Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The ‘Pantaleo Effect’: NYPD arrests plummet in wake of firing

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The ‘Pantaleo Effect’: NYPD arrests plummet in wake of firing

    The number of arrests and criminal summonses handled by city cops last week plummeted compared to the same period in 2018 — and law enforcement sources warn it’s the “Pantaleo Effect.’’

    Officer Daniel Pantaleo was fired by NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill on Aug. 19 over his role in the fatal takedown of Staten Island cigarette peddler Eric Garner, enraging police officers and their union leaders, who argue the cop was simply doing his job during an arrest.

    Police Benevolent Association chief Patrick Lynch responded by angrily telling his members to “proceed with the utmost caution’’ when answering calls — and new statistics obtained by The Post on Monday suggest officers are heeding his warning.

    Arrests dropped 27% between Aug. 19 — the day Pantaleo was fired — and Aug. 25 compared to the same period in 2018, with police making 3,508 busts compared to 4,827.

    The number of criminal summonses issued fell nearly 29% over the same period, going from 1,655 to 1,181, the figures show.

    Multiple law enforcement sources told The Post that while there is no organized slowdown, cops on the street clearly feel that the department doesn’t have their backs, so why should they needlessly put themselves on the line?

    “Who wants to be the last cop standing?” a Manhattan cop said. “If someone’s in trouble and needs help or if a cop’s in trouble, obviously, you do what you have to do as a police officer. But if it’s discretionary, why put yourself in harm’s way?’’

    An NYPD supervisor in Brooklyn said, “Of course it has to do with what happened to Pantaleo — cops are frustrated, upset. They feel they don’t have the backing of downtown, Police Headquarters and City Hall.

    “It all goes back to cops feeling like they’re out on the street alone.’’

    A Bronx cop said the stats are lower partly because officers are taking more time with calls after Pantaleo.

    “They want to be more careful. They have to protect themselves because no one else is going to protect them,’’ the source said.

    The Manhattan source said Garner’s case would never have happened today — because the city has told officers to back down on making such quality-of-life busts.

    The Police Department said in a statement, “The brave women and men who joined the NYPD did so with a solemn promise to help people, to fight crime, and to keep New York City safe.

    “These dedicated officers practice precision policing — focusing on the offenders who commit crimes, not the accumulation of raw numbers.”



    https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....of-firing/amp/

  • #2
    A hard pill to swallow: You're taking a canoe ride down sh** creek without a paddle if you decide to choke sombody that isn't actively trying to kill you or someone else. It was a risky gamble and unfortunately, it didn't go his way. Anything less and you're risking killing them over something that can get you in a world of hurt later on. Don't know what your UOF policies out east are, but that wouldn't fly out west.
    Last edited by COMoparfan392; 08-27-2019, 10:17 AM.
    "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post
      A hard pill to swallow: You're taking a canoe ride down sh** creek without a paddle if you decide to choke sombody that isn't actively trying to kill you or someone else. It was a risky gamble and unfortunately, it didn't go his way. Anything less and you're risking killing them over something that can get you in a world of hurt later on. Don't know what your UOF policies out east are, but that wouldn't fly out west.
      You have no idea what you are talking about. There is a difference between between a submission take move and chokehold. The move never started out as a chokehold and May have turned into one for a few seconds and then released. PC O’Neal himself even acknowledged the circumstances were volatile and desperate and that Pantaleo had to do what he had to do before going through a plate glass window. Going through a plate glass window is pretty bad.

      There are experts who will argue at no time Eric Garner was never placed in a chokehold, but even if he was your post is extremely separated from the facts. Pantaleo didn’t kill Eric Garner. What killed Eric Garner was his morbid obesity, diabetes, asthma, and his heart condition coupled with exerting himself through resisting arrest. Eric Garner was very much alive after he was taken down. Dead people can’t say “I can’t breath.” The only way Eric Garner was going to survive that encounter with the police is if he never resisted and complied. Good chance him being taken down by a taser would have killed him.

      No matter how minor the infraction is we don’t control how the perp is going to behave. When you make that decision to enforce the law rather than use discretion and the subject refuses to comply, there is no going back. Let’s also recognize we don’t write the laws, we enforce the laws. Another important fact in case you didn’t pay close attention to this case is for a while the community has been complaining about this infraction. Cops were called there and ordered to enforce this law by the chiefs of patrols office. It wasn’t a pick up job.

      Pantaleo didn’t decide to choke anyone. Pantaleo followed orders by doing his job and things went south just as they would have gone south for any of us in that situation. If you think that wouldn’t happen to you, you’re kidding yourself and are very naive. I have worked my entire career in the Bronx on patrol and been in plenty of situations where you do what you have to do where there is no department guideline for. I just happen to have been very lucky it worked out. Fortunately for me I only have a couple months left till I retire. The job has changed at least in the NYPD forever because of PC O’Neal’s decision. The message is loud and clear, “enforce the law at you’re own risk. Things go south, we will not have your back.” Seems you missed that point of the article in your post.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post
        A hard pill to swallow: You're taking a canoe ride down sh** creek without a paddle if you decide to choke sombody that isn't actively trying to kill you or someone else. It was a risky gamble and unfortunately, it didn't go his way. Anything less and you're risking killing them over something that can get you in a world of hurt later on. Don't know what your UOF policies out east are, but that wouldn't fly out west.
        You should read more and post less.

