Recently I got an email I thought I'd share regarding a comment made on the Yahoo list serve. I've heard it enough times anecdotally, and twice to my face - local cops saying "why don't you move?" or "what did you expect?" or "what are you doing in this neighborhood anyway?" There are many stereotypes that exist about police (and about whites moving into majority black neighborhoods for that matter), but one thing is certain - most policemen do not live in the neighborhood they serve, and a huge proportion live in leafier parts of the metropolitan area. It's not just longtime black or immigrant Brooklynites who experience the cultural disconnect; there's long been a blue-collar/white-collar divide in this country that can expose a gap nearly as wide, often within people of the same ethnic origin. Dating back to the days when the NYPD was largely Irish (many still are, of course), NYC residents have often viewed the cops as a breed apart - to be feared, but sometimes even ridiculed. I think of all the movies and TV portrayals of dumb Irish cops I've seen through the years. It's often uncomfortable to confront the stereotyper in all of us. Hey, I still feel comfortable mocking a Transylvanian accent when I do my best Dracula impression. "The Sopranos," as entertaining as it was, probably set back attitudes about Italian-Americans a few decades. Even the "immigrants work hard" statement implies that others don't - it's an implicit stereotype that we're reinforcing.
What does this have to do with the price of donuts? Well, I know it offended me the first time a cop told me to "move" when I asked what could be done about the knuckleheads on my block. But just as a Tottenville, Staten Islander might not understand the new young educated person's desire to live in central Brooklyn, that same youngster might not understand why anyone would want to live in the homogenous suburbs. The point is that we all want safer streets and homes and trains and buses and parks. If we live here, we don't want our choices (or circumstances) questioned. Case in point below from a reader, who retells and examines one such incident:
It makes me happy to see so many of us jumping at the comment made by police. It's been interesting to see how the police react to each of the different times I've interacted with them. There does often seem to be an exaggeration, I've been told by many officers that I should reconsider living in the area bc bluntly, I'm a young, nice, white female. I push back against the comment every time, expressing how wonderful the neighborhood is, how much I love my neighbors and we watch out for each other. I've lived in the area since the summer of 2009 and the few "incidents" I've had could have happened back home in Boulder, Colorado. And none of them involved a weapon or violence, or robbing me, Ramble.
It seems there is so much collective effort being done on the relationship between the community and the police, including the wonderful (and reportedly successful) efforts to add beat cops to Flatbush and Nostrand. In light of these recent comments towards this particular crime [mugging mentioned in list serve], I continue shaking my head at the extreme disconnect between NYPD's vision and attitude towards this neighborhood and the reality for us living here. (This goes both ways too--the perception of frequent violent crimes on one side and the ignoring of drug dealing out in the open on the other.) And the inequality of resource distribution on all these fronts. (I could write a whole novel on the incident whereby SWAT knocked down the door of an apartment above me one Saturday morning at 5am...to recover basically nothing, while i watched three deal happen on the street 1/2 block away).POINT: is it time to rethink how we are approaching our relationship with the police as a community? What previous efforts have been made and who is currently leading our liaisoning with the 71st? I'm right on the border at Clarkson but was in the 71st when I was living on Empire. My negative interactions have been with the 71st while my (albeit slightly) better ones have been with the 67th.Anyways. I have some background in community organizing, but more than that I want a better relationship with the police. Of course there are a lot of overarching policy barriers that will always cause friction, including the ridiculousness that is CompStat/CrimeStat and how numbers are reported. I could go on about some of the idiocy but at the end of the day, the cops have to work within the same bureaucracy. On some level, I think its about getting them to see the neighborhood through our lens, not theirs. Is it time to rethink our approach? And if so, who... is we? Can we have a sit down with them, presentation, well formed, thoughtful, about this disconnect? IDK. Am I an idealist?
Anyone want to chime in?
37 comments:
Are we sure this happens because of individual officers' attitudes or is it a strategy that comes from the top? Beat cops don't determine how many resources to give a certain area. The bosses and city leaders do. It doesn't matter who they're serving, white, black, rich, poor the law is the law and the NYPD is supposed to enforce it. That's what we pay them for. If they apply the law completely differently on Flatbush Ave than they do on Park Ave that's corrupt.
