The NYPD (Norwood, Cleveland: high crime, credit, attorneys)
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.
So with NYC as divided as this board. What's the next step for the Commish and Mayor. Few suggestions on my part. I bounced them off some cops last night at work. They shook their heads no until I mentioned raises. ( I am not a cop btw).
1. The people have spoken loud and clear especially in areas of Color. It really is the time to scale back aggressive policing. IMO, This will bring down ccrb's, lawsuits, and deaths involving the NYPD.
2. The city paid over 225 MILLION dollars in lawsuits pertaining to the cops. Not saying the lawsuits were justified but still that's what we the taxpayer paid. Think if we could scale that back to under 50 million? Raises for cops, fireman, teachers and other workers. Lower taxes for city dwellers.
3. Reward cops who have zero complaints or lawsuits against them. Money usually is the driving force on how people think.
4. Eliminate all monitoring and quotas on cops. Cops should not be punished if they don't stop people or make arrests. Maybe those cops rather use discretion and enjoy more of the community policing aspect.
5. Make people who call 911 give their names. Too often someone will call 911 on something with anonymity. This is what got the whole ball rolling with SI and the kid in Cleveland with the toy gun.
6. Make all CITY workers wear body cameras. Cops, Fireman, and Teachers. That way the public can see who really is disruptive in the class room. ( Kid or the teacher). See if the FDNY are racist in administering aid or responding to fires.
At the end of the day this present system is done. Too much vitriol on both sides. Time for scaling back.
I'll take your suggestions step by step in explaining why I disagree or agree with them.
1) Sure, we can scale back aggressive policing to a degree (and, in my opinion, this is a conversation worth having). But, let's be clear, aggressive policing has been credited with saving thousands of lives (mainly people of color) over the years in NYC alone, and in bringing down crime to historic low levels. I don't want to go back to where this City was before.
As long as black and Latino communities continue to have significantly higher violent crime levels than other neighborhoods in this City, we will (and should demand) greater policing within those areas to combat crime. And, with more police officers, you'll have more police interactions (its a pure numbers issue) and more allegations of police abuse, whether substantiated or not (again, its a pure numbers issue).
2) Was that $225 million in a given year? I still think the City settles too easily many times. I'm not sure whether NY has an aggressive loser pays law, but, if not, needs to consider implementing one as a means of weeding out weak lawsuits that are still often settled (although not for millions) as it costs less to do so than to hire attorneys to litigate in court.
3) I'm not sure how I feel about this given that not all police officer complaints (in fact, most are not) are ever substantiated; so why penalize an officer for having an unsubstantiated complaint against him/her? Also, if an officer has zero complaints against him/her, that can mean that s/he's an excellent cop or a poor cop who isn't aggressive working the street and trying to fight crime (i.e. the "look the other way" cops).
4) Monitoring is fine, in my opinion, as it goes to accountability. Quotes on their face sound bad; indeed, it looks like police officers are being unduly pressured to find crime to meet quotes, which can lead to abuse. On the other side of things, however, if quotas are implemented reasonably, they can be effective. Indeed, with CompStat, its clear how many reported crimes are taking place within a given time frame (and there's a good sense on the number of small quality of life issues, such as double parking). Knowing that police officers can't be everywhere at once, quotas can be nothing more than allocating resources and making such that officers are doing what they are paid to do. Can there be abuses with a quota system? Yes. But this is one reason why I'm pleased that a body camera system is being implemented.
5) Disagree. I've had to call the police multiple times to report crime. If I had to leave my name every time (particularly when I lived in high crime areas), I wouldn't have called. This is because, whether intentionally or accidentally, I feared "leaks" of my name in an area where the thirst for retribution was high. Also, a name isn't needed for police officers to go out and investigate (and I don't see how giving a name in the Cleveland situation, etc., would have led to a different outcome).
6) Ideally, I'd have no problem with it, but I don't see why that idea is warranted on such a large scale (and that doesn't even get into affordability issues). One thing we have to stop accepting or giving news coverage to are unsubstantiated claims of racism. No need to go bankrupt or have to let more police officers, teachers, and firefighters go to afford such an expansive system in my opinion.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 12-06-2014 at 01:41 PM..
I'll take your suggestions step by step in explaining why I disagree or agree with them.
1) Sure, we can scale back aggressive policing to a degree (and, in my opinion, this is a conversation worth having). But, let's be clear, aggressive policing has been credited with saving thousands of lives (mainly people of color) over the years in NYC alone, and in bringing down crime to historic low levels. I don't want to go back to where this City was before.
As long as black and Latino communities continue to have significantly higher violent crime levels than other neighborhoods in this City, we will (and should demand) greater policing within those areas to combat crime. And, with more police officer, you'll have more police interactions (its a pure numbers issue) and more allegations of police abuse, whether substantiated or not (again, its a pure numbers issue).
