New Yorkers: is this true?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That would be May, 2003. Two unprovoked killings that month, and certainly negligent:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/ju...nypd-j04.shtml

I know the source will be criticized, but these two incidents are quite real.

I'll also remind you that Diallo was shot 41 times, and had entry wounds in the soles of his feet.

And then there's the oh-so-wonderful plunger incident...

shot 41 times pffft... is that a record?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
both of those were years ago, and only one was a killing. The guardian specifically referred to killing.
As you see i found a source on one of the May deaths, and no, its not clear what the fault was there.

You are splitting hairs. The article I linked mentioned the other deaths, such of the Haitian immigrant. The plunger incident is valid to mention, especially considering the nature of the cops behind it.

The fault is not what is unclear in the death of the woman in May, as Bloomberg stated. The fault is NYPD negligence, pure and simple. What isn't clear are the mechanics of the negligence, but that's all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this a reference to an act of several years ago.

There were two high profile killing of innocent people in the last month.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Blame not yet assigned - new approach from bloomberg.
not the impression one gets from the Guardian.

Do you think it was someone other than the police???

[lord of the mark]

the other may killing
from Newsday:


"Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Conroy told a supervisor on the scene that Zongo had gone for Conroy's gun."

Again case still open.


I guess innocent untill proven guilty doesnt apply to NY cops.

And Im an ex-New Yorker. I left before Giuliani, back when both crime and the "minor offenses" giulani cracked down on were making life unliveable for many (though thats not why i left)

Whether its my sensitivity to the Guardian, or my sympathy for New York cops, I found the jocular tone of that particular paragraph insufferable. and of a piece with larger Guardian attitudes. I can see why others might see only a tenuous connection with the Applebaum piece, so i wont continue with this.

[Arrian]

Bloomberg's next outrage is in the works: prohibiting bartenders from buy-backs.

Holy ****! I just saw this. SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!

Hey, I can live with having to go outside to smoke - actually it's a good thing - but that's outrageous!



-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

What's a buy-back?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do you think it was someone other than the police???

it was siad to be due to a bad tip - could have been the polices fault, or they may have had every reason to consider the tip valid. Im not going to judge without knowing the defense - thats good for other defendents, should be just as good for cops.

[Arrian]

You tip the bartender, right? Well, after a few rounds with good tips, the guy might hook you up with a free drink.

I was out in NYC a couple of weekends ago for my friend's bachelor party, and we spent most of the first night out at an Irish bar on the upper east side (Baileys). We were good tippers. After some of us left (I konked out after the 2am pizza run), he and those that were left were treated to a round of whiskey shots (big ones, too) by the bartender, while he closed the bar.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You are splitting hairs. The article I linked mentioned the other deaths, such of the Haitian immigrant. The plunger incident is valid to mention, especially considering the nature of the cops behind it.

The fault is not what is unclear in the death of the woman in May, as Bloomberg stated. The fault is NYPD negligence, pure and simple. What isn't clear are the mechanics of the negligence, but that's all.

the guardian did not say that people die to NYPD negligence- it said theyre killed by "really bad cops" If their was negligence in the handling of the tip, the cops who actually killed may have been perfectly good cops.

the image of "killed by really bad cops" isnt one of departmental negligence in the handling of tips its one of sadists or racists running around on a killing spree. Which seems arguable, to say the least. And it seems to be an impression some folks have of America. Certaily not an impression the Guardian is interested in disabusing them of.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What's a buy-back?

Usually at a bar, if you buy 3 drinks, the 4th will be on the bartender (if you know the bartender, maybe after 2). My roommate Dan drinks almost entirely on the generosity of his friends who are bartenders.

It's a horrific idea, one that will just cement Bloomberg's defeat next election. The Democrats only have to vet a candidate who says "I will repeal the smoking ban and the buy-back ban," and he/she will get elected.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it was siad to be due to a bad tip - could have been the polices fault, or they may have had every reason to consider the tip valid. Im not going to judge without knowing the defense - thats good for other defendents, should be just as good for cops.

I'll refer you again to the article I cited, in which the "qualifications" of the tipster were given, as well as what the tip said. You compare the tip with reality and explain why the cops weren't negligent.

Oh, and negligent cop = bad cop. Notice it didn't say "evil" cops. A bad cop doesn't need to be evil, just incompetent.

[lord of the mark]

would this be on topic - from thisislondon:


"Police numbers in London are approaching record levels. Yet public confidence in the forces of law and order has never been more fragile. The problem: increased numbers have yet to make a visible impact on crime and disorder. London feels no safer now than it did even two years ago - if anything, even less so.

This week, for example, the Met revealed that the use of guns as murder weapons has doubled in the last five years. So Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens's speech yesterday arguing for more community policing is timely. He is right to ask how the Met can best seize the opportunity for radical change and thereby respond to people's desire for more visible, more proactive policing.

There will never be enough uniformed officers to satisfy the public appetite for more "bobbies on the beat". But if the new police officers and Police Community Support Officers are deployed together according to local needs, in response to local residents' priorities such as dealing with anti-social behaviour, that could go a long way towards making people feel safer. And as we know from the experience of New York, it will cut crime rates too.

Nobody should underestimate the urgency of this task. While the courts must take a share of the responsibility for the stubbornness of the capital's crime problems, the Met must recognise that they too must improve. In a thoughtful speech earlier this week, Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin pointed to the police's role in what he dubbed "the retreat from civilisation" - their apparent indifference to many offences and to behaviour which leaves lawabiding citizens in despair.

The police must take the public's fears seriously. And they must change outdated attitudes that get in the way of improved performance - witness the Police Federation's foot-dragging over Community Support Officers. That way the Met will maintain Londoners' respect - and make a real impact on crime."

apparently London is looking to the success of the NYPD in cutting down on crime.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, it's more relevant, but notice how London police aren't being accused of abuses, are they?

I'm still not sure why you are focusing on the fact that the story is in a London paper as opposed to the content of the story. What it says about the ticketing is absolutely true, as NY papers point out pretty much every day.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"I will repeal the smoking ban and the buy-back ban," and he/she will get elected.

Bah, the smoking ban rulez!

[Boris Godunov]

While it achieves an end I find desirable, the means are very objectionable and, frankly, quite fascist. Let business owners decide if they want a legal activity like smoking in their premises, and let employees decided if they want to work in such a place or not.

It makes as much sense banning smoking in bars as it does banning drinking in them.

[Arrian]

Boris.

Or, for a more in-between option, why not have specially permitted smoking bars?

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Or just make a cash cow for the city out of requiring a smoking license, just as one needs a liquor license. Plenty of bars will buy them, generating revenue, and many won't, to keep non-smoking customers. Seems to be a reasonable compromise.

[Arrian]

Exactly what I meant, actually.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

If the officials in NY are this bad, surely it would be better to hand everything over to the Mafia - after all they have years of experience in "public service".

[HershOstropoler]

Why would the government make it illegal for bartenders to give out drinks?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Why would the government make it illegal for bartenders to give out drinks?

I suspect some misapplied theory that buybacks deprive the city of its proper tax revenue, and that they encourage public intoxication.

IMO, it would be akin to telling a prostitute in Nevada she is forbidden from having free sex with someone because it would be denying the state its tax revenue on her porking a john.