This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. historical revision history

==Initial text==The Internal Problems section sounds POV. David.Monniaux 17:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The truth is harsh... - SomeGod

I agree that the Internal Problems section is disgustingly POV and I also challenge the legitimacy of most of its information, especially concerning the price of equipment--being a police officer myself, I cannot understand how every NYPD officer needs to spend $3,000 on all of their equipment. You can get shirt, buttons, pants, boots, belt, belt-keepers, maglite, case, two sets of cuffs, gloves, mace, and asp for $750-$1000. Furthermore, I have a problem with the wording in the case of Amadou Diallo, as it's very charged and omits key facts--first, using the word "innocent" to describe him his POV in and of itself, because it implies without proof that the man was pure; that's why our courts say "not guilty" instead of innocent. I've chosen to edit the section to include a few more details on the incident so that it is accurately portrayed and the details will come from the Wikipedia artcile on Diallo.--Mance, unregistered user. 00:19 09 Jul 2005 (CST)

The internal problem section appears to be a one-sided attempt by on disgruntled employee to discredit the entirety of management in an organization of over 37,000 people (over 10,000 of which are supervisors).

I removed it and put the text here on the off chance that someone would want to make an attempt to clean it up -- CVaneg 09:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Internal Problems

Contrary to popular, belief, serving in the NYPD is not as heart-warming and pride ridden as the advertisements claim it to be. The recruitment process is inconsistent and, many times, people who didn’t qualify get recruited onto the force, due to pressure from the bosses to reach a manpower quota. Many NYPD members claim that the NYPD will hire you “if you have a pulse.” When accepted into the academy, cadets have to learn in old, decaying buildings. They also have to deal with the filthy locker and shower rooms. In addition they have to pay for all their equipment (around $3000 total) but receive an annual uniform allowance of $1000 every year, except for the sidearm, which is provided, pursuant to state law, for free.

When graduated from the Police Academy, most officers go to Impact Zones (high crime areas in NYC). However, nepotism runs deep with the NYPD and officers with "hooks" can be assigned to more attractive assignments, like the Highway Patrol or the ESU. Pay is also an issue. Although the NYPD website claims that pay can go up to $70,000, the actual amount of money is actually much lower, due to union dues, taxes, social security, health benefits, pension contributions, etc. The total amount of money makes it barely possible for an officer to live in the city without having to take a second job.

Unhelpful bosses, an ungrateful population, and low pay help contribute to the growing manpower issue the NYPD has.

Uneducated, contemptful, spiteful police officers who possess a disturbing sense of entitlement and overinflated egos serve to poison the otherwise collegial working environment in most precinct stationhouses. Perhaps if those officers who complain would spend more time improving themselves and stop blaming others, such as "the job" or "the bosses", for their position in life, they too could self actualize.

Wait a second

I think it is true... why take it out: Here are my sources:

Response to a question on the positive aspects of the job:

"THIS JOB IS GREAT, BUT IT ALSO SUCKS. OPPORTUNITY IS ABOUND ON THIS JOB - THEY KEY IS HOW DO YOU GET EXPOSED TO THESE OPPORTUNITIES? MOST OF THE GOOD STUFF MEANS YOU HAVE TO KISS SOME BOOTY OR HAVE A HOOK.

UNDER COMMISSIONER KELLY, WHO GETS MIXED REVIEWS FROM US AS A WHOLE, YOU MAY HAVE A LITTLE BETTER SHOT AT GETTING SOMEWHERE BASED ON MERIT - HE HAS BOUNCED PEOPLE FROM CHOICE ASSIGNMENTS AFTER FINDING OUT THEY DID NOT OBTAIN THOSE ASSIGNMENTS VIA MERIT.

SOME SOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE JOB -- THERE ARE MANY, MANY, MANY SUCH AS HAVING TO SURVIVE BY WORKING OVERTIME CONSISTENTLY AND OR WORKING A 2ND JOB STEADY. ------ 9/11, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY , MANY, MANY OF US WHO WERE INSIDE OF OR IN FRONT OF THE TWIN TOWERS WHEN THEY COLLAPSED DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE FREE TRIPS TO HAWAII, ETC.. THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY GIVEN OUT POST 9/11 TO HELP US DEAL WITH RELATED STRESS (NOT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TICKETS ANYWAY), THE CHIEFS AND OTHER INSIDE FOLKS WHO WERE NO WHERE NEAR THE TOWERS ALL TOOK THE TICKETS AND ENJOYED THEIR NOT DESERVED VACATIONS.---- THIS JOB IS NOT ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE, POLITICS PREVAIL AND THE COMMISSIONER AND MAYOR JUST WANT COMMANDING OFFICERS TO SHOW THEM MEANINGLESS NUMBERS (ARREST ACTIVITY, SUMMONSE ACTIVITY, ETC..).

GOD, I COULD GO ON FOR AWHILE. --LET'S JUST PUT IT THIS WAY. IF I COULD LAND A FED GIG, PLAINCLOTHES, INVESTIGATIVE, NOT INVOLVING ALOT OF FLYING, NOT INVOLVING RELOCATION AND MOBILITY TRANSFERS, AND PAYING WHAT I MAKE IN OVERTIME OR MORE, THEN I WOULD LEAVE THIS JOB IN A HEARTBEAT.

