I assume, as I said that there is great political cost to doing such. It not being prosecuted in the past has no relation whatsoever on whether it’s wrong. The plain reading of the rule shows it’s wrong. You’re the one saying that a 90%+ reduction in petty crime enforcement isn’t a slowdown. What’s your number? 99%? 99.99%? Your position is simply goofy as fuck.
Why? If I spent time and found that it hadn’t been prosecuted in the past, that doesn’t change the clear wording of the law and your asinine position on it.
As I said, you gotta spend political capital to fuck the police.
You suggested that without a quota system there can be no slowdown. If I mistook that, tell me what in your specific mind a slowdown is, please. The floor is yours.
I think you’re blindly sticking to your guns because you’re unwilling to admit a mistake. I get it. You like being the voice of reason. But in this case, you’re the queef of discord.
I don’t think I said that. Can you quote the part where you think I did?
What I said, I believe, is that there would have to be a quota system for your measurement technique to work. That is not to say yours isthe only measurement technique.
And let me emphasize one more time: For those who think they know that the actions under discussion are illegal, can you cite even one instance when such an action was prosecuted successfully? I keep asking this question, and I notice that none of you even acknowledges it, much less attempt to answer. If you can’t cite legal judgements to back up your claims, it should make you pause and question why you are so certain in your beliefs.
Some humility is warranted here. A wise man is aware of what he doesn’t know.
I’ll admit that I haven’t read this whole thread yet, but I wanted to respond to this while it was fresh in my mind. You reminded me of something that Anthony Jeselnik said to Charlie Sheen during his Comedy Central Roast:
Not making any claims, but here is something to consider:
In November 2013, then Mayor Bloomberg brought suit against the corrections officers union (COBA), citing the Taylor Law, for a work stoppage that kept buses from leaving Rikers Correctional Facility to take inmates to court, allegedly to stop an inmate from testifying against a corrections officer.
The union disavowed involvement, and Bloomberg left office right after that, so the suit never went forward. But the corrections union was fined and sanctioned for similar work stoppages in the past (see Exhibit B, page 25, in the Summons and Complaint)
Here is a recent NY Times article about the corrections union head, Norman Seabrook. It follows up on the November 2013 work stoppage incident: The union paid the fines for the 63 COs who were sanctioned under the Taylor Law for that bus incident at Rikers.
I don’t recall you being this stupid. I mean, really, I don’t associate your name with complete idiocy.
This measurement technique is Analysis 101 type stuff. Compare the results from period X with the results from period X last year. It’s not comparison to a quota, it’s a trend analysis. For the first 50 weeks of the year, arrests & violations are within 10% of the prior year’s results, the 51st week A&V drop 95% from the prior year. It doesn’t exactly take a professional statistician to say “hey, something’s up”.
Quotas establish a bright line where going below is “bad”. This is not a quota, because it’s a whole bunch of grey area. In this case they’re going from a subdued off-white to dark charcoal in one step.
Whether or not it’s actionable is completely beside the point. Everybody with a functioning brain stem can see that this reduction is a work slowdown intended to punish the Mayor.
Well, maybe you just haven’t read enough of my posts!
Sorry, but that’s still a quota. I linked to the definition of “quota”, above. Did you read it? A quota can be a percentage, it doesn’t have to be a fixed amount. There is no grey area once you declare a certain amount or percentage to be actionable. If the judges says: Well, I don’t know exactly where to draw the line, but 90% is certainly past it", then he just set 90% as the quota. If the cops then up the arrests to 30% of last year, and the judge still says it’s actionable, then all he did was move the quota from 90% to 70%.
However, keep in mind that the statistics we are seeing here are for “minor offenses”. If you want to get all quantitative, you need to determine how much “minor offenses” make up out of a typical cop’s duties. Everyone is looking at the 90% number as if it is some all-encompassing figure when it’s just a piece of the pie. And, how important a piece since we’re talking about “minor offenses”?
So then why are so many people quoting the law and asking for action to be taken? I guess it’s beside the point when I reference it, but not beside the point when anyone else does.
Have I ever said it wasn’t? If not, then yes, this is meant to punish the mayor. Even more, it’s meant to punish the people of NYC who support the mayor’s policy in regards to policing.
So, we’ve established that I at least have a functioning brains stem. Whew!!! I was scared there for a minute.
