Not really. I mean, I'd rather they didn't handle it that way but Christ, in NY of all places? This happened after the two cops were murdered right? Plus, look carefully, the cop pushes him and says "get goin". The guy fell down but I don't think it was the cop's intention for him to land on the ground.
Not really. I mean, I'd rather they didn't handle it that way but Christ, in NY of all places? This happened after the two cops were murdered right? Plus, look carefully, the cop pushes him and says "get goin". The guy fell down but I don't think it was the cop's intention for him to land on the ground.
This is the NHL Supplemental Discipline approach to policing.
A funny thing happened in New York City last week: Cops stopped arresting people. Not altogether, of course—that would be anarchy. But since last Monday, the number of arrests in America's largest city plummeted by two-thirds compared to the previous year. The decline is a conscious slowdown by New York's police force to protest City Hall's perceived lack of support for law enforcement.
NYPD officers and union leaders have been at odds with Mayor Bill de Blasio in the wake of the Eric Garner case and the killings of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos this month. In their latest move, officers have begun a "virtual work stoppage" throughout the city by making fewer low-level arrests and issuing fewer citations. The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, New York's largest police union, urged its members not to make arrests "unless absolutely necessary," according to the New York Post's report.
[The slowdown] has helped contribute to a nose dive in low-level policing, with overall arrests down 66 percent for the week starting Dec. 22 compared with the same period in 2013, stats show.
Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame.
Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent—from 4,831 to 300.
Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.
Drug arrests by cops assigned to the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau—which are part of the overall number—dropped by 84 percent, from 382 to 63.
Although safety is cited as the reason for the police union's move, political considerations are central. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake," a police source told the Post. "Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." The NYPD slowdown also comes amid protracted contract negotiations between police unions and the mayor's office.
The Post, which enthusiastically championed the NYPD during this year's turmoil, portrayed this slowdown in near-apocalyptic terms—an early headline for the article above even read "Crime wave engulfs New York following execution of cops." 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?
Policing quality doesn't necessarily increase with policing quantity, as New York's experience with stop-and-frisk demonstrated. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg asserted that the controversial tactic of warrantless street searches "keeps New York City safe." De Blasio ended the program soon after succeeding him, citing its discriminatory impact on black and Hispanic residents. Stop-and-frisk incidents plunged from 685,724 stops in 2011 to just 38,456 in the first three-quarters of 2014 as a result. If stop-and-frisk had caused the ongoing decline in New York's crime rate, its near-absence would logically halt or even reverse that trend. But the city seems to be doing just fine without it: Crime rates are currently at two-decade lows, with homicide down 7 percent and robberies down 14 percent since 2013.
...
The NYPD might benefit from fewer unnecessary arrests, too. Tensions between the mayor and the police unions originally intensified after a grand jury failed to indict a NYPD officer for the chokehold death of Eric Garner during an arrest earlier this year. Garner's arrest wasn't for murder or arson or bank robbery, but on suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes—hardly the most serious of crimes. Maybe the NYPD's new "absolutely necessary" standard for arrests would have produced a less tragic outcome for Garner then. Maybe it will for future Eric Garners too.
My opinion is that guy was annoying, but that response it over the top. Completely ridiculous response from the police.
You seriously have no problem with the cops in that video or their actions?
I'm guessing they only shoved him to the ground after he told them it was an Ellen Show stunt. Any grown man deserves to be thrown on the ground for watching Ellen, unless she has those two little singing english girls on, they are so darn cute.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Last edited by Derek Sutton; 12-31-2014 at 01:33 PM.
Though I agree with the unnecessarry arrest part, it is important to remember that the police don't "make the laws", they're simply obligated to enforce them. I also hate how the final paragraph is written, ignoring the facts surrounding the arrest of Eric Garner.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Last edited by Derek Sutton; 12-31-2014 at 01:27 PM.
I mean, clearly if police can't handle someone dancing around them like an idiot, no wonder they open fire at the slightest sign of actual danger.
I'm very curious to know what the threshold is for "necessary arrests" according to the NYPD. Also if NYC residents are finding a big increase in crime with the cutback of "unnecessary" arrests.
Totally agree. At least wait until your partner gets shot in the head until you react.
Start dancing around the police like a freaking idiot and then get upset that you were called an a-hole. Here comes Al Sharpton.
The guy wasn't holding a gun. He was dancing.
It was a pretty dramatic overreaction. But that's not really a surprise nowadays
No, clearly I shouldn't have any expectations that the men we're supposed to call to help us deal with an actual crisis are actually capable of handling said crisis in a measured and reasonable way.
It was a pretty dramatic overreaction. But that's not really a surprise nowadays
No, clearly I shouldn't have any expectations that the men we're supposed to call to help us deal with an actual crisis are actually capable of handling said crisis in a measured and reasonable way.
Reminds of the classic Jack Handey quote..."I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Cops are trying to do a serious job. As we've seen, there's a fine line between someone running up to you and dancing, and the same person running up to you and shooting you in the head. That's why you don't be an idiot around the cops when they're trying to do their job - pretty simple.
The fact that this is the type of guy that people are defending these days is a fitting commentary for where we're at with this issue.
The Following User Says Thank You to Winnie For This Useful Post:
Reminds of the classic Jack Handey quote..."I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Cops are trying to do a serious job. As we've seen, there's a fine line between someone running up to you and dancing, and the same person running up to you and shooting you in the head. That's why you don't be an idiot around the cops when they're trying to do their job - pretty simple.
The fact that this is the type of guy that people are defending these days is a fitting commentary for where we're at with this issue.
Not to mention, NYPD are crazy on edge right now and doing something like this is asking for someone(s) who are wound a bit too tightly to overreact.
I'm not going on either 'side' on this one, all were acting dumb.
Reminds of the classic Jack Handey quote..."I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Cops are trying to do a serious job. As we've seen, there's a fine line between someone running up to you and dancing, and the same person running up to you and shooting you in the head. That's why you don't be an idiot around the cops when they're trying to do their job - pretty simple.
The fact that this is the type of guy that people are defending these days is a fitting commentary for where we're at with this issue.
Actually, there isn't a "fine" line between someone being armed and unarmed, which is what you're describing.
In fact, I'd say that's a pretty big, fat, wide f'n line.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
Actually, there isn't a "fine" line between someone being armed and unarmed, which is what you're describing.
In fact, I'd say that's a pretty big, fat, wide f'n line.
For real?
How would the cops have known that this guy wasn't armed? Just by looking at his hands and seeing there was no gun there? Is that really how easy people think it is? Would it still be super clear that the guy was unarmed if he put his hand in his pocket and lunged at one of the officers? I mean, you still haven't seen a gun at that point either.
The reality is that anyone can be armed at any time, and cops have to deal with this every day. Again, this is why being an idiot around them is a really bad idea.