My boyfriend was coming home after a woman was shot and killed on our block a few months ago and a cop guarding the police barricade asked him "why do you live here? Why not move to another neighborhood?" I hope we can make our message loud and clear to the new beat cops that we think that kind of attitude is disgraceful and reflects a failure of certain officers to serve the community.
I've always thought that a long-term solution to the problem under discussion would be to require newly hired Police Officers to live in NYC. This has applied to most City employees for years [I think--I've been retired for 11 years and stopped reading the Chief, so perhaps it's changed without my knowing] but not Police Officers. It would not be easy--it might not even be politically possible. The state Public Officers Law permits NYC POs to live in adjacent counties (plus some non-adjacent ones, like Orange and Rockland) and that would need changing, over, I'm sure. the very forceful objections of the PBA. Still, it might be worth a try.
I think some years ago (but I might be wrong), Police were required to live in the city and that's the reason so many lived on S.I. but that rule changed. I stopped calling the cops because they suggested I move every time. When I first moved here a cop gave me a hard time because I was double-parked unloading and a neighbor said: You know who they hate more than us? Whites who live here with us. I've never forgotten that and never bother with them.
I've also encountered that "why would any sane person who didn't have to live here, live here" attitude among the NYPD and it is certainly exasperating (especially since NYC is so so much safer than it was when I moved here 3 decades ago...)
But I think it might help to remember that police officers spend their days and nights generally interacting with the worst among us—the criminal, the disturbed, the dysfunctional, the addicted, and the just plain angry. Or assisting the rest of us at our worst; upset, injured, or victimized. It's bound to skew your perspective, no? Meanwhile, the vast majority of us go about our lives without incident and without police attention. (And if we do have occasion to deal with an officer, often it's to complain about something they haven't done...)
No doubt there are some stupid, racist cops. And some lazy ones. And probably there are some real heroes out there too. But I'm guessing most are hard-working regular people who are trying their best at dealing with those whose lives are pretty badly broken. It's bound to harden them and cause them to wonder why anyone who didn't have to be around it would stay close by. But our experience of our fine neighborhood is rarely their experience. And vice versa.
Anonymous [5:01PM] said...
I think some years ago (but I might be wrong), Police were required to live in the city and that's the reason so many lived on S.I. but that rule changed.
Possibly, but that would have had to have been before my time with City government, which started in 1972.
Diak wrote:
"our experience of our fine neighborhood is rarely their experience. And vice versa".
That's probably so, but they can be trained, or ORDERED by their supervisors to keep their destructive, negative, and hateful views to themselves.
hear, hear! thanks Diak. such a well thought out and informed opinion...
clarkson flatbed said:
"Of course there are a lot of overarching policy barriers that will always cause friction, including the ridiculousness that is CompStat/CrimeStat and how numbers are reported."
How about an example of the "ridiculousness" of the CompStat/CrimeStat data?
The subtext of the original post and of most responses is to put some of the blame for crime on the police themselves. As though their existence and presence somehow causes the crime rate to increase.
How the heck would requiring cops to live in NY City improve the safety of the city?
Meanwhile, don't people have lives outside their workplace? Families?
Why would cops, fireman and teachers with young families want to live in areas with lousy schools? While there are many excellent schools in the city, far more are sub-standard. Who wants their kids caught up in the sub-standard schools?
Then there's the price of real estate. Which is more affordable? city or suburbs? There's no doubt the more distant suburbs are cheaper. More bang for the housing buck.
Should citizens expect cops to choose the more expensive housing alternative? If the answer's "yes", then the next demand from cops would be a housing subsidy.
Why did the cop's question, as filled with contempt for criminals as it was, disturb people? Isn't an ounce of prevention worth more than a pound of cure?
Isn't the best way to avoid trouble to stay out of areas where trouble is most often found?
Police Commissioner Kelly made it clear that one of the best crime-fighting techniques available is the Stop-Question-and-Frisk.
The possibility of getting caught with a gun deters a lot of the usual suspects from carrying them. So a lot of them leave their guns at home.
Crime Story: I think you entirely missed the point that I was trying to make. But your points themselves are persuasive. You certainly articulated the PBA and Ray Kelly's positions.
But not everyone, including the cops, believes Compstat works as advertised. Please see the following article written by a former PBA chief Robert Zink to see the distortions and pressures on precinct captains created by Compstat: http://www.nycpba.org/publications/mag-04-summer/compstat.html. Just like teacher evaluations, it has its uses, but shouldn't be the be-all-end-all method of marking effectiveness and progress.
