You only though Bloomberg was this stupid!

But no, the entire city council is pretty bad also.

Here is the ad placed by some of the police unions in New York in opposition of a bill from a Brooklyn councilperon (don't want to be profiling) idiot who wants to expand the definition of "racial profiling" to include describing a suspect with pretty much anything more than the cloths on his/her back.

NYPD unions blast bill they say will bar cops from using race, gender to go after suspects
Police unions in New York City are blasting a piece of legislation they say will handcuff them, by preventing cops from using little more than the color of a suspect’s clothing in descriptions or risk being sued for profiling.
A half-page ad in Thursday’s New York Post paid by the NYPD Captains Endowment Association and the Lieutenants Benevolent Association asks: “How effective is a police officer with a blindfold on?”
The answer is not very, according to Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association who is seen in the advertisement wearing a blindfold in bustling Times Square. Richter claims Intro. No. 1080 would send crime rates soaring and told The Post the bill is dangerous because it will “ban cops” from identifying a suspect’s age, gender, color or disability.
The proposal, sponsored by Jumaane Williams, D-Brooklyn, would effectively expand the definition of profiling, which is already prohibited. It specifically pertains to what factors officers can consider before stopping a potential suspect.

The bill defines profiling as "an act of a member of the force of the police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on actual or perceived race, [ethnicity, religion or] national origin, color, creed, age, alienage or citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual's behavior or other information or circumstances that links a person or persons [of a particular race, ethnicity, religion national origin] to suspected unlawful activity....”
The bill defines profiling as "an act of a member of the force of the police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on actual or perceived race, [ethnicity, religion or] national origin, color, creed, age, alienage or citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual's behavior or other information or circumstances that links a person or persons [of a particular race, ethnicity, religion national origin] to suspected unlawful activity....”

OK, how about something I've said over the radio once or twice. "Dispatch. suspect on foot, south bound on Main, mid twenty's black male two hundred pounds wearing green shorts and a white t-shirt in a wheel chair carrying a blue back pack ..." That is what we call a general broadcast. Notice how it relies on "actual or perceived race...color...age...disablity" Now if I were to follow the law as proposed by this moron with a chip on his shoulder this would be the description: "Dispatch. suspect on foot, south bound on Main, mid twenty's black male two hundred pounds wearing green shorts and a white t-shirt in a wheel chair carrying a blue back pack ..."" You think the first description may be a bit more enlightening and led to more direct apprephentin of the suspect. Also, it will enable us to not stop people who don't match the second rather worthless description.

Thursday’s ad urges residents to contact local councilmembers to urge them to vote against the bill. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is reportedly going to bypass normal committee processes to bring the measure directly to a vote.

“If a police officer transmits descriptions beyond clothing color they can be sued for racial profiling,” Thursday’s ad reads. “That’s dangerous for the public and police officers.”

City councilmembers, according to the bill, have “deep” concerns regarding the impact of the NYPD’s growing reliance on stop-and-frisk tactics, and particularly the impact of the practice on communities of color.

“In 2002, the NYPD made approximately 97,000 stops,” the bill reads. “By 2010, the number of stops had increased to more than 601,000. Black and Latino New Yorkers face the brunt of this practice and consistently represent more than 80 percent of people stopped despite representing just over 50 percent of the city's population.”

They also live in the more crime filled areas and by statistics, the conduct more the of crimes. Sorry, but look at the stats and the fact.

Stop-and-frisk practices, further, have not increased public safety, sponsors claim, as year-after-year nearly 90 percent of individuals stopped are neither arrested nor issued a summons.

NYPD Detectives Endowment Association President Michael Palladino criticized Quinn for supporting the rare expedited process and said his union plans to place ads in newspapers next week.

“The (union’s) ad will focus on . . . Speaker Quinn’s political decision to sell the security of all New Yorkers for votes,” Palladino told the newspaper. “Where was the speaker and her legislation for the last seven years?”

A spokeswoman for Quinn said the proposal was sent to a full vote because a majority of councilmembers supported it and Public Safety Committee chair Peter Vallone Jr., who opposes the measure, refused to let it out of committee.

A bit of a sidebar from the law enforcement aspect on this proposal. I linked to Ms Quinn's Wikipedia page to show who she is, a serious canidate to be the next mayor of this country's largest city. Until Anthony "The Weiner" Weiner plunged back in, she was going to be the new mayor. Now the odds are he is going to pull it out and have the climate of his political career, mayor of New York. New Yorkers, I have to ask, when you look at the ballot and ask "Is this our choice, eight million people in this city and this is the best we have?" I had a similar experience in November 2008.

...Williams and fellow Brooklyn Democrat Brad Lander, a co-sponsor of the proposal, told the Post the bill, if passed, would only expand the city’s existing racial-profiling law by adding other demographic groups that should be protected, such as homeless and homosexual individuals.

Lander told CBS New York that police union officials are mischaracterizing the bill.

“They know they’re misrepresenting the legislation,” Lander told the station. “Police officers will continue to be able to use skin color and gender and age and height in suspect descriptions. What doesn’t work is profiling people based solely on they’re being one race, being one religion, being gay, living in public housing.”

Yo moron, how stupid do you take us for. May I quote your bill, "an act of a member of the force of the police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on actual or perceived race,..." A general broadcast of a suspect on the radio, or computer, or description in a report is an "act of a member of the force..." If this passes you can see how fast it will be before the fist law suit is filed saying "My client was described as a black male, an act that is forbidden by the city of New York..." What stupidity. Mr Williams, I hope someone kicks your ass on the street and the responding officers puts out a general broadcast for you, "Suspect, human wearing black pants and white shirt....not other details allowed by city ordinance..."

But New York, you've eared it. You put these cretans in office I hope you're happy as a once great city rots from the inside. Oh, please stay up there. We don't want you and your stupidity to infect great states like Texas.