• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Apocalypse Rising ... No, Wait: Why didn't the police "slow down" in NYC bring about the End of Days?

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,369
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
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.

...

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 slowdown also challenges the fundamental tenets of broken-windows policing, a controversial strategy championed by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton. According to the theory, which first came to prominence in a 1982 article in The Atlantic, "quality-of-life" crimes like vandalism and vagrancy help normalize criminal behavior in neighborhoods and precede more violent offenses. Tackling these low-level offenses therefore helps prevent future ones. The theory's critics dispute its effectiveness and contend that broken-windows policing simply criminalizes the young, the poor, and the homeless.

Public drinking and urination may be unseemly, but they're hardly threats to life, liberty, or public order. (The Post also noted a decline in drug arrests, but their comparison of 2013 and 2014 rates is misleading. The mayor's office announced in November that police would stop making arrests for low-level marijuana possession and issue tickets instead. Even before the slowdown began, marijuana-related arrests had declined by 61 percent.) If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-benefits-of-fewer-nypd-arrests/384126/

Why didn't the police "slow down" in NYC bring about the End of Days?
 
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.

...

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 slowdown also challenges the fundamental tenets of broken-windows policing, a controversial strategy championed by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton. According to the theory, which first came to prominence in a 1982 article in The Atlantic, "quality-of-life" crimes like vandalism and vagrancy help normalize criminal behavior in neighborhoods and precede more violent offenses. Tackling these low-level offenses therefore helps prevent future ones. The theory's critics dispute its effectiveness and contend that broken-windows policing simply criminalizes the young, the poor, and the homeless.

Public drinking and urination may be unseemly, but they're hardly threats to life, liberty, or public order. (The Post also noted a decline in drug arrests, but their comparison of 2013 and 2014 rates is misleading. The mayor's office announced in November that police would stop making arrests for low-level marijuana possession and issue tickets instead. Even before the slowdown began, marijuana-related arrests had declined by 61 percent.) If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-benefits-of-fewer-nypd-arrests/384126/

Why didn't the police "slow down" in NYC bring about the End of Days?

There may be a silver lining to this cloud. So far, nobody is missing the police. It would've been preferable to reform in response to protests and community relations, but this might work as well. Interesting times.
 
Well, is somebody at least shooting unarmed black men in the cops' absence?

What the article doesn't mention is that in the absence of police, the stalwart members of the NRA have stepped in and are now providing a "good guy with a gun" as needed to combat the bad guys.
 
Well, is somebody at least shooting unarmed black men in the cops' absence?

What the article doesn't mention is that in the absence of police, the stalwart members of the NRA have stepped in and are now providing a "good guy with a gun" as needed to combat the bad guys.

let's hope they encounter lots of other NRA boys wearing black hats. 'Cause then they can be heroes, stopping the bad guys with guns.
 

Garbage.

The problem is that we are looking at a very short-term phenomenon and the author is trying to use that as evidence of a long-term pattern.

It's like noting that I'm going 75 mph without my foot on the gas and concluding that the engine isn't actually needed to maintain speed when in reality I'm just going downhill. (I'm aware of two spots within 100 miles of here where I can go for miles without using any power. In a heavy vehicle I actually have to use the brakes a bit.)
 

Garbage.

The problem is that we are looking at a very short-term phenomenon and the author is trying to use that as evidence of a long-term pattern.

It's like noting that I'm going 75 mph without my foot on the gas and concluding that the engine isn't actually needed to maintain speed when in reality I'm just going downhill. (I'm aware of two spots within 100 miles of here where I can go for miles without using any power. In a heavy vehicle I actually have to use the brakes a bit.)

You've missed the point. The article is speculative. It's a "what if...".

Maybe we have more cops than we need. Maybe fewer arrests are a better thing for everybody.
 
Garbage.

The problem is that we are looking at a very short-term phenomenon and the author is trying to use that as evidence of a long-term pattern.

It's like noting that I'm going 75 mph without my foot on the gas and concluding that the engine isn't actually needed to maintain speed when in reality I'm just going downhill. (I'm aware of two spots within 100 miles of here where I can go for miles without using any power. In a heavy vehicle I actually have to use the brakes a bit.)

You've missed the point. The article is speculative. It's a "what if...".

Maybe we have more cops than we need. Maybe fewer arrests are a better thing for everybody.

It's pretending to be speculation but the use of real-world data means it's intended to be more than that.
 
You've missed the point. The article is speculative. It's a "what if...".

Maybe we have more cops than we need. Maybe fewer arrests are a better thing for everybody.

It's pretending to be speculation but the use of real-world data means it's intended to be more than that.

Why don't you answer this question:

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?
 
Why don't you answer this question:
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?
You can't possibly not know the answer to that question, but I'll bite....

Absolutely necessary means don't bust someone for minor things that lower the quality of life of everyone impacted, but don't cause great harm.

That would be minor stuff like littering, pissing in public, being rude assholes, traffic violations (holding up traffic by being an asshole in a busy city is... well, fuck someone who decides to block the intersection so someone else doesn't get to go), parking violations by assholes who decide to park somewhere all day long which prevents other people from getting a place, etc.

So now assholes can get away with lowering the general quality of life in NYC. It's time to piss on the sidewalks and throw garbage all over the place.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/29/arrests-plummet-following-execution-of-two-cops/
 
You've missed the point. The article is speculative. It's a "what if...".

Maybe we have more cops than we need. Maybe fewer arrests are a better thing for everybody.

It's pretending to be speculation but the use of real-world data means it's intended to be more than that.

I see...

Hark ye yet again- the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event- in the living act, the undoubted deed- there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike though the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall?
 
Guess there'll be extra time to get through court backlogs now.
 
Why don't you answer this question:
You can't possibly not know the answer to that question, but I'll bite....

Absolutely necessary means don't bust someone for minor things that lower the quality of life of everyone impacted, but don't cause great harm.

That would be minor stuff like littering, pissing in public, being rude assholes, traffic violations (holding up traffic by being an asshole in a busy city is... well, fuck someone who decides to block the intersection so someone else doesn't get to go), parking violations by assholes who decide to park somewhere all day long which prevents other people from getting a place, etc.

So now assholes can get away with lowering the general quality of life in NYC. It's time to piss on the sidewalks and throw garbage all over the place.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/29/arrests-plummet-following-execution-of-two-cops/

Exactly. It was obvious what they meant.
 
people were being ARRESTED for being "rude assholes" or for traffic violations, etc? Well that's part of the problem right there :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom