"... a nose dive in low-level policing... Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent... for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent... parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent...."
The NY Post reports.
३० डिसेंबर, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४२७ टिप्पण्या:
427 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»What? No 'actions have consequences' tag?
De Blasio needs to resign. Time for adult leadership again
Wow. If those numbers are correct, then the 70's are back now.
I was going to do the 5 Boro Bike Tour there in May. But at this rate, I'm not going anywhere near that city without Charles Bronson's help.
Funny, garage was singing de Blasio's praises a few weeks ago because crime was down...for much the same reason.
Perhaps now we can get back to the liberal dream of a "gritty" and "authentic" New York again.
Time to do away completely with the idea of "law enforcement" as it is just a bourgeois and non-progressive concept anyway.
In fact, by removing police activity, the "natural goodness" of the human psyche will have room to thrive in the heart of gotham.
Let no crisis go to waste, a motto that the unions behind the slowdown knew long before Team O made it a cliché.
And here's another one to go along with it: don't believe everything you read. NYC isn't going to hell in the proverbial hand basket. Still the safest big city in the USA, and the only one that rivals London as capital of the world.
What! Parking tickets are down?!?!
**clutches pearls**
Fewer citizens are getting arrested for stupid laws like selling loosies? Somebody point me toward the fainting couch.
Time to sell loosies in Time Square
Wow, The next step is a recall petition, right Garage?
Richard Dolan,
New York City isn't even the capital of New York State. The weather sucks in the winter, just like London. You need to travel more
Time to sell loosies in Time Square
The con-men playing three card monte and the shell game are already back.
The real tragedy is the folk that are going to be punished the most are law abiding poor folk who are going to see their neighborhoods descend into anarchy.
"Elections have consequences."
NYC elected deBlasio; now live with him!
Maybe the citations are down because every has decided to obey the law? Everyone's driving at or under the speed limit? Maybe?
I am not a fan of Bill de Blasio, but if cops aren't doing their jobs, they should be disciplined and, if necessary, fired. Where is Calvin Coolidge (and Ronald Reagan) when we need him?
Isn't that what de Blasio wanted? For them to curtail the proactive policing they had been doing?
Well, welcome to that.
And, really, good job New Yorkers. You brilliant folks sure know how to pick effective leadership.
...but it will be funny seeing New Yorkers who longed for a mayor to tell them exactly how much soda to drink to live in a "gritty" city again. This might be HILARIOUS.
Glad they provide some raw data.
One week's worth of public drinking and urination, 2013:
4,831
One week's worth of public drinking and urination, 2014:
300
That data point doesn't distinguish between public drinking and urination, but there's probably a lot of perps that get busted for both.
Article: The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association has warned its members to put their safety first and not make arrests “unless absolutely necessary.”
“The definition of a police state is when the government’s prime concern is for its own safety, not for the lives, liberty and property of the people it has sworn to protect,” Mr. Napolitano said, The Blaze reported. “That is a very, very dangerous place in which to be.”
“The definition of a police state is when the government’s prime concern is for its own safety, not for the lives, liberty and property of the people it has sworn to protect,” Mr. Napolitano said, The Blaze reported. “That is a very, very dangerous place in which to be.”
No argument.
And the Left wants government to have even MORE power.
...but conservatives, we are the dumb ones apparently.
All the horrible hipster poseurs that live here said they wanted gritty '70s NYC back.
I am moving out of this place before the public employees can steal any more from me.
Don't make arrests “unless absolutely necessary.”
What type of phony "small government" conservatives pine for the days of lot's of unnecessary arrests?
Funny, garage was singing de Blasio's praises a few weeks ago because crime was down...for much the same reason.
What's the downside here. Cops aren't harassing people on the street and arresting them. Maybe if we all act mad they will continue?
The untaxed cigarettes are coming to get us! Oh, noooooo!
Wow, The next step is a recall petition, right Garage?
I doubt it, NYC voted for this. Why would they recall de Blasio?
And the Left wants government to have even MORE power.
...but conservatives, we are the dumb ones apparently.
Not dumb. Clinically insane. The prevailing conservative viewpoint appears to me I'm-All-For-Small-Government-Unless-The-Government-Is-Carrying-A-Gun-And-Pulling-Me-Over-And-Harassing-Me-For-Minor-Infractions-Because-All-Cops-Are-Heroes.
That is crazy.
At least the left
It has helped contribute to a nose dive in low-level policing, with overall arrests down 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."
At a hundred dollar fine per offense, looks like almost 2,800,00 lost revenue so far.
In NYC the mayor has too much power.
In NYC the police have too much power.
This conflict is virtually medieval, like the struggles between the king and his powerful, recalcitrant barons.
They ride across the fields heedlessly, trampling the crops and the peasants working them.
The people are the real losers. The only losers.
I feel somewhat conflicted about this.
On the one hand, I can't stand de Blasio. On the other, I can't stand public employees unions, particularly ones whose members are responsible for public safety.
De Blasio's attitudes about policing are flat out wrong and destructive, but if the police union is urging officers to slow down for any reason, that is much worse. That's basically a strike, with the apparent aim of exerting pressure on the city by making the community feel less safe.
It's a toxic climate all around. De Blasio should back the NYPD, like his predecessors have, but he should not do so because the union threatens to do things like this. Help the police do their job by supporting them, but don't allow yourself to be coerced by their union.
The high number of arrests in recent years is driven as much by "performance goals" as by public safety.
Adhyl Polanco, an eight-year police veteran, testified that his supervisors in a Bronx precinct in 2009 insisted on 20 summons, five street stops and one arrest per month. If you didn't make that number, he said, you could be denied days off and overtime, and given a poor evaluation. Polanco said officers who didn't make their quotas were sometimes forced to "drive their supervisors," who would make them give out summons and make street stops, sometimes of people they had not even observed.
More here:
An officer assigned to an “impact zone” — a high-crime area — told me that “the Constitution has been thrown out the window when it comes to stops.” He is given strict daily quotas and asked at the end of his tour about his numbers. An officer who fails to meet the required number for the day is berated (sometimes in front of peers), not allowed time off and given unpalatable work assignments. Nothing is asked about maintaining order, interacting with the community or other kinds of police work.
If you have to spend your day watching out for threats to your life, you won't be watching out for low-level crimes. Under such circumstances, anyone's productivity would go to hell, regardless what their job is.
cont.
... at least the left is honest about its pro-government stance.
Not dumb. Clinically insane. The prevailing conservative viewpoint appears to me I'm-All-For-Small-Government-Unless-The-Government-Is-Carrying-A-Gun-And-Pulling-Me-Over-And-Harassing-Me-For-Minor-Infractions-Because-All-Cops-Are-Heroes.
I'm curious what conservative says that. Can you cite them?
Saying the cops who caused such outrage this year didn't do anything wrong is not the same as saying all cops are heroes.
Conservatives are the main ones griping that the cops are too militarized as is.
...and we aren't the ones calling for the cops to be the only ones allowed to carry guns.
Franklin said...
I am moving out of this place before the public employees can steal any more from me.
Stealing involves stealth, acts done in secret, under cover. Robbery, like highway robbery, is done in broad daylight. The robbers don't give a damn that you know, only that you cannot defend yourself.
Public employees don't steal, they rob. But you, as stupid voters, acquiesce to being robbed by electing the public employees' lap dogs.
