Police use of force

Again, what was the mayor's "betrayal?" And what did he have to do with the deaths of the two officers?

I posted this in the Ferguson thread 10 days ago, but I suppose I could post it again. :D


********
There appears to be some anger between the NYC cops and the mayor.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

The two officers were pronounced dead at Woodhull Hospital, where their colleagues and family members huddled tearfully.

City Council President Melissa Mark-Viverito and Mayor Bill de Blasio were less than welcome guests at the poignant gathering.

“We’re all in this together,” the mayor told grieving cops, according to a cop who was there.

“No we’re not,” one officer said tersely in response.


Just last week cops began signing a “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” waiver, distributed by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, that warned the mayor and speaker to stay away from funerals of cops killed in the line of duty.

Some of the history that led to the frosty relations:
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/12/the-cops-vs-the-mayor-bill-de-blasios-big-headache/383943/

Progressive urban leaders around the country, facing their own questions about policing tactics, will surely be watching to see how the nation’s most prominent liberal mayor handles this very uncomfortable situation.

Possible disrespect:

Link to video.

More history:
http://gawker.com/mayor-deblasio-had-to-warn-his-son-about-his-police-for-1666419881

De Blasio said at a press conference this afternoon:


This is profoundly personal to me. I was at the White House the other day, and the president of the United States turned to me, and he met Dante a few months ago, and he said that Dante reminded him of what he looked like as a teenager. And he said I know you see this crisis through a very personal lens. And I said to him, I did.

Because Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years about the dangers that he may face. A good young man, law-abiding young man who would never think to do anything wrong. And yet, because of a history that still hangs over us, the dangers he may face, we've had to literally train him—as families have all over this city for decades—in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.

And that painful sense of contradiction that our young people see first, that our police are here to protect us, and we honor that, and at the same time, there's a history we have to overcome, because for so many of our young people, there's a fear. And for so many of our families, there's a fear.

So I've had to worry over the years. Chirlane's had to worry. Is Dante safe each night? There are so many families in this city who feel that each and every night. Is my child safe? And not just from some of the painful realities—crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods—but is safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors.

That's the reality
.

Super sick burn against the NYPD by the mayor! :lol:

Some more
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...rn-backs-de-blasio-hospital-article-1.2052215

A startling video shows a hallway at Woodhull Hospital filled with cops silently facing away from de Blasio as he walks a blue gauntlet.

The demonstration, captured by WPIX11 News, included the presidents of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association and the the Sergeants Benevolent Association.

“Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands,” Ed Mullins, president of the sergeants association, said in a statement to his union members Saturday night.

“It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur,” Mullins said. “I only hope and pray that more of these ambushes and executions do not happen again.”

Patrick Lynch, head of the patrol officers’ union, echoed Mullins’ anger at the mayor.

“That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor,” Lynch said in statement. “When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable.”
***********

Essentially, the cops feel that the mayor contributed to 2 of their guys being assassinated with all the negative police talk stirring up the nuts.
 
So let me get this straight--the mayor can never, ever suggest that the police did wrong, or any of their deaths are on his hands? Perhaps the police are so accustomed to the Blue Wall of Silence that they're shocked when the mayor doesn't write them a blank check. The police get nearly as upset about criticism as the people do when some of them are killed by police!
 
So let me get this straight--the mayor can never, ever suggest that the police did wrong, or any of their deaths are on his hands? Perhaps the police are so accustomed to the Blue Wall of Silence that they're shocked when the mayor doesn't write them a blank check. The police get nearly as upset about criticism as the people do when some of them are killed by police!

There is some history of spats between mayors and the police.
I'd say the score so far has mayors winning most of the time.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...tory-ofpublicspatsbetweenmayorsandpolice.html
Abraham Beame, New York City

Perhaps no big-city mayor has faced the kind of revolt that confronted New York City’s Abraham Beame, who took office in 1974 and inherited a $1.5 billion budget deficit. His drastic budget cuts, which included layoffs in the police and fire departments, inspired one of the most notorious campaigns ever mounted by organized labor, writes Miriam Greenberg, associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in "Branding New York: How a City in Crisis Was Sold to the World."

To sway public opinion against the layoffs, a group of 24 police and fire unions calling themselves the Council for Public Safety printed 1 million pamphlets entitled “Welcome to Fear City.” With a skull on the cover, the leaflets greeted tourists with a “survival guide” cautioning them to stay in their hotels at night and avoid public transportation.

Along with the pamphlets, police unions organized demonstrations and blocked traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, according to Andrew T. Darien in his book "Becoming New York's Finest: Race, Gender, and the Integration of the NYPD." Under union orders, officers rampaged through black and Puerto Rican neighborhoods, blowing whistles and banging trashcan lids, Darien wrote, and thousands of off-duty cops roamed the streets for several nights, some displaying their guns.

Beame successfully obtained a restraining to prevent the officers from distributing the leaflets, but the Committee for Public Safety later printed new ones titled, "If You Haven't Been Mugged Yet..." New York would take years to recover from a campaign that, Greenberg wrote, "wreaked havoc” on the city's image.
 
And these punks are supposed to protect and serve?
 
The police are being jerks here but I do have some sympathy for anyone trying to keep order in a culture where toddlers shoot their mothers and this is viewed as a sadly regrettable but acceptable sacrifice on the altar of freedom to bear arms.
 
We sacrifice far more for accessible personal transportation. We sacrifice terribly for recreational sexual intercourse. There's a lot of altars stinking in the sun when one cares to look. Some are just easy to visualize and it's always easy to attack something somebody else finds value in instead of one's self.
 
Little kids kick, hit, and push their parents in all cultures. They quickly set their kid straight on that one. This time was just an accident. The mother carried a concealed weapon to protect herself and her toddler, made a mistake (being new to parenthood and all), and she doesn't get a chance to set him straight.

None of this is cause for cops to need to stop and frisk. Which ended for good under De Blasio's tenure.
 
We sacrifice far more for accessible personal transportation. We sacrifice terribly for recreational sexual intercourse. There's a lot of altars stinking in the sun when one cares to look. Some are just easy to visualize and it's always easy to attack something somebody else finds value in instead of one's self.
True, but we work hard to improve the safety of vehicles and pass laws that require people to operate them more safely. Efforts to improve education regarding pregnancy and STDs are of course fought by some people on the Right, but I haven't heard anyone say that the rising rates of HIV among gay men is anything other than a collective failure (I suppose there's probably a lunatic fringe who believes it's God's Judgment or some crap like that, but we seem to ignore them).

We also have laws against child endangerment. A guy just got 5 years in prison for starving his kids. If the woman had survived her gunshot, or if the kid has just fired a round into the ceiling, how many years would she have gotten for her unconscionable negligence?

As far as attacking somebody else's valued behavior, it's been my experience that gun owners either aren't able to explain their position to a non-gun owner very well, or they simply don't feel they need to. "It's my right", "It's in the Constitution", "It's tradition", etc, seem to be all they feel a need to say (or it's really all they can come up with, I'm not sure which). Some of them shrug their shoulders when kids get killed and say "not my problem." Some of them, when they get riled, threaten us with the very guns they claim they need to defend themselves with (thankfully, some of those people who murder and then cry self-defense are indeed going to prison).
 
If education is the chosen answer to the butchery resulting from protecting the important right to recreational sex why is regulation instead the answer to the butchery resulting from protecting the important right to possess arms?
 
If education is the chosen answer to the butchery resulting from protecting the important right to recreational sex why is regulation instead the answer to the butchery resulting from protecting the important right to possess arms?
Well, the short answers are (a) that two questions don't need to have the same answer, and (b) that sex is good and shooting people is bad, so I want to enable the one and reduce the other.

A longer reply, though, is that I guess I don't accept a premise of your question, that the right to bear arms is important (I also don't accept that the result of sex is butchery, but that's not germane to this thread). Proponents of gun ownership seem to take that importance for granted, and either can't explain it or feel they shouldn't have to. I assume, for example, that everyone in this thread understands the value of transportation and sex, but if someone genuinely didn't, I would want it explained to them.
 
Is shooting people -always- bad? I'd say an intruder breaking into a home and attempting to rape a daughter being shot by a parent is a good shooting.
 
Is shooting people -always- bad? I'd say an intruder breaking into a home and attempting to rape a daughter being shot by a parent is a good shooting.
I would say it's a horrible choice to have to make, that it's the lesser of two evils, and probably the result of a cascade of failures and/or missed opportunities at preventive measures. You know what one of the biggest risk factors for PTSD in soldiers and police officers is? Killing someone. Even a justifiable killing is not a good thing, and is the end result of a series of unfortunate events that may or may not have been avoidable or preventable. I would think that shooting an intruder trying to rape a daughter would be one of the worst days in a parent's life, and the best that could be said about it is that it could have been worse.
 
^ That's entirely true, imo. Nicely put. Especially about the missed opportunities.

So, of course killing someone is always bad.
 
Well, the short answers are (a) that two questions don't need to have the same answer, and (b) that sex is good and shooting people is bad, so I want to enable the one and reduce the other.

A longer reply, though, is that I guess I don't accept a premise of your question, that the right to bear arms is important (I also don't accept that the result of sex is butchery, but that's not germane to this thread). Proponents of gun ownership seem to take that importance for granted, and either can't explain it or feel they shouldn't have to. I assume, for example, that everyone in this thread understands the value of transportation and sex, but if someone genuinely didn't, I would want it explained to them.

The number I keep coming up with for abortions in 2013 is about one point two million in the USA(possibly as low as seven hundred and thirty thousand in 2011 per the CDC). Even if you discount entirely the value of the lives butchered the mental cost to the women involved in making that choice is, in totality, staggering. Absolutely stunning, I'd say, when coupled with your statements on PTSD, lost opportunities, and the simple assertion ''sex is good.'' Sex is a lot of things, one of those things it can be is ''good.''

Reject my premise if you must, but if you need to stipulate within your framework that the final right to the tools of personal lethal force is of unimportant value while coupling that with the stipulation that over a million prenatal lives a year are worth absolutely nothing, while also discounting the toll on those who abort life, in order to justify preserving the right to the thrill of a vaginal ejaculation than I think we've found the reason there is zero ground for well reasoned understanding between our positions regarding prevention via education vs prevention via force of law. And with more respect than is probably conveyed adequately by this post, I don't think the problem is on this end.
 
This is absolutely the wrong topic for new years but:

1. they're not lives
2. very few people act as if they're lives
3. the actual life involved is that of the mother which is the actual significant reason to support legal abortion
4. people opposed to legal abortion DO act as if they think modern sexual mores are somehow shameful, as you just did. And it is pretty insulting the way you said "vaginal ejactulation" is the priority here.
 
Is shooting people -always- bad? I'd say an intruder breaking into a home and attempting to rape a daughter being shot by a parent is a good shooting.

Unless it turns out the "intruder" is there with the consent of the daughter and gets shot as seems to be the more common case.
 
Back
Top Bottom