Forcing employees to live within a certain geography sounds a wee bit unconstitutional to me. The NYPD has made great strides in terms of diversity however, but has a long way to go, particularly at the level of promotions to local living cops of color. There are very few at the highest ranks of the department.
I just met some amazing narc officers at the 71st just two days ago. They didn't fit the suburban white cop profile at all, further suggesting that the stereotype doesn't hold like it used to.
The point I think you're missing, CS, is that as residents we are entitled to protection and respect. Whether cops deal with sociopathic criminals all day is beside the point. We DO live here, so please officer, don't suggest move. It's insulting to our views on the world and in some cases our financial position. There are many reasons why a person would choose to live in a place, and there are trade-offs for those of us none-too-wealthy. And once we lay down roots, we want to be given useful advice, not smart-ass comebacks.
As to safety in general, the hurricane brought home another point - you may be safer from muggings and murder in nabes favored by the cops...but sometimes that's not the only kind of safety one must consider when choosing a place to live. And suburbs may SEEM cheaper, but have you seen the property taxes outside the five boroughs? That 20% cheaper house doesn't look so much cheaper through that lens.
"How the heck would requiring cops to live in NY City improve the safety of the city? "
Among other benefits requiring Police Officers to live in the City would mean that there would be more off-duty officers around to provide protection when they encounter crimes in progress, a benefit that currently often serves Nassau, Rockland, etc. WE'RE currently paying for increased police protection in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, etc. More important, a City residence requirement would give cops more of a stake in the city that employs them and might further improve diversity in the NYPD.
I don't buy the cost argument for a number of reasons. For one thing, I heard it a lot back in the early '70s when I bought my house, even though suburban house prices were much higher then compared to prices in brownstone Brooklyn (and even Manhattan brownstone neighborhoods, like the UWS). Even now, there are many parts of southern Brooklyn, eastern Queens, Staten Island, and the north Bronx where prices are similar to the suburbs actually lower, when you consider the enormous real estate taxes in suburban counties. In any case, if NYC housing costs were really higher than in the suburbs, who's to say that a housing subsidy couldn't be a subject for labor negotiations?
BTW Tim, requiring Police Officers, or any employees to live in the jurisdiction that employes them is a common practice in local governments all around the country. NYC Police Officers are already required ton live in a specific geographic area--NYC and adjacent counties. They can't, for example, live in New Jersey.
clarkson flatbed,
I read the article -- http://www.nycpba.org/publications/mag-04-summer/compstat.html.-- and found it to be as full of holes as the writer said of the stats.
The part I liked best covered the incident of the manager of the fast-food place reporting a "grand theft" crime.
The crime itself wasn't described. Was a patron robbed in the store? Or did the robber take money from the cash register? Based on the fact that nothing about a store robbery was said, it seems the theft involved a hapless patron.
When it comes to the money or property stolen, why should anyone believe the victim? As anyone with experience calling the cops knows, if you want a prompt response, you have to upgrade the crime you're reporting.
Then the cops have to figure out if you're lying. So just maybe -- in the given example -- the cops decided the complainant was in error or lying about the magnitude of the crime, so they were able to downgrade a case of "grand theft" to petit larceny. Who knows?
Meanwhile, it's tough to fake murder stats and it's tough to fake stats on violent crimes.
Then there was the writer's assertion that "crime can only go down so much, and then it won't go any lower."
Baloney. One big problem is the act of reporting. Some elements of the black community live by the philosophy that urges blacks to "Stop Snitchin."
As we know, a lot of crimes go unreported. If there was more complete reporting, then a few more miscreants might find themselves in the slammer for a while, which would take them out of the crime business, and later contribute to a crime reduction.
Moreover, if sales of guns in other states were subject to NY City rules, there'd be fewer gun crimes.
I'm not suggesting that murder and violent crime stats have been faked. I know for a fact though that individuals have been discouraged from filing reports for lower level crimes, since it's the total crime stats that matter so much to top brass. Fewer reported snatchings means lower stats and more promotions.