        I will say that the whole loose cigarette thing is strictly east coast. I have never seen that in California.
        semper destravit

        Comment


        • COMoparfan392
          COMoparfan392 commented
          Editing a comment
          Yes...yes I do.

      • #5
        Originally posted by Lawdog138 View Post

        Another important fact in case you didn’t pay close attention to this case is for a while the community has been complaining about this infraction. Cops were called there and ordered to enforce this law by the chiefs of patrols office. It wasn’t a pick up job.

        Pantaleo didn’t decide to choke anyone. Pantaleo followed orders by doing his job and things went south just as they would have gone south for any of us in that situation. If you think that wouldn’t happen to you, you’re kidding yourself and are very naive. I have worked my entire career in the Bronx on patrol and been in plenty of situations where you do what you have to do where there is no department guideline for. I just happen to have been very lucky it worked out. Fortunately for me I only have a couple months left till I retire. The job has changed at least in the NYPD forever because of PC O’Neal’s decision. The message is loud and clear, “enforce the law at you’re own risk. Things go south, we will not have your back.” Seems you missed that point of the article in your post.
        You're abosultely right, had no idea that specific infraction was be rquired to be enforced. I'm now assuming that there are many infractions that you are forced to take action on vs using discretion. If so, out of curiosity, what are other examples? If not, feel free to correct me.

        I've already had several situations go south on me, and Im sure that will continue to happen. When they do go south, you just react, hopefully your reaction is based on training if you train frequently enough. If you guys out east are trained to do submission takedown via arm around the neck/choke holds, then so be it. Definitely sounds as though theres a huge diconnect between the city officials, NYPD brass, citizens, and those on patrol. My main point was, external factors such as obesity, heart conditions aside, you're taking a risk by making such a move because the public, right, wrong, or indifferent, will perceive it as a personal attack on that person, even if it was a completely legitimate UOF. Ergo, opening yourself to civil litigation or in this case, losing your job. Do I think he should have been fired? No. Am I surprised he was given the disconnect I mentioned earlier? No.
        "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by RGDS View Post

          You should read more and post less.

          I will say that the whole loose cigarette thing is strictly east coast. I have never seen that in California.
          Loose cigs or just Enforcement? Loose cigs are a ghetto staple.
          Now go home and get your shine box!

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post
            A hard pill to swallow: You're taking a canoe ride down sh** creek without a paddle if you decide to choke sombody that isn't actively trying to kill you or someone else. It was a risky gamble and unfortunately, it didn't go his way. Anything less and you're risking killing them over something that can get you in a world of hurt later on.
            Your knowledge is lacking.

            1. Choke is the incorrect term, unless they were shoving a hotdog down his throat.
            2. Strangle is the term for manual restriction of the airway, which isn't what happened either.
            3. The hold applied was a
            Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint, which constricts the arteries in the neck and thus blood flow to the brain causing temporary unconsciousness. It does not restrict breathing. It is neither a strangle hold nor does it cause choking.

            It's no more dangerous than a Taser, and less dangerous than a baton... both of which would also have been reasonable under the circumstances.

            The hold was applied consistent with then-current policy and training.
            What killed him was a heart attack... which had nothing to do with the hold applied and everything to do with being a fat slob engaged in strenuous activity.

            Don't know what your UOF policies out east are, but that wouldn't fly out west

            Pantaleo was fired for doing exactly what he was trained to do, exactly how he was trained to do it consistent with policy in place at the time. Same thing could happen in any use of force scenario.. "out west" or elsewhere.

            Apply force as you are trained and consistent with policy, get fired anyway. Pursue consistent with training and policy, get fired anyway.
            Last edited by tanksoldier; 08-28-2019, 12:28 PM.
            "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

            "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

              Pantaleo was fired for doing exactly what he was trained to do, exactly how he was trained to do it consistent with policy in place at the time.[/LEFT]
              If that were exactly the case, would he not have a legitimate case to get his job back? No Good Faith LEO law, or is he just SOL?
              Last edited by COMoparfan392; 08-28-2019, 12:39 PM.
              "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post
                If that were exactly the case, would he not have a legitimate case to get his job back? No Good Faith LEO law, or is he just SOL?
                It's New York. You think if the Mayor and Commissioner don't want you on their police force, that you want to be on that force?

                You think it's SAFE to try to get your job back?

                The rules are different than "out west".

                Here is an article where the Chief specifically tells officer NOT to follow policy:

                https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmat...E242pCiyCVTiw/

                ...yet they fired this guy because he DID follow policy.
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

                  It's New York. You think if the Mayor and Commissioner don't want you on their police force, that you want to be on that force?

                  You think it's SAFE to try to get your job back?

                  The rules are different than "out west".

