Thread by @JoeBorelliNYC

The incident at @tjmaxx in the 13th precinct IS the problem with @ManhattanDA’s policies.

- Man with 12 prior arrests goes to TJ Maxx at 620 6th Ave
- attempts to remove clothing
- store security attempts to stop him
- he brandishes orange shears & threatens security guards (1)

-security camera captures suspect as he walks out door
- police officer locates suspect nearby, interaction smooth, she recovers both the shears & stolen property

(Here’s where Bragg comes in…)
-last night, PO refused to sign the petit larceny affidavit she was given by ADA (2)

- Affidavit only said “defendant stole and possessed stolen property” & not that he displayed and threatened cutting shears.
- PO stated to ADA the affidavit didnt accurately reflect elements of the crime where the property was forcibly removed w the threat of physical injury (3)

- PO said she would not sign and attest to its accuracy and truthfulness… (because it was a lie, based on Bragg’s policy)
- Confronted with the truth, the ADA amended the affidavit, but still charged a misdemeanor petit larceny.

* But had this affidavit went through… (4)

- the judge &/or jury would never be able to hear about the sheers, or the threat. It’s inadmissible
- the defendant would be given diversion based on this misdemeanor, assuming he completes it, he likely will never be formally tried. No record, no punishment. Less crime, see!(5)

- He may still get diversion, certainly no bail, just because he is only charged with a misdemeanor.

The question I have is this: why do cops, or security guards for that matter, even bother?

Police interactions have an inherent risk of going sour. Why risk it? For what?
(6)

Our #NYPD are second to none… if one of our officers sees a baby getting snatched, they’re going to stop it. Trust me.

But if that same officer sees a mugger snatching a wallet, at what point will they weigh the risk/reward?

@ManhattanDA is changing that algorithm.