Bloomberg Defends Stop-And-Frisk, Decries Critics 'Pointing Fingers From City Hall' By Pointing Fingers From NYPD Headquarters

from the pot-decries-kettles'-blackness;-NYPD-books-same,-citing-'public-blacknes dept

Fri, May 3rd 2013 9:34am — Tim Cushing

Everything questionable that Bloomberg has overseen in his position as mayor of New York -- all the civil rights violations, all the increased surveillance, all the the dubious actions and policies that sent the message that Bloomberg was very interested in crafting a hybrid nanny/police state -- is coming home to roost.

With the police force under attack from multiple lawsuits and his soda ban overturned by a NY judge for being "arbitrary and capricious" (name a ban that isn't), Bloomberg is on the defensive -- and he sounds it. Rather than addressing concerns with thoughtful answers, the mayor has decided to respond by lashing out at his critics and backing up his dubious claims with even worse rationale.

Bloomberg pointed fingers and threw out the obligatory 9/11 card during his speech/diatribe delivered from the friendly confines of the NYPD headquarters. Bloomberg's comments hold everyone accountable for the current unpleasantness (and future theoretic unpleasantness) -- everyone but Bloomberg and the NYPD. The arguments Bloomberg uses are so abysmal it's almost possible to believe this is a very broadly played satire, rather than an actual event that actually happened. Just take a look at this statement.

“God forbid terrorists succeed in striking our city because of a politically driven law that undermines the N.Y.P.D.’s intelligence gathering efforts,” he said.

"Terrorists." "God forbid." Someone needs to find a new rhetorical device.

Believe it or not, this is Bloomberg's argument against appointing an independent Inspector General to review police policies. The argument has two parts, both equally awful. The first uses the tired "but terrorism" threat/excuse/cliche. The second part actually makes the claim that an Inspector General would result in other agencies being less willing to share info with the NYPD. That may be true, but why is it true and why is this an "acceptable" truth? To put it in words frequently directed towards US citizens: what do they have to hide?

Bloomberg's words play to the home crowd (NYPD) , but holy shit is that an ugly bit of truth to (inadvertently) drop in the middle of a loaded sentence. If NYPD intelligence gathering is "undermined" by the presence of independent oversight, the problem is with the NYPD and every agency that decideds to cut them out of the loop, willfully endangering the public in favor of CYA opacity.

Bloomberg said more, but this statement is just terrible. It indicates there's an acceptable level of corruption within the police force and that the mayor has no interest in addressing that issue. Everything else becomes so much banality aimed at satiating his audience, a collection of NYPD police chiefs. There's terrorism (again):

“Look at what’s happened in Boston,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Remember what happened here on 9/11. Remember all of those who’ve been killed by gun violence and the families they left behind.”

OK. And what? Honor their memories by giving the police carte blanche to shove any citizen up against the nearest wall and pat them down? Cover every inch of the city with cameras, microphones and facial recognition software in hopes of "preventing" a statistically anomalous event (and proclaiming victory when the more statistically probable nothing continues to happen)?

To top this all off, Bloomberg steps past the empty rhetoric and defense of shady police "business as usual" to hypocritically deride others for "playing politics with people's lives."

“The attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe, but rather, view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall,” he said.

Said the man who is City Hall, pointing fingers from NYPD headquarters.

Bloomberg's statements are ugly, but at least they were delivered out in the open, rather than in a closed-door meeting with the "home team." All of Bloomberg's finger pointing and cheap rationale is a matter of public record. This is a small, inadvertent, victory. Bloomberg wants his constituents' lives to be open books, but wants the NYPD to remain an inscrutable, unassailable means of enforcement and "security." That's a load of crap and Bloomberg seems to be having trouble shoveling it correctly. If he keeps feeling this sort of heat, we may see him slipping into full blown opacity or devolving even further into a ranting apologist for systemic failure.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: new york, nypd, stop and frisk, surveillance

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Akari Mizunashi (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 7:10am

I'd have sympathy, but...

This is a mayor who signed a law allowing him a third term.

Third term implies the public voted him into office for a second term.

Lesser of two evils.

Though, I doubt Satan would have tried to ban large sodas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  Though, I doubt Satan would have tried to ban large sodas.
  
  considering most places in the US allow refills it may be actually a service to the population so they'll save money? I personally don't understand why Americans ask for the big combo when they can drink soda ad nauseam even if they ask for the small glass =/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler77 (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    That would require getting off their fat asses and waddeling over to the dispenser. Too much effort.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because not everyone wants to be anchored to a soda dispenser?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    I rarely order a large (btw, I only drink unsweetened iced tea, so I'm filling my body with flavored caffeinated water, not HFCS)...
    