OH YEAH, THE BEST THING ABOUT THIS JOB IS RETIREMENT. I HAVE 8 YRS TO GO AND I'LL BE A MERE 40 YRS OLD.

FULL RETIREMENT IS BASED ON 20 YRS OF SERVICE. IF YOU CAN PULL SOME HEAVY OVERTIME, LIKE MANY OF US ARE DOING, FOR ANY 3 YR PERIOD DURING YOUR CAREER, THEN YOU CAN HAVE A NICE PENSION.

EXAMPLE: YOU MAKE $100,000 DURING ANY 3 YEAR PERIOD AND THESE ARE YOUR TOP SALARY YEARS. YOUR YEARLY PENSION FOR LIFE WOULD BE $50,000. WE ALSO GET SOEMTHING CALLED VARIABLE SUPPLEMENT. THIS IS ANOTHER LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF $12,000 PER YEAR FOR LIFE THAT YOU GET. ADD WHATEVER MONEY YOU PUT INTO THE DEFERED COMPENSATION PLAN AND ADD ANY POST RETIREMENT EMPLOYMENT - YOU SHOULD BE LIVING LIKE A KING AND HOPEFULLY PULLING IN $200,000 (COMBINED PENSION, VAR SUPP, DEF COMP AND POST RETIREMENT JOB SALARY) OR CLOSE TO IT OR MORE THAN THAT PER YEAR.

THE ONLY FOLKS ON THIS JOB THAT SEEM TO SEE THIS JOB IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT ARE THOSE THAT ARE PRIVILEGED....THOSE THAT ARE WORKING IN DIGNITARY PROTECTION UNITS, THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION (SOME UNITS), THE THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT, AND OTHER WHO YOU KNOW UNITS. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WORK AT HQ OR MAKE A PHONE CALL AND GET A TRANSFER OR PROMOTED TO 2ND OR 1ST GRADE DETECTIVE. -- I HAD A COLLEAGUE WHO I WORKED WITH FOR YEARS. HE HAD A HOOK WITH KERIK. WHEN KERIK GOT INTO OFFICE, HE GOT A SPOT INSIDE KERIKS OFFICE - NEXT THING YOU KNOW, HE HAD A BRAND NEW TAKE HOME UNMARKED CAR WITH ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES, HAD A DEPT CREDIT CARD, ATE STEAK FOR LUNCH EVERYDAY, AND HIS SKINNY LITTLE BELLY TURNED INTO A FAT PORKY THE PIG BELLY IN UNDER 3 MONTHS."

-PapiMike 911 job forums (read more on the NYPD there and find a better way to write "Internal Problems" - SomeGod

Translated version:

"This job is great, but it also sucks. Opportunity is abound on this job - they key is how do you get exposed to these opportunities? Most of the good stuff means you have to kiss some booty or have a hook. Under commissioner kelly, who gets mixed reviews from us as a whole, you may have a little better shot at getting somewhere based on merit - he has bounced people from choice assignments after finding out they did not obtain those assignments via merit. Some sour thoughts about the job -- there are many, many, many such as having to survive by working overtime consistently and or working a 2nd job steady. ------ 9/11, many, many, many, many , many, many of us who were inside of or in front of the twin towers when they collapsed didn't see any of the free trips to hawaii, etc.. That were graciously given out post 9/11 to help us deal with related stress (not that we would have taken the tickets anyway), the chiefs and other inside folks who were no where near the towers all took the tickets and enjoyed their not deserved vacations.---- this job is not about helping people, politics prevail and the commissioner and mayor just want commanding officers to show them meaningless numbers (arrest activity, summonse activity, etc..). God, i could go on for awhile. --let's just put it this way. If i could land a fed gig, plainclothes, investigative, not involving alot of flying, not involving relocation and mobility transfers, and paying what i make in overtime or more, then i would leave this job in a heartbeat.

Oh yeah, the best thing about this job is retirement. I have 8 yrs to go and i'll be a mere 40 yrs old. Full retirement is based on 20 yrs of service. If you can pull some heavy overtime, like many of us are doing, for any 3 yr period during your career, then you can have a nice pension. Example: you make $100,000 during any 3 year period and these are your top salary years. Your yearly pension for life would be $50,000. We also get soemthing called variable supplement. This is another lump sum payment of $12,000 per year for life that you get. Add whatever money you put into the defered compensation plan and add any post retirement employment - you should be living like a king and hopefully pulling in $200,000 (combined pension, var supp, def comp and post retirement job salary) or close to it or more than that per year.

The only folks on this job that seem to see this job in a different light are those that are privileged....those that are working in dignitary protection units, the intelligence division (some units), the threat assessment unit, and other who you know units. They are the ones who work at hq or make a phone call and get a transfer or promoted to 2nd or 1st grade detective. -- i had a colleague who i worked with for years. He had a hook with kerik. When kerik got into office, he got a spot inside keriks office - next thing you know, he had a brand new take home unmarked car with all the bells and whistles, had a dept credit card, ate steak for lunch everyday, and his skinny little belly turned into a fat porky the pig belly in under 3 months."

