Any Way You Look at This, Cops Lose...

A young pundit writing for The Atlantic sees no easy way out for the men and women of the New York City police force, tasked with deciding whether or not to enforce "minor" infractions.

From the "Don't Enforce" gang:

If this significant work slowdown has basically no effect on the safety of New York City, the NYPD's prior policing will appear to have been needlessly aggressive, and the case for deploying more cops on the street in the future will be undermined.

Scott Shackford zeroes in on this line from the Post article: "...cops were turning a blind eye to some minor crimes and making arrests only 'when they have to' since the execution-style shootings of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu."

He riffs, "Well, we can only hope the NYPD unions and de Blasio settle their differences soon so that the police can go back to arresting people for reasons other than 'when they have to.'

The NYPD’s failure to arrest and cite people will also end up costing the city huge amounts of money that it won’t be able to seize from its citizens, which is likely the real point. That’s the 'punishment' for the de Blasio administration for not supporting them. One has to wonder if they even understand, or care, that their 'work stoppage' is giving police state critics exactly what they want—less harsh enforcement of the city’s laws."

and the more conservative viewpoint:

Others, like myself, don't object to strictly enforcing laws against, say, public urination, traffic violations, or illegal parking, but would love it if the NYPD stopped frisking innocents without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, needlessly escalating encounters with civilians, and (especially) killing unarmed people, goals that are perfectly compatible with data-driven policing that targets actual disorder. Keep squeegee men at bay–and leave innocent black and Hispanic men alone.

What if Broken Windows theory is correct and the work slowdown causes an increase in disorder and thus more serious crime? The NYPD will have put the safety and perhaps even the lives of New Yorkers in jeopardy to punish a politician for purportedly disrespecting them.

Such a course might succeed in decreasing de Blasio's popularity. But the public is unlikely to think that willfully putting New Yorkers in jeopardy to settle a political score is a forgivable tactic. It is certainly at odds with the notion that NYPD officers represent "New York's finest," heroes who willingly sacrifice themselves* to protect and serve.

The force, made up of people like Officer Ramos and Officer Liu, would be better served if civilian society decided whether or not they want officers to risk their lives patrolling and investigating small-level offenses, which often lead to violence against smaller people.

Unless society wants to continue disintegrating, the public should own those decisions. Not blame the officers who understand if they do patrol and investigate the laws as written, the public and leadership might not have their backs.
-----------------

* I have never met a police officer who considered it his or her role to "willingly sacrifice" himself to protect and serve the community. In fact, it's just the opposite: They work so no needless sacrifices are offered; that's what the debate about what the 'lawful use of force' is all about, in valuing and defending "Blue Lives".