2 NYPD cops shot, general cop discussion

[L Ron Cupboard]

Horse shit.

I explained, quite reasonably, my point of view.
Could you explain yours instead of adding nothing to the debate?

The reason I did not reply earlier is that your horse shit was just a thread jack, as per your normal way of trying to insert your racist agenda into every thread.

[Jinos]

If the cop shot really was the cop who killed Eric Gardner, and this guy wasn't some homicidal maniac who didn't just shoot his girlfriend, how much would this situation be different?

Given that the cops were never linked to the killing (with this being apparently the "motive" for the gunman) sympathy seems pretty decidedly on the side of the NYPD (or at least the 2 cops in question) with very few detractors saying otherwise.

So what if this were that cop, and this was an act of 'vigilantly justice' rather than what is clearly simple murder with a coat of 'SJW' painted over it?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Now, if you want to see people who are really trying to further inflame the situation, try out the Fox affiliate that was caught editing a chant at a demonstration to sound like "Kill a cop!" rather than "We won't stop/Till killer cops/Are in cell blocks".

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-affiliat ... ill-a-cop/

>Fox News affiliate

Didn't see that one coming.....

Have to show some initiative if you want to be noticed by the national folks, I suppose.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You're the perfect archetype of what's wrong with this "new movement" (not saying everything is)

"Oh no! Holding public servants responsible for their duties is ebil!!!"


Yeah, no. You're what's wrong here. We'll see what you say when you get a job.

lolwut?

And I see that killing public servants is in your book holding them responsible for their duties, good for you, must be fun at parties.

[St Marcila]

Posted in the original so might add my opinion in again.

I sympathize with the protesters. But the 5% calling for dead cops and even killing cops are ruining these protest just like the 5% of bad cops are ruining it for the 95% of good cops. Yes some unjust things happened at the hands of cops but killing cops an causing more injustice isn't going to solve the problem.

[Ethel mermania]

My point is that historical conflict between blacks and the police has usually been with white police officers, hence the revenge on whitey.

Okay.

Did the assassin in particular shout "Cops and Klan go hand in hand"?

It's a pretty safe bet he shouted, "no justice, no peace" I will not make a claim about the "dead cops" chant, I don't know if it was used at Unionsquare. It was used at Brooklyn Bridge.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Connection issue. Ignore or (if a moderator) please delete.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay.

Did the assassin in particular shout "Cops and Klan go hand in hand"?

It's a pretty safe bet he shouted, "no justice, no peace" I will not make a claim about the "dead cops" chant, I don't know if it was used at Unionsquare. It was used at Brooklyn Bridge.

Yeah, I'm specifically addressing Anglo-California's contention that the killer was targeting white people.

And, yes, there are protesters using inflammatory rhetoric, and they tend to be in the minority, though they're obvious camera bait when the media shows up.

Point is, they're not the ones being blamed by the Police Union. Instead, Bill de Blasio, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder have been unjustifiably accused of increasing tensions through inflammatory rhetoric. If you want to blame the small subset of protesters who were chanting "Dead cops" for encouraging this, then I absolutely agree, and think that that sort of speech has no place in a discussion about where we go from here. However, since neither de Blasio, Holder, nor Obama were involved in these chants, it doesn't really address any point I'm making.

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

What sickened me about this case were the comments I read from African-Americans and leftists on some websites.

Two men were brutally murdered when they were just doing their jobs. Wenjian Liu, who had just married, and Rafael Ramon, who left behind two sons. And there are people, hundreds of them, who justify this sort of thing as some sort of heroic political protest. I cannot for the life of me understand this attitude. Even the usual 'it's part of the fight against racism' excuse doesn't work here - one officer was Asian, the other Hispanic. And in any case, brutally murdering people who are doing literally nothing wrong is never justified.

family? Everyone has family. Everyone is a daughter, son, father, mother, nephew, niece, all beloved and beholden to each other, and yet all may nonetheless find themselves family people one side of a firing line, opposite to other family people. We have threads on which society of families is most justified in the killing of other societies of families. Of what sacredness, then, is this "family"?

