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.
Looks like the cops are going to let crime rise thru the roof because they cant get away with stop n frisking and choke holds anymore. I wonder how cops used to prevent/solve crimes and make arrests before?
The conversation over whether there is incarceration or not for low level crimes is important, but, ultimately I'm trying to refocus the reason why I came into this forum. The reason Garner or others may not get jail time is often the result of a political/legal decision made by assistants to popularly elected district attorneys. These decisions, however, don't excuse police officers from doing their job in enforcing the law.
People complaining in the forums and a few other locations doesn't scream to me like the kind of pressure that is going to endanger police jobs. Still, I'm waiting on concrete evidence from the unions and others who claim that they fear losing their jobs for doing their jobs that this is actually a reasonable/legitimate fear.
And I am absolutely correct on this. Yes, a DA could refuse to investigate a homicide with multiple eyewitnesses or on video. That's 100% within their discretion; on the other hand, police officers are in a much trickier legal situation in terms of discretion in such cases. Now, whether or not they will do so for political reasons is another story. Still, I didn't make my comment to suggest that DAs as a regular matter will go to such extremes in refusing to enforce the law, but rather that their discretion is much, much greater than police officers.
That goes exactly to my point: Garner's death would have been routinely investigated, which is why I don't see how the fact that it is makes any officer reasonably fear for losing his job/pension, especially in any unjust way (Again, if the cops are justly on the line for losing their jobs, good.). This is pure routine practice.
And do explain how this is and how I just don't see it being so.
Police officers issue summons and fines. Whether an individual fined by police officers will actually have to pay that fine, however, is ultimately not up to the police officer.
If the police supervisors on Staten Island were getting this from someone else in the civilian command, I would bet that this would have leaked by now. Ultimately, though, what you wrote may very well be true for this instance. But, until there's evidence that it is so, I'm going by what is being reported. By the way, I didn't claim that supervisors are generally corrupt. But, if the stories being reported on this matter hold true, I will argue that the supervisors involved in this matter are. Just as an observational point, I find it difficult to believe that higher-ups in the de-Blasio Administration would have given such a command, particularly when the Mayor is already under scrutiny for increases in crime that some are linking to a decrease in stops and frisks.
It's really a easy concept to grasp. These guys/girls aren't paid by commission on what yields the highest return. They are the grunts if you will. When your CEO (Bratton and Debozo) has indicted, tried and convicted this cop you figured that would cause some sort of ripple effect on morale. I surprised crime in general isn't spiking everywhere.
I'm gonna guess you never served in the armed services? Worked in some sort of job where you could get killed? On a smaller scale what about just playing a team sport like football or baseball? You read about coaches getting dismissed when they lose control of the locker room. When they no longer can motivate the men. Once that happens then it's all over.
Looks like the cops are going to let crime rise thru the roof because they cant get away with stop n frisking and choke holds anymore. I wonder how cops used to prevent/solve crimes and make arrests before?
“The bosses told us not to do anything ‘proactive,’ ” a Staten Island cop said, adding that he and other officers were ordered not to make arrests or even hand out summonses unless absolutely necessary."
This should be their default position.
Absolutely agree. Police should be peace keepers and watch out for and try to stop rapes, murders, assault and battery, theft, and vandalism. They don't do that by instigating situations, escalating situations and going after people who have harmed no one. They also don't keep the streets safe by doing what they are supposed to watch out for and try to stop (listed above) whether its false arrest (kidnapping), excessive force (assault and battery) or murder (uncalled for shooting).
If cops stopped trying to harass people who have a pill or plant in their pocket or jaywalk or don't wear a seat belt they could spend more time actually watching out for the above and keeping people safe from bad guys. You can't have a good police force if the public can't trust the police more than the violent criminals. Obviously the first step is to mandate that every cop wear a camera and have cops prosecuted by an independent agency and monitored by a citizen review board comprised entirely of people who have never been cops, judges or prosecutors and who don't have any family that are cops, judges or prosecutors.