    However, I do when I have a long drive ahead, and want extra "to go"... I like to stay hydrated, and have a bladder like a super-tanker, so :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Now that could be a good reason but I'd go for a bottle. Better to maintain the flavor and characteristics.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vidiot (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for sharing!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AzureSky (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    convenient stores do not, many offer a discount if you bring ur own cup or a cup to refill, but that dosnt help when your gonna be stuck in traffic a long time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AzureSky (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  welcome to merkia, the land of "blame somebody else"
  
  fat: blame mcdonalds
  
  fat kids: blame mcdonands for forcing you and your kids to eat fast food.
  
  diabetic: blame large soda's because you cant control your intake and cant be bothered to get off ur arse and exercise.
  
  harm yourself using a simple product: blame the maker and product rather then admit your a dumbass.
  
  i could go on and on, i mean The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy nad it right, any world/society that needs instructions on a packet of toothpicks.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2013 @ 12:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be fair, you don't have to be overweight or out of shape to be diabetic. Diabetes is caused by genetics, not diet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 7:11am

Yes, the terrorists won...
What we have is the biggest terrorist in the country. He suppressed peaceful protests for "cleanliness" reasons. He's locked up people, ruining their lives for a Drug War that doesn't work. He took bribes from banks to suppress the public he was supposed to serve and his police force has Ann illegal quota system to uphold.

He uses fear and terror like a baron in the time of feudalism deciding to suppress the peasantry with minorities being the serfs in this day and age.

It's time to recognize that leaders like this do not need positions of power. They need to be locked up for their crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: Yes, the terrorists won...
  He suppressed peaceful protests for "cleanliness" reasons.
  
  To be honest those poor protesters were in the middle of Wall Street filth so maybe it was out of good will. I wouldn't bear sharing the same vicinity with the likes of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and so on...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re: Yes, the terrorists won...
    Yeah but one or two of those Powerpoint presentations those "poor protestors" put on were kind of sloppy. And that, as the view from the top dictates, is just inexcusable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: Yes, the terrorists won...
  Bloomberg is the Nanny Asshole ! Want to talk Terrorism how about this......A bunch of New Yorkers finally sick of this Nanny Overlord grab him off the street and take him down to St. Marks.........Force him to drink 32 ounce bottles of Soda.Smoke some Cigarettes.Lay him down next to some of the pan handling scum punks for Take Your Picture With Nanny Mayor....
  Thinking of how much fun could be had by New Yorkers sick of this bastard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 9:41am

name a ban that isn't
How about a ban on bans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: name a ban that isn't
  I never found Ban roll-on to be arbitrary or capricious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: name a ban that isn't
  "How about a ban on bans?"
  
  Nope. That's been banned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 9:45am

so who were the dopes that gave him the job? what other choices were there and, more importantly, what choices will there be come next election? in all honesty, how many times have voters been swept up in the run up talks, then found once it's too late that the person they just voted in is a complete fucking moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:56am

How would his stop & frisk policy have prevented what happened in Boston? What are the odds that 2 fanatics in a crowd of thousands would have been frisked? Those odds are even higher since the bombers were not black. We went to war against Hitler so we would not have to live in such a police state.
Another question; Was there anything in his ban on the size of soda cups that would have prevented you from buying 2 medium drinks instead of one large one? Would the vender have to interrogate you if the second one was for someone else? Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  We went to war against Hitler so we would not have to live in such a police state
  
  I wish the ideals of the people were shared by those with power, then and now, moreso now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AzureSky (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  no, you could by as many smaller soda's as you liked, they just wanted to make sure you couldnt buy a single large soda because, that makes kids fat....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 9:56am

Frisk bloomberg
That's the obvious first choice.

amount of guns/illegal drugs to be found as a result? if you don't tell us, then the terrorists win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler, 3 May 2013 @ 10:10am

Bans
With the police force under attack from multiple lawsuits and his soda ban overturned by a NY judge for being "arbitrary and capricious" (name a ban that isn't),

Asbestos, just off the top of my head. And leaded gasoline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: Bans
  What? There's a ban on those too?
  
  Great...like the soda ban wasn't bad enough...
  
  I swear, those health nuts won't be happy until we are all eating grass and drinking rainwater.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re: Bans
    Those two have been banned for a very long time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: Bans
    ... drinking rainwater.
    