Would anyone know if there is any statistic on what % of the NYPD are actually from NYC? I'd bet it's pretty small, but I was wondering if anyone had a source, and this seemed like a good place to ask-- 67.87.44.11 11:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't talk about where they are actually originally from, but where they reside now. "NYPD officers must be residents of New York City or the Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, or Putnam.[75] Mayor Giuliani estimated that approximately 60 percent of NYPD officers currently reside in the city.[76] Approximately 70 percent of the last Police Academy graduating class were New York City residents." [1]

I doubt anyone would have hard statistics, unless a study has been done, because it would suprise me if the NYPD collected this information themselves. -- Quasipalm 13:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit late on this, but it seems like the NYPD would have to have that information. Paychecks and W-2s have to get mailed somewhere, after all. - Flooey 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the NYPD did do a study in the early 1990's and found that somewhere around 60-70% of the cops were city residents when they were hired and over-all it was a 49/51% split between those who still did (the 49%) and those who had later moved.

Will someone instert a section on police pay. New cops (Jan 2006 class) will earn 25,000 then 32 after 6 months. It will rise to $59,588 after 5 1/2 years. This is horrible pay in NYC and attrocious when compared to surrounding counties' police department's top pay. (sry for spelling im on the run). -- SomeGod

The Structure Section actually has two parts devoted to Aux Police, the first part being more of a promotion of the service, the second being more factual based. Suggest combining the two, with particular emphasis on the second one, while still integrating the first as well. hellenica 09:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged, hopefully it's still a neutral section. - SomeGod

I just edited the structure (before loggin in, *doh*) according to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/bureau.html Winnie-MD 14:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, but there should be a different description of this division, as it seems to be a copy-paste from an official NYPD web page, and could be considred POV Vaud 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, NYPD is censoring this article. Here is the whois on the IP that reverted undesiable reporting of common news in the "Scandal and Corruption" section of this article. Sara and Jeff Peter, please sign in and restrain your fellow employees from such acts, thank you.

 $ whois 206.212.185.253
 [Querying whois.arin.net]
 [whois.arin.net]
 
 OrgName:    New York City Police Department
 OrgID:      NYCPD
 Address:    One Police Plaza
 Address:    NDSS, Room 701
 City:       New York
 StateProv:  NY
 PostalCode: 10038
 Country:    US
 
 NetRange:   206.212.128.0 - 206.212.191.255
 CIDR:       206.212.128.0/18
 NetName:    NYPD-GOV
 NetHandle:  NET-206-212-128-0-1
 Parent:     NET-206-0-0-0-0
 NetType:    Direct Assignment
 NameServer: EXT-DNS1.NYPD.ORG
 NameServer: EXT-DNS2.NYPD.ORG
 Comment:
 RegDate:    1995-08-22
 Updated:    2004-04-13
 
 RTechHandle: SBE40-ARIN
 RTechName:   Berger, Sara
 RTechPhone:  +1-646-610-5069
 RTechEmail:  hostmaster@nypd.org
 
 OrgTechHandle: JPM75-ARIN
 OrgTechName:   McNamee, Jeff Peter
 OrgTechPhone:  +1-646-610-5069
 OrgTechEmail:  hostmaster@nypd.org
 
 # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-03-30 19:10
 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Holon67 16:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reported this censorship to the New York Times news department via email Holon67 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to provide the numbers of supervisory personnel in the department:

Sergeants?

Lieutenants?

Captains?

Thanks, PJO

DELETED

What are the ribbons that patrol officers wear above there badge? Is there a discription somewere?

I'm rather curious about it as well. I think it should be mentioned in the article.-- Hourick ( talk) 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the insignia at the top of the page? The font and colors are completely wrong.

I removed this paragraph for three reasons: 1. It is neither a scandal nor corruption; 2. It is not cited (except for the one fact); and 3. it is conjecture and speculation, and thus POV:

In June, 2006, Michael Chertoff, the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, announced that his department would cut the counter-terrorism budget for New York City by 40% ($124 million down from $207 million) [2]. Although the reasons for this might be ambiguous, many blame the City and the department for the cut. They argue that, instead of allocating money to combat terrorists, the City used the funds to increase the city's revenues by starting a new police initiative, called Operation Atlas. Cops assigned to Atlas were paid overtime using the federal funds but assigned to write a number of summonses (fines).

-- DavidShankBone 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For reasons that I cannot understand, user DavidShankBone insists on displaying the incorrect NYPD insigina on the web page. The one displyed on the page is inaccurate. The insignia image should be promptly removed and replaced with a more neutral different image.

