No New News

I’m about to read the Village Voice’s one-sided new “scoop” about Adrian Schoolcraft. I’m going to predict it says 1) there was pressure to reduce crime stats, 2) the NYPD makes a surprisingly good faith effort to get to the bottom of the issue, and 3) keep in mind (this won’t in the article) everything Schoolcraft has done has been motivated by his desire to sue the NYPD for a lot of money.

I’ll be happy to be surprised and admit I was wrong….

Here’s what I’ve written about Schoolcraft in the past.

Update: Well, not to brag, but I told you so. I’d like to emphasize #2, which of course the Voice holds against the NYPD. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

I wrote about juking the statsin February, 2010. And I mentioned this problem back as early as April 2009, when I even got on my soap box and warned young officers: don’t do it.

A year later I wrote this, after Schoolcraft went public:

All [Schoolcraft] seems to show is something we all should already know. In the NYPD, everybody is under intense pressure to produce good “stats” (arrests and citations) and reduce bad stats (crime numbers).

Schoolcraft isn’t the first to point this out. He’s just the only one, in my humble opinion, who has tried to martyr himself and turn number fudging into a tidy personal $50 million profit. He and his father have tried twice beforeto sue police departments for money. Maybe the third time is the charm.

[Update: it was]

(Update with working links to all the posts on Schoolcraft.)

2 thoughts on “No New News

  1. In fairness to Schoolcraft, who I'm sure is a massive PITA(pain in the ass, the others weren't tossed into the loony bin.

    I have little doubt the taxpayers are going to pay Mr Schoolcraft a whole lot of money, but that has less to do with him being a PITA than the way the NYPD handled him.

    That whole episode is like something out of a cross between the East German Stasi and the keystone cops.

  2. Unless the NYPD settles out of court, I think he'll get nothing. I think the NYPD has handled this very well from a legal perspective (but certainly not from a PR one).

Comments are closed.