NYPD

NYPD Brass to Rank and File: Start Writing More Summonses Or Else

The politics of the police slowdown are now completely scrambled.

|

On Friday, the New York Police Department publicly acknowledged that a slowdown was underway among the rank and file. Over the weekend, we learned how the bosses were responding to the revolt. According to The New York Post,

Back to work, officer!

At precincts across the city, top brass are cracking the whip on summons activity and even barring many cops from taking vacation and sick days, The Post has learned.

Throughout the city, precincts are being ordered to hand up to borough commanders "activity sheets" indicating the number of arrests and summonses per shift, sources told The Post.

"Police officers around the city are now threatened with transfers, no vacation time and sick time unless they write summonses," one union source said….

Bratton's back-to-work edict was still ringing in commanding officers' ears when the crackdown hit cops on the Thursday/Friday overnight shift at the 105th bordering Nassau County, the officer said.

The lieutenant ordered sector cars from throughout the precinct to converge at Springfield Boulevard and Jamaica Avenue for a driver checkpoint, the officer said.

No one was to return to the precinct or even take a meal break until two summonses were logged, the officer said.

This whole episode seems to have scrambled everyone's political allegiances. The roots of the slowdown may be police resistance to reform, but that resistance has taken the form of informally enacting one of the most important changes that civil libertarians have been demanding: a severe reduction in the petty harassment of ordinary New Yorkers. It's as though the force had suddenly been infiltrated by the ACLU, or by Oath Keepers with an especially broad understanding of which orders are too unconstitutional to follow. Meanwhile, a lot of the liberals on my Facebook feed have been demanding de Blasio bring the recalcitrant cops to heel; sometimes they even sling around words like "sedition." And if the Post's reporting is accurate, the city's supposedly reformist leadership is now responding to the revolt with summons quotas. Quotas!

"To have all the manpower utilized for the sole purpose of writing summonses is a very dangerous way to utilize manpower," one police officer told the Post. I agree completely. Don't fold now, angry cops! When I see your slowdown, I turn an old cliché on its head: I disagree with your goals, but I approve of your methods.

Advertisement

NEXT: SCOTUS Holds Its Fire on Gay Marriage—For Now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What the shit is a “driver checkpoint”?

    1. It’s a more civilized term for ‘mugging.’

      1. “Stand and deliver!”

        /Highwayman Cop

        1. Need more whiskey in my jar.

    2. I assume it is a DUI checkpoint.

      1. It’s an unconstitutional general checkpoint disguised as a constitutional (because FYTW) DUI checkpoint.

        1. Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

        2. Mad Mothers. Is there anything they can’t do?

  2. “YOU WILL PROTECT THE SHIT OUT OF THOSE BASTARDS!”

  3. No one was to return to the precinct or even take a meal break until two summonses were logged.

    Modern law enforcement in a nutshell.

    1. “what if it’s a peaceful day?” one soon-to-be-former officer was overheard asking, timidly.

      “Turn in your badge and gun,” was the response from top brass.

        1. In NYC, cursing me might lead to a summons on a slow day.

    2. “Sorry boss, we didn’t see anyone committing a violation. Surely you would not have us write something up that was not above board!”

      1. This actually happened to me in the Navy, a few weeks after I reported aboard.

        I had to inspect a magazine for compliance with nuclear signage requirements. Unsurprisingly, the ordnancemen are sticklers for doing things by the book, and everything was perfect.

        My boss ordered me to redo the inspection because our auditors would never believe an investigation that didn’t find anything wrong had actually been performed.

        I went back, and entered into a conspiracy with the ordnancemen to identify a problem that wouldn’t’ make them look bad that we could immediately fix.

        I really don’t miss the military.

        1. I always had a chipped button to sew onto my alpha uniform when we had a big formal inspection.

          It allowed the inspector to find something that was wrong, but not too wrong. Inspectors always need to find something to write down. The trick is to make it sort of obscure so they feel like they are doing their job.

          An old gunney tipped me off on that. He also told me to make sure that you move the button between inspections. That way if it is the same inspector, he won’t get pissed because you have the same issue in the second inspection.

          1. Yeah, I got dressed down for having a “piece of lint” in my M-1 barrel. I went to cleaning shed, did nothing, took it back to same inspector, and he said “Good job – now it’s fine.”

    3. In a way, I love it when the mask slips gets ripped right the fuck off.

  4. the city’s supposedly reformist leadership is now responding to the revolt with summons quotas. Quotas!

    But are New Yorkers self-aware enough to be upset, let alone do anything about it?

    1. are quotas kosher?

      1. Like a bacon cheeseburger on the Sabbath!

        1. The correct answer would be “Like a bacon cheeseburger on Yom Kippur”

    2. They’re only aware that the police aren’t beating up enough undesirables in the streets and that makes them feel uneasy…because if there’s one thing a New York liberal hates, it’s the idea that the commoners might forget their place in the pecking order and start thinking they don’t need liberals to run their lives anymore.

