Arrests in NYC plummet as police refuse to work following murder of NYPD cops

TLR Is Mental Poison

The Coli Is Not For You
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
46,178
Reputation
7,463
Daps
105,790
Reppin
The Opposite Of Elliott Wilson's Mohawk
I knocked off $900+ dollars this year. 3 registration, a couple "ramps"( $200+ which were utter bs), probably some others. I haven't gone in person, just online. the registration tickets are like 260+ a piece or something. I bought a new car earlier this year and it had temp regs (with the date on it valid) they still day after day wrote me tickets. they're lowlifes. I pay several k in tickets a year that write off.



I should add that isn't a humble brag, I'm legitimately angry. Park Slope, Fort Greene(wealthier areas that had a survey done google it) a few other places don't have move their cars everyday(once a week as opposed to everyday) and don't get the same level of enforcement. They've also put bike lanes in on some of the streets we could double park on in the past that we no longer can(bike lane parking ticket $180). It's disgusting, it's another way to gentrify an area, it's another revenue scheme for the city/state. I'm also extremely careful of where I park to avoid tickets and so my car isn't damaged so it isn't the issue of me parking like a prick. The level of greed by the city is absurd.
Have a car in the city but dont park it in a garage brehs :mjlol:
 

blackzeus

Superstar
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
21,666
Reputation
2,825
Daps
43,536
are they not responding to calls? This is the ultimate in pouty two year old reactions.

If you view this as a win your an idiot. I could understand if they stopped fuking with blacks and other minorities, THAT would be a victory. That's not what they're doing. They are essentially shoving their fingers in their ears, sitting down and holding their breath....like a damn 2 year old.

Not liking getting tickets and breaking the law to deserve those tickets are two separate issues. How's about you fukin stop parking near fire hydrants and or not speed n shyt.

I don't like tickets any more than the next person, but seriously when people start recognizing they can act all "fuk boish" I really do wonder what will happen...
If things go on as they normally would THEN that'd be cool.
IF however, shyt starts falling apart, well that's not so good.

Either way the actions this idiots are taking are childish.

tumblr_nhffv6B7qB1rz36j2o1_100.png
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
You ruin every sensible argument you have on topics like these with your obsession with blaming lawyers for everything in the most cynical and narrow-minded manner. 98% of lawyers don't do shyt and are 100k in debt while making 50k a year. Believe it or not, most lawyers actually genuinely believe that most of what they are doing is the right thing. You provide some nuggets of truth and then use that as a justification to leap frog to a final conclusion that does not naturally follow from the preceding premises. I mean even people who fukk with you on here have told you they disagree with that type of reasoning. The lawyers in the US are no different than lawyers anywhere else, they just operate in a different system structurally. Yet, you blame the individuals instead of the system they operate in and end up getting nowhere. You misuse facts beneficial to you.

In what world does the fact that DAs and police officers work so closely together = DAs being inherently corrupt? You are asking DAs to assume the worst of people they work with everyday and who have a general mission they agree with. People do not turn on their own so easily. It is true for nearly every human group setting. Further, there are attorneys with jobs dedicated to nothing more than watching other branches of government, but they are obviously underfunded. Funding DA also equals funding public defenders. But the idea that DAs--who typically have 50 cases or more on their docket at a given time are sitting there in concert with cops specifically plotting on how to tax black people more is laughable. For someone who speaks so much about the law you fail to ever deal in specifics and do not respond when an attorney on here does. The law literally states that disproportionate effect on one particular group is not enough absent evidence of discriminatory purpose. The vast majority of America agree with most of these decisions and somehow you think there is something particularly corrupt in the DNA of attorneys. If we took a random cross-section of any community where these DAs reside and let those people rotate as the DA, then the decisions would not change much. But go ahead, a wise man once said, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Youre acting like I am making an original unsubstantiated claim. If you're going talk facts, you should read a little bit outside of what your 2nd rate law professors tell you to read.

When local district attorneys investigate local police officers, there is an inherent conflict of interest. In virtually all usual circumstances, police and prosecutors are partners, working together to build cases against defendants. This is especially true in a place like Staten Island, where the elected district attorney, Dan Donovan, both works closely with the police and answers to many of them as his constituents. As Schneinderman noted, on the rare occasions when prosecutors investigate the police, even when all parties act with the best of intentions, “the question is whether there is public confidence that justice has been served, especially in cases where homicide or other serious charges against the accused officer are not pursued or are dismissed prior to a jury trial.” Cases, in other words, like those of the officers who killed Brown and Garner. (Cuomo has hedged in response to Schneiderman’s idea, saying that he wants to weigh a full package of reforms.)

www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/investigate-police-abuse


You're going to make a fine shytty ass lawyer.