• Elhombre72 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the worst in people is what makes this country so hateful. No, I did not know it was a complete misrepresentation of the police shield on the NYPD page. I saw a shield and New York Police Department. I wasn't paying close attention. I may be ignorant, I may not have "my facts straight," but I don't want to see a shield up that misrepresents the force. I wasn't paying attention; of that I'm guilty. But did you ever think to put on the "Talk" page why you are taking it down? Did you ever think to explain yourself? Or did you just decide that we are all cop-haters on Wikipedia and that you'll take the pompous action to take it down with no explanation? Perhaps in the future you should reach out for understanding instead of assuming people are jerks. It's a small step toward making this country a better place to live, and one you can do easily. I'll take the shield down myself [if inaccurate]. -- DavidShankBone 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that the very shield you keep taking down appears as the first shield in the same photograph you posted. Can you tell us how it is inaccuarate or not "neutral"? -- DavidShankBone 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK The fonts are not correct. The outside border is supposed to be yellow. The yellow displayed is the wrong shade, the color yellow on the actual insignia is more a bright yellow not an orange shade. The inner seal is inaccurate. The figure on the left is supposed to be defined and is a "colonist" holding a depth gauge. The figure on the right is supposed to be a native holding a bow. Go to this page for more info, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/ Elhombre72 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, you are wrong on this issue. I researched not only the site you gave, but also did a Google image search, and the shield displayed in this article is exactly the same one I found in my searches. You mention trivial issues (color shades), when you first came on here lambasting the shield as an obvious misrepresentation. These trifles you have are obvious? There are folks who have tried to take the shield down because they disagree with it being on the page, period. If you have watched this page for months, as you claim, then you know this. Had you not posted the conglomeration of patches, I would have thought you one of those people after you sketched out your argument. If you can find an image that shows how blatantly inaccurate the NYPD shield is on this page, I'll agree to it being replaced. But so far, you really haven't made much of a case. I'm betting that the shield now displayed came from the NYPD itself; a person might alter an image to show someone shoveling dog poop or something, but nobody would bother to alter the shading and the definition of the characters. I actually had difficulty finding a better emblem. I'd like to see what you can come up with. Post it here on this Talk page and we can all see what you are talking about. -- DavidShankBone 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?, I thought this was a community of ideas.

• I am not here to get into petty disputes regarding the image. I can tell you it is the wrong image. Several months ago, the correct image was displayed, then one day it changed. I am sure other readers and users noticed it too. Well, I have the correct image on file from a irrefutable source. However, I am not going to post because it is a law enforcement image and I don't need anyone from NYPD looking for me. I appreciate your challenge and your passion regarding this issue, but as far as I am concerned, this issue is concluded. I refuse to get into a conflict regarding your image, no matter how incorrect it is. Furthermore, DavidShankBone, I can assure you that I will not be making any more edits on the NYPD page. DavidShankBone you have the floor to yourself, all to yourself.

• For anyone interested.... http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfpers/patch-history.html; or http://idealogian.yucs.org/archives/2004/07/

• C'est la Vie, Elhombre72 01:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, this is not a community of ideas, it's a community of truth seekers. I responded to this entry below. -- DavidShankBone 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response: Then post the truth, the correct image, which you ended up doing anyway. You seem to want to have the last word...be my guest.

Okay, I'll take the last word: In the future, if you have a problem with a page, it would be better if you correct it yourself instead of griping about it, waiting for somebody else to pick up the ball and rectify your issue. You did not do this. If you see an incorrect emblem, it would be better to replace it with the correct one. I'm done. -- DavidShankBone 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have followed this page for several months and I have noticed that many of the changes and entries are not neutral, especially the "Scandal" and "Corruption" entries. Several entries use bombastic language and seem to have some type of agenda. Many of the entries lack proper citations and are often linked to "left wing" articles. I formally question the neutrality of this page.

• Elhombre72 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elhombre, I don't think anybody minds having the page questioned but you need to articulate what you find POV, instead of leaving it for us to figure out. If the reference is to the use of the word "brutally" when talking about a riot the police incited, then I disagree with you. "Forcefully" is not the right word when the Police Commissioner himself said the actions of the precinct were to blame for a riot. Do you see, that "forcefully" trying to enforce a park curfew waters down what actually happened? The police aren't all bad and I appreciate the work they do (when I actually see them). But that doesn't mean they have always done what's right. But you haven't made any arguments, just accusations. -- DavidShankBone 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the entry needs citation. Brutal is a harsh word.... This is not about cop hating it is about a neutral report of an incident. If the Police Commissioner said it ok, but which one? When? Quote the PC. If the police were wrong, they are wrong...but, what I question it the method of articulation. When I read some of the entries made by other users, they strike as sophomoric and agenda driven. For example the entry about Volpe,

• "On August 9, 1997, Police Officer Justin Volpe in Brooklyn brutalized Abner Louima with a broken broom handle in the 70th Precinct bathroom. Officer Volpe eventually pled guilty and received a sentence of 30 years in federal prison. Other officers were also implicated and convicted on charges stemming from the initial cover-up."

• Would it suffice to say "Police Officer Justin Volpe in Brooklyn 'attacked' Abner Louima...", I don't know maybe a user with more skill can do a better job, surely I cannot.

Elhombre72 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Abner Louima was sodomized with a broken broomstick handle. The dictionary definition of "brutalize" means "To make cruel, harsh, or unfeeling" and "To treat cruelly or harshly." Attack has similar denotations. Attack: "To set upon with violent force: aggress, assail, assault, beset, fall on." Either word works, in my opinion. Feel free to change it. But what does not work is changing "brutal" to "forceful." It means two different things when I say "I forcibly opened the door," and "I brutally opened the door." Sometimes, ElHombre, one must call a spade a spade. The NYPD is a great force with problems (past or present). Afterall, humans make up the department. But when one makes attempts to water down those problems, they endanger their ability to be addressed. Or "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it." It was with brutality these things happened, like it or not. The trick is to not have them happen again, not to make that they happened more palatable. -- DavidShankBone 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Elhombre72 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC) response:

Let us clarify something DavidShankBone - Mr. Louima was not "sodomized" by a broken broomstick handle. Under the penal law of New York State "sodomy" (Criminal sexual act) can not occur when a foreign object is inserted in the rectum or vagina. The crime agaianst Mr. Louima is under what the NY penal law would classify as "Aggravated Sexual Abuse", a foreign object penetrating the rectum by force and causing physical injury. Under New York State law, sodomy can only occur between two human beings without the use of any foreign objects (it is a different crime). Police Officer Volpe was prosecuted under federal statutes and subsequently pled guilty. As far as I am concerned, what he did was horrible. More importantly those who did not prevent the horrific act and those who attempted to cover it up are just as bad.