Absolutely agree. Police should be peace keepers and watch out for and try to stop rapes, murders, assault and battery, theft, and vandalism. They don't do that by instigating situations, escalating situations and going after people who have harmed no one. They also don't keep the streets safe by doing what they are supposed to watch out for and try to stop (listed above) whether its false arrest (kidnapping), excessive force (assault and battery) or murder (uncalled for shooting).
If cops stopped trying to harass people who have a pill or plant in their pocket or jaywalk or don't wear a seat belt they could spend more time actually watching out for the above and keeping people safe from bad guys. You can't have a good police force if the public can't trust the police more than the violent criminals. Obviously the first step is to mandate that every cop wear a camera and have cops prosecuted by an independent agency and monitored by a citizen review board comprised entirely of people who have never been cops, judges or prosecutors and who don't have any family that are cops, judges or prosecutors.
Just curios, and be perfectly honest with me. Have you ever had someone take a **** in the front of your home?
It's really a easy concept to grasp. These guys/girls aren't paid by commission on what yields the highest return. They are the grunts if you will. When your CEO (Bratton and Debozo) has indicted, tried and convicted this cop you figured that would cause some sort of ripple effect on morale. I surprised crime in general isn't spiking everywhere.
I'm gonna guess you never served in the armed services? Worked in some sort of job where you could get killed? On a smaller scale what about just playing a team sport like football or baseball? You read about coaches getting dismissed when they lose control of the locker room. When they no longer can motivate the men. Once that happens then it's all over.
You sound like an unpaid spokesperson for the PBA. What will it take you to see that NYPD is not as perfect as you think?
It's really a easy concept to grasp. These guys/girls aren't paid by commission on what yields the highest return. They are the grunts if you will. When your CEO (Bratton and Debozo) has indicted, tried and convicted this cop you figured that would cause some sort of ripple effect on morale. I surprised crime in general isn't spiking everywhere.
I'm gonna guess you never served in the armed services? Worked in some sort of job where you could get killed? On a smaller scale what about just playing a team sport like football or baseball? You read about coaches getting dismissed when they lose control of the locker room. When they no longer can motivate the men. Once that happens then it's all over.
The concept isn't difficult to understand. But, then again, that's not the point. At issue here is what sound evidence there is to show that the concept is playing out here in this instance. What is going on here with the investigation is nothing more than routine practice. Let's see the evidence that these cops actually and reasonably fear being unjustly fired for doing their jobs (again, I don't shed tears for cops who are justly terminated from their positions).
Moving on, if you see a crime being committed, as a police officer, you have an obligation to intervene. You knew the danger of the job when you signed up for it. If you're going to under-perform and neglect, as opposed to serve and protect, why are you getting paid? Taxpayers aren't paying police officers to neglect and under-serve (in any job, such performance will lead you to getting booted, as it should).
The concept isn't difficult to understand. But, then again, that's not the point. At issue here is what sound evidence there is to show that the concept is playing out here in this instance. What is going on here with the investigation is nothing more than routine practice. Let's see the evidence that these cops actually and reasonably fear being unjustly fired for doing their jobs (again, I don't shed tears for cops who are justly terminated from their positions).
Moving on, if you see a crime being committed, as a police officer, you have an obligation to intervene. You knew the danger of the job when you signed up for it. If you're going to under-perform and neglect, as opposed to serve and protect, why are you getting paid? Taxpayers aren't paying police officers to neglect and under-serve (in any job, such performance will lead you to getting booted, as it should).
It's a very different job in the sense of morale IMO. I'm not a cop but know many. Are you willing to put yourself in harms way over very low level crime? Very easy for you to get up on the bully pulpit and say let's go clear corners and kick some arse. Have you ever been sued? A lien put on your home? When your CEO does a public conviction of one of your peers. i would be very very leery of doing any pro enforcement. For all you know Eric Holder may be coming for your butt.
In terms of making arrests? I believe they have wide latitudes of discretion. Some situations they must arrest. Some they can just do a warn and admonish.
They're not catching most of the felons anyway. They're going after people for misdemeanors.
More nonsense.
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.
