years ago

I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?

ceejayoz3• 12 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ete2d/

If they're not obligated to individuals, then screwups face internal discipline, whatever that might be, or (I think) criminal charges if they screw up very badly.
If they were to be obligated to individuals, then the individuals could sue them for not performing their duty, because they failed in their duty to that individual. EDIT: In other words, it would become a private matter between the individual on the one hand and the police on the other.
And as bad as the case in question was, I seriously doubt that adding literally millions of lawsuits to the criminal justice system (which is what would happen) would mean faster responses. It would, rather, mean more resources going to fighting lawsuits and paying when they're lost, and fewer resources left to actually respond to calls.

everyOtherTime2• 12 years ago

...so, like, were you the kid in class who always reminded the teachers when they forgot to assign homework?

After all, what this is really all about, is an attack aimed to reduce all the funds that those delicious, orange parking tickets generate. All the petty nuisance tickets, and summonses, and violations that harvest money from non-violent citizens, rather than produce burdens by incurring imprisonment costs.

You do realize this, right?

raldi4• 12 years ago

Hi, I see you're new here, so you might not know yet, but ad hominem attacks like your opening sentence are not welcome on Hacker News.

pyrophane2• 12 years ago

While a lot of New Yorkers appreciate the reprieve from things like parking tickets, the lack of enforcement has real consequences that will negatively effect quality of life here. For example, without enforcement of the alternate side parking rule, street cleaners won't be able to access many city streets to clean them.

korzun8• 12 years ago

You can't replace the union and NYPD has some serious voting power. So have fun with that.

gharial• 12 years ago

I work in Manhattan and visit fairly shitty areas of Brooklyn and Queens regularly. These past few weeks have been the first time since I moved here that I've felt safe in the presence of cops. I'd read about enforcement being down just after the funeral for the officers shot in the Bronx but it really didn't click until a pair of them walked down the street by me in Chelsea. They didn't look at my SO like they were ready to beat the shit out of him for once. They were actually laughing and looked approachable.

I think all this little passive aggressive "protest" will prove is that the world isn't going to end when the police stop hassling the young, non-white and homeless. I'm surprised they don't realize they're pulling the curtain back on their own charade.

ams61102• 12 years ago

I'm suspecting that it will eventually prove that those that don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

NYC in the '70s and '80s was not that safe. Street crime, muggings, etc. were common. In the 1990s Giuliani stepped up patrols and sarted enforcing what most people thought were petty crimes, such as loitering, graffiti, parking violations, subway-gate-jumping, etc. with the effect that more serious crimes also decreased, and within several years NYC became one of the safest big cities.

krschultz6• 12 years ago

The truth of the matter is that we don't know why crime dropped over the last 30ish years. There are lots of theories, broken windows policing is just one of them.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/24/10-not-entirel...

niravshah• 12 years ago

There are a number of reasons for the decrease in crime in the 1990s, including a decrease in the use of crack cocaine and, famously, lead removal (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...). Causation/correlation, etc.

JulianMorrison• 12 years ago

NYC in the 70s was poor. Both the city, and the people in it.

kailuowang3• 12 years ago

That's the broken window theory that every programmer should be familiar with.

pcurve• 12 years ago

I don't know why people down voted this to death. Whether true or not (no one knows for sure), it's a view held by many.

If the enforcement is down 90%, there will always be some consequences / impacts down the road. It will not be immediate because it takes some time for criminals to test the new boundaries of what they can get away with.

And for those who think this will hurt the police budget, ticket revenue only accounts for 10% of NYPD budget. It will not lead to layoff.

lotsofmangos3• 12 years ago

Violent crime fell across Europe and America during that period.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...

Estonia even decreased their prison population during that period and their crime still fell massively. Whatever is going on, it didn't just happen in New York, so it is not to do with the policies of Giuliani.

edit - Guiliani was a thug who commented about the NYPD's "degree of restraint which is virtually unmatched in the country.", during a Civil Rights Commission hearing about a suspect being sodomised with a broomstick.

milesskorpen• 12 years ago

... and a lot of this change can be attributed to changes in demographics, wealth, improved car alarms, the decline of cash, and dozens of other variables. Policing has, I'm sure, some impact, but no research I've seen suggests it is the primary (or even a significant) driving force in the declining crime-rate.

lkrubner• 12 years ago

The "broken windows" theory of police enforcement doesn't stand up when compared to other Western cities. A big part of the "broken windows" theory is that small crimes, such as graffiti, created an atmosphere that allowed worse crimes to happen. And yet, if you visit Berlin, you will see a city with a shocking amount of graffiti, but very little crime. If you visit parts of London you'll see run down industrial districts, but very little crime.

Even if you confine your analysis to the USA, the "broken windows" theory of crime does not explain the relative shift in crime towards the suburbs, nor does it explain the increasing epidemic of drugs in rural areas. There is a lot that it does not explain, so it should be treated with suspicion. A theory that only explains one data point is not a theory at all.

