Tabloids Completely Freak Out Over City Council’s Vote for More Oversight of the NYPD


Yesterday was a particularly historic moment for New York’s City Council, which voted to override Mayor Bloomberg’s veto of two NYPD oversight bills. The successful override means that an independent inspector general will be appointed to help regulate the department, and that more people will be able to sue for experiencing racial bias at the hands of the police. Or, if you’re the Daily News, it means “THERE WILL BE BLOOD.”

Both tabloids, as well as your mayor and police commissioner, greeted this pair of votes with the kind full-blown hysteria better suited to an axe-wielding intruder in one’s living room. The Post trumpeted “GOOD DAY FOR THUGS,” and highlighted that both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly believe “minorities would be hurt most” by the appointment of an independent inspector general, for some reason.

“It will have an adverse impact not only on our police officers, but, more importantly on the people and the neighborhoods they serve, particularly minority communities,” Kelly told the paper through a spokesperson.

Bloomberg also released a very unhappy statement, which is so amazing we should probably just reprint it in full:

Today, the City Council adopted legislation that will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime. Make no mistake: the communities that will feel the most negative impacts of these bills will be minority communities across our city, which have been the greatest beneficiaries of New York City’s historic crime reductions. Both bills outsource management of the NYPD to unaccountable officials, making it harder for the next mayor and police commissioner to make the decisions they believe necessary to keep our city safe. Today’s vote is an example of election year politics at its very worst and political pandering at its most deadly. The fact is our Administration has zero tolerance for racial profiling – that’s why I signed a racial profiling ban into law in 2004. Intro. 1080 is not aimed at stopping racial profiling, which is already against the law. It is aimed at winning votes. It is a dangerous piece of legislation and we will ask the courts to step in before innocent people are harmed.

Always good to be a graceful loser.