http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-mayor-dropping-stop-frisk-appeal-163455505.html
QuoteNew York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration filed court papers Thursday seeking to drop an appeal of a judge's decision ordering major reforms to the police department's stop-and-frisk policy.
The papers filed in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the city was seeking to return the case to a lower court for 45 days "for the purpose of exploring a full resolution."
A judge ruled last year that the New York Police Department had discriminated against blacks and Hispanics with how it went about stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people on the street. The judge ordered major reforms to the department's implementation of the policy.
Then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed the decision. But de Blasio, who took office at the beginning of the year, is now seeking to drop the appeal.
Bloomberg was a staunch advocate of the policy and his administration appealed the decision. Stops had soared under his 12-year tenure to more than 5 million in the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men. About 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons were found about 2 percent of the time.
Four men sued the department in 2008, saying they were unfairly targeted because of their race. U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin presided over a 10-week bench trial where she heard testimony from a dozen New Yorkers who said they were wrongly stopped. She agreed and imposed a court-appointed monitor to oversee reforms, but her ruling has been on hold pending the appeal.
The federal appeals court also took the unusual step of removing Scheindlin from the case, saying she misapplied a related ruling that allowed her to take it to begin with and had spoken inappropriately publically about the case.
De Blasio and his new police commissioner, William Bratton, have said the policy has created a rift among New Yorkers who don't trust police, and it's made morale low for officers who should be praised for stellar efforts reducing crime to record lows.
The stop-and-frisk tactic itself was not ruled unconstitutional; rather the way the department was using it violated civil rights, the judge said.
:thumbsdown:
There was a Die Hard movie on TV recently. Black New Yorkers were portrayed as murderous thugs who don't care for free speech.
Quote from: The Brain on January 30, 2014, 01:03:01 PM
There was a Die Hard movie on TV recently. Black New Yorkers were portrayed as murderous thugs who don't care for free speech.
:D
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 01:01:49 PM
:thumbsdown:
OK . . .
Now without looking at Scheindlin's ruling, tell me which of the remedial measures you oppose and why?
;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 30, 2014, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 01:01:49 PM
:thumbsdown:
OK . . .
Now without looking at Scheindlin's ruling, tell me which of the remedial measures you oppose and why?
;)
My complaint is actually this:
A trial level decision is fine, but doesn't have precedential value for subsequent courts. Thus, the legality of "stop and frisk" is still very much in the air.
An Appellate level decision would, however, be binding on lower courts. It would more clearly establish what is and is not permissible.
:contract:
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2014, 01:20:29 PM
My complaint is actually this:
A trial level decision is fine, but doesn't have precedential value for subsequent courts. Thus, the legality of "stop and frisk" is still very much in the air.
An Appellate level decision would, however, be binding on lower courts. It would more clearly establish what is and is not permissible.
:contract:
I don't think the legality of stop of frisk is up in the air. There are already a LOT of US Supreme Court cases addressing the issue that describe in considerable level of detail when law enforcement may stop and search a person and when not. the main thrust of the remedial order is to direct NYPD to apply this existing doctrine.
While it is possible that a decision on appeal would add incremental detail to this body of law within the limited confines of the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont, it isn't really the job of the mayor of New York to fill the pages of law review articles, rather to run his city agencies in the most effective and lawful manner he can.
Yeah Beeb, stop trying to impose your draconian Canadian laws on us!
Quote from: katmai on January 30, 2014, 04:11:43 PM
Yeah Beeb, stop trying to impose your draconian Canadian laws on us!
Back off you hoser. :mad:
Katmai's a hoser, lulz.
:unsure:
Cowardly move by Hizzoner.
I don't know. Unlike Obama, at least de Blasio is sticking to some of the positions he espoused while campaigning.
Quote from: garbon on January 30, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
I don't know. Unlike Obama, at least de Blasio is sticking to some of the positions he espoused while campaigning.
ORLY? A dead Bin Laden and the end of two wars isn't sticking to positions? Hater.
I don't remember claiming otherwise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2014, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 30, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
I don't know. Unlike Obama, at least de Blasio is sticking to some of the positions he espoused while campaigning.
ORLY? A dead Bin Laden and the end of two wars isn't sticking to positions? Hater.
Can't believe he brought up Gitmo the other night :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2014, 10:12:42 PM
Can't believe he brought up Gitmo the other night :lol:
:huh: I thought he tried to close it and got cock-blocked by Congress.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/de-blasio-wont-march-in-st-patricks-day-parade/
QuoteNew York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says he won't be marching in the city's St. Patrick's Day parade.
De Blasio says he won't partake in the parade along Fifth Avenue because of organizers' refusal to allow participants to carry gay-pride signs.
"I will be participating in a number of other events to honor the Irish heritage of this city and the contributions of Irish Americans, but I simply disagree with the organizers of that parade in their exclusion of some individuals in this city," he said.
Former mayor Michael Bloomberg always marched. De Blasio also did not march while public advocate.
Its organizers say gay people are welcome to march, but they say signs celebrating being gay would detract from the parade's focus on honoring Irish heritage.
The mayor says he won't heed activists' call to ban city workers from marching while wearing their uniforms.
"I respect the right of our city workers to march in uniform, period," de Blasio said.
The parade is a tradition that predates the city itself. Organizers predict more than 1 million people will attend on March 17.
I've always thought it ridiculous that the St. Patrick's Day parade hides behind the figleaf that it is a religious event. <_<
Quote from: commenterOne Term, peeps, one term. This is a religious affair, and there is no way the Irish could allow this and be reverent Catholics. The Church says sodomy is evil, case closed. smokersodysseycom
To be fair, rainbow doesn't go well with green.
I wonder what points the way to the pot of gold. :hmm:
It's not a religious event, it's a cultural event.
Marching in the parade with a gay pride sign would be just as inappropriate as marching with an anti-abortion sign, or a gun rights sign, or whatever.
The Gay Pride people let me carry my 'Kiss Me I'm Irish' sign.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2014, 12:57:09 PM
QuoteThe parade is a tradition that predates the city itself.
:huh:
Were there Irish Lenape or something?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2014, 05:22:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2014, 12:57:09 PM
QuoteThe parade is a tradition that predates the city itself.
:huh:
Were there Irish Lenape or something?
I'm sure they're talking about the formation of the modern City of New York.
They only thing they could be referring to is the creation of the consolidated New York in 1898 but I was not aware New York did not exist before then. Or maybe they mean parades in Ireland or something.
The first parade pre-dates the Revolution and hence the USA. That is probably what they meant. Obviously it doesn't predate the city itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2014, 06:02:10 PM
The first parade pre-dates the Revolution and hence the USA. That is probably what they meant. Obviously it doesn't predate the city itself.
Maybe the first one took place when it was called New Amsterdam thus predating New York.
I don't care for this new guy. Even more so when he dropped that groundhog.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2014, 06:13:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2014, 06:02:10 PM
The first parade pre-dates the Revolution and hence the USA. That is probably what they meant. Obviously it doesn't predate the city itself.
Maybe the first one took place when it was called New Amsterdam thus predating New York.
Google suggests first was in 1762.
Ah ok so Minsky was right.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2014, 06:13:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2014, 06:02:10 PM
The first parade pre-dates the Revolution and hence the USA. That is probably what they meant. Obviously it doesn't predate the city itself.
Maybe the first one took place when it was called New Amsterdam thus predating New York.
Stuyvesant wouldn't let 2 Irishman stand within 5 feet of another, much less countenance a full parade.
After seeing Seedy, could you blame him?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2014, 05:02:07 PM
It's not a religious event, it's a cultural event.
Marching in the parade with a gay pride sign would be just as inappropriate as marching with an anti-abortion sign, or a gun rights sign, or whatever.
But they're political gay pride's not. A good equivalent would be Irish-Americans celebrating St. Patrick's Day with a parade.
Gay pride isn't political?
Trying to take over somebody's parade is low.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
Trying to take over somebody's parade is low.
Yes, a small group trying to join in on festivities = low. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
Trying to take over somebody's parade is low.
There's gay Irishmen.
de Blasio shouldn't have ceded ground on that UES complaint. Apparently today many people in Manhattan were gripping about him following that narrative. Lame.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2014, 08:46:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
Trying to take over somebody's parade is low.
There's gay Irishmen.
The parade is about Irishness, not gayness. They have their own parade for that.
There are antisemite Irishmen as well, but it would be inappropriate to march in the St. Patrick's day parade waving anti-Israeli banners and pictures of Rachel Corrie.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
The parade is about Irishness, not gayness. They have their own parade for that.
Irish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
The parade is about Irishness, not gayness. They have their own parade for that.
Irish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
But only if they are marching in favour of gayness. These gays don't want to march in favour of Irishness, they want to co-opt it into another gay pride parade.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
The parade is about Irishness, not gayness. They have their own parade for that.
Irish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
:huh: Gay people can march in the Irish parade, so reciprocity seems to exist already.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 03:30:26 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:35:37 AM
The parade is about Irishness, not gayness. They have their own parade for that.
Irish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
But only if they are marching in favour of gayness. These gays don't want to march in favour of Irishness, they want to co-opt it into another gay pride parade.
I think you might be confused about the size of this parade. Even if gay people wanted to, that wouldn't be possible.
Additionally, your anti-semite example might work if gay people were trying to march as "anti" something. They just want to be able to have gay organizations allowed to be affiliates of the parade/march in it.
Gay people are anti-something. You, Martinus and Grallon are the most hateful people I've ever met.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2014, 12:57:09 PM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/de-blasio-wont-march-in-st-patricks-day-parade/ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/de-blasio-wont-march-in-st-patricks-day-parade/)
QuoteNew York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says he won't be marching in the city's St. Patrick's Day parade.
De Blasio says he won't partake in the parade along Fifth Avenue because of organizers' refusal to allow participants to carry gay-pride signs.
"I will be participating in a number of other events to honor the Irish heritage of this city and the contributions of Irish Americans, but I simply disagree with the organizers of that parade in their exclusion of some individuals in this city," he said.
Former mayor Michael Bloomberg always marched. De Blasio also did not march while public advocate.
Its organizers say gay people are welcome to march, but they say signs celebrating being gay would detract from the parade's focus on honoring Irish heritage.
The mayor says he won't heed activists' call to ban city workers from marching while wearing their uniforms.
"I respect the right of our city workers to march in uniform, period," de Blasio said.
The parade is a tradition that predates the city itself. Organizers predict more than 1 million people will attend on March 17.
I've always thought it ridiculous that the St. Patrick's Day parade hides behind the figleaf that it is a religious event. <_<
Quote from: commenterOne Term, peeps, one term. This is a religious affair, and there is no way the Irish could allow this and be reverent Catholics. The Church says sodomy is evil, case closed. smokersodysseycom
And why don't we talk more about the Japanese during black history month?
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 03:39:53 PM
Gay people are anti-something. You, Martinus and Grallon are the most hateful people I've ever met.
What hate do I have?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2014, 03:48:05 PM
And why don't we talk more about the Japanese during black history month?
I wouldn't have any issues if a Afro-Japanese* group wanted to celebrate black history. :unsure:
*actually wouldn't have issue if it was just a Japanese group but not sure why they would want to.
Besides, there isn't a moratorium on talking about people from different backgrounds during black history month. :)
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2014, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:21:54 PMIrish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
:huh: Gay people can march in the Irish parade, so reciprocity seems to exist already.
... but they can't identify as such in the parade. A group could march under a "gay and Irish" banner in the gay pride parade, for example, but not in the St. Patrick's day one, unless I misunderstood something?
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2014, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 03:39:53 PM
Gay people are anti-something. You, Martinus and Grallon are the most hateful people I've ever met.
What hate do I have?
You're Martinus-esque in your hate for mankind. You just project it with bitchiness rather than malice the way he does.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 05, 2014, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2014, 03:21:54 PMIrish people are allowed in the gay pride parade; seems only fair to reciprocate.
:huh: Gay people can march in the Irish parade, so reciprocity seems to exist already.
... but they can't identify as such in the parade. A group could march under a "gay and Irish" banner in the gay pride parade, for example, but not in the St. Patrick's day one, unless I misunderstood something?
Such divisive behavior isn't what the St. Patrick's Day parade is about. It's supposed to be a celebration of unity within the Irish community, rather than getting bogged down in sectarian nonsense.
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2014, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 03:39:53 PM
Gay people are anti-something. You, Martinus and Grallon are the most hateful people I've ever met.
What hate do I have?
You're Martinus-esque in your hate for mankind. You just project it with bitchiness rather than malice the way he does.
But that has nothing to do with me hating mankind...and why it isn't malice. :D
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 04:08:42 PM
Such divisive behavior isn't what the St. Patrick's Day parade is about. It's supposed to be a celebration of unity within the Irish community, rather than getting bogged down in sectarian nonsense.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2014, 04:25:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2014, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 03:39:53 PM
Gay people are anti-something. You, Martinus and Grallon are the most hateful people I've ever met.
What hate do I have?
You're Martinus-esque in your hate for mankind. You just project it with bitchiness rather than malice the way he does.
But that has nothing to do with me hating mankind...and why it isn't malice. :D
You're the sort that would enjoy hurting people through inaction and snide comments.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2014, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 04:08:42 PM
Such divisive behavior isn't what the St. Patrick's Day parade is about. It's supposed to be a celebration of unity within the Irish community, rather than getting bogged down in sectarian nonsense.
:lol:
I know, right?
Quote from: Neil on February 05, 2014, 08:17:13 PM
You're the sort that would enjoy hurting people through inaction and snide comments.
It is almost like you don't know me at all. :huh:
Apparently Al Roker tweeted mean comments about de Blasio having schools open yesterday. De Blasio then smacked back during a press briefing saying "I respect Al Roker a lot, watched him on TV for many many years. It's a different thing to run a city than to give weather on TV."
:bleeding: :D
After I read the statistics I became convinced stop-and-frisk is a non-issue. Unless people contend the "fear" of it somehow suppressed crime, the number of arrests actually produced through stop-and-frisk, relative to the size of New York City, the total arrests in New York City in a year etc is essentially microscopic. It's basically an unpopular policy, that unless there is some mechanism where it has impact vastly greater than the number of arrests it produces, probably had little to do with New York's amazing reduction in crime over the past generation.
Bill does give me some small beacon of hope as a Republican, though. If you follow the leftist internet sphere you know there is a minority (but a loud one) of the Democrats who are seriously hard with the thought of finding some progressive Democrat in the de Blasio mold to be the party's standard bearer in 2016. Typically their dream candidate is Elizabeth Warren.
The more I read about de Blasio the more I realize that while my party no longer knows how politics works and thinks it can win the White House by trying to appeal to 40% of the electorate and massively alienate the other 60%, I do see two silver linings. One is that in age past progressive Dems were a lot more powerful politically, now it's moderates like Cuomo, Obama (honestly), and Clinton who are nationally relevant democrats. So in a way while we're probably going to lose at politics for a generation the Dems that are beating us are by and large people who could have comfortably fit within the George H.W. Bush era GOP, at least on economic issues or foreign policy issues. The rest is basically meaningless to me (yes, today's Democrats are far more progressive on things like gay rights, which genuinely don't matter at all to me or anyone who is focused on the important aspects of running a country.) The other silver lining is that de Blasio's or Warren's ideas, the more you read about them, would be so massively popular outside of the liberal fortresses where they live that if somehow a candidate like that snuck in through the Democratic nominating process we'd basically win the White House by default.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2014, 10:52:01 AM
Apparently Al Roker tweeted mean comments about de Blasio having schools open yesterday. De Blasio then smacked back during a press briefing saying "I respect Al Roker a lot, watched him on TV for many many years. It's a different thing to run a city than to give weather on TV."
:bleeding: :D
I honestly don't know why anybody in the public eye would ever Tweet anything anyway. There's no upside to it at all.
Easy to make gaffes and get publicity?
Why did he get blasted for having schools open? New York City doesn't have a lot of mountains or something that would make snowy roads truly treacherous, winter weather conditions are typically dangerous when you're driving on some country road or the interstate. Situations where you can build up some decent speed and then rapidly run into trouble and a serious accident. Inside a major city limits you shouldn't ever need to be going fast enough for winter weather conditions to truly be dangerous, and unless the city is built in a very rugged/mountainous terrain it should almost be impossible to wreck. Then add on heavy vehicles do much better in snow, and thus school buses are going to have even fewer problems than regular vehicles.
So with all that being said, I don't really see why NYC would ever cancel school due to snow. I can see canceling it due to extreme cold weather as it may not be ideal to have a kid waiting at the bus stop in -15 F temperatures.
Well we did just have a pregnant woman who got killed by a snow plow.
Thinking about it, another issue would be kids walking to school. We're all about ice.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 15, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
After I read the statistics I became convinced stop-and-frisk is a non-issue. Unless people contend the "fear" of it somehow suppressed crime, the number of arrests actually produced through stop-and-frisk, relative to the size of New York City, the total arrests in New York City in a year etc is essentially microscopic. It's basically an unpopular policy, that unless there is some mechanism where it has impact vastly greater than the number of arrests it produces, probably had little to do with New York's amazing reduction in crime over the past generation.
What I don't buy is all the bullshit about the SnF stats, and how the SnF statistics of minorities affected exceeds the actual NYC population of minorities.
If Pook and Ray Ray are known shitbag slingers on my beat, I'm not padding my SnF stats by needlessly jacking up an innocent garbon walking by for no fucking reason; I'm too busy giving Pook and Ray Ray as hard a time as legally possible, and if getting them so uncomfortable with dealing drugs in the open drives them underground by using SnF on them multiple times a week and faceplanting them on the sidewalk every time there's heavy pedestrian traffic in a non-thoroughfare alley they're hanging out it, I'm doing it.
If people actually look at the NYPD quarterly reports, they'll see that the majority of documented incidents involve things like:
QuoteAREA HAS HIGH CRIME INCIDENCE
TIME OF DAY FITS CRIME INCIDENCE
PROXIMITY TO SCENE OF OFFENSE
ASSOCIATING WITH KNOWN CRIMINALS
ONGOING INVESTIGATION
SIGHTS OR SOUNDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
That's not harassment; it's targeted law enforcement. The statistics may not look pretty on the macro level, but it's what's done on the micro level--on the street, on that block, in that neighborhood--that counts.
QuoteBill does give me some small beacon of hope as a Republican, though. If you follow the leftist internet sphere you know there is a minority (but a loud one) of the Democrats who are seriously hard with the thought of finding some progressive Democrat in the de Blasio mold to be the party's standard bearer in 2016. Typically their dream candidate is Elizabeth Warren.
Regardless of party, it's law and order and the ability to make citizens, tourists and commuters from Connecticut feel safe in the greatest city in the world that is the key to getting elected. Having a son with an Afro is just gravy for the liberals, but to be successful as NYC mayor, it's all about the law and order.
And for what it's worth, I hope Elizabeth Warren fucks you all in the ass with a strap-on dildo the size of Berkut's hate for unionized textile laborers, and that's one big fucking dildo, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2014, 01:24:13 PM
And for what it's worth, I hope Elizabeth Warren fucks you all in the ass with a strap-on dildo the size of Berkut's hate for unionized textile laborers, and that's one big fucking dildo, man.