Essentially the unionized patrolmen are reforming themselves against the quota-driven micromanagement of police administrators.
If de Blasio is actually in favor of reforming police practices, he should start here and move forward.
... at least the left is honest about its pro-government stance.
The same left that demanded the government stay out of your bedroom are behind the "affirmative consent" law in CA and the "rape crisis" claims on campuses.
Please, tell me more about the consistency of the Left.
mccullough wrote:
Time to sell loosies in Time Square
some of us still remember when you couldn't walk down 42nd street without getting mugged. And remember the squeegee guys and the three card monte guys. Wasn't too long ago.
Roger Sweeny wrote:
I am not a fan of Bill de Blasio, but if cops aren't doing their jobs, they should be disciplined and, if necessary, fired. Where is Calvin Coolidge (and Ronald Reagan) when we need him?
If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?
Mike: I'm a pretty bad advocate for the left. I never said the left was "consistent." I said they are honest about their love of government.
Mainstream conservative talk the talk, but then want a crackdown on jaywalking.
What a mess. I'm sort of glad some of the more petty offenses aren't being enforced (a lot of the Bloomberg-era stuff was as much about raising revenue through fines as it was about enforcing laws), but at the same time, the police shouldn't just be deciding not to enforce certain laws out of spite (as opposed to resource allocation)--any more than Obama should be able to decide which laws he likes and doesn't like to enforce.
If you're mad that De Blasio doesn't have your back, fine--make your statement. But don't fail to do your job either--this is why people hate unions.
My nephew is moving to NYC soon -- he's been working there for a while now, but they haven't sold their house yet and has been taking the train in from NJ.
Except for his (and his wife and kid) presence in NYC, I'd like to see both Mayor and Police Union self-destruct (even more). But there are good Americans, regular people and taxpayers who deserve a modicum of Law and Order.
So like BDNYC, I'm conflicted.
I'd like to see both Mayor and Police Union self-destruct (even more).
What, exactly, did BdB do wrong?
"If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?"
I think in Coolige's case, he used the National Guard, and hired non-union police (and allowed any union police to defy their union and stay on the force). It's not a perfect plan, as it means a lot of people who are new to the job, but there has to be a contingency for even illegal strikes by essential services.
I don't know if this situation is at "fire 'em" stage yet, but if it got to the point where the cops threaten public safety, the mayor should can whoever joins the strike, ready up replacements, and offer bonuses to those who agree to do their jobs.
"If" is a big word. However, if this signals the end of broken window policing, we can get back to a Paul Kersey-style city rather quickly.
Go ahead, bite Big Apple,
Don't mind the Maggots!
I'm going to make a fortune selling "NO STEREO IN CAR" window decals.
I'm sort of glad some of the more petty offenses aren't being enforced.
It was "petty offense" enforcement that triggered Eric Garner's death.
I doubt it, NYC voted for this. Why would they recall de Blasio?
I am sorry. I thought that Wisc also voted for Walker. I thought that is what public sector unions were supposed to do when the were unhappy with the election results, despite what the majority wanted.
Incidentally, the only outcry I heard about the kinds of picayune law enforcement actions that led to the death of Eric Garner were from the right. Well, except for one editorial I read on Indian Country Today, which also criticized NYC's oppressive tobacco tax.
Let's have a poll as to who supports banning the sale of "loosies" and see how it comes out, right and left.
If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?
Airlift in some Roof Koreans from L.A.
What, exactly, did BdB do wrong? -Garage
He ran afoul of a public sector union. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?
Wilhelm/DeBlasio can recruit out-of-work carriage drivers and their horses as Cossacks for riding down and sabering unruly crowds.
In many big cities (NYC among them) you can't legally enjoy a cigar while strolling through any park.
That's bullshit.
Looks like they're not issuing tickets for the money making crimes, the non violent crimes that make money for the city. I say go for it.
Many here seem to think this de Blasio's fault. It's the fucking insubordinate police you all seem to love so much.
He ran afoul of a public sector union. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
As did every mayor before BdB.
The police are acting like thieves, taking a nice salary in exchange for not doing their work.
They turned a sympathetic situation, where they were subjected to unjustified criticism, into one where they look like the imperial army turning on Republican Rome.
furious_a wrote:
It was "petty offense" enforcement that triggered Eric Garner's death.
It was a nuiscance complaint. I don't know if its a good idea that cops aren't allowed to deal with offenders with repeated complaints.
If you are a business, and ever single day a panhandler is in front of your store door bugging all the customers coming in to your store I imagine at a certain point you're going to call the cops.
It's the fucking insubordinate public sector unions you all seem to love so much.
Bonus points if the cops march on-the-clock like the Cheesehead lifers with their phony doctors' notes.
Kelly wrote:
Looks like they're not issuing tickets for the money making crimes, the non violent crimes that make money for the city. I say go for it.
Kelly do you have a business in NYC? do you pay THOUSANDS in rent? What would you do if a pan handler stood in front of your business and harassed customers who were trying to get into your business. OR who setup illegal shop and started selling the same thing you were selling but without having to pay the rent you pay, and not required to follow any laws that you do when selling your goods?
I’m sure there are hundreds (thousands?) of people right now trying to figure out if they can visit NYC before the inevitable surge of change.
And for all the talk about how cops shouldn't enforce bullshit laws, being double parked or parked illegally, while non violent adds up to being a major inconvenience for people looking for parking spots, or trying to drive down the street.
Who really wanted a NYC that looked like Disneyland anyways?
I am still looking for this straw-man conservative who is defending all of these little laws, like laws banning the sale of loosies, that are enforced by the police and ultimately backed, like every law, with deadly force.
Robert Cook: "Many here seem to think this de Blasio's fault. It's the fucking insubordinate police you all seem to love so much."
That's "speaking truth to power" cookie!!
LOL
Cookie gets very upset when those in the ranks get unruly and dare to publicly criticize a communist mayor.
How dare they!
Still the safest big city in the USA,
The report is from 2009 so safest 5 years ago may be right. How the current mayor gets credit is above my pay grade.
while non violent adds up to being a major inconvenience for people looking for parking spots, or trying to drive down the street.
This is what NYC voted for. If demonstrating without a permit and stopping traffic is no longer an arrest offence, why should double parking be one?
Similarly, if you are accosted by pan handlers on every corner,it becomes a major annoyance. They are not always polite.
If you are trying to conduct legal business in NY and have to compete with illegal street merchants it becomes very difficult to do business.
Etc etc. All of these are minor violations, but if none are enforced, the city quickly turns into a cess pool. Kind of how it was 25 + years ago.
tim in Vermont wrote:
This is what NYC voted for. If demonstrating without a permit and stopping traffic is no longer an arrest offence, why should double parking be one?
That's my point to the libertarians. Cops should enforce none of that? If cops doesn't go after the illegal cigarette sellers, of which Garner was one, there is no reason they should go after the legal sellers of cigarettes (who, say sell to an underage kid, or don't pay the govt any sales tax). And there's no reason to enforce the legal laws either.Nor for a legal merchant not to start selling illegally.
On the one hand it's a Gods of the Copybook Headings kinda moment.
On the other hand some non-trivial percentage of the stuff not being enforced now was likely bullshit-ish and not enforcing it is likely to hit the politicians/Admin in one of the only places it'll hurt--their budgets.
