The NYPD's Patrick Lynch Problem and Why They May be Playing With Fire

     In the past I've been at a loss to figure out what it is exactly the NYPD wants, why do they hate de Blasio so much and what is it that they want?

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

     Ryan Cooper has the right answer: they just want total unconditional reverence. 

     "Reading past the unhinged rhetoric and threats, Lynch's actual position seems to be that the police deserve to be automatically exonerated whenever they injure or kill someone, regardless of circumstances, and should always receive unquestioning, worshipful deference. And this is in fact largely what cops obtain in American society."

     "The police are the third-most respected institution in the country (behind the military and small business). Cops are almost never indicted for anything, let alone convicted. Darren Wilson got off for killing Michael Brown, just like the cops that killed Garner, and the cops that killed John Crawford, McKenzie Cochran, Andy Lopez, Kimani Grey, Reynaldo Cuevas, Sean Bell, Prince Jones,Amadou Diallo, and many, many others. When a cop is charged with something, it's remarkable enough that "rare" goes in the headline."

      "But by stoking near-mutiny against the civilian leadership in New York, Lynch could potentially force a high-stakes confrontation he might well lose, and that could kneecap the cops' longstanding benefit of the doubt.

     http://theweek.com/article/index/274163/new-york-citys-police-unions-need-to-get-a-grip

     Lynch and his police union friends may be playing with fire because maybe people begin to question the esteem they are held in if this continues. The idea that they think they can basically blackmail NY city may be a wild overplaying of their hands they will regret. 

     "The tectonic plates of politics are shifting as crime continues to fall, year on year. In the days of the 20th century crime epidemic, the police enjoyed a broad mandate to crack down on crime, and largely unquestioned respect (among whites at least) for doing a dangerous job. Both those things aren't nearly as secure as they once were. The reality that America in general, and New York in particular, is a much less dangerous place than 30 years ago, will percolate through the popular consciousness."

      "De Blasio would clearly rather not get in a real political fight with the NYPD, which still enjoys wide public support. But the unions' rank insubordination or outright mutiny might force his hand. The police demanding de facto immunity from prosecution is much more politically risky than it was in 1990. Not to mention that de Blasio won election with over 73 percent of the vote, on a platform of restraining police violence."

      "Lynch and Co. might try just respecting basic democratic legitimacy. It turns out that people have a First Amendment right to protest. And elected political leadership ought to have control over the exercise of state violence."

     As the NY Times notes, it's strange that with all the passionate belief in broken windows policing, the police themselves seem to be giving it up. A year into de Blasio's tenure, none of the gloom and doom of an explosion in crime has come to fruition. Now the police seem determined to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to do their jobs-which by the way is a crime. 

     "Call this what it is: a reckless, coordinated escalation of a war between the police unions and Mr. de Blasio and a hijacking of law-enforcement policy by those who do not set law-enforcement policy. This deplorable gesture is bound to increase tension in a city already rattled over the killing by the police of an unarmed man, Eric Garner, last summer, the executions of two officers in Brooklyn last month, and the shootings on Monday of two plainclothes officers in the Bronx."

     "Mr. Bratton spoke delicately at a news conference on Monday. He said there could be other explanations, like officers being too busy handling police-reform demonstrations and attending funerals. He promised to investigate — and to “deal with it very appropriately, if we have to.”

    "Mr. de Blasio’s critics foretold doom when he was elected a year ago. They said graffiti, muggings and other crime would rush back with a vengeance. They were dead wrong — crime rates continued to decline to historic lows in 2014 — but now it seems the cops are trying to help prove them right"

     http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/opinion/no-justice-no-police.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

     Pat Lynch and the unions think they're bigger than the City, above the law. It will be interesting to see if they're proven right. I think there's reason to think that Cooper gets it right: they may well pay a price for this attempt to shakedown the city. 

     The NYT is also right that while the more assertive de Blasio we've seen this week is a good first step, he can and should do more. 

     "Mr. de Blasio, who has been cautious since the shootings, found his voice on Monday, saying for the first time that the police officers’ protests of turning their backs at the slain officers’ funerals had been disrespectful to the families of the dead. He was right, but he needs to do more."

      "He should appeal directly to the public and say plainly that the police are trying to extort him and the city he leads."

       "If the Police Department’s current commanders cannot get the cops to do their jobs, Mr. de Blasio should consider replacing them."

       "He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities."

       "He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to uphold city and state laws."