I thought they instituted a residency requirement way back when, maybe under Dinkins? Existing out-of-town cops would have been grandfathered in of course, but… oh why don’t I look it up.
The NYPD requires all of its cops to live in the city or designated “resident counties” - Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Nassau, and Suffolk. State law outlines other details of the residency requirement.
So no Jersey, but still not exactly cheap, and around 2-5 hours a day commuting. I thought the whole point of the requirement was so that policemen live more or less among the people they serve rather than acting as foreign interlopers? Allowing them to live way the fuck out in the exurbs undermines that intent entirely.
This is just a guess but I’m going with facial recognition software was used. Imagine the double embarrassment of the NYPD if it came out that is how he was identified.
[quote=“tekna2007, post:8, topic:65537”]
"The police say an eye witness had identified him as a suspect in a fraudulent mobile phone racket.“facial recognition software”
[/quote] An eye witness to the fraud claim or an eye witness to police facial recognition software that misidentified James Blake? Is the NYPD’s surveillance system connected directly to a database of known criminals, suspected criminals, terrorists, persons of interest, and people on the do not fly list. I’m curious to know what databases they use for their results and just how transparent the system is.
Yeah fuck that noise, maybe it could get abused, but not doing anything is, in my opinion, ten times as worse. I would go so far as to say that the blanket coverage is advocating this behaviour. At some point you have to admit that not only is your house dirty but it is also being occupied by squatters and pretty close to being outright condemned.
I’m not offering my morality to stand in judgement here. I’m saying that a code of legal conduct ought to be expected from the membership. I’m saying that they ought to follow the standards in their own code of conduct on the use of force. If they can’t and they abuse their power, then they need to be eliminated.
I’m also saying that the clear bias in favor of the police which is displayed by the District Attorney, who works closely with the police and has a reason to cut them slack, needs to be counterbalanced by a community conduct board with some power, which can cut through that bias.
Every cop has the right to legal representation. No one is suggesting that be changed.
I agree with everything you said. However, given that he hasn’t actually been convicted of breaking the law (as far as I can tell, anyway), we’re back to the “does the union pass judgement before the courts”. If it doesn’t, then it’s obligated to stand by its member. After all, it’s only allegations of criminal behaviour, not proof of such.
This is, of course, made worse by the fact that such acts by police officers rarely go to court, so clear cases of malfeasance such as this still have the officer standing with, legally speaking, a blemish-free record.
Personally, I expect any group of people doing a difficult job to band together. After all, they all understand how it’s possible to make a mistake/lose control/whatever. We naturally excuse the excesses of those who are like us and shoulder similar burdens.
What I find appalling is that those in command should recognize this natural behaviour, and counterbalance it with the knowledge that that those in such positions of power must be held to a higher level of responsibility.
If you are supposed to be in charge, then you don’t join the tribe. At least not when public safety is on the line.
I agree. However, standing in support of the member until judgement is passed does not excuse turning their collective backs on the mayor and thumbing their collective noses at the public. It may help the union leadership get re-elected, but it doesn’t win them any friends in the public at large.
The bigger question is do they want the support of the public so they can do their job? If so, it would be in everyone’s interest for them to take steps to prevent further abuse of power. If that means assisting the investigation by allowing other officers to speak freely, they should do that. If that means expressing condolences to a wrongly injured citizen, they should do that. Throwing up a solid blue stonewall and refusing to accept any responsibility is counterproductive.
What I have to wonder is how a bite on the fist caused Officer Friendly to become “sick, sore, lame and disabled…(and) has been permanently injured”.
I assume that people do bite cops from time to time, it’s an ancient strategy for improvised assault when your hands aren’t necessarily available; but if something in your saliva is doing that to your targets your local infectious disease control professionals would like an urgent word with you.
That seems like the sort of case where, if merited, there is a horrifying medical record with some surgeon dispassionately describing the process of attempting to save the patient’s tendon capsules from progressive necrosis; and otherwise it’s absurd puffery about an injury that got a quick swab of disinfectant, a band-aid, and light use for a week or so.