New York State Penal Law info: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

Second, your entries are great, but could you tone down your ranting? At anytime have I sided with anyone? What I look for is neutrality, that is it. You seem to be very passionate regarding these issues and I appreciate your eloquence, but I don't need to be lectured.

DavidShankBone response:

Elhombre, I don't understand where you are coming from. First, thanks for all the effort for to research sodomy, and you should contribute some work to the sodomy page; however I wasn't using sodomy legally, but biblically. Second, you use a log-on ID that appears to soley have been created for editing this page. You tell us you have followed the page for months, but then immediately start taking things down (the same things that have been issues with other editors, not just me) and changing wording. My wording. I wrote the TSP Police Riot article, and I inserted that paragraph. You start ranting, without giving any support, about "left wing" articles and the wrong shield. When I ask you to give proof, you complain about shading and other things that are trifles. You call my reasonable responses, in a reasonable tone given the above, rants. Yes, if there's a better, more accurate shield, then it should be up. But you didn't do that - You replaced it with a poor quality photograph, where the building was obscured by one of my least favorite public art pieces. Even the conglomeration of shields would have been better. Then, you lastly tell us you in fact have the correct picture, but allude to vague cloak and dagger stuff about law enforcement finding you so you'll never give it up. Then you act like a kid who is going to take his ball and go home. And you tell me you don't feel you need to be lectured? Dude, you've acted inappropriately from your first edit. Come off it. And ditch the sockpuppet. -- DavidShankBone 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response to the above:

File:Inner seal.jpg

File:New York City Police Department Emblem.svg

1. Biblical vs. legal definition for sodomy, "?". I was discussing a horrible crime that happen in our time and what the legal definition in New York State was...very simple.

I used it as a verb, not as a noun, and if you need to understand why your correcting me on my use of the word was off target go to the sodomy page and look at the different uses.-- DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response, Again I was explaining a factual legal definition, that is it. I know what it means, but you fail to understand the context of the legal definition in terms of the crime that occurred...

2. David, is it possible for you to comment on this topic in a more couteous and respectful manner? Do you like to engage in personal attacks? Cloak and dagger? Listen, it is my choice right? This is the USA right? Regarding the picture of NYPD HQ, is it not an accurate picture? Is it not police HQ? Is the sculpture not part of its grounds, even though you may not like it? The picture might be "poor" quality in your opinion, but at least it is factual. I explained what was incorrect with the NYPD patch image that was displayed and you called it " trifles". Plain and simple, the the image is incorrect and therefore, invalid. Please review the accurate inner seal of the insignia.

You miss the point, which was that your behavior was inappropriate from the start. What you should have done is replaced the emblem with the correct emblem. Not with a poor quality photograph. -- DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3. My login is used to access Wikipedia in general, not only for the "NYPD" page. I have come to realize you want to dominate this issue, so be my guest...

You make a lot of accusations, but you don't back them up. Your comments and your actions are all in the history of the page and above. For someone who has always used this ID, you have only used it to edit the NYPD page and some councilwoman (where you blanked the page). Yet you seem to have a firm grasp on how to edit, post images, etc. Not a sockpuppet? Hmmm...okay. -- DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

elhombre72 response Editing: I made an intial error on that page and then I tried to correct, sheesh...

4. Image review:

Read my response to this under number 2. It has become obvious you only want to argue and have the patch taken down. I'm done with this silly arguing. You won, anyhow - I replaced the emblem myself. So you should be happy. -- DavidShankBone 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Winning? nobody "won" here. Does this read familiar? "I'm the black sheep in a black family and I righteously bah bah bah all night." [3] See ya....DUDE... Elhombre72 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you guys don't mind my clarifying some things in the section on corruption. There are actually different issues of corruption, brutality and firearm discipline and they are reflected in different incidents. Also, "alleged" is an important word, because "common knowlege" can and is often used to refer to one point of view that is politically correct to a particular writer. I also added a note based in some reliable data, which is that the 35-37,000 member NYPD killed 9 people in 2006, whereas the 2,100 member Las Vegas Metro killed 12 people in that same year and the 6,600 member Philadelphia force killed 18.

Fire discipline could be the subject of a good article in and of itself. On television, the cop hero nails his target on the first shot. In reality, during a gunfight, street cops in all departments are notoriously inaccurate. They open fire without aiming properly, and they shoot rapidly without taking note of changes in the scene in front of them. Obviously, this can cause serious problems, especially for passer-by.

I think a section on misconduct is important, but I think sticking to facts is important too.