Do you want more sources? There has been a shyt load of them after the Brown and Garner cases.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
Dan Donovan, the DA that presented the Garner murder to the Grand Jury, has known financial and personal toes to police officers and unions. How hard did you think he tried ?

DAs when presenting to Grand Juries are ~90% successful when dealing with civilians.

When it comes to police, it's near 1%.

Corrupt ass pieces of shyt. fukk lawyers.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,555
Reputation
4,838
Daps
68,324
Dan Donovan, the DA that presented the Garner murder to the Grand Jury, has known financial and personal toes to police officers and unions. How hard did you think he tried ?

DAs when presenting to Grand Juries are ~90% successful when dealing with civilians.

When it comes to police, it's near 1%.

Corrupt ass pieces of shyt. fukk lawyers.
Let me explain something to you, that I think no one ever has before--though I have tried. Just because YOU believe something to be an absolute truth, it does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. But because you see your positions as unquestionable truths, and anyone who disagrees as a flawed person, you naturally attack their character (be it myself, @Futuristic Eskimo or @Domingo Halliburton , etc.) and do not see the need to convincingly respond to their critiques. It is very difficult to prove someone is corrupt, what you just demonstrated shows a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not equal corruption, but it is a gateway to it. You effectively supported my argument instead of your own. You even referred to oversight groups in other nations--which once again--supports my point about systemic flaws. If those lawyers were so naturally trustworthy, why in the world would you need overseers? Second, corruption requires individuals to knowingly commit acts that they believe are wrong. What I demonstrated to you is that most prosecutors believe what they are doing the right thing and have a myopic point of view--especially when it comes to cops (their brethren). And you suffer from the same myopia apparently because in all your anger you failed to realize that my critique of the legal system was much harsher and scary than yours. If it is simply a bad prosecutor, you can hope for better people with a regime change, but if it systemic then the entire structure of the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled. Cops and DAs would be much more comfortable with your analysis than mine.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
Let me explain something to you, that I think no one ever has before--though I have tried. Just because YOU believe something to be an absolute truth, it does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. But because you see your positions as unquestionable truths, and anyone who disagrees as a flawed person, you naturally attack their character (be it myself, @Futuristic Eskimo or @Domingo Halliburton , etc.) and do not see the need to convincingly respond to their critiques. It is very difficult to prove someone is corrupt, what you just demonstrated shows a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not equal corruption, but it is a gateway to it. You effectively supported my argument instead of your own. You even referred to oversight groups in other nations--which once again--supports my point about systemic flaws. If those lawyers were so naturally trustworthy, why in the world would you need overseers? Second, corruption requires individuals to knowingly commit acts that they believe are wrong. What I demonstrated to you is that most prosecutors believe what they are doing the right thing and have a myopic point of view--especially when it comes to cops (their brethren). And you suffer from the same myopia apparently because in all your anger you failed to realize that my critique of the legal system was much harsher and scary than yours. If it is simply a bad prosecutor, you can hope for better people with a regime change, but if it systemic then the entire structure of the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled. Cops and DAs would be much more comfortable with your analysis than mine.

When you realize there is a conflict of interest but continue to act supposedly as an objective entity, to me that is clear corruption. To you it may not be.

Also, my solution is to overhaul the system. I proposed doing what other countries have done.

Again BarNone, I'm not exactly making any unsubstantiated claims here. There are people in your profession, as well as journalistic , that have made it very clear there is clear corruption going on here.

.
AT: Let's move on to prosecutors. Are there conflicts or tensions when it comes to possibly prosecuting an officer from a department that they regularly call officers to testify from?

DR: Oh, sure. For example, that officer may have a dozen or more cases in which there are pending criminal charges — you charge that officer, those cases are going to certainly be called into question.

Beyond the individual officer impact, they work so closely on a day to day basis, it's very much like prosecuting one of your own. It's like prosecuting a fellow prosecutor. That doesn't mean that the right choice and decision isn't made in some cases. But it's an inherent conflict

www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7173695/ferguson-police-officer-prosecution

There is no integrity.
 
