Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#171

Post by korzun »

shit_parade wrote: post #129
korzun wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slain officer lived in my neighborhood. Every single officer I know was impacted by this. They have 24/hour shifts guarding their house on their own time and thousands of officers showed up to his funeral. You sound extremely ignorant.

Funny how officers deem their lives worth more than the lives they take or families they destroy with no accountability.

It's funny that you assume that. Given the amount of crime and interactions they have, they are actually doing a pretty good job.

This is coming from a guy who got harassed by cops and filled formal complaint that went no where.

Shit happens, you are out of your mind if you think any police in the world that deals with so many people outside and inside multiple 'hoods' will have better accountability.

Bubble.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#172

Post by snowwrestler »

ams6110 wrote: post #50
gharial wrote: post #29

I work in Manhattan and visit fairly shitty areas of Brooklyn and Queens regularly. These past few weeks have been the first time since I moved here that I've felt safe in the presence of cops. I'd read about enforcement being down just after the funeral for the officers shot in the Bronx but it really didn't click until a pair of them walked down the street by me in Chelsea. They didn't look at my SO like they were…

I'm suspecting that it will eventually prove that those that don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. NYC in the '70s and '80s was not that safe. Street crime, muggings, etc. were common. In the 1990s Giuliani stepped up patrols and sarted enforcing what most people thought were petty crimes, such as loitering, graffiti, parking violations, subway-gate-jumping, etc. with the effect that more serious crimes als…

This theory of crime actually says that police presence can be safely reduced now, because all those petty crimes are no longer common.

What you're talking about is a theory of how to boot-strap a reduction in crime: start small. But it also implies that once crime is reduced, the reduction will be self-persisting (for the same reason crime was self-persisting--because of the environment). It does not imply that heavy police presence needs to be permanent.

Anyway, it's never been proved in any real way, it's just an idea that got popular. And a whole lot of cities that Giuliani did not lead also saw significant reductions in serious crime over that same period of time.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#173

Post by sparky_z »

saraid216 wrote: post #168
potatolicious wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jerf explains it well above - the theory is that the appearance of disorder begets more disorder. Whether that disorder is deliberately caused by bad actors is significant at the micro scale but somewhat moot at the macro scale. i.e., a window broken by malicious act is a bad thing, but ultimately an accidentally broken window will also contribute to crime. The notion is that the appearance of disorder signals that s…

But punishing small crimes doesn't fix broken windows, so it doesn't actually contribute to the presumed consequence of decreasing disorder. I mean, let's say that a vandal deliberately broke a window, and this act is witnessed by a police officer. Arresting the vandal doesn't fix the window , so why does the theory call for such an arrest?

As potatolicious stated, part of the proposed mechanism by which broken windows contribute to urban decay is that "the appearance of disorder signals that such laws are poorly enforced". Surely, a police officer ignoring the crime as it is being performed in front of them would send this signal even more strongly.

Also, I should point out that the theory doesn't say that an arrest must be made. Maybe they simply intervene and issue a warning. Maybe you record their identity and create a police record of the incident so that the building owner can sue to defray the cost of replacement. Maybe they take the kid back to his parents, so they can offer replace the window. And yes, maybe you arrest them if they've been repeatedly warned in the past or are causing immense property damage. It's all contextual.

The theory just says that the government (not just law enforcement) shouldn't let the little things slide because they lead to bigger problems down the road. You get the most "bang for your buck" by nipping the little things in the bud. You seem to have a warped idea that it means draconian punishments for every infraction, no matter how minor.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#174

Post by mcgwiz »

mcgwiz wrote: post #103
gharial wrote: post #29

I work in Manhattan and visit fairly shitty areas of Brooklyn and Queens regularly. These past few weeks have been the first time since I moved here that I've felt safe in the presence of cops. I'd read about enforcement being down just after the funeral for the officers shot in the Bronx but it really didn't click until a pair of them walked down the street by me in Chelsea. They didn't look at my SO like they were…

Agreed. But they want a reaction, and my fear is that they will expand/escalate their protest until they get one.

Why the downvotes?

Yes, by backing away from issuing summons for minor offenses, there is overlap with what many have rightly sought in the aftermath of Eric Garner's death. To me, that silver lining is coincidental, and it's taking the thunder out of their protest. As a New York City resident who has been closely following the issue, I do fear that the police, with tacit approval by their unions, will expand/escalate their protest (not by harassing minorities, in case that's how my original comment came across) by further scaling back enforcement of crime.

This fear, after all, is exactly what they're trying to leverage.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#175

Post by uiberto »

peterwwillis wrote: post #115
uiberto wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?

Basically, yes. Ignore the public part; it just means they have a duty in general. A cop can watch you getting murdered in your house and they do not have to help you. The only exceptions for duty to an individual are the "danger creation exception" and the "special-relationship exception". For 'danger creation exception', if the government doing or not doing something puts you in danger, they are liable. If you're a…

Very interesting.

By your guidance I've found several articles describing the circumstances that establish "special relationships", yet I can't find anything that describes an officer's duties besides duty to individuals (like those you mention). Are these listed anywhere?

For now, if I suppose the exceptions you mentioned are the only duties of an officer, is there some legal mechanism that requires officers to enter special relationships? Or is it simply that a police officer who failed to perform his or her job would be fired, but could not be sued?

I'm suddenly having a hard time identifying exactly what are an individual police officer's duties. Should "protect and serve" always appear with quotes?

For others, some links on duty to rescue, public duty, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue http://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/49... http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#176

Post by snowwrestler »

peterwwillis wrote: post #115
uiberto wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?