      The story I’m not hearing is, aside from the political spat, what does the NYPD think about the work stoppage as it applies to the effectiveness of overall policing? Is it possible that there’s an undercurrent of hatred for these petty infractions among the rank-and-file?

      1. It wouldn’t be surprising. If for no other reason than they all thought they’d be living CSI every day rather than being nannies with a badge.

      2. The problem for the brass lies in the fact that with victimless crimes if you stop enforcing them there is no one to lodge a complaint and the crime rate in that category goes down. So the statistical fact that if the police stop doing this aspect of their job the crime rate plummets looks very bad for the police should this be reported.

  5. my buddy’s sister-in-law makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $12455 just working on the internet for a few hours. website link……….
    ????? http://www.work-reviews.com

    1. Keep that opportunity on hold for any soon to be unemployed NYC cops!

  6. I thought quotas were illegal.

    1. It depends on what the definition of “is” is.

    2. So are checkpoints. Papahz pleez!

  7. When I see your slowdown, I turn an old clich? on its head: I disagree with your goals, but I approve of your methods.

    The means justify the ends? Is this what Friedman meant by encouraging people to do the right things for the wrong reasons?

    1. I’d say their methods are our goals.

      1. Are my methods unsound?

        I don’t see any method at all, sir.

  8. Quotas are just a talking point by loonytarians and other cop-haters. I know this because the cops and their fellators tell me so whenever anyone even hints that there might be quotas.

    1. They are just “performance requirements” for a more professional police force.

      1. Yeah, I know the state patrol in Minnesoda doesn’t have quotas. But they do post a report showing how many tickets the average trooper wrote and during annual performance reviews, the trooper’s ticket count was compared to that number.

        So it ended up being a de facto quota because who wants to do less than the average?

      2. They are just “performance requirements”

        “I shall now advise you of your right to counsel, via interpretive dance!”

    2. One Criminal Justice course I took at college was taught by a Sheriff’s LT as a second job. One comment he made was that whenever anyone said “This is just so you make your quota isn’t it?” or the like, his response was “Yep.”

    3. A while back my wife worked with a guy who was dating a female detective from one of the local PDs. She said that the cops were required to have some arbitrary number of interactions with members of the community per eight hour shift. Twenty I believe. The interactions didn’t necessarily have to result in citations or arrests. Like helping people on the side of the road and shit. I dunno. The relationship didn’t last long. The cop was a violent drunk who was pretty much drunk all the time she wasn’t on the clock. Imagine that. A cop who is a violent drunk.

    4. Only a loony would talk about quotas in the NYPD. Like, you would have to be committed. Seriously. Just as Adrian Schoolcraft.

  9. It’s as though the force had suddenly been infiltrated by the ACLU, or by Oath Keepers with an especially broad understanding of which orders are too unconstitutional to follow.

    Nonsense, It’s a bunch of petulant idiots who have been told the world can’t survive without them for so long they actually believe it.

    1. The Accidental Oath Keepers.

      1. Good name for a rock band.

  10. Come on police strike!

    1. GO, COPS, GO!

      Er…STOP, COPS, STOP!

      hth

      smooches

  11. So the Stormtroopers weren’t bad shots, they just didn’t want to hurt anyone?

    1. Don’t be silly. Of course they didn’t mind hurting people. The reason they missed was because they hated the paperwork.

      1. It’s their star destroyer/Death Star. Who do you think has to get blood stain out of the marble and the grey matter out of the wall crevices before Lord Vader walks by?

        Blaster holes are easy. There’s chunks missing so the entire wall section needs to be replaced. If the wall is just dirty, no one in Quartermaster is going to authorize a replacement.

  12. On Friday, the New York Police Department publicly acknowledged that a slowdown was underway among the rank and file.

    Didn’t they announce that a few weeks ago?

    1. I guess maybe that was the union.

  13. Its pretty clear at this point that “broken windows policing” amounted to trying to reduce crime by having the police make war on the poor and on minorities regardless of economic status. There is some pretty decent research that shows it never really reduced crime. That the drop in crime in New York was not the result of broken windows policing but instead the result of a nationwide drop that was unrelated to the policing technique. The question is hardly settled either way.

    The broken windows advocates have a point insofar as allowing people to disrespect the law in one area leads to people breaking other laws. At the same time, if the police go after every possible violation, you end up totally alienating the community and doing all sorts of harm to it.

    Maybe the problem here isn’t the policing but the laws we are expecting the police to enforce? If we didn’t have so many laws and criminalize so much behavior in the name of social engineering and raising revenue, police could enforce respect for the laws without alienating the community. Its so crazy, it just might work.

    1. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
      Bastiat

      1. We put more people in prison than any other civilized country. Some of those people are innocent but most are guilty of breaking some law. So it is pretty clear that people in this country don’t respect the law. And given their continued disrespect for it, it seems unlikely they ever will. So the solution is to change the law to something people will respect. Sadly, neither the cop defenders nor the cop protestors seem to understand that.