03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Clarification is okay, though the article still needs much improvement. I have recently started some work on the history section, getting as far as the "Lexow Committee". The paragraphs above that have numerous references to high quality, reliable sources. That's what the rest of the article needs, and as time permits I can do more with the article myself. As the article is improved, the heading "Allegations of police misconduct: corruption, brutality and excessive use of force" might be taken out, with details in this section can be worked into the history section, or other parts of the article in a balanced, NPOV manner. The timeline aspect of the section isn't great either, not quite "encyclopedic" as a list. A lot of work needs to be done to fix the problems and bring the article to a level of quality it ought to have. -- Aude ( talk) 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good for you! I'm happy to help you. I like your professional attitude. 15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

This might be a small thing, and it might just be me.

I just sort of stumbled upon a part of the Crime Scene Unit description, that goes like this:

"The Crime Scene Unit covers all of the boroughs of New York City, but is staffed with less than 1% of the total number of detectives in the NYPD. These detectives are dedicated to doing what is necessary to ensure that the precinct detectives and the District Attorney have as much evidence to identify the perpetrator of the crime and convict them at trial."

The part that goes "These detectives are dedicated to..." seems out of place in a neutral article. Seems a bit too glorious, but as the title says, might just be me. And since I've never edited a wiki page before so I just wanted to post it in here, instead of editing the page.

Best regards -Me

-- Treehuggerish 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

-- 67.142.130.34 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)I have decided that i am sick of the corruption section being the first thing you see when you get to this page and i belive more history of the department should be talked about -- 67.142.130.34 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would improve the page to move this section to less prominence. I think it lends a negative tone to the entirety of the article. Yes, it's history--true. But compared to the other history sections, it takes up a lot of space, and seems to grow. It needs its own page with a smaller section directing people to it. I request to make it the new Number 5 as a paragraph, with a larger article page. -- DavidShankBone 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week since I put this request up. I will give one more week before I go ahead and do it, if no objections are raised. -- DavidShankBone 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay, its an important section and the current article on exceeds article limit by 2k, which really isnt a limit anymore. -- zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay. Scandals and corruption are an important aspect of the NYPD's (and most any other law enforcement agency) history. Though, the material in the section is very much incomplete and unbalanced (covering 1970s-present), and can use cleanup. I have some reference materials that cover NYPD history further back to the beginning. I'll put this article on my to-do list, and work on improving the history section. -- Aude ( talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the NYPD and friends is monitoring and changing this page to their interests. If you read above talks, you will see what I mean. First, someone censored my contributions, IPs I traced right into the NYPD offices themselves. Second, in the above conversation, a mysterious user, Elhombre72, is accused of existing solely to edit this page. This user then mysteriously is erased from wikipedia. Someone should start tracking these issues and write a book, do some journalistic research and uncover the whole nasty affair. Why? This is the key to the potential downfall of and undermining of the reputation of Wikipedia as a valid form of information on anything other than the most agreed upon and unsensitive issues. Experts will continously "appear" out of nowhere and edit Wikipedia to suit their clients needs, i.e. there are vigilantes, paid or not, and they must be dealt with. Keep things where they are. This wasn't always at the top. Someone obviously is attempting to create disruption around this section, either to get it moved to the bottom of the article or removed altogether, maybe made into a small, insignificant section. As far as I am concerned, you all work for the NYPD. Holon67 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ABOVE: WOW!...the mysterious Elhombre72 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a complete removal but a summation leading to a larger, more expansive article. If we continue to expand this article, half the article is going to be about scandals and corruption, and that does damage to the page's reputation. And I agree, it can be expanded. For instance, these controversies aren't included. But if it expands, then I'll ask for arbitration from the larger community to have it moved to it's own page, which is what is supposed to be done. Especially on an article so lengthy. That there are scandals and corruption won't disappear, though. Ideas? -- DavidShankBone 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the same note of damaging the reputation of the article, its probably not a good idea to have the scandals and corruption bullet points so high up in the article. While referemces to the relative lack of corruption for the organizations size are provided, putting a list of scandals above the sections that explain the hierachry of the department gives a negative connotation. -- Zippy1981 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to put forward a crazy theory. After the NYPD's initial attempts to control this article failed (see above talks), one of their PR consultants offered this suggestion: create one good cop, and one bad cop, using the bad cop to do stupid things on the article, and the good cop to come in, using reasonable dialogue, to form a warm, fuzzy relationship with the wikipedia community. After the initial battering back of the bad cop by the good cop, the good cop would have pretty much free reign to "reasonably" crush and route out any resistance to their from-then-on "reasonable" assessments. See the current situation (circa Sept, 2006) whereby some mysterious person has moved the controversy section to the top of the article, creating an absurd situation that needs obvious steps to correct. Now our good cop will step in with his/her "reason" to correct the situation, and in the process, reasonably reduce this section to insignificance, and forever-more monitor the article for "integrity". Let's watch. And see if I am a paranoid wacko -- no harm in that -- or just crazy. Cheers and love Holon67 06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news...the NYPD was involved in a fatal shooting. Undercover officers fatally shot Sean Bell and wounded the other passengers in his car after Bell rammed an undercover officer and an unmarked NYPD car. Here is the yahoo link. Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ ct} 11:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh...correction. Not breaking news. The shooting happened on Saturday Nov. 25 at 4AM...so that about 24 hours old news. Here is the original yahoo news article. I'm waiting for the dust to settle before adding it to the "Scandals and corruption" section. Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ ct} 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, because they have attempted to control this article in the past: Here in New York, the police department is coming under intense criticism after a group of undercover officers shot and killed a 23-year-old African American man hours before he was supposed to get married to his high school sweetheart. Early Saturday morning, five officers fired 50 shots at a car carrying the groom-to-be, Sean Bell, who had just left his bachelors party with two friends. None of them were armed. Bullets hit Bell in the neck and arm. He died before reaching the hospital. Joseph Guzman is in critical condition after being hit by 11 bullets. Trent Benefield is in stable condition with wounds to his leg. Benefield was screaming out in pain when reporters arrived at the scene Saturday morning.

