Not Bloomberg's best day
First, in the midst of an antigun event, a reporter asks why NYPD just sold 28,000 pounds of spent cartridge to an ammo reloader, and he rather loses it, and tells the reporter if she keeps at it she'll have to stand in the back of the room at all future press conferences. (That, BTW, illustrates why the press often hesitates to criticize government officials, or at least Democratic ones. The official has what the reporters want, access -- you can have interviews, invitations to press conferences, "unnamed officials" who leak things to you, or you can be cut off while your competitors get all that).
Then, word that San Francisco has declined to adopt the NYC policy of vigorous stop and frisk, because more than 80% of those stopped and frisked are black or hispanic, and 90% of frisks found nothing.
(Instead, SF will rely upon "a zero-tolerance approach for violations of probation, parole or the city's gang injunction." I guess actually enforcing those is a new idea to the city).
Every year or so the Chron comes out with an equivalent article, quoting police and politicians, describing a useful, effective policy: let's concentrate on the criminals!
And then, for the rest of the year, they go back to ignoring the advice of the professionals on what works.
That's SO California.
Posted by: JohnS at August 8, 2012 10:02 PM
"he rather loses it, and tells the reporter if she keeps at it she'll have to stand in the back of the room at all future press conferences."
What a pathetic little tyrant.
Posted by: Brian at August 9, 2012 12:40 PM
Nothing like a little good, old-fashioned, American freedom of speech. The right to question one’s authority and all.
Posted by: Sarah at August 10, 2012 04:52 AM
It seems like the destruction of guns and shell casings is an unconstitutional waste of taxpayer money. It doesn't even appear that it could pass a rational basis test, because its only purpose is to make arms more expensive, and a law who's only purpose is to make the exercise of a constitutional right more expensive, seems to me unconstitutional. The big problem I see is standing. I thought I read that the precedent is that taxpayers can't sue for government waste unless it directly effects them personally. Maybe there is some way standing can be overcome to get this waste corrected. Maybe a pro-gun state can sue the feds if they do any of this destruction.
Posted by: Critic at August 10, 2012 05:12 PM
It looks like a taxpayer doesn't have standing to sue a state or the feds but can sue a municipal entity for tax waste.
Posted by: Critic at August 10, 2012 05:45 PM