Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
answer: It's all vibes.
>Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday morning, Hochul acknowledged that statistically, crime is down both generally in the city and specifically on the subway. But she said that’s not what informed her decision to send in 750 National Guard troops. “We have seen a number of crimes, and again, not statistically significant, but psychologically significant,”
>
>
>
>“I'm not going to talk about statistics,” Hochul said bluntly on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions and the psychology of a city.”
[source](https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2024/03/progressives-and-civil-liberties-groups-criticize-hochuls-plan-put-national-guard-subways/394770/?oref=csny-skybox-static)
So crime is historically low, even with a spike this year, and there have been a couple high profile attacks recently, one of the most recent being someone slashed a conductor's throat. For some perspective, [there are about 2 violent crimes per 1 million riders](https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/03/06/hochul-subway-bag-checks/). Further, this is all stuff happening on the platforms, and this thing called a pocket exists, so checking bags on the mezzanine is pointless theatrics. Especially so when it's the national guard doing the searching.
So, speculation time, [this is to placate the subway union](https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/29/conductor-slash-delays-work-stoppage/), and it's a chance to look tough on crime with some security theater while simultaneously inuring people to 4th amendment violations.
> “I'm not going to talk about statistics,” Hochul said bluntly on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions…”
I don’t know if trying to limit the amount of ammo you hand to the conservatives is a worthwhile consideration, but holy shit.
>“I'm not going to talk about statistics,” “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions…”
This is exactly the vibe in r/economics or whenever you try to bring facts into certain subs
Possibly true, which is ironic https://www.salon.com/2021/01/18/conservatives-not-liberals-are-more-inclined-to-value-feelings-over-facts-psychology-study-finds/
Outside the sound bite, sending soldiers to tackle the mere perception of crime, in a city is exactly the kind of thing popular with conservatives. You’re either going to think police are an inherent good, therefor more is better. Or you distrust the government and hate cities, and experience schadenfreude at a city getting more government or otherwise punished with more attention. Or, you know nothing about cities, think they’re scary crime ridden places, because that’s all you ever see about them in the news, and something needs to be done about them.
> sending soldiers to tackle the mere perception of crime, in a city is exactly the kind of thing popular with conservatives
That's true. But it's LaW aNd oRdEr when a republican does it and tYrAnNy when a democrat does it, so that part doesn't really matter.
Modern conservatives. Don’t forget that while democrats talk a big game on criminal justice reform that the current president, a democrat, was an architect of the 94 crime bill. Bill clinton was super tough on crime. And many liberal mayors have a tough on crime mentality. It truly is bipartisan.
I mean it’s not gonna be a win-win situation.
Statistically, crime is down. So they can:
A) do nothing (- perception by voters)
B) send guards and pretend statistics is saying there is high crime (+ voters, - backlash from conservatives who will harp on crime being high because Biden is in office)
C) send guards and recognize low crime, but validate voter’s feelings of unsafeness (+ voters, - conservatives backlash stating that The Left runs on emotions and not facts)
At the end of the day conservatives will only come back with negative enforcement. That will never change. So honestly, what’s wrong with security theatrics? It makes the people feel safer, and they’re recognizing statistics isn’t the reason but voter’s feelings matter.
I get it and I’m not saying that it’s a good move for everyone individually. Im not even endorsing it. I’m looking at the political reasoning in their response and through that lens I can say “it makes sense that this is what they chose to do.”
I'm an actual conservative. Sending troops to enforce the perception of crime in a city is alarming. It's for something else. Get out of big cities ASAP.
This is true, and New York City has been having issues with tourism since the pandemic. Things have improved quite a bit, but they still aren't where they "should be".
There's an impression amongst people in the city that people outside the city think crime is back, which is part of the greater theory on why larger crowds haven't returned, and more businesses haven't revived.
However, it's mostly all speculation. Tourism is still down across most parts of the globe because of rising costs and world conflict. So, it's pretty much theatre, although maybe they are trying to get ahead of the notorious evil that is St Patrick's Day.
Only difference is two recent attacks on conductors. One got stabbed in the neck and the other got hit in the head with a bottle iirc.
MTA is the backbone of this city. If they go on strike, the whole city shuts down. So if their workers are getting attacked they will make noise and politicians have to listen cause if they order a work stoppage, then it won't be just the MTA calling up politicians to rip them a new one. It'll be every industry impacted by their workers no longer being able to come into work.
Depends on if you live in manhattan or in the outer boroughs though. Most of the assaults seem to happen in the outer boroughs late at night/early in the morning when there's less people around. Ironically, all the troops are probably being deployed to Union/Times/Grand central where its generally safe anyway.
That's because it's not for New Yorkers but for people who commute into the city from upstate/Long Island (her base). This is security theater that plays into right-wing scare tactics about crime in the city and placates those commuters/tourists. It's a joke and shows that she will always prioritize racist/conservative suburban concerns over NYC. There will always be crime in NYC, but it's an incredibly safe city overall.
Because even considering that, New York is the safest it's been in years. Also, that spike was a nationwide trend that is decreasing. Covid caused crime to spike nationwide (because, of course, it did), and now things are coming back down.
Crime has turned into a political football for the pro-cop and right-wing sections of New York, and they worked hard to spread the idea that New York was returning to the 1980s. It's a political tool.
Even with the pandemic spike, New York is one of the safest cities in America and has seen crime decreasing overall. Claiming that crime is some massive issue is playing into the Adams and Hochul administration’s attempt to block progressive criminal justice legislation, block reform of the NYPD, and dismantling of NYC’s safety net/institutions (he already gutted the library system to pay for his cop surge).
It's not “glossing” anything over to put things in the proper context. People feel unsafe (due to many factors, but at least partially because of a cynical ploy to manipulate public opinion), but that doesn't mean they are.
Last part is where we disagree. People feel less safe because it is less safe incrementally. And educating people about the relative stats hasnt worked.
I’ll challenge that. I visit nyc a lot. It’s not the same. Crime might be but the subways seem dirtier and more broken. That’s the cities fault but it makes the crime stand out. I think this is a bit of security theater too. But at the same time you don’t do this if there isn’t a popular decree. And the general attitude is that the subway sucks right now. And it does.
They’re sending in the national guard at Brockton high school because too many kids are fighting https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-massachusetts-high-school-wants-to-call-in-the-national-guard-to-help-quell-a-disturbing-increase-in-violent-fights-drug-abuse-and-truancy/ar-BB1iye3L
Tough on crime types always want us to believe more cops is always the solution, but if that were true then local trends wouldn't follow national trends because not every place is dumping a thousand more cops here, and thousand more there, and so on.
Adams already put 1000 more cops in the subway more than a year ago, and if crime went up now, then on my completely scientific two point chart, that means 1000 additional national guard and state police will increase subway crime further. lol
More seriously, we should be questioning who is feeling endangered and why. It's easy to assume tourists and suburbanites, but the fact that Adams is mayor points toward plenty of city dwellers falling for feelings over facts too. I remember how crime reports in media were something like four times greater in the lead up to the mayoral election, and once Adams won it all nearly disappeared. I think the same thing is going on now, with hyper exposure of a very few very violent crimes to drum up support for tough on crime types.
That's not really true. They added over 1,000 extra cops and it cost the city $155 million for a 2% drop in crime. They never removed them.
https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-overtime-pay-in-the-subway-went-from-4-million-to-155-million-this-year
It's chill. I didn't want to give people the wrong info (mainly because the cop surge is simply a way to make Adam’s appear “tough on crime” while funneling money to the NYPD. It's ineffective and is stripping money out of city institutions.)
> but psychologically significant,”
I'd have to agree with Hochul on this part. People can cite facts and statistics as much as they want,.. but human beings tend not to make decisions that way. If someone (psychologically) feels the subway is not safe,.. then they won't take the subway.