        1. It really needs to start with drug laws. I can recall the first time I smoked pot in high school, and I realized all the propaganda I had been fed through my life was a lie. That set me down the path of giving up my respect for the law in favor of my own moral sense. Cops and cop lovers have given up their moral sense. Thus they cannot comprehend the concept of the existence of laws that do not deserve respect.

          1. That book the article in the Nation link below talks about the genesis of the Drug War. Basically, it was in response to blacks moving out of the South and into white Northern Cities. Get this

            From this came a flood of Democratic legislation that was intended, as Murakawa puts it, to “build a better carceral state, one strong enough to control racial violence in the streets and regimented enough to control racial bias in criminal justice administration.” Discretion was taken from potentially racist judges and police and replaced with rational, consistent and severe rules.

            The Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, both of which passed with overwhelming support from Northern liberal Democrats, imposed uniform mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses. “Little Boggs” laws then spread across the states, instituting mandatory and often lengthy minimum sentences for trafficking and possession of narcotics.

            http://www.newsweek.com/did-li…..ars-297096

            Basically northern white liberals viewed blacks as permanently damaged by slavery and wanted a big, professional police state to control them.

            1. But that’s impossible. Progressives tell me that the private-prison industry passed all of those laws while our elected representatives passively stood by. No, you may not ask how that’s even possible; it just is.

        2. No no, you just need to beat the respect into them a little more. It’s like training a horse. And the goal is pretty much the same, too, to create a reliable beast of burden.

      2. As my wife says…

        When everything is illegal, no law is important.

    2. I don’t have a problem with broken window policing, narrowly defined. Like, if you actually engage in petty vandalism, you should be punished for that. It doesn’t seem absurd on its face to say that it might reduce crime.

      The problem is when you start erecting windows everywhere and then busting people for trying to escape the glass cage you put them in.

      1. That is my entire point. Police should enforce the law. We shouldn’t want police to just ignore crimes committed in their presence. If, however, enforcing every law means making war on the community, then problem is the law not the cop.

        If we only enforced laws that caused real harm to others, like vandalism, theft, harassment, hell even quality of life crimes like street walking, you could have broken windows policing without making war on the community. But if you you are going to criminalize everything from parking in the wrong spot, to not having an up to date license, to selling cigarettes, broken windows policing will end up sweeping so many people up into the system that the community will turn against you.

        1. Another aspect of broken windows policing and all-encompassing illegality is the capability to arrest those that are known to be bad guys. I mean, you can just tell who the punks are. So you roust them and lock them up on a series of petty charges until you can put them away longer term. It keeps the riff-raff of the street.

          And yes, it is possible to be facetious and serious at the same time.

        2. One reform I’d love to see is detaching law enforcement from revenue generation.

      2. I don’t have a problem with broken window policing, narrowly defined. Like, if you actually engage in petty vandalism, you should be punished for that. It doesn’t seem absurd on its face to say that it might reduce crime.

        I agree and disagree. I think the real problem is in our definition of crime. Vandalism is a REAL crime. Someone violated the rights of another. It should certainly be punished.

        Where the system fails is in creating crimes where there are no victims.

        Get rid of every fucking victimless crime and I’ll respect the law.

        1. Exactly. The problem is our laws. Until you fix the laws, you are never going to fix the police. Even the most honest police force is going to be unjust if it is honestly enforcing unjust laws.

    3. If we didn’t have so many laws and criminalize so much behavior in the name of social engineering and raising revenue, police could enforce respect for the laws without alienating the community. Its so crazy, it just might work.

      I think the social engineering is a big part of the problem. It’s gotten so bad that people seem unable or unwilling to deal with any social problem on their own.

      And (for the benefit of the radio audience because I suspect John understands what I mean) I’m not talking about “vigilantism” (a word that get violently abused nowadays). I’m talking about simple social conventions. Once upon a time common courtesy solved many a social problem.

      1. Yes. The other thing about that is that the very people who claim to “celebrate diversity” just cannot accept that the standards of behavior in some communities might be different than in their straight laced middle class white ones.

        Poor people look at the world differently than middle and upper class white people do. They don’t do as well with rules and are more tolerant of what in middle and upper class places would be considered antisocial behavior. Rather than accept that, Progs try to make them conform by passing laws.

    4. The question is hardly settled either way.

      Tell that to the NY Post or City Journal. Those copsuckers are basically predicting Armageddon.

  14. I just can’t believe any of you can think straight on the biggest sports day of the year…if not ever. Look for me at the game tonight, people. You know we’ll be there.

    O-H…

    1. Sports? Meh.

      1. Winning a national title with a third string quarterback? Build the statue now!

        1. Statue of whom?

    2. Good luck. I suspect Oregon will win, but at least you’re there to contest the fact. Make sure no NFL officials are at the game.

