Difference in coverage between the NYT (left) and the Post (right). NYT dismisses family's fear and instead of quoting sister more jumps to "crime is rare," and quotes random #defund supporter who blames policing and a not yet happened Supreme Court decision, naturally.
Does the victim's family's fear really need to be balanced by a man who "blamed the erosion in safety on the focus on police tactics." What is his relevance/expertise? And of course he is a 32-year-old white guy in Brooklyn who works for WeWork and has been in NYC for ~8 years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just your occasional reminder that five years ago there were _zero_ murders on the subway. And then deBlasio's office told the NYPD to stop enforcing many subway rules.
"Man Shot Dead in Unprovoked Q Train Attack Over Manhattan Bridge: NYPD"
There's something about the New Yorker celebrating Boudin for her "revolutionary" "energy" and "idealism" (not just for the obvious murderous reasons). Had Boudin succeeded, the first people her Maoist revolution would've killed would be every damn staff writer at the New Yorker.
Don't support what you don't support. Leave it to brownstoning Brooklyn to fine revolutionary "energy" inspiring. The revolution will not be amused. I recommend Days of Rage, book by Burrough. When people blow up buildings and murder people for revolution, my god, believe them!
Then as now, the privileged white revolutionaries simply could not believe working class people of color were not rushing to embrace their cause.
1994 was the first year NYPD started caring about crime and thus began the greatest crime drop in American history.
The "progressive" take: those were the bad years. Not the high crime years. The crime reduction years. nyti.ms/3koedGu
I keep going back to this: if you don't want policing, it's good policing that scares you most. Meanwhile the crime drop gets one sentence. And only to say the policies were "devastating." Even though by the end of the decade incarceration was going down in New York State.
Apparently community-based violence interrupters are going to solve everything. In 1990 the progressive solution was "drug treatment on demand." That didn't happen either. FWIW, gun control was also on the list. That was part of, wait for it, the 1994 crime bill.
You should have seen this police critic single-handedly disarm 3 armed suspects who had 5 guns. Total badass. So he knows what he's talking about.
Remember, these reformers don't want policing. They're not just against bad policing; they're against good policing.
I mean police abolitionists literally complain because these cops only got one loaded gun off the street. Making fun of police. Calling it "lame." Dudes who never faced a loaded gun in their life. What the serious ef.
They hate good policing.
Now let's fact check:
Not true
Probably true
Not true
Not at all true.
Not true.
Not true.
Not true.
This is important in terms drug policy, public behavior, and policing. Indeed, most European countries have been less punitive than America in terms of drug laws. But being an addict in Portugal or NL doesn't give one carte blanche to ignore basic rules of civil society.
Some of us love to point to the NL and Portugal as examples of better drug policy. And for good reason! But when American progressive get the drug memo, it's like they're blind to the coercive part of effective public drug policy, especially with regards to public space.
It's not reactionary to say, "You can't do that here." You don't have to solve every other social problem first. You do, in addition, need more mental health care beds and other social and treatment programs.