Shot him after he rammed the undercover squad car...not unprovoked random shooting. (for the record) =) Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ ct} 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing is happening with this article: Crime_Scene_Unit it was created in one go by an account which has no other contributions. If there is any other useful information, I'd recommend merging it here, if there isn't, I'd recommend just a redirect.-- Crossmr 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Smd423 might have copied and pasted the info from some official website. It's a good article, so I suggest finding sources for the article. The NYPD page is already too long, so it's probably not a good idea to merge more info into the page. Jumping cheese ^{Cont @ ct} 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a naming convention for NYPD articles? because the name is rather generic at this time. I've tried googling a few sentences out of it and have turned up empty. If he did copy it from somewhere, its a likely copyright vio and should be removed and redirected anyway.-- Crossmr 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did it. Not enought talk or action for anything less than a merge. -- Daysleeper47 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How come the rank of corporal doesn't appear in the rank list? I'm pretty sure I've seen corporals in the NYPD. 89.120.193.125 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be mistaken, there is no rank of "Corporal" in the NYPD. 207.38.249.132 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen NYPD officers with chevrons just like those of the sergeants, but two instead of three. If that's not corporal, then what is it? Look at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/schoolsafety/index.html, the picture on the left, the African-American officer on the right (although it's true that he is school safety, and the only corporals I've seen were also school safety; the rank might only exist for School Safety officers, but, even if, it should still be mentioned). I just remembered that, when I was in the NYPD Explorers, you could go from explorer to corporal (two chevrons) and then to sergeant. So there seems to be some history of using the rank within the PD. 89.120.193.125 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, there is no rank of "Corporal" among the uniformed members of the service which are the police officer ranks. School safty agents are civilian employees of the NYPD and therefore do not have para-military ranks. The two stripe chevron used by the civilian uniform agents designate titles such as, School Safety Agent level two, and the three stripe a supervisor, etc.

"majority minority" Ha! This is cracking me up...

I am removing this line:

Most of the actors playing the parts of the officers are real police officers assigned to the NYPD Movie/TV Unit.

What "parts of the officers"? This appears to be a cut-and-paste, referring to some specific production not referenced in this article. I am removing it. -- Chancemichaels 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

According to this NYTimes article, NYPD has it's own intelligence department with international reach, independent of FBI/CIA. -- Voidvector 03:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not a member/editer here, but the following sections of the intro to the article seem irrelevant/false: "The NYPD is considered by some to be the new mafia. A little known fact is that the NYPD uniform underwear color is neon pink". New mafia? I think something this inflammatory should at least have a source... and the neon pink thing just seems out of place. Sorry if this kind of comment isn't allowed 69.207.230.98 04:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that no mention of "Sean Bell" was contained in the article as of May 31, 2007. So I took the liberty of giving "the man" who was shot 50 times and killed a proper name and a link.

I noticed that the info box has some incorrect info. "Chief of Police" is not a rank in the NYPD, the proper rank for Joseph Esposito is "Chief of Department" which is the highest ranking UNIFORMED rank in the NYPD, a four star chief. Also Ray Kelly's title is Police Commissioner, not commissioner(s). There only one Police Commissioner (in charge). First Deputy Commissioner (second in charge, NYPD's main disciplinarian). All others are titled as deputy and assistant commissioners. Could someone with editing expertise adjust this, thanks.

NOTE: Fixed. Swohtz ( talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence states that the NYPD is THE largest municipal police department in the world, there are no citiations to this? I would figure such a statement would definately need some citations. I have no doubt that the NYPD is one of the the largest municipal police departments in the world, but if anyone can cite where and how one can claim it is the largest police municipal police departments in the world? It's difficult to say, with buildings you have a unit of measurement in height, and in that you have subcategories, such as highest building to roof or antenna. If we were to go with number of Police Officers alone or even number of police helichopters according to this NYPD wouldn't rank number 1 in either (in respect to civilian Police departments, not military police or paramilitary organizations, for example Tokyo has 42,000+ Police Officers not including support staff), so what standard is being applied here to make the statement it is the largest, is there even a standard that applies (number of officers + civilian employees + volunteers?) I have no doubt the NYPD is certainly one of the largest in the world, but standard is being applied saying it is the largest? What /where are the citations saying it is the largest in the world? Limitedexpresstrain 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: NYPD is the largest police force in North America. It is a municipal police force. Tokyo does not have a separate police force. All police in Japan are part of the Japanese National Police Agency, so there is no way to compare it to any American police force. Swohtz ( talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as many other law enforemcent agencies have difficulties with officers who commite suicide. Can any one find a citation or a source for suicides. Newspapers/Tv/Police etc.. try to keep this under the radar so people wont be aware of the effects the job takes on a persons life.

