Why Liberals hate the NYPD

[CameraNewbie 0]

Click here for Article

Why Liberals hate the NYPD
by: William McGurn

At first it looks like a glaring contradiction: Thanks to innovative police work, New York has become America’s safest big city. Yet it is in this same city that the police have become the No. 1 political target.

In fact, it’s no contradiction at all. A quick look at who’s doing the attacking — a liberal federal judge, a liberal Democratic candidate for mayor, a liberal rights group and the leading liberal newspaper — suggests that New York’s Finest aren’t under attack despite their success against crime. They’re under attack because of their success.

Particularly grating to critics is that the cops have delivered something to poor and minority neighborhoods their own policies never could: fewer shootings, fewer murders and safer streets. Since the victims of violent crime are overwhelmingly black or Latino, it means the thousands of lives saved by New York’s policing are also mostly black or Latino.

In most corners of America, this would be something to cheer about. You might even call it progressive policing. But not our city’s liberal class.

How galling it is to these people that the institution that has delivered for our city’s poor and marginalized is law enforcement. Worse still, law enforcement headed by a former Marine.

The attitude is by no means confined to New York, of course. Recall when President Obama, ignorant of the facts, declared at a press conference that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” in the altercation between a black Harvard professor and the white Cambridge cop? The president later regretted his words but you can see the liberal instinct: When it’s professor v. police, surely it’s safe to assume the cops are the idiots.

We heard something similar from the camp of Shira Scheindlin, the federal judge who held a kangaroo trial of stop-and-frisk to justify the opinion everyone knew was coming even before the first witness testified. As a former Scheindlin law clerk told The New Yorker, “What you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

Now, in one sense liberals grumbling about police tactics is nothing new. It’s also true that liberals do attack cops in places like Chicago, Washington, Detroit, where police aren’t as successful as they are in New York.

But these attacks are nothing like the assault on New York police. Where’s the George Soros-backed initiative against police in cities such as Detroit or New Orleans? Murder rates there are above 50 per 100,000 population; New York’s rate is under 4.

And why is US Attorney General Eric Holder weighing in against New York — instead of all those high-crime cities where police circle the wagons around the better parts and cede whole neighborhoods to the criminals?

The answer is that blue-state America has always had a hard time dealing with the reality of crime. Whether it’s blaming crime on the economy or hailing “solutions” such as midnight basketball, the liberal class just has a hard time doing what police do here: proactively go after bad guys.

In this sense, stop-and-frisk is a gift. It lets these critics claim their opposition is based on the Constitution, not any animus against police. And because most of those stopped (87 percent) are young African-American males, it conjures up familiar tropes about white policemen rounding up black kids.

Never mind that if the stops followed the racial breakdown for murder suspects — 90 percent black — there’d be even more African-Americans stopped.

Or that the rank of police officer in today’s NYPD is majority minority: 16.7 percent African-American, 29.1 percent Hispanic and 6.7 percent Asian.

While we’re on the subject, it would sure be illuminating to know how many of the institutions so loudly accusing the cops of racial bias are, like the police force today, majority minority — from the editorial board of The New York Times and the staff of the New York Civil Liberties Union to the office of Judge Scheind­lin and the white-shoe law firm of Covington and Burling.

Probably the cops will lose on stop-and-frisk. Between the federal monitor imposed by Judge Scheindlin, the two new anti-stop bills just passed by the City Council and the likelihood that the next mayor will be the man who has vowed to end stop-and-frisk, it doesn’t look good.

But if the cops do lose, let’s remember their real crime wasn’t that they were too thuggish. It’s that they’ve been progressive in a way that shows up the city’s liberal establishment. And for that, there can be no forgiveness.

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[quade 4]

Okay, but what do YOU think? Is the headline even justified? Is it possible that the term "liberal" is simply being used as bait here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CameraNewbie 0]

IMO most news headlines are rarely justified. That's our media for you. Used as Bait for what? To demoralize Liberals? I don't think so IMO. NY is 70% Liberal. Liberals would take this article with a grain of salt, IMO. Like most things in this world, If people don't like it they don't have to read it. The press still has the right to exercise freedom of speech, whether we like it or not.