On a third hand I don't live in NYC, so good luck up there I guess.
People may say double parking is a minor crime, but be the guy trying to drive down a NY street when all the cars are blocking the way because they're double parked. It's annoying. We need cops enforcing those "bullshit" non violent laws so I don't get out of the car and start beating people who are parked illegally.
Typical union thugs. If we don't kiss their ass then they won't do their job. Yet another example of why all unions need to be banned nationwide.
jr565 said...That's my point to the libertarians. Cops should enforce none of that?
One libertarian answer would likely be that some of the smaller things should be enforced via social norms, community expectations, shaming, and the like, and not through the force/violence of the state. There's obviously an important line-drawning problem, but taking the position that maximum liberty w/r/t state power doesn't necessarily mean one embraces social anarchy.
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
On a third hand I don't live in NYC, so good luck up there I guess.
I do. And don't think those saying Garner should have been left alone really know what they're talking about. Especially since I know how business runs in NY.
Public sector unions attempt to close down schools, turning in phony doctor's notes, attempting to shut down the legislature, because they don't like some law?
Public sector unions shut down a city because they don't like some suspension of a law by fiat?
Which of the above is good and which is bad? Show your work.
I personally think they are both bad. NYC can't run without some modicum of law and order. Public sector unions are subordinate to elected leadership.
Many people are trying to use irony to make a point. Never works except with people who already agree with you.
sorry: ...but taking the position that maximum feasible personal liberty w/r/t state power is the most moral political design doesn't necessarily mean one embraces social anarchy.
I knew it wouldn't take long for the ole perfesser to post this one. The comments, of course, are woefully predictable.
Hoodlum wrote:
One libertarian answer would likely be that some of the smaller things should be enforced via social norms, community expectations, shaming, and the like, and not through the force/violence of the state
If that's an answer it's a pretty bad one. Beucase if shaming worked they wouldn't have engaged in the behavior in the first place.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
There's obviously an important line-drawning problem, but taking the position that maximum liberty w/r/t state power doesn't necessarily mean one embraces social anarchy.
it depends on where you draw the line. If you draw the line where people have to shame people who break the law and there is no enforcement of said law, it pretty much is anarchy.
bbkingfish: "I knew it wouldn't take long for the ole perfesser to post this one. The comments, of course, are woefully predictable"
And thank you for your powerful, insightful and moving contribution.
This is not about DeBlasio.
It's about MONEY. The PBA is coincidentally negotiating a new multi-year contract with NYC. Like the cop in Mexico who wants 200 pesos to avoid the "burden" of taking you in, these cops are using emotion to pick the City's pocket.
Yet another example of why all unions need to be banned nationwide - madisonfella
I can see how one can come to the conclusion that public sector unions can be somewhat problematic. How is that calling for the banning of unions though?
I guess you need to make an absurd statement to ease your cognitive dissonance over the two cases. Whatever.
This is what NYC voted for.
I think they voted for the OPPOSITE of that. The police were enforcing laws that people DID vote for, and now are butthurt because that requires force.
It's starting to look like New Yorkers are just stupid, and had no idea what they were voting for.
I am still looking for this straw-man conservative who is defending all of these little laws, like laws banning the sale of loosies,
It is such an absurd law which needs to be changed. And not just loose cigarettes either. A man should be allowed to stand outside a liquor store and sell cans of beer as well. Or peddle sandwiches outside a restaurant or popsicles outside an ice cream shop.
It's a free fucking country and nobody has the right to stop anyone from selling anything anywhere.
tim in vermont: "I can see how one can come to the conclusion that public sector unions can be somewhat problematic. How is that calling for the banning of unions though?"
The lefties are continuously conflating public sector unions with private sector unions.
It's almost as if they know their arguments will fall flat if they don't.
Oh boy. If nobody is writing citations, then that's a lot of 'lost revenue' for the city. I can't wait to hear about the forthcoming budget crunch.
If you think the cops hate de Blassholio now, wait until he says they can't have any raises because they didn't write enough tickets to cover their budget.
Never forget that cops are basically modern-day revenuers.
Hoodlum ok, so suppose you own a store, and pay exhorbitant rent to stay in business. And lets say you sell coffee. Lets say a cart sets up shop right in front of your store and also sells coffee. only, in order to sell anything in the city you need a permit. And this cart didnt' get one. Is it ok for the cops to enforce the law where they will deal with the person selling stuff illegally. What if they come back every single day, even though cops already told them if they want to sell stuff in a cart they need to pay money for a license? What if they get arrested 8 times for selling food illegally?
Stores that are paying rent are paying rent for what? So that people can not pay rent and still sell stuff? Other carts that spent thousands to get that license wasted that money for what reason?
Are you saying such a law is one that cops SHOULDN"T enforce?
(I just described NYC business to you by the way)
madisonfella wrote:
It is such an absurd law which needs to be changed. And not just loose cigarettes either. A man should be allowed to stand outside a liquor store and sell cans of beer as well. Or peddle sandwiches outside a restaurant or popsicles outside an ice cream shop.
Then why would a bar need to buy a liquor license? Is that how NYC IS, or how you want it to be?
Are those people selling booze in front of the store carding people? Then why would a bar get ticketed for not carding people?
What you WANT is simply not how business is conducted.
NYPD officers say "why risk my life making an arrest or giving a citation for a low level crime?"
Critics shout "Strike" "Blue Flu" and condemn the NYPD for doing so.
I'll remind the critics that the Garner death and resultant national hoo hah resulted from an incident involving the sale of single cigarettes--or "loosies".
It's not too much of a stretch to say that the death of two NYPD cops was the indirect result of that arrest.
People have been smuggling untaxed cigarettes into New York and selling same for decades now. The "loosies" law is an attempt to collect revenue for the city. Why would any sentient human being act as a sort of tax collector where you, or your friends, can get shot--and the mayor insults you?
How is that calling for the banning of unions though?
How is it not? Unions, public and private, are always pulling this type of bullshit. They are thugs who shake down the actual job creators and nothing more.
Perhaps they served a purpose at the beginning of the last century, but what have unions done for anybody in the last 50-75 years?
This whole thing has been very entertaining for someone who doesn't have to live and work in NYC. The dimwitted Progressive/Socialist Mayor going to war with the Police Union? Good stuff.
I do wonder if the people of New York City will learn anything from all this. My guess is not. I have little faith in people's ability to change and learn. But anything is possible I 'spose.
Then why would a bar need to buy a liquor license?
They shouldn't need to either.
A license is nothing more than an excuse for the government to rob from the job creators. They serve no other actual purpose.
Are the police wrong? Yeah. But they will get rewarded. NYC doesn't punish unions.
Remember when the transit union went on strike during the holiday season a few years ago. They got everything they wanted from Bloomberg.
Does anybody expect de Blasio to drive a hard bargain?
Ban public employee unions. Period.
Too much shakedown, and blowback.
Justice. Whoredom. Balance getting wiggly.
The spice must flow.
"Roger Sweeny wrote:
I am not a fan of Bill de Blasio, but if cops aren't doing their jobs, they should be disciplined and, if necessary, fired. Where is Calvin Coolidge (and Ronald Reagan) when we need him?
"If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?"
I'm assuming that not all the cops would be fired. Though the job of NYC cop is dangerous, it is relatively high status and remarkably well-paid. There are many, many more people who want to be NYC cops than the city actually hires.
