Someone Explain This Whole "Blue Flu" Thing to Me

[LAGC]

So the NYPD police union issues a statement which reads as a directive to officers, and says: “At least two units are to respond to EVERY call” and “Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary.”

For two weeks now, the largest police force in the nation has essentially stopped making arrests. According to a lead story in the New York Times today, ticket issuance by police in this city of 8.4 million is down by 90 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/nyregion/decrease-in-new-york-police-arrests-continues-for-a-second-week.html?_r=2

The paper reports that:

Most precincts’ weekly tallies for criminal infractions — typically about 4,000 a week citywide — were close to zero.

And yet, New York continues to function normally, with people going about their business, secure on sidewalk, street, public transit and in their homes.

Doesn't that kind of beg the question? Namely, just what in the world are the police doing making ANY sort of enforcement actions that aren't "absolutely necessary" in the first place?? Isn't that a big part of the problem with police-public relations today? Cops pulling people over and harassing drivers just for speeding while trying to make it into work on time so they can make a living and pay taxes? Petty code enforcement and revenue-generating measures that bring in more money for the department and those lavish police pensions?

Don't get me wrong -- I support the police being able to organize and form labor unions, negotiate wages and compensation for their dangerous jobs, but this whole "Blue Flu" tactic seems like it might be tipping their hand just a wee bit.

I mean, is it just me, or does this whole incident show, at its root, that perhaps the NYPD needs to start laying off a shitload of "unnecessary" cops?

Could it be that the city has been wasting much of the nearly $5 billion it spends annually on its over 34,000 uniformed cops (15% of the city’s budget?) Could it be that having all those cops cruising around neighborhoods harassing people — mostly, statistics show, people of color and poor people — by stopping them and frisking them, by busting them for “crimes” like public urination, smoking a joint, drinking a beer outside, selliing trinkets or “lossie” cigs, or just “looking suspicious” — has been doing nothing to reduce major crimes and violence after all?

I'm starting to see why conservative governors like Calvin Coolidge resorted to calling in the state militia to crush these "unruly" police unions once they got too brazen and decided to go on full-out strike...

[ltorlo64]

There has not been much time so I would expect NY to still function. Even in the worst crime years it still functioned so that is not a good way to access the impact. I heard on the news a couple of days ago that while arrests were down since the killing that murders and violent crimes (armed robberies, rapes, assaults, etc.) were up almost 40% and the farther NY gets from the event and the more people realize the police are not going to take action the more the violence escalates. Again, this was taken information was over a relatively short period of time and could just be a random spike that settles out over the year, but it is something that bares watching given the current state of affairs.

[ltorlo64]

As far as I know there has not been an instance of "blue flu" either. Blue flu is where the police or fire fighters, who are not allowed to strike, all call in sick for a few days. It is not technically a strike, as that is illegal, but it has the same affect. In this case the police are taking protective measures, staying out of situations where they are unprotected or could be ambushed. Still not great but they are on the job. This is not the "blue flu".


Could it be that the city has been wasting much of the nearly $5 billion it spends annually on its over 34,000 uniformed cops (15% of the city’s budget?) Could it be that having all those cops cruising around neighborhoods harassing people — mostly, statistics show, people of color and poor people — by stopping them and frisking them, by busting them for “crimes” like public urination, smoking a joint, drinking a beer outside, selliing trinkets or “lossie” cigs, or just “looking suspicious” — has been doing nothing to reduce major crimes and violence after all?

This is what happens when you allow liberal policies, such as disarming the populace, to be enacted. When the populace is disarmed and not able to protect themselves then the government must provide the protection that the citizenry is not longer allowed to provide. This requires a much larger police presence so that police will be closer to the people to minimize response times. Since the police cannot be in every house it also requires that the police try to stop crimes before they happen. As we think about this logically the protections put into the Constitution start to make a lot of sense and we can see the destructive results to society that abdicating our responsibilities as citizens to the government cause. Were the people of NY a free people, able to practice liberty, these things would not occur. Unfortunately the people of NY elected people who promised to take care of them and make them safe. As it turns out all that happened was a loss of freedom with no increase in safety.

[skorpion]

In the short term, there may be little change noticed at the macro level when police do not enforce the less serious laws. However, after time begins to take its toll, change becomes more noticeable. For example, you go away on vacation for a week and your house sits empty during that time. Nothing changed. You come home and everything is intact and your home was not broken into or vandalized. The yard is a little shaggy but a quick cut fixes that and it's all good.

Now, you go off to prison for 3-4 years and your house sits empty with nobody to watch it. The yard is a mess. The utilities are shut off. A tree fell against the side of the house after a storm, but did little damage: It's just an eye-sore. Zoning doesn't care. The police don't care. The neighbors don't care. And everyone that sees the house thinks you don't care, either. A neighborhood kid busts out a window with no fear of getting into trouble for doing it because he thinks to himself, "Nobody cares about that house and nobody will care if I smash a window or two". Next thing you know, the house is burglarized and stripped of all valuables. Then the scrappers come in and rip out all the copper. Then the squatters and junkies come in to use the house as their playground. Finally, the vandals come in and finish it off. When you get out of prison and return home, all you find is an empty lot with a shell of your burnt-out house and nothing else. You call the police to report it and they say, "Tough luck, kid. Nobody gives a shit. It's only a house. Nobody was hurt."