    That's assault on the water table/aquifer. Ask Oregon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 3 May 2013 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: Bans
  Don't forget DDT. And CFCs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Bans
    Speaking of CFCs, don't know if it has ever been covered here but the ban on R-12 (Freon) refrigerant in car air conditioners was because DuPont's patent on it had run out. By forcing the switch to R-134a it started the clock all over again. Freon was patented in early 40s, patents expired by 60s when DuPont introduced (evergreened) a new kind of freon. Then by 1974 (when the new patent was soon to expire) DuPont noticed an article that suggested ozone depletion and came up with the alternative that they claimed didn't interfere with ozone.
    
    I used to run a degreaser at Boeing that used a similar CFC called Perchlorethylene. We were allowed by the EPA to use up to 400 GALLONS per month. Doing the math this one machine could put the amount of CFCs into the atmosphere in a year that would be in over 600,000 cars.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:23am
  
  Re: Bans
  That. But I think he meant bans in general, not scientifically supported bans. Those tend to be reasonable and are actually lacking behind of what needs to be banned entirely or properly regulated (and I'm looking at chemicals used both in the productive chain and as final products only).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 10:15am

When's NYC's next mayoral election? I think by then he'll have worn out his welcome and won't get to take advantage of that third term he championed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  I f surveillance does not find something on his opponents, there is always a stop and frisk to do the job.
  /S
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 10:52am

Probably controversial
This is probably highly controversial to say, but I'm of the opinion that the 9/11 terrorist strikes weren't a bad thing. Sure, they were awful for all the aftermath like the PATRIOT Act and idiots who willingly gave up freedom in return for invasions of their privacy. Of course it is a tragedy for all the emergency response people, volunteers, and innocent bystanders that were part of the collateral damage, particularly those who survived but now exist with crippling physical ailments. Especially those unable to afford healthcare because greed is an admirable trait in America. But I have no love for greedy capitalists or war mongers, both distinctly lack a functioning sense of morals.

Why 9/11 wasn't a bad thing is this- the World Trade Center was just a bunch of Wall Street assholes. The same sort of people who were gleefully participating in what would turn out to be so reckless as to ruin the USA's economy and in a domino effect severely affect the world economy as a result (and to this day continue to ruin lives without real consequence). And the Pentagon? War mongering doesn't beget peace, love and tolerance, so why feel bad for people who actively work to create misery and devastation of other people? Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Probably controversial
  Maybe if the right people were killed in the incidents and not a bunch of innocents just doing their jobs. And honestly, the system is set up, it doesn't matter if you remove a few players. We've reached a point where it is self-sustainable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: Probably controversial
  Aside from murder always being a bad thing, the attacks were a bad thing for another simple reason: the response of the US government was to collectively punish us all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITWARZ, 3 May 2013 @ 11:56am

...a way out for all conerned?..
All police contact in NYC and everywhere else, should be made on video. The technology is available and cities like Stamford Ct. are embracing it. Surely the technology capitol of the world, NYC should. The camera is worn as part of the officers equipment. What does the mayor of Stamford understand that our mayor doesn't? All stops could then be reviewed and a fair and unbiased assessment made of the stops legality. And we can all move on. - ITWARZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITWARZ, 3 May 2013 @ 12:02pm

...a way out for all conerned?.. Continued...
The PVR-LE2 is the newest generation of wearable police camera designed specifically for organizations, or individuals that need to video document their actions. The LE2 easily clips to a police or security uniform to record the actions of the wearer and those around them. Vital evidence is captured to assist in reporting and for later use in court. The LE2 requires the VERIPATROL software system to securely store and manage video files. The LE2 camera and VERIPATROL software utilizes a Digital Signature process that marks each video with a digital hash certificate to prove that the video has not been altered. The Digital Signature process is FIPS 140-2 compliant. VidLock security prevents unauthorized access if the camera is lost or stolen. The LE2 camera is available in both a green or black lens color. - ITWARZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 3 May 2013 @ 4:09pm

I have a certain finger to point at Bloomberg and the NYPD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 7:11pm

Lost
And this fucking guy is the leader of one of the largest cities in the free world? A fucking pussy, leading an entire city, with a pussy police chief - afraid of fucking everything and in full pursuit of paramatising the existance of a human being living in what used to be the achievement of the ages. Freedom means risk. RISK. Attempt to eliminate risk and what you're actually achieving is a totalitarian, authoritarian and fully controlled existence. BRAV-fucking-O.

Take a god damn hike you piece shit and now before you get some on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]