2) Was that $225 million in a given year? I still think the City settles too easily many times. I'm not sure whether NY has an aggressive loser pays law, but, if not, needs to consider implementing one as a means of weeding out weak lawsuits that are still often settled (although not for millions) as it costs less to do so than to hire attorneys to litigate in court.
3) I'm not sure how I feel about this given that not all police officer complaints (in fact, most are not) are never substantiated; so why penalize an officer for having an unsubstantiated complaint against him/her? Also, if an officer has zero complaints against him/her, that can mean that s/he's an excellent cop or a poor cop who isn't aggressive working the street and trying to fight crime (i.e. the "look the other way" cops).
4) Monitoring is fine, in my opinion as it goes to accountability. Quotes on their face sound bad; indeed, it looks like police officers are being unduly pressured to find crime to meet quotes, which can lead to abuse. On the other side of things, however, if quotas are implemented reasonably, they can be effective. Indeed, with CompStat, its clear how many reported crimes are taking place within a given time frame (and there's a good sense on the number of small quality of life issues, such as double parking). Knowing that police officers can't be everywhere at once, quotas can be nothing more than allocating resources and making such that officers are doing what they are paid to do. Can there be abuses with a quota system? Yes. But this is one reason why I'm pleased that a body camera system is being implemented.
5) Disagree. I've had to call the police multiple times to report crime. If I had to leave my name every time (particularly when I lived in high crime areas), I wouldn't have called. This is because, whether intentionally or accidentally, I feared "leaks" of my name in an area where the thirst for retribution was high. Also, a name isn't needed for police officers to go out and investigate (and I don't see how giving a name in the Cleveland situation, etc., would have led to a different outcome).
6) Ideally, I'd have no problem with it, but I don't see why that idea is warranted on such a large scale (and that doesn't even get into affordability issues). One thing we have to stop accepting or giving news coverage to are unsubstantiated claims of racism. No need to go bankrupt or have to let more police officers, teachers, and firefighters go to afford such an expansive system in my opinion.
You disagreed on all of them! Your ideas are the ones that are here now. It's a new era that requires new thinking. Also what I'm being told my cops is this. You have to have a certain number of stops and arrests or your placed in some sort of monitoring phase. So basically yo have a cop having to stop someone so not to get extra scrutiny from bosses?? IMO, That's a slippery slope. BTW I mentioned teachers because of the size of the board of Ed budget. Also schooling is a primary reason middle class families abandon the city.
You disagreed on all of them! Your ideas are the ones that are here now. It's a new era that requires new thinking. Also what I'm being told my cops is this. You have to have a certain number of stops and arrests or your placed in some sort of monitoring phase. So basically yo have a cop having to stop someone so not to get extra scrutiny from bosses?? IMO, That's a slippery slope. BTW I mentioned teachers because of the size of the board of Ed budget. Also schooling is a primary reason middle class families abandon the city.
I am on board with cameras for police officers!
Also, I'm not opposed to having a discussion on changing police interactions (i.e. moving to the more talk it out approach vs. the all-too-often current model of "do as I say when I say it" approach). Of course, this wouldn't be the case for every encounter, but could be a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, with the monitoring system you describe, I'm more concerned with whether the stops are legal. And the reasons for the stops in that instance aren't so weird, IMO. If you are on a job, you are expected to show results. If the crime data/police reports show that there is X amount of crime/violations within a particular precinct, but my officers (as a precinct leader) are making zero arrests/writing zero tickets, then there is a problem. That's why I don't see a problem inherently with monitoring/quotas. But, as I alluded to before, its important to ensure that they don't get out of control/become legally suspect, which is why I support the body cameras for police officers.
True, the DOE has a large budget, but, when you factor in generous pension plans and other everyday expenses, many schools/the Department are still struggling to make ends meet.
You're completely wrong. There's no need to change policy. The policies we had now reduced crime drastically in this city (look at murder rates from 1988 until now.)
Yes, I know there are a large number of people who disagree with these policies. However, a large number of these people are somewhat sympathetic to the criminal class and/or criminals themselves, or will be the victims of the crime that will occur when the policies used over the last 20 years are reversed (and then will be crying for protection.)
Don't mess with what works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwood Boy
You disagreed on all of them! Your ideas are the ones that are here now. It's a new era that requires new thinking. Also what I'm being told my cops is this. You have to have a certain number of stops and arrests or your placed in some sort of monitoring phase. So basically yo have a cop having to stop someone so not to get extra scrutiny from bosses?? IMO, That's a slippery slope. BTW I mentioned teachers because of the size of the board of Ed budget. Also schooling is a primary reason middle class families abandon the city.
