New Records Show the NYPD’s Favored Punishment: Less Vacation Time(projects.propublica.org)
projects.propublica.org
New Records Show the NYPD’s Favored Punishment: Less Vacation Time
https://projects.propublica.org/nypd-disciplinary-records
166 comments
Eh, Although I agree in theory I don’t personally agree that this is the way it works in practice.
At the end of the day, police forces are made up of people, and people don’t like their holiday being taken away. The incentive for management you are describing is to dole out more punishment, but the incentive at an individual level would still be to be to avoid punishment. In fact, management may be incentivised to dole out punishment for more minor offences, which again force further good behaviour.
Do I think it’s a good policy though? No I think it’s awful personally. People need holiday to relax and to do their jobs well, and taking away relaxation time can only lead to more stressed officers.
At the end of the day, police forces are made up of people, and people don’t like their holiday being taken away. The incentive for management you are describing is to dole out more punishment, but the incentive at an individual level would still be to be to avoid punishment. In fact, management may be incentivised to dole out punishment for more minor offences, which again force further good behaviour.
Do I think it’s a good policy though? No I think it’s awful personally. People need holiday to relax and to do their jobs well, and taking away relaxation time can only lead to more stressed officers.
It boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate.
I've just come to terms with the fact that what seems acceptable to me in regards to how the police operate is drastically different than the consensus.
I've just come to terms with the fact that what seems acceptable to me in regards to how the police operate is drastically different than the consensus.
> boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate
I don't think we are. But the alternatives are quite awful, particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers.
We're voting in New York on this issue. A common refrain is we don't want to become San Francisco. Given "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department [1], and given some extremists literally want to do that in New York, the moderate lane for police reform has been--hopefully temporarily--pinched in.
My guess is we'll need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York. This happened with cameras. It happened with disciplinary record disclosure laws. It's starting to happen with moving mental health and addiction calls to specialists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_M...
I don't think we are. But the alternatives are quite awful, particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers.
We're voting in New York on this issue. A common refrain is we don't want to become San Francisco. Given "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department [1], and given some extremists literally want to do that in New York, the moderate lane for police reform has been--hopefully temporarily--pinched in.
My guess is we'll need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York. This happened with cameras. It happened with disciplinary record disclosure laws. It's starting to happen with moving mental health and addiction calls to specialists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_M...
> particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers.
Crime has been down from the 1990s to 2020. People has been more and more scare of less and less crime.
> "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department
That is not the case, reading your link they are creating a "Department of Public Safety in Minneapolis to oversee policing, violence prevention, and community safety programs". So, from your link, nobody is dismantling the police department but they are changing its responsibilities and structure to be more effective with the current challenges.
> some extremists literally want to do that in New York
"extremists"
> need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York
That is reasonable. Even better is to apply it to New York but in small scale. A little town and New York have little in common.
Crime has been down from the 1990s to 2020. People has been more and more scare of less and less crime.
> "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department
That is not the case, reading your link they are creating a "Department of Public Safety in Minneapolis to oversee policing, violence prevention, and community safety programs". So, from your link, nobody is dismantling the police department but they are changing its responsibilities and structure to be more effective with the current challenges.
> some extremists literally want to do that in New York
"extremists"
> need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York
That is reasonable. Even better is to apply it to New York but in small scale. A little town and New York have little in common.
Nobody is dismantling the police department here because as soon as they started talking about abolishing it, crime spiked and the community fought back.
There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the debacle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in...
There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the debacle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in...
The Wikipedia page indeed is interesting. As I note above, it mentions the shift of 4.5% of the police budget to violence prevention and mental health response teams. In addition, if you look at violent crime in Minneapolis, the chronology of the spike doesn't line up with your contentions. It does line up with economic effects of the coronavirus and with the effects of the protests here (I'm including arson committed by folks from outstate MN or WI here, and I don't think that ought to be blamed on Minneapolitans. That stuff stopped when we shut down the highways, and if suburbanites and rural folks stopped driving here to commit their crimes and buy their drugs we'd all be better off.)
The situation in Minneapolis is complex, but we're all confused by the fact that all the new developments are selling condos starting at $900,000 and you can get artisanal hand-made tacos from Nixta and stand in line for a block in this dystopian ghost town to spend $17 on a pizza from Boludo.... But hey, gotta serve the narrative, eh?
The situation in Minneapolis is complex, but we're all confused by the fact that all the new developments are selling condos starting at $900,000 and you can get artisanal hand-made tacos from Nixta and stand in line for a block in this dystopian ghost town to spend $17 on a pizza from Boludo.... But hey, gotta serve the narrative, eh?
Keep in mind that crime statistics have been skewed lately. After George Floyd hit the news, some neighborhoods banded together (Powderhorn at least I think) and vowed to not call the police for anything less than an emergency, opting instead for active neighnorhood watches.
I suspect the momentum on that died out after awhile, but haven't really kept abreast of it.
What I do know is that a large employer is moving out of NE minneapolis to the burbs (my friend works there) because, after having to install bullet proof windows in their office, the CEO said enough was enough. (Incidentally, this place is only a few blocks from where the first parts of the dismembered guy were found).
I suspect the momentum on that died out after awhile, but haven't really kept abreast of it.
What I do know is that a large employer is moving out of NE minneapolis to the burbs (my friend works there) because, after having to install bullet proof windows in their office, the CEO said enough was enough. (Incidentally, this place is only a few blocks from where the first parts of the dismembered guy were found).
[deleted]
Oh Lord almighty. A few council members in Minneapolis speak some words for show and people are taking this seriously??
The city charter commission is responsible for approving this "defund the police" measure and they're never ever ever gonna do it. It's an unelected body, appointed by the Chief Judge of Hennepin County (not even the city).
Yeah, Mayor Frey signed a budget that shifted $8 million from the police to mental health crisis response teams, crime prevention programs, etc. The 2020 police budget was $193 million. "Defund the police", huh -- a budget cut of less than 10% total (4% in the shift noted above).
I hate the lack of actual facts in this discussion. It's like saying I'm on a hunger strike 'cause I stopped eating Oreos.
The city charter commission is responsible for approving this "defund the police" measure and they're never ever ever gonna do it. It's an unelected body, appointed by the Chief Judge of Hennepin County (not even the city).
Yeah, Mayor Frey signed a budget that shifted $8 million from the police to mental health crisis response teams, crime prevention programs, etc. The 2020 police budget was $193 million. "Defund the police", huh -- a budget cut of less than 10% total (4% in the shift noted above).
I hate the lack of actual facts in this discussion. It's like saying I'm on a hunger strike 'cause I stopped eating Oreos.
I think if you just ask the question "should this task be done by a person with a loaded gun" about everything done by the police and put the "no"s in one pile and "yes"s in another you can start getting a good idea of the scope of the problem.
The goal should be to get to a process where the person with the loaded gun is not doing tasks in the "no" pile.
I don't care if the person doing those tasks is called a police officer or not as long as they don't have guns.
The goal should be to get to a process where the person with the loaded gun is not doing tasks in the "no" pile.
I don't care if the person doing those tasks is called a police officer or not as long as they don't have guns.
This is incredibly reasonable. It is also the sort of middle-ground policy which has limited electoral appeal at this time. It doesn't feed the law and order or defund the police yes literally bases which currently dominate the conversation.
[deleted]
I view Minneapolis as a very exciting experiment. Crime rates, property values, and so on, these will all be impacted and we get a chance to see how well it works out.
We will also get to witness some interesting spin and sloganeering to explain why "... and that's a Good Thing." I imagine almost every trick in lying will statistics will now appear in the wild.
Apparently shorting municipal bonds is difficult, which is too bad.
We will also get to witness some interesting spin and sloganeering to explain why "... and that's a Good Thing." I imagine almost every trick in lying will statistics will now appear in the wild.
Apparently shorting municipal bonds is difficult, which is too bad.
Most people don't know how the police operate. Growing up, my stepfather was a police officer, and I have no idea how they operate. Other than the big stories of officers getting off with essentially murdering people, I don't think people are too dialed in to law enforcement.
I had a relative who thought the police were mostly fine until the 1960s when all that changed was they had TV cameras turned on their violence. Somehow the "bad apple" meme got corrupted: one bad apple does, in fact, spoil the bunch! It's a chemical thing.
Isn't the "bad apple" proverb exactly that one of them spoils the bunch? What did it get corrupted to?
"One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" in response to police violence.
This happens to phrases a lot. Also consider: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" when the original purpose of that phrase was to mock the absurdity of the notion.
edit: Merriam-Webster did a blog post on it https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-...
This happens to phrases a lot. Also consider: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" when the original purpose of that phrase was to mock the absurdity of the notion.
edit: Merriam-Webster did a blog post on it https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-...
Hm, right. It must be a corruption, because AFAIK the original proverb is "one bad apple spoils the bunch" (because of the chemical thing you mentioned).
I'm not ok with it, but the two sides of the issue seem to be status quo with more resources vs. actually shutting down law enforcement.
The thought of going into small scale politics with my ideas has crossed my mind but A) I think I would alienate both sides and B) seriously concerned that someone would come try to shoot me (from either extreme).
The thought of going into small scale politics with my ideas has crossed my mind but A) I think I would alienate both sides and B) seriously concerned that someone would come try to shoot me (from either extreme).
Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means?
And a follow-up question: have you spent time trying to understand what the people who say that are campaigning for, or did you make a snap judgement?
(Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood)
And a follow-up question: have you spent time trying to understand what the people who say that are campaigning for, or did you make a snap judgement?
(Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood)
> Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood
This, many times over -- with the caveat that I haven't been able to think of a more accurate phrase that still fits on a bumper sticker. "Narrow the scope of responsibility for the police and reallocate funding to other resources to handle non-criminal duties" isn't very catchy, but it's closer to what most activists are calling for.