But how would you feel if you father or mother died doing a job or your husband and wife.Its the response on the verdict of the Ferguson incident.But two cops got killed in NEW YORK for Ferguson.two cops who had NOTHING to do with it so people are jsut going to take it out on cops every were.Also if we didnt have police it would be complete anarchy because people are dicks and so are most cops but we need the cops

[Yumyumsuppertime]

family? Everyone has family. Everyone is a daughter, son, father, mother, nephew, niece, all beloved and beholden to each other, and yet all may nonetheless find themselves family people one side of a firing line, opposite to other family people. We have threads on which society of families is most justified in the killing of other societies of families. Of what sacredness, then, is this "family"?

But how would you feel if you father or mother died doing a job or your husband and wife.Its the response on the verdict of the Ferguson incident.But two cops got killed in NEW YORK for Ferguson.two cops who had NOTHING to do with it so people are jsut going to take it out on cops every were.Also if we didnt have police it would be complete anarchy because people are dicks and so are most cops but we need the cops

This was likely more inspired by the Garner case than the Brown one, and that occurred in New York. Not making any excuse, just providing context.

[Ethel mermania]

It's a pretty safe bet he shouted, "no justice, no peace" I will not make a claim about the "dead cops" chant, I don't know if it was used at Unionsquare. It was used at Brooklyn Bridge.

Yeah, I'm specifically addressing Anglo-California's contention that the killer was targeting white people.

And, yes, there are protesters using inflammatory rhetoric, and they tend to be in the minority, though they're obvious camera bait when the media shows up.

Point is, they're not the ones being blamed by the Police Union. Instead, Bill de Blasio, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder have been unjustifiably accused of increasing tensions through inflammatory rhetoric. If you want to blame the small subset of protesters who were chanting "Dead cops" for encouraging this, then I absolutely agree, and think that that sort of speech has no place in a discussion about where we go from here. However, since neither de Blasio, Holder, nor Obama were involved in these chants, it doesn't really address any point I'm making.

Diblasio ran on an anti cop campaign. A tale of two cities, was his campaign theme. He is politially beholden to Al sharpton. Only since the two cops were killed has he said anything positive abut the police. His telling his kid, not to trust the cops because he is black publicly , is baiting and incitement. A mayors responsibility is to keep public order, not to inflame and give cause to rioters.

Btw, good morning.

[Purpelia]

If he were inciting riots and disorder at least that would be honest. To me this sounds like he is trying to scum his way into some political points.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yeah, I'm specifically addressing Anglo-California's contention that the killer was targeting white people.

And, yes, there are protesters using inflammatory rhetoric, and they tend to be in the minority, though they're obvious camera bait when the media shows up.

Point is, they're not the ones being blamed by the Police Union. Instead, Bill de Blasio, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder have been unjustifiably accused of increasing tensions through inflammatory rhetoric. If you want to blame the small subset of protesters who were chanting "Dead cops" for encouraging this, then I absolutely agree, and think that that sort of speech has no place in a discussion about where we go from here. However, since neither de Blasio, Holder, nor Obama were involved in these chants, it doesn't really address any point I'm making.

Diblasio ran on an anti cop campaign. A tale of two cities, was his campaign theme. He is politially beholden to Al sharpton. Only since the two cops were killed has he said anything positive abut the police. His telling his kid, not to trust the cops because he is black publicly , is baiting and incitement. A mayors responsibility is to keep public order, not to inflame and give cause to rioters.

Btw, good morning.

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

[Purpelia]

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

Well basically it's like this. Public criticism of anyone to score political points is bad. And elected officials should know better than to do this. They are after all officials. If they see a problem that needs addressing than they should go and address it. That is the what they were elected and given power to do. Their job is for lack of a better description to listen to what the people are crying about and than shut up and go fix it.

It is however much easier to not do that and simply join in the shouting crowds. And it gains them short term political points with no or almost no invested effort.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because it happened amidst very high tensions between black communities and police officers in the United States. This cold-blooded murder only served to heighten said tensions.

I'm still waiting for the NRA to come out and defend it. A person using a firearm to defend themself from what they see as tyrannical government? Should be right up their alley.....

Only whites can defend themselves from the gub'mint.
Blacks are criminals and Browns are all Muslims and therefore terrorists.

[Purpelia]

I'm still waiting for the NRA to come out and defend it. A person using a firearm to defend themself from what they see as tyrannical government? Should be right up their alley.....

Only whites can defend themselves from the gub'mint.
Blacks are criminals and Browns are all Muslims and therefore terrorists.

What about white homosexuals, atheists and the like? What's the go-to way of dismissing those? I am genuinely curious.

[Imperializt Russia]

If the cop shot really was the cop who killed Eric Gardner, and this guy wasn't some homicidal maniac who didn't just shoot his girlfriend, how much would this situation be different?

It shouldn't be any different.
It should be the exact same situation.

[Imperializt Russia]

Only whites can defend themselves from the gub'mint.
Blacks are criminals and Browns are all Muslims and therefore terrorists.

What about white homosexuals, atheists and the like? What's the go-to way of dismissing those? I am genuinely curious.

They don't know yet

[Ethel mermania]

Diblasio ran on an anti cop campaign. A tale of two cities, was his campaign theme. He is politially beholden to Al sharpton. Only since the two cops were killed has he said anything positive abut the police. His telling his kid, not to trust the cops because he is black publicly , is baiting and incitement. A mayors responsibility is to keep public order, not to inflame and give cause to rioters.

Btw, good morning.

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

I do believe police should be held accountable for their actions. In prior threads I think we even agreed on the need for body cameras for the police. I like Bratton as police commissioner, his appointment is one of the few good things diblasio has done. In sensitive matters the debate has to be restrained, or you get the week we have just had, two cops shot, one attempted to be shot, and a gang attack on the police during a demonstration /riot.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

Well basically it's like this. Public criticism of anyone to score political points is bad. And elected officials should know better than to do this. They are after all officials. If they see a problem that needs addressing than they should go and address it. That is the what they were elected and given power to do. Their job is for lack of a better description to listen to what the people are crying about and than shut up and go fix it.

It is however much easier to not do that and simply join in the shouting crowds. And it gains them short term political points with no or almost no invested effort.

Public criticism to score political points is bad, but if they see a problem that needs addressing then they should go and address it.

Elected officials should work to fix the issues that they face, but shouldn't actually say anything about these issues while working on them lest they be seen as adding their voices to a chorus.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this could work in real life.

The people were complaining about income inequality (thus "Two Cities"), and various NYPD policies had been a subject of concern for decades. However, let's just focus on what we saw under Bloomberg (going as far back as Giuliani would involve such an extensive list that I would fear for the ability of your or anyone else to maintain focus). I'll also limit it to actions taken by police officers in the performance of their official duties, and not get into corrupt officers engaged in drug trafficking and the like.

2003: Warehouse worker Ousame Zongo shot four times by an undercover police officer, twice in the back. He was unarmed, uninvolved with the crime being investigated by the officer, and did not attack the officer. Result: Officer convicted of negligent homicide, given five years probation for shooting and killing an unarmed, uninvolved man who posed absolutely no threat to him.

2004: Timothy Stansbury opens a rooftop door, startling an officer on the other side. The officer shoots and kills Stansbury, later claiming that his weapon discharged accidentally. While the reaction of the department is swift, the officer himself is not indicted, and faces only administrative punishment in terms of having his weapon stripped from him and a 30-day unpaid suspension.

2006: The Sean Bell shooting. Plainclothes and uniformed police officers fire fifty shots into the car of Sean Bell, killing him and wounding his companions after receiving a report from one officer that Mr. Bell had asked a friend to go and get his gun for him. Eyewitnesses state that the police did not identify themselves upon drawing their guns, and that when Bell attempted to escape what he thought were armed criminals, they shot him repeatedly. One of the officers stopped to reload at least once. Police state that a fourth man at the scene may have been the one with the actual gun, and identified one of Mr. Bell's friends as that man. The friend denied this, and there are no records of a fourth man having been mentioned, observed, or otherwise connected to the crime in the hours following the shooting. Three officers were indicted, all were acquitted.

2008: Michael Mineo sodomy incident, in which a young man who had been placed under arrest claimed to have been anally assaulted by a police officer's walkie-talkie antenna. Despite a Transit Authority officer testifying that he did witness this assault, all involved NYPD officers were found not guilty of charges relating to this case.

2010: NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft, who had repeatedly brought up concerns regarding trivial arrests, false arrests, and unwarranted abuse of authority under the "Stop and Frisk" program, leaves work an hour early with what he later said was authorization from a superior. Police later mass outside of his house, break in, and forcibly commit him to a mental hospital for six days. Tapes made by Schoolcraft and later released to the media seem to support his charges, and call into serious question the circumstances of his enforced psychiatric hold. A lawsuit has been filed, but nobody in the chain of command has been held responsible for the retaliation and attempt to discredit Schoolcraft.

2013: Michael Premo is arrested during an Occupy Wall Street protest and charged with assaulting a police officer. Officers involved state that he had charged one of their number "like a linebacker". Police also claim that there is no video of the incident. The defense locates a tape that not only shows that the officers' stories were nearly the opposite of what happened (when Mr. Premo attempted to get to his feet at one point, he was tackled by a swarm of police). but also shows that a police officer was taping the scene. This tape, to my knowledge, has never been located, and while Mr. Premo was acquitted, no charges were brought against the officers for their abuse of authority or perjury.

2013:Kyam Livingston is taken into NYPD custody and held for 13 hours. For seven hours during this time, she and her cellmates plead that she be given medical aid due to severe physical distress that she is experiencing. Ms. Livingston dies in custody, and lies dead on the cell floor for twenty minutes before medical assistance arrives. Investigation ongoing for well over a year.

2014: Eric Garner. Well, we're all familiar with this one.

2014: Akai Gurley opens a door to a stairwell in his apartment complex. This startles an officer in the stairwell, who shoots Gurley in response. Both the officer and his partner text their union representatives for advice before calling for help for Mr. Gurley.

That's seven controversial shootings, only one of which led to a conviction for criminal charges, and most of the rest of which resulted in administrative discipline, if that. That's one assault that led to criminal charges, but did not lead to a conviction (and, to be fair, there was certainly reasonable doubt in that case despite the transit cop's testimony). That's one unjustified mental hospital commitment for someone who saw the abuses in the system, and wanted to see them corrected.

Now, these are just the headline stories. They don't get into the numerous unlawful arrests during the World Economic Forum in 2002, the abuse of peaceful protesters at an anti-war march in 2003, or at the Republican National Convention in 2004. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't even begin to take into account the seemingly countless minor and petty abuses of power that occur every day, as recorded by Officer Schoolcraft before he parted ways with the department.

So, yes, I'd say that there is an accountability issue in the department that absolutely needs to be addressed, and that the mayor did this is an entirely reasonable way. The man who points out the existence of a fire is not necessarily doing so in order to throw more fuel on it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

I do believe police should be held accountable for their actions. In prior threads I think we even agreed on the need for body cameras for the police. I like Bratton as police commissioner, his appointment is one of the few good things diblasio has done. In sensitive matters the debate has to be restrained, or you get the week we have just had, two cops shot, one attempted to be shot, and a gang attack on the police during a demonstration /riot.

Great. So tell me, how should he have approached the enormous police culture issues that New York is facing?

[Ifreann]

2004: Timothy Stansbury opens a rooftop door, startling an officer on the other side. The officer shoots and kills Stansbury, later claiming that his weapon discharged accidentally. While the reaction of the department is swift, the officer himself is not indicted, and faces only administrative punishment in terms of having his weapon stripped from him and a 30-day unpaid suspension.