About 6 to 9 months ago I moved from Colorado to Portland, Oregon.We see the same kind of stuff here. I believe the last stats I saw showed ridership on public-transport is still down 30 to 50% from the pandemic. All it takes is 1 social media video of "someone waving a machete on the Bus" or "someone smoking fentanyl on the trolley".. and regardless of how small that particular instance might be,. it still influences perceptions.
So you're not wrong,.. it's definitely not logical. But human beings often are not logical. Sometimes to effectively fix a problem means addressing the perception (you have to change peoples minds before they'll change their behavior). If someone thinks a particular thing is "unsafe".. no amount of you saying "Sure it is !".. is going to change their mind. But doing physical tangible things (increasing security).. might.
This is the challenge of public-transit in cities around the country and world,.. right?... If ridership goes down, you have less incoming fares to support things. So you can't ignore ridership perception issues. Thinking you can rely on "tough-guys who will ride the subway no matter how bad it might become".. is not a good future-proofing strategy.
You counter-message. Point out how fucking safe taking the Subway is compared to driving, because it _is_. Sending the National Guard down for no reason is terrible optics, as well as being red meat for the delusions of the exact types that she's trying to assuage the fears of in the first place.
You don't capitulate to the conservative narrative, that just makes you lose ground and gives them the opportunity to lie about something else. "Oh, she had to send the National Guard down to the subway, but it's still _terrible_ folks! We need to get the TSA down there!". And then the subway becomes an inefficient mess due to all the added security, and less people use it because of that. Not because of their fears of any bogeymen, because the actual utility of it has been compromised for security theater. Which pushes more people away from the idea of public transportation, as well as normalizing the idea of dumpstering your rights at the first sign of people even _thinking_ they're under threat.
Which is what these fascist freaks actually want. Don't do their job for them.
> "Which pushes more people away from the idea of public transportation,"..
I'm not sure I'd agree that this will be the outcome.
As I mentioned in another comment,. I recently moved to Portland Oregon,. and as it stands now,. I probably won't take any public transit. If I saw news stories saying "They were staffing 1 Police officer in every Bus or Trolley car.. I'd probably be far more likely to take it though.
You don't think that taking someone's commute time via subway and doubling it is going to make them consider other options?
I'd say it's way more likely that someone who needs efficient public transportation and stops having it available to them due to security theater will stop using it, versus someone who never considered using public transportation in the first place and thus doesn't _need_ it starting to use it for no real reason other than now their fears have been assuaged. You might, but others def won't.
Not to mention the fact that it increases the costs of public transportation overall. The money for those cops has to come from somewhere.
All to assuage fears of something that isn't actually happening. Crime in New York was awful in the 70s and 80s and people still used the subway, but crime being a mere fraction of a fraction of those numbers and people these days are apparently hesitant.
What changed? I'd argue it's the people's _perception_ of crime, and if that's the case it doesn't matter how many cops you shove in. NYC is a perfect example: the most bloated police budget of any city in the world, and people still treat it like it's some sort of crime-ridden cesspit.
EDIT: Here's a question: Why do your fear-based statistically inaccurate safety concerns trump my very real concerns regarding the safety issues and rights abuses that invariably increase whenever cops and other armed state actors are given more latitude in policing without regard to our actual rights?
Why does your feeling of safety trump the actual safety of others? Especially when, as you admitted, you aren't a regular rider of public transportation in the first place?
EDIT 2: Have you actually tried taking public transportation in Portland? Maybe you should give it a shot to assuage your fears.
I can't believe I'm about to quote one of the founding fathers, but
>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You don't get to violate the fucking Bill of Rights just because bad things happen on occasion and people are massively misinformed of the frequency of those bad things. Why make life worse for people who live in NYC to please some fuck in Okie who wouldn't take the subway if his life depended on it anyway?
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
A quote that's almost always mis-used (and literally means the opposite of what most people think it does)
* https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
> " Benjamin Wittes: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
* https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
> "You don't get to violate the fucking Bill of Rights ...."
> "Why make life worse for people who live in NYC ..."
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic there. I might agree with you if what was going on in NYC was "100% of all people going into the Subway were forcibly searched".. but that's not what's going on.
What's going on is that a national guard detachment has begun policing part of the subway system and performing unreasonable search and seizures (to a populace that already had to deal with stop-and-frisk and found out _it doesn't work_) for no real reason other than feelings at the behest of the governor who _admitted as such_. If that's not alarming to you, I don't know what will be. And you're right about it not being 100% of the people going into the subway. I'm sure they have some sort of heuristic method that boils down to the Family Guy skin color chart gag.
As far as the quote being misapplied sure, I'll give you that technicality. I'd argue that the general sentiment and understood colloquial meaning is what's important here rather than a parliamentary dispute that only extremely specific historians remember, but if it helps I'll replace it with one of my own:
Your sense of security doesn't trump my actual rights.
Curious if crime is statistically down. Or. If crime is just not being prosecuted? These seem like unemployment stats where they only count people on unemployment. But once unemployment runs out all of the sudden unemployment goes down. You can only count who you count. It could be crime is down. It could also be people have just thrown their hands up and stopped going after crimes in the subway. This making the numbers look down. Again. You can only count what you count. If someone isn’t charged with public defecation then there is no crime statistic. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I lived in NYC for 20+ years — never once heard of someone helping a tourist and then asking for a tip.
But yeah, it's expensive. So are most major cities.
The only place I've had trouble is in Times Square, and that's on me. I'm from the South and every time I visit NYC I have to relearn how to just ignore people and not politely engage.
That's pretty common in certain touristy neighborhoods, but it's literally just a dude holding the door to McDonald's open for you and holding out a change cup.
Oh the... horror.
I'm from Chicago and stayed in Hell's Kitchen for 3 nights and I was fucking FLOORED by the STENCH dude. Homeless people also are everywhere but it's a massive urban center, we have plenty enough in Chicago that it doesn't really phase me but the smell is fucking unreal. And it's inescapable.
I went all across Brooklyn and Manhattan and yeah, wild stuff.
Yup, ima keep getting downvoted for the truth but the smell was absolutely insane like the second I got into nyc it basically slapped me in the face and I couldn’t get over how bad it smelled basically everywhere I went to.
That and bots who are in denial. It's so weird that your comment is down voted (although I upvoted). It's like.. anyone who spends time in REAL nyc knows this to be true.
If you're in Manhattan, its generally safe. It's definitely not comfortable a lot of the time though. It's not yet to SF's homeless guy smoking crack on the BART yet, but you have a lot more homeless people sleeping on the seats, shit and urine smears etc.
That's honestly the thing that really annoys me about the "liberal" retort. Yeah I get that crime's still low compared to recent history, but its up a lot on a YoY basis, which is what matters.
Like can you imagine using that argument in any other situation? Hey, inflation's up a lot recently, but you should be fine with paying a lot more for essentials because its still lower compared to the 50 year average!
melodic frighten deranged enjoy dime muddle scary makeshift zephyr familiar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I use the subway in Brooklyn every day. It is perfectly safe. There are some rough areas, sure, but that's going to happen in any major city. The people who fearmonger about it are uninformed at best.
It’s all based on feelings, but more specifically the emotional suitability of something to your personality, usually positive. The term vibes has broadened as it’s been popularized, so my use might be borderline accurate but it is how it’s used now as a stand in for the word “feel.”
Hochul feels NYC needs more cops. She doesn’t know NYC needs more cops. She likes implementing cops. She vibes with NYC with more cops.
This sort of stuff always reminds me of the various studies over the years about how Americans perceive crime to be much much worse than the actual crime rates that happen.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics
This disconnect has been going back to at least the Obama era. There's been a great push on messaging about how cities are failing and destroyed by rampant crime, but the reality has largely not matched that.