“Quota” usually refers to something that is defined in advance and expected. If a officer were expected to write a certain number of tickets per shift or per year, it would be a quota. If the officer were expected to make at least 70% of the arrests made last year, that would be a quota. If the officer is expected to be able to show he or she did something other than drive around during the shift, that would not be a quota.“Quotas” in this sense also generally apply to individual entities and are imposed from above- it makes some sense to refer to a individual officer as having a quota, or even a particular command but it makes no sense to refer to the NYPD as a whole having a quota unless the claim is that the mayor imposed the quota. If arrests and summonses have dropped 90% citywide immediately after a labor-management issue without a concurrent drop in offenses, it’s easy enough to see that it’s a slowdown even without a pre-determined bright line. It might be difficult to discipline individual officers without a quota system, but seeking sanctions against the union is a completely different issue.
[/quote]
Whether it is or isn’t illegal is not the beside the point. Whether or not it’s ever been successfully prosecuted may be beside the point. There’s always a first time. Just as a police officer using his or her discretion to not write a ticket doesn’t make double parking legal , a mayor deciding not to take action regarding a violation of the Taylor law doesn’t mean there was no violation. Especially since mayors, being politicians, often make decisions for political reasons.
If this concept gives you trouble, your head just might explode if you contemplate the fact that the President of the United States once repeatedly tape-recorded himself and his cronies planning a criminal coverup.
OK, that’s great. At least we now have a data point. I don’t think the data point is quite like the one we’re talking about, but it’s still a good reference. In that case, there was a complete disruption that not only caused rights violations to the prisoners involved (they couldn’t get to their court hearings), but a prisoner who was supposed to testify against these guys in a brutality case was prevented form doing so. I wouldn’t put that in the same category as “not handing out enough parking tickets”. More like if the cops suddenly decided that all patrol cars were “unsafe” and unusable so they couldn’t make any of their patrols (and were thus unable to do most of their job). Or, if all the beat cops suddenly had "leg injuries’ that prevented them from walking their beats.
You can shoehorn this concept into the dictionary definition of quota without breaking the English language. However, you cannot use a tremendously broad definition of quota, AND use quota as a dirty word in policing.
“Quota” is a dirty word in policing because they have been used to demand that police officers write a fixed number of tickets per month, or make a certain number of arrests per month, else they face discipline. This created bad outcomes and bad policing.
The definition your using is so broad that it includes the expectation that police do something while being paid to be police officers. That expectation is so minimal that it precludes the problems introduced by quotas in the past. If expecting people to do work is considered a quota, then quotas are GOOD, let’s encourage them.
Only if by “shoehorn” you mean reading the plain text. Did you read the plain text? It’s right there.
If you think “quota” is a dirty word in this context, that’s your problem. It’s a perfectly cromulent word for what we’re talking about. But if it makes you feel better, pick another word that means: performance below this level is deemed “deliberately not doing your job”.
I think you’re missing the point. People are offering up “arrests/citations for minor offenses are down 90%” as if it was determinative in whether the police are breaking the law or not. Which leads to 2 key questions:
Does slacking off on citations for minor infractions meet the legal standard of a strike (or work slowdown)?
If so, what is the tipping point? Is it 90%? 80% 50%? There has to be a number, if we are going to use that metric. And as soon as you pick a number, you are saying that the cops are expected to hit that number or risk legal action (unless there is some mitigating circumstance).
I’m not the one insisting that a quantitative measurement be used, I’m just asking those who are insisting on doing so how they picked the number that the cops are supposed to meet.
Granted, it would be easier to make a case if you could cite a specific incident or job action involving x number of officers, and it would be stronger if it could be directly tied to the PBA.
Again, I will say that I do not think the city will make a case, unless a specific incident occurs outside of this general slowdown. That might happen though; I have heard that pro-police demonstrations are being planned in the next couple of weeks, with the help of Rudy Giuliani’s people. If they pull a stunt like what they did to Mayor David Dinkins in the 90’s, it might be a game changer.
Or, it’s like pornography–you know it when you see it?
I agree with your broader point that no one on this board so far has been able to substantiate whether the reduction in summonses constitutes a slowdown in the legal sense. But I doubt any judge who would be deciding these matters would do so on the basis of some precise number–“Up to a 47% reduction in summonses is fine. Anything beyond that, it’s a strike.” Which is what you seem to be asking for.
In the legal sense, the process for determining whether a strike as defined occurred rests with the chief executive of the respective government agency. They must conduct an investigation, follow steps, allow for appeals, etc. It’s a prescribed process that Steve MB laid out. It seems open to quite a bit of subjectivity, but it’s there. Without that determination that follows from that process, then there is no strike or slowdown in the legal sense.