    3. I have a bad feeling Oregon is going to run over them. Florida State wasn’t as bad as they looked. Oregon was just that good I think. And after what happened to the SEC, it is pretty clear Alabama wasn’t that good.

      1. In football, much like in boxing, styles make fights. Alabama was plenty good, but OSU was a really bad matchup for them and they still only lost by a TD.

        I think this game ends up like this year’s the Baylor / TCU game. Ain’t nobody gonna be getting stops.

      2. I hate to defend anything said by Winston, but in a way he was right. Turnovers are one of the single biggest factors in the outcome of a game. But they’re also black swans. There’s no way to predict them, and very little a defense can do to force them. The OU- FSU game was actually one of those that was closer than the scoreboard said. I think Oregon is a better team overall, but its close enough that a couple turnovers or big special team play can swing it either way.

        1. That is a good point. And I don’t think Winston is a bad guy. He clearly did not commit the rape he is accused of. And everything else he has done just shows he is a knucklehead not really a bad guy.

          I think any team that needs a quarterback and passes on Winston, other than the team that takes Mariotta, will regret it. I get so tired of the “the QB must be the face of the franchise and a boy scout” BS. No the QB has to produce. Boy scouts like Matt Cassel and Brian Hoyer are still complete disasters for any team that relies on them because they suck. Being a good clean white guy that everyone would want their daughter to date does no good. If you suck, you have no place on my team, end of story. And if you can produce and you can stay out of jail and off drugs and not get crossways with the league, I want you on my team I don’t care if you are a great guy or not.

          1. Fuck if I know who I want the Bucs to get. Winston has the off the field stuff, and he also has some question marks on the field, especially after this season. Not really consistently accurate.

            On the other hand, plenty of questions about Mariota, too.

            No Lucks in this draft, but either or both might work out in the NFL.

            1. Here is the question, are Winston’s off the field problems such that they will keep him from playing because he is in jail or suspended by the league? Maybe they are but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that. If they are not, then any team that shies away from him over that is making a mistake.

              1. Well, the Bucs do have a bad taste after the whole Josh Freeman debacle. On the other hand, Winston seems less of a gamble than Johnny Manziel was last year.

                1. He is much more talented than Manziel and isn’t any different off the field. If the sports media wasn’t racist and convinced any black athlete who breaks a rule must be a gangster thug and any white athlete who does so is “just a kid out having fun”, there would be less doubt about Winston.

                  1. Yes, but Manziel’s a problem for the Browns because of his off-the-field issues, even though they don’t appear to involve any illegalities. That’s what I really worry about with Winston, not the criminal stuff, which is something I don’t pretend to know the truth about.

          2. I agree that Winston is in all likelihood not a rapist. He is an idiot though, and that’s why I wouldn’t want him on my team. As Buddy Ryan said ” Every football player makes mistakes. Stupid players make a lot more.” I think Winston is Vince Young 2.0, a little more accurate but still dumb as a bag full of hammers.

            1. Winston is an idiot off the field, but he is a genius on it. He is a totally different and much better player than Young. Young was stupid and couldn’t do anything on the field except dominate with his freakish athletic ability. Winston is nothing like that. If you watch him, he consistently makes timing throws where the ball is in the air before the receiver even turns around and makes a break and putting the ball right there when he does. That is something that most college QBs are lucky to do once a year. Winston does it once a drive. He is not just an athlete, he actually knows how to play the position.

              Winston is dumb off the field. But on the field he, unlike Vince Young, is very smart.

              1. He has a nice touch on the ball, but he threw way too many picks this year against not-great competition.

                1. Interceptions are not always the QB’s fault. FSU really had a shitty team around him. Take Winston off that team and they are lucky to win six games. Also, the bowls showed that the ACC wasn’t that bad. Georgia Tech looked pretty good running over Mississippi State in the Orange Bowl. Clemson ran all over Oklahoma. And Notre Dame beat LSU. and lets not forget the ACC SEC massacre that happened the third Saturday in November.

                  People only think the ACC was weak because they spent all year under the delusion that the SEC wasn’t.

                  1. Well, I’d say this is a shitty year in general. None of the playoff teams this year could be mistaken for an all-time great. Why that’s relevant is that the NFL is still the NFL, and even with defense in that league not being at an all time high, NFL defenses will still make mincemeat out of QBs that don’t throw to the right guy.

                    If the Bucs had an alternative QB, I’d say trade the pick. But they don’t, not really. I think Glennon might end up being decent, but that’s not a gamble Smith can afford to take, since he’s likely gone if they suck next year, too. No obvious free agent options, either.

                    1. You cannot even compete without a QB. And even good QBs almost never come available through free agency or trade. Peyton Manning and Alex Smith are the only competent QBs to come on the trade/free agent market this century. If you want even a acceptable QB, you have to draft one. I think the Bucs would be crazy not to go for Winston. What do they have to lose? Without a good QB, they have no chance. And I don’t see how they can get one other than through the draft and Winston is their best shot there.

