Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The majority of new yorkers are for the additional protections for residents because the abuses were so out of control. It is called checks and balances, and the existing checks and balances were clearly nonexistent so, if you have anyone to blame for these new checks and balances, blame the NYPD for flagrantly violating civil rights for years. The Mayor ran on this platform, won, and is thankfully implementing these protections. I suspect if you, your family, and friends were repeatedly victimized by the NYPD and there was nothing you could do about it, you would be thankful that DeBlasio did as promised. And there are lots of people who are thankful and will live safer because of this.
I suspect if you, your family, and friends were repeatedly victimized by the NYPD and there was nothing you could do about it, you would be thankful that DeBlasio did as promised. And there are lots of people who are thankful and will live safer because of this.
They are exactly 0 safer under that new policy. The fiduciary way to do this would have been to continue preventing the lawsuits, change NYPD practices, and then allow the lawsuits right before leaving office to make sure his successor follows his lead on NYPD policy (by that time there should be no new lawsuits because he supposedly is a better mayor for leading a just police force). Instead, the only difference is that the city will go deeper into debt and have less resources to provide services for residents
Allowing lawsuits against the NYPD does nothing to change individual cop behavior. They don't pay the settlement, the city does. It's the city that sets NYPD policy (DeBlasio), and for some reason he thinks he needs to get sued to be kept in line
The only way the city will go deeper into debt, as you allege, is if the NYPD don't change their practices. Your "strategy" makes no sense...and hasn't worked because the NYPD has always said 2 things: they would make changes (and never do) or say they are simply not changing their policy. They don't do anything until their pensions/jobs are on the line..and that is exactly the reason why these lawsuits are necessary.
The only way the city will go deeper into debt, as you allege, is if the NYPD don't change their practices. Your "strategy" makes no sense...and hasn't worked because the NYPD has always said 2 things: they would make changes (and never do) or say they are simply not changing their policy. They don't do anything until their pensions/jobs are on the line..and that is exactly the reason why these lawsuits are necessary.
You're making no sense whatsoever. How are their jobs or pensions on the line because of the lawsuits? They were following DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE in stop & frisk. It's a city policy, DeBlasio sets the policy, he doesn't need to get sued to change it, why isn't this sinking in?
I don't think people see it as a weakness, speaking for myself I see it more as a violation of fiduciary responsibilities towards the taxpayer. By far his craziest move is dropping the resistance to block people from suing for stop and frisk. Complete insanity, he clearly doesn't trust himself to manage the NYPD and/or he's happy to open up the city's bank account for whatever cause is interested in a big paycheck
You're also misrepresenting what de Blasio did. When one sues the city for stop and frisk, there are no financial damages involved. Said lawsuits involve policy changes, such as the one that de Blasio settled out of court with the plaintiffs.
De Blasio knows exactly what he is doing. Since the city settled out of court on stop and frisk, settled out of court on the FDNY lawsuit, and dropped resistance on individual stop and frisk lawsuits, he put into place permanent policy changes they cannot be changed by the next mayor. No matter who the next mayor is, the city already agreed to these changes and the courts will enforce them. Also, no matter who the next mayor is, by the time de Blasio is out of office the FDNY will be much more diverse.
It's interesting that so much of what Bloomberg did was reversible in less than three months of the next mayor taking office. The main things he did that are not reversible are creation of the 311 system, the 7 train extension, Hudson Yards, his rezoning of much of the city, the Cornell Tech School, and NYU's School of Urban Science. But of his other stuff, his policing policy was eliminated immediately and ditto his FDNY policy. Ditto his anti union stance from City Hall.
No, we know that they were NOT following dept procedure...if all of these stops were legal, there would no no issue. Are you now alleging that every stop performed over the past decade were all legal and per dept procedure? How can anyone make such a statement? In fantasy land this is true...in the real world we know the police abuses were rampant and oftentimes violent. Since the NYPD is incapable of policing itself (the irony!), this will help even the playing field and make cops think twice about going rogue and breaking the law.
DeBlasio can make all the policies he wants, but if they have no teeth or consequences significant enough to deter the behavior, nothing changes, which is what we have seen for years. Let's see if the threat of lawsuit/loss of job/pension changes the abusive behavior within the NYPD..I would not be surprised if it doesn't. We shall see.
You're also misrepresenting what de Blasio did. When one sues the city for stop and frisk, there are no financial damages involved. Said lawsuits involve policy changes, such as the one that de Blasio settled out of court with the plaintiffs.
De Blasio knows exactly what he is doing. Since the city settled out of court on stop and frisk, settled out of court on the FDNY lawsuit, and dropped resistance on individual stop and frisk lawsuits, he put into place permanent policy changes they cannot be changed by the next mayor. No matter who the next mayor is, the city already agreed to these changes and the courts will enforce them. Also, no matter who the next mayor is, by the time de Blasio is out of office the FDNY will be much more diverse.
It's interesting that so much of what Bloomberg did was reversible in less than three months of the next mayor taking office. The main things he did that are not reversible are creation of the 311 system, the 7 train extension, Hudson Yards, his rezoning of much of the city, the Cornell Tech School, and NYU's School of Urban Science. But of his other stuff, his policing policy was eliminated immediately and ditto his FDNY policy. Ditto his anti union stance from City Hall.
What was "his fdny policy" and what did de blasio "reverse"?
No, we know that they were NOT following dept procedure...if all of these stops were legal, there would no no issue. Are you now alleging that every stop performed over the past decade were all legal and per dept procedure? How can anyone make such a statement?
I can make such a statement because the official policy was to indeed search anyone cops thought looked suspicious for any reason at the cop's discretion. So walking while black became a defacto offense, and it's a good thing that policy was changed but the city doesn't need to get sued because DEBLASIO ALREADY CHANGED IT
Last edited by BlakeJones; 03-19-2014 at 10:18 AM..
What was "his fdny policy" and what did de blasio "reverse"?
De Blasio has completed agreed that Bloomberg hiring policies re: FDNY were completely wrong, and has agreed to submit the city fully to federal guidelines and oversights. As the FDNY becomes much more diverse, that's a permanent institutional change. Once you get a civil service/municipal union job, you're pretty much there till retirement.
De Blasio has completed agreed that Bloomberg hiring policies re: FDNY were completely wrong, and has agreed to submit the city fully to federal guidelines and oversights. As the FDNY becomes much more diverse, that's a permanent institutional change. Once you get a civil service/municipal union job, you're pretty much there till retirement.
No, friend. I'm asking you what bloomberg's "hiring policies" were. Simple question, and I don't need to hear the other stuff you mention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