Broken Windows Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

[jet3534]

In general, I support police and in most states and localities I feel they do an excellent job. However, with every discussion involving the New York City police it should be noted that they actively and on an ongoing basis seek to deprive people of their Constitutional rights. Examples of this include enforcement of gun laws and stopping and frisking people simply because they are black. Choking a guy to death with a rear naked choke over the sale of a cigarette is something that could only be condoned in a police state. The attitude of the police towards the Mayor, threats of blue flu, etc. can be described by one word and that word is insubordination. Insubordination by police, military, or even run of the mill government employees should never be tolerated. In cases where the police do not support the Constitution people are better off without police IMHO.

[jet3534]

Don't get me wrong -- I support the police being able to organize and form labor unions, negotiate wages and compensation for their dangerous jobs,

I guess based on your logic soldiers in the military should be part of a union. See anything wrong with this idea?

I don't believe any government employee should be part of a union as these public sector unions work against the interests of the people and taxpayers. Unions promote mediocrity in the workforce with promotions based on seniority and so forth.

Compensation for all jobs should be based on supply and demand.

[Richard Simmons]

Your second quote was incomplete.

“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest." What they are saying is not to make arrests unless it is necessary/required by law.

[FunkyPertwee]

What they are saying is not to make arrests unless it is necessary/required by law.

That should be normal procedure. If its unnecessary and not required by law, why would you be doing it?

[5.56NATO]

That should be normal procedure. If its unnecessary and not required by law, why would you be doing it?

Because it's tradition in a lot of cities. Also they have nothing better to do. Even black cops get profiled for not much more than walking down the street, shopping, etc etc. If the city survives this fine, but my guess is the loosened leash on criminals will enbolden them. But that will only go so far without bloodshed. Wich I guess is ok, if dangerous criminals are killed by police we're better off.

[Richard Simmons]

That should be normal procedure. If its unnecessary and not required by law, why would you be doing it?

I presume it means that for some crimes you can arrest or issue a summons/citation based on certain criteria within the law. Under the current circumstances NYPD is telling it's officers not to make arrests that are not mandatory.

[Richard Simmons]

Because it's tradition in a lot of cities. Also they have nothing better to do. Even black cops get profiled for not much more than walking down the street, shopping, etc etc. If the city survives this fine, but my guess is the loosened leash on criminals will enbolden them. But that will only go so far without bloodshed. Wich I guess is ok, if dangerous criminals are killed by police we're better off.

Your last comment reminds me of a comment I read on another forum that was attributed to an old Texas Ranger from back in the day. IIRC the quote was something along the lines of "Sometimes it takes a good killing to keep the law" or words to that effect. Hard men in hard times tend to lead hard lives. Cops knew it and so did the crooks.

[ltorlo64]

That should be normal procedure. If its unnecessary and not required by law, why would you be doing it?

As Richard said, police are given some latitude when they arrest and when they don't but not in every case. In Washington state, for example, if the police are called because of a domestic dispute the police have to make an arrest of one of the people. The police get to choose and generally they will arrest the person who is the most physical or the one that is least (or not) injured, and if neither is injured they arrest the man. In other cases, like vandalism, the police do not necessarily have to arrest someone even if they catch the vandals in the act, but may decide to depending on the amount of damage done or if there is suitable supervision around to turn the vandals over to.

In NY no one is being arrested accept those who by law are forced to be arrested. This means that many people who the police see violate the law but it is not a requirement to arrest them or give a citation to are not being approached. There is no where good this can lead to.

[FunkyPertwee]

As Richard said, police are given some latitude when they arrest and when they don't but not in every case. In Washington state, for example, if the police are called because of a domestic dispute the police have to make an arrest of one of the people. The police get to choose and generally they will arrest the person who is the most physical or the one that is least (or not) injured, and if neither is injured they arrest the man. In other cases, like vandalism, the police do not necessarily have to arrest someone even if they catch the vandals in the act, but may decide to depending on the amount of damage done or if there is suitable supervision around to turn the vandals over to.

In NY no one is being arrested accept those who by law are forced to be arrested. This means that many people who the police see violate the law but it is not a requirement to arrest them or give a citation to are not being approached. There is no where good this can lead to.

Vandalism was a good example. You got me there. Property rights must be defended by police.

Besides obviously necessary things like property rights, I can guarantee that NYC has plenty of completely unnecessary laws that shouldn't exist in the first place which won't bother a soul to go unenforced. (Such as the extraordinarily high cigarette tax)

[Oswald Bastable]

As far as I know there has not been an instance of "blue flu" either.

Note how it attempts to inflect the conversation with its own agenda from the beginning of the discussion.

This is why it should only be referred to in the third person.

It has no other value.

[5.56NATO]

In poor New York neighborhoods, residents ask: Where are the police?
NEW YORK (Reuters) - On the sidewalk of a public housing development in Brooklyn, New York notorious for gang violence and drug activity, the words "Fascist pig, go home!" in black spray paint are fading but still legible.

These are the Marcy Houses, 27 brick H-block buildings, each six stories high, that are home to nearly 4,300 people, many of whom are black or Latino. The rapper Jay-Z, who grew up in the complex, described Marcy as "a block away from hell," the place where "news cameras never come," in a song called "Where I'm From."
http://news.yahoo.com/poor-york-neighborhoods-residents-ask-where-police-222159358.html