You're completely wrong. There's no need to change policy. The policies we had now reduced crime drastically in this city (look at murder rates from 1988 until now.)
Yes, I know there are a large number of people who disagree with these policies. However, a large number of these people are somewhat sympathetic to the criminal class and/or criminals themselves, or will be the victims of the crime that will occur when the policies used over the last 20 years are reversed (and then will be crying for protection.)
Don't mess with what works.
Is it working??? Look at what's happening throughout the Country? I'm a big fan of the NYPD. They have done a great job but times have changed.
You're completely wrong. There's no need to change policy. The policies we had now reduced crime drastically in this city (look at murder rates from 1988 until now.)
Yes, I know there are a large number of people who disagree with these policies. However, a large number of these people are somewhat sympathetic to the criminal class and/or criminals themselves, or will be the victims of the crime that will occur when the policies used over the last 20 years are reversed (and then will be crying for protection.)
Don't mess with what works.
Except crime has been going down across the country, independent of police tactics, and is better linked to a generational change and influx of new technology in the modern day rather than police tactics. We most recently saw evidence of this when we stopped "Stop and Frisk" and crime has continued to go down. NYC murders are down 6% from last year. Violent crime in general is also down from last year.
What you see here is white privilege in effect. Police brutality in general does not effect white people, so white people see no harm in maintaining the status quo. Latino and Black communities tend to be more violent because of poverty, not because of race/ethnicity. Cops unfairly single out minorities, specifically blacks and latinos. For example, studies show that white people abuse illegal drugs just as much as their latino and black counterparts, yet 90% of people who are jailed for possession are black or hispanic.
Except crime has been going down across the country, independent of police tactics, and is better linked to a generational change and influx of new technology in the modern day rather than police tactics. We most recently saw evidence of this when we stopped "Stop and Frisk" and crime has continued to go down. NYC murders are down 6% from last year. Violent crime in general is also down from last year.
What you see here is white privilege in effect. Police brutality in general does not effect white people, so white people see no harm in maintaining the status quo. Latino and Black communities tend to be more violent because of poverty, not because of race/ethnicity. Cops unfairly single out minorities, specifically blacks and latinos. For example, studies show that white people abuse illegal drugs just as much as their latino and black counterparts, yet 90% of people who are jailed for possession are black or hispanic.
Come on man! Let's stay on point and not derail the thread. I'm gonna guess you didn't live in the big apple in the 70' or 80's.
In the past 50 years, the rate of black Americans killed by police has dropped 70 percent. In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A. Same year, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available."
Except crime has been going down across the country, independent of police tactics, and is better linked to a generational change and influx of new technology in the modern day rather than police tactics. We most recently saw evidence of this when we stopped "Stop and Frisk" and crime has continued to go down. NYC murders are down 6% from last year. Violent crime in general is also down from last year.
What you see here is white privilege in effect. Police brutality in general does not effect white people, so white people see no harm in maintaining the status quo. Latino and Black communities tend to be more violent because of poverty, not because of race/ethnicity. Cops unfairly single out minorities, specifically blacks and latinos. For example, studies show that white people abuse illegal drugs just as much as their latino and black counterparts, yet 90% of people who are jailed for possession are black or hispanic.
Not to mention it was Gardner who got KILLED for SELLING LOOSIES! Loose cigarettes, when all smokers buy,sell, or trade cigs at some point!
And yes crime has gone down nationwide, partially because the crack cocaine era is over, welfare reform had an effect, and certain other changes such as putting more money into mental health services has helped.
To be fair a number of protesters have been white, and even people like George Bush and Bill O'Reilly have condemned what the cops and what the grand jury did in regards to Eric Gardner. Many whites are busted on drug or alcohol related offenses, but if you can stay out of trouble for six months you generally get ACD. A lot of poor people in the streets like Gardner for whatever reason do their transaction out in public for all to see, making it easier to target them. If he wasn't on bail, he probably wouldn't have been subject to arrest for selling loosies. However, he still should not have DIED for selling them. He wasn't harming anyone, the cops should have left him alone.
Is it working??? Look at what's happening throughout the Country? I'm a big fan of the NYPD. They have done a great job but times have changed.
Agreed. Times has changed, so the status quo clearly is not working.
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.
Your ideas are the ones that are here now. It's a new era that requires new thinking. Also what I'm being told my cops is this. You have to have a certain number of stops and arrests or your placed in some sort of monitoring phase. So basically yo have a cop having to stop someone so not to get extra scrutiny from bosses?? IMO, That's a slippery slope. BTW I mentioned teachers because of the size of the board of Ed budget. Also schooling is a primary reason middle class families abandon the city.
.