Before the air traffic controllers went on strike (and were then fired by Reagan), conventional wisdom said that it would be impossible to quickly replace them. Conventional wisdom was wrong.
If it's anarchy that they want, then it's anarchy they shall have. Let's see how they like it.
Hopefully Scott Walker won't still be intimidated by the police unions in Wisconsin and will enact Act 10 upon them as well. Otherwise we will probably have this same exact problem someday in Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Roger Sweeny: "I'm assuming that not all the cops would be fired."
One key difference between the NYC po-po and the ATC's is that the police are not actually walking off the job.
How do you fire a public sector union member who is simply not meeting standards?
Just as with NYC teachers, they'll all end up collecting their paychecks in employee "rubber rooms" ("reassignment centers") where they sit around all day doing crosswords.
It's hard to believe there are any employee problems in a left-wing workers paradise like NY.
I'll bet the Kochs are behind all of it.
If your city has got a lot of homeless people and businesses quite rightly don't want them to use their bathrooms, where do you think they are going to urinate?
So do the police arrest all the homeless people that they see urinating or just the ones doing it in front of children or some other egregious circumstance?
The homeless people are going to feel less harassed if there are fewer arrests. Maybe you end up with more homeless if there is less harassment. Maybe you don't.
Let it be known that Garage is funnier than Madisonfella.
Garage actually makes me laugh from time to time.
Jr565 - You almost sound like you think that rent-seeking is the way businesses SHOULD operate. Like it's GOOD that a business can buy a license and the government will send people with guns to shut down any inconvenient competition. That may be a fact of life, but it's a BAD fact of life.
madisonfella: "Hopefully Scott Walker won't still be intimidated by the police unions in Wisconsin and will enact Act 10 upon them as well. Otherwise we will probably have this same exact problem someday in Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay."
"..probably..."
If Walker is as bad as garage and you continually inform us he is, why hasn't "this same exact problem" happened in WI already?
Gee, it's almost as if you are completely full of beans.
I remember the Reagan decree, but not how powerfully he acted. It is good reading.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html
Let it be known that Garage is funnier than Madisonfella
This has long been known.
Left Bank of the Charles: "If your city has got a lot of homeless people and businesses quite rightly don't want them to use their bathrooms, where do you think they are going to urinate?"
Who cares?
The left won that battle in court 35 years ago when they argued that "homelessness" is simply another "lifestyle" choice.
Therefore, public urination is simply a choice similar to the choice you might make when you ask: ranch style home or colonial?
jr565, you are absolutely right that it is unfair for a legal business to have to pay for a number of permits and then to allow someone to set up out front and sell the same thing without permits.
But as far as I am concerned, the big problem is requiring lots of permits in the first place. And why the bleep should you have to buy a liquor license? Any more than you should have to buy an indulgence to get into heaven.
That may be "the way business is done in NYC," the same way that business is done in many countries by employing fixers and paying bribes. But that doesn't make it right.
Sorry libertarians. But cops arrested gArner in a world where licenses are required to run businesses and even sell cigarettes. If
They gave him a pass they need to give everyone a pass and forgo the idea of requiring businesses to have a license. If they keep that idea in place then they have every reason to go after people who don't get the license to conduct business legally.
In what state are you not even required to have a license to open a business?
tim in vermont: "Let it be known that Garage is funnier than Madisonfella
This has long been known."
And it's usually unintentional..which only increases the levity.
Little Dinky DeBlasio wanted the NYC of the '70's, he's gonna get it good and hard...
Ah, those balmy days on the steps of the NY Public Library ("Yo, yo, smoke, smoke")... Our beloved President must be reliving his lost years...
Roger Sweeney wrote:
"As far as I am concerned, the big problem is requiring lots of permits in the first place. And why the bleep should you have to buy a liquor license? Any more than you should have to buy an indulgence to get into heaven.
That may be "the way business is done in NYC," the same way that business is done in many countries by employing fixers and paying bribes."
As far as you're concerned your objections are bulkshit. Don't like the requirements don't open a business.
Drago: "Ed, the secret long-lost Koch Brother...:
Is there any state in the union that doesn't require you to have a liquor license to open a bar? But libertarians feel that they are too good for licenses?
"One libertarian answer would likely be that some of the smaller things should be enforced via social norms, community expectations, shaming, and the like, and not through the force/violence of the state
If that's an answer it's a pretty bad one. Because if shaming worked they wouldn't have engaged in the behavior in the first place."
Oh, come on, everyone who's ANYone knows how easy it is to shame a three or four hundred pound gentle giant. They're notoriously receptive to it.
You want to operate a business in NY? Start here:
http://licensecenter.ny.gov/business-licenses
Did Gardner do any of those steps? Then why should his business be protected? Are these requirements suddenly optional? And note there is a legal way to sell cigarettes and thousands of vendors went through the steps to do so this legally complying with the law.
It's almost like the libertarians view business law like ur libs view immigration law.
@jr565
You are acting as if any of this made sense.
Gardner could have sold stuff legally in NY.
He just had to follow he law:
http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2938/general-street-vendor-license
Why is it that all legal vendors can take these steps but Gardner couldn't? And shouldn't the law protect the legal vendor over the illegal one? If this whole vendor license thing is optional just tell me.
I'll open a cart tomorrow. I'll sell loosies and booze and anything else you want.
Let it be known that Garage is funnier than Madisonfella
And Curious Drago in Vermont is the funniest of all.
Tim what doesn't make sense is the argument that govt can't go after people selling loosies. It makes no sense for people to get licenses to sell cigarettes if one isn't required.
public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent
If you don't drink as much, you don't urinate as much.
"Hoodlum ok, so suppose you own a store, and pay exhorbitant rent to stay in business. And lets say you sell coffee. Lets say a cart sets up shop right in front of your store and also sells coffee. only, in order to sell anything in the city you need a permit. And this cart didnt' get one."
What if the cart sells an excellent cup of coffee at a great price but I can't buy it because of stupid licensing laws and zealous enforcement? Why am I (the customer) denied my free choice of what coffee to buy so that the state can prop up a shitty, failing business?
Maybe what should happen is if you are paying exorbitant rent to sling cups of coffee, that real estate would be better served by some other use. Maybe it would be more efficient if you bought cart. Maybe once that happens the price of retail space will come down. This is what is known in some circles as the "free market."
Here in Milwaukee we had a great summer when a lot of interesting food trucks would meet at Cathedral Square on Friday afternoons. It was great with a lot of interesting choices. All the downtown office workers would look forward to it. It fostered a sense of community to gather on a sunny Friday and sit at a picnic table enjoying some grilled cheese sandwiches or Korean tacos. Then the established restaurants complained. So the city shut it down, killing something that was truly great and interesting.
Some of the trucks moved their wares to Red Arrow Park. Then, last summer, at Red Arrow Park a mentally ill man was napping, waiting for his brother, a cop came to harass him and ended up shooting him a dozen or so times and killing him.
The Police Chief fired that cop for failing to follow proper protocols. The Police Union threw a fit. In the union's opinion, a cop should be able to violate protocols, resulting in the death of an innocent man and still keep his job and collect my tax money.
So we have come full circle on my rant. More stupid laws and more zealous enforcement of stupid law is is not the answer.