Please, she's a hack.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 15, 2014, 12:38:50 PM
Why did he get blasted for having schools open? New York City doesn't have a lot of mountains or something that would make snowy roads truly treacherous, winter weather conditions are typically dangerous when you're driving on some country road or the interstate. Situations where you can build up some decent speed and then rapidly run into trouble and a serious accident. Inside a major city limits you shouldn't ever need to be going fast enough for winter weather conditions to truly be dangerous, and unless the city is built in a very rugged/mountainous terrain it should almost be impossible to wreck. Then add on heavy vehicles do much better in snow, and thus school buses are going to have even fewer problems than regular vehicles.
So with all that being said, I don't really see why NYC would ever cancel school due to snow. I can see canceling it due to extreme cold weather as it may not be ideal to have a kid waiting at the bus stop in -15 F temperatures.
The roads can become blocked with traffic causing school buses to be late, maybe for hours, kids stuck on buses. Look what happened in Atlanta, people and kids stuck on clogged, icy roads. Heavy buses may do better in snow but roads can often be slick and dangerous no matter what you're driving, and other vehicles pose a hazard in poor conditions. Kids walking to school have a tough time when half several inches or a foot or more of snow buries sidewalks. When I worked in Boston and commuting home during bad snow storms I've often had roads so slick that it was uber dangerous just even going slow. Traffic clogs fast then, especially as more accidents happen. Boston often closes down schools after some bad experiences, and so do more work places. My work closes, at least the financial and IT offices, but hospitals stay open for obvious reasons. I've worked from home several times this winter.
When I was in 7th grade, we wound up going to school on a day that surprised us that school was even open, had about 2 inches of snow on the ground by the time we got going. About 4 miles from home, our school bus got struck by a tractor trailer with an empty flatbed that jack knifed on the ice because it didn't have enough weight in the ass, and crossed the center line at about 15 miles an hour; I was way in the back of the bus, but the rig struck the the driver's side at an angle, around the 3rd row where my sister, who was in 4th grade, was sitting. Drove the entire bus off the road and into the ditch, damned near rolling us.
Parents from the neighborhood, going to work after sending the kids off, where pulling up and freaking the fuck out, including our Mom. What a mess that morning was. No major injuries, except the bus driver's nerves. I think that was the only fatality. :lol: My sister was OK, but she had some issues with oncoming heavy rigs as a passenger for a while after that.
So, sometimes it's just better to call it a day and keep the fuckers off the road. They're big, but they're hollow and crunchy, and filled with kids with no seat belts.
Might as well just cancel school every day. After all, there's always the chance of a car accident.
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2014, 01:09:08 PM
Might as well just cancel school every day. After all, there's always the chance of a car accident.
Much higher odds when the roads are bad.
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2014, 01:09:08 PM
Might as well just cancel school every day. After all, there's always the chance of a car accident.
I can appreciate your dismissive attitude, what with snow being the state of nature up there in the arctic circle.
You know what I miss? Snow chains. Now those were fun.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:12:15 PM
I can appreciate your dismissive attitude, what with snow being the state of nature up there in the arctic circle.
Yeah whereas this year is the first time that I've made good use of my snow boots.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:12:15 PM
You know what I miss? Snow chains. Now those were fun.
My family was very confused about those not being available when we moved east.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2014, 01:09:08 PM
Might as well just cancel school every day. After all, there's always the chance of a car accident.
I can appreciate your dismissive attitude, what with snow being the state of nature up there in the arctic circle.
You know what I miss? Snow chains. Now those were fun.
They're bad for the roads though. I'm not even sure they're legal anymore.
A pair of all-season tires are all you need if you're careful. Some people prefer winter tires, but I don't think they're necessary.
Quote from: garbon on February 16, 2014, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:12:15 PM
You know what I miss? Snow chains. Now those were fun.
My family was very confused about those not being available when we moved east.
FWD vehicles overtaking RWD vehicles in total sales back in the 80s is partially responsible for that, followed by the SUV craze of the 90s.
If you looked in somebody's trunk or garage in 1985, chances were there'd be a cardboard box full of snow chains. Hell, once upon a time a "Snow Emergency" road meant that you could only be on the road if 1) you had snow tires, or 2) you had chains.
Now an entire generation of car buyers don't even know what those two things mean anymore. Goddamned young people.
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2014, 01:21:30 PM
A pair of all-season tires are all you need if you're careful. Some people prefer winter tires, but I don't think they're necessary.
:mad: Winter tires are cool and bad ass. :mad:
re: tire chains, here's the AAA list for states.
Edit: and Canada.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/tire-chains/
They're illegal in Hawaii. Fucking Obama. :mad:
There might possibly some call for use on a muddy backroad in Hawaii. :lol:
For a long time, it was illegal to even drive in the mountains of Washington/California(may still be there) without carrying tore chains in your car.
The may not damage the road surface bit seems odd as in like well I didn't know! :D
Yes, we had them put on our car every time we went up into the mountains.
edit: Apparently snow tires or chains are a requirement at times:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/chcontrl.htm
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:26:08 PM
:mad: Winter tires are cool and bad ass. :mad:
re: tire chains, here's the AAA list for states.
Edit: and Canada.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/tire-chains/
They're illegal in Hawaii. Fucking Obama. :mad:
No one I knew growing up had snow tires, ever. And chains only if you were going out in the bush off main roads.
Edit: And trucks on hills when it was icy.
Meh. Just use textile chains - they don't damage the road and I'm guessing won't be banned anywhere. Most people I know carry a set of those (winter tires are not common here for obvious reasons).
Of course if you use them without snow/ice you'll rip them apart in no time.
The link-chain style chains I believe are the best but the ones that damage the road the most. I've noticed USPS trucks around here invariably have chains on in snowy weather (those postal trucks are not 4WD as some people believe), they always use the cable style chains though.
But yeah, it's weird that no one has snow chains any longer. The few times when I was younger that I had to stop to put them on I was at the foot of a hill I was certainly not going to climb without them (I know because I had tried and been sent back to my starting point by Isaac Newton.) It used to be an annual ritual to go get snow tires on your car and lots of tire shops had deals where they'd swap out your tires for free every year if you had bought both your regular/winter tires there at some point.
I've never heard of textile chains.
Ed uses supply chains.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 01:26:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2014, 01:21:30 PM
A pair of all-season tires are all you need if you're careful. Some people prefer winter tires, but I don't think they're necessary.
:mad: Winter tires are cool and bad ass. :mad:
re: tire chains, here's the AAA list for states.
Edit: and Canada.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/tire-chains/
They're illegal in Hawaii. Fucking Obama. :mad:
Obama told me that you would deny him three times.
:D
This morning I saw a man (probably not more than 30) waddling down the street holding in one hand a McD's bag and in his other a Big Gulp. My first thought was - where is Bloomberg when you need him? :weep:
Bloomberg would've kicked his ass :angry:
He probably would have deported the guy to New Jersey.
http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-stop-seizing-sex-suspects-condoms-173829281.html
QuoteNYPD to stop seizing suspected sex workers' condoms
The New York Police Department will no longer confiscate unused condoms from suspected sex workers to be used as evidence of prostitution, ending a longstanding practice that had been criticized by civil rights groups for undermining efforts to combat AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.
Under the new policy announced Monday, officers may continue to seize condoms as evidence in sex-trafficking and promotion of prostitution cases, but they will not use them in support of prostitution cases. Critics had said the previous policy amounted to police harassment, and noted that New York City spends more than $1 million a year to distribute free condoms.
"The NYPD heard from community health advocates and took a serious look at making changes to our current policy as it relates to our broader public safety mission," Police Commissioner William Bratton said in announcing the new policy.
For decades, police in New York and elsewhere had confiscated condoms from sex work suspects ostensibly for them to be used as evidence in criminal trials, even though the overwhelming majority of prostitution cases never go to trial.
"A policy that inhibits people from safe sex is a mistake and dangerous," Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday at an unrelated event in Queens. "And there are a number of ways you can go about putting together evidence" without condoms, he said.
A 2010 study by the city's Department of Health surveyed more than 60 sex workers and found that more than half had condoms confiscated by police. Nearly a third said they had at times not carried condoms because they feared getting into trouble.
Two years later, the group Human Rights Watch interviewed 197 sex workers in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco and found that many limited the number of condoms they carried or went without because they feared police attention. The report concluded that transgender teens, street-level sex workers and immigrants were especially targeted because of their appearance or behavior.
Prosecutors in Brooklyn and Long Island's Nassau County and in San Francisco decided last year to no longer use condoms as evidence in prostitution cases. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance applauded the NYPD's policy change.
"I have long believed that it is possible to address the use of condoms as evidence in misdemeanor prostitution-related cases without weakening our ability to prosecute serious crimes, like sex trafficking," he said. "I commend our partners in the NYPD for their policy change, which will enhance public health and help curb the spread of diseases."
Measures to formally abolish the practice across New York state have been introduced in the Legislature for nearly two decades and last year passed the Assembly. Similar legislation has been introduced in California.
The New York Police Department makes about 2,500 prostitution arrests a year.
One respondent in the Human Rights Watch study, Brooklyn sex worker Pam G., told the researchers she has had condoms taken by police.
"The cops say, 'What are you carrying all those condoms for? We could arrest you just for this,'" she said. "It happens all the time around here. I may be carrying eight condoms. If you have more than three or four, they will take them."
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 02:10:12 PM
For decades, police in New York and elsewhere had confiscated condoms from sex work suspects ostensibly for them to be used as evidence in criminal trials, even though the overwhelming majority of prostitution cases never go to trial.
Maybe the majority of cases don't go to trial because the police did a good job in their investigation, including seizing all relevant evidence, thus leading to a guilty plea? :mad:
I mean, I'm sure the drug dealers don't like it when police seize their cell phones either.