This, many times over -- with the caveat that I haven't been able to think of a more accurate phrase that still fits on a bumper sticker. "Narrow the scope of responsibility for the police and reallocate funding to other resources to handle non-criminal duties" isn't very catchy, but it's closer to what most activists are calling for.
Yeah, it's hard for me to whole-heartedly criticize the slogan when the people who have made it stick have thought about this issue (and the way to promote it) a lot harder than I have. It's certainly been effective in spreading the idea!
I think it is an idea that alienates people who actually want and can achieve pragmatic change and attracts people who have passion more than sense, and ultimately either accidentally or intentionally (by someone) ensuring that the broad motivation to make positive progress is derailed by the disorganization of a movement that doesn't really know what it's about or what it wants.
It is vague "on purpose" because the things which actually need to change are subtle, require understanding of specific circumstances and deatails, involve compromise and human understanding of the failings of people, and generally nothing else fits on poster boards.
If I were a little more paranoid I might be suggesting that the bad slogans of protest worlds are actively being encouraged by sophisticated opponents of these movements in order to ensure that they achieve nothing.
If someone really wants change, they should say it instead of accusing people who question them of not understanding their poorly chosen message.
It is vague "on purpose" because the things which actually need to change are subtle, require understanding of specific circumstances and deatails, involve compromise and human understanding of the failings of people, and generally nothing else fits on poster boards.
If I were a little more paranoid I might be suggesting that the bad slogans of protest worlds are actively being encouraged by sophisticated opponents of these movements in order to ensure that they achieve nothing.
If someone really wants change, they should say it instead of accusing people who question them of not understanding their poorly chosen message.
> Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means?
To some people, it means take some of the money from the police, and have actual trained counselors, mental health crisis workers, etc. I have heard of many that hold up CAHOOTS [0] in Eugene, OR as a model, that are MUCH cheaper than police, to help interceed in some cases, where police do not have the training. (the police training for gaining compliance seems to be using taser, force or weapon of some sort, since they are trained for extreme situations)
To others it means completely abolish the police. However, I have heard very few with this view personally, but according to those on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, this is what they all mean when they say it.
[0] https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/
To some people, it means take some of the money from the police, and have actual trained counselors, mental health crisis workers, etc. I have heard of many that hold up CAHOOTS [0] in Eugene, OR as a model, that are MUCH cheaper than police, to help interceed in some cases, where police do not have the training. (the police training for gaining compliance seems to be using taser, force or weapon of some sort, since they are trained for extreme situations)
To others it means completely abolish the police. However, I have heard very few with this view personally, but according to those on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, this is what they all mean when they say it.
[0] https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/
It's such a confusing slogan (probably on purpose, like most things political). I thought it meant to abolish the police. Even a quick search defines it as "prevent from continuing to receive funds".
If folks intend it to mean "reduce funds" or "reallocate funds", then we should say that.
If folks intend it to mean "reduce funds" or "reallocate funds", then we should say that.
I've had people try to tell me "all cops are bastards" actually means we need to do a better job policing the police, with a straight face.
Poorly chosen slogans seem like they really hurt the movement. But maybe the ACAB crowd truly does think all cops are bastards.
Poorly chosen slogans seem like they really hurt the movement. But maybe the ACAB crowd truly does think all cops are bastards.
> But maybe the ACAB crowd truly does think all cops are bastards.
I once had an interesting discussion with someone about this who had obviously thought about it a fair bit. Their position was that the institution is set up in such a way that your own intentions, regardless of how good, are systemically constrained into a narrow channel and the function of the job is to be "a bastard".
In other words, it wasn't a commentary of the nature of the people in the job, rather the nature of the job.
I once had an interesting discussion with someone about this who had obviously thought about it a fair bit. Their position was that the institution is set up in such a way that your own intentions, regardless of how good, are systemically constrained into a narrow channel and the function of the job is to be "a bastard".
In other words, it wasn't a commentary of the nature of the people in the job, rather the nature of the job.
They do truly do think that. They don't mean that all are Derek Chauvin, but they mean that all circled the wagons around Chauvin. It was an obviously indefensible action, and he was still defended by his department, his union, and police around the country.
It was equally clear that he expected that from them, and that this was not his first case of abuse. This was merely the time when it became incontrovertible, because somebody had a camera and was willing to take the risk of filming it.
If they aren't going to stand up against abuse even when it's literally a murder caught on video, there's no way to avoid the conclusion that there are indeed countless other abuse cases that have been covered up, with nobody willing to stand up to it. It doesn't show the extent of the abuse but it shows the extent of police willing to cover up and excuse that abuse: universal. That makes All of them Bastards.
It was equally clear that he expected that from them, and that this was not his first case of abuse. This was merely the time when it became incontrovertible, because somebody had a camera and was willing to take the risk of filming it.
If they aren't going to stand up against abuse even when it's literally a murder caught on video, there's no way to avoid the conclusion that there are indeed countless other abuse cases that have been covered up, with nobody willing to stand up to it. It doesn't show the extent of the abuse but it shows the extent of police willing to cover up and excuse that abuse: universal. That makes All of them Bastards.
I think Adrian Schoolcraft [1] is another good example. He was a cop who reported abuses and corruption in the NYPD. For his efforts, the NYPD rewarded him with harassment and intimidation, which resulted in a $600,000 settlement when he sued them.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
> I've had people try to tell me "all cops are bastards" actually means we need to do a better job policing the police, with a straight face.
That's like thinking someone might believe “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch” applies to police, or that the “broken windows” model of policing has the same cultural effect directed at the police that iats advocates say it has directed by the police at communities.
Or, more generally, that people’s ethics and conduct are responsive to the institutional incentives and cultural environment surrounding them.
Clearly, this is implausible; no one could believe any of that.
That's like thinking someone might believe “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch” applies to police, or that the “broken windows” model of policing has the same cultural effect directed at the police that iats advocates say it has directed by the police at communities.
Or, more generally, that people’s ethics and conduct are responsive to the institutional incentives and cultural environment surrounding them.
Clearly, this is implausible; no one could believe any of that.
The most common interpretation I've heard for this phrase is a contrast to the "few bad apples" meme, because police consistently show solidarity in defense of those "bad apples." If you're getting beaten by a cop, and their partner is just standing by and watching it happen, they're both bastards.
That said... the cops who made the news for shoving other cops off from kneeling on protesters' necks? They were good cops in that moment. Even if they were doing it to protect their precinct from scandal.
That said... the cops who made the news for shoving other cops off from kneeling on protesters' necks? They were good cops in that moment. Even if they were doing it to protect their precinct from scandal.
It's a sensible default assumption for interacting with the police.
The good ones aren't good for long, either turned or pushed out.
ACAB is another poorly chosen slogan for its best interpretation. The most moderate explanation is that to bastardize means “to change something in a way that makes it fail to represent the values and qualities that it is intended to represent” - the rest of the implication can be assumed from there.
Does the idea that it’s a “poorly chosen slogan” not seem odd to you?
Isn’t the parsimonious explanation that people kinda mean what they say?
Isn’t the parsimonious explanation that people kinda mean what they say?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in...
In minneapolis, defund and abolish were used interchangeably, and 9nof 13 city councillors did sign on to abolishment.
Since the community backlash, they have largely given up on abolishment and stuck with defunding as if it means something different now than it did a year ago.
In minneapolis, defund and abolish were used interchangeably, and 9nof 13 city councillors did sign on to abolishment.
Since the community backlash, they have largely given up on abolishment and stuck with defunding as if it means something different now than it did a year ago.
This is my world.
And in Minneapolis just this week I had to wait on the phone 45 minutes to file a police report I've heard nothing back from after being attacked in a road rage incident. The person I did finally reach was definitely a decent human, but not trained to receive the kind of report I was giving and thought she shouldn't be taking it at all. (besides a sense of insecurity, lots of tiny glass pricks, a brief blood pressure spike, and a broken window I am well enough)
I have doubts that the state is doing enough to protect me or to address crimes that have happened, not because of some panicked sense of irrational fear, but because I had to spend an hour with shards of glass in my pants on hold on Wednesday along with the delightful experience of vacuuming glass out of my hair at a car wash. The last time I had the displeasure of talking with the city attorney, they declined to do anything about death threats I had received from a known source.
I'm thinking of buying a gun.
And in Minneapolis just this week I had to wait on the phone 45 minutes to file a police report I've heard nothing back from after being attacked in a road rage incident. The person I did finally reach was definitely a decent human, but not trained to receive the kind of report I was giving and thought she shouldn't be taking it at all. (besides a sense of insecurity, lots of tiny glass pricks, a brief blood pressure spike, and a broken window I am well enough)
I have doubts that the state is doing enough to protect me or to address crimes that have happened, not because of some panicked sense of irrational fear, but because I had to spend an hour with shards of glass in my pants on hold on Wednesday along with the delightful experience of vacuuming glass out of my hair at a car wash. The last time I had the displeasure of talking with the city attorney, they declined to do anything about death threats I had received from a known source.
I'm thinking of buying a gun.
Uptown, NE, all kinds of areas have changed drastically for the worse over thr past few years.
Having a friend of a friend casually explain how he just leaned his seat back when he heard gunshots sitting in a drive through was really telling. That, and a family coworker us ending his lease early and moving out of NE minneapolis after a bullet came through the wall and narrowly missed his cat's head. Another coworker had a car window smashed in overnight in uptown because he forgot to not lock thr car doors when he parked on the street.
I understand that country living isn't for everyone, but I don't think you could pay me enough to move back to a dense urban setting.
Having a friend of a friend casually explain how he just leaned his seat back when he heard gunshots sitting in a drive through was really telling. That, and a family coworker us ending his lease early and moving out of NE minneapolis after a bullet came through the wall and narrowly missed his cat's head. Another coworker had a car window smashed in overnight in uptown because he forgot to not lock thr car doors when he parked on the street.
