Note to NYPD: This Is Not How You Improve Relations With the Community
Via Brad Warbiany, it appears that it is now an appropriate function of the police to ticket stalwarts of minority communities for the abhorrent crime of….playing chess in a public park and making themselves available to local kids to teach the game of chess:
A group of seven mild-mannered chess players are due in criminal court next month after police officers from the 34th Precinct issued them summonses for playing their favorite board game in Inwood Hill Park.
The men were ticketed on Oct. 20 for being inside of Emerson Playground, a children’s play area off limits to adults unaccompanied by minors. But the men were in an area furnished with stone chess and backgammon tables — separated from the play area by a fence.
“There is a problem in this area with drug dealing, but the police have time to write tickets to people playing chess?” asked Yacahudah Harrison, 48, one of the men who received a summons for “Fail[ing] to comply with signs.”
…
“Under my direction, uniformed officers routinely enter the parks to enforce closing times and other regulations; all designed to protect the community,” he wrote in an e-mail.
“The NYPD allows for officers to issue summonses in lieu of effecting an arrest for appropriate offenses.”
But Inwood residents expressed outrage that the NYPD would target the chess players in light of the men’s history as caretakers and teachers for the next generation of Inwood chess players.
“This is a positive thing for our kids to see and do, it’s a positive mental activity for them,” said Regina Christoforatos, 38, whose 6-year-old daughter Zoe has been learning chess in the park.
Beyond the patented ridiculousness of expending law enforcement resources on issuing summonses for daring to play chess on a public park’s chess boards, the incident is also symptomatic of why there is often so much distrust between police departments and local communities in minority and/or high-crime neighborhoods.
Certainly, it’s hard to imagine that the police officers in this case are of the opinion that playing chess is an offense that is equally serious as the myriad other crimes occuring in the neighborhood. But they chose to expend resources to go after these men nonetheless.
There’s actually a sense in which, all other things being equal, doing so is even justifiable, perhaps under a “broken windows” theory of crime, or even just on the rationale that it is the job of the police officer to issue citations for any offense he personally observes.
But the fact is that police officers don’t operate in a vacuum. Instead, they operate in communities that are often well aware of their problems, but also well aware of what is definitively not a problem. Moreover, these communities are often well aware of who is part of their problems and who helps make life better for them.
A story like this, however, shows that the police officers in the neighborhood, perhaps because of the law enforcement strategies adopted by City Hall, have absolutely no clue about what the problems in the community are, nor about who is part of the problems in the community. Instead, they have rules and strategies adopted by bureaucrats in City Hall that purport to have greater authority than the local neighborhood in determining what and who is a problem in the community.
A story like this shows that the police officers have not taken the time to actually get to know the community in which they serve, to learn who the citizens are who make life better for the community and who are capable of making the officers’ jobs easier and safer. What should be particularly embarassing to the NYPD here is that these men have apparently been using the park for these purposes for quite some time, and yet the officers seem to have had no familiarity with them.
Worse than all, though, is the response of the police captain in standing by the summonses and suggesting they are a necessary part of “protect[ing] the community.” Regardless of whether the captain actually believes this patently absurd suggestion, the message he is sending to the community is that he, and by extension, the NYPD are utterly clueless as to what the safety and law enforcement needs of the community actually are.
…And then they wonder why they have such a poor relationship with the citizens of neighborhoods like this.
It doesn’t have to be this way. When the police are invested in their community and take an interest in that community, it will shows, and the citizens will trust their police. I, personally, live in such a community. Like most such communities, it is a safe and low-crime place to live. But we still have our share of petty ordinance violations. The difference is that, because the police are invested in the community, the local police captain would never dream of justifying issuing a summons for such a violation on the grounds of “protect[ing] the community” unless the violation was something that someone in the community was actually concerned about. Nor, by and large, would the individual officers do more than issue a warning for such a violation unless, again, the violation was something that someone in the community might actually be concerned about. Why? Because they consider themselves part of the community, neighbors more than prison guards.