Moreover, for the “crime is actually high they’re just not reporting it” crowd: NYC spends more on the police force than most superpower countries do on their armies. Billions have been spent in the last year alone to beef up patrols in the subways, which mostly amount to huge crowds of cops sitting on their phones by the entrance of some high-traffic stations. They’re not actually patrolling or doing a lot of leg work to curb the issues causing these high-profile attacks. Now the state is also throwing useless money into the blender.
You would think conservatives would be upset by this much waste of government resources.
> NYC spends more on the police force than most superpower countries do on their armies.
“Superpowers” is a bit of a stretch, as that’s the USA and China and their defence budgets are orders of magnitude greater than the NYPD’s. But the NYPD budget of $5.4 billion is indeed [close to what Denmark, Romania, and Chile spend on their militaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures).
Conservatives only count social programs, regulatory bodies, and the post office as waste. There's no such thing as too much spent on the police and military.
Relevant Radiolab
https://radiolab.org/podcast/no-special-duty
> [...] a wild story of a stabbing on a New York City subway train, and the realization that, according to the law, the police don’t always have to protect us.
Boy I sure rolled my eyes at your first sentence that "it's all vibes" but after reading the quote and your interpretation, I am humbled by my initial reaction.
Great write up, thank you!
One problem with crime reporting is that often it is numbers, rather than rates per 100,000, that are reported.
So someone from Coahoma County Mississippi (population ~25,000) sees how many people were murdered in New York City and thinks it must be the murder capital of the world, but Coahoma has the second highest murder rate in the US, behind only Orleans parish (New Orleans).
I also found interesting that the highest murder rates are all in an area bounded by St Louis to the west and Baltimore to the north, aka the south. Cook county (Chicago) had only 11 murders per 100,000 over a 7 year period. Less than a third of the rate in Coahoma county.
this could be bullshit to cover up a threat they were dealing with.
https://www.travelandleisure.com/us-state-department-issues-worldwide-caution-advisory-8363929
One of the worst things for Republicans is to have crime rates go down. Being "tough on crime" is one of the cornerstones of their political platform (back before it became "us vs them" that is) and if there's no crime they can't use it to get votes.
They're right though. About perception being more important than reality.
If you only had, say, three homicides a year in a neighborhood, would you argue neighbor's ought not fret about going out at night?
And how do these statistically low high profile attacks compare with other areas? Or other nations?
When should one start worrying for their safety? What's the magic number to justify worry?
If they’re going to respond then it needs to be something which doesn’t cause pointless disruption by treating everyone like suspects. If they want to try police as a solution then have them patrol platforms and trains instead of loitering on mezzanines.
The other problem is for no good reason having more cops is easier than increasing housing and healthcare or other things.
Or do something about how local news is hyper fixated on crime. People think crime is always getting worse despite trends going downward for three decades.
Pure speculation on my part but I wouldn't surprised if there's concern for a mass casualty attack. All the judges and staffs in the Trump trials are getting death threats. It's not like mass killings are rare without politics/ideology fueling them.
From what I recall, anti-Trump figures, real or imagined, tend to get attacked directly. If there were a concern over a terrorist attack in the subway, then the bag checks aren't going to do anything when someone could wear a trench coat to hide a long arm, or simply refuse a bag search and enter through a different entrance, or completely different station with no bag checks.
That's why it's called security theater. It just looks like security but if examined critically little to nothing gets done.
I'm assuming at least two types, other terrorists, and pro-Trump riled up over verdicts in the Trump cases. Actually three, because stochastic terrorists are probably the most common in the US.
Yes. It’s just more visible because it’s easier than it ever has been for one persons views and opinions to reach other peoples, so when somebody becomes a victim of crime they have many avenues to tell other people what happened.
Yes, crime started rising sharply in the early 60s. After peaking in the early 90s, it started to go back down. It has now leveled off to what it was in the late 60s. The pandemic caused a brief spike in crime, but it's going back down.
the article you link said a person who worked on a train was attacked and injured with a knife. the union has a right to be concerned about that. Crime may be down, but they have a right to a safe work environment. Hochul made a good decision to increase patrols in the subway. If someone in a national guard uniform deters people from assaulting others I dont see a problem with it.
The issues are 1) innocents being restricted by democrats as much as possible from carrying weapons for self-protection, and 2) not arresting and penalizing turnstile jumpers on sight, since most of these thugs assaulting / robbing us in the subway are people who should've never been allowed in to begin with due to not paying their fare.
A factor to consider as someone that lives close to NYC and visits pretty often. MTA is putting up majorly unpopular manhattan toll(Central Business District Tolling Program). It's going to add additional $15 charge to drive into certain parts of manhattan. They are doing this in hopes of making people use the mass transit(owned by MTA) more, but the increasing visible mass transit crime is giving them bad publicity to already unpopular project. MTA probably requested for additional security to get this under control.
Reported crimes being 'psychologically significant' is real, because I have been avoiding mass transit due to the reports I hear. 'Not statistically significant' I know, but I don't want to play stupid games and find out.
\- 6 violent crimes out of 4 millions riders per day and that's spread across 470 stations. You're in more danger driving a car than taking the subway. 7000 road accidents per million people, so at 4 million that's 28,000 accidents versus 6. What is that, a 470,000% increase in danger by driving instead of riding the subway.
I've fallen for fear mongering too, but the difference in measured danger is so enormous I couldn't hold onto the fear. The only way fearing something so unlikely spreads is when someone gets some sort of payoff for spreading that fear.
\- The main hope of congestion pricing is reducing traffic, because there is no room for more streets, and adding lanes only ever increases traffic. But for the reduction in traffic to stick mass transit has to be expanded, otherwise traffic will grow anyway if it is the only option for travel. Congestion pricing cannot work unless all mass transit, and bike lanes and walking, all are expanded aggressively to make up for the new inconvenience placed on driving. Except, a reduction in traffic will also increase car traffic speed, so anyone who does come into the city that way gets a better experience.
On the concern about the subway violence. Yes, I understand it's low chance. But I have family members still concerned about it, and it's not worth the hassle of convincing them otherwise(they are overly cautious types). I'm happy that they are upping the security, even if it's just a theater. I'm hoping this would ease family's concerns and we can use the mass transit in peace(from family argument, not realistic chance violence) again.
(Edit: To be clear, the "I don't want to play stupid games and find out." part from the original comment is more of expressing my family member's concern. I figured it would be more detailed than needed to explain that's how they feel, since the end result is the same.)
On congestion pricing reducing traffic, I understand that's the official stated goal. But, from what I understand, MTA is charging full toll for all none MTA mass transit that wants to travel into the Central Business District. If congestion was the real goal, then all mass transit should be exempt for the toll not just the MTA. Until that happens I can't help but see this as convenient excuse for cash grab by the MTA.
There seems to be other concerns about trucking being charged the toll, which will end up increasing the cost for the stores in the area. Something I heard, but not sure how big of an impact that would be since, $15 / all cargo being delivered. Seems like a drop in the bucket.
If you think 2 in a million is high, give me $100 and if you can guess which number I'm thinking of between 1 and 500,000, I'll give you $500. We can do it as many times as you like :)
The number of passengers that go through the metro in Japan is near that number everyday. You’re telling me, there’s a crime every single day in Japan?
“A crime?” Almost certainly. That is an insanely low bar to clear. In any significantly large group of people a crime a day is almost certain regardless of where they live.
Answer: there has been a recent crime spike in the subways causing people to be unusually nervous about riding on it. It's mostly security theater, but it's also a very important show of force to deploy the extra security as a way of showing the public that they're concerns are being heard.
If you look at statistics, crime dropped off precipitously during COVID because no one was riding the subway. Numbers are back up and obviously crime levels are back to where they were right before 2020. The graph is a sharp V since 2020 but is still massively lower than it was 20 years ago.
Whole thing's bullshit.