2014: Akai Gurley opens a door to a stairwell in his apartment complex. This startles an officer in the stairwell, who shoots Gurley in response. Both the officer and his partner text their union representatives for advice before calling for help for Mr. Gurley.

Note to self: Avoid stairwell doors in New York.

[Imperializt Russia]

2004: Timothy Stansbury opens a rooftop door, startling an officer on the other side. The officer shoots and kills Stansbury, later claiming that his weapon discharged accidentally. While the reaction of the department is swift, the officer himself is not indicted, and faces only administrative punishment in terms of having his weapon stripped from him and a 30-day unpaid suspension.

2014: Akai Gurley opens a door to a stairwell in his apartment complex. This startles an officer in the stairwell, who shoots Gurley in response. Both the officer and his partner text their union representatives for advice before calling for help for Mr. Gurley.

Note to self: Avoid stairwell doors in New York.

Note to self - avoid the entirety of New York and its District 9 tropeishness.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/nine_te ... socialflow

[Blasted Craigs]

Good morning! I shouldn't even be awake, but a mixture of things woke me up, and now I'm all "Screw it, coffee time, and I'll make up for it with a nap later."

Tell me: If any criticism of the police, no matter how justified or based in reality, is seen as being anti-police, then how are we supposed to have any real dialogue?

If any anecdote used to illustrate issues that literally millions of parents have to deal with every day in order to protect their children is being seen as an attack on cops as a whole, what possible progress can be made? Where do we go from here?

It seems at times that not only is there a sense that police should not be held accountable for unjustified instances of abuse, harassment, and even deadly force, but that they should be exempt from criticism regarding said lack of accountability lest the critic be accused of inflaming tensions or attacking the police. That's a frightening thought.

I do believe police should be held accountable for their actions. In prior threads I think we even agreed on the need for body cameras for the police. I like Bratton as police commissioner, his appointment is one of the few good things diblasio has done. In sensitive matters the debate has to be restrained, or you get the week we have just had, two cops shot, one attempted to be shot, and a gang attack on the police during a demonstration /riot.

The problem is, even when there is video evidence, such as the Gardner case, the police still get a free pass. The decision was to not indict the officer, not a guilty or not guilty verdict. It was a case of it doesn't matter what it looks like on video, the police are always right.
This is why people are protesting. Because it doesn't matter if there are cameras on every street corner, and the police are clearly recorded doing wrong. It still gets swept under the rug. That destroys what people held onto until now. They had the belief, that if one was accosted by police, that by recording the confrontation, the police would behave at least on camera. Well, that shred of hope was destroyed in the Gardner case. Even with video evidence of possible abuse of force.....

Not because he was found innocent.

Because they didn't even want to bother with seeing if he was innocent or not.

[Ethel mermania]

I do believe police should be held accountable for their actions. In prior threads I think we even agreed on the need for body cameras for the police. I like Bratton as police commissioner, his appointment is one of the few good things diblasio has done. In sensitive matters the debate has to be restrained, or you get the week we have just had, two cops shot, one attempted to be shot, and a gang attack on the police during a demonstration /riot.

The problem is, even when there is video evidence, such as the Gardner case, the police still get a free pass. The decision was to not indict the officer, not a guilty or not guilty verdict. It was a case of it doesn't matter what it looks like on video, the police are always right.
This is why people are protesting. Because it doesn't matter if there are cameras on every street corner, and the police are clearly recorded doing wrong. It still gets swept under the rug. That destroys what people held onto until now. They had the belief, that if one was accosted by police, that by recording the confrontation, the police would behave at least on camera. Well, that shred of hope was destroyed in the Gardner case. Even with video evidence of possible abuse of force.....

Not because he was found innocent.

Because they didn't even want to bother with seeing if he was innocent or not.

And when I watch the Garner tape, it's unfortunate but the cops did what they were suppose to do. He was resisting arrest. Cops can't walk away and leave him, because he didnt want to be arrested, he had to be arrested. I did not see a reason to indict, and neither did a mixed race grand jury.

You want to see police brutality watch the Rodney king tape, then go compare the two.