The cops are essentially forcing DiBlasio to articulate with specificity his administration's policy on what level of enforcement he deems appropriate for low-level street offenses so that politcally he can own the consequences of it in either direction, both over- and under-enforcement.
there has to be a contingency for even illegal strikes by essential services.
My grandmother, who was a huge democrat, always used to say she hated Regan except for the time he fired the air traffic controllers.
But at the same time, police have been used as revenue collectors to the detriment of the public and a lot of what they are doing is just..not doing that. So, I too am conflicted. The happy solution is somewhere in the middle with fewer laws and fewer arrests, but serious attention given by the cops to protecting the public from criminals.
I am glad I don't live in NYC though.
"public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent"
How are they determinining how much public urination has dropped if no one is ticketing people for public urination? Same with the drinking. I think they mean that arrests for said crimes dropped not that the instances dropped.
As someone who ones got a summons for public urination let me just state that the cops SHOULD be targeting people who urinate on the street. If they aren't then I want my day of community service back.
There's a big difference between the arrest rate being down and crime being down. And those thousands of unwritten citations are costing the city millions in revenue. That more than anything will get their attention.
"I'll open a cart tomorrow. I'll sell loosies and booze and anything else you want."
A vendor selling me things that I want without first getting special permission from the Crown?
That sounds just awful.
D.D. Driver:
A vendor selling me things that I want without first getting special permission from the Crown?
That sounds just awful.
That's the law though. you actually have a problem with legal business then. Not just selling of loosies. But requiring businesses to even register.
At heart the libertarian argument isnt' about what is but what ought to be.
Until that changes though, you are wrong and those enforcing the law are right.
The cops are essentially forcing DiBlasio to articulate with specificity his administration's policy on what level of enforcement he deems appropriate for low-level street offenses so that politcally he can own the consequences of it in either direction, both over- and under-enforcement.
And if it becomes clear many fewer cops are actually needed, that Broken Windows policing is useless, that harassing thousands of random people isn't necessary.....?
Did the sky fall with a huge drop in arrests?
This is why I said when there was discussion of pot legalization that its not going to work the way the libertarians want. If it's legal its regulated. Like all business in this country .Same with cigarettes. If its regulated then not every dealer can sell it. he has to become an official seller, otherwise he still runs afoul of the law. Even when it's a legal product.
When libertarians argue about the costs of the war on drugs I think what they really are arguing against are the costs of legal business.
If you want a hands off policy on loosies you might as well have a hands off policy on selling things illegally. And then, what is the incentive to ever sell things legally?
"Is there any state in the union that doesn't require you to have a liquor license to open a bar?"
Is there a state that doesn't require you to have a barber's license if you want to cut hair? Hell, some states require a license for interior decorators.
But... who will protect us from the scourge of bad haircuts and improvidently placed throw pillows?
**clutches pearls again**
Madison Fella
I have a great big smoker on a trailer. I will swing up in front of your house and start sellin BBQ. We smoke it for 24 hours so I hope you won't be needing a parking place where we'll be piling the wood. Because, yeah, we make our own charcoal too. Right there on the sidewalk. Probably be a lot of trucks pulling up with the hogs Shouldn't bother you because they come early, around 3am.
garage mahal wrote:
And if it becomes clear many fewer cops are actually needed, that Broken Windows policing is useless, that harassing thousands of random people isn't necessary.....?
Did the sky fall with a huge drop in arrests?
Give it a few months.
D.D Driver wrote:
Is there a state that doesn't require you to have a barber's license if you want to cut hair? Hell, some states require a license for interior decorators.
But... who will protect us from the scourge of bad haircuts and improvidently placed throw pillows?
**clutches pearls again**
If you need a license to open a barbers shop then you need a license to open a barbers shop.
And if it becomes clear many fewer cops are actually needed, that Broken Windows policing is useless, that harassing thousands of random people isn't necessary.....?
It won't
Did the sky fall with a huge drop in arrests?
Be patient. If nothing else the NYC budget is about to take a hit because of the fines not collected.
There. It took a while but I eventually came up with something that should have even a member of the left wing lunatic fringe upset.
D.D here are the requirements to open a barbershop:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/licenses-need-open-barber-shop-18315.html
If you want to open when, there's your path to opening one. If you can't fulfill those steps you shouldn't be in business.
It seems that dumping enforcement of NYC's insane taxing laws on the NYPD is a loss-loss tactic.
Will there be an increase in serious crimes after the non-enforcement of "broken window" laws?
"I have a great big smoker on a trailer. I will swing up in front of your house and start sellin BBQ. We smoke it for 24 hours so I hope you won't be needing a parking place where we'll be piling the wood. Because, yeah, we make our own charcoal too. Right there on the sidewalk. Probably be a lot of trucks pulling up with the hogs Shouldn't bother you because they come early, around 3am."
This is why we have civil trespass and nuisance law protecting property rights. You don't need a law banning everyone from slinging BBQ. If you are in front of my house and I don't mind, it's no one else's business. If I do mind, then I have civil remedies to make you stop.
I'll tell you, BBQ is my favorite thing in the world. If you wanna pull out in front of my house, that sounds awesome.
D.D. Driver wrote:
This is why we have civil trespass and nuisance law protecting property rights. You don't need a law banning everyone from slinging BBQ. If you are in front of my house and I don't mind, it's no one else's business. If I do mind, then I have civil remedies to make you stop
that is EXACTLY the case with Garner.
"If you want to open when, there's your path to opening one. If you can't fulfill those steps you shouldn't be in business."
Here's what you don't get: I don't want to open a barber shop. I want a haircut and a cup of coffee. Licensing laws restrict my choices and jack up my prices.
jr565 said...
Hoodlum ok, so suppose you own a store, and pay exhorbitant rent to stay in business. And lets say you sell coffee. Lets say a cart sets up shop right in front of your store and also sells coffee. only, in order to sell anything in the city you need a permit. And this cart didnt' get one. Is it ok for the cops to enforce the law where they will deal with the person selling stuff illegally
The libertarian answer is probably something like "the power of the State as enacted through laws (enforced implicity & expclictly through coercion and/or violence) should be reserved for the narrowest possible domain, mainly things like ensuring public safety, setting and enforcing a framework wherein contracts can be made and enforced, etc. Using the law to enforce (private) commercial monopolies or regulate private behavior (esp. for the purpose of
raising revenue) is immoral." Some libertarians might go on to say "it's not wrong/immoral to fail to follow unjust or immoral laws." So the likely libertarian answer is that the law in question is invalid.
The smart response to that, of course, is that society as a whole uses the law to set and enforce norms, so those should be followed and respected even if you personally find them unjust. That argument works best when you can demonstrate that laws can be changed (easily) by popular vote, and works less well when you're dealing with an instance of regulatory or legal "capture."
Please note that a form of this argument (w/r/t laws governing commerce) is now being had over both Uber and Air BnB. Taxi medallions and hotel licenses are both costly and their owners justifiably feel harmed by commerical competition that does not incur those costs. The free market libertarian take on that is that the cost itself (being mandated by the state and of dubious value/benefit to the public and/or customers) is unjust.
In other words:
Roger Sweeny said...
But as far as I am concerned, the big problem is requiring lots of permits in the first place. And why the bleep should you have to buy a liquor license? Any more than you should have to buy an indulgence to get into heaven.