I understand that country living isn't for everyone, but I don't think you could pay me enough to move back to a dense urban setting.
I spent the last four years up until about a month ago living in Mountain View, CA. A place so expensive that it was almost completely safe. Also intensely isolating, especially for a single person. I left for both personal and family reasons to come back to the place where I felt an actual sense of community.
I could have my own home in the country essentially for free, but I don't think I could keep my sanity. Maybe with a wife/dog/child some day but being among a sea of somewhat radical conservatives alone hundreds of miles of anywhere I'd like to go outside of my own home... let's just say I'm done being isolated for now.
What I think is that if the local government and police were actually doing a good job, the problems would be considerably reduced. I don't think the "abolish the police" party or the "law and order" party can either achieve this. But what it would take is leadership that is capable of understanding problems and enacting solutions and a population that is more interested in understanding their world than chanting slogans about it.
I could have my own home in the country essentially for free, but I don't think I could keep my sanity. Maybe with a wife/dog/child some day but being among a sea of somewhat radical conservatives alone hundreds of miles of anywhere I'd like to go outside of my own home... let's just say I'm done being isolated for now.
What I think is that if the local government and police were actually doing a good job, the problems would be considerably reduced. I don't think the "abolish the police" party or the "law and order" party can either achieve this. But what it would take is leadership that is capable of understanding problems and enacting solutions and a population that is more interested in understanding their world than chanting slogans about it.
It means to abolish the police by removing funding. The attempt to downplay the ask here is a form of Motte and Bailey.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
> It means to abolish the police by removing funding.
No, as someone actually in the “abolish/disband” camp, I can confidently say it is a different (and smaller) segment of the movement than the “defund” camp (and even for the vast of the “abolish” camp, it doesn’t mean to eliminate the law enforcement, including armed response, functions served by the police from local government but to disband the existent monolithic centralized local paramilitary law enforcement agencies and reorganize local community services with law enforcement as an organizationally decentralized function distributed throughout local government.)
Of course, those of us who are in the abolish/disband camp tend to see the “defund” camp (who want to divert resources and some functions to other local service organizations and not make the police responsible for as much) as a better-than-nothing compromise position that can break the vicious “reform” cycle where every police problem that rises to the level where it is accepted than something needs to be done leads to more funding being dumped into police coffers at the expense of other agencies, necessitating an expanded police role, and leading to even more police problems.
No, as someone actually in the “abolish/disband” camp, I can confidently say it is a different (and smaller) segment of the movement than the “defund” camp (and even for the vast of the “abolish” camp, it doesn’t mean to eliminate the law enforcement, including armed response, functions served by the police from local government but to disband the existent monolithic centralized local paramilitary law enforcement agencies and reorganize local community services with law enforcement as an organizationally decentralized function distributed throughout local government.)
Of course, those of us who are in the abolish/disband camp tend to see the “defund” camp (who want to divert resources and some functions to other local service organizations and not make the police responsible for as much) as a better-than-nothing compromise position that can break the vicious “reform” cycle where every police problem that rises to the level where it is accepted than something needs to be done leads to more funding being dumped into police coffers at the expense of other agencies, necessitating an expanded police role, and leading to even more police problems.
I disagree with your views, but I appreciate your brief clear expression and the confirmation that your viewpoint does actually exist. This is the sort of thing I would like to see more of.
The “defund" people mostly don’t tend to deny that the “abolish” camp exists, they mostly just tend get upset when people mistake (honestly, or even moreso when it is clearly for rhetorical convenience) them for us. Both camps recognize that, in terms of persuasion, the “abolish” camp has a harder task.
My experience (which can also be seen here in this thread) is usually that someone will come out vocally opposing the idea that "defund" and "abolish" mean what they say. The person doing this doesn't really seem to hold either one of these beliefs to the extent that they actually want specific actions or could break down what it means, but they vaguely defend parts of it and brush off other parts (like 'actually abolish') as not real and only held by extremists.
This is frustrating because one gets into a debate where the other side doesn't really hold a set of beliefs and it ends up being an inaccurate discussion of what the movement wants instead of about what should actually be done.
Which leads to my conclusion that the vast majority of people don't really have any specific thoughts on what they want to happen but a vague attachment to a slogan and a dubious explanation of what the people with actual ideas want. This is why I appreciate your viewpoint in that you actually have one and haven't steered into pointless quibbling about who wants what or if ideas even exist in a movement.
A followup question for you which might help me understand what you really want to happen:
I was the target of a road rage attack this week. A broken window and minor damage and inconvenience to myself in the process. From the law enforcement environment (or whatever you choose to call it) you would find ideal, what does the response look like?
This is frustrating because one gets into a debate where the other side doesn't really hold a set of beliefs and it ends up being an inaccurate discussion of what the movement wants instead of about what should actually be done.
Which leads to my conclusion that the vast majority of people don't really have any specific thoughts on what they want to happen but a vague attachment to a slogan and a dubious explanation of what the people with actual ideas want. This is why I appreciate your viewpoint in that you actually have one and haven't steered into pointless quibbling about who wants what or if ideas even exist in a movement.
A followup question for you which might help me understand what you really want to happen:
I was the target of a road rage attack this week. A broken window and minor damage and inconvenience to myself in the process. From the law enforcement environment (or whatever you choose to call it) you would find ideal, what does the response look like?
The thing that I find so frustrating about this is that I agree with like 80-90% of what this person is arguing for, but it seems ridiculous to me to present this as "abolish the police", and to think that if we did all the things proposed, we could abolish the police.
As some examples of things I agree with: I think prison should be used much more rarely. It is a terrible thing to imprison someone, and should only be done if someone is an immediate danger to others. Otherwise other punishments should be used. We should also dramatically improve conditions in prisons. But there will still be prisons.
I think crime would greatly go down if there was less inequality and more investment in marginalized groups of people, and if systems that oppress people like policing were fixed. But I think there will ~always be crime, and always be police.
I think the latter involves things that would be largely popular with people. The former is a tougher sell, but I think things are slowly moving in that direction. I'm not convinced calling these proposals "abolishing the police" is actually helping that cause.
As some examples of things I agree with: I think prison should be used much more rarely. It is a terrible thing to imprison someone, and should only be done if someone is an immediate danger to others. Otherwise other punishments should be used. We should also dramatically improve conditions in prisons. But there will still be prisons.
I think crime would greatly go down if there was less inequality and more investment in marginalized groups of people, and if systems that oppress people like policing were fixed. But I think there will ~always be crime, and always be police.
I think the latter involves things that would be largely popular with people. The former is a tougher sell, but I think things are slowly moving in that direction. I'm not convinced calling these proposals "abolishing the police" is actually helping that cause.
That is a very straw manned interpretation of the phrase. I don't particularly love the phrase myself but this is a dishonest interpretation. Of course a few people probably believe that but it's a giant movement and the large majority do not seem to think that way at all... Maybe take more opinions than a couple op eds.
Have you even spoken to anyone or gone to an event? I live in a city with a lot of demonstrations and you quickly learn that isn't the phrases intent or ideology for nearly everyone except extreme outliers and agitators.
Have you even spoken to anyone or gone to an event? I live in a city with a lot of demonstrations and you quickly learn that isn't the phrases intent or ideology for nearly everyone except extreme outliers and agitators.
I have a picture of a spraypainted message on the boarded up window of a Minneapolis business from last year
"actually defund the police"
What did the messenger mean by that?
"actually defund the police"
What did the messenger mean by that?
You keep jumping to singular examples when I just explained yes, you can find extreme outliers, but you are ignoring the large majority of people and their intent. And you keep pointing to op eds and sensationalized news stories OF COURSE those will find the extremes and put them on a pedestal.
Look a little deeper and actually go to an event or talk to some real people and you find out what real people believe, I promise you the phrase doesn't mean no police anymore for most people in most places. YES it's a massive movement with outliers.. the two things can and do exist at the same time, lumping them all together or saying it's an even distribution is either intellectually lazy or dishonest
Look a little deeper and actually go to an event or talk to some real people and you find out what real people believe, I promise you the phrase doesn't mean no police anymore for most people in most places. YES it's a massive movement with outliers.. the two things can and do exist at the same time, lumping them all together or saying it's an even distribution is either intellectually lazy or dishonest
This is just gaslighting though.
Pick a slogan with an obvious interpretation, tell everyone it isn't what you mean, tell everyone that the only people that really mean it are outliers, continue to push it hoping it really comes true.
A protest march and slogan graffiti aren't invitations to come converse, they are statements. Most of the people I meet might have vague sympathies for these messages but don't participate and obviously don't have those views.
When I see people shouting at each other in the street (in my own experience), chanting on megaphones, businesses boarding up their windows, and people piling trash on the street to keep police and others away... it isn't exactly an invitation to come see what people are about.
It's especially manipulative doublespeak. Say one thing, mean another, and demean anybody who dares to take your message at face value.
I'm judging people with what I see. I see the actual movement with either vague messages that are hard to interpret as not extreme and specific messages that are impossible to interpret any other way. The only people I see trying to have the "reasonable" message are folks online acting as apologists for the protests trying to defend what they "actually" mean with nothing to back up their claims.
The protest nearest to me and most recent for a couple of days had "DEATH TO US MARSHALLS" tagged on the boarded up window of a nearby business. You'll excuse me for not wanting to approach people still demonstrating in the presence of messaging like that.
Pick a slogan with an obvious interpretation, tell everyone it isn't what you mean, tell everyone that the only people that really mean it are outliers, continue to push it hoping it really comes true.
A protest march and slogan graffiti aren't invitations to come converse, they are statements. Most of the people I meet might have vague sympathies for these messages but don't participate and obviously don't have those views.
