It's no surprise that the New York Post's editorial on yesterday's federal stop-and-frisk ruling is a tired tapestry of falsities and angry spit-flecks. But this Post report on the NYPD's reaction, featuring several unnamed "police sources," is staggering in its disregard of reality.

“Welcome to Chicago,” said a veteran Bronx police officer, who believes cops will become overly cautious about stopping suspects and let criminals slip through their grasp.

“If that’s what the judge wants, crime’s going to go up,’’ the Bronx cop said.
“It would be real difficult to go after someone that you suspect for doing a crime” with the new ruling.

He said the ruling will even discourage some officers from trying to solve reported crimes.
“It sounds like all that cops are going to do now if someone is robbed, mugged or shot is take a report, and that’s it,” he feared.

“He’s not going to be able to look for the person who did it,’’ in contrast to the police tactic of hunting for perps through stop-and-frisks, the source said.

Cop 1: Hey, did you hear about that federal stop-and-frisk ruling?

Cop 2: You mean the one that's narrowly tailored to bolster our record-keeping practices and training, and requires officers of a precinct in each borough with the highest number of stops to wear body-mounted cameras for 12 months? The one that allows us to use stop-and-frisk under the supervision of a monitor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who will function like the city's other numerous monitors have in the past?

Cop 1: Yeah.

Cop 2: What do you think of it?

Criminal: Don't mind me, guys, I'm just going to rob this lemonade stand at knifepoint. Oh, nice shoes—I love Rockports. Can I have them?

Cop 1: Sure. [Takes off shoes]

One police source said the idea of adding yet another layer of oversight to the NYPD in the form of a court monitor is not only bureaucracy at its worst but a big waste of taxpayer money, too.

“Look, we have Internal Affairs. Every command has an integrity-control officer. Every division and every bureau has an inspections unit. There’s also quality assurance. [And] don’t forget [the Civilian Complaint Review Board],’’ the source said. “You’ve never seen a more monitored entity than the NYPD.”

A recent audit of the NYPD showed a serious "lack of accountability" within the department's Quality Assurance Division. The CCRB's recommended punishments for officers who have substantiated claims of abuse against them are routinely tossed out. Give that the mayor has ceded total control to the Commissioner, the NYPD has no independent oversight.

"A big waste of taxpayer money" is the hundreds of millions of dollars the City pays out in NYPD-related settlements each year, not to mention the taxpayer-funded salaries of the City attorneys who are tasked with litigating bad cases.

The Post's article, which was co-written by the tabloid's police bureau chief, doesn't frighten us with the prospect of what New York will become after this ruling, but what kind of town we'd live in if these police sources were the norm.

Maybe they could run for mayor.