Calling for the end of Compstat is a bit like the sky falling. This is more of shot across the bow than a policy proposal. But... the implications and message are scary. The precinct commanders are calling the bluff of the mayor and his wife's wish to end proactive policing. https://twitter.com/spccohen/status/1275772461641072641

Proactive policing does indeed affect community/police relations. So does crime prevention. So does crime. The question should be one of balance. Compstat is supposed to be a tool of accountability, but accountability creates "activity" and stat pressure. That is problematic.

We're entered an era in which the only thing that matters in policing is avoiding bad press, fatal encounters, and incidents that go viral. The letter says if that's what you want, fine. Just be clear, dear leaders, about what you want us to do. In writing, please.

The letter is saying: yes, we will police exactly as you want us to. But you can't take away every crime-fighting tool we've used for the past 30 years and then still hold us responsible for crime. "Our members cannot be made to guess as to the 'how, what and why' of policing."

Stop and frisk was ended. Then, says the letter, you told us not to enforce low-level and quality-of-life crimes. Now you disband the Anti-Crime units. Huge changes in policy, and yet there's been no change to official policy, to our rule book, the Patrol Guide. Please do so.

This letter brings to a head the basic issue of whether politicians will cede to advocates who want to diminish policing or defend effective policing as an integral part of keeping crime down. But they can't have it both ways.

Policing will always (sometimes) involve force; force is ugly. Policing will always (sometimes) involve mistakes; police are human. Force can be minimized; mistakes can be corrected, punished, or prosecuted. The question is what do when these happen. Not be shocked that they did.