When I see people shouting at each other in the street (in my own experience), chanting on megaphones, businesses boarding up their windows, and people piling trash on the street to keep police and others away... it isn't exactly an invitation to come see what people are about.
It's especially manipulative doublespeak. Say one thing, mean another, and demean anybody who dares to take your message at face value.
I'm judging people with what I see. I see the actual movement with either vague messages that are hard to interpret as not extreme and specific messages that are impossible to interpret any other way. The only people I see trying to have the "reasonable" message are folks online acting as apologists for the protests trying to defend what they "actually" mean with nothing to back up their claims.
The protest nearest to me and most recent for a couple of days had "DEATH TO US MARSHALLS" tagged on the boarded up window of a nearby business. You'll excuse me for not wanting to approach people still demonstrating in the presence of messaging like that.
Ok sure complain about the phrase if you want I get that, whatever it just feels like an odd complaint given the situation. It's kind of hard to organize a giant movement and this is what you get.
Yes it's a muddled mix but two things jump out quickly. One you're not going to get attention marching with notepads and whispering. And two they don't need to cater their message to anyone's ideas but their own you are asking a totally different generation to appeal to another. Yes it might be a better political idea, but this is a young emotional movement. I don't know how people can expect a sophisticated perfect message and a completely unified front... It's just not realistic
I'm not saying you have to go to demonstrations if you dont want to, but if you want to find out the truth though you probably should it is worlds away from what you are describing you just said your only experience is through news and online forums. Yes there will be some messaging like that. Obviously I don't agree with that, or lots of other ideas and sentiments, but I still listen to everything they have to say. There will be a few extremes and colorful language but do all those folks really want to kill marshalls? Highly doubt it. Again it's getting attention and people are pissed off... These are young activists not campaign managers
Yes it's a muddled mix but two things jump out quickly. One you're not going to get attention marching with notepads and whispering. And two they don't need to cater their message to anyone's ideas but their own you are asking a totally different generation to appeal to another. Yes it might be a better political idea, but this is a young emotional movement. I don't know how people can expect a sophisticated perfect message and a completely unified front... It's just not realistic
I'm not saying you have to go to demonstrations if you dont want to, but if you want to find out the truth though you probably should it is worlds away from what you are describing you just said your only experience is through news and online forums. Yes there will be some messaging like that. Obviously I don't agree with that, or lots of other ideas and sentiments, but I still listen to everything they have to say. There will be a few extremes and colorful language but do all those folks really want to kill marshalls? Highly doubt it. Again it's getting attention and people are pissed off... These are young activists not campaign managers
It's not an odd complaint.
There is a large protest movement that is doing a terrible job achieving its goals, if its goals are to actually effect change.
It's not on me or anyone to go decypher what a movement is trying to be. Yes, messaging is hard, but if you're a movement without a message, all you are is a bunch of angry people in the street occasionally causing riots.
If you're hanging around in a protest where folks are advocating killing federal marshals (protestors can't always spell very well) you aren't exactly... not endorsing that message.
You're getting down to my point.
I've generally been opposed to recent protest movements. I think they have done a lot of harm (property damage, human lives, destruction of community resources) and very little good (confused message, no clear goals, encouraging extreme hostile views and actions).
The protests have served as a venue for people do demonstrate their virtue and a mechanism for increasing divisiveness and ultimately have done considerable harm to achieving any of the goals they might conceivably want if someone thoughtful was taking charge.
"We don't have anything to say but we're going to talk loudly anyway and expect other people with more sense to solve our problems for us" isn't a great message for a protest movement. You can't elect the right people if you don't know what you want. You can't change hearts and minds if you haven't figured it out for yourself first. And most importantly, if you have a bad message or no message and you're perfectly happy to associate yourself with the people who do have violent, destructive messaging, intent, and actions... the people who might be on the fence to support your cause are going to become your opponents... not just opponents of the extremes you tolerate, but opponents of everything you're choosing to associate with those extremes.
There is a large protest movement that is doing a terrible job achieving its goals, if its goals are to actually effect change.
It's not on me or anyone to go decypher what a movement is trying to be. Yes, messaging is hard, but if you're a movement without a message, all you are is a bunch of angry people in the street occasionally causing riots.
If you're hanging around in a protest where folks are advocating killing federal marshals (protestors can't always spell very well) you aren't exactly... not endorsing that message.
You're getting down to my point.
I've generally been opposed to recent protest movements. I think they have done a lot of harm (property damage, human lives, destruction of community resources) and very little good (confused message, no clear goals, encouraging extreme hostile views and actions).
The protests have served as a venue for people do demonstrate their virtue and a mechanism for increasing divisiveness and ultimately have done considerable harm to achieving any of the goals they might conceivably want if someone thoughtful was taking charge.
"We don't have anything to say but we're going to talk loudly anyway and expect other people with more sense to solve our problems for us" isn't a great message for a protest movement. You can't elect the right people if you don't know what you want. You can't change hearts and minds if you haven't figured it out for yourself first. And most importantly, if you have a bad message or no message and you're perfectly happy to associate yourself with the people who do have violent, destructive messaging, intent, and actions... the people who might be on the fence to support your cause are going to become your opponents... not just opponents of the extremes you tolerate, but opponents of everything you're choosing to associate with those extremes.
It is very odd to call it gaslighting when it's a giant movement, attributing something like that to a young group of people with a wide ranging message looks very odd and because you don't look below the surface at all you have no understanding of the deeper meanings or you choose to ignore them. And it is very odd to expect a group of young activists to have a perfectly crafted message for you to understand... you're not realistic at all
"It's not on me or anyone to go decypher what a movement is trying to be. Yes, messaging is hard, but if you're a movement without a message, all you are is a bunch of angry people in the street occasionally causing riots.
If you're hanging around in a protest where folks are advocating killing federal marshals (protestors can't always spell very well) you aren't exactly... not endorsing that message"
This is a truly bizarre perspective to have... you're saying that someone is basically endorsing everything at a demonstration when all they are doing is listening to what is going on... THE DEFINITION OF HAVING AN OPEN MIND you think is a bad position to take... You sound very close minded and you mix rioters and demonstrators with another wave of your hand, yikes! Try going out into your community with an open mind. I'm not saying I would run up beside a banner that says that and be all buddy buddy, because thats a crazy statement, but it would behoove you to not just lump in an entire legitimate movement with one crazy person, because also like I said there's no way those people actually advocate killing people... thats so obvious!!! You found one crazy person or someone looking to stir shit up that's all.
You seem to have a really skewed perspective of this and on top of that are resorting to childish arguments like spelling errors... get real you don't know anything about me or most of these protestors (I won a spelling bee bitch but go ahead flex some more). I said I went to one demonstration and you have a slew of ideas and prejudgments.
"It's not on me or anyone to go decypher what a movement is trying to be. Yes, messaging is hard, but if you're a movement without a message, all you are is a bunch of angry people in the street occasionally causing riots.
If you're hanging around in a protest where folks are advocating killing federal marshals (protestors can't always spell very well) you aren't exactly... not endorsing that message"
This is a truly bizarre perspective to have... you're saying that someone is basically endorsing everything at a demonstration when all they are doing is listening to what is going on... THE DEFINITION OF HAVING AN OPEN MIND you think is a bad position to take... You sound very close minded and you mix rioters and demonstrators with another wave of your hand, yikes! Try going out into your community with an open mind. I'm not saying I would run up beside a banner that says that and be all buddy buddy, because thats a crazy statement, but it would behoove you to not just lump in an entire legitimate movement with one crazy person, because also like I said there's no way those people actually advocate killing people... thats so obvious!!! You found one crazy person or someone looking to stir shit up that's all.
You seem to have a really skewed perspective of this and on top of that are resorting to childish arguments like spelling errors... get real you don't know anything about me or most of these protestors (I won a spelling bee bitch but go ahead flex some more). I said I went to one demonstration and you have a slew of ideas and prejudgments.
I'm done here.
Op-eds exist to be hot takes. Abolish the police is not even close to the consensus among defund the police supporters.
The sources seem to disagree with your claim.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-leader-ou...
https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-leader-ou...
Black lives matter doesn't have leaders. ANyone claiming to be is a charlatan. It doesn't matter what this person said, most BLM supporters and defund the police supporters don't want to abolish the police.
BLM certainly has recognized, well known leaders with both national and local chapters.
The issue is that it is vague and has several implicit meanings and includes groups that want to divert funding to more community services to aid police, such as mental health crisis units, so police don't have to do things they don't have training for
then you have others that genuinely want to defund police completely, arguing that the institution itself is a vestige of civil war times to protect wealthy white property/slave owners
I believe this is intentional, as it gives extremist a softer platform.
Same can be said about the BLM organization that has an explicit communistic agenda, while the movement is a broad group fighting against police violence and general civil liberties
then you have others that genuinely want to defund police completely, arguing that the institution itself is a vestige of civil war times to protect wealthy white property/slave owners
I believe this is intentional, as it gives extremist a softer platform.
Same can be said about the BLM organization that has an explicit communistic agenda, while the movement is a broad group fighting against police violence and general civil liberties
There is no Black Lives Matter organization. There is an organization called Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation that would like to be seen as the BLM organization. But they have much less influence than local groups and The Movement for Black Lives. Also BLMGNF called themselves Marxist not communist.
besides Marxist/communist , that was my point...
Your point was you shouldn't call it what you did?
[deleted]
Small scale and NYPD aren’t in the same league. IIRC if the NYPD was a military organization it would be the fifth largest military in the world. Which itself may or may not be a problem.
Tokyo metro is larger but the Japanese use their police as community servants.
Japan is an insular, rigid and heavily values oriented society. Overall their crime rate is exceptionally low.
It would be hard to apply Japanese policing styles to fundamentally different societies. That doesn't mean we can't learn good lessons from them, but we need to remember it's never an apples to apples comparison.