That may be "the way business is done in NYC," the same way that business is done in many countries by employing fixers and paying bribes. But that doesn't make it right.
"that is EXACTLY the case with Garner."
I don't think you know what the word "exactly" means.
D.D i'm going to be opening my new outdoor house music dance club in front of your house next to the b.b.q. Open 24 hours. And we play the music loud! Hope you like dancing.
Oh, and we're selling booze from the back of a truck. No ID required! Party!!!!
An owner of a business, (PRIVATE PROPERTY) called the cops for a nuisance complaint. like they had done hundreds of times before on Garner. Who was arrested 8 times for the very same thing.
DD Driver
I won't be trespassing since I will be on the street. I really don't give a shit if you mind. One man' "nuisance" is another man's BBQ stand.
and D.D the public street is not YOUR property. So do you really have a claim when I blast my music? We wouldn't be directly in your property. Just in front of it.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but - If there weren't a police union, and the police were all at-will employees, then Blasio wouldn't have had a reason to complain about the police, as any problems with the police would be entirely his responsibility, just as any misbehavior towards the public by employees of a public corporation would be the responsibility of its CEO. It would be idiotic to publicly worry about his son's welfare at the hands of the police, as he could just direct them to leave him alone.
Part of the problem here I think is the politicians are insulated from responsibility. Why and how I can't make out.
In most other countries the government officials that run the police are in fact responsible for their behavior. The complaints in these recent cases would have been directed against the politicians in either the Philippines or the UK, for instance.
"and D.D the public street is not YOUR property. So do you really have a claim when I blast my music? We wouldn't be directly in your property. Just in front of it."
It's called the law of "nuisance." It is a tort. It how private parties settle their disputes.
Hoodlumdoodlum, if you think you shouldn't have to buy a liquor license to open a bar then you need to convince the legislature to pass laws where licenses are no longer required. Until then though, you have to get a liquor license.
"I won't be trespassing since I will be on the street."
That's still a trespass if your smoke enters my property. My property lines extend all the way to the sky and down below the dirt to the center of the Earth.
------------------------->*
The more you know...
HoodlumDoodlum wrote:
The libertarian answer is probably something like "the power of the State as enacted through laws (enforced implicity & expclictly through coercion and/or violence) should be reserved for the narrowest possible domain, mainly things like ensuring public safety, setting and enforcing a framework wherein contracts can be made and enforced, etc. Using the law to enforce (private) commercial monopolies or regulate private behavior (esp. for the purpose of
raising revenue) is immoral."
Getting someone who is panhandling in front of your store away from your store is often a matter of public safety.
AND if you set and enforce a framework whereby contracts can be made and enforced that pretty much ends up being "using the law to enforce commercial properties or regulate private behavior". That framework you say is required requires enforcement of the laws which support that framework.
That framework has already been established in the case of selling cigarettes, since you can sell cigarettes. But only if you go through the legal steps which are already outlined and followed by all who are selling cigarettes legally. Somehow they are suddenly the monopolies for following the law? Then what are libertarians saying should be enforced if not legal business?
D.D. wrote:
That's still a trespass if your smoke enters my property. My property lines extend all the way to the sky and down below the dirt to the center of the Earth.
so if I have a store, and you are conducting business illegally in front of my store, why should I not be able to call cops and get you to conduct business elsewhere?
If you like the idea of private property you should also value the idea of legal business. the legal businesses are the ones paying the taxes and getting the licenses. Not the illegal ones. Who have as much right to sell illegally as you do to go onto their property absent their wishes.
And if it becomes clear many fewer cops are actually needed, that Broken Windows policing is useless, that harassing thousands of random people isn't necessary.....?
So, the massive drop in crime from Dinkins to Giuliani was just, what, luck?
"It's called the law of "nuisance." It is a tort. It how private parties settle their disputes."
I AM FOLLOWING THE LAW> I AM SELLING CIGARETTES LEGALLY. YOU ARE NOT! YOU DONT" GET THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW. SUDDENLY YOU WANT TO BRING UP TORTS? Follow the law then.
jr565 said...that is EXACTLY the case with Garner.
And for the record I don't think the "libertarian" case against the law or laws that lead to Garner's arrest is a very strong one. I don't know of any libertarians who don't believe in contracts or in the concept of public goods, so having laws against trespass, etc, isn't per se antilibertarian. I think where you part ways with the libertarians is when you seem to say that regulations are somehow implicitly good and if there's a costly regulation it's somehow immoral to not follow it. That's perhaps an unkind paraphrase but when you focus more on the regulation itself than on what the regulation is supposed to accomplish for society (justfying its enforcement with violence) that's how you come off.
Saying "If you can't fulfill those steps you shouldn't be in business" seems to assume that the steps themselves are just, and that's really most of what libertarians are arguing about, so in a way I think you're talking past each other. Roger Sweeny and D.D. Driver referenced bribes and pointless hurdles to commerce and your response was "if you need a license to open a barbers shop then you need a license to open a barbers shop." A test question for you would be something like "how pointless or burdensome would a
regulation have to be in order for you to see it as unjust or immoral--if the government decided you had to pay $5k to a local official in order to open a lemonade stand on your front lawn would you defend such a regulation?" or some similar hypothetical. A test question for Roger or DD would be something like "why should an individual get to decide for themselves which commerical regulations serve valid purposes (public safety, etc) and which don't, when we live in a democracy and citizens have options for both voice and exit, and in which the concept of rule of law implies a contract between/among citizens to respect laws and regulations."
I think the law that protects D.D and his property from a little smoke from my barbecue which is delicious and which is a non violent crime to make, should be one of the types of laws that we should have less of. Certainly the cops shouldn't have the state backing to enforce said laws. Because that's force. And tyranny. So, suck up the smoke and deal with it B.B.
so if I have a store, and you are conducting business illegally in front of my store, why should I not be able to call cops and get you to conduct business elsewhere?
This is begging the question. The act is only "illegal" because of the BS law. It should not be illegal for two consenting adults to sell each other cigarettes without first asking the Crown for permission.
The law is in place to "protect" businesses from competition. Don't know if you are a lefty or a conservative. If you are a lefty, you get a pass from me. You are expected to be economically ignorant and to love the regulatory state. We just have to agree to disagree.
If you are a conservative: for shame. Conservatives are supposed to understand what capitalism is and to, you know, like the free market.
jr565 said...Who have as much right to sell illegally as you do to go onto their property absent their wishes.
Also for the record: engaging in voluntary commerce (absent the problem of using someone else's property without their permission, coerced interactions, etc) is not at all equal to trespass.
If one wished to be inflamatory one might ask if things like Jim Crow laws restricting legal commerce to persons of a given race were valid/deserved to be followed since, after all, they were the law...
The law is in place to "protect" businesses from competition.
No, the law (against selling "loosies") is in place to allow the state to collect its tobacco taxes. If a system was in place, and the government confidant that it would actually be used, to collect its share of the "loosies" transactions, the government wouldn't care about the sale of "loosies".
What argument is finally winning on the marijuana front? The ability to collect taxes.
damikesc said...
So, the massive drop in crime from Dinkins to Giuliani was just, what, luck?
There is exactly no solid evidence that it was due to policing policy. There is, also, only correlative evidence for any of the alternative explanations, lead levels, demographics etc.