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,301
Reppin
NYC
Let me explain something to you, that I think no one ever has before--though I have tried. Just because YOU believe something to be an absolute truth, it does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. But because you see your positions as unquestionable truths, and anyone who disagrees as a flawed person, you naturally attack their character (be it myself, @Futuristic Eskimo or @Domingo Halliburton , etc.) and do not see the need to convincingly respond to their critiques. It is very difficult to prove someone is corrupt, what you just demonstrated shows a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not equal corruption, but it is a gateway to it. You effectively supported my argument instead of your own. You even referred to oversight groups in other nations--which once again--supports my point about systemic flaws. If those lawyers were so naturally trustworthy, why in the world would you need overseers? Second, corruption requires individuals to knowingly commit acts that they believe are wrong. What I demonstrated to you is that most prosecutors believe what they are doing the right thing and have a myopic point of view--especially when it comes to cops (their brethren). And you suffer from the same myopia apparently because in all your anger you failed to realize that my critique of the legal system was much harsher and scary than yours. If it is simply a bad prosecutor, you can hope for better people with a regime change, but if it systemic then the entire structure of the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled. Cops and DAs would be much more comfortable with your analysis than mine.
Edit: nevermind, I get it.
 
Last edited:

Domingo Halliburton

Handmade in USA
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
12,616
Reputation
1,370
Daps
15,451
Reppin
Brooklyn Without Limits
Let me explain something to you, that I think no one ever has before--though I have tried. Just because YOU believe something to be an absolute truth, it does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. But because you see your positions as unquestionable truths, and anyone who disagrees as a flawed person, you naturally attack their character (be it myself, @Futuristic Eskimo or @Domingo Halliburton , etc.) and do not see the need to convincingly respond to their critiques. It is very difficult to prove someone is corrupt, what you just demonstrated shows a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not equal corruption, but it is a gateway to it. You effectively supported my argument instead of your own. You even referred to oversight groups in other nations--which once again--supports my point about systemic flaws. If those lawyers were so naturally trustworthy, why in the world would you need overseers? Second, corruption requires individuals to knowingly commit acts that they believe are wrong. What I demonstrated to you is that most prosecutors believe what they are doing the right thing and have a myopic point of view--especially when it comes to cops (their brethren). And you suffer from the same myopia apparently because in all your anger you failed to realize that my critique of the legal system was much harsher and scary than yours. If it is simply a bad prosecutor, you can hope for better people with a regime change, but if it systemic then the entire structure of the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled. Cops and DAs would be much more comfortable with your analysis than mine.

after awhile you just have to let certain criticisms of your line of work roll off your back. I let it go a long time ago. it just comes with the territory.

a lot of people have this narrative that lawyers are bad, corrupt, etc. and you're probably not going to change their opinions.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,555
Reputation
4,838
Daps
68,324
New York City police officers are protesting by refusing to work. It's not the first time.

Updated by German Lopez on December 31, 2014, 10:40 a.m. ET

460891100.0.jpg


New York City's police officers are rebelling publicly against Mayor Bill de Blasio, who drew particular attention in recent weeks when he acknowledged that he taught his biracial son to be careful around police simply because of his race.

"What parents have done for decades, who have children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful when they have a connection with a police officer, when they have an encounter with a police officer," de Blasio told ABC News' This Week. "It's different for a white child. That's just the reality in this country."

Police took de Blasio's comments personally. Following the December 20 shooting of two New York City police officers, Patrick Lynch, president of the NYPD union Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said there was "blood on the hands" of the mayor.

Several days later, police officers turned their backs on de Blasio as he spoke at a funeral for one of the slain officers. Then, during a December 29 speech for an NYPD graduation ceremony, members of the crowd booed de Blasio multiple times. And according to the New York Post, police are now working as little as possible — arrests are down 66 percent — in open protest of de Blasio's administration.

This revolt comes at a time when racial disparities in police use of force and the criminal justice system are getting a lot of attention. As protesters march around the country over the killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City, and other black men who have been killed by police, cops are reportedly feeling more and more under attack.

But this kind of tension between police, the public, and civilian leaders isn't a new phenomenon. In the 1960s, similar tensions played out when black Americans around the country marched and even rioted against what many at the time viewed as a racist, corrupt criminal justice system. Police responded to the criticisms with the same kind of rhetoric they are using today — sometimes telling elected leaders, including in New York City, that they will not work if they're criticized.