It would be hard to apply Japanese policing styles to fundamentally different societies. That doesn't mean we can't learn good lessons from them, but we need to remember it's never an apples to apples comparison.
(edit... sorry, don't know how this turned into a long rant. Started typing over lunch and just couldn't stop... feel free to skip this, just a stream-of-consciousness dump.)
Somewhere between Japanese idiosyncrasies and American exceptionalism, we could learn a lot from other developed societies. We just don't, because we're arrogant, ignorant, and proudly so. We mask our social ills with flags and nationalism, even though there's hardly a cohesive America left to be proud about.
IMO this isn't some academic problem like fusion, but a problem of people and politics. Speaking of values, there's a good values overlap between the police, the military, Scouting, religion, gun culture, and conservative politics & politicians. All are hierarchical, patriarchal, heavily focused on in-group loyalty and proud displays of status and power. It's a self-reinforcing good-ol-boys network that's fighting back against cultural extinction. The thin blue line, the whatever %ers, the MAGA folks... all are part of the same general in-group. To them they are the only legitimate America, and everyone else is an outsider, intruder, imposter, hellbent on destroying everything they hold dear. They don't want a multicultural America; multi-ETHNIC might be OK, but only if they fall in line and know their place.
This is not really about the tactics of policing, or training, or body cameras, but about people whose identities rely on power, status, and tradition rather than collective well-being and social innovation.
Japan is on the other side of that spectrum of collectivity. Japan is lucky (in this context) in that they are also overwhelmingly homogenous, so there isn't much of a outgroup to rebel against. They have plenty of social problems but militarized policing isn't one of them.
To the Western world, aside from its bleeding-edge aesthetics, Japanese society is heavily hierarchical, traditional, patriarchal, conservative, orderly... similar to the good-ol-boys we have here, except there, there isn't really much of a challenge to that power structure. There's no Japanese BLM equivalent to put that in sharp contrast with other elements of their society (which exist only on the fringe).
American culture, in contrast, has largely moved on (by % of population) from the good-ol-boys lifestyle, but those elements in our society are still there, and still clinging on, and hold a disproportionate amount of political power and an overwhelming amount of the firepower. Everyday, centrist Americans without significant exposure to violence and crime tend to be more welcoming of outsiders than the conservative elements, but can be easily swayed in both directions by political propaganda.
Long ago the movements veered from discussions about tactical reform and into basically mass marketing with gospel-like, life-or-death overtones and tidy slogans and us-vs-them mentalities. There's no coming back from that... you can go from "police reform" to "culture war", but it's much harder to de-escalate from that and ask about, "Wait, wait, instead of getting rid of police officers, what if we provided community specialists alongside them..."
Trump purposely escalated it into a us-vs-them thing, all the time, everywhere, across any divide he was able to weaponize, because it suited his campaign. We now pay the costs, as a society, with Biden sitting as a lame duck in the middle of it all, begging people to listen to him and be reasonable... but nobody does anymore. There's no one America anymore, just warring factions bound by a shared economy but no shared values.
shrug
Fundamentally a country this heterogenous is difficult if not impossible to govern. Maybe a EU-style model with more local autonomy would be more appropriate than federalism with supremacy. Our real flags now are either black, white, and blue or rainbow-colored, and the ol' stars and stripes are just hanging in tatters in the no man's land between them. Why not just acknowledge the reality and secede into more autonomous, culturally compatible regions and stop fight each other? There's room enough in the world for different societies & values systems, but not if they are forced by external factors to live by the same set of values against their consciences.
Somewhere between Japanese idiosyncrasies and American exceptionalism, we could learn a lot from other developed societies. We just don't, because we're arrogant, ignorant, and proudly so. We mask our social ills with flags and nationalism, even though there's hardly a cohesive America left to be proud about.
IMO this isn't some academic problem like fusion, but a problem of people and politics. Speaking of values, there's a good values overlap between the police, the military, Scouting, religion, gun culture, and conservative politics & politicians. All are hierarchical, patriarchal, heavily focused on in-group loyalty and proud displays of status and power. It's a self-reinforcing good-ol-boys network that's fighting back against cultural extinction. The thin blue line, the whatever %ers, the MAGA folks... all are part of the same general in-group. To them they are the only legitimate America, and everyone else is an outsider, intruder, imposter, hellbent on destroying everything they hold dear. They don't want a multicultural America; multi-ETHNIC might be OK, but only if they fall in line and know their place.
This is not really about the tactics of policing, or training, or body cameras, but about people whose identities rely on power, status, and tradition rather than collective well-being and social innovation.
Japan is on the other side of that spectrum of collectivity. Japan is lucky (in this context) in that they are also overwhelmingly homogenous, so there isn't much of a outgroup to rebel against. They have plenty of social problems but militarized policing isn't one of them.
To the Western world, aside from its bleeding-edge aesthetics, Japanese society is heavily hierarchical, traditional, patriarchal, conservative, orderly... similar to the good-ol-boys we have here, except there, there isn't really much of a challenge to that power structure. There's no Japanese BLM equivalent to put that in sharp contrast with other elements of their society (which exist only on the fringe).
American culture, in contrast, has largely moved on (by % of population) from the good-ol-boys lifestyle, but those elements in our society are still there, and still clinging on, and hold a disproportionate amount of political power and an overwhelming amount of the firepower. Everyday, centrist Americans without significant exposure to violence and crime tend to be more welcoming of outsiders than the conservative elements, but can be easily swayed in both directions by political propaganda.
Long ago the movements veered from discussions about tactical reform and into basically mass marketing with gospel-like, life-or-death overtones and tidy slogans and us-vs-them mentalities. There's no coming back from that... you can go from "police reform" to "culture war", but it's much harder to de-escalate from that and ask about, "Wait, wait, instead of getting rid of police officers, what if we provided community specialists alongside them..."
Trump purposely escalated it into a us-vs-them thing, all the time, everywhere, across any divide he was able to weaponize, because it suited his campaign. We now pay the costs, as a society, with Biden sitting as a lame duck in the middle of it all, begging people to listen to him and be reasonable... but nobody does anymore. There's no one America anymore, just warring factions bound by a shared economy but no shared values.
shrug
Fundamentally a country this heterogenous is difficult if not impossible to govern. Maybe a EU-style model with more local autonomy would be more appropriate than federalism with supremacy. Our real flags now are either black, white, and blue or rainbow-colored, and the ol' stars and stripes are just hanging in tatters in the no man's land between them. Why not just acknowledge the reality and secede into more autonomous, culturally compatible regions and stop fight each other? There's room enough in the world for different societies & values systems, but not if they are forced by external factors to live by the same set of values against their consciences.
You're bringing up politicians that have nothing to do with the problem. You are fighting the culture war and somehow ended up in civil war land.
The US has never been homogenous. There's a reason we are a collection of states with a federalized government. "E Pluribus Unum."
This magical nostalgia past you're talking about has never existed. Trade whatever you're currently reading in for a few history books.
The US has never been homogenous. There's a reason we are a collection of states with a federalized government. "E Pluribus Unum."
This magical nostalgia past you're talking about has never existed. Trade whatever you're currently reading in for a few history books.
I really don't think that shutting down departments is an opinion held beyond a very small but vocal group. Defund doesn't mean unfund.
The slogan caters to both sides. When campaigning to extremists, it's a dog whistle and means exactly what the words mean (defund or "abolish" police by virtue of removing their funding). Simultaneously, it's also "oh it just means defund, not unfund" for the tame and middle-ground activists that see problems in over-funded policing as well as for the apologists that want to legitimize the extreme "unfund" part of the movement.
The problem at it's core is that politicians (including activists) and their platforms are not held accountable and their words are meaningless because they have no definition. Like just look at this thread. "Unfund" vs "Defund". How on earth are we supposed to infer that specific meaning and trust the other side to do so as well? It's like a recipe specifically designed for conflict and misunderstanding. Also a perfect recipe for back and forth definition debates like this one, instead of arguing about the core issues.
The problem at it's core is that politicians (including activists) and their platforms are not held accountable and their words are meaningless because they have no definition. Like just look at this thread. "Unfund" vs "Defund". How on earth are we supposed to infer that specific meaning and trust the other side to do so as well? It's like a recipe specifically designed for conflict and misunderstanding. Also a perfect recipe for back and forth definition debates like this one, instead of arguing about the core issues.
Yeah, slogans are good for bumper stickers, or chanting at rallies, but but so good for reasoned debate. I suppose we could try to get rid of slogans entirely, but that doesn’t seem likely. I don’t know what a good alternative would look like.
It is trivial for "the other side" to find a bad interpretation to any slogans. This is why slogan writers need to be very careful. In the case of "defund the police" the worst "other side" interpretation is easier to understand than what is intended. For other slogans "the other side" will make a point that looks contrived.
It is possible for anyone to see that something is a bad slogan, and easy once you have hindsight. I have no idea how to write a good one.
It is possible for anyone to see that something is a bad slogan, and easy once you have hindsight. I have no idea how to write a good one.
I assume you're talking about "defund the police" slogans that came about last summer and I feel that's an unfair characterization of an entire "side of the issue." There have been meaningful, varied, and thoughtful proposals for how to reform police getting ignored and tossed aside for decades, well before it all devolved into social media soundbyte sized talking points. You could possibly start with some of the writing of Radley Balko, given he did most of it while employed by the Cato Institute and Reason, and nobody is going to mistake him for being caught up in racial identity politics or leftist extremism. There used to be quite a push in some sectors of thoughtspace considered right wing about demilitarizing and disempowering American police. I don't know when the heck or why the heck the militia "let's kidnap the governor" types suddenly became friends of the police, but it certainly didn't used to be that way in the 90s and the days of Ruby Ridge and feds cracking down on right wing groups that liked to hoard guns and not pay taxes. Being against government tyranny used to also mean being against police tyranny and not just being against safety regulations and enforceable public health policies.