File:Nypdseal.svg

I am surprised this page continually has a problem with putting the real patch up. I just got a message that the patch I uploaded, the real NYPD patch, is orphaned. Instead, this bizarre patch that looks like aliens are surrounding a misshapen eagle keeps popping up on the page. What is the reason for that? Can't we use the accurate and correct patch on the page instead of that bizarre one with strange alien heads, wrong colors, wrong scale, etc. that makes the page laughable? -- David Shankbone 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is a good place to find up-to-date numbers for the number of sworn officers, helicoptors, and police boats? When I saw an edit that changed the number of helicopters from 25 to 7, I started thinking that this info needs to be sourced. I did a Google search (not too comprehensive, I'm at work and don't have much time), and found a page which stated the department got its 7th helicopter in 2003, so it seems like the old 25 number was way off. Also, I notice the sworn officers number has been updated to a November number, but the NYPD site's FAQ still lists its population from January 2007; where do these new numbers come from? - Eisnel ( talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I corrected the misinformation on the NYPD page. NYPD never had 25 helicopters. & is the largest number since they first started using them in the 1950's. The current sworn officer stats change daily and come from the Office of Deputy Commissioner for Public Information, NYPD (Pau Browne). Don't confuse number of sworn officers with authorized strength. NYPD is well below authorized numbers. Also changed were the number of police stations --- 76 Precincts in NYC not 98. These are the numbered precints (precincts of record) and do not include special units like Highway Patrol, Mounted, ESU, Aviation, etc. Police boat numbers also change from season to season --- more in summer. Current listing is an average for the whole year. Swohtz ( talk) 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article can stand alone unless it is expanded and cited. It needs A TON of cleanup. Anyone think it should be merged with the main NYPD article. It also needs the title cleaned up to be more specific, such as New York City Police Department Real Time Crime Center. -- Daysleeper47 ( talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How do the New York County Sherrif's Office functions/duties relate to the NYPD? I understand they are separate entities, but it would be interesting for outsiders to understand how they relate/differ. I found a web page that describes the current Sherrif of New York County. Note that this sherrif is also the sherrif of Bronx, Queens, etc. but that there are different undersherrifs in each county in the metrolpolitan area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.64.204 ( talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• They have almost no interaction. The Sheriff's Office does service of civil papers and evictions. They don't answer 911 calls or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.9.153 ( talk) 14:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is completely uncited, and reads as a press release (the first line originally said "The New York state inspector general said Monday..."). Can anyone provide a source? Rojomoke ( talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When was the job title of "Patrolman" abolished? Jim.henderson ( talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, but it appears that an edit a while back caused an undesired result in the Ranks section and below. Can someone with better know-how please repair this? Thanks. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is no section for Traffic Enforcement. Do you think one should be created since is is part of the department?-- MOOOOOPS ( talk) 15 July 2008

I cannot imagine there are no stories to tell about the NYPD during the prohibition period to fill at least one paragraph? It doesn't have to be a day-to-day report but at least a summoning up. Fred26 ( talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The NYPD does not have a "badge" in the department what is worn on the uniform is referred to as a Shield. I know everyone calls it a badge but to be correct it is a sheild, i dont want to mess up an entire article to fix a minor thing, but if someone feels like going in and correcting it, go for it VinCat15 ( talk) 01:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYPD mainly uses Ford Crown Victorias and Chevy Impalas. However thay have many other cars for other uses. Like Chargers and Magnums in the traffic enforcement unit.

what's the budget of the nypd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.202.138 ( talk) 17:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the infobox on the page. MOOOOOPS ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where can one find demographic info for various police precincts? The precinct web pages and crime stat reports do not mention anything. It would be very useful to know the population of each precinct, to get per capita crime rates from the crime statistics. Crusty wallace ( talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just found a paper that lists the population of each precinct, population from the 1990 and 2000 census. Here http://wagner.nyu.edu/faculty/publications/publications.php?pub_id=1133 Crusty wallace ( talk) 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be anal :), but shouldn't there be an article about the current sodomy case? Maybe I'll start it. Any suggestions for the name? How about NYPD sodomy scandal? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I added info of the case to the "Other incidents" section. MOOOOOPS ( talk) 09:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I've got a question:

Since when the NYPD has a new appearance in uniforms and cars?

My last visit to NYC was in 2001. There they were already wearing black police uniforms and their cars were white with blue stripes.

But in movie " The Thomas Crown Affair ", which was shot around 1999, you saw the police with blue shirts and light-blue cars [4].

So the change to the actual look must have happened between 1999 and 2001. But when exactly?

thx. -- Feldmarschall von Hansen ( talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The switch from the light blue shirts to dark blue shirts happened in the mid 1990's. The color of the police cars was changed from light blue to white in 1996 or 1997 in order to save money. However, the police cars that were painted light blue were not repainted white when they changed the color of the vehicles. So the light blue police cars were seen in the city until 2001-2003. MOOOOOPS ( talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [5]

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.