For complex systems it is rare that a single driver determines system output. Given this, it is unlikely that policing was the sole explanation for the drop in crime and it might have had no discernible effect.
Public unions are scum. There are legal ways to address the outrage that is DeBlasio as mayor.
But to make taxpaying NY'er pay is illegal. That's life in a blue state.
With the imo unconstitutional "stop and frisk" gone, I would carry until I could move out of state.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
"I think where you part ways with the libertarians is when you seem to say that regulations are somehow implicitly good and if there's a costly regulation it's somehow immoral to not follow it."
What I'm saying is, if there are laws for selling stuff, and you want to sell stuff you have to follow the law. Cops will enforce the law simply because it's the law, not because it's moral or immoral. that's a subjective argument. And if I'm paying the cost to do business, whatever those may be then so should everyone else. If some don't then the state better enforce the law, for my protection otherwise I will cease to obey the law too. Otherwise I'm getting penalized for following the law while those who don't get rewarded.
"That's perhaps an unkind paraphrase but when you focus more on the regulation itself than on what the regulation is supposed to accomplish for society (justfying its enforcement with violence) that's how you come off. "
If you enforce any law there is implicit violence in it, if the person doesn't wish to cooperate. But you could make the same argument about someone selling a sandwhich from an illegal cart as someone selling a loosie. Suddenly not having to give the govt taxes is a crime that shouldn't be enforced? That's great to know since going forward I too will not pay the state its taxes.
"Saying "If you can't fulfill those steps you shouldn't be in business" seems to assume that the steps themselves are just, and that's really most of what libertarians are arguing about, so in a way I think you're talking past each other."
Just or unjust, those are the rules. And everyone who sells things are supposed to follow those rules. We dont' get to change the rules simply because we find the law to be unjust. and if the police cant' enforce those laws, then why are those who are following the laws required to follow the laws?
Did Garner card kids? But yet, I who followed the law would get fined if I sold a loosie or sold cigarettes to kids or didn't pay the sales tax on the sale.
"What argument is finally winning on the marijuana front? The ability to collect taxes."
Taxes which Garner was not paying. If you are saying that we should legalize something because we'll get tax revenue from it, then should we not penalize those who don't pay the taxes but still sell the pot?
I have no sympathy. This is what NYC voted for. I read the TPM link via Insty. What about me? What about the citizens? The citizens or voters by voting in de Blasio turned their back on the police, now the police turned their backs on the voters.
Elections have consequences, Josh. You voted for your utopia, this is it. Shell games on 5th Avenue, less policing, more grit. The grit, dirt, muggings, and edge/danger is how they want to live.
No whining.
This blog can go back to before the election when conservatives predicted what would happen. It's not rocket science, it's history.
A test question for Roger or DD would be something like "why should an individual get to decide for themselves which commerical regulations serve valid purposes (public safety, etc) and which don't, when we live in a democracy and citizens have options for both voice and exit, and in which the concept of rule of law implies a contract between/among citizens to respect laws and regulations."
Without question individuals do not get to choose. The law is what it is. There are plenty of BS laws, we each have to follow the law or face the consequences. But one of those consequences shouldn't be major injury or death. Five bucks says that JR broke some law on his way to work today. He should not die for his "lawlessness."
The Gardner case illustrates two problems. One is excessive use of force. Cops should never use lethal force on someone unless there is life in danger. Which there was not.
The second problem is too many cops enforcing too many laws. When you have too many cops enforcing too many laws, its a simple matter of probability that sooner or later some cop will use bad judgment and injure and/or kill someone for minor offenses.
OTOH these NYers are the ones who voted the Marxist into the mayorship.
There is exactly no solid evidence that it was due to policing policy.
...outside of a signficant reduction in crime that occurred just as the policy was pursued.
But, again, just blind luck that problems going on for decades stopped when Giuliani got in office.
Luck.
There is, also, only correlative evidence for any of the alternative explanations, lead levels, demographics etc.
Can you point to massive changes in either over, say, a two or three yr period that correlates with the dramatic reduction?
For complex systems it is rare that a single driver determines system output. Given this, it is unlikely that policing was the sole explanation for the drop in crime and it might have had no discernible effect.
Except that it occurred just as they pursued the policy.
This is going to be a bit difficult to rationalize here. It's not like demographics had MASSIVE changes under Giuliani (and, honestly, primarily in the first term when the rates plummeted).
""What argument is finally winning on the marijuana front? The ability to collect taxes."
The state is making selling pot legal. Because it wants its taxes. But suppose there are other people out there that want to sell pot but don't want to pay the govt it's taxes. I'd argue that if they want to sell pot they have a way to do it. if they don't, then they are putting themselves above the law. And the cops should enforce the law to protect those who are paying the govt the tax revenue over the people who think they should be able to set up a black market.
If Garner were selling dime bags and pocketing the tax revenue why shouldn't the cops go after him? IMagine if he's standing in front of a legal pot store selling pot?
The pot store is paying rent. the pot store is paying taxes and giving the govt its legal cut. The guy outside is siphoning business, operating without a license and not paying the govt its revenue. Why did we legalize again?
It's also not like Rudy didn't telegraph, smoke signal or state in plain English over and over cause - effect.
Should there be a pool as to how long before NYC sees another Bernie Goetz incident?
D.D driver wrote:
Without question individuals do not get to choose. The law is what it is. There are plenty of BS laws, we each have to follow the law or face the consequences. But one of those consequences shouldn't be major injury or death. Five bucks says that JR broke some law on his way to work today. He should not die for his "lawlessness."
If I resist, I bring the potential for violence on myself.
DD
Fine, sue me because you are annoyed. Sue the guy blowing smoke from his loosie if it annoys you.
Snatch on to those happy laws that suit you.
Buy a fucking fan if my BBQ smoke is "bothering" you.
Taxes which Garner was not paying.
My only beef with the Garner case is the failure to provide first aid, letting him sit up once the cuffs were on him etc.
The arrest itself was perfectly kosher.
D.D Driver wrote:
The Gardner case illustrates two problems. One is excessive use of force. Cops should never use lethal force on someone unless there is life in danger. Which there was not.
But in Gardners case the cops didn't use lethal force but he died. If in the course of arresting him the cops pulled out their guns and shot him in the face you'd have a point. only that's not what cops did.
Using a stun gun is not lethal force 99.9 % of the time. But sometimes people have died when cops used a stun gun. So then cops suddenly can't use non lethal force to apprehend someone on the off chance that they might be that 1% that die when non lethal force is applied?
if that's the case then the way out of getting arrested would to resist arrest.
Gardner knew the drill. He had been arrested so many times before for the same thing. And no other time did it result in his death. So why did it happen this time? because this time he resisted.
This is not me saying that if you resist cops should kill you. Its me saying if you resist cops will apply enough pressure on you where you will be put on the ground and handcuffed. And in rare cases such an action will result in your death.
damikesc said...
Can you point to massive changes in either over, say, a two or three yr period that correlates with the dramatic reduction?
You really don't know much about this topic do you?
Link. Correlation is not causation.
D.d wrote:
The second problem is too many cops enforcing too many laws. When you have too many cops enforcing too many laws, its a simple matter of probability that sooner or later some cop will use bad judgment and injure and/or kill someone for minor offenses
in the case of officer Wilson I also heard, "Why didn't he wait for back up. He should have let Brown run away and called for backup?" So if you are one cop the argument is you're too few. And if you have five cops the argument is you have too many.