Most Western nations have seen decreases in crime during since the late 1980s. The USA had the most crime, and the USA has seen the biggest decrease. No one knows why. New York City has seen the biggest decrease of all the big cities, but figuring out why, given the extremely multi-variate nature of the problem, will be extremely difficult to do. Even those theories that attempt to explain the decline of crime in the USA (aging of the population, Roe vs Wade, unleaded gasoline, change in police tactics) fail to explain why New York City should see the largest decrease in crime, since one can find other cities, for any of those variables, that saw larger changes than New York City.

wnevets• 12 years ago

but crime also decreased in other big cities where Giuliani style tactics were not used.

buerkle• 12 years ago

Crime has been going down for decades across the United States including other major cities that did not have the same policies as Giuliani.

StefanKarpinski• 12 years ago

This is just not plausible. New York is not the same city today as it was then. I grew up in the East Village in the 70s and 80s and live in same place now. Having witnessed the entire process up close and personal, I'm deeply skeptical that Giuliani's policies [1] were responsible for more than a minuscule drop in crime here – it was almost entirely due economic and demographic changes. The new "relaxed" police enforcement is how enforcement morally and practically ought to be. I would be thrilled if they continue this indefinitely. Maybe the cops could feel like they actually exist to help the people who live here instead of harassing them.

[1] The culmination of those policies led to a cop trying to ticket my mother for jay walking. I say "try" because what happened instead is that she lectured him for a good 20 minutes and in the end he apologized and tore up the ticket.

snowwrestler2• 12 years ago

This theory of crime actually says that police presence can be safely reduced now, because all those petty crimes are no longer common.

What you're talking about is a theory of how to boot-strap a reduction in crime: start small. But it also implies that once crime is reduced, the reduction will be self-persisting (for the same reason crime was self-persisting--because of the environment). It does not imply that heavy police presence needs to be permanent.

Anyway, it's never been proved in any real way, it's just an idea that got popular. And a whole lot of cities that Giuliani did not lead also saw significant reductions in serious crime over that same period of time.

kailuowang3• 12 years ago

Only a couple of decades ago, Manhattan has many shitty areas before the ramp up the police force. The real effect of this "protest" won't really show that quickly. Stopping hassling the "usual" targets may not be the only thing they do.

I don't think we should just sit back and let the situation fold out on its own. Whatever the intention is, if the police force is putting public safety in risk, it's critical to not let that happen.

lmg643• 12 years ago

I agree. This article from the NYT seems very premature. I think this is part of the current media backlash which is trying to shame the cops for pointing the finger at DeBlasio. "See! You end stop and frisk and crime didn't go up. It is wrong to demonize the administration."

Reducing patrols and arrests isn't going to spike crime immediately, but if this condition persists for another three months, we might be able to comment. The theory is, people have to notice that enforcement is down/stays down, and therefore it is "safe" to try and commit crimes again.

Interesting side note - the drop in parking tickets etc - is a way for the police to starve the city government of revenue. Apparently $550 million or so per year, so there's that element to consider as well. The city could respond with more cameras / automated tickets, so maybe that winds up backfiring. We'll see.

rayiner• 12 years ago

The NY Post has been crowing about what a disaster this is and how it's de Blasio's fault. In my opinion, they're missing a tremendous opportunity.

If you're an economic conservative, public unions should be your enemy #1. They have tremendous leverage in local politics, and the fat pensions they've voted for themselves are the top economic problem facing states and municipalities.

Supporting de Blasio against the police union would strike a major blow. The union would find itself facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives (for different reasons), which would create major leverage in the ongoing negotiations between the union and the city.

joshuahedlund• 12 years ago

public unions should be your enemy #1... The union would find itself facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives (for different reasons)

I wish there was more discussion about this sort of thing. My pet hypothesis is that nobody holds police unions accountable because conservatives like police and liberals like unions. It's hard to even find discussion about the actual extent of police union influence, much less how bad the effects may or may not be and what should be done about it.

diyorgasms• 12 years ago

I think the difference is that the Post and most right-wing media in the USA support not the libertarian notion of conservatism, but a more authoritarian version.

nerfhammer2• 12 years ago

It's almost as if the NYPost only cares about selling papers using simple, moralistic stories and doesn't actually care about making the city a better place

mcgwiz2• 12 years ago

Agreed. But they want a reaction, and my fear is that they will expand/escalate their protest until they get one.

mcgwiz2• 12 years ago

Why the downvotes?

Yes, by backing away from issuing summons for minor offenses, there is overlap with what many have rightly sought in the aftermath of Eric Garner's death. To me, that silver lining is coincidental, and it's taking the thunder out of their protest. As a New York City resident who has been closely following the issue, I do fear that the police, with tacit approval by their unions, will expand/escalate their protest (not by harassing minorities, in case that's how my original comment came across) by further scaling back enforcement of crime.