In any case, to my mind, much of the issue here is that, as an issue, it's been nationalized. What "side" you're on entirely depends on your national political identity now. But police are not a national institution. They aren't regulated federally, except the actual feds, but the feds have their own problems. Many of their investigative techniques probably should be illegal, but they're not. The problems with local police are entirely different, in that they're often doing things that actually are illegal, but because they are insiders to the criminal justice system, nobody will punish them. They've managed over the decades to leverage public sentiment against hippies, communists, drug users, and various crime waves of the 70s and 90s to thwart any and all efforts at civilian oversight, leaving us in a position where the police police themselves.
But it now seems like there is no alternative. As a now matter of national identity politics, as least in the voter consciousness, the only options are, as you said, totally shut down the police or give them even more tanks and bigger guns and less oversight.
These aren't actually the only options. Reform proposals are different from city to city, but you better have a small city and hope the national news doesn't pick up on what you're trying to do. And you can't talk about it on the Internet, unless it's a neighborhood-only private group.
In any case, to my mind, much of the issue here is that, as an issue, it's been nationalized. What "side" you're on entirely depends on your national political identity now. But police are not a national institution. They aren't regulated federally, except the actual feds, but the feds have their own problems. Many of their investigative techniques probably should be illegal, but they're not. The problems with local police are entirely different, in that they're often doing things that actually are illegal, but because they are insiders to the criminal justice system, nobody will punish them. They've managed over the decades to leverage public sentiment against hippies, communists, drug users, and various crime waves of the 70s and 90s to thwart any and all efforts at civilian oversight, leaving us in a position where the police police themselves.
But it now seems like there is no alternative. As a now matter of national identity politics, as least in the voter consciousness, the only options are, as you said, totally shut down the police or give them even more tanks and bigger guns and less oversight.
These aren't actually the only options. Reform proposals are different from city to city, but you better have a small city and hope the national news doesn't pick up on what you're trying to do. And you can't talk about it on the Internet, unless it's a neighborhood-only private group.
The reason their vacation is docked is because the actual punishment they're receiving is an unpaid suspension. But since going unpaid hurts, they take the suspension out of the vacation hours.
It doesn't seem so outrageous. I mean, when you move the slider, 20 vacation days for not securing the firearm translates to an enormous fine. Moving the slider all the way to the right the web page reads "4 cases resulting only in a loss of 45 vacation days.". ONLY 45 vacation days. 9 weeks pay is a lot of money, folks.
Okay, losing vacation days does imply a significant lack of paid income. But at every other job when you do something that can or does get someone injured or killed you get fired.
Most jobs don't demand a steady stream of life and death decisions on 12+ hour shifts with terrible pay. The closest would be the medical industry, and typically screwups are disciplined but rarely result in firing.
Most police jobs don't demand that either. I know retied cops who never had to make a life or death decision in their job. (except first-aid situations which happen often but are different than this discussion)
It is useful for police to have a gun (but not required!), and they should know how to use it. However that doesn't mean they should use one off the practice range.
It is useful for police to have a gun (but not required!), and they should know how to use it. However that doesn't mean they should use one off the practice range.
The most stressful decision your median NYPD officer faces every day is whether to double-park in the bike lane or in front of a fire hydrant while getting their Starbucks. An MTA bus driver makes 1000x more life-or-death decisions per shift.
Not every infraction involves someone getting injured or killed.
At other jobs, even committing an infraction that didn't injure nor kill anybody but was against company policy is enough to get terminated. It's often a liability issue for the company.
And that's still the case here? This is just one more possible punishment. I'm sure if at tech companies workers were receiving docked vacation they would be raging on HN.
Tech workers and police are extremely different types of workers with extremely different job responsibilities, working agreements/contracts, and level of impact on the groups that oversee them. We are not the same by a country mile.
One 45 day loss was for breaking a restroom door with a battering ram in a practical joke... pretty harsh punishment.
Could you imagine doing that at your job and not being fired immediately?
current job? no.
a job with a strong union? yes.
a startup with a certain kind of work hard/play hard (really just lots of drinking) culture? definitely, there's plenty of stories like this (and worse) in the books.
Do you think the the people who hold the truncheon of the state's monopoly on violence should have a "work hard/play hard" culture, or union protections that absolve them of consequences when they impulsively act violently?
I think people who "hold the truncheon" should be intelligent enough to appreciate humor, yes.
FWIW framing things as if officers' job is to perform violence on behalf of the state is a big part of the problem. The state's monopoly on violence should be in the hands of the courts, and not individual officers doling out punishment. Police officers should be seen as citizens getting paid to do a good job at something that any other citizen could do if so inclined.
FWIW framing things as if officers' job is to perform violence on behalf of the state is a big part of the problem. The state's monopoly on violence should be in the hands of the courts, and not individual officers doling out punishment. Police officers should be seen as citizens getting paid to do a good job at something that any other citizen could do if so inclined.
> The state's monopoly on violence should be in the hands of the courts, and not individual officers doling out punishment
I would generally agree, but at the end of the day any state prohibition must eventually be enforced by some level of violence or more mildly, coercive force.
One could write several books about the nonviolent crimes US police have killed people enforcing. And this is my point. The arm of the state must be reigned in somewhere.
I would generally agree, but at the end of the day any state prohibition must eventually be enforced by some level of violence or more mildly, coercive force.
One could write several books about the nonviolent crimes US police have killed people enforcing. And this is my point. The arm of the state must be reigned in somewhere.
We're definitely in agreement that the arm of the state must be reigned in somehow. I'm just saying that most violence done by police is not de jure state violence backed up by any legal order, but rather personal decisions on their part for which they should be held personally accountable.
Yes. I think a heartfelt appology and an assurance that it wouldn't happen again and paying for damages would come a long way.
Is it?
There is more to this story. Was someone in there at the time?
Edit: The list as a whole is horrific. Bullying, racism, sexism, corruption and incidents that resulted in death.
Edit: The list as a whole is horrific. Bullying, racism, sexism, corruption and incidents that resulted in death.
If a civilian broke down the door of a precinct bathroom with a battering ram, what do you think the consequences would be? I'm guessing more than 45 days in jail and they'd probably get fired wherever they're employed.
This is key. People love to play the "what if the roles were reversed!" game when it comes to race and gender, even though those are just aspects of a person. People choose to be cops; we should hold them to an even higher standard than civilians.
Cops make $30k a year at entry, work insane hours and are closer to a blue collar labor force than a bunch of college grads arguing about microservices.
If you want to hold them to a higher standard, you have to pay them to a higher standard.
If you want to hold them to a higher standard, you have to pay them to a higher standard.
[deleted]
If you want to hold them to a higher standard, you have to pay them to a higher standard.
That logic works when dealing with fast food workers, not agents of state-sanctioned violence. Those standards should be high regardless.
That logic works when dealing with fast food workers, not agents of state-sanctioned violence. Those standards should be high regardless.
Where I live they enjoy outrageous amounts of overtime for guarding telephone pole workers and collect pension after 25 years.
Sounds like honest work to me, but this is definitely one of those situations that beg the question, "do we need trained paramilitary personnel to accomplish this task?"
What would you say is the salary threshold at which we can expect police to not wantonly assault people?
In 2015 (latest year I have good data for), there were just shy of 54,000,000 police interactions in the US.
The same year, there were 1,104 recorded police uses of force.
That's 0.00002% of interactions if I did my math correctly. Even if you think the use of force data is a magnitude off, that's about the same risk factor as shark attacks and lightning strikes.
The same year, there were 1,104 recorded police uses of force.
That's 0.00002% of interactions if I did my math correctly. Even if you think the use of force data is a magnitude off, that's about the same risk factor as shark attacks and lightning strikes.
Oh, I think your use of force data is more than one order of magnitude off. Police shot and killed 993 people in 2015 [1]. It's a safe assumption that fatal shootings are the tip of the iceberg in terms of use of force, not the overwhelming majority of cases.
And use of force is only one type of lawbreaking in which cops regularly engage. Buffalo News compiled over 700 instances of sexual misconduct by officers over 10 years [2]. Anecdotally, I see police commit traffic infractions all the time.
None of this is really relevant to my question, though, so I'll pose it again: how much must we pay for police officers to obey the laws they're supposed to enforce?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... (filter by 2015)
[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/projects/abusing-the-law/dat...
And use of force is only one type of lawbreaking in which cops regularly engage. Buffalo News compiled over 700 instances of sexual misconduct by officers over 10 years [2]. Anecdotally, I see police commit traffic infractions all the time.
None of this is really relevant to my question, though, so I'll pose it again: how much must we pay for police officers to obey the laws they're supposed to enforce?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... (filter by 2015)
[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/projects/abusing-the-law/dat...
In the US, the 10th percentile cops earn about 40K a year. Median local cop salary in the US is 65K. And that's the SALARY.
And let me know if ANY cops in the US have ever complained about overtime -- guaranteed overtime and overtime pay rate are often specified in police union contracts and there are tons of articles every year about cops making $100K+ overtime on top of base.
Source:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detect...
And let me know if ANY cops in the US have ever complained about overtime -- guaranteed overtime and overtime pay rate are often specified in police union contracts and there are tons of articles every year about cops making $100K+ overtime on top of base.
Source:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detect...
I'm all for taking nonviolent responsibilities away from ("defund") the police, but I'd rather cops got paid $100k to not work so much overtime. Spend some time with their families, come to work rested, maybe they won't be so trigger happy.
Alternatively if a civilian broke down a door in a company party likely the only thing would be that they got a bill for fixing the door, which is way less than 45 days of pay.