                  Here is an article where the Chief specifically tells officer NOT to follow policy:

                  https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmat...E242pCiyCVTiw/

                  ...yet they fired this guy because he DID follow policy.
                  "The more you know"....I knew it was a mess out there but that's on another level. I hope the pension is worth it.....that is if you make it that far and the state doesnt go bankrupt from their progressive policlies.
                  "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post

                    You're abosultely right, had no idea that specific infraction was be rquired to be enforced. I'm now assuming that there are many infractions that you are forced to take action on vs using discretion. If so, out of curiosity, what are other examples? If not, feel free to correct me.

                    I've already had several situations go south on me, and Im sure that will continue to happen. When they do go south, you just react, hopefully your reaction is based on training if you train frequently enough. If you guys out east are trained to do submission takedown via arm around the neck/choke holds, then so be it. Definitely sounds as though theres a huge diconnect between the city officials, NYPD brass, citizens, and those on patrol. My main point was, external factors such as obesity, heart conditions aside, you're taking a risk by making such a move because the public, right, wrong, or indifferent, will perceive it as a personal attack on that person, even if it was a completely legitimate UOF. Ergo, opening yourself to civil litigation or in this case, losing your job. Do I think he should have been fired? No. Am I surprised he was given the disconnect I mentioned earlier? No.
                    You are not listening. There were several complaints from store owners of Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes and intimidating people from going into the stores where he was hanging in front of. It came down from the chief of patrols office to arrest Eric Garner. This job wasn’t a pick up from routine patrol where cops just happen to come across Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes. Cops were ordered to be there and arrest Eric Garner. Plain clothes cops observed him selling the cigarettes and approached him. They ordered him to put his hands behind his back and that he is under arrest. The officers tried several times to get him to comply. He is a 350lb man who is twice the size of Pantaleo. Pantaleo used a seat belt take down move to take Eric Garner down. At that time Pantaleo was nearly thrown threw a plate glass window. I don’t think at that time Pantaleo was concerned where is hand and arm placement was at that point in time or any point of time during the takedown. It happened very fast and your adrenaline is pumping. At no time no cop would be considering where their arm and hand placement is or even if it is on his throat. None of those things would be crossing any cops mind when trying to take down a man twice your size. So you are right, when things go south, you just react. You do what you have to do to live to fight another day. That’s exactly what Pantaleo did and you are saying you would do it differently. You are taking a risk anytime you enforce the law, especially in NYC and that is the point I’m making. The way of policing has forever fundamentally changed in NYC because of PC O’Neal’s decision to fire Pantaleo.

                    When a boss orders you to a location and arrest a person committing a misdemeanor, you are not going to be allowed to use discretion. It’s a lawful order from a boss and if a cop were to refuse that lawful order, you will be suspended without pay. If these officers were not ordered to be there and observed the infraction while on routine patrol, then discretion could be used. It’s not a must arrest situation unless a boss makes it a must arrest situation.

                    Pantaleo did his job and he was fired for it. That simple. Policing is never pretty and in fact downright ugly and violent when a person is resisting, unless you know something I don’t know? If not, no cop is concerned what the public perceives when attempting to arrest a resisting person.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by COMoparfan392 View Post

                      If that were exactly the case, would he not have a legitimate case to get his job back? No Good Faith LEO law, or is he just SOL?
                      Yes, he has a legitimate case to get his job back and he will.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Lawdog138 View Post

                        Policing is never pretty and in fact downright ugly and violent when a person is resisting, unless you know something I don’t know? If not, no cop is concerned what the public perceives when attempting to arrest a resisting person.
                        If my answer gave you the impression cops should immediately be concerned with public perception while arresting a resistor, then that's my fault for not being more specific. Should they be? No. All they can do is rely on their training and match the level of resistance with what is deemed appropriate per policy. Then, if a technique isn't working, escalate to the next level of force. My point is, each control tactic has a different stigma/perception attached when it comes to publicity after the fact. A move such as a neckhold or whatever you want to call it, has a particularly personal stigma due to it being so primal and physically close.

                        Is it beyond messed up that he got fired while doing his job per policy? Absolutely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately the public was responsible for pressuring the PC into getting him fired. If that is the case, then it all goes back to how the public viewed that particular UOF be it legitimate, or not.
                        "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          It wasn’t “the public”. It was a small cadre of vocal protesters that got the mayor’s Attention. This was a thug who was listed by bosses to be removed and his death just gave the vocal minority something to rant about. Nothing more than that. By the way, the state cannot go bankrupt and all state or local pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution. The welfare slugs do not have such protection.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                            It wasn’t “the public”. It was a small cadre of vocal protesters that got the mayor’s Attention. This was a thug who was listed by bosses to be removed and his death just gave the vocal minority something to rant about. Nothing more than that. By the way, the state cannot go bankrupt and all state or local pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution. The welfare slugs do not have such protection.
                            If California put it in their budget to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, nothing is out of the question for the progressive agenda. Albeit its a different state, but still the same wacky priorities.
                            "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."- Theodore Roosevelt

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 4759 users online. 212 members and 4547 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X