                    2. I figure they’re probably okay with Winston or Mariota and would be okay if they picked either, assuming they’ve done their research. I like Koetter as OC and think he’ll be able to see through the fog and decide which to go with.

                      There might be some free agency options, but nothing jumps out as a great move. They tried that last year with horrific results. While Glennon is kind of Ryan-like, I don’t think he’s ready to run a high-powered offense, assuming he ever will be.

                      I’ll tell you one thing–the fact that rookie QBs are even expected to be effective shows what a sorry state NFL defense in general is. Was a time when even great rookies would be eaten alive, which is why they didn’t always start right away.

                    3. It is absurd. And even worse, they can’t practice as much as they used to. How is a QB ever supposed to get any better if he can’t ever practice?

                      Really though, I think if you draft a QB in the first round, you should start him all 16 games. You never get better standing around with a clip board. I don’t buy the “but you will ruin his confidence crap”. If he has what it takes to be good, it won’t ruin his confidence, it will make him better. Hall of Fame Quarterbacks like Troy Aikman and Payton Manning played and looked horrible as rookies. You just have to put them out there and let them get better. No amount of waiting will help. Maybe back in the days when there were not limits on practice time, you could do that, but not now.

                    4. Agree that I’m not worried about the little angel’s confidence (they don’t do this with other positions, after all), but there are some situations where it makes sense, like when you have a great, older starting QB.

                    5. It still makes me laugh every time I hear coaches talking about all the great QB talent on the high school level that’s gonna revolutionize the game in the next five years. I’ve been hearing it for at least a decade. What I do think would change the game is if more teams simplified their playbook. Look at the air raid teams on the lower levels. They put up video game numbers with about 6-8 passing concepts. Or all the teams Alex Gibbs coached that led the NFL in rushing every year, they had two run blocking schemes and one pass pro. The Colts when Peyton was there(and Tom Moore as OC) set records with fewer formations, motions, and route adjustments than any other team in the league. Execution trumps whiteboard wizadry.

                    6. Barry Switzer had a great quote about that anti-socialist. He said “it is not the alignment that matters, it is the alignees”.

                      Never have more true words about football been spoken.

                    7. My one big disappointment with the NFL is that no one has attempted to take advantage of the shit defense era to build a power team. I thought Denver might try that during the Tebow years, but the Peyton temptation was too great.

                      There is no question that even the few defenses that are any good these days aren’t built to stop a heavy-duty running attack. Exploit that, making sure you have a very good defense, and you could have success for a good amount of time. Especially considering that the power line, QB, and even RB talent isn’t “prime” as the rest of the NFL defines it.

                      Sadly, the world is too boring for such novelties these days.

          3. I’m hoping Winston doesn’t fuck anything up too bad before the draft, because I want Bryce Petty to still be around when the Broncos pick.

            1. Giving up on Manning already? As much as I would like to make a snarky comment about Manning in the playoffs after yesterday, I think it is more than Manning at some point during the second half of this season got old. Every great athlete hits a point where they no longer are great. I think Manning has hit that point. He can’t move at all, not even in the pocket to avoid the rush, which is essential. His arm strength is lousy and he isn’t as accurate as he once was. He is still not bad overall. But he isn’t great anymore. And off season rest isn’t going to help. As Charles Barkley says, at some point when you rest you just get older not better. And I think Manning is at that point.

              1. I think age and the neck injuries have taken their toll. He should probably retire. He’s one of the greatest ever, and he got his ring, so I don’t see what he has to prove.

                Luck sure is an amazing prodigy.

              2. Already? It’s been 3 years, and his decline has been rapid and painful to watch. Manning was great, but he’s old. Even if he had a torn quad yesterday, he wasn’t playing great the last half of the season. I would be thrilled if they fired Fox and moved Manning to head coach tomorrow, but I don’t think he is a great QB anymore. Although I think having him coach a young, strong-armed QB with Petty’s athletic abilities would be an awesome combination. And Fox is a pussy.

    4. I hate modern college football for making me have to root for OSU. But I guess bring it home for the Big Ten. Ass holes.

    5. Game? Are people still playing football or something?

      1. I guess I get the NFL but it baffles me that amateur football is even a thing.

    6. It’s the biggest in the “Thank goodness it’s finally over so people will stop talking my ear off about it” sense.

    7. the biggest sports day of the year

      Did fishing season open?

  15. a lot of the liberals on my Facebook feed have been demanding de Blasio bring the recalcitrant cops to heel; sometimes they even sling around words like “sedition

    They aren’t liberals. Those who call themselves liberals today are nothing more than authoritarian leftists. Therefore, they want the jack booted thugs out there violating civil rights because this is the natural state of a leftist society. There’s nothing liberal about that.