I also know for a fact that Apple-picking (iPhone snatches) have completely preoccupied most precincts, ours included. As a result, precious resources are going towards things like the ridiculous flashing lights police cars parked every two blocks along Nostrand. Or the absurd number of cop cars currently patrolling prospect park (I passed 12 on a bike ride the other night). Couldn't the cars be better used to strike fear into drug gangs? I almost never see a police car around here. On a given day I can witness half a dozen drug deals by guys that I now know have long rap sheets and gun offenses. I see way more sanitation and parking and transit cops than precinct vehicles.
I think Compstat is incredibly useful. But your buying of NYPD propaganda hook-line-and-sinker makes me wonder whether you question their policies at all. A critical consumer can help lead the conversation, not just accept whatever we're told. The whole reason I made a petition and such a big deal about beat cops was to improve relations between cops and community. Getting to know good guys from bad can lead to fewer bum stop-and-frisks. And your assertion about blacks not snitchin' is not true of the vast majority of law abiding citizens I've met who WANT more police protection and routinely call in crime. The "no snitchin'" assertion mostly applies to those protecting criminals, and yes it exists. But if you're suggesting it's a majority you're buying the stereotype. When I was at a crime forum east of Nostrand the room was almost entirely brown toned, and everyone was begging Eric Adams to help us get more cops and more enforcement.
I'm glad the post is bringing up feelings though. It should. Safety, and our relations with law enforcement, is the single most important issue in this neighborhood, and most neighborhoods of Brooklyn. The CB reports show overwhelming concern from all populations, regardless of what those precious Compstat numbers say.
clarkson flatbed, you wrote:
as residents we are entitled to protection and respect. Whether cops deal with sociopathic criminals all day is beside the point. We DO live here, so please officer, don't suggest move.
Your concern about the comment of one cop seems to elevate his personal view to a view expressing the official position of the NYPD.
It's insulting to our views on the world and in some cases our financial position.
Well, idealism is affected by reality. Meanwhile, the statement is woefully bereft of sound thinking. Ask parents about their experience with schools. The percentage of acceptable elementary/grade schools is pretty good. But things go rapidly downhill at the middle school/junior high level. High schools? There are many disasters in the city.
What do we pay for this? The annual Dept of Ed expense Per Year, Per Student is now $20,000.
There are many reasons why a person would choose to live in a place, and there are trade-offs for those of us none-too-wealthy. And once we lay down roots, we want to be given useful advice, not smart-ass comebacks.
With respect to real estate near the Q train, well, apartment rentals along the corridor straddling Coney Island Avenue from Church Ave to practically Coney Island are relatively inexpensive, though the architecture is mostly boring. But there's very little crime.
clarkson flatbed, you wrote:
On a given day I can witness half a dozen drug deals by guys that I now know have long rap sheets and gun offenses.
So? Do you call the cops six times a day?
Maybe the NYPD has decided to reduce drug-related arrests out of hope that letting them slide by will reduce the occurrence of other, more violent crimes that sometimes occur in the drug context.
Hard to say what the rationale might be. But ignorance on the part of the NYPD isn't the reason.
Bob Marvin wrote:
don't buy the cost argument for a number of reasons. For one thing, I heard it a lot back in the early '70s when I bought my house, even though suburban house prices were much higher then compared to prices in brownstone Brooklyn (and even Manhattan brownstone neighborhoods, like the UWS).
As a result of real estate purchases in my family, I can tell you a Park Slope brownstone between 8th Ave and Prospect Park cost $20,000 in 1960.
Similar houses sold for $250,000 in 1985. And today, the same house is $3 million.
The point about cops and real estate goes beyond just the cost. Yes, property taxes are a factor, which is why cops and firemen often buy houses way way out of the city. Up in Rockland County, for example, where prices and taxes are low enough to make houses up there more attractive than many places in the city.
But the next factor, as I stated, is schools. Say what you will, but schools in most of suburbia and in the more distant towns are more orderly than city schools.
For city kids, if they're not in the "gifted program", they can get lost in vast stew of the public school system.
Even now, there are many parts of southern Brooklyn, eastern Queens, Staten Island, and the north Bronx where prices are similar to the suburbs actually lower, when you consider the enormous real estate taxes in suburban counties.
Perhaps you're right. But the issue of schools remains. So those parents whose kids are not in gifted programs usually consider private school, but the cost of private school in NY City is generally a lot more than the bill for property taxes in the suburbs. Moreover, the more distant towns have lower property taxes, so it's not hard to find a less costly place to live.