Basically, yes. Ignore the public part; it just means they have a duty in general. A cop can watch you getting murdered in your house and they do not have to help you. The only exceptions for duty to an individual are the "danger creation exception" and the "special-relationship exception". For 'danger creation exception', if the government doing or not doing something puts you in danger, they are liable. If you're a…

The key to understanding this case is to understand what "duty" means.

It can mean that doing, or not doing, something can allow other people to sue or prosecute you. For example, we all have a legal duty to not drive drunk. If you do that, and kill someone by accident, you can be prosecuted and sued.

This is a legal definition of the word "duty." In this case, it means that a police officer who declines or fails to assist, does not need to fear getting sued or prosecuted.

But "duty" can also mean that you were hired for a certain job, and your employer expects to you meet those obligations. This is more of a cultural definition. For example a cashier has a duty to return the correct change. If they fail that duty, you can't sue them personally. But their manager might fire them.

In that sense, police officers do have a duty to help the public. An officer who blatantly and needlessly declines to do so might not get sued, but they'll probably get fired.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#177

Post by korzun »

discardorama wrote: post #162
korzun wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slain officer lived in my neighborhood. Every single officer I know was impacted by this. They have 24/hour shifts guarding their house on their own time and thousands of officers showed up to his funeral. You sound extremely ignorant.

Were these the first officers ever killed in the line of duty? No. It was a tragedy, no doubt about it. I feel bad for the families of these officers, who died simply because of the color of their uniform. But has the NYPD union ever expressed any sorrow for the loss of Eric Garner? How about Amadou Diallo? Or Akai Gurley? Please read this before responding: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/179-nypd-invo…

Read what? I live in this neighborhood and grew up around here. Where did you grow up? Entertain me please.

You realize that Eric was selling cigarettes (no id) to high school kids for months right? You realize that most people with families (majority) in that neighborhood, do not support him... right?

Yes he died. Everything went well during his previous arrests. When he decided to resist he knew what he was getting into. He simply did not want to deal with the third record of the same kind / fines.

If you want to claim that multiple officers that detained him over last few years were all targeting him and making up stories, just so they can force him to resist arrest, feel free.

In general, I don't understand why people who obviously never lived in a such community are so eager to give their 2 cents. If this guy was selling drugs to your 13 year old kid, you would be the first one to call NYPD. Would love too see your reaction if NYPD simply ignored this dude and your child got hooked on smoking.

In regards to line of duty, yes it's a big deal when you have two officers get executed in the middle of the day while sitting in their cruiser. Not sure how ignorant you have to be.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#178

Post by potatolicious »

saraid216 wrote: post #168
potatolicious wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jerf explains it well above - the theory is that the appearance of disorder begets more disorder. Whether that disorder is deliberately caused by bad actors is significant at the micro scale but somewhat moot at the macro scale. i.e., a window broken by malicious act is a bad thing, but ultimately an accidentally broken window will also contribute to crime. The notion is that the appearance of disorder signals that s…

But punishing small crimes doesn't fix broken windows, so it doesn't actually contribute to the presumed consequence of decreasing disorder. I mean, let's say that a vandal deliberately broke a window, and this act is witnessed by a police officer. Arresting the vandal doesn't fix the window , so why does the theory call for such an arrest?

It doesn't necessarily call for an arrest - either in theory or in practice.

For example, during the height of the Broken Windows implementation in New York, transit agencies had a policy of not allowing a vehicle to leave the depot with graffiti on it. It was obviously impossible to catch all vandals in the act, but by cleaning up graffiti as soon as it is found, it sends the message that not only are their acts futile, but that society has no tolerance for this type of behavior.

So to use your example, if you witness a vandal breaking a window, you may fine him, or arrest him if the behavior is particularly repeated or egregious - but in any case you make sure the window gets fixed ASAP such that the appearance of order may be maintained.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#179

Post by potatolicious »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #167
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, Canadians have a much different attitude towards gun ownership than Americans... That must be why Surrey had more homicides than Seattle in 2013, despite being a couple hundred thousand people smaller, and shall-issue CCW in Seattle. Maybe, just maybe, something else is involved.

Great, but you've just picked one of Canada's most violent cities and compared it to an arbitrary American city, which is also relatively safe. By the way, the Canadian city with the highest murder rate (Red Deer, with a murder rate of 6.4 http://www.macleans.ca/worst-cities/ ) has a lower murder rate than nearly every city on this list of American cities by crime statistics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uni…

I think the point is that guns laws and attitudes don't paint the whole picture.

You have a city in an extremely gun-tolerant state (Washington) that has lower violent crime than a city in an extremely anti-gun area (Surrey).

This suggests at least that low crime with liberal gun ownership laws is possible, and also suggests that gun ownership is not a primary factor in determining the level of violent crime.

Re: Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities

#180

Post by dllthomas »

nervousvarun wrote: post #61
dragonwriter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't deal with the problems that lead to the existing cops being corrupt before trying to add new cops, that's what you get. So if you say "we desperately need more cops" without including "we first desperately need to deal with police corruption", when your present police department is noted for corruption, you are implicitly saying you need more corrupt cops. Or, at least, that you need more cops even if th…

Yeah sadly, it's the latter. Arbitrary numbers but if your cops are 50% corrupt and you suddenly have twice as many total cops you still then double the number of non-corrupt cops. Obviously that's wasteful but... Fixing deep-routed cultural corruption is obviously extremely difficult. So yeah, at this point I (and a lot of others who live here) would say we just need more cops because violent crime is increasing and…

I don't think that's just wasteful. Depending on the nature of the corruption, one corrupt cop might do more harm than one honest cop can prevent.
Post reply on HN