What If The NYPD Threw A War, And Nobody Came?

The NYPD has declared war, and part of it involves not pursuing minor criminals. Is that a bad thing?

Changes in NYPD policy since the murder of two officers include a a work "slowdown".

Via xxlmag.com

What if the police threw a war and no one came? I know, my twist on the old hippie mantra (actually a bastardized line from a poem written in the 1930's) is kind of cheesy. But, it's a question that came to mind earlier today as I was reading New York Times editorial and I'd like to dig into it a bit more deeply .

For those that exist in a media universe that consists solely of recounting the trends of 2014, and binge watching The Wire in HD, or for posterity, I'll remind you that the NYPD is currently in a state of high alert. You see, when the current Mayor of NYC, Bill DeBlasio, was campaigning, he earned a large portion of his support by promising to curb what were seen to be overbearing, and at times abusive, behaviors by the NYPD. This included, but was not limited to, ending the controversial stop and frisk policies criticized by many for unfairly targeting minorities.

Arriving amid growing national discontent concerning police use of force, and increasing polarization regarding police accountability, the acquittal of an NYPD officer for the killing of Eric Garner spawned large protests. These protests occurred not only in NYC, but nationwide and globally. The situation took an even more tragic turn recently, when a fugitive murdered two NYC cops, claiming revenge for previous police killings of unarmed black men. Blame for the murder of these officers was promptly placed at Gracie Mansion's doorstep, with police union reps, pundits, and ex-NY Gov. George Pataki claiming that Mayor DeBlasio's behavior led directly to the death of the two officers and that the Mayor had "blood on his hands".

In response to the deaths of these two officers, the NYPD has gone on a war footing.

Why am I rehashing all of this? Well, in response to the deaths of these two officers, the NYPD has gone on a war footing. Against whom? No one's really certain. However, their wartime preparations include, responding in greater numbers to calls, remaining armed even when off duty, and most notably, "turning a blind eye to minor offenses". All actions that should significantly affect the citizens of NYC and their daily lives, right?

We could argue about who's to blame or whether the Mayor is bungling relations with the cops, but that's less interesting to me than another question -- what will the effect of this police "slowdown" be? People are already reporting that response times to calls for police have gotten absurdly long, and that arrests and summons by the NYPD for minor offenses have nearly come to a standstill. Arrests and citations for offenses like public drinking and urination, or drug arrests are down around 90% from the same time last year, with a reported 66% drop in arrests across the board.

I'm from New York, but I haven't lived there in some time. I've still got a huge number of family and friends there, and none of them are reporting that NYC has devolved into scenes from The Purge. That's hardly a scientific measure, but I've gotta wonder what this all means, and what larger lessons we can draw from this police "slowdown". Now, it goes without saying that if I'd experienced a 66% productivity drop at any job that I've ever had a long, and potentially final, conversation with my boss would swiftly follow. Given that police officers are public servants charged with protecting and serving the public that pays them, the situation is a little different. How should the citizens and political leadership of NYC react to this? Does it matter?

Upon a bit of little consideration, I've come to two main possibilities. The first possibility is that it actually DOES matter that they are turning a blind eye towards crime. In that case, either the NYPD is putting their own safety ahead of the millions of people that they are supposed to protect, or they are putting the safety of millions of people to go at risk simply to prove a point. Either of these is plainly unacceptable coming from a group whose stated purpose is to protect and serve.

The second possibility, is that turning a blind eye to these minor crimes will hurt no one. Everyone goes on about their business, quality of life is maintained, and no one suffers because the police have adopted a more laissez-faire attitude. If this is the case, the citizens of NYC have to wonder why cops have been arresting so many people for so long? What did all of those arrests achieve? And why does NYC need to have so many cops? If they could have do this without people being harmed as a result, why haven't they done this before? If quality of life doesn't diminish when they are doing their job 66% less than they were last year, it seems like some percentage of the force is unnecessary, and pursuing (or overpursuing) petty crime simply to justify their own paycheck.

I'm not a person that thinks that police are unnecessary. There are serious dangers in the world and I believe that a dedicated force of people is necessary to protect society from the worst impulses of our fellow humans. But despite the good and necessary work that police do, I don't want to be policed any more than is absolutely necessary. And I certainly don't want to be harassed, bullied, or abused by people that are being paid with tax dollars to protect and serve.

But how much policing is absolutely necessary? This "slowdown" in NYC might be an opportunity to answer some of that question. Might we discover that huge swaths of their everyday policing activities were not only unnecessary, but actually harming the relationship that we citizens have with the police? In light of statistics that tell us that crime is at historic lows across the country (including NYC), I think that these are questions that need to be asked.

Which brings me back to the initial question: what if the NYPD threw a war and nobody came? I'm not sure, but we may find out soon.