In any case, if NYC housing costs were really higher than in the suburbs, who's to say that a housing subsidy couldn't be a subject for labor negotiations?
Where would it end? If one municipal union gets a gift, they all line up. Cops, firemen, teachers, sanitation workers, transit workers, everyone employed by the city?
Where would the money for the subsidy come from? It comes from taxpayers. So we'd raise our taxes so we could lower our housing costs. Big mistake.
CS: You picked the wrong guy to argue with on this one. I'm in constant contact with the cops, from the top on down in the 71st, 70th and the Narcs. I listen to what they say. I share everything I learn and know. Even the cops know that ignorance is a problem with other cops. Witness the beating of the man in Jewish center recently. You think Dep Inspector Lewis gave the guy a medal? No. He was pissed as hell. It reflects poorly on all the honest, respectful and decent cops among them.
Nearly every felony assault in our area is the related to drug gangs. Look at the rap sheets: drug sales are almost always a part of the litany of crimes. The cops desperately want to put the worst guys behind bars for a long, long time. Makes it easier to promote public safety. But it's really hard to catch someone doing something worthy of a lengthy sentence. Parole officers are often useless (this from the chief himself) at putting repeat offenders away. The only way to put someone away for a long time is when they get caught USING a gun (not just carrying) in a crime or actually kill or attempt to kill someone. It's way too late then. Better to bust up the gangs now, or at least let them know they're being watched. Closely.
clarkson writes:
Regarding what you've witnessed, you said only that you see drug dealing as it occurs. Initially, you didn't mention whether you put in a call to the precinct house. What little I might know about your actions is tied to what you write.
Witness the beating of the man in Jewish center recently.
I don't know that story.
As for drug crimes and their links to other crimes, yes, I'm aware. More NYPD cameras would help.
Having cops live in the city means that not only do they have an interest in the city itself, as Bob says, but they also know the people around them. What we need is for people living here already to become cops, who know their neighbors, who understand the community, who have children attending schools here. We realize cops who live in Nassau will not want to move to Flatbush.
Anonymous,
Where did you get these ideas? Drug gangs are about as murderous as people get.
If Officer Joe lives in the neighborhood and the neighborhood has a big drug dealing problem and Officer Joe tries to fight the dealers, they just might go after Officer Joe's family.
Keeping the family safe from retaliation is one reason some cops live outside the city.
Have you followed the case of Officer Figoski who was murdered in East New York about a year ago?
He lived on Long Island. Do you think he'd allow his family to live in East New York, the territory he patrolled for most of his career?
I also missed the Jewish center beating (it was the week pre-Sandy).
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/2-officers-being-investigated-after-video-shows-them-beating-man/
I'd venture that the cops were so used to that little bit extra they often give the Hasidic community that they went overboard. (Full disclosure: I am Jewish and like the Lubavitch.)But no guns! You can imagine how this would have played in Wingate.
Snob,
Despite the appearance of little harm done to the victim, something tells me he'll receive a small settlement from the police department.
Meanwhile, it appears the victim's mental health is a little off. Not that he's a psycho. More that he's probably a little edgy and off-putting.
Crime Story,
Remember that my original suggestion was to have NEWLY HIRED Police Officers live in the City. I didn't suggest that any presently-serving POs would have to move.
In any case, it's probably a moot point. The PBA is powerful enough to prevent the legislature from changing the Public Officer Law.
Bob Marvin,
There's no reason to believe that cops living in NY City will increase local safety just because they're here while off-duty.
Windsor Terrace was a neighborhood where a lot of cops lived. Crime was low in Windsor Terrace, but that was mainly a function of the insulation provided by Prospect Park, Greenwood Cemetery, the buffer of Park Slope and the big traffic circle at the base of Coney Island Avenue.
"There's no reason to believe that cops living in NY City will increase local safety just because they're here while off-duty"
Why not? People with Police Officer status [not just NYPD P.O.s, but lots of other titles like Rackets Investigators, for the D.A.s and Deputy Sheriffs--yes, the City has them] are Police Officers 24/7 and are obligated to respond to crimes they observe. Better they should do so in NYC than in Nassau or Suffolk.
Bob Marvin,
Why wouldn't cops living in NY City increase local safety?
Because when they're off duty they'll spend the biggest chunk of their off-duty hours at home asleep.
