rule of law: overseers and their tribal supporters furious about a little sunlight and disinfectant...,

theatlantic |  in the course of defending the NYPD, the right is now lending credibility to the notion that harsh but totally nonviolent criticism of public employees makes one partly responsible if they are attacked by a lunatic–as well as the idea that public employees who feel disrespected by elected officials ought to be appeased with an apology. As City Journal takes well-desserved shots at Sharpton, condemns the rare protestors who disgustingly chant for dead cops, and publishes plausible defenses of Broken Windows policing, it would do well to start regarding misbehaving police with as much concern as it routinely marshals for misbehaving teachers, rather than proceeding as if cops are the one category of public employees who can do no wrong, despite ample evidence to the contrary and even as police unions openly intervene to keep the worst cops from being terminated.

A publication with a proud history of urging necessary reforms in New York City ought to be on the front lines of improving its scandal-prone police department and protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of innocents, rather than overlooking all manner of misdeeds so long as crime rates are low. At the very least, it should stop acting as if those who do criticize misbehaving police officers are any more responsible for the extremely rare instances in which they're murdered than City Journal would be responsible for an assault on a representative from the California Teacher's Association. For good reason, City Journal authors bristle at the propagandistic notion that they are "attacking all teachers." Neither are police reform advocates attacking all officers, not any more than black and brown men with badges who say racial bias exists in New York City. NYPD defenders believe that further crime reductions can only occur if police are afforded a larger degree of respect. They ought to dedicate some time and energy to reforming the police department so that it is more respectable.

---

*Consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of Stop-and-Frisk encounters involve people who've committed no crime and are sent on their way without arrest or citation. NYPD defenders are fond of arguing that every statistic about racial disparities in arrests and stops are explained by the fact that blacks tend to live in more dangerous neighborhoods and commit crimes at higher rates. What of the large majority of blacks who are following the law when police mass in their neighborhood? Their liberties seem to be regarded as collateral damage.

In fact, police who mass in the same neighborhood day after day have a heightened responsibility to make sure that their attempt to catch criminals and increase order doesn't continually violate the rights of innocent residents–the NYPD is, after all, obliged to abide by the 4th Amendment. They make a mockery of "reasonable suspicion" when the people they purportedly suspect are doing no wrong 8 or 9 times out of ten. How many times would you need to be stopped and frisked while doing no wrong to develop resentment of the officers detaining you? NYPD defenders never assign any responsibility for the rift that results to police, even though any community of any race subject to Stop and Frisk would resent it. Imagine how Wall Street bankers would react if subjected to it for a single week.