    The only real liberals today are libertarians who are social liberals with economic views based on reality.

    1. The irony of that is just staggering. The police actually stopped harassing minorities for a few days and the very people who claim to want to stop that are demanding it continue.

    2. I try to distinguish between modern liberals and progressives. Maybe it’s completely off base, but I sort of define modern liberals by support for labor unions and the social safety net, but still being grounded in some semblance of They’re more self-interested and less religious than progressives. Progressives on the other hand seem to love them some authoritarians, so long as they cover up the iron fist with soft glove.

      1. I think that those who strongly self identify as progressives instead of liberals are more self aware of what they actually are, that is, leftist authroitarians, and they have no inner conflict with that.

        Those who still believe that they are liberals and so call themselves liberal, will go along with anything the proggies say even though they want to think of themselves as civil rights activists. They may actually be liberal to some extent, but their desire to follow the group think is too strong for them to resist, no matter that they realize that civil rights are being trampled.

        In the end, they’re all the same because the proggies will drive forward with the authoritarianism with no regard at all for civil rights and the so called liberals will just follow behind them like lost puppy dogs.

        1. I haven’t decided if this is a split in the Democratic party or if Democrats (in general) are forsaking civil liberties and moving towards authoritarianism?

          I’m not sure there are any old fashioned, civil libertarian, liberals left. If there are, you certainly don’t hear from them.

          1. The New Left, never believed in civil liberties. They only supported them when they were out of power and doing so furthered their cause.

            1. How do you define “New Left” wrt time periods?

              1. I define it as the Left that came out of the anti-Vietnam war movement and took over the party. The old Left was the LBJ, JFK, Truman left that was anti-communism, pro labor union Reagan Democrat kind of people. The New Left is people like Hillary and Obama or the various creatures who inhabit academia. They were not liberals, they were and are leftists. They don’t believe in “civil rights” the way you and I believe in them, as in every person is equal before the law and entitled to a set of natural rights that no just government can infringe upon. They believe that collective rights and group identity. Your treatment before the law and by the government is determined by what ethnic or political group you are. If you are a victim group, then you get treated well. If you are an “oppressor” the law can take whatever measures necessary to deal with you.

                They don’t say it in such vulgar terms, but that is what they believe. Thus, if supporting civil rights means doing something that benefits blacks or some other victim group, they support civil rights. But if supporting civil rights means defending white people or anyone on the right, then they are all for government power. So, free speech means the right to tax money for piss Christ but also means making slandering Muhammad a crime. What matters is the group not any principle of law or equal protection.

                1. I don’t disagree, but I would place the demarcation much later. I think there were still a lot of “old liberals” in the 70s and 80s.

                  I think the change between “old and new” liberal started in the early 90s. And I’ll go one further and claim a cause. The left started to abandon their civil libertarian nature with the advent of political correctness. Once they accepted the premise that it’s good and right to tell people what they can and can’t say they ended up EXACTLY where logic would predict they must. Authoritarian statists.

                  1. Yes Fransisco. I think the early 1990s are when they really started to have big influence. But the movement came out of the anti-Vietnam war movement of the 1960s. They took over completely in the 00s. People forget that Al Gore was a pretty old school Democratic Candidate in 2000. A guy like Al Gore in 2000 would never win the nomination today.

                    1. Gore is a great microcosm of the changes in the party. He was pretty much a Blue Dog Democrat (before they were calling them that) for his Senate career. Now, he’s something else altogether.

      2. I think that there are genuine left-liberals still in the wild, but they don’t tend to bother much with politics.

  16. I would not want to be a person with brown skin (or a person who looks poor) walking around New York this week.

    1. pull up your hoodie, you’ll be fine.

  17. Perfect summary of why, upon the end of my active duty in the Marine Corps, I declined the invitation to become a cop.

    1. Did you have to go to a special meeting when you were mustered out to hear a pitch by LEO’s to come join them?

      When I left the Corps, one of the things that I had to do was attend a meeting with a recruiter from the TN State Troopers (I left while assigned to NAS Memphis) to hear about how they would love me (and any of the other guys getting out) come join them.

      1. No – Somebody in a MA dept was trying to recruit me. Decided to get a real job instead.

  18. I would guess what they are doing is giving people WARNINGS instead of tickets…. You do an Illegal U-Turn but it was done safely and no one was hurt… They are stopping you, telling you not to do it again, and send you on your way…..

    1. I assumed they were making sure people weren’t hurting each other or doing something dangerous to other people. In other words, protecting the public instead of squeezing them for revenue and ransoms.

      1. I know someone who was pulled over right after the speed limit was changed. The officer gave him a warning because the law was “fucking stupid” and told him to pay more attention in the future.

        So, I believe you are right.

        1. Or could be right, Anecdotal evidence and all…

  19. This is a very good article. One I am surprised Reason hasn’t talked about. It is in The Nation of all places and entitled How White Liberals Used Civil Rights to Create More Prisons.