Yes, we've all read stories about the off-duty cop doing his banking when a robber announces a hold-up, which is then foiled by the off-duty cop.
Those stories are good for headlines, but they're so rare they're inconsequential.
Far better are more cameras, and more Stops & Frisks. According to the latest official reports, last year there were over 650,000 stops and a small number of frisks.
Q, you mentioned the high police presence in the park at night --
"the absurd number of cop cars currently patrolling prospect park (I passed 12 on a bike ride the other night)."
Any news on why this is? It's definitely a change within the last month or so.
yes, and this directly from the top!
They're creating a no-tolerance impact zone. The idea is to rid the park of any and all Apple-pickers, and various other ne'er-do-wells. There were quite a few iPhone snatchings (worth a lot in fast cash - other brands not so much) and they're trying to show that the park is safe by bringing the numbers down and dissuading criminals from thinking joggers and walkers are easy prey.
By the way, I see a lot of women joggers in the park after dark, running alone. While I don't want to sound alarmist, I think this is really not a good idea, especially off the main loop. Maybe I just have too much memory of days gone by, but the early morning is probably much safer for the jog-a-holic.
What strikes me is the main point the writer seems to be asking is about improving relationships with cops, and many comments are placing the burden of those relationships on the cops themselves. Asking them to move to our neighborhood probably isn't going to accomplish this goal. Is there any interest in re-assessing the community approach to the cops / increasing membership at meetings and encouraging involvement? Or would we rather place the blame on the NYPD?
If a few folks carved out the one night a month for attendance at the Community Council meetings, 71st, 70th, 67th, our area would get its voice heard. I don't know who this joker Karl Cohen is who runs the 71st, but we could do better than that. What if PLGer ran for his job?
crime story,
Better off-duty cops should spend their waking hours, however limited, in the city that pays their salaries than in a suburban county that doesn't.
I would prefer good cops, to lame cops. Where they live is not a concern I share. But the NYPD should continue to recruit heavily from the 5.
Bob Marvin, you wrote:
"Better off-duty cops should spend their waking hours, however limited, in the city that pays their salaries than in a suburban county that doesn't."
There's a hint of logic in your comment, at least with respect to the possibility of the city benefiting from a little off-the-clock security. But imposing a residency requirement isn't possible.
Meanwhile, sometimes things don't go as hoped. A couple of years ago an off-duty cop went into a White Castle up in the Bronx. Late, 3 or 4 am. A couple of thugs walked in and soon there was a confrontation.
The off-duty cop had been drinking, and seems to have been seriously loaded. The situation escalated, guns appeared and the cop lost the shoot out. Dead. The wrong ending.
crime scene,
1. "imposing a residency requirement isn't possible".
Perhaps not impossible but admittedly very unlikely. As I wrote earlier, the PBA is probably powerful enough to prevent the legislature from ever changing the Public Officer Law, which allows P.O.s to live in counties adjacent to NYC.
2. I'm very puzzled by your story of a drunk off-duty cop screwing up a confrontation with thugs. Are we supposed to infer that most police officers are so unreliable that the City is actually better off having them out of town when they're off duty, so they can create mayhem elsewhere? While I might sometimes be critical of the police, I find that idea rather bizarre. If my neighbor were a Police Officer I'd sure feel more, not less, safe.
In any case, I don't see any point in my continuing to comment on this particular thread so you may have the last word, if you wish..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/nyregion/29cop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Here's the link to the story that crime story is talking about. Things went down a lil differently than he seems to remember them.
Some interesting points:
1. Bronx cop, lived in White Plains
2. He was drunk
3. He walked away from the guys harassing him but then decided to GO BACK to tell them a thing or two and thats when he got his ass handed to him
4. He was shot by another cop because he had drawn his weapon on a man (who had nothing to do with the beat down) and did not identify himself as a PO.
5. etc, etc...
Clearly the cop's fault for coming back. (judge judy logic--why would you go back in, sir?)
Also, he lived about a week before succumbing to injuries. During that week one or both of his legs were amputated while in the hospital. Tragic, but I'm not sure what this story has to do with this thread that seems to be spiraling nowhere.
Boring!
Telling you to move is basically a "cop out". It's their jobs to protect and serve. Suggesting you deal with crime is basically telling you that they don't want to even border on taking care of what they are working and getting paid for.
Post a Comment