The NYPD's 'Work Stoppage' Is Surreal | Rolling Stone
I would think that if the cops are going to back off their aggressive policing of minor offenses, it might actually help relations in the neighborhoods. Part of the issue has been that they are too aggressive in certain neighborhoods. Please read the article before jumping on me for that statement.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064143548 (NYPD Arrests Down 66% Since Officers’ Death)
The only thing I'll sort of jump at is Rolling Stone. I lost respect and interest in that magazine a long long time ago. Even before they put Jahar Tsarnaev on their cover and even before their recent disgrace with their bogus UVA rape story. There are too many reputable and principled journalist that have written about the NYPD situation for me to bother indulging the hacks at Rolling Stone's "reporting" on anything. Ever. But thanks for the link anyway.
Some may not have heard of broken window policing.
Many cities including NYPD use this tactic
Justin Peters: Shattering the ‘broken windows’ theory of policing | National Post
Broken windows policing is back in New York City, and it may have killed Eric Garner. “Broken windows” is an order-maintenance strategy that encourages cops to enforce quality-of-life laws on the grounds that, essentially, nits breed lice. It presumes that a disorderly environment where small laws are broken with impunity leads to bigger problems. This is the mindset that led the police to approach Garner for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes: loose cigarettes today, civil unrest tomorrow.
Though NYPD commissioner William Bratton is a big proponent of broken windows policing, there’s no evidence that the policy is effective in reducing violent crime. At the same time, the effects of order-maintenance policing are felt disproportionately by members of minority groups. In August, responding to critics’ claims that these policies unfairly target people of colour, Bratton told The Associated Press that “it’s not an intentional focus on minorities. It’s a focus on behaviour.” Bratton added, “We are not a racist organization — not at all.”
Maybe Bratton is right. But even if broken windows isn’t explicitly racist, it’s inherently classist, and the two are close enough as to be functionally indistinguishable.
The broken windows theory was first articulated in a 1982 Atlantic article by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, who argued that “disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence.” That idea is rooted in the work of a mid-century political scientist named Edward Banfield. (Wilson studied under Banfield at the University of Chicago.) Banfield specialized in refuting the main tenet of modern liberalism, the idea that the state should take an active role in improving the lives of its most vulnerable residents. Banfield contended that state intervention could only make things worse.
In his 1970 book The Unheavenly City and a revised edition titled The Unheavenly City Revisited, Banfield addressed the era’s so-called urban crisis: high crime rates, riots, white flight. Liberalism was to blame, Banfield argued — or, at the very least, liberal policies would never help fix the crisis. The Great Society initiatives of the Johnson era had just served to widen class divisions and to encourage members of the lower classes to blame others for their plight, thus fostering feelings of resentment and entitlement.
Like many people, Banfield believed the urban unrest of the late 1960s had been stoked by matters of civil rights. But Banfield believed the problem was that the lower classes had too many of them. Criminal behaviour was human nature — or, rather, in the nature of a specific subset of lower-class humans. “So long as there are large concentrations of boys and young men of the lower classes on the streets, rampages and forays are to be expected,” Banfield wrote. The clear solution was to remove these lower-class youths from the streets posthaste.
If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.
Something that everyone, including the cops there who won't do their job in "protest," need to understand about any NYC mayor: They are just politicians. This is why guliani ran for president. There's no reason to get so excited when guliani put on some NYPD/NYFD hat at a yankees game after 9/11 to show his "support," as if he joined them in heroically running into the towers.
There's also no reason to get butthurt when blasio can't spare the time of day to go to some funeral. Should he do so when every gas station clerk in the city is killed? Being a cop is actually much safer, yet only cops have the gall to demand the mayor shows up. How about all public employees, not just our "heroes"?
I detest de Blasio. He repulses me. But he had to go to both funerals, that I understand. Still, I detest him. If one of those 2 dead men was my husband, I would be hard pressed to allow him to be there. de Blasio sucks.
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields