New York Police slowdown shows results, but what's the message?

And the message here is what, exactly?

For a second straight week, New York City police officers sharply cut back on their actions in the street, arresting less than half as many people and writing more than 90 percent fewer summonses than in the same period a year ago.
The slowdown built on a drastic drop in activity that began shortly after the murder of two uniformed patrol officers in Brooklyn on Dec. 20, and continued across all 77 precincts in the city.
So many questions here. You can arrest only half as many people and still not sacrifice public safety? You can curtail other enforcement actions by 90 percent to no detrimental effect, save to the city's coffers? This sounds like excellent news.
But the precise message being delivered is ... what? Is this merely an extended period of unofficial pouting by New York City Police officers, or is there a specific something being requested? The closest we've come to an explanation of demands comes not from New York but from the Baltimore police union, which used the December murder of two New York officers to demand law enforcement receive the "unequivocal support" of national leaders.

Once again, we need to be reminded that the men and women of law enforcement are absolutely the only entity standing between a civilized society and one of anarchy and chaos. In that position, we should be supported in our efforts, with continuous diligence, by a strong political leadership. Unfortunately, recently, that has not been the case. Politicians and community leaders from President Obama, to Attorney General Holder, New York Mayor de Blasio, and Al Sharpton have, as the result of their lack of proper guidance, created the atmosphere of unnecessary hostility and peril that police officers now find added to the ordinary danger of their profession. Sadly, the bloodshed will most likely continue until those in positions of power realize that the unequivocal support of law enforcement is required to preserve our nation.

"Unequivocal" being the most intriguing word there. The shootings of these two New York officers are being used as explicit counter to the repeated police killings of unarmed black men and children in America, the premise being that so long as police officers can be or are killed, all other officers should have "unequivocal support" in being able to summarily execute whichever Americans any individual one of them wants to, whether they be children holding toy guns, men in Walmart holding pellet guns, or asthmatic men selling loose cigarettes. This is a premise that can only be entertained by children or morons, none of whom ought to be police officers in the first place. It is a demand that the debate over police brutality, or corruption, or shootings simply not happen.
If members of the police departments demanding "unambiguous" fealty for the actions of every officer and every department want to explain how this required cult-like devotion to police authority squares with a national law enforcement framework that is not by definition a police state, they ought to pipe up with that. Until then we are all very sorry, but Americans are still free to criticize overaggressive police actions which repeatedly and systemically end up killing black men and boys for no discernible reason-even your mayors and your attorney general and your president may pipe up with thoughts on that, from time to time-so put on your goddamn big-boy uniforms and deal with it.

More