AReasonableMeltdown: "For complex systems it is rare that a single driver determines system output."
LOL
Leftist theories on AGW go right down the memory hole.
ARMeltdown: "Given this, it is unlikely that policing was the sole explanation for the drop in crime and it might have had no discernible effect."
Again, with leftist AGW theory it was the least likely variable that is being touted as the primary driver.
If a single cop went to arrest Garner I imagine they'd have a lot of problems getting the cuffs on him, considering he was 300 pounds and not acquiescing. So cops would need to use a taser or a billy club since one cop probably couldn't get him to the ground. If they tased him, due to his heart he might have died.
It's notable that the protestors were cheering for random execution of police officers. Perhaps diversity policy has denigrated individual dignity beyond repair. Coupled with premeditated abortion of wholly innocent human lives by the millions through lethal injection, decapitation, and dismemberment, there is a sincere lack of humanitarian interest. The adoption of an atheist faith and libertine religion was predictable, and complements the revival of left-wing ideology.
"But in Gardners case the cops didn't use lethal force but he died."
Okay. Let's put that theory to the test. Someone puts your mother in a choke hold and kills her. Was that "lethal force." Is the perp a murder?
Maybe we should go full-Orwell and call it "lethal peace."
So if you are one cop the argument is you're too few. And if you have five cops the argument is you have too many.
If I am a plumber and cannot do my job without flooding your house, I should be in a different line of work. If I am a cop and can't apprehend an unarmed man without killing him, I should similarly be in a different line of work.
So its a "tough job," well "tough shit." The job is what the job is. If its too tough, do something else.
On strike!!
""But in Gardners case the cops didn't use lethal force but he died."
Let's see if I can be clear about this.
That's a fucking stupid fucking remark.
If the force kills someone, it's lethal.
There was no "choke hold." Once on the ground there were no hands or arms around his neck. There were bodies holding him down. He died of heart failure.
Michael Brown was not surrendering with his hands up.
The perpetuation of bullshit is not helpful to a "conversation" about race relations or police tactics.
New York has had a remarkably low crime rate in recent years, and though it has certainly benefited from national trends in crime reduction, it seems to have driven overall crime rates substantially below those of comparable cities.
This reduction, beyond the national trend, seems to be fairly attributable to more intense and effective policing.
last I looked, Law Enforcement Officers don't write the laws, they enforce them (hence the name). Why do cops get to choose what laws to enforce? And if they're bad laws, shouldn't people be demonstrating on the steps of the legislative body that wrote them?
This is all bad theater.
More seriously, I believe this is the type of policing that DeBlasio has been advocating. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
buwaya puti said...
This reduction, beyond the national trend, seems to be fairly attributable to more intense and effective policing.
Where is the evidence for this? NYC is quite different to other major cities in many respects. Why aren't these other factors critical?
"This reduction, beyond the national trend, seems to be fairly attributable to more intense and effective policing."
I think we are about to get a controlled trial of this theory.
The concept of revenue-driven policing is what was behind a lot of the anger at police in Ferguson, MO. Those little cities were using revenue from minor offenses and local ordinances which hit the poor and black populations more significantly. That part of the situation I understand. The rioting and arson is just insanity of the leftist-anarchist variety.
RecChief said...
Why do cops get to choose what laws to enforce?
They always get to choose what laws to enforce. It's part of the job.
Prosecutors choose whom to prosecute. Citizens choose whom they give evidence against, or when to call the cops. There are a whole series of choices. And the more conduct we define as criminal, the more they have to choose. They are human. Sometimes they choose well, sometimes not.
"Given this, it is unlikely that policing was the sole explanation for the drop in crime and it might have had no discernible effect."
Fox Butterfield, call your office.
New York has had a remarkably low crime rate in recent years.
Everyone remembers what happened to Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima.
AReasonableMan said...
buwaya puti said...
This reduction, beyond the national trend, seems to be fairly attributable to more intense and effective policing.
Where is the evidence for this? NYC is quite different to other major cities in many respects. Why aren't these other factors critical?
Some of the best evidence comes from the enforcers themselves. They know when their policing has effect, and when it does not. Certainly not all intensive policing has the desired effect, but a lot of it does. Again, choices must be made regarding what works, and what does not. The cops have a pretty good idea of this.
Taxes which Garner was not paying.
He paid taxes when he bought the carton. Assuming he *bought* the carton. So taxes were already paid.
There has been a sort of natural experiment over the last 20 years.
Prior to the general fall in crime rates NY had a comparable rate to other big cities. Its crime rate has fallen significantly further than any other.
Since in terms of even simple metrics like number of police/resident NY is more intensively policed these days than these other cities, that makes a very plausible case.
He paid taxes when he bought the carton. [sic]
You're sure about that?
Big Mike: "He paid taxes when he bought the carton. [sic]
You're sure about that?"
Big Mike is quite correct in questioning that assumption.
Given the level of taxation that NY and NYC liberals have determined is appropriate, it has been estimated that over 50% of the cigarettes sold in NYC are black market cigarettes.
Here is a fun article: http://www.vice.com/read/i-spent-a-day-with-a-guy-selling-illegal-cigarettes-on-the-streets-of-nyc-1023
D.d . Wrote;
"Okay. Let's put that theory to the test. Someone puts your mother in a choke hold and kills her. Was that "lethal force." Is the perp a murder?
perps don't have the authority to arrest my mom. Unlike cops who are sometimes required to arrest someone while enforcing. The law. Is the perp attacking my mom or defending against an attack from my mom?
I had thought previously "I was Laszo, but how can they understand that, much less understand I will be Laszlo again*?" and until today, this very day, I didn't know it was Laslo this and Laslo that all the way down.
I am notquiteun Laszlo, but not quite quite Buckley neither.
*At a time of my choosing I unsuppose.
"Let's see if I can be clear about this.
That's a fucking stupid fucking remark.
If the force kills someone, it's lethal.
he didn't die on the scene so was it lethal force or was it a contributing factor?
And I will tell you one more thing.
Green land Acres the Steak House and Family gathering restaurant outside Sauk City serves some of the best food I have ever tasted.
The owner Ted is a great man and that area knows great men like the Culvers and Muellers are to some, or Derlith and Frank Fucking Lloyd Prickpuss Wright too, along with many many others.
Don't y'all be gettin' y'all y'allin yo.
BobR wrote:
"Jr565 - You almost sound like you think that rent-seeking is the way businesses SHOULD operate. Like it's GOOD that a business can buy a license and the government will send people with guns to shut down any inconvenient competition. That may be a fact of life, but it's a BAD fact of life."
No it's fair business. The cops should not be able to shut down ANY inconvenient competition. But illegal competition? hell yes. thsts the whole point of having legal and illegal business. There are laws in place that differentiate the two.
David,
You are wrong.
The officers did not apply lethal force in attempting to arrest Mr. Garner.
Lethal force would be the cops shooting him, or striking him in the head with batons. They used the necessary force to subdue him and his heart failed. That isn't using 'lethal force". The cops intent was not to kill him, but to arrest him.
Your argument is emotionalist and inaccurate. You need to educate yourself as to what the term "lethal force" actually means in regards to law enforcement. It does not mean what you claim it does.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा