I'm sure this has nothing to do with the union's hatred for De Blasio. From the union website:

http://www.nycpba.org/archive/ch/14/ch-1...tract.html

Quote: December 22, 2014 5:45 pm

PBA, City Continents Apart on Pay Issues As Arbitration Looms

City Offers 1% Hike Over 2 Years; Union Wants 10% Plus Major Bonuses

By RICHARD STEIER

PATRICK J. LYNCH: Proposals aiming high.

As far apart as the de Blasio administration and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association had been in their reactions to a Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict the cop at the center of the Eric Garner case, the gulf is arguably wider in their proposals for a new union contract that will soon be considered by an arbitration panel.

What we're seeing here is the police union trying to turn the screws on an administration in the midst of contract negotiations and successfully fool erstwhile anti public sector union conservatives into unwittingly taking the side of a public sector union.

(12-27-2014 10:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:34 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:16 PM)Crebman Wrote:  John, I believe Owl's point wasn't the changes themselves as much as the way he did it. If you want to lead ANY group of people, you don't start out by publicly dragging them through the mud - you can privately do it, but as soon as you do it publicly, they won't view you as a leader any longer.

Things you say campaigning and things you say after you have the job need to be different. The mayor is now seeing exactly why.

whats wrong with the way he did it? you can blame "dragging them through the mud" but law enforcement is notorious for blocking common sense reforms like those. the NYPD fought tooth & nail to keep stop & frisk. it was the equivalent of a hail mary in a game you are losing by 10 scores. look at the quotas issue. the fact that they were doing something unofficially because it was illegal to do officially should be a pretty big hint as to how this department operates.

it looks like no matter how he went about it, the NYPD would of been pissy anyways.

The beat cop didn't fight tooth and nail but suffered from de Blasio's rhetoric. It all should have been done in private.

the NYPD fought tooth & nail dude...

and last I checked all NYPD cops are part of the NYPD.

That's a pretty lame argument. NYPD cops make policy as much as a private in the military does.

a different poster already countered that point. does the military have a union?

(12-27-2014 11:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:34 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:16 PM)Crebman Wrote:  John, I believe Owl's point wasn't the changes themselves as much as the way he did it. If you want to lead ANY group of people, you don't start out by publicly dragging them through the mud - you can privately do it, but as soon as you do it publicly, they won't view you as a leader any longer.

Things you say campaigning and things you say after you have the job need to be different. The mayor is now seeing exactly why.

whats wrong with the way he did it? you can blame "dragging them through the mud" but law enforcement is notorious for blocking common sense reforms like those. the NYPD fought tooth & nail to keep stop & frisk. it was the equivalent of a hail mary in a game you are losing by 10 scores. look at the quotas issue. the fact that they were doing something unofficially because it was illegal to do officially should be a pretty big hint as to how this department operates.

it looks like no matter how he went about it, the NYPD would of been pissy anyways.

The best part - he gets to govern the city with a police force that loathes him. Hope he enjoys it.

that's the price he pays for taking the moral high ground

Moral high ground? He's just a hippie leftover from the 60's who hates "the fuzz".

yeah...sorry but you are 100% delusional. if you equate someone who is trying to make sure the police follow the law & comply with civil rights a 60s hippie then you have truly lost it.

nice job letting your personal emotions overtake facts & logic. it's not a surprise that you think stop & frisk is a non-issue & ending it wasn't a big deal. but then again you are white and whites made up only 8% of all stop & frisks. so I'm really not surprised. conservatives have the tendency to not give a damn about issues when they are not directly affected by them.

(12-28-2014 10:21 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm sure this has nothing to do with the union's hatred for De Blasio. From the union website:

http://www.nycpba.org/archive/ch/14/ch-1...tract.html

Quote: December 22, 2014 5:45 pm

PBA, City Continents Apart on Pay Issues As Arbitration Looms

City Offers 1% Hike Over 2 Years; Union Wants 10% Plus Major Bonuses

By RICHARD STEIER

PATRICK J. LYNCH: Proposals aiming high.

As far apart as the de Blasio administration and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association had been in their reactions to a Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict the cop at the center of the Eric Garner case, the gulf is arguably wider in their proposals for a new union contract that will soon be considered by an arbitration panel.

What we're seeing here is the police union trying to turn the screws on an administration in the midst of contract negotiations and successfully fool erstwhile anti public sector union conservatives into unwittingly taking the side of a public sector union.

pretty much what I have been arguing all along. the NYPD is taking advantage of partisan politics & the GOP circle jerk here.

(12-28-2014 11:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 11:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:34 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  whats wrong with the way he did it? you can blame "dragging them through the mud" but law enforcement is notorious for blocking common sense reforms like those. the NYPD fought tooth & nail to keep stop & frisk. it was the equivalent of a hail mary in a game you are losing by 10 scores. look at the quotas issue. the fact that they were doing something unofficially because it was illegal to do officially should be a pretty big hint as to how this department operates.

it looks like no matter how he went about it, the NYPD would of been pissy anyways.

The best part - he gets to govern the city with a police force that loathes him. Hope he enjoys it.

that's the price he pays for taking the moral high ground

Moral high ground? He's just a hippie leftover from the 60's who hates "the fuzz".

yeah...sorry but you are 100% delusional. if you equate someone who is trying to make sure the police follow the law & comply with civil rights a 60s hippie then you have truly lost it.

nice job letting your personal emotions overtake facts & logic. it's not a surprise that you think stop & frisk is a non-issue & ending it wasn't a big deal. but then again you are white and whites made up only 8% of all stop & frisks. so I'm really not surprised. conservatives have the tendency to not give a damn about issues when they are not directly affected by them.

A lot more blacks will die under de Blasio without stop & frisk than died under Giuliani with stop & frisk.

3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 11:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 10:34 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The best part - he gets to govern the city with a police force that loathes him. Hope he enjoys it.

that's the price he pays for taking the moral high ground

Moral high ground? He's just a hippie leftover from the 60's who hates "the fuzz".

yeah...sorry but you are 100% delusional. if you equate someone who is trying to make sure the police follow the law & comply with civil rights a 60s hippie then you have truly lost it.

nice job letting your personal emotions overtake facts & logic. it's not a surprise that you think stop & frisk is a non-issue & ending it wasn't a big deal. but then again you are white and whites made up only 8% of all stop & frisks. so I'm really not surprised. conservatives have the tendency to not give a damn about issues when they are not directly affected by them.

A lot more blacks will die under de Blasio without stop & frisk than died under Giuliani with stop & frisk.

3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

1. that is literally a fascist line of thinking. trampling on civil rights is warranted because it may reduce crime is the type of reasoning that dictators use to rise to power.

2. your argument is FOS. It's a BS talking point that the former mayor & police commish used in an attempt to justify it. That talking point consists at taking a quick glance at the stats and drawing a conclusion from that.

in reality trying to point to a reduction in crime is based on one specific policy is like trying to say the economy is improving based on one specific policy. it's political hogwash that runs counter to modern research methods. the fact of the matter is that it is very hard to truly determine whether or not a specific policy is reducing crime.

crime waves are often affected by national trends, and decades long cycles. A crime wave may often be triggered by something outside the NYPDs control. It is a total joke (which is exactly what is happening in this case) for a politician to pat himself on the back showing a major drop in the stats while ignoring that a major increase in the stats proceeded it.

if you actually look deeper into those past stats you will find that the decline in crime actually started BEFORE the implementation of S&F. and that other police tactics such as "hotspot" were proven to be far more effective.

what actually happened is that S&F was presented as the reason for declines in crime rates when the crime rate would of declined anyways for other reasons. That's why since then S&F has been shown to be ineffective.

for the record I am not saying it was the cause of the decline, but lets just say it hypothetically was responsible for said decline <== it still wouldn't f***en matter. why? because S&F in 2014 is shown to be highly ineffective.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office reviewed data from 2.4 million stops that took place between 2009 and 2012 and found that out of the 150,000 arrests that resulted from those stops, only 1.5% of them ended in jail sentences and only .1% of those arrests ended in convictions for violent crimes.

you are defending something that probably didn't work back then, even if it did work back then it certainly didn't today. And based on a fascist-like notion that sacrificing civil liberties for the improvement of society is the smart thing to do.

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

What about homicide? After all, citing that link was the most effective claim Bloomberg and Kelly used in support of stop-and-frisk. Well, here’s a piece of data you won’t hear any of the proponents tout: if you look at the 25 largest cities in the United States, only five had significantly higher homicide rates in 2010 than in 1960. Big cities—including New York City—are pretty much back where they started before the massive late-20th century crime-wave. Some of these cities did not see the stunning improvements in homicide rates that New York experienced in the 1990s, but that’s because they didn’t see dramatic increases in homicide rates in the preceding decades.

In cities where homicide rates did increase between 1960 and 1990, many display similar patterns to New York City. LA, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Charlotte saw homicide rates move nearly parallel to New York City’s, although they started from, and returned to, different prior levels. Other cities, however, have homicide rates that are even lower than they were in 1960. And still others started with higher rates and ended with lower ones. You only get the pattern proponents describe by looking arbitrarily at particular cities and decades.

Is stop and frisk unconstitutional? If it is, then it needed to be stopped. If it isn't, NYC is insane to abandon it.

(12-28-2014 12:43 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is stop and frisk unconstitutional? If it is, then it needed to be stopped. If it isn't, NYC is insane to abandon it.

considering the fact that only 12% of those stopped by S&F result in fines or convictions, & just 8% of those stopped were white, I find it pretty disturbing that you think it should only be abandoned if the constitutionality is challenged.

in the year 2002 there were 97,296 S&F

in the year 2011 that number rose to 685,724

putting the blame on the mayor for ending it is a complete joke. the fact is the NYPD dug S&F's grave themselves when they abused the hell out of a practice that was already controversial in the first place.

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

Reject not protect?

(12-28-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

(12-28-2014 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

No, it didn't. Your "point" is a lie.

(12-28-2014 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

No, it didn't. Your "point" is a lie.

no my point is that facts can still equate to misinformation when they are presented in the wrong context.

(12-28-2014 01:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."

So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

No, it didn't. Your "point" is a lie.

no my point is that facts can still equate to misinformation when they are presented in the wrong context.

I understand that is your attempted point. What you posted doesn't make that point. The quoted sentence is in fact untrue.

By the way, does the italicized portion of that post have a source?

(12-28-2014 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So if it is not a fact, what were the actual numbers?

the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

No, it didn't. Your "point" is a lie.

no my point is that facts can still equate to misinformation when they are presented in the wrong context.

I understand that is your attempted point. What you posted doesn't make that point. The quoted sentence is in fact untrue.

By the way, does the italicized portion of that post have a source?

At this point I am not even sure WTF you are even talking about. You need to add a little bit of clarity.

Good job police. Silently protesting without looting.

(12-28-2014 02:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the point went so far over your head that it's not even funny.

No, it didn't. Your "point" is a lie.

no my point is that facts can still equate to misinformation when they are presented in the wrong context.

I understand that is your attempted point. What you posted doesn't make that point. The quoted sentence is in fact untrue.
By the way, does the italicized portion of that post have a source?

At this point I am not even sure WTF you are even talking about. You need to add a little bit of clarity.

At this point, I'm fairly certain you do not comprehend WTF you are saying, much less me.
I'm repeating your post to refresh your memory.
By the quoted sentence I mean the sentence quoted in my earlier post, which is the first (non-italicized) part of your post. You've not established that anything is misinformation, probably because you cannot.
By the italicized portion, I mean the part in italics, repeated below. If you want to quote something, provide a source. And there's a fatal logical flaw in the quote, as presented.

(12-28-2014 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 11:56 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  3,000 murders per year down to 300 under Giuliani. That's not an "emotion", that's a fact.

nope, it's misinformation being protected under the cover of "well it's a fact so you can't say it's wrong."
What about homicide? After all, citing that link was the most effective claim Bloomberg and Kelly used in support of stop-and-frisk. Well, here’s a piece of data you won’t hear any of the proponents tout: if you look at the 25 largest cities in the United States, only five had significantly higher homicide rates in 2010 than in 1960. Big cities—including New York City—are pretty much back where they started before the massive late-20th century crime-wave. Some of these cities did not see the stunning improvements in homicide rates that New York experienced in the 1990s, but that’s because they didn’t see dramatic increases in homicide rates in the preceding decades.
In cities where homicide rates did increase between 1960 and 1990, many display similar patterns to New York City. LA, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Charlotte saw homicide rates move nearly parallel to New York City’s, although they started from, and returned to, different prior levels. Other cities, however, have homicide rates that are even lower than they were in 1960. And still others started with higher rates and ended with lower ones. You only get the pattern proponents describe by looking arbitrarily at particular cities and decades.

Quote:At this point, I'm fairly certain you do not comprehend WTF you are saying, much less me.

hey now, don't act like a jerk just because I called you out for posting such a vague post earlier in this thread.

Quote:By the quoted sentence I mean the sentence quoted in my earlier post, which is the first (non-italicized) part of your post. You've not established that anything is misinformation, probably because you cannot.

again still not clear what the point you are making here is. I have clearly established that it was in fact misinformation in an earlier post. Not my fault that you are throwing a hissy fit on that one.

Quote:By the italicized portion, I mean the part in italics, repeated below. If you want to quote something, provide a source.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...er/359666/

Quote:And there's a fatal logical flaw in the quote, as presented.

said by the poster who has after 4 posts has failed to make a logical argument to back up his claims and instead just slings around.

not my fault that your misunderstanding confused you, but at the end of the day that still doesn't excuse you from being a defensive jerk about the whole thing.