I’m confused. I’m a progressive who supports Labor though I’ve seen how Labor unions often seem designed to empower white trash racist losers(as I personally experienced during a bus strike while watch a replacement driver be repeatedly called a “nigger” who was “stealing jobs”) and also thinks they often get a ton of crap for stuff that’s not their fault.
In this fight between management and labor in the form of the PBA and the Mayor, who do I support?
You know that your own cite there says differently, right? :dubious:
What other metric is there?
“or percentage”. It’s right there in your second quote. Some people have argued that it needn’t be some specific number of citations, but a percentage of what is “normal”.
First of all, I’m not sure a quantitative metric would be used. It might be more along the lines of a qualitative measure of the impact the community. For instance, if the cops just stop writing parking tickets, big whoop. But if they refuse to drive their routes, then yeah, that impacts the safety of the community.
Courts have to weigh these sorts of things all the time. I’m challenging the idea that a specific number (and esp. of a specific subset) of a cop’s duty is, per se, determinative of the law being broken. For those who think it’s as simple as hitting a certain number, my question is: what is the number and how did you determine what it is?
For instance, if the speed limit is 65, and you’re clocked at 65 + whatever the rated resolution of the radar used by the cops is, then you’re speeding (unless there is some overriding need to go that speed, like you’re being chased by Godzilla). However, if you’re driving “recklessly”, then it’s a subjective judgement by the cops, and if you challenge it in court, by the courts.
Support the one who’s fight is the most just. In this case, the Mayor came into office with a mind to combat a problem that seems universally bad: discrimination. The police unions are historically insular and is fighting back on any reforms. It seems pretty obvious that the mayor is in the right on this case
But that’s a work stoppage. We’re specifically talking about a work slow down, and the only way to measure that is to compare against past performance. What do you do if the cops show up every day, drive their routes, but just don’t do anything on them? How do you demonstrate that the cops are illegally doing as little work as possible, except by comparing it to how much work they’ve done at similar times and in similar circumstances?
Also, even a qualitative measurement would have a quantitative element. If one cop refuses to drive his route, that’s obviously not a work stoppage. But what if it’s ten cops? Fifty? A hundred?
But no one has suggested that there be a certain number. That’s purely something you’ve injected into the debate. I don’t think you need a precise number to enforce the law. You just need a situation where it’s obvious the cops have stopped doing their jobs. A 10% reduction in tickets could be excused by a slow month. A 90% reduction is clearly the cops fucking around. We don’t need to cite an exact number between 10% and 90% as the point where the law kicks in - we can leave that determination up to the courts, who can decide it on a case-by-case scenario.
Sure, and that same subjectivity can be applied to a quantitative judgement, as well. If there’s a 50% drop in tickets being written, and it’s also the worst blizzard in twenty years, that’s probably not a work slowdown, that’s just it being too fucking cold for people to break the law. If there’s a 50% drop in the Spring, when there’s a ton of festivals and stuff being held in the city and streets are full of people, there’s probably shenanigans at work.
If you like humor, you should read the whole thread. 
I have no idea who Anthony Jeselnik is. Is he supposed to be some kind of comedian or he just another druggie entertainment personality like Charlie Sheen?
I remember a U.S. President claimed executive privilege to hide his involvement in the Fast and Furious gun running scandal.
I’m sorry…the what and what? Isn’t that one of those “Obama scandals” that died on the vine despite the House GOP desperately performing CPR on it? Along with Benghazi, and Salutegate, and Solyndra, and IRS-gate and a couple dozen others, none of which has produced a single report of actual wrong-doing.
(post shortened)
Safety First.
Since De Blasio and President I-don’t-know-the-facts have decided to not support the police and have only offered lip-service about the protesters/rioters/arsonists not targeting police officers, the officers are calling for more backup before they respond to 9-1-1 calls. The police aren’t going to willingly walk into an ambush.
The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association’s directive for police to respond with at least two patrol cars is also creating a manpower shortage that’s delaying response times to non-emergencies like burglaries or car crashes to as much as four hours, according to the paper.
This is not a strike or a work slow down. This is a safety issue. Police officers are allowed to call for, and wait for, backup if they believe they are facing a dangerous situation. De Blasio isn’t the one responding to 9-1-1 calls and he doesn’t get to decide if 2, or 4, or 8 officers are needed to safely handle a situation.
Safety First.
Nope. Eric Holder is still refusing to respond to court orders to release fast and furious information. Obama admitted being involved when he issued Executive Privilege. EP’s only relate to Presidential executive actions.
You guys keep looking. You have two years to find a REAL scandal still.
doorhinge, do you honestly believe that because some lone maniac from Baltimore who also saw fit to shoot his girlfriend that day killed two cops, police officers should be so quaking with fear that they can no longer write parking tickets? Do you honestly believe that a slowdown that (according to the NY Post) primarily centers on decreasing revenue-raising summonses for minor offenses is primarily an issue of police putting “safety first?”
I suspect it’s far more that it gives them plausible deniability, as in “no, we wanted to issue all these tickets but we had to keep our fellow officers safe. You don’t want more police officers dying, do you?”
It’s still ridiculous that, now the protesters have got what they want, they’re criticising the police for giving it to them…
One thing that surprised me about these muders was the news that, apparently, these are the first on duty cops to be killed in NYC since 2011. Admittedly, that’s a higher death rate than my office job, but for all the moaning cops do about how dangerous their work is, I expected cop deaths to be a lot more common.
I find it a bit strange, too. However, I think it’s all in the method. It’s not cops saying, “You’re right. We’re wrong. We need to do a better job of deescalation and not resort to violence so quickly.” It’s the cops being petulant and saying, “If it’s not our way, this is the service you can expect.”
Well obviously that’s on account of their shooting anything even tentatively conceptually possibly menacing, e.g. 12 year olds with toy guns. It’s a tough gig, you gotta be proactive man.
I don’t believe the protesters got what they wanted. When you say someone is doing a lousy job, what you want is better work, not for them to stop working altogether.
Getting back to the original topic of this thread . . .
News Item:
Commissioner Bratton agrees that it was disrespectful at the very least for all those cops to turn their backs, and advises not to do it again.
NYPD commissioner warns officers not to make political statements at wake, Associated Press, Jan. 3, 2015 (as re-published on Fox News, but you can find the same or similar articles in many other places).
So at what point can we fire the cops that refuse to do their job and find some that will?
Because this is increasingly unacceptable behavior on behalf of the department. This is stuff you expect to see in a banana republic, not a First World nation with a well-defined rule of law.