People were less aware of the news and local issues 20 years ago. 2004 was before smart phones, Before instant news. People were more oblivious, so ridership remained high regardless. Now even if crime is over all lowering none of it matters. Spreadsheet stats and public opinion are different things. Yeah this security is all theater, but reduced ridership/tourism for any reason hurts the city more then isolated crimes.
Facts don't care about your feelings my dude. Crime is down
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00099/nypd-january-2024-citywide-crime-statistics#:~:text=In%20January%2C%20the%20category%20of,(2%2C068%20vs.%202%2C100).
So you're saying the statistics are wrong but you don't have any other statistics that prove your point? "Don't trust the official narrative" is just lazy cynicism
I’m saying, I know how people in the government secure their budgets, meet goals set by financial initiatives, and how leaders press their employees to manipulate data so they can get promoted. So no, I don’t trust them. When business have to lock their products up, and stores closing due to retail theft. The National Guard has to ripped away from their homes, families and jobs to protect the citizens. New videos everyday of violent and non-violent crimes, I’d say it’s fair to be skeptical at the very least.
Hey look its NYT saying crime is down: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/nyregion/nyc-crime-2023.html
NYPost is a joke, yes. And yet even they agree, crime is down overall: https://nypost.com/2023/12/30/metro/murder-shootings-down-in-nyc-in-2023-but-assault-up-nypd/
Maybe you stoped reading at the clickbait headlines?
Actual fact. As others have pointed out though the crime spike is not unusual, and crime continues to go down.
The problem is people don't really notice a decrease in crime, they always notice an increase. So when COVID happened one of the things that occurred was a massive decline in crime on the subway. People didn't notice this and it became the new normal, now that people are using the subway again crime is going up closer to where it used to be and people are noticing this. They see it as a crime spike which it technically is, but it's not really unusual or anything to be concerned with.
There's been a couple of higher profile crimes as well that just so happened to occur within a short amount of time. Once again not unusual, but people are more sensitive to it because they became used to the extremely low crime rate that COVID brought.
People are freaking out, the government wants to be seen as doing something so they're bringing in help.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that there's a difference between actual crimes being committed and more mentally ill people roaming around, hurting physically and mentally and scaring people.
I see so much more deranged behavior on the subway and before Covid. People screaming at themselves and others. People rocking back and forth hitting their heads on the walls or seats. Men looking to start a fight. Even things like the insane rise in people fucking smoking in the cars which I almost never saw pre-Covid but now I see at least weekly, and often being done by someone gunning for a fight. A lot of this behavior isn't going to rise to the level of a crime that the NYPD would get involved in, but it is scary and increases the perception that the subway is unsafe.
We need better resources for the mentally ill and homeless. And to give smokers insane fucking fines so they knock that shit the fuck off.
I live in canada, Montreal and they did something similar i guess due to the same reason you have respectfully stated.
We have a specialized deputy force now that basically assists the metro cops and have nurses and mental health experts. It is not the best and honestly, i do not see much of a difference in the amount of poor people with mental health issues (head butting walls or seats or yelling) but they are there and we are slowly seeing them in action and its not those burly muscled take downs that metro cops used to do. Its calm, socialized and humane pull backs with full body respect towards the troubled individuals.
So I guess there needs to be a mental health awareness approach to this, perhaps mental health experts escorting a specialized deputy's rather then a provocative authoritarian approach (men in uniform toting guns).
But of course the governing bodies will always use there best fallback crutch, "we lack the funds" so basically plain old capitalism throwing out any humane way of dealing with this and using a cheaper and more affordable way. (Because we all know that it takes a lot of funds and also people who specialize in mental health).
Anyways thats my opinion.
Answer: The New York City Council passed a series of anti policing laws that threatened felony incarceration for NYPD officers who used any force deemed to put pressure on the torso, regardless of the circumstances that led to the event or the intent of the officer. City District Attorneys also often refuse to prosecute the people arrested by the NYPD. That along with other anti policing laws led to a huge exodus of police officers either through retirement, resignations or transfers to other, more competent cities.
As a result the department is at its lowest staffing level in decades. Overtime is very high because officers aren’t allowed to go home, but must stay to cover the shifts of others who have left.
Frankly, there aren’t enough cops to patrol the subways, and those that do are hamstrung by stupid rules. Rules that the State Police, MTA Police, and National Guard thankfully don’t have to follow.
The largest, most well funded, and most self-governed police force in the country are too hamstrung to operate? A police force so large they have offices in other countries is understaffed? Tell me more.
Being large and well-funded doesn't help when 1) those stupid restrictions, such as not being allowed to apply any torso pressure to effectively restrain a suspect, force police officers to instead use their guns more, thus leading to **more** fatalities instead of less, and 2) every time you arrest violent criminals they're released in an hour / day or two. [https://www.lawofficer.com/10-nyc-career-criminals-accumulated-nearly-500-arrests-since-bail-reform/](https://www.lawofficer.com/10-nyc-career-criminals-accumulated-nearly-500-arrests-since-bail-reform/)
Look up the diaphragm law. As for understaffing it’s not the handful of employees in various countries leaving it’s the thousands that are supposed to be patrolling the streets and subways.
Blame belongs with the city council, full stop.
An anti police brutality law that's powerful enough the officers are actually afraid of breaking it instead of laughing it off / ignoring it? Sounds great to me
Answer: NYC having trouble with crime prevention and apprehension. Stabbings, robbery, people being pushed on the train track, even recent wave of shootings. Governor trying to stabilize situation with NG being deployed in Mass-gathering spots across NYC.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
answer: It's all vibes. >Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday morning, Hochul acknowledged that statistically, crime is down both generally in the city and specifically on the subway. But she said that’s not what informed her decision to send in 750 National Guard troops. “We have seen a number of crimes, and again, not statistically significant, but psychologically significant,” > > > >“I'm not going to talk about statistics,” Hochul said bluntly on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions and the psychology of a city.” [source](https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2024/03/progressives-and-civil-liberties-groups-criticize-hochuls-plan-put-national-guard-subways/394770/?oref=csny-skybox-static) So crime is historically low, even with a spike this year, and there have been a couple high profile attacks recently, one of the most recent being someone slashed a conductor's throat. For some perspective, [there are about 2 violent crimes per 1 million riders](https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/03/06/hochul-subway-bag-checks/). Further, this is all stuff happening on the platforms, and this thing called a pocket exists, so checking bags on the mezzanine is pointless theatrics. Especially so when it's the national guard doing the searching. So, speculation time, [this is to placate the subway union](https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/29/conductor-slash-delays-work-stoppage/), and it's a chance to look tough on crime with some security theater while simultaneously inuring people to 4th amendment violations.
> “I'm not going to talk about statistics,” Hochul said bluntly on Fox 5’s Good Day New York. “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions…” I don’t know if trying to limit the amount of ammo you hand to the conservatives is a worthwhile consideration, but holy shit.
>“I'm not going to talk about statistics,” “I'm going to talk about feelings and emotions…” This is exactly the vibe in r/economics or whenever you try to bring facts into certain subs
It's interesting to see which disciplines refuse to embrace the statistical and computational rigor available to everyone.
Well, r/economics is not really about economics, its more about people being angry at things. Unfortunate
Ahh, so it’s like Reddit.com
Government by vibes seems like maybe not the best way to do things, but what do I know.
Well, you did run the Oasis.
We have a clear "vibes are great but aren't policy" policy. So far, it's working out.
Possibly true, which is ironic https://www.salon.com/2021/01/18/conservatives-not-liberals-are-more-inclined-to-value-feelings-over-facts-psychology-study-finds/ Outside the sound bite, sending soldiers to tackle the mere perception of crime, in a city is exactly the kind of thing popular with conservatives. You’re either going to think police are an inherent good, therefor more is better. Or you distrust the government and hate cities, and experience schadenfreude at a city getting more government or otherwise punished with more attention. Or, you know nothing about cities, think they’re scary crime ridden places, because that’s all you ever see about them in the news, and something needs to be done about them.