    It airs all the dirty laundry of the racist roots of the Progressive Movement. Someone at Reason needs to write a book review of the book referenced in the article.

    In other words, black people were guaranteed safety only from violence falling outside of a fair set of legal rules. A report from Truman’s Presidential Committee on Civil Rights holds that “[a society] cannot permit human beings to be imprisoned or killed in the absence of due process of law without degrading its entire fabric.” (Emphasis mine.) Society can imprison and kill, as long as the law was followed fairly. For race-liberals this is not a contradiction: if racism is a case-by-case fairness problem, if white supremacy is an arbitrary unfairness, then a perfect and fair set of legal rules is mutually exclusive with racism. Therefore, perfectly administered rules ipso facto stop racial discrimination.

    1. Murakawa carefully traces how this legalistic perception of civil rights, codified under Truman, evolves into LBJ’s Great Society. LBJ, faced with massive black uprisings, treated the riots not as political expression but rather as pure criminality. Drawing a hard line between protest and riots, treating the former as political speech but the latter as inchoate violence, is one way that liberals discredit resistance to impoverishment and brutality. LBJ could thus, without a lick of irony, compare Klansmen and black rioters of Watts as “what the law declares them: law breakers.” He “likened police and prisons to teachers and schools: all need federal funding to build a better society.” It’s hard to imagine a framework that equates black people rioting with KKK lynchings as a framework capable of achieving racial justice. Instead, civil-rights legislation looked to achieve order, and the end of black “crime.”

      http://www.thenation.com/artic…..e-prisons#

      1. It’s sort of a weird article, especially with lines like this:

        Every single dollar bill is soaked with the blood of slaves: there is no economy without white supremacy, and vice versa.

        Or

        For race-conservatives, black people are innately, genetically criminal, full stop.

        Is there really any significant group of people that still believe this?

        I agree that it is refreshing to see someone call out liberal/progressives on racism, but the author (of the review, not necessarily the book) seems to be trying to force everything into a worldview in which white people are still inherently racist, but just maybe for different reasons.

        1. No LynchPin, there isn’t. In fact, the article spends several paragraphs explaining how the people who believed that in this country were white northern liberals.

          You have to remember that The Nation is writing to white Progs and writing some very uncomfortable truths. So, I can forgive them throwing in the obligatory “well of course all conservatives are racist” line, because it is the only way their readers will listen to anything they are saying.

        2. Is there really any significant group of people that still believe this?

          There are a significant group of people who believe both of those memes about the other side. Demonizing the other is a proven method of gaining political support.

  20. Boss Hogg: “Enos, get out there and write them Duke Boys a speeding ticket!”

    “But Boss theyre under the speed limit!”

    “Then get out there and write one for im-peedin’ traffic”

    1. If not enough laws are being violated, then make more laws.

      /congress

  21. Police officers around the city are now threatened with transfers, no vacation time and sick time unless they write summonses,” one union source said….

    This is wrong and downright rotten at it’s core. It’s total proof that the police only exist today to serve their own purpose and to collect revenue for the state.

    And it’s not going to change because no one besides libertarians care. And there aren’t enough of us to change anything.

  22. So, I don’t suppose it’s possible that the slowdown on the pig’s part without an increase in crime rates would spur the public to demand fewer cops on the street? I know, I know, but a man can dream… But imagine this wet dream scenario:

    The cops, being the dickheads they are, slit their own throats by demanding that the peons respect their ahuthoritah. The chiefs/city council slit THEIR own throats because they are clearly calling for enforcement where no enforcement is required, showing their true statist colors.

    Fantasy outcome: We get fewer cops, a backlash against the statist government AND bullshit rules/regulations stop being enforced.

    I’ll be in my bunk.

    1. The chiefs/city council slit THEIR own throats because they are clearly calling for enforcement where no enforcement is required, showing their true statist colors.

      The cop hero cheerleaders on the right and the cop hero cheerleaders on the left will never let anything like this happen.

      The sheeples don’t look at statistics or even pay attention to what they see themselves, they listen to their dear leaders and dear leaders will say there’s one less cop in the city and now the apocalypse will occur and the sheeples will believe.

  23. NYPD Brass to Rank and File: Start Writing More Summonses Or Else

    And how many divisions do the NYPD brass control?

    I’m seriously asking. Because it doesn’t look like they control those divisions.

  24. Make sure no NFL officials are at the game.

    No kidding.

    Why waste all that money on stadiums, if the refs are going to decide who wins? I didn’t want the Cowboys to win, but I was so fucking disgusted by that call, I turned the game off, and didn’t even watch the one after.

    FUCK THE NFL.

    1. I thought it was a good call.

      1. I thought it was a consistent call, in respect to the call against Calvin Johnson a couple of years ago. I don’t care for the way the rule works, but at least it was consistent.