This fear, after all, is exactly what they're trying to leverage.

tim333• 12 years ago

London on the whole gets by with a pretty light police presence. The police generally don't get involved with parking and most traffic violations - we have cameras and plenty of traffic wardens who put tickets on your window but can't arrest anyone. It seems to work quite well on average. Policing in the US kind of freaks me out.

smtddr• 12 years ago

Let me add this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-bene...

>But the police union's phrasing—officers shouldn't make arrests "unless absolutely necessary"—begs the question: How many unnecessary arrests was the NYPD making before now?

pnathan• 12 years ago

That's a very important phrase that should be shouted from the rooftops.

Because if there are unnecessary arrests, it's a travesty of our court system. :-/

fennecfoxen2• 12 years ago

I suspect think there can in fact be desirable arrests which are not necessary: arrests for petty theft and shoplifting, vandalism, malicious mischief, et cetera.

lotsofmangos3• 12 years ago

As many as the quota required.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/second_cop_confirms_nypd_arr...

Terr_• 12 years ago

begs the question

Gah. "Begging the question" means assuming something is already proved. Alas, people misuse "beg" as a synonym for "suggests" or "raises"...

nyolfen• 12 years ago

phrases can take on new meanings and no one looks good whinging about prescriptivist language use dude

nsnick• 12 years ago

That is not what begs the question means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Chinjut• 12 years ago

That's one thing "begs the question" was at one point used to mean. "begs the question" has also often been used to mean "begs for the question to be asked", which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Your own link notes that the use of "begs the question" to mean "assumes the initial point" arose as a mistranslation of Latin. I see no reason to cling to that mistranslation as the only possible use of the English phrase.

rhino3692• 12 years ago

Very few arrests are necessary to maintain public order, especially in the short term.

Nobody is going to die if you don't arrest a guy for jerking it on the subway.

nickbauman3• 12 years ago

NYPD, one of the largest municipal armies in history, has become a latter-day Praetorian Guard. They have yet to stage a coup and appoint their own Caracalla as emperor, however.

peter303• 12 years ago

I hope terrorists dont get any bold ideas. NY police are first line protection at major events like New Years Eve.

fromtheoutside• 12 years ago

You actually don't need police to collect parking tickets. Other countries have specialized kinds of law enforcement forces to handle traffic.

krschultz6• 12 years ago

The NYPD actually has an entirely separate arm that handles parking tickets & traffic enforcement. They don't have guns and can't arrest you. They also drive around in silly 3 wheel cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_New_York_Ci...

discardorama3• 12 years ago

All this back-turning, slowdown, etc. have more to do with the NYPD contract renewal coming up. I hate to say this, but it looks to me that the unions are politicizing the death of the two officers to gain leverage in the contract negotiations.

korzun8• 12 years ago

The slain officer lived in my neighborhood. Every single officer I know was impacted by this. They have 24/hour shifts guarding their house on their own time and thousands of officers showed up to his funeral.

You sound extremely ignorant.

shit_parade• 12 years ago

Funny how officers deem their lives worth more than the lives they take or families they destroy with no accountability.

discardorama3• 12 years ago

Were these the first officers ever killed in the line of duty? No. It was a tragedy, no doubt about it. I feel bad for the families of these officers, who died simply because of the color of their uniform.

But has the NYPD union ever expressed any sorrow for the loss of Eric Garner? How about Amadou Diallo? Or Akai Gurley? Please read this before responding: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/179-nypd-invol...

And drop the fake hyperbole.

utefan001• 12 years ago

Stopping the aggressive pursuit of people selling individual cigarettes would be a good place to start. If cigarette taxes are too damn high, people will find a cheaper way to smoke. Quit picking on poor people that smoke. Note: I don't smoke or drink.

bequanna• 12 years ago

If the cigarettes were purchased as a pack at a retail store, then resold individually, the tax has already been paid.

Quit picking on poor people that smoke.

Are you referring to cigarette taxes or the law banning the selling individual cigarettes?

If the former, as a non-smoker, I do not wish to continue covering the cost of health care for those that choose to smoke.

dllthomas2• 12 years ago

"If the cigarettes were purchased as a pack at a retail store, then resold individually, the tax has already been paid."

Unless they were purchased in a jurisdiction without that tax.

noer• 12 years ago

and what are these police officers doing on duty while not arresting or ticketing poeple: getting injured while riding on the hood of their cars: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/nypd-rides-hood...

whiddershins• 12 years ago

I wish they would stick with it. This is the New York I grew up in, and loved so much. I don't believe the broken windows theory, and i think Freakonomics made a good statistical argument it is the number of police, rather than the style, that reduces violent crime.

I think funding your government through tickets and summonses is hostile to quality of life. And detainment or imprisonment for minor offenses is imho a human rights violation.

So great.

Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

Related Stories