Friedersdorf: Why The Right Should Oppose NYPD’s Insubordination
Connor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic explains why the right should oppose what amounts to a work stoppage by New York City police.
[su_thin_right_skyscraper_ad]Overall arrests rates fell 66 percent “for the week starting Dec. 22 compared with the same period in 2013, stats show. Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent, from 10,069 to 587, during that time frame. Summonses for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent—from 4,831 to 300. Even parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent, from 14,699 to 1,241.”
As a ploy in contract negotiations, this tactic may prove effective, but it puts the NYPD in an unenviable position with respect to explaining what happens next. If this significant work slowdown has basically no effect on the safety of New York City, the NYPD’s prior policing will appear to have been needlessly aggressive, and the case for deploying more cops on the street in the future will be undermined. Scott Shackford zeroes in on this line [from a New York] Post article: “…cops were turning a blind eye to some minor crimes and making arrests only ‘when they have to’ since the execution-style shootings of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.”
He riffs, “Well, we can only hope the NYPD unions and de Blasio settle their differences soon so that the police can go back to arresting people for reasons other than ‘when they have to.’ The NYPD’s failure to arrest and cite people will also end up costing the city huge amounts of money that it won’t be able to seize from its citizens, which is likely the real point. That’s the ‘punishment’ for the de Blasio administration for not supporting them. One has to wonder if they even understand, or care, that their ‘work stoppage’ is giving police state critics exactly what they want—less harsh enforcement of the city’s laws.”