Agreeing with the sibling comment, I'd think that getting fired is the most likely outcome. But what about the occupants of the bathroom? Battering the door down is a violent and threatening act. Do you suppose they might have standing to press criminal charges? Or at least a lawsuit?
Did you know that damage over $1000 would be considered felony vandalism in many states? The door alone probably costs over $1000, not to mention damage to the frame. Looking at prison time and a permanent record here, and in some states, lifetime disenfranchisement.
So yeah. Only 45 days pay is pretty sweet. And if it was a civilian vandalizing and terrorizing a precinct, bet your ass they'd prosecute all of these charges and more to the fullest. Given that this is a violent felony, it could trigger a three strikes law if the perp already had a record.
Did you know that damage over $1000 would be considered felony vandalism in many states? The door alone probably costs over $1000, not to mention damage to the frame. Looking at prison time and a permanent record here, and in some states, lifetime disenfranchisement.
So yeah. Only 45 days pay is pretty sweet. And if it was a civilian vandalizing and terrorizing a precinct, bet your ass they'd prosecute all of these charges and more to the fullest. Given that this is a violent felony, it could trigger a three strikes law if the perp already had a record.
Or fired. Fired is also a very reasonable thing if someone knowingly broke company property for a laugh. Obviously without knowing all the specifics of the case, IDK which is more reasonable but both are certainly plausible.
==likely==
What is this based on? Are you in HR? Do you know of examples of this happening?
What is this based on? Are you in HR? Do you know of examples of this happening?
they aren't losing 9 weeks pay.
They're taking time off with pay, they just don't get to choose the days.
The article said they lost the days and nothing else happened. Are you saying the article is wrong or heavily misleading?
> In some 89% of the cases made public, reduced vacation time was one of the penalties levied, and in more than 60% of the cases it was the only punishment.
> In some 89% of the cases made public, reduced vacation time was one of the penalties levied, and in more than 60% of the cases it was the only punishment.
You are misunderstanding the use of "only" here. It is meant to describe which punishments were meted out, not to pass judgement on the severity. Cases where there were other punishments in addition to loss of vacation time are not included.
So instead of me choosing when to take a paid vacation the department would choose for me? Sounds like a great way to get Xmas or the 4th of July off if I can’t request it: commit a minor infraction a few days before my desired vacation timeframe knowing the punishment and the time it takes to administer it.
Seems counter-productive. "Hey you're clearly miserable and not doing your job properly, so we're gonna make sure that you spend more time on the job being miserable while doing it improperly".
I don’t think most cops “are miserable”. They’re in that position because they enjoy being in power.
The officer at the polling place I worked Tuesday in Brownsville NYC went out and bought everyone cold water cause the community center was so hot. That was nice of her.
I think a lot of the NYPD are fairly average humans who probably don't really enjoy... tackling people or whatever.
Definitely hear a ton about the one's that do though. And there's some real pricks for sure as we saw during footage of the summer protests and police response.
I think a lot of the NYPD are fairly average humans who probably don't really enjoy... tackling people or whatever.
Definitely hear a ton about the one's that do though. And there's some real pricks for sure as we saw during footage of the summer protests and police response.
It's a rule of thumb that roughly 10% of the NYPD receive 99% of the complaints and claims of excessive force. 90% of the NYPD is fine. The issue is that there is no meaningful oversight mechanism to correct the 9% that behave inappropriately sometimes, or the 1% that are serial offenders and are dangerous to the public. Other cops stay silent about it because there's nothing more dangerous to health and career than being a cop that rats out other cops. The civilian oversight board can't even look at records without the permission of the police.
Brief article about police complaints data:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2020/aug/04/new...
Example of the ineffective oversight:
https://www.propublica.org/article/my-family-saw-a-police-ca...
Brief article about police complaints data:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2020/aug/04/new...
Example of the ineffective oversight:
https://www.propublica.org/article/my-family-saw-a-police-ca...
> The officer at the polling place
I’m sorry, the what now?
I’m sorry, the what now?
there was an election in NYC recently, and police were at the locations where folks cast ballots.
> police were at the locations where folks cast ballots
Is that normal? That seems massively inappropriate to me.
Is that normal? That seems massively inappropriate to me.
Oh man! Wait till you go to Penn station and see military/police (the line is blurry) on patrol:
https://i.redd.it/v1qol3qqfoq41.jpg
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jtf-empire-shield-members-...
My understanding re: polling is for "election security" which... was a big deal nationally for better or worse.
https://i.redd.it/v1qol3qqfoq41.jpg
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jtf-empire-shield-members-...
My understanding re: polling is for "election security" which... was a big deal nationally for better or worse.
Yeah, I think it's fairly normal to have an officer outside of or at the entrance to a polling location. They're not actually in the room with poll watchers, etc., and certainly nowhere near the private voting booths.
It has never felt inappropriate to me – maybe because I typically vote at a public school, where it's normal to see a crossing guard or public safety officer outside.
It has never felt inappropriate to me – maybe because I typically vote at a public school, where it's normal to see a crossing guard or public safety officer outside.
Seeing cops in public schools is also weird to people outside the US.
Also metal detectors at schools. Very weird and unimaginable in Europe
It's not normal. In fact there was a police officer from Florida if I recall correctly who was reprimanded for voting in their uniform. It's considered potential voter intimidation to have a police officer standing around at a polling place.
Yes it is normal. They are there to enforce the regulations around no campaigning within a certain distance, and other voting related laws. Plenty of crazies showing up insisting on inspecting ballots and stuff, and poll workers delegate dealing with this to cops.
Is it not? I think police's duty at polling place is to maintain order, nobody shouts, breaks the line, becomes violent, break things, creates chaos. If sny objection, follows the procedure calmly n within law.
They are most of the time near entrance. They are never near anywhere you cast the votes.
They are most of the time near entrance. They are never near anywhere you cast the votes.
Having some security at a polling place feels extremely appropriate. Any private security would run the risk of being partisan. The military would run the risk of having the ruling party order the military to do intimidation. Local police are the right choice.
But aren't police unions partisan in the US? Is a police officer standing outside a polling station representing their union's politics? Must feel so to some people.
Maybe, but at some point, every single human is partisan. Police officers aren't affiliated with a party, officially, so they are at least semi-neutral. And since local police live in the same community, they're incentivized to be civil to their neighbors. Who would want the scandal of doing something nefarious in their own town's polls?
They're standing there as the institution, not their personal opinions or unions. I think it's pretty benign.
At my polling place (an elementary school gymnasium) the officer was in the entrance/hallway on his phone the entire time. Probably some easy OT for a day of more or less basically being a hall monitor.
Part of being a police officer (perhaps a huge part) is simply being present and visible. This "presence" generally coincides with any large gathering of people.
It seems completely normal to me for a police officer to be there and to have not to have been needed. Sounds like a peaceful event.
It seems completely normal to me for a police officer to be there and to have not to have been needed. Sounds like a peaceful event.
Presumably-armed police loitering outside a democratic process even when there's nothing going wrong seems very strange to people outside the US.
I don't think it is helpful to use language like "loitering".
The police are present at high school football games, beaches during the summer, festivals, parades, large town meetings, etc. That isn't "loitering", that is just standard policing.
FWIW, the US has very decentralized policing, which is different than many other countries where the police force operates at the national level. Not sure if that is affecting the way people are thinking about this though.
If you told me the FBI was present at a voting location I would wonder what is going on. Local police officer, nope.
The police are present at high school football games, beaches during the summer, festivals, parades, large town meetings, etc. That isn't "loitering", that is just standard policing.
FWIW, the US has very decentralized policing, which is different than many other countries where the police force operates at the national level. Not sure if that is affecting the way people are thinking about this though.
If you told me the FBI was present at a voting location I would wonder what is going on. Local police officer, nope.
> The police are present at high school football games, beaches during the summer
These aren't normal for a western democracy, if you were wondering.
These aren't normal for a western democracy, if you were wondering.
I can't speak for "western democracy", just my experience in the US.
Places where where the police are there to ensure people vote the right way should be concerned. The US (and the other countries where readers of this likely live) doesn't have a history of forcing people to vote "the right way", which in turn means nobody worry's about it. Those (perhaps the majority of people on earth!) who live in a place where how you vote isn't actually something you are sure is your personal choice have reason to be concerned.
I thought police unions in the US often explicitly declared support for particular candidates? That'd be unthinkable in most countries.
The unions do. However the police officers do not do anything about people voting against the union candidates. That is police officers may want you to vote some way, but they still defend your right to vote against them. (at least for now)
Most megalomaniacs I know aren't particularly happy people. I don't think the sudden outbursts of rage that we've come to know from cops are because they're zen inside.
I don't think so either - but the ones that are being punished aren't in that position because they're happy with or believe in department policies.
Most officers will be placed on paid leave while they are being investigated for whatever crime they’re accused of. So it’s more like they have their vacation time adjusted to reflect their mandatory vacation.
From an employer's perspective, this is fine because you don't want to lose more paid work hours without any return.
From the employee's perspective, it's a different story of course. The point of vacation is that you can recuperate from work stress and get some energy back, so that you stay healthy and can deliver good work. I doubt very much that this goal can be reached when the reason for your time off work is that you're under investigation. For instance, I don't expect most cops to fly to Vegas to party during such a time.
From the employee's perspective, it's a different story of course. The point of vacation is that you can recuperate from work stress and get some energy back, so that you stay healthy and can deliver good work. I doubt very much that this goal can be reached when the reason for your time off work is that you're under investigation. For instance, I don't expect most cops to fly to Vegas to party during such a time.
This is just actual 'unlimited vacation'. Instead of a being a doublespeak name for eliminating vacation time, they actually can take time off at will. Just find someone powerless to take your frustrations out on, sign the union form and pack for the beach.
Propublica is going after everyone now lol. billionaires. police departments...who is next?