This sounds like a purely a case of quota filling. Officers are told they need to meet certain numbers, so they start hassling people regardless of whether it makes sense to do so or not.Report
I mean, “like purely a case of…”Report
In my experience, though, police that are a bit interested in their community will make a concerted effort to fill their quotas from people who don’t live within the community.Report
This does seem bizarre – it’s hard to think of how the officers thought this would make their jobs easier over the long (or even short) term. I suppose quota filling is plausible, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of violation you could count on citing to a scale where it becomes really helpful in that regard. It seems more likely this is just the slow unwinding of the Giuliani legacy playing itself out long after the economy (not his draconian rule) transformed the a decade and a half ago. It’s also probable that there a small, extremely unrepresentative, but very vocal cohort (or perhaps just one individual or family) who care about this regulation and its enforcement in this neighborhood a great deal. The squeaky wheel will get the grease and all. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the city coming to decide that certain parks had to be designated with this lone-adult-no-go rule, and then deciding on the particular parks to receive it, without a vocal constituency moving the process along. These chess tables have been around decades, while this regulation is probably less than a decade old. That’s not at all to argue that this application of the reg. (and indeed the whole thing itself — doesn’t this just encourage parents to be complacent about supervising their kids while their out in the city?) isn’t totally dumb. But it might be worth hearing if the city would offer a forthright explanation of the action. Given that this is NYC, I doubt that that’s going to be on offer – more likely you’d get a very thick-skulled and defensive statement that, Hey, it’s a violation so we wrote it up and that’s that. But if they did offer some context it would probably be worth hearing, which is not to say it’d be convincing in terms of a defense of this police decision. But I’d tend to put more stock in the possibility, as Mark suggested, that this action has roots more in an ill-advised directive from somewhere above than I do in the likelihood that this is just a poor decision by a beat cop. My (limited) experience with the NYPD is that the guys and women who pound the pavement, when not interfered with by dumb directives, do indeed learn very quickly what are good uses of their time and what are counter-productive – at least until there is the slightest hint that a person poses a physical threat to them.Report
…and, of course, that could all be 100% ack-bassward incorrect as well, no doubt.Report
This is just a case of discrimination against single or married people that don’t have children. My taxes pay for these parks but I am prohibited from using them just because I have no children. This not only applies to chess, but I can’t have my lunch in any park or simply sit down and enjoy being outside on a beautiful day. Why not partition the parks? Have a section for adults where children are not allowed? Besides isn’t this “don’t-be-here” regulation simply unconstitutional anyway? This law should be struck down.Report
You know what? Here’s an actual symptom of creeping authoritarianism (yeah, *I* said that).
The problem with incidents like this (and virtually the entire history of the TSA) is that the “line worker” does not have either the ability, or the inclination, to use common sense.
“A story like this, however, shows that the police officers in the neighborhood, perhaps because of the law enforcement strategies adopted by City Hall, have absolutely no clue about what the problems in the community are, nor about who is part of the problems in the community. Instead, they have rules and strategies adopted by bureaucrats in City Hall that purport to have greater authority than the local neighborhood in determining what and who is a problem in the community.”
A little bit oversimplified but otherwise spot on, Mr. Thompson. Those “rules and strategies” don’t just come from bureaucrats, though.
They come from the one guy who shows up at the community policing meetings and complains about the shopping carts abandoned on his street, but is appeased by pie charts. They come from the mentality that public service ought to be more like a business, and business measures outcomes using metrics, and those metrics have to be easily quantifiable (note: this isn’t really good business practice in most industries, either, but somehow this has made its way into public service). They come from middle-line management in the police force itself that doesn’t give push-back to the upper management or the civilian oversight committee. They come from officer training programs that don’t emphasize critical thinking on the part of the police. They come from lawsuits and lawyers and legislators who can cover your ass only if you’re doing things *right in between these two lines, right here*. And, unfortunately, they come from some of the cops/security officers/whathaveyou who actually do get off on the aura of authority they get from packing a badge – while I honestly believe this represents a very small minority of actual cops (slightly higher percentage of security officers), it also feeds into the cycle.Report
“They come from the mentality that public service ought to be more like a business, and business measures outcomes using metrics, and those metrics have to be easily quantifiable (note: this isn’t really good business practice in most industries, either, but somehow this has made its way into public service).”
Academia too. It’s not working too well there either.Report
Measuring the outcomes of your actions is a very good idea: if you can’t tell the difference between a policy working and a policy not working, what does that say for the merit of the policy? An invisible effect might as well be non-existent.
The trouble is that monitoring and evaluation are hard, and require genuine expertise. A classic rookie mistake is to measure outputs instead of outcomes. As Robert Peel put it, the success of police is not measured in number of arrests but in absence of crime. But then Peel’s wisdom has long been absent from the conduct of law enforcement.Report
> Measuring the outcomes of your actions is a very good idea: if
> you can’t tell the difference between a policy working and a
> policy not working, what does that say for the merit of the
> policy? An invisible effect might as well be non-existent.
This is true, but a lot of social policy effects are emergent. People see something they don’t like. They “do something”. Something else changes. Was it in spite of the change, or because of the change?
Granted, I’d generally prefer for public policy to be evidenced-based, but this just isn’t going to happen, period. I don’t see it happening any time in the near or far future for someone to include a “measurement” section in any legislation (let alone have it be a required element) and I certainly don’t see anyone sticking to it.
In a lot of the clamor for measurement, people make up metrics that measure their own success, and conveniently ignore their failures. And then we get “Hey, it works! Look, I have pretty graphs! You can trust me, experts came up with these measurements!”Report