        The Cowboys shouldn’t probably have even been in that game, given the officiating in the Cowboys/Lions game.

        1. The rules say that to establish possession, you have to have the ball and make a “football move”. And you have to maintain possession throughout the catch.

          I didn’t see Bryant do anything that I would call a “football move”. He seemed to be mostly trying to secure the ball. The one thing I might say was a football move was the extension towards the goal line at the end, BUT, the ball clearly comes out as he rolls.

          The one argument against overturning it that I could see is that the ground can’t cause a fumble, because once the ball hits the ground it is down. The ground clearly is what caused the ball to come loose. But for that to apply he would have already had to have established possession by making a football move. But I’m not convinced he was really reaching for the endzone in a controlled way. So I think good call.

          And I ain’t no Packers fan, either. Not since they beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl.

    2. What they should do is just have all of the games be scripted so that you get maximum drama and excitement in every game.

      1. Yes, scripted and roboticized.

      2. If they did, it would have exactly the same impact to society…

        Zero.

        1. Sadly, this isn’t true. Entertainment in general has a pathetically huge influence on our culture. And I say this as a consumer of sports and other entertainment.

          1. Because who wins a match between a bunch of guys named Lions and a bunch of guys named Cowboys affects my life in so many tangible ways.

            Oh, wait. It doesn’t affect me at all.

            Yeah, I get that people are entertained by it, which is great. Whatever floats your boat. But the outcome is actually irrelevant for your average spectator, unless you place a high value on rubbing your buddy’s nose in it at the water cooler.

            So whether it’s real or scripted (provided the fans don’t know it’s scripted) makes little difference to the customer.

            Not that everything we do needs to have a deep philosophical purpose… Just sayin, scripted vs not makes little difference.

            1. It’ll all be solved when we have robot players.

              1. When that happens, I might start watching. Instead of games that are metaphors for warfare, you could have teams of robots actually destroying each other. Hell, you could have arenas of dogfighting fighter jets blowing each other out of the sky for our amusement.

                That would be cool…for a while.

                1. The beauty of the robot violence is that it can keep escalating, up to and including the use of very small nukes.

    3. Get rid of instant replay review. It slows down the game and it hasn’t improved officiating. In fact, it may have made it worse because referees seem to be lazier because they figure the replay box will fix it or if not the replay official will get the blame not them.

      Thirty five years ago there was the infamous incomplete call in the end zone in the Houston Pittsburgh AFC title game. Replay revealed that Houston was clearly robbed of a touchdown late in the game. It was that call more than anything that created the push for instant replay. Yet, here we are 35 years later with more and better cameras and with instant replay and we have playoff games being determined by horrible calls. So what has replay gotten us other than slowed down games?

      1. instant replay was inevitable. 35 yrs ago we didn’t have computers, DVRs, etc. The push would be even greater now for a near-real time ability to challenge calls that literally everyone except the ref knows were wrong.

        hasn’t improved officiating

        Wasn’t its purpose. You’re right, that it may have allowed the quality of officials to slip, but maybe it was going to happen anyway. IR is a tool for the coaches to use or not use.

        1. That is crazy. IR is sold as a way to get calls right and improve officiating, not as some strategy test for coaches. Even with IR, they still get things wrong. It hasn’t made the game any better.

    4. if the refs are going to decide who wins

      This just makes no sense. They apply the rules to plays, it just happens to be sometimes those plays have game-winning/losing implications, but they don’t decide the winners. It’s not like they are the surpreme court deciding who won an election or anything…

  25. converge at Springfield Boulevard and Jamaica Avenue for a driver checkpoint

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they chose a mostly black neighborhood to, uh, “monitor”.

  26. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  27. My advice for the NYPD, the Times and the mayor’s office want a crackdown? Give them a crackdown. Have patrolmen outside the offices of the Times and outside City Hall ready to arrest people on whatever the hell they can find. Off to central booking with them (no, no handling matters at the precinct)! Oh, and some celebrities having a party? Off to central booking with them! The mayor’s car goes a mile over the speed limit? Off to central booking with him!

    They want minor crimes enforced? Let them have a good heaping helping of what exactly that tastes like.

  28. “Police officers around the city are now threatened with transfers, no vacation time and sick time unless they write summonses,” one union source said….

    No benefits unless you harass an adequate amount of people? Seems legit.

  29. I didn’t see Bryant do anything that I would call a “football move”.

    Bullshit. He was not bobbling or juggling the ball. It was a catch, and a move toward the end zone.

    And, if you have to run the replays over and over from every angle to make a decision, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING CONTRADICTION TO THE CALL ON THE FIELD.

  30. my roomate’s half-sister makes $69 hourly on the laptop . She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her check was $15722 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not look here………..
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  31. Is this what the City government primarily wants performed: Extra-dollar extractions from the citizens in the form petty, administrative law-breaking summons?

    Is this really the main purpose of the police? To make the budget of/for bureaucrats?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.