I talked to Heather Ann Thompson, a Temple University historian who has extensively studied urban policing issues, about these conflicts. Here's what she had to say.

Police officers revolted against civilian leaders during previous periods of racial unrest
460892306.0.jpg


NYPD graduates salute as Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks. (Andrew Burton / Getty Images News)

"Before the rebellions in [the 1960s], there were lots of black leaders, middle-class leaders, and working-class leaders telling the mayor, 'You have to do something about your police department,'" Thompson said. "In Detroit, the mayor, Jerome Cavanagh, was a liberal mayor who was elected, like de Blasio, on the heels of a more conservative, law-and-order mayor. He took that charge seriously — like de Blasio, trying to get rid of egregious police practices. But the black community felt the police were just unreceptive to it."

"The police don't like it when the mayor starts talking about things like civilian review of police activity or censuring police abuses of the black community, because they feel like they're being betrayed by city hall," she added. "The broader history of police departments being very hostile to mayors trying to reign them in is not new. When Detroit Mayor Jerome Cavanagh tried to root out police brutality by appointing George Edwards as a police commissioner in 1962 … the guy quit. He basically said, 'This department is so bigoted that I can't make any inroads.'"

But police leaders' rhetoric seems more aggressive this time around
"It's much more vocal and it's much more aggressive than things we've seen before," Thompson said. "I think de Blasio touched a nerve in a way that other city mayors haven't — in no small part because he made the statement about his own concern in raising a biracial son in New York."

Cops' protests in some ways seek to undermine civilian rule of police
460891916.0.jpg


Pictures of two slain NYPD officers are displayed during a graduation ceremony. (Kevin Mazur / Getty Images News)

"From the police point of view, they are working a very, very dangerous job," Thompson said. "In that respect, they feel like they're taking on the greater risk of bringing safety to the city and that their judgment should be respected. They feel they know best on the ground what needs to happen and they deal with problems on a direct basis more than any bureaucrat at city hall does."

"Rather than being a union in a traditional sense, [police union members] see themselves as a much more of a fraternity or a brotherhood," she added. "So when they get criticized, they close ranks."

Work slowdowns and stoppages were previously tried by police
"In 1967 in Detroit, there was a massive 'blue flu,' they called it, in which police protested by basically not showing up and not doing the job," Thompson said. "That method of protesting is saying, 'Screw you. We're not going to do our jobs. We're not going to arrest people. We're not going to police. Let's see what happens now.'"

But these kind of protests can backfire by exposing unnecessary arrests
"The fact of the matter is that so many of the arrests are just gratuitous — they're harassing people on the ground. It's what led to so much of this anger [from the black community] to start with," Thompson said. "Everyone took a different reaction from looking at the Eric Garnervideo. But one of the things that struck me is he says at the beginning of the video, 'Every time you see me, you want to harass me.' 'Please leave me alone,' he keeps saying. That's really the point: this low-level riding up on people, slamming them against car doors, and busting in their houses make black communities in every city in America feel like they're living under siege."

Previous reforms were undone over time
452576588.0.jpg


The scene of Eric Garner's funeral. (Getty Images News)

"The rebellions of 1960s had really concrete and immediate effects on the way policing happened," Thompson said. "This is why we get, for example, Miranda rights… By the 1960s, there were much stronger civilian review boards of police. We got residence requirements, so police have to live in the city in which they police."

"But in the last 40 years, we have had a counter-revolution — there's no other way to put it — against every bit of that stuff I just mentioned," she added. "Prisoners used to be able to use the courts to sue when they were being abused, but then we got the Prison Litigation Reform Act that makes it almost impossible for prisoners to sue on their own behalf. We have Miranda rights, but now many officers, including private security teams, are not obligated to use Miranda rights because they're private. We have civilian review boards of police, but they have pretty much been gutted in many cities; they don't have a lot of power. We have residence requirements in cities like Detroit that were gotten rid of — you don't have to live in the city now to police."

At the root of racial disparities is too much criminalization
"It's going to take generations for my children's children to undo what it's meant to have a 40-year war on drugs and crime where only black people are targeted for what they do and white people aren't," Thompson said. "That changes the way generations of people understand race. It makes it seem that blackness and brownness is associated with criminality."

This interview was edited for length and clarity.
 
Top