Since then, there has been plenty of criticism regarding militarization, especially after the gruesome Waco Siege in the early 1990’s, which led to the death of 76 men, women, and children.

Recently, the response to tragic events like the Boston bombing, has brought more questions regarding this practice, especially considering it was a regular citizen who led to the apprehension of the suspects, and not these big ol' tanks.

This is true to a certain extent, but Bloomberg does a great job of spinning it into something negative. Police are generally great at what they do, but they simply don’t have the tools necessary to significantly prevent crime within the narrow boundaries of our constitution. Unreasonable pressure to prevent crime, ignorance regarding the causes of crime, and unilateral decision-making are just a few of the reasons why the NYPD have gone so far outside those constitutional boundaries in recent years.

Again, these bills force NYPD officials to take on more accountability to the people they are sworn to protect, which has traditionally been non-existent. This is a good first step, as crime prevention should be taking place at the community level, to ensure a lasting cultural change.

Again, this is simply not true. These bills place more accountability on NYPD leadership, which is exactly why Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly are so against them.

There are many ways to stop crime, which is exemplified by the top 10 countries with the lowest crime rates, including many oppressive countries like Syria and Yemen.

But if the U.S. wants to remain the “beacon of freedom” in the world, these sorts of aggressive policing can not be accepted. This is why these bills are so important: they ensure that civil liberties are respected, while finding legitimate, non-tyrannical ways to deter crime.

This is some of the most disturbingly false rhetoric we have ever heard from Bloomberg. Although it is true that minority communities are disproportionately effected by crime, due to various socioeconomic factors, make no mistake: it has been well-established that stop-and-frisk policies have negligible effects on crime rate.

Many large cities have experienced even greater reductions in crime rate, without the use of invasive stop-and-frisk policies:

While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore.

Furthermore, these minority communities as a whole, hardly feel more secure when they could be stopped, interrogated, and frisked by police at any moment. No reasonable person would feel comfortable living in a city where they were subjected to this practice every day, which is why it often hurts police-community relations.

The decline in NYC’s crime rate since the early 1990’s has been nothing short of miraculous. So much so, that the experts who study these things for a living have virtually no clue how to completely explain it.

Although good policing is a big aspect of it, one thing is certain: aggressive police tactics played a minimal part in reducing crime. This isn’t a knock on the good men and women of the NYPD, it’s simply data analysis, and the numbers don’t lie. A recent NYU study on all the explanations given by law enforcement officials found:

[no] link between arrests on misdemeanor charges and drops in felonies, such as homicides, robberies, and assaults….no relationship between the number of police officers per capita at the precinct level and the reduction of violent crime, nor did it find a link between admissions to prison and violent crime rates….violent crime rates (homicide, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery) and property crime rates did not significantly decrease after the implementation of CompStat—in fact, both continued on a consistent downward slope beginning in the early 1990s.

These bills are focused on ensuring that the people of NYC, and specifically the 90% of stop-and-frisk victims who are innocent, have a say in the way in which they are policed. Obviously, situations like this are the backbone to democracies.

If we are to believe previous statements from Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly regarding stop-and-frisk policy and administration, these bills will do nothing but reassure the public that everything is on the up-and-up, since they merely place some sort of accountability on police leadership as well as oversight regarding civil liberties of innocent minorities.

Bill 1079 is meant to amend the New York city charter, in relation to the investigating, reviewing, studying, and auditing of and making of recommendations relating to the operations, policies, programs and practices of the new york city police department by the commissioner of the department of investigation.

Bill 1080:

• Establishes a strong and enforceable ban on profiling and discrimination by the New York City Police Department.
• Expands the categories of individuals protected from discrimination. The current prohibition covers race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. Intro 800-A would expand this to also include: age, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability and housing status.
• Creates a meaningful “private right of action” for individuals who believe they have been unjustly profiled by the NYPD.
• Enables New Yorkers to challenge NYPD policies and practices based on intentional discrimination and disparate impact (meaning that even if a policy is not intentionally discriminatory, if it has the effect of discrimination, then a lawsuit may be brought to change the city policy that led to the effect of discrimination).

Available Coverage For All Americans

PART I – Establishment of Qualified Health Plans

• Sec. 1301. Qualified Health Plan Defined
• Sec. 1302. Essential Health Benefits Requirements
• Sec. 1303. Special Rules
• Sec. 1304. Related Definitions

PART II – Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition Through Health Benefit Exchanges

• Sec. 1311. Affordable Choices of Health Benefit Plans
• Sec. 1312. Consumer Choice
• Sec. 1313. Financial Integrity

PART III – State Flexibility Relating to Exchanges

• Sec. 1321. State Flexibility in Operation and Enforcement of Exchanges and Related Requirements
• Sec. 1322. Federal Program to Assist Establishment and Operation of Non-Profit, Member-Run Health Insurance Issuers
• Sec. 1323. Community Health Insurance Option
• Sec. 1324. Level Playing Field

PART IV – State Flexibility to Establish Alternative Programs

• Sec. 1331. State Flexibility To Establish Basic Health Programs For Low-Income Individuals Not Eligible For Medicaid
• Sec. 1332. Waiver For State Innovation
• Sec. 1333. Provisions Relating To Offering Plans In More Than One State

PART V – Reinsurance and Risk Adjustment

• Sec. 1341. Transitional Reinsurance Program for Individual and Small Group Markets in Each State.
• Sec. 1342. Establishment of Risk Corridors for Plans in Individual and Small Group Markets.
• Sec. 1343. Risk Adjustment

Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans

• Sec. 1201. Amendment to the Public Health Service Act.
• Sec. 1251. Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage.
• Sec. 1252. Rating reforms must apply uniformly to all health insurance issuers and group health plans.
• Sec. 1253. Effective dates.