T he upside of boss rule in the City Council is that the speaker can keep really bad bills from ever coming to a vote — as Christine Quinn has proven time and again over the past seven-plus years. Now, running for mayor, she has uncharacteristically given the go-ahead to a real stinker called the Community Safety Act. She says she will vote against the measure (good for her) while it likely passes (terrible for the city).
The misbegotten legislation would bar cops from relying “to any degree” on a vertigo-inducing array of descriptors as the “determinative factor” in stopping, questioning or arresting people suspected of criminality.
The forbidden descriptors include race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, immigration or citizenship status, disability (including HIV status) or occupation.
Here’s how that plays out:
“Officer, I was just robbed by a white man who walked with a limp and was about 5-foot-5.”
“Sorry, ma’am, I can’t look for a disabled white guy, but I will put out an APB on a 5-foot-5 robber of undetermined sex.”
The bill bids fair to turn every pinch into a lawsuit because of the difficulty of singling out the determinative factor in any arrest.
Did a cop zero in on someone because a witness identified a perpetrator as coming from a particular country and because someone who appeared to be from that country was at the scene of the crime? That would be a no-no and subject to legal action.
Sponsors of the legislation oppose the department’s program of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people suspected of criminality. They believe that many of the stops are the product of racial profiling.
While they are wrong on that point, profiling is already barred by law and NYPD regulation. Individuals who feel victimized can seek redress through the Civilian Complaint Review Board or civil rights suits.
Those actions require evidence that a cop intentionally discriminated — a fair, tough standard of proof. Under the Council’s bill, an aggrieved citizen could sue based only on a claim that a cop relied primarily on a forbidden descriptor.
Leaving aside that she okayed a vote, Quinn is right to oppose the bill, as are Democratic rival Bill Thompson and Republican Joe Lhota. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Controller John Liu, both Democrats, have jumped on this anticop bandwagon and are foolishly wrong for it.
www.nydailynews.com/opini...1.1328756#commentpostform
Poster Comment:
This bill isn't anti-cop, it's anti sanity and a byproduct of PC that bows to the wishes of minorities.