Edited to correct: In this case, the author is stating facts and some opinion.

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[quade 4]

CameraNewbie

In this case, the author is stating facts.

Some, but mostly opinion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CameraNewbie 0]

Yes, you are right. I edited that post.

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

A quick look at who’s doing the attacking — a liberal federal judge, a liberal Democratic candidate for mayor, a liberal rights group and the leading liberal newspaper — suggests that New York’s Finest aren’t under attack despite their success against crime. They’re under attack because of their success.

Well of course. It's because liberals love crime.

Well that was an easy solution, maybe this guy should try his hand at reversing the deficit next.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

jakee

Well of course. It's because liberals love crime.

Not really
but they continue to push for policies that do not support one being responcible for their own actions

Then comes the law of unintened consequenses

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 362]

As a general proposition, it would be easy to eliminate almost all crime, and quickly solve what crime does occur, by micro-chipping everybody at birth and tracking everybody's movements 24/7, collecting a DNA sample from everybody at birth so it could be matched to forensic evidence, have the police listen in on every conversation, phone call, read every email or text message, confiscate all guns, pointy objects, electric drills, spoons, etc and on and on. Of course nobody, of any political stripe, would agree to that, because the cost in freedom would be vastly greater than the benefit to be gained.

It's hard to balance personal freedoms with the desire for a peaceful and safe society. Different people will put the balance point at different places, depending on how they feel the loss of freedom vs increase in "safety" will affect them personally. Of course the Constitution puts limits on how far the government can intrude on freedoms, even in the name of security. It doesn't serve any useful purpose to attach labels like "liberal" or "republiscum" or whatever, unless you want to shut down the discussion.

Anyway if the author of the article you posted doesn't like the court decisions, they are free to lobby for a constitutional change that allows the police to stop and search people without probable cause, and allows the police to blatantly profile based on race. Good luck with that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

GeorgiaDon

As a general proposition, it would be easy to eliminate almost all crime, and quickly solve what crime does occur, by micro-chipping everybody at birth and tracking everybody's movements 24/7, collecting a DNA sample from everybody at birth so it could be matched to forensic evidence, have the police listen in on every conversation, phone call, read every email or text message, confiscate all guns, pointy objects, electric drills, spoons, etc and on and on. Of course nobody, of any political stripe, would agree to that, because the cost in freedom would be vastly greater than the benefit to be gained.

It's hard to balance personal freedoms with the desire for a peaceful and safe society. Different people will put the balance point at different places, depending on how they feel the loss of freedom vs increase in "safety" will affect them personally. Of course the Constitution puts limits on how far the government can intrude on freedoms, even in the name of security. It doesn't serve any useful purpose to attach labels like "liberal" or "republiscum" or whatever, unless you want to shut down the discussion.

Anyway if the author of the article you posted doesn't like the court decisions, they are free to lobby for a constitutional change that allows the police to stop and search people without probable cause, and allows the police to blatantly profile based on race. Good luck with that.

Don

Good post!

the only thing I would add is that, for most part, where that tipping was, was defined when this country was founded. But that tipping point is being moved, if ever so slowly, by the government and polititions. Moving in a direction that limits freedoms.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Kennedy 0]

Small but important note: law enforcement does not need probable cause to stop and frisk. When discussing legal issues, using the correct terms is necessary. The phrase you're looking for is reasonable suspicion, a significantly lower standard than probable cause.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Correction noted, thanks.

Nevertheless, I would argue that stopping and frisking people at random, or everybody in a particular neighborhood, is hardly "reasonable".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

What "reasonable" methods should law enforcement take to prevent crime in these areas?

[Skyrad 0]

The whole Lib/Dem Vs Rep thing is as boring and uninformative as watching paint dry. What is interesting is HOW the NYPD have managed to turn the city's crime around, anyone able to elaborate on that?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[turtlespeed 220]

Skyrad

The whole Lib/Dem Vs Rep thing is as boring and uninformative as watching paint dry. What is interesting is HOW the NYPD have managed to turn the city's crime around, anyone able to elaborate on that?

Yes.

It was in part due to Stop and Frisk.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun