Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood beside NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch at their first joint press conference this week and was silent as she defended the department’s gang database.
Before becoming mayor, Mamdani was clear in his opposition to the database, calling it a “vast dragnet” that punished young New Yorkers of color with only loose connections to gang activity.
But on Tuesday, Mamdani didn’t say a word.
The moment underscored a growing question for the city’s new progressive mayor: Will he follow through on his campaign promise to dismantle the database or quietly let it stand?
Civil rights groups and their allies in the City Council are pressuring him to act. Critics have equated the database with racial profiling. But with a federal civil rights lawsuit underway over the database, and top police officials calling the tracker essential to public safety, Mamdani faces a high-stakes choice that could define his relationship with the NYPD and the city’s broader approach to crime and surveillance.
When asked about the tracker on Tuesday, Tisch defended it as critical.
“I have been very clear that the gang database is a tool that has helped us in terms of fighting gun violence,” Tisch said.
While campaigning for mayor, Mamdani supported City Council legislation to abolish the database as a counterproductive measure that ensnares young people who may not be involved in criminal activity.
“Whether they go out late, photos they put on social media — so much of the facts of life of being a young New Yorker, and yet it then becomes a mark of suspicion,” he said in September.
What is the gang database?
The NYPD’s “Criminal Groups Database” contains information on thousands of people police believe are either gang members or associates.
According to the city’s Department of Investigation, an estimated 10,000 officers have in-depth access to their profiles that include names, alleged gang affiliations, criminal justice histories and the criteria that led to their inclusion, such as locations associated with groups.
Ninety-eight percent of those listed are Black or Hispanic, and most are men between 18 and 34, according to a 2023 watchdog report, the last available review of the database. The audit said the database included 1,689 minors.
After programming errors were discovered during a DOI audit, the tracker shrank by nearly 40%, dropping from 13,989 people in June 2024 to 8,563 in October 2025.
Why is it controversial?
Critics say the database unfairly targets people of color based on factors unrelated to criminal activity, like the music they listen to or their social acquaintances. Civil rights advocates have argued that it’s used to surveil non-white New Yorkers without transparency or due process.
The NYPD says the database helps prevent shootings. But to Dana Rachlin — founder of We Build The Block, a community group focused on public safety through violence reduction and youth support — it’s a list of kids who need help.
Rachlin said police aren’t equipped to address the root causes of gang violence.
“They did not go to school to be social workers,” she said. “They cannot create an apartment or a detox bed. They cannot make a resumé or give a grief circle to a group of boys that just lost a friend. That’s not their skillset. It’s not their job.”
I think your original comment was vague, TBH. I don’t personally remember those accounts, it’s likely I missed them (I missed the first few months of Mamdani debates), but reading your comment it seemed to imply they were the only detractors of Mamdani on here at the time (which I know wasn’t the case, and if I understand your clarification correctly you agree). There have been so many arguments about Mamdani already, we don’t need to continue these into meta-arguments.
Edit: thanks for editing your original comment, that’s a bit clearer now and with the additional context of your reply.
Yeah, I wasn’t meaning for it to be vagueposting, but I absolutely wasn’t clear enough for what I was talking about, I was trying to complain about wrecker accounts turning discussions into slap fights, not about people on one side or the other on Mamdani (or even the idea that people need to “pick a side” rather than being willing to change their mind as new information becomes available). The accounts I’m talking about were anti-Mamdani, but they obviously weren’t the only ones, and it wasn’t just Mamdani that they were starting fights about, these accounts made the site very unpleasant for a while because whenever they were around everything had to turn into an argument, even when people agreed with them, it often wasn’t enough and they would still start fights. I was probably more annoyed by them than most people here I think, and didn’t realise that people literally don’t remember what I’m talking about at all.
I’m just glad my poorly worded comment didn’t end up starting another pointless fight.
That makes sense, thanks for explaining!
God, that sounds really exhausting.
I also mostly took a break from the site for a while that might have overlapped with these accounts being active, so that might be why I don’t remember them. I often find that it’s easier than people think to miss some struggle-sessions here, though. Things fall off the front page fairly quickly because of the adjusted algorithm the site uses (the normal Lemmy algorithm can keep them there for days), I’ll mention something to another user here and they’ll reply “what?” because they didn’t see the thread I was talking about.
No, you were fine, I agree, the Mamdani “fight” is just exhausting, instead of discussing how we can use the material conditions of the situation to educate and agitate, some people are more concerned with “dunking” on incorrect opinions, as if it is unacceptable for someone to be hopeful or optimistic. And so much of it is just people arguing against a position I don’t think anyone here actually holds, just strawmanning.
And that sort of attitude attracts like-minded combative assholes who join the community to get involved in pointless slap fights and just make everything more unpleasant and difficult to actually discuss.