Isn't that something that's contractually agreed?? My work couldn't cut my holidays if they wanted to. They could make it difficult for me to actually book them by denying requests though.
Ps didn't get to RTFA as I'm on the go sorry
Ps didn't get to RTFA as I'm on the go sorry
[deleted]
> The loss of vacation days — which is equivalent to a fine
No they are not equivalent. There is a reason workers fights so hard to get vacation days, they are important and money is not a substitute.
No they are not equivalent. There is a reason workers fights so hard to get vacation days, they are important and money is not a substitute.
There's some equivalence, if this is actual paid vacation, that is, vacation time that must be paid out in dollar terms if not taken, and is an actual form of compensation that can live on a balance sheet. In some such employment situations, it's common to "bank" lots of this time, to be paid out in cash periodically, or on retirement.
To the employers they are roughly equivalent, to the employee they are certainly not equivalent.
My experience with people working under these kinds of arrangements is that they absolutely do think of their PTO in monetary terms, and manage it with an expectation that most of it will be turned into money at some point, and that anyone past the first couple years on the job has quite a bit "banked", so that "fining" them some PTO isn't preventing them from taking time off, but is taking (future) money away, and the employee would understand it in those terms.
Do you have any evidence that it is uncommon to take your vacation days, or is this just a bunch of anecdotes about workaholics? Vacation days wouldn't be a thing if workers didn't care about using them.
I take it you don't know many government or union workers? What evidence do you want? Find one and have a conversation with them. You'll discover that this is common in most any workplace where PTO converts to actual dollars. Much of the private sector, and especially tech, doesn't operate under that kind of system, so it wouldn't make sense for those workers to do it, but in ones where it does it's definitely common to bank some fraction of one's annual PTO with the expectation that it will become money, at some point (often retirement). It's not at all unusual for mid-career workers in those work situations to have several months of PTO so saved.
When you're negotiating, it's useful to keep in mind not just your own viewpoint, but the viewpoint of whoever you're negotiating with.
They probably get paid out for unused PTO (common in US) and I would guess a very small number ever use up their vacation time, an exceedingly difficult thing to do in any American job outside of tech (and maybe even for a lot of tech workers).
So taking away vacation days from those people would be literally equivalent to fining them the payout of their days wage.
So taking away vacation days from those people would be literally equivalent to fining them the payout of their days wage.
Most US jobs don't allow you to accrue unlimited unused vacation time. Police, at least where I live, are allowed to. You often hear stories of large six-figure payouts on retirement, from years of accrued vacation time.
> [snip] I would guess a very small number ever use up their vacation time, an exceedingly difficult thing to do in any American job outside of tech (and maybe even for a lot of tech workers).
It is? Maybe I've just been very lucky in my jobs- even before I was in tech, when working night shift stocking shelves at Walmart or doing customer retention at a call center, I've never had a problem using PTO. I'm sure everyone's experience is different so I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is a surprise to me.
It is? Maybe I've just been very lucky in my jobs- even before I was in tech, when working night shift stocking shelves at Walmart or doing customer retention at a call center, I've never had a problem using PTO. I'm sure everyone's experience is different so I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is a surprise to me.
Depends on the company. It isn't unusual for some companies to have a few key people who can't take vacation because nobody else can do their job. Large companies like WalMart have learned that you dare not have such people (they can die unexpectedly - maybe you can stop them from quitting but death doesn't care) and so take effort to ensure everyone can be replaced as needed and so time off isn't an issue. Smaller companies often haven't learned this lesson and so will sometimes have people who can't be allowed to take time off.
I'd like to explain one of the 45 day "rips" (loss of vacation time is called a rip in the NYPD) because most of the commenters lack the context to fully understand what's going on.
First, being ripped doesn't mean you lose money, it means you lose your vacation days. Vacation is assigned to you typically in blocks for 5 days, and members with 5.5 years or more of service get 26 days of vacation (5 weeks).
Being ripped means you work the days you would have had off. In the end there is no real loss to pay. That being said, getting a 45 day rip essentially means you don't take vacation for 24 months, and the only days you have off are your RDOs(regular days off, they rotate throughout the year due to the nature of shift work.)
Not being able to decompress for more than 2 days at a time is horrible in general and especially true in law enforcement, and I bet some members would rather lose thousands of dollars in pay in the form of a fine than not be able to take vacation for 2 years straight. This is not an option, you must lose the vacation days.
Did knowingly associate with a person or organization reasonably believed to be engaged in, likely to engage in, or to have engaged in criminal activities.
While on sick report, was wrongfully and without just cause absent from said residence without the permission of said officer's district surgeon and/or health services division sick desk supervisor.
While on sick report, left the confines of the city and residence counties without approval of the deputy commissioner of personnel.
Having changed her residence, did fail and neglect to notify her commanding officer by submitting form change of name, residence or social condition.
Did fail and neglect to notify the department of criminal activity committed by a person known to the department.
While on-duty, did wrongfully conduct personal business while on duty.
While on-duty, did fail and neglect to maintain activity log.
Essentially what this is, is a cop that was associating with a known criminal, but didn't necessarily do anything illegal. The department was looking for something to "get" them on, and how they "got" them was by following them home.
When you call in sick in the NYPD, you report to a department doctor (district surgeon) and then you must be in your primary residence (that the NYPD was informed of) during the time of your normal shift. From time to time, they send people around to check to see if you're home. They most likely sent someone to check on this cop hoping/knowing they wouldn't be there.
It turns out that this cop was in another location, which was reported to the NYPD as their primary residence.
Many of the citations in their record deal with being punished for lying about where they live.
"Personal business" could be anything not related to your job. For instance: they got you on a recording calling a friend on duty.
"fail and neglect to maintain activity log" most likely means that the NYPD confiscated all of their memo books (you're required to keep every single one you've used from the moment you report to the police academy to the moment you retire. Cops accrue dozens and dozens over a typical career. Almost no one has perfect memo books, and this rule is selectively enforced to punish people when they can't find anything else.
To summarize: This police officer was associating with someone the NYPD didn't want them associating with, and after investigation, held them accountable in the form of not being able to take vacation for 2 years because they were living at a different address than they reported, conducted personal business on duty, and did not have perfect memo books filled out to exacting standards over the course of their career.
It's very likely that the person they were associating with was a real problem, and that is why they got such a relatively heavy punishment. There's no way to know for sure, those secrets remain secret forever.
You may ask, Why are there so many convoluted rules regarding the minute to minute lives of the NYPD? and the answer is over 175 years of tradition and the collective bargaining agreement.
Source: Member of the NYPD
First, being ripped doesn't mean you lose money, it means you lose your vacation days. Vacation is assigned to you typically in blocks for 5 days, and members with 5.5 years or more of service get 26 days of vacation (5 weeks).
Being ripped means you work the days you would have had off. In the end there is no real loss to pay. That being said, getting a 45 day rip essentially means you don't take vacation for 24 months, and the only days you have off are your RDOs(regular days off, they rotate throughout the year due to the nature of shift work.)
Not being able to decompress for more than 2 days at a time is horrible in general and especially true in law enforcement, and I bet some members would rather lose thousands of dollars in pay in the form of a fine than not be able to take vacation for 2 years straight. This is not an option, you must lose the vacation days.
Did knowingly associate with a person or organization reasonably believed to be engaged in, likely to engage in, or to have engaged in criminal activities.
While on sick report, was wrongfully and without just cause absent from said residence without the permission of said officer's district surgeon and/or health services division sick desk supervisor.
While on sick report, left the confines of the city and residence counties without approval of the deputy commissioner of personnel.
Having changed her residence, did fail and neglect to notify her commanding officer by submitting form change of name, residence or social condition.
Did fail and neglect to notify the department of criminal activity committed by a person known to the department.
While on-duty, did wrongfully conduct personal business while on duty.
While on-duty, did fail and neglect to maintain activity log.
Essentially what this is, is a cop that was associating with a known criminal, but didn't necessarily do anything illegal. The department was looking for something to "get" them on, and how they "got" them was by following them home.
When you call in sick in the NYPD, you report to a department doctor (district surgeon) and then you must be in your primary residence (that the NYPD was informed of) during the time of your normal shift. From time to time, they send people around to check to see if you're home. They most likely sent someone to check on this cop hoping/knowing they wouldn't be there.
It turns out that this cop was in another location, which was reported to the NYPD as their primary residence.
Many of the citations in their record deal with being punished for lying about where they live.
"Personal business" could be anything not related to your job. For instance: they got you on a recording calling a friend on duty.
"fail and neglect to maintain activity log" most likely means that the NYPD confiscated all of their memo books (you're required to keep every single one you've used from the moment you report to the police academy to the moment you retire. Cops accrue dozens and dozens over a typical career. Almost no one has perfect memo books, and this rule is selectively enforced to punish people when they can't find anything else.
To summarize: This police officer was associating with someone the NYPD didn't want them associating with, and after investigation, held them accountable in the form of not being able to take vacation for 2 years because they were living at a different address than they reported, conducted personal business on duty, and did not have perfect memo books filled out to exacting standards over the course of their career.
It's very likely that the person they were associating with was a real problem, and that is why they got such a relatively heavy punishment. There's no way to know for sure, those secrets remain secret forever.
You may ask, Why are there so many convoluted rules regarding the minute to minute lives of the NYPD? and the answer is over 175 years of tradition and the collective bargaining agreement.
Source: Member of the NYPD
thread is pretty dead at this point but interesting comment thanks for typing it all out
Aren't days off stipulated by government and mandatory in New York?
I couldn't see how they could take away leave that is a legal right?
I couldn't see how they could take away leave that is a legal right?
"The Beatings will Continue until Morale Improves!"
If anything, you'd want a system where misconduct causes aggregate officer availability to decrease, giving police departments an incentive to reduce misconduct rates if they want more resources.