*Used* condoms would be a better analogy to cell phones, BB.
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
Your bait is getting a bit stale, Spicy.
I'm serious. Why not just call them prostitutes? Using the term "worker" lends false dignity to what they do and denigrates people who are actually doing real, productive work.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
Your bait is getting a bit stale, Spicy.
I'm serious. Why not just call them prostitutes? Using the term "worker" lends false dignity to what they do and denigrates people who are actually doing real, productive work.
Service jobs aren't productive?
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
Your bait is getting a bit stale, Spicy.
I'm serious. Why not just call them prostitutes? Using the term "worker" lends false dignity to what they do and denigrates people who are actually doing real, productive work.
:blink: I can understand the moral indignation, but saying that they're not doing real, productive work? How do you define productive work? If anything, cops that fight unbeatable crimes that shouldn't even be crimes, like prostitution, are the ones not doing any productive work.
I get DS's point- and he's wrong about prostitutes. Though I'd take it from the perspective that it's maybe a problematic description, but not as bad as 'client'. But then I suppose that's to be expected.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
I'm serious. Why not just call them prostitutes? Using the term "worker" lends false dignity to what they do and denigrates people who are actually doing real, productive work.
Managing to sell something to people that is otherwise free is incredibly entrepreneurial and productive.
But I can see why you'd prefer "prostitutes", considering how you hate women.
I dislike sex workers as well. Not because I think the service they provide is without value, but because it's contrived and I disapprove of the practice of changing the names of things in an attempt to engineer attitudes.
If you want people to think better of prostitutes, change their minds about prostitution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2014, 08:37:53 PM
I dislike sex workers as well. Not because I think the service they provide is without value, but because it's contrived and I disapprove of the practice of changing the names of things in an attempt to engineer attitudes.
If you want people to think better of prostitutes, change their minds about prostitution.
Agreed on that point. One of the things about the left that I find annoying is that people think that by getting on a euphemism treadmill you're going to solve the problem being described. They don't realize that it just breeds resentment for the left's ideas.
I don't see any issue with. One, it isn't like it is a new term and two, politics (and in particular, sexual politics) often involves changing the conversation through terminology. Frankly, I'm not surprised that people don't want to use a term that people use as a slur.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
Your bait is getting a bit stale, Spicy.
I'm serious. Why not just call them prostitutes? Using the term "worker" lends false dignity to what they do and denigrates people who are actually doing real, productive work.
That's a bit juicier :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2014, 08:37:53 PM
I dislike sex workers as well. Not because I think the service they provide is without value, but because it's contrived and I disapprove of the practice of changing the names of things in an attempt to engineer attitudes.
If you want people to think better of prostitutes, change their minds about prostitution.
How do so many people, make so much money, for such a long period of time selling something without value? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 08:56:18 PM
Frankly, I'm not surprised that people don't want to use a term that people use as a slur.
Eh the new one just becomes the new slur eventually.
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2014, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 08:56:18 PM
Frankly, I'm not surprised that people don't want to use a term that people use as a slur.
Eh the new one just becomes the new slur eventually.
And old terms get reclaimed. :)
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 08:41:27 PMAgreed on that point. One of the things about the left that I find annoying is that people think that by getting on a euphemism treadmill you're going to solve the problem being described. They don't realize that it just breeds resentment for the left's ideas.
No one thinks they are going to solve the problem by getting on the euphemism treadmill. People adopt new terms to communicate nuances of perception, politics, and social positioning in the moment of communication.
As derspiess correctly points out, it is about dignity.
If you believe that people who perform sexual services for money are not unworthy human beings and should be accorded the same dignity as everybody else, and you think those issues of worth and dignity are worth addressing, and you wish to communicate that attitude then you use the term sex worker. The needs and experiences of the sex workers are likely one of the primary concerns of the conversation using that term.
When you use the term prostitute, you are signalling that you are unconcerned with the dignity and worth of the people providing the services and that you are fine with the general low status and bad treatment they receive. In general the conversation is going to be about the needs of the customers, people other than the prostitutes themselves, or society in general; or perhaps you are discussing the personal or social tragedy of prostitution, and see the prostitutes as victims.
If you call them whores you are actively denigrating the people providing the service, either because you think it is just that they are denigrated or because it turns you on to denigrate them. If you are using that term you are either casting aspersions in someone by likening them to something unworthy, or revelling in your economic and/or social power by unashamedly treating other human beings as consumable products.
Obviously that changes with individuals and the context in which the terms are used, but in broad strokes those are the signalling uses of the terms here and now. The fact that the terminology may shift in X years is of little importance in how they are used; the point of signalling values are what they mean in the moment they are used.
I don't know that's true about prostitute. It is the most common term so I'm not sure I agree that using it means a person is signalling they don't care about them.
I pick 'cum dumpsters' as the term I use.
Plz analyze that term.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2014, 09:53:45 PM
I pick 'cum dumpsters' as the term I use.
Plz analyze that term.
All sex isn't prostitution. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 09:53:19 PM
I don't know that's true about prostitute. It is the most common term so I'm not sure I agree that using it means a person is signalling they don't care about them.
I edited that section a bit. I think 'prostitute' tends to carry either a connotation of no thought really given, or of viewing prostitutes as victims of a social or personal tragedy.
That said, you are right that as the most common term it is used with a wider range if attitudes. It definitely does lack the explicit subtext of dignity which derspiess objects to with 'sex worker' to my ears.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2014, 09:53:45 PM
I pick 'cum dumpsters' as the term I use.
Plz analyze that term.
You have an active fantasy life.
Thank you. :)
I'm a 15th level Paladin!
For the record, I think prostitution should be legalized. Limit it to certain areas, regulate it, etc. but it's pointless to make it completely illegal.
Here in Cincy they recently cracked down on a crappy section of town that was rife with prostitutes. Hookers just dispersed out to nicer neighborhoods to ply their avocation and now the problem is arguably worse.
Drive them into the river.
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 09:48:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 08:41:27 PMAgreed on that point. One of the things about the left that I find annoying is that people think that by getting on a euphemism treadmill you're going to solve the problem being described. They don't realize that it just breeds resentment for the left's ideas.
No one thinks they are going to solve the problem by getting on the euphemism treadmill. People adopt new terms to communicate nuances of perception, politics, and social positioning in the moment of communication.
As derspiess correctly points out, it is about dignity.
If you believe that people who perform sexual services for money are not unworthy human beings and should be accorded the same dignity as everybody else, and you think those issues of worth and dignity are worth addressing, and you wish to communicate that attitude then you use the term sex worker. The needs and experiences of the sex workers are likely one of the primary concerns of the conversation using that term.
When you use the term prostitute, you are signalling that you are unconcerned with the dignity and worth of the people providing the services and that you are fine with the general low status and bad treatment they receive. In general the conversation is going to be about the needs of the customers, people other than the prostitutes themselves, or society in general; or perhaps you are discussing the personal or social tragedy of prostitution, and see the prostitutes as victims.
If you call them whores you are actively denigrating the people providing the service, either because you think it is just that they are denigrated or because it turns you on to denigrate them. If you are using that term you are either casting aspersions in someone by likening them to something unworthy, or revelling in your economic and/or social power by unashamedly treating other human beings as consumable products.
Obviously that changes with individuals and the context in which the terms are used, but in broad strokes those are the signalling uses of the terms here and now. The fact that the terminology may shift in X years is of little importance in how they are used; the point of signalling values are what they mean in the moment they are used.
What term do I use if I think those engaged in prostitution are victims, both of their own personal circumstances that lead them to their present situation, and of the various pimps and johns who force themselves on them? :)
I think "hooker" is a good term to use, as the only implicit slur is the suggestion that they'd be poor at commanding armies.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
What term do I use if I think those engaged in prostitution are victims, both of their own personal circumstances that lead them to their present situation, and of the various pimps and johns who force themselves on them? :)
You tell me :)
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
What term do I use if I think those engaged in prostitution are victims, both of their own personal circumstances that lead them to their present situation, and of the various pimps and johns who force themselves on them? :)
You tell me :)
If you have to use just one word, prostitute is probably it, but the term "victim of sexual exploitation" is better.
To me, using the word "sex worker" adds a layer of voluntariness to it, that's not always present. Imho it obfuscates some of the oppression present in the pimp-prostitute relationship presenting it like a normal business.
Again, I have nothing against prostitution per se if all partners are equally willing. If all prostitutes were truly "sex workers" it would be less of a problem.
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2014, 09:48:40 PM
If you believe that people who perform sexual services for money are not unworthy human beings and should be accorded the same dignity as everybody else, and you think those issues of worth and dignity are worth addressing, and you wish to communicate that attitude then you use the term sex worker. The needs and experiences of the sex workers are likely one of the primary concerns of the conversation using that term.
When you use the term prostitute, you are signalling that you are unconcerned with the dignity and worth of the people providing the services and that you are fine with the general low status and bad treatment they receive. In general the conversation is going to be about the needs of the customers, people other than the prostitutes themselves, or society in general; or perhaps you are discussing the personal or social tragedy of prostitution, and see the prostitutes as victims.
First, when I use the word prostitute I'm not signalling anything except the nature of the service provided.
Second, the signalling you describe is a useful differentiation strategy: we can tell we're enlightened because we use the term sex worker, unlike those people over there. It is not as useful a strategy to sway mass opinion, and my in fact be counterproductive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2014, 10:57:50 PM
I think "hooker" is a good term to use, as the only implicit slur is the suggestion that they'd be poor at commanding armies.
Might be good at handling a division or corps however.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2014, 09:53:45 PM
I pick 'cum dumpsters' as the term I use.
Plz analyze that term.
Really? Other people prefer the term "wife".
HEY NOW
I'm not the one working on the reserve bench, Noah.
Should have moved to Canada when you had the chance, Alec:
QuoteActor Alec Baldwin arrested after riding bike wrong way
New York (CNN) -- Actor Alec Baldwin was arrested Tuesday and issued two summonses -- one for disorderly conduct -- after riding a bicycle the wrong way on a New York street, police said.
The "30 Rock" star allegedly became angry and started yelling at police after they asked him for identification to give him a summons, police said. The other summons was for riding a bike against the flow of traffic. Baldwin is to appear in court July 24.
"Police stated that he got belligerent and started arguing with them and using profanity," Deputy Chief Kim Y. Royster said.
Baldwin was not carrying identification and police took him into custody, police said.
The actor reportedly became angry at the officers, yelling "Give me the summons already," a law enforcement official said.
After his release, Baldwin took to Twitter, posting the badge number of the officer he said arrested him and saying, "photographers outside my home ONCE AGAIN terrified my daughter and nearly hit her with a camera. The police did nothing."
In another tweet, he lamented, "New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
Once in custody, Baldwin was taken to a nearby precinct, where he reportedly asked the desk supervisor: "How old are these officers, that they don't know who I am?" according to a law enforcement official.
Baldwin was stopped for riding a bicycle the wrong way on Fifth Avenue and 16th Street, police said.
In a statement, a representative for Baldwin said, "He is back home with his family."
This follows an incident last year that sparked media attention.
In November, Baldwin made headlines after chasing a photographer outside his Manhattan apartment and using an anti-gay slur toward the man, according to TMZ.
"Get away from my wife and the baby with the camera," said Baldwin, who could be heard yelling on video taken of the incident.
Baldwin later posted a statement on MSNBC's website saying, "I did not intend to hurt or offend anyone with my choice of words, but clearly I have -- and for that I am deeply sorry. Words are important. I understand that, and will choose mine with great care going forward."
Last August, Baldwin was photographed holding a photographer's arms behind his back and pinning him over the hood of a parked car. Baldwin and the photographer called 911, but no charges were filed.
In 2012, a New York Daily News photographer accused Baldwin of assault. Baldwin said the photographer bumped him with his camera.
I'm the type of cracker that's built to last
Fuck with me I'll put a foot in your ass
I don't give a fuck 'cuz I keep bailing...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2014, 08:00:53 AM
First, when I use the word prostitute I'm not signalling anything except the nature of the service provided.
Yes, I understood your meaning. I don't believe any kind of language is signal free (I mean, what would be the point?), but I get that you were going for a clinical description of a transaction type phrasing there.
QuoteSecond, the signalling you describe is a useful differentiation strategy: we can tell we're enlightened because we use the term sex worker, unlike those people over there. It is not as useful a strategy to sway mass opinion, and my in fact be counterproductive.
Yes that's what I said, more or less. We are pretty much in agreement :hug:
Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 05:23:41 AM
To me, using the word "sex worker" adds a layer of voluntariness to it, that's not always present. Imho it obfuscates some of the oppression present in the pimp-prostitute relationship presenting it like a normal business.
Again, I have nothing against prostitution per se if all partners are equally willing. If all prostitutes were truly "sex workers" it would be less of a problem.
That's a really good point.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
What term do I use if I think those engaged in prostitution are victims, both of their own personal circumstances that lead them to their present situation, and of the various pimps and johns who force themselves on them? :)
Maybe they'd be considered less of a victim if you stopped tossing them in jail, counselor.
Quote from: celedhring on May 13, 2014, 05:23:41 AM
To me, using the word "sex worker" adds a layer of voluntariness to it, that's not always present. Imho it obfuscates some of the oppression present in the pimp-prostitute relationship presenting it like a normal business.
Yep. Same with 'client'. It's giving it an assumption of any other business meeting with a client.
I have had some pretty terrible clients.
http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-charged-child-porn-case-nyc-area-122955761.html
QuoteDozens charged in child porn case in NYC area
A police officer, a paramedic, a rabbi, a nurse and a Boy Scout leader were among at least 70 people arrested in the New York City area in recent weeks as part of a sweeping investigation into the anonymous trading of child porn over the Internet.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which led a five-week investigation ending last week, planned to announce Wednesday that it resulted in charges against at least 70 men and one woman. Officials call it one of the largest local roundups ever of individual consumers of child porn, and a stark reminder that they come from all segments of society.
Consuming child porn "is not something that is just done by unemployed drifters who live in their parent's basement," said James Hayes, ICE's New York office. "If this operation does anything, it puts the lie to the belief that the people who do this are not productive members of society."
Advances in technology and computer capacity have allowed child-porn collectors to more easily amass vast troves of images and to exchange files with each other directly, authorities say. The cyber dragnet resulted in the seizure of nearly 600 desktop and laptop computers, tablets, smartphones and other devices containing a total of 175 terabytes of storage.
Agents are still examining the devices to locate and catalog evidence — an arduous task that could result in more arrests. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children also will use its analysts to review the images to see if it can identify children using databases of known victims.
"We refer to each of these images as a crime scene photo because that's exactly what they are," said John Ryan, the organization's chief executive officer.
Authorities decided to launch the operation after the arrest in January of a former police chief in suburban Mount Pleasant, Brian Fanelli, who pleaded not guilty this week to federal charges of knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography. Court papers allege that Fanelli told investigators he began looking at child porn as research before it grew into a "personal interest."
Authorities say some of the defendants had access to young children, though there were no reports of abuse. The Boy Scout leader also coached a youth baseball team. The rabbi home-schooled his children and others. Another person had hidden cameras used to secretly film his children's friends.
One defendant was already on bail following his arrest last year on charges he used the Internet to direct women to record sex acts with young children. Court papers allege he "indicated the last video he had downloaded and viewed depicted a mother sexually abusing her 3- or 4-year-old child."
:x
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
A police officer, a paramedic, a rabbi, a nurse, and a Boy Scout leader walk into the Protective Custody Unit on Riker's Island... :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
Without getting too far into, that last defendant was certainly guilty of more than a thought crime.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2014, 09:26:27 AM
A police officer, a paramedic, a rabbi, a nurse, and a Boy Scout leader walk into the Protective Custody Unit on Riker's Island... :unsure:
The idea of some sort of walking into a bar joke did cross my mind when I first read the article. :D
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 09:26:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
Without getting too far into, that last defendant was certainly guilty of more than a thought crime.
I wasn't talking about everyone charged, just the vast majority. It did say right before that "Authorities say some of the defendants had access to young children, though there were no reports of abuse."
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it.
Well I dont, so fuck you and your Martinusesque rationalizing. Fuckhead.
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
But someone generated those pictures of naked children, and those children are continuously re-victimized as those pictures are re-downloaded.
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2014, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
But someone generated those pictures of naked children, and those children are continuously re-victimized as those pictures are re-downloaded.
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2014, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
As disgusting is at is to view child porn, I have real problems with putting people in prison merely for viewing it. It seems dangerously close to a thought crime, and another one of those punishments thought up by people who think of the children. If someone is wired to be perverted in such a way, I'd much rather have them look at images of naked children than actual naked children they have authority over.
But someone generated those pictures of naked children, and those children are continuously re-victimized as those pictures are re-downloaded.
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
Yes! Also Barrister has the right of it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 21, 2014, 10:42:07 AM
But someone generated those pictures of naked children, and those children are continuously re-victimized as those pictures are re-downloaded.
So forms of child porn that do not involve actual children are fine then?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2014, 10:54:30 AM
Yes! Also Barrister has the right of it.
Shocked you feel this way. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
No. We should punish them for possession of pot, just like people with child porn are punished for possession of child porn - not child abuse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
No. We should punish them for possession of pot, just like people with child porn are punished for possession of child porn - not child abuse.
That is the plan. So far we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and drug use is not seriously being impacted....
Plan B?
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 11:01:56 AM
That is the plan. So far we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and drug use is not seriously being impacted....
Plan B?
Fine. Whatever.
My point was that DGuller's child porn analogy is wrong not a comment on drug policy :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
No. We should punish them for possession of pot, just like people with child porn are punished for possession of child porn - not child abuse.
Except the punishment for possession of child porn is idiotically extreme under the theory that your possession of porn abuses some child.
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
Except the punishment for possession of child porn is idiotically extreme under the theory that your possession of porn abuses some child.
How is it idiotically extreme?
It doesn't work fully but a better analogy is perhaps poaching and trade of products from endangered species.
Years in prison and sex offender registry for life extreme.
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
That is true, but should we also punish pot smokers for mass murders in Mexico?
No. We should punish them for possession of pot, just like people with child porn are punished for possession of child porn - not child abuse.
Except the punishment for possession of child porn is idiotically extreme under the theory that your possession of porn abuses some child.
A strong aspect of this is also victim protection. By sharing/selling pictures of a child being abused you basically repeat the abuse. By declaring possession legal, it could be argued that in hindsight you validate the abuse.
Time for some roleplaying.
Let's say you were abused as a child by a close friend or relative who taped the whole thing and sold it to whoever wanted. Add the trauma and counselling on your side. And that the images or videos of it are floating around the internet, 20 years later. And that they may very well continue to do so till the day you die, and that possession of videos of you sucking cock with tears running down your cheeks is completely legal (or tolerated).
A gray area (and many countries seem to handle it differently) are cases of fiction - either in drawing or word.
People do things that reflect very badly on them. Owning child porn is one of those things. However, not all things that reflect badly on people should be punished with years in prison. I fail to see how someone possessing my child abuse tape and wanking off to it every night threatens society to a degree that requires such drastic legal retaliation. Distributing may or may not be a different matter.
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
Years in prison and sex offender registry for life extreme.
Okay. I don't think that's extreme. I thought maybe there was some insane minimum sentencing rules.
I agree, though, that the public debate on this subject is extremely emotionally charged and rational debate is nearly impossible. I imagine that if you were a "full pedophile" who can only get turned on by kids, and knowing that you will never be able to live out your desires legally, it must be complete hell. It would be useful to get those people into counselling and therapy so that they learn to live with their condition without breaking any laws.
Imagine if it were suddenly completely verboten to watch any porn, and you would face public outrage and stiff prison sentences for it, and had no legal access to a sexual partner - would you be able to stay away from naked boobs (or whatever your primary object of attraction is)?
Quote from: Syt on May 21, 2014, 12:00:50 PM
Imagine if it were suddenly completely verboten to watch any porn, and you would face public outrage and stiff prison sentences for it, and had no legal access to a sexual partner - would you be able to stay away from naked boobs (or whatever your primary object of attraction is)?
The history of homosexuality is just that. :D
At any rate, I think viewers (who are also in most cases sharers) help perpetuate the market for creating such images. There wouldn't be much utility in putting up said films/images online if there wasn't any viewership.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 21, 2014, 12:00:50 PM
Imagine if it were suddenly completely verboten to watch any porn, and you would face public outrage and stiff prison sentences for it, and had no legal access to a sexual partner - would you be able to stay away from naked boobs (or whatever your primary object of attraction is)?
The history of homosexuality is just that. :D
I'm aware of that. :P Only in the case of homosexuals it was preventing consenting adults to do things to or with each other. In case of pedophilia one side can't legally consent.
Quote from: Syt on May 21, 2014, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 21, 2014, 12:00:50 PM
Imagine if it were suddenly completely verboten to watch any porn, and you would face public outrage and stiff prison sentences for it, and had no legal access to a sexual partner - would you be able to stay away from naked boobs (or whatever your primary object of attraction is)?
The history of homosexuality is just that. :D
I'm aware of that. :P Only in the case of homosexuals it was preventing consenting adults to do things to or with each other. In case of pedophilia one side can't legally consent.
Certainly. I was just like - I'm not sure I really have to imagine a sudden part - personally. :D
Banning "child porn" that doesn't have any actual children in it is insane.
I always wondered about the whole issue of game consoles recording your living room. Isn't that going to inevitably cause them to inadvertently create child porn at some point? I mean, how many of you parents had kids who never ever appeared in the living room nude?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2014, 03:35:25 AM
I always wondered about the whole issue of game consoles recording your living room. Isn't that going to inevitably cause them to inadvertently create child porn at some point? I mean, how many of you parents had kids who never ever appeared in the living room nude?
:huh: So all nudity is porn now?
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2014, 03:35:25 AM
I always wondered about the whole issue of game consoles recording your living room. Isn't that going to inevitably cause them to inadvertently create child porn at some point? I mean, how many of you parents had kids who never ever appeared in the living room nude?
:huh: So all nudity is porn now?
:huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fads.manhattanministorage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FBloomberg.jpg&hash=40f0e8aa2f03cd29f0c2bfb1b42deb18937d2375)
:huh:
I assume a knock in the citibike program and then also Bloomberg's health initiatives.
http://nypost.com/2008/12/14/bloombergs-big-pedal-push-for-bike-lanes/
NYPD's Continuing Goodwill Tour <_<
http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-under-fire-video-pregnant-woman-hitting-ground-202945949.html
QuoteNYPD under fire for video of pregnant woman hitting ground
Disturbing video of Brooklyn woman, five months pregnant, in a scuffle with police sets off another community relations crisis for the NYPD, which is battling controversy over street tactics in the outer boroughs.
New York City police officers are under investigation this week after a bystander used a smartphone to capture a particularly rough arrest of a Brooklyn woman five months pregnant.
The video shows the arrest of Sandra Amezquita, a Colombian immigrant and mother of four, who fell belly first onto the pavement as officers wrestled her to the ground and cuffed her hands behind her back. The incident occurred during an early morning melee Saturday in Sunset Park – a neighborhood sometimes called Brooklyn's "Little Latin America," since more than half its residents are Latino.
The video also shows another officer violently shoving an unidentified woman to the pavement as she stands near the arrest. Police simply issued Ms. Amezquita a summons for disorderly conduct, but the other woman, reported to be a friend, was neither arrested or accused of a crime.
The disturbing video is a blow to the New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), who has made a priority of improving police relations with minority communities, after more than a decade of bitter contention over NYPD street tactics, including curbing stop-and-frisk tactics.
It's also created a fresh community-relations crisis for the New York City Police Department, which this summer has endured relentless criticism from minority communities after a number of smartphone videos captured the fatal arrest of Eric Garner, a 350-pound black man who suffocated to death as police wrestled him to the ground in July.
The city's medical examiner ruled the death a homicide, and a district attorney has convened a grand jury to consider charges against the officer, who contributed to Mr. Garner's death by using an apparent chokehold banned by NYPD policy.
After the Garner incident, New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton announced that his department would begin an unprecedented series of "refresher courses" for its officers – annual in-service training that would focus on de-escalating violent street encounters and train officers to treat all citizens with respect, even during arrests.
The training, Commissioner Bratton told lawmakers this month, would teach officers "how to talk to an initially uncooperative person with the goal of avoiding a physical confrontation." He also said the training would emphasize "how to physically restrain a suspect who continues to resist arrest without harm to that individual or the officer."
On Monday, the NYPD was praised for its uncharacteristic restraint during a boisterous protest on Wall Street, as over 1,000 climate protesters clogged traffic in acts of civil disobedience. Even critics said police officers used internationally recognized "best practices" to contain the political march against capitalism and climate change, which led to over 100 arrests in the city's Financial District.
But Monday's "Flood Wall Street" protest, with echoes of the Occupy movement in 2011, occurred in a highly media-visible area of Manhattan – not in the outer-borough minority neighborhoods that have bristled under the aggressive street tactics of the NYPD.
"It's appalling," said Sanford Rubenstein, Amezquita's attorney. "It's clear to me when an incident like this occurs you understand why police-community relations are at an all-time low," he told The Associated Press.
The scuffle occurred after Amezquita and her husband, Ronel Lemos, attempted to intervene as police arrested and allegedly began to beat their 17-year-old son, Jhohan Lemos, who was accused of carrying a knife and resisting arrest around 2:15 a.m. on Saturday.
The elder Mr. Lemos was also arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer during the arrest of his son. Photos show the younger Mr. Lemos with his eye swollen shut and lacerations to his cheek and forehead following his arrest.
Amezquita reportedly suffered vaginal bleeding after her arrest, and bruising to her belly and arms.
"I was afraid something happened to my baby," she told The New York Daily News on Tuesday. "I am still afraid that something is wrong," she said.
In 2013, a federal judge ruled New York's version of stop and frisk to be unconstitutional, saying it targeted minorities and violated previous limitations to stop and frisk that had kept the practice within legal bounds.
But videos such as those depicting Amezquita's rough arrest have thwarted many of the De Blasio administration's efforts, and tensions among minorities and the NYPD remain strained.
"What we see is a woman who's trying to protect her son, who is being stopped and frisked by police, and she became a victim. Slammed onto the floor," said Dennis Flores, founder of El Grito De Sunset Park, a community social justice group organized in 2002.
"She's bleeding and she's having complications," Mr. Flores told a local news station.
The video, too, comes less than a week after another Sunset Park cop was suspended after onlookers used their smartphones to record him kicking a street vendor.
"This is the second video in a week," said New York City Councilman Carlos Menchaca to the local ABC News affiliate. "It's disgusting. This needs to stop. I spoke with the chief and the captain. We have a systemic problem with this precinct. We need to solve it now."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/new-york-city-to-advertising-contractor-take-down-secretly-i#3xrx7bz
QuoteNew York City Kills Hidden Phone Booth Devices
City Hall has asked Titan to remove the devices, which could have been used to push ads — and track phones.
New York City is forcing an outdoor advertising company to remove hundreds of devices that can be used to push advertisements to mobile phones — and can help track users' locations — hours after BuzzFeed News exposed the devices, which are hidden in pay phone booths around Manhattan.
A spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told BuzzFeed News that City Hall has asked Titan, which owns the right to sell ads in thousands of phone booth kiosk advertising displays, "to remove them from their phones."
"The beacons will be removed over the coming days," the spokesman, Phil Walzak, said.
Walzak also defended the city's relationship with Titan, which is part of a program to turn obsolete pay phone kiosks into contemporary communications hubs.
"Titan has been an important City partner in helping expand communications options for New Yorkers, from piloting free public WiFi to providing free calling on all its pay phones across the five boroughs for three weeks after Hurricane Sandy," he said. "While the beacons Titan installed in some of its phone(s) for testing purposes are incapable of receiving or collecting any personally identifiable information, we have asked Titan to remove them from their phones."
Gimbal, the company that manufactures the beacons, emphasizes that the beacons do not themselves collect any information. They are, however, a key element in a network that can, in fact, track smartphone users. In its current iteration, a Gimbal beacon requires a third-party app to trigger advertisements, and requires those apps to receive "opt-in" permission from users, who must also have Bluetooth enabled. Gimbal's privacy policy says Gimbal-powered apps may collect your current location, the time of day you passed the beacon, and details about your device.
When reached for comment, Eric Sumberg, spokesperson for New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, told BuzzFeed News: "New Yorkers deserve to know that their private information is being protected and the Comptroller's office will be keeping a close eye on any agreement that comes before us to ensure that the process to award this contract was done with full transparency."
Representatives for Gimbal and Titan did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer company, something similar was tried in London with rubbish bins, may have been a different company.
I "liked" this statement from the city (before it was announced they would be removed):
http://www.businessinsider.com/titan-installs-beacons-into-500-new-york-city-phone-booths-2014-10
QuoteThat installation was given the green light without notifying or consulting residents because Titan was installing the beacons for "maintenance purpose only," a DoITT spokesman told BuzzFeed News. Any "explicit commercialization" of the beacons would require more formal city approval, the report says.
People install new payphone booths? :hmm:
Seems to me those things are going the way of the buggy whip.
No, as far as I know they were putting devices in existing telephone booths. I'd definitely be angry if the city was creating new telephone booths as those are essentially just homeless person pee spots. Only ones I've seen properly used a few times are ones that are located on subway platforms.
Meanwhile, I think I noted that when in Montreal I saw so many clean looking telephone booths. I was so confused on why there were so many.
Maybe they give everyone government housing so there aren't as many homeless to pee on them. ;)
But who is using them?
Has the mayor killed any more groundhogs lately?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/new-york-pd-looks-for-possible-terror-connection-in-hatchet
QuoteNYPD Looks For Possible Terror Connection In Hatchet Attack On Officers
Two officers were injured Thursday by a man wielding a hatchet. Investigators Thursday were trying to determine if the man had a connection to radical Islam.
A man with a hatchet attacked a group of police officers Thursday in New York City, and investigators are trying to determine if the incident has a possible terror connection.
The man, identified as 32-year-old Zale Thompson, attacked the officers Thursday in Queens while they were posing for a photo. One officer took a blow to the head and was in critical condition Thursday evening. Another officer was struck in the arm.
Police reportedly are investigating the attack for any possible terror connections. CNN correspondent Jim Sciutto reported Thursday that investigators suspected a link to radical Islam and police were specifically looking into posts Thompson made on social media.
A Facebook page matching Thompson's name and location showed a photo of a masked fighter, as well as a banner with Arabic writing.
It was ultimately unclear Thursday if investigators had actually turned up any terror connection.
A police spokesman told BuzzFeed News Thursday that he was "not aware" of any connection between the attack and terrorism. CNN also quoted another department spokesman who made a similar statement.
Police shot and killed Thompson during the attack.
Now while awful all around, it seems like it'd be shortsighted to plan a terrorist attack that consisted solely of attacking the NYPD. -_-
http://news.yahoo.com/man-islamic-extremist-leanings-attacks-ny-police-083342808.html
So he was someone with radical islamic leanings.
QuoteMan with 'Islamic extremist leanings' attacks NY police
The man who attacked New York City police officers with a hatchet before being shot dead was reported to have Islamic "extremist leanings" police and a monitoring group said.
The man, identified in the US media as Zale Thompson, had posted an array of statements on YouTube and Facebook that "display a hyper-racial focus in both religious and historical contexts, and ultimately hint at his extremist leanings," the SITE monitoring group said.
Four rookie police officers in the city's Queens borough were posing for a photograph at the request of a freelance photographer when the man walked up and without saying a word attacked them with the hatchet, a city hall statement said.
One officer was hit in the arm and another in the head before the other officers shot and killed the attacker, according to police commissioner Bill Bratton.
A 29-year-old bystander was accidentally hit by a bullet in the lower back and taken to a hospital, while the man who took the photograph was cooperating with police and was not considered a suspect, Bratton said.
The officer with the head injury was in critical but stable condition in the hospital.
New York's Finest!
How can you continue to live in a hellhole like that with cops randomly shooting people, particularly people of color?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
How can you continue to live in a hellhole like that with cops randomly shooting people, particularly people of color?
Easy. I'm never walking around in Queens. ^_^
Carry on.
Not a Mets fan, then?
In an effort to stay classy.../avoid dealing with the issue of why we have a society where the parents (and in this case, the mayor) have to warn their non-white children about interactions with the police.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pba-de-blasio-melissa-mark-viverito-stay-home-die-article-1.2043395
QuotePatrolmen's Benevolent Association to Mayor de Blasio, Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito: Stay home if we die on duty
The PBA posted a downloadable form for members to send in that cites, in part, that the mayor's and City Council speaker's 'consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve.' De Blasio and Mark-Viverito call form 'deeply disappointing.'
The NYPD'S biggest union offered city cops a chance to hold their grudges against Mayor de Blasio — all the way to the grave.
A form appeared Friday on the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association website for cops who want the mayor and Council Speaker barred from their potential line-of-duty funerals.
"As a New York City police officer, (I) request that Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito refrain from attending my funeral services," the form letter declares.
The letter cites the pair's "consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve" — particularly in the wake of the Eric Garner grand jury decision.
The form letter, once signed, is returnable to the officer's local PBA delegate.
Cops were infuriated when the mayor said publicly that he had warned his biracial 17-year-old son, Dante, to tread carefully when dealing with the NYPD.
Representatives for the mayor and the speaker responded Friday with a joint statement condemning the union's maneuver as divisive.
"This is deeply disappointing," the pair said. "Incendiary rhetoric like this serves only to divide the city, and New Yorkers reject these tactics.
"The mayor and the speaker both know better than to think this inappropriate stunt represents the views of the majority of police officers and their families."
PBA head Pat Lynch offered no comment Friday after the letter appeared.
He was expected to speak Saturday at the annual Christmas party for the widows and kids of officers killed in the line of duty.
The unprecedented attack on City Hall received mixed reviews from the rank and file — and from the father of a cop killed on the job.
Michael Williams Sr., 64, said he found de Blasio's presence comforting after his son Michael died three months ago in an NYPD van crash.
"Politics are politics," said the father. "I try not to mix them in with my personal feelings. I have no animosity for the mayor."
Several officers seemed to side more with City Hall than their union leadership.
"I don't think that's right," said a Brooklyn detective. "They shouldn't be doing that ... Politics is politics, but that sounds a little personal."
The detective acknowledged that he was rankled by de Blasio's comment that he had warned son Dante to be wary when dealing with the NYPD.
"Nobody liked when he admitted that, but it's not a reason to do something like this," the detective said.
A Manhattan police sergeant said the union went too far with this move.
"Is this for real?" he asked. "I mean, I agree with what he's saying, but this is way out there."
But one cop who didn't want to be named agreed with the union — and said others did, too.
"There is not one police officer I know who doesn't support this," he said, adding that "95%" of cops felt the same way.
"Hooray, I don't have to go to some stranger's funeral!"
It'll be interesting to see how many people show up for the protests against this kind of violence.
QuoteTwo NYPD officers shot dead in 'ambush' sitting in patrol car in Brooklyn by gunman who boasted on Instagram about 'revenge' killing cops
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-shot-brooklyn-sources-article-1.2051941?fkf&utm_content=buffer79e2a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
Two NYPD cops were executed Saturday after a gang member from Baltimore drove to the city to kill police officers after wounding his girlfriend, sources told the Daily News.
The shooter, identified as Ismaaiyl Brinsley, boasted about wanting to kill cops in the hours before he ambushed the officers outside the Tompkins Houses in Bedford-Stuyvesant about 3 p.m. Saturday.
"I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours...Let's Take 2 of Theirs," Brinsley wrote on Instagram alongside a photo of a silver handgun and a series of hashtags referencing the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.
Brinsley made good on his promise, firing several rounds into the patrol car parked near Myrtle and Tompkins Aves., witnesses said.
"The perp came out of the houses, walked up behind the car and lit them up," a high-ranking police official told the Daily News.
Brinsley then sprinted around the corner to the Myrtle-Willoughby Aves. subway station where he shot himself in the head, police said. He was later pronounced dead.
Both officers were rushed to Woodhull Hospital but were later pronounced dead.
Witnesses said the officers never had a chance.
"He just walked up and shot that cop in the head," one man said.
Rescuers rushed to the aid of the mortally wounded officers.
"They basically dragged two cops out their car," a second witness said. "I saw it. One was shot in the face. There was blood coming out of his face."
Brinsley is believed to be a member of a Baltimore gang, Black Gorilla Family :lol: , sources said. The gang has vowed retribution for the deaths of Garner and Brown. Garner died after being put in a chokehold by NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17 on Staten Island. Brown, who was unnarmed, was shot dead by Ferguson, Mo. cop Darren Wilson on Aug. 9th. Neither cop was indicted by grand juries, spakring national protests.
"I have spoken to the Garner family and we are outraged by the early reports of the police killed in Brooklyn today," said the Rev. Al Sharpton in a statement Saturday evening. "Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases.
Details of the shooting outside Baltimore were scarce. A family member of the victim told the Daily News Brinsley shot her in the stomach.
She was expected to survive.
Earlier Saturday, Brinsley posted a menacing message on Facebook. "I Always Wanted To Be Known For Doing Something Right...But My Past Is Stalking Me and My Present Is Haunting Me."
It's "Black Guerrilla Family", people. Typical New York.
NYPD need to crack down.
Liquidate a hundred protestors for each dead cop
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2F2865117e85deebf2654f780b3f38e0340c77bb24%2Fc%3D0-33-1657-1279%26amp%3Br%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2FPhoenix%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Fsheriffjoetank.jpg&hash=a42d7c81dae42cff3586b0f8f43c142fa46ea05a)
Or here we go:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.moddb.com%2Fimages%2Fgroups%2F1%2F3%2F2074%2Ffile._._03.01.12.89...jpg&hash=a065f51eaad4692fe75a4bedb24f0a86e050996d)
http://pix11.com/2014/12/20/video-nypd-officers-turn-away-from-mayor-de-blasio-as-he-enters-police-presser/
QuotePolice officers turned their backs on Mayor Bill de Blasio as he walked into the police press conference about the two NYPD officers shot and killed execution-style in Brooklyn.
Now that's just being unprofessional.
The shooting this morning was not too far from my condo, and just a brief mention on the morning news.
QuotePolice say killer of 2 NYPD officers first shot ex-girlfriend in Owings Mills
By Justin Fenton The Baltimore Sun
The shooting of a woman at an Owings Mills apartment complex was the precursor for the ambush killing of two New York City Police officers later in the day, law enforcement officials said.
Police in New York and Baltimore County said they believe Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, of Georgia, shot and wounded his 29-year-old ex-girlfriend before 6 a.m. Saturday in Owings Mills, then posted a series of anti-law enforcement diatribes on social media as he traveled to Brooklyn, N.Y.
There, police said, he approached a marked police vehicle parked in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood around 2:45 p.m. He "took a shooting stance," then fired a handgun several times through the window.
Officers Wenjian Lieu and Rafael Ramos were struck in the head, and taken to a hospital where they were pronounced dead.
"Today, two of New York's finest were shot and killed with no warning, no provocation," New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said. "They were, quite simply, assassinated — targeted for their uniform."
Brinsley ran into a subway station where he shot himself in the head, Bratton said. Police recovered a gun.
Baltimore County police said the Owings Mills shooting occurred inside of an apartment in the Greenwich Place complex in the 10000 block of Mill Run Circle, near the parking lot of the Owings Mills Mall. Police said the woman was shot in the abdomen by a male whom she knew.
The victim was transported in serious condition to an area hospital for treatment and is expected to survive, county police said late Saturday.
The management of the apartment complex tucked a letter into the doors of residents saying the shooting was the result of a "domestic dispute." "We share this information with you to assure you this was a private, isolated incident," the letter read.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
He told his kid to be careful around cops. Apparently they took offense to that.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
Was he bitching about how bad cops are, after that whole police shooting thing?
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
Mayor McCheese would send them to gaol.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:59:50 PM
The shooting this morning was not too far from my condo, and just a brief mention on the morning news.
QuotePolice say killer of 2 NYPD officers first shot ex-girlfriend in Owings Mills
By Justin Fenton The Baltimore Sun
The shooting of a woman at an Owings Mills apartment complex was the precursor for the ambush killing of two New York City Police officers later in the day, law enforcement officials said.
Police in New York and Baltimore County said they believe Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, of Georgia, shot and wounded his 29-year-old ex-girlfriend before 6 a.m. Saturday in Owings Mills, then posted a series of anti-law enforcement diatribes on social media as he traveled to Brooklyn, N.Y.
There, police said, he approached a marked police vehicle parked in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood around 2:45 p.m. He "took a shooting stance," then fired a handgun several times through the window.
Officers Wenjian Lieu and Rafael Ramos were struck in the head, and taken to a hospital where they were pronounced dead.
"Today, two of New York's finest were shot and killed with no warning, no provocation," New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said. "They were, quite simply, assassinated — targeted for their uniform."
Brinsley ran into a subway station where he shot himself in the head, Bratton said. Police recovered a gun.
Baltimore County police said the Owings Mills shooting occurred inside of an apartment in the Greenwich Place complex in the 10000 block of Mill Run Circle, near the parking lot of the Owings Mills Mall. Police said the woman was shot in the abdomen by a male whom she knew.
The victim was transported in serious condition to an area hospital for treatment and is expected to survive, county police said late Saturday.
The management of the apartment complex tucked a letter into the doors of residents saying the shooting was the result of a "domestic dispute." "We share this information with you to assure you this was a private, isolated incident," the letter read.
He murdered a Hispanic and Asian officer. I gathered this as more of a White cop/Black citizen thing. At least Brinsley appears to be a equal opportunity shooter, just hates blue. I wonder how this will resonate with the Hispanic and Asian communities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
I'd never turn my back on a politician. Why make it easy for them to backstab you?
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2014, 10:02:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
Was he bitching about how bad cops are, after that whole police shooting thing?
Yeah, he was dissing the cops pretty badly from what I've heard, and the cops are damn pissed off at him before this shooting. Now he'll get a lot of blame for fanning the flames against the cops and sounds like he already is, along with others like Sharpton but especially the mayor.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Maybe it's already been posted but the shooter said on his social network account things like he was going to kill cops to make up for the guys killed in NYC and Ferguson. Two cops to kill for one kind of stuff.
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
Maybe it's already been posted but the shooter said on his social network account things like he was going to kill cops to make up for the guys killed in NYC and Ferguson. Two cops to kill for one kind of stuff.
Of course, you gotta shoot your gf first, though.
Quote from: dps on December 20, 2014, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
Maybe it's already been posted but the shooter said on his social network account things like he was going to kill cops to make up for the guys killed in NYC and Ferguson. Two cops to kill for one kind of stuff.
Of course, you gotta shoot your gf first, though.
No shit, might as well make it a hat trick. :P
Quote from: dps on December 20, 2014, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
Maybe it's already been posted but the shooter said on his social network account things like he was going to kill cops to make up for the guys killed in NYC and Ferguson. Two cops to kill for one kind of stuff.
Of course, you gotta shoot your gf first, though.
Apparently the shooter later shot himself. He should have started with that first. :glare:
Quote from: dps on December 20, 2014, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
Maybe it's already been posted but the shooter said on his social network account things like he was going to kill cops to make up for the guys killed in NYC and Ferguson. Two cops to kill for one kind of stuff.
Of course, you gotta shoot your gf first, though.
Priorities, priorities.
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:07:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2014, 10:02:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2014, 10:00:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Now that's just being unprofessional.
What the hell did he do to the PD? That is open contempt for a Mayor.
Was he bitching about how bad cops are, after that whole police shooting thing?
Yeah, he was dissing the cops pretty badly from what I've heard, and the cops are damn pissed off at him before this shooting. Now he'll get a lot of blame for fanning the flames against the cops and sounds like he already is, along with others like Sharpton but especially the mayor.
As I noted earlier perhaps the NYPD would be wiser to examine why they are so hated/feared and think why it is that parents of non-white children (including the mayor!) have to warn said children to be careful around NYPD.
Rather than recognizing a problem, they are taking the childish route and ignoring the problem.
On this recent set of events - sad :(
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Rather than recognizing a problem, they are taking the childish route and ignoring the problem.
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
I was exaggerating a bit :P
Governor is blaming the mayor on twitter.
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:24:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
I was exaggerating a bit :P
Govener is blaming the mayor on twitter.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
Yep, that's pretty much what I was taught, too. Of course, I'm old enough, white enough, an middle class enough that I was also basically taught that the police are my friends, but I was still told to be respectful towards them. Not that I've always done it, 'cause sometimes I just can't help mouthing off.
The Ex-Governor, that is.
QuotePataki Blames Mayor and Holder for Shootings
Former Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, blamed Mayor de Blasio and United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for the shootings of the officers.
"Sickened by these barbaric acts," Mr. Pataki wrote on Twitter, "which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder & #mayordiblasio."
Quote"There is blood on many hands tonight, those who incited violence on the street under the guise of protest," the head of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said outside Woodhull Hospital.
"Those who allowed this to happen will be held accountable."
Quote from: dps on December 20, 2014, 10:33:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
Yep, that's pretty much what I was taught, too. Of course, I'm old enough, white enough, an middle class enough that I was also basically taught that the police are my friends, but I was still told to be respectful towards them. Not that I've always done it, 'cause sometimes I just can't help mouthing off.
my dads a drunk who owned a bar (great combo) so I had a lot of exposure to cops growing. Never had a bad experience with one. Though maybe it's a Canadian cop thing.
*edit* actually, no I had a bad experience with a bitch of a cop, but not in a capacity of her being a cop
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:36:55 PM
*edit* actually, no I had a bad experience with a bitch of a cop, but not in a capacity of her being a cop
How long did it last?
They used to, but no cop has been respectful or nice to me in about 20 years. Over dozens of interactions with them. Except one gardai member in Ireland once.
I don't know if it's because cop culture changed in that time or if they stopped being nice once I was no longer a kid.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 20, 2014, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:36:55 PM
*edit* actually, no I had a bad experience with a bitch of a cop, but not in a capacity of her being a cop
How long did it last?
:lol: it was an incident where we were in a public park and some kids were antagonizing my dog (who was tied up). We warned the kids and eventually my dog jumped on a kid ( didn't bite just jumped). One of the mothers came over and started yelling and yanking my dog by the collar (pretty sure trying to get it to bite her). Cops were called and it turns out she was a sergent or something. Cops where nice though, and in private told us she was a known bitch (that's how we found out she was a cop, the other cops told us).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 20, 2014, 10:08:11 PM
told his kid that because he's black the cops are going to shoot him... Or something.
Good grief, he didn't say that. He said he's always told his son to be careful in dealing with the police. Which you should do anyway, even if you're a black teen son of the Mayor.
My Dad always told me the same thing too because I was the son of a cop. You do what they say, and it's "yes sir, no sir" and keep your mouth shut after that. You don't act all NWA or like a stupid white person.
Man, my dad told me that as well, and I'm white guy who is not related to any cops. It's been my personal observation that when dealing with cops if you don't give shit, you won't get shit. I'm always amazed by people who feel compelled to mouth off to the guy with a club and a gun.
I was hoping that cops wouldn't be milking these deaths to get back at de Blasio. I guess that was too much professionalism to expect from NYPD. I hope Bratton cans every asshole caught turning their back on the mayor.
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2014, 11:03:59 AM
I hope Bratton cans every asshole caught turning their back on the mayor.
Well here is the most that we've gotten from him so far.
http://www.today.com/news/nypd-chief-bill-bratton-police-tension-were-change-moment-1D80385634
QuoteAsked about the protests of officers who turned their backs on the mayor as he walked through a