Prosay must admit that the Saturday (7/18) papers paint a different picture of what just went on during the year that IAB knew about the situation in Midtown South, and what they (IAB) knew and when they knew it.
While we are certainly not a fan of IAB and what can only be described as "selected enforcement" from time to time on their part, Prosay is willing to "give the devil his due" for this one. They treated this investigation like it was a Mafia caper (and maybe rightfully so).
However, Prosay still has one complaint: the EDIT program, which is given a write-up in Saturday's New York Post. This operation depends on the "integrity" of the miscreants that are being locked up to give "good" information about what these low-lifes feel are bad cops. The C.O. of IAB, Charlie Campisi, says about the EDIT program, "(IAB) wanted to make things proactive..." Well, that may be all fine and good in the vision of a top boss, but how do you think a cop that comes in with a collar feels knowing that this (fill in your own description) may just give up the cop for something he didn't do, then see the bosses trip all over themselves and each other to get the details?
Quite frankly, while Prosay has made his fair-share of collars, I'll be damned to try to figure out WHY a cop in today's political atmosphere would make ANY elective collars (obviously, some you just can't get rid of)! The theme of Prosay's Police Review is how a cop today is no more than a political pawn used by both civilian AND Uniformed politicians.
Hasn't this been made very obvious lately?