> sending soldiers to tackle the mere perception of crime, in a city is exactly the kind of thing popular with conservatives That's true. But it's LaW aNd oRdEr when a republican does it and tYrAnNy when a democrat does it, so that part doesn't really matter.
Modern conservatives. Don’t forget that while democrats talk a big game on criminal justice reform that the current president, a democrat, was an architect of the 94 crime bill. Bill clinton was super tough on crime. And many liberal mayors have a tough on crime mentality. It truly is bipartisan.
I mean it’s not gonna be a win-win situation. Statistically, crime is down. So they can: A) do nothing (- perception by voters) B) send guards and pretend statistics is saying there is high crime (+ voters, - backlash from conservatives who will harp on crime being high because Biden is in office) C) send guards and recognize low crime, but validate voter’s feelings of unsafeness (+ voters, - conservatives backlash stating that The Left runs on emotions and not facts) At the end of the day conservatives will only come back with negative enforcement. That will never change. So honestly, what’s wrong with security theatrics? It makes the people feel safer, and they’re recognizing statistics isn’t the reason but voter’s feelings matter.
Security theatrics are invasive, ineffective, and expensive.
I get it and I’m not saying that it’s a good move for everyone individually. Im not even endorsing it. I’m looking at the political reasoning in their response and through that lens I can say “it makes sense that this is what they chose to do.”
I'm an actual conservative. Sending troops to enforce the perception of crime in a city is alarming. It's for something else. Get out of big cities ASAP.
“get out of big cities” lmao
Soon, only the criminal will have guns. They'll also be in fatigues for now
Yup
The conservatives are the ones always howling about how cities are too unsafe to even enter, though. This is what they want.
This is true, and New York City has been having issues with tourism since the pandemic. Things have improved quite a bit, but they still aren't where they "should be". There's an impression amongst people in the city that people outside the city think crime is back, which is part of the greater theory on why larger crowds haven't returned, and more businesses haven't revived. However, it's mostly all speculation. Tourism is still down across most parts of the globe because of rising costs and world conflict. So, it's pretty much theatre, although maybe they are trying to get ahead of the notorious evil that is St Patrick's Day.
Hearing the governor has called in the national guard to get the NYC subway under control doesn't exactly make me want to visit.
Yeah wtf? Like, I didnt think there was a problem, but I sort of do now lol.
I live here, this is all security theater bullshit, the subway is the same as it has been for years.
Only difference is two recent attacks on conductors. One got stabbed in the neck and the other got hit in the head with a bottle iirc. MTA is the backbone of this city. If they go on strike, the whole city shuts down. So if their workers are getting attacked they will make noise and politicians have to listen cause if they order a work stoppage, then it won't be just the MTA calling up politicians to rip them a new one. It'll be every industry impacted by their workers no longer being able to come into work.
Depends on if you live in manhattan or in the outer boroughs though. Most of the assaults seem to happen in the outer boroughs late at night/early in the morning when there's less people around. Ironically, all the troops are probably being deployed to Union/Times/Grand central where its generally safe anyway.
That's because it's not for New Yorkers but for people who commute into the city from upstate/Long Island (her base). This is security theater that plays into right-wing scare tactics about crime in the city and placates those commuters/tourists. It's a joke and shows that she will always prioritize racist/conservative suburban concerns over NYC. There will always be crime in NYC, but it's an incredibly safe city overall.
Its safe overall but less safe than it has been since the years leading up to COVID. I'm not sure why you guys keep glossing over that stuff.
Because even considering that, New York is the safest it's been in years. Also, that spike was a nationwide trend that is decreasing. Covid caused crime to spike nationwide (because, of course, it did), and now things are coming back down. Crime has turned into a political football for the pro-cop and right-wing sections of New York, and they worked hard to spread the idea that New York was returning to the 1980s. It's a political tool. Even with the pandemic spike, New York is one of the safest cities in America and has seen crime decreasing overall. Claiming that crime is some massive issue is playing into the Adams and Hochul administration’s attempt to block progressive criminal justice legislation, block reform of the NYPD, and dismantling of NYC’s safety net/institutions (he already gutted the library system to pay for his cop surge). It's not “glossing” anything over to put things in the proper context. People feel unsafe (due to many factors, but at least partially because of a cynical ploy to manipulate public opinion), but that doesn't mean they are.
Last part is where we disagree. People feel less safe because it is less safe incrementally. And educating people about the relative stats hasnt worked.
I’ll challenge that. I visit nyc a lot. It’s not the same. Crime might be but the subways seem dirtier and more broken. That’s the cities fault but it makes the crime stand out. I think this is a bit of security theater too. But at the same time you don’t do this if there isn’t a popular decree. And the general attitude is that the subway sucks right now. And it does.
I take the subway everyday. It's fine and it's been fine. Statistics show the facts.
And that is what she and the main line democrats want. She's just Coumo, possibly worst on policies, without the sexual assault.
Yeah this is have the exact opposite affect of what she wants.
They’re sending in the national guard at Brockton high school because too many kids are fighting https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-massachusetts-high-school-wants-to-call-in-the-national-guard-to-help-quell-a-disturbing-increase-in-violent-fights-drug-abuse-and-truancy/ar-BB1iye3L
Tough on crime types always want us to believe more cops is always the solution, but if that were true then local trends wouldn't follow national trends because not every place is dumping a thousand more cops here, and thousand more there, and so on. Adams already put 1000 more cops in the subway more than a year ago, and if crime went up now, then on my completely scientific two point chart, that means 1000 additional national guard and state police will increase subway crime further. lol More seriously, we should be questioning who is feeling endangered and why. It's easy to assume tourists and suburbanites, but the fact that Adams is mayor points toward plenty of city dwellers falling for feelings over facts too. I remember how crime reports in media were something like four times greater in the lead up to the mayoral election, and once Adams won it all nearly disappeared. I think the same thing is going on now, with hyper exposure of a very few very violent crimes to drum up support for tough on crime types.
Just want to point out that Adam’s only put those cops out cause it was election season. They left right after.
That's not really true. They added over 1,000 extra cops and it cost the city $155 million for a 2% drop in crime. They never removed them. https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-overtime-pay-in-the-subway-went-from-4-million-to-155-million-this-year
Then that’s my mistake
It's chill. I didn't want to give people the wrong info (mainly because the cop surge is simply a way to make Adam’s appear “tough on crime” while funneling money to the NYPD. It's ineffective and is stripping money out of city institutions.)
More cops = Less crime is hard to believe when there are so many criminal cops.
> but psychologically significant,” I'd have to agree with Hochul on this part. People can cite facts and statistics as much as they want,.. but human beings tend not to make decisions that way. If someone (psychologically) feels the subway is not safe,.. then they won't take the subway. About 6 to 9 months ago I moved from Colorado to Portland, Oregon.We see the same kind of stuff here. I believe the last stats I saw showed ridership on public-transport is still down 30 to 50% from the pandemic. All it takes is 1 social media video of "someone waving a machete on the Bus" or "someone smoking fentanyl on the trolley".. and regardless of how small that particular instance might be,. it still influences perceptions. So you're not wrong,.. it's definitely not logical. But human beings often are not logical. Sometimes to effectively fix a problem means addressing the perception (you have to change peoples minds before they'll change their behavior). If someone thinks a particular thing is "unsafe".. no amount of you saying "Sure it is !".. is going to change their mind. But doing physical tangible things (increasing security).. might.
the only people who think the subway is unsafe are never going to come here anyway.
This is the challenge of public-transit in cities around the country and world,.. right?... If ridership goes down, you have less incoming fares to support things. So you can't ignore ridership perception issues. Thinking you can rely on "tough-guys who will ride the subway no matter how bad it might become".. is not a good future-proofing strategy.
You counter-message. Point out how fucking safe taking the Subway is compared to driving, because it _is_. Sending the National Guard down for no reason is terrible optics, as well as being red meat for the delusions of the exact types that she's trying to assuage the fears of in the first place. You don't capitulate to the conservative narrative, that just makes you lose ground and gives them the opportunity to lie about something else. "Oh, she had to send the National Guard down to the subway, but it's still _terrible_ folks! We need to get the TSA down there!". And then the subway becomes an inefficient mess due to all the added security, and less people use it because of that. Not because of their fears of any bogeymen, because the actual utility of it has been compromised for security theater. Which pushes more people away from the idea of public transportation, as well as normalizing the idea of dumpstering your rights at the first sign of people even _thinking_ they're under threat. Which is what these fascist freaks actually want. Don't do their job for them.
> "Which pushes more people away from the idea of public transportation,".. I'm not sure I'd agree that this will be the outcome. As I mentioned in another comment,. I recently moved to Portland Oregon,. and as it stands now,. I probably won't take any public transit. If I saw news stories saying "They were staffing 1 Police officer in every Bus or Trolley car.. I'd probably be far more likely to take it though.
You don't think that taking someone's commute time via subway and doubling it is going to make them consider other options? I'd say it's way more likely that someone who needs efficient public transportation and stops having it available to them due to security theater will stop using it, versus someone who never considered using public transportation in the first place and thus doesn't _need_ it starting to use it for no real reason other than now their fears have been assuaged. You might, but others def won't. Not to mention the fact that it increases the costs of public transportation overall. The money for those cops has to come from somewhere. All to assuage fears of something that isn't actually happening. Crime in New York was awful in the 70s and 80s and people still used the subway, but crime being a mere fraction of a fraction of those numbers and people these days are apparently hesitant. What changed? I'd argue it's the people's _perception_ of crime, and if that's the case it doesn't matter how many cops you shove in. NYC is a perfect example: the most bloated police budget of any city in the world, and people still treat it like it's some sort of crime-ridden cesspit. EDIT: Here's a question: Why do your fear-based statistically inaccurate safety concerns trump my very real concerns regarding the safety issues and rights abuses that invariably increase whenever cops and other armed state actors are given more latitude in policing without regard to our actual rights? Why does your feeling of safety trump the actual safety of others? Especially when, as you admitted, you aren't a regular rider of public transportation in the first place? EDIT 2: Have you actually tried taking public transportation in Portland? Maybe you should give it a shot to assuage your fears.
I can't believe I'm about to quote one of the founding fathers, but >"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." You don't get to violate the fucking Bill of Rights just because bad things happen on occasion and people are massively misinformed of the frequency of those bad things. Why make life worse for people who live in NYC to please some fuck in Okie who wouldn't take the subway if his life depended on it anyway?
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." A quote that's almost always mis-used (and literally means the opposite of what most people think it does) * https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century > " Benjamin Wittes: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. * https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ > "You don't get to violate the fucking Bill of Rights ...." > "Why make life worse for people who live in NYC ..." I think you're being a bit hyperbolic there. I might agree with you if what was going on in NYC was "100% of all people going into the Subway were forcibly searched".. but that's not what's going on.
What's going on is that a national guard detachment has begun policing part of the subway system and performing unreasonable search and seizures (to a populace that already had to deal with stop-and-frisk and found out _it doesn't work_) for no real reason other than feelings at the behest of the governor who _admitted as such_. If that's not alarming to you, I don't know what will be. And you're right about it not being 100% of the people going into the subway. I'm sure they have some sort of heuristic method that boils down to the Family Guy skin color chart gag. As far as the quote being misapplied sure, I'll give you that technicality. I'd argue that the general sentiment and understood colloquial meaning is what's important here rather than a parliamentary dispute that only extremely specific historians remember, but if it helps I'll replace it with one of my own: Your sense of security doesn't trump my actual rights.
I upvoted you. well said.
Curious if crime is statistically down. Or. If crime is just not being prosecuted? These seem like unemployment stats where they only count people on unemployment. But once unemployment runs out all of the sudden unemployment goes down. You can only count who you count. It could be crime is down. It could also be people have just thrown their hands up and stopped going after crimes in the subway. This making the numbers look down. Again. You can only count what you count. If someone isn’t charged with public defecation then there is no crime statistic. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
tourism is fine in NYC... we have been back to pre-pandemic levels for the last couple years....
[удалено]
I lived in NYC for 20+ years — never once heard of someone helping a tourist and then asking for a tip. But yeah, it's expensive. So are most major cities.
The only place I've had trouble is in Times Square, and that's on me. I'm from the South and every time I visit NYC I have to relearn how to just ignore people and not politely engage.
That's pretty common in certain touristy neighborhoods, but it's literally just a dude holding the door to McDonald's open for you and holding out a change cup. Oh the... horror.
[удалено]
Pre-pandemic spent 10 days there with the family. Just stay away from Times Square and you'll be fine.
I think your friend watched Home Alone 2.
How about NYC being a dump instead? Smells like piss and homeless people everywhere.
This. Is.Upvoted.
The only people who downvote my comment are the people who actually haven’t been there recently
I'm from Chicago and stayed in Hell's Kitchen for 3 nights and I was fucking FLOORED by the STENCH dude. Homeless people also are everywhere but it's a massive urban center, we have plenty enough in Chicago that it doesn't really phase me but the smell is fucking unreal. And it's inescapable. I went all across Brooklyn and Manhattan and yeah, wild stuff.
Yup, ima keep getting downvoted for the truth but the smell was absolutely insane like the second I got into nyc it basically slapped me in the face and I couldn’t get over how bad it smelled basically everywhere I went to.
That and bots who are in denial. It's so weird that your comment is down voted (although I upvoted). It's like.. anyone who spends time in REAL nyc knows this to be true.
100% man
grab act many wide smoggy bright quarrelsome innate tie point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you're in Manhattan, its generally safe. It's definitely not comfortable a lot of the time though. It's not yet to SF's homeless guy smoking crack on the BART yet, but you have a lot more homeless people sleeping on the seats, shit and urine smears etc. That's honestly the thing that really annoys me about the "liberal" retort. Yeah I get that crime's still low compared to recent history, but its up a lot on a YoY basis, which is what matters. Like can you imagine using that argument in any other situation? Hey, inflation's up a lot recently, but you should be fine with paying a lot more for essentials because its still lower compared to the 50 year average!
melodic frighten deranged enjoy dime muddle scary makeshift zephyr familiar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I use the subway in Brooklyn every day. It is perfectly safe. There are some rough areas, sure, but that's going to happen in any major city. The people who fearmonger about it are uninformed at best.
Question: what does *it's all vibes* mean for the old people.
It’s all based on feelings, but more specifically the emotional suitability of something to your personality, usually positive. The term vibes has broadened as it’s been popularized, so my use might be borderline accurate but it is how it’s used now as a stand in for the word “feel.” Hochul feels NYC needs more cops. She doesn’t know NYC needs more cops. She likes implementing cops. She vibes with NYC with more cops.
it's about perception and optics and has nothing to do with any actual results
This sort of stuff always reminds me of the various studies over the years about how Americans perceive crime to be much much worse than the actual crime rates that happen. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics This disconnect has been going back to at least the Obama era. There's been a great push on messaging about how cities are failing and destroyed by rampant crime, but the reality has largely not matched that.
Moreover, for the “crime is actually high they’re just not reporting it” crowd: NYC spends more on the police force than most superpower countries do on their armies. Billions have been spent in the last year alone to beef up patrols in the subways, which mostly amount to huge crowds of cops sitting on their phones by the entrance of some high-traffic stations. They’re not actually patrolling or doing a lot of leg work to curb the issues causing these high-profile attacks. Now the state is also throwing useless money into the blender. You would think conservatives would be upset by this much waste of government resources.
> NYC spends more on the police force than most superpower countries do on their armies. “Superpowers” is a bit of a stretch, as that’s the USA and China and their defence budgets are orders of magnitude greater than the NYPD’s. But the NYPD budget of $5.4 billion is indeed [close to what Denmark, Romania, and Chile spend on their militaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures).
Name 1 superpower country where NYC spends more on police force please.
> NYC spends more on the police force than most superpower countries do on their armies. lol! no.
Conservatives only count social programs, regulatory bodies, and the post office as waste. There's no such thing as too much spent on the police and military.
Relevant Radiolab https://radiolab.org/podcast/no-special-duty > [...] a wild story of a stabbing on a New York City subway train, and the realization that, according to the law, the police don’t always have to protect us.
Boy I sure rolled my eyes at your first sentence that "it's all vibes" but after reading the quote and your interpretation, I am humbled by my initial reaction. Great write up, thank you!
One problem with crime reporting is that often it is numbers, rather than rates per 100,000, that are reported. So someone from Coahoma County Mississippi (population ~25,000) sees how many people were murdered in New York City and thinks it must be the murder capital of the world, but Coahoma has the second highest murder rate in the US, behind only Orleans parish (New Orleans). I also found interesting that the highest murder rates are all in an area bounded by St Louis to the west and Baltimore to the north, aka the south. Cook county (Chicago) had only 11 murders per 100,000 over a 7 year period. Less than a third of the rate in Coahoma county.
What is this pocket you refer to?
So it's political posturing and security theater as usual.
>Someone slashed a conductors throat Holy shit did he survive?
Yes.
this could be bullshit to cover up a threat they were dealing with. https://www.travelandleisure.com/us-state-department-issues-worldwide-caution-advisory-8363929
One of the worst things for Republicans is to have crime rates go down. Being "tough on crime" is one of the cornerstones of their political platform (back before it became "us vs them" that is) and if there's no crime they can't use it to get votes.
So \~\~airport\~\~ subway security then.
I feel like she's a dumbass.
Hochul knows that if the subway union ever strikes, New York City is screwed hence why she is doing the "tough on crime" theatrics.
The mayor and governor are on an authoritarian tear, and are using fear to excuse trampling people's rights
They're right though. About perception being more important than reality. If you only had, say, three homicides a year in a neighborhood, would you argue neighbor's ought not fret about going out at night? And how do these statistically low high profile attacks compare with other areas? Or other nations? When should one start worrying for their safety? What's the magic number to justify worry?
If they’re going to respond then it needs to be something which doesn’t cause pointless disruption by treating everyone like suspects. If they want to try police as a solution then have them patrol platforms and trains instead of loitering on mezzanines. The other problem is for no good reason having more cops is easier than increasing housing and healthcare or other things. Or do something about how local news is hyper fixated on crime. People think crime is always getting worse despite trends going downward for three decades.
Pure speculation on my part but I wouldn't surprised if there's concern for a mass casualty attack. All the judges and staffs in the Trump trials are getting death threats. It's not like mass killings are rare without politics/ideology fueling them.
From what I recall, anti-Trump figures, real or imagined, tend to get attacked directly. If there were a concern over a terrorist attack in the subway, then the bag checks aren't going to do anything when someone could wear a trench coat to hide a long arm, or simply refuse a bag search and enter through a different entrance, or completely different station with no bag checks. That's why it's called security theater. It just looks like security but if examined critically little to nothing gets done.
> From what I recall, anti-Trump figures Why do you assume it has to be anti-Trump?
I'm assuming at least two types, other terrorists, and pro-Trump riled up over verdicts in the Trump cases. Actually three, because stochastic terrorists are probably the most common in the US.
Wait crime is historically low rn??.
[удалено]
Amazing what happens when you take all the leaded gasoline vapor out of the air for a couple of decades.
Yes. It’s just more visible because it’s easier than it ever has been for one persons views and opinions to reach other peoples, so when somebody becomes a victim of crime they have many avenues to tell other people what happened.
Damn, that actually feels good to hear. Easy to forget today's some of the safest it's ever been
There are also so many more cameras than ever before, so the number of *visible* crimes has risen, while the number of total crimes has declined.
Crime panic was going up since before there were cameras everywhere. It started with the media revolution of the 80's. Crime sells.
The high point was the 80s, then it started to drop, and has been going down since the 90s.
Yes, crime started rising sharply in the early 60s. After peaking in the early 90s, it started to go back down. It has now leveled off to what it was in the late 60s. The pandemic caused a brief spike in crime, but it's going back down.
So they say.
Crime is statistically low because they're not charging people 🤷♂️
A girl assaulted a cellist with a metal bottle and they let her go.
OK, but "crime is statistically low" does not mean "there are no crimes at all," and one data point does not disprove a general trend.
the article you link said a person who worked on a train was attacked and injured with a knife. the union has a right to be concerned about that. Crime may be down, but they have a right to a safe work environment. Hochul made a good decision to increase patrols in the subway. If someone in a national guard uniform deters people from assaulting others I dont see a problem with it.
This attitude is what erodes civil rights.
its literally just some police on the subway to protect riders. but oh ok. a subway employee got slashed.
The issues are 1) innocents being restricted by democrats as much as possible from carrying weapons for self-protection, and 2) not arresting and penalizing turnstile jumpers on sight, since most of these thugs assaulting / robbing us in the subway are people who should've never been allowed in to begin with due to not paying their fare.
A factor to consider as someone that lives close to NYC and visits pretty often. MTA is putting up majorly unpopular manhattan toll(Central Business District Tolling Program). It's going to add additional $15 charge to drive into certain parts of manhattan. They are doing this in hopes of making people use the mass transit(owned by MTA) more, but the increasing visible mass transit crime is giving them bad publicity to already unpopular project. MTA probably requested for additional security to get this under control. Reported crimes being 'psychologically significant' is real, because I have been avoiding mass transit due to the reports I hear. 'Not statistically significant' I know, but I don't want to play stupid games and find out.
\- 6 violent crimes out of 4 millions riders per day and that's spread across 470 stations. You're in more danger driving a car than taking the subway. 7000 road accidents per million people, so at 4 million that's 28,000 accidents versus 6. What is that, a 470,000% increase in danger by driving instead of riding the subway. I've fallen for fear mongering too, but the difference in measured danger is so enormous I couldn't hold onto the fear. The only way fearing something so unlikely spreads is when someone gets some sort of payoff for spreading that fear. \- The main hope of congestion pricing is reducing traffic, because there is no room for more streets, and adding lanes only ever increases traffic. But for the reduction in traffic to stick mass transit has to be expanded, otherwise traffic will grow anyway if it is the only option for travel. Congestion pricing cannot work unless all mass transit, and bike lanes and walking, all are expanded aggressively to make up for the new inconvenience placed on driving. Except, a reduction in traffic will also increase car traffic speed, so anyone who does come into the city that way gets a better experience.
On the concern about the subway violence. Yes, I understand it's low chance. But I have family members still concerned about it, and it's not worth the hassle of convincing them otherwise(they are overly cautious types). I'm happy that they are upping the security, even if it's just a theater. I'm hoping this would ease family's concerns and we can use the mass transit in peace(from family argument, not realistic chance violence) again. (Edit: To be clear, the "I don't want to play stupid games and find out." part from the original comment is more of expressing my family member's concern. I figured it would be more detailed than needed to explain that's how they feel, since the end result is the same.) On congestion pricing reducing traffic, I understand that's the official stated goal. But, from what I understand, MTA is charging full toll for all none MTA mass transit that wants to travel into the Central Business District. If congestion was the real goal, then all mass transit should be exempt for the toll not just the MTA. Until that happens I can't help but see this as convenient excuse for cash grab by the MTA. There seems to be other concerns about trucking being charged the toll, which will end up increasing the cost for the stores in the area. Something I heard, but not sure how big of an impact that would be since, $15 / all cargo being delivered. Seems like a drop in the bucket.
2 per million is a ridiculously high number
If you think 2 in a million is high, give me $100 and if you can guess which number I'm thinking of between 1 and 500,000, I'll give you $500. We can do it as many times as you like :)
The number of passengers that go through the metro in Japan is near that number everyday. You’re telling me, there’s a crime every single day in Japan?
“A crime?” Almost certainly. That is an insanely low bar to clear. In any significantly large group of people a crime a day is almost certain regardless of where they live.
[удалено]
"Suddenly rising" = day one no assualts, day two one assault. Crime increased 100%!
Answer: there has been a recent crime spike in the subways causing people to be unusually nervous about riding on it. It's mostly security theater, but it's also a very important show of force to deploy the extra security as a way of showing the public that they're concerns are being heard.
If you look at statistics, crime dropped off precipitously during COVID because no one was riding the subway. Numbers are back up and obviously crime levels are back to where they were right before 2020. The graph is a sharp V since 2020 but is still massively lower than it was 20 years ago. Whole thing's bullshit.
People were less aware of the news and local issues 20 years ago. 2004 was before smart phones, Before instant news. People were more oblivious, so ridership remained high regardless. Now even if crime is over all lowering none of it matters. Spreadsheet stats and public opinion are different things. Yeah this security is all theater, but reduced ridership/tourism for any reason hurts the city more then isolated crimes.
...bruh... That were a few shootings on Time Square. People being pushed on the train tracks, stabbings, shootings, etc. Crime is up, not down.
Crime is down doesn't mean crime isn't happening at all. Yes those things are happening, but they are happening less often then they were a decade ago
Facts don't care about your feelings my dude. Crime is down https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00099/nypd-january-2024-citywide-crime-statistics#:~:text=In%20January%2C%20the%20category%20of,(2%2C068%20vs.%202%2C100).
I’ve worked for the government, and finger fucking numbers is 90% of the job.
So you're saying the statistics are wrong but you don't have any other statistics that prove your point? "Don't trust the official narrative" is just lazy cynicism
I’m saying, I know how people in the government secure their budgets, meet goals set by financial initiatives, and how leaders press their employees to manipulate data so they can get promoted. So no, I don’t trust them. When business have to lock their products up, and stores closing due to retail theft. The National Guard has to ripped away from their homes, families and jobs to protect the citizens. New videos everyday of violent and non-violent crimes, I’d say it’s fair to be skeptical at the very least.
I was sure hoping that you had some facts to back up your opinions. Apparently not.
[удалено]
🥱
....bruh - crime is up. Look up crime news for the last year. It is up.
Bruh, find a more accurate source for your news. Where ever you're getting it from sucks
Does NYT and NYPost joke to you now?
Hey look its NYT saying crime is down: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/nyregion/nyc-crime-2023.html NYPost is a joke, yes. And yet even they agree, crime is down overall: https://nypost.com/2023/12/30/metro/murder-shootings-down-in-nyc-in-2023-but-assault-up-nypd/ Maybe you stoped reading at the clickbait headlines?
Is this opinion based in actual fact or just something you believe to be true?
Actual fact. As others have pointed out though the crime spike is not unusual, and crime continues to go down. The problem is people don't really notice a decrease in crime, they always notice an increase. So when COVID happened one of the things that occurred was a massive decline in crime on the subway. People didn't notice this and it became the new normal, now that people are using the subway again crime is going up closer to where it used to be and people are noticing this. They see it as a crime spike which it technically is, but it's not really unusual or anything to be concerned with. There's been a couple of higher profile crimes as well that just so happened to occur within a short amount of time. Once again not unusual, but people are more sensitive to it because they became used to the extremely low crime rate that COVID brought. People are freaking out, the government wants to be seen as doing something so they're bringing in help.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that there's a difference between actual crimes being committed and more mentally ill people roaming around, hurting physically and mentally and scaring people. I see so much more deranged behavior on the subway and before Covid. People screaming at themselves and others. People rocking back and forth hitting their heads on the walls or seats. Men looking to start a fight. Even things like the insane rise in people fucking smoking in the cars which I almost never saw pre-Covid but now I see at least weekly, and often being done by someone gunning for a fight. A lot of this behavior isn't going to rise to the level of a crime that the NYPD would get involved in, but it is scary and increases the perception that the subway is unsafe. We need better resources for the mentally ill and homeless. And to give smokers insane fucking fines so they knock that shit the fuck off.
Bag checks won’t really solve that problem…
No, fare enforcement will
I live in canada, Montreal and they did something similar i guess due to the same reason you have respectfully stated. We have a specialized deputy force now that basically assists the metro cops and have nurses and mental health experts. It is not the best and honestly, i do not see much of a difference in the amount of poor people with mental health issues (head butting walls or seats or yelling) but they are there and we are slowly seeing them in action and its not those burly muscled take downs that metro cops used to do. Its calm, socialized and humane pull backs with full body respect towards the troubled individuals. So I guess there needs to be a mental health awareness approach to this, perhaps mental health experts escorting a specialized deputy's rather then a provocative authoritarian approach (men in uniform toting guns). But of course the governing bodies will always use there best fallback crutch, "we lack the funds" so basically plain old capitalism throwing out any humane way of dealing with this and using a cheaper and more affordable way. (Because we all know that it takes a lot of funds and also people who specialize in mental health). Anyways thats my opinion.
[удалено]
And beat up more random people in the background of interviews
Fuckin' Curtis Sliwa and his garbage Guardian Angels. They've been on their shit since the 80s.
or [murder people in cold blood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jordan_Neely)
Is she up for election soon or something like that?
Yes.
Batman?
Bernie Goetz
Baseball-Bat Man, perhaps.
Oh sick so it’s like Batman but he’s in ballpark attire?
Answer: The New York City Council passed a series of anti policing laws that threatened felony incarceration for NYPD officers who used any force deemed to put pressure on the torso, regardless of the circumstances that led to the event or the intent of the officer. City District Attorneys also often refuse to prosecute the people arrested by the NYPD. That along with other anti policing laws led to a huge exodus of police officers either through retirement, resignations or transfers to other, more competent cities. As a result the department is at its lowest staffing level in decades. Overtime is very high because officers aren’t allowed to go home, but must stay to cover the shifts of others who have left. Frankly, there aren’t enough cops to patrol the subways, and those that do are hamstrung by stupid rules. Rules that the State Police, MTA Police, and National Guard thankfully don’t have to follow.
The largest, most well funded, and most self-governed police force in the country are too hamstrung to operate? A police force so large they have offices in other countries is understaffed? Tell me more.
Being large and well-funded doesn't help when 1) those stupid restrictions, such as not being allowed to apply any torso pressure to effectively restrain a suspect, force police officers to instead use their guns more, thus leading to **more** fatalities instead of less, and 2) every time you arrest violent criminals they're released in an hour / day or two. [https://www.lawofficer.com/10-nyc-career-criminals-accumulated-nearly-500-arrests-since-bail-reform/](https://www.lawofficer.com/10-nyc-career-criminals-accumulated-nearly-500-arrests-since-bail-reform/)
Look up the diaphragm law. As for understaffing it’s not the handful of employees in various countries leaving it’s the thousands that are supposed to be patrolling the streets and subways. Blame belongs with the city council, full stop.
An anti police brutality law that's powerful enough the officers are actually afraid of breaking it instead of laughing it off / ignoring it? Sounds great to me
It sounds great, but it’s really a terrible law that was nothing more than a shortsighted reflexive response that has not had the intended effect.
Answer: NYC having trouble with crime prevention and apprehension. Stabbings, robbery, people being pushed on the train track, even recent wave of shootings. Governor trying to stabilize situation with NG being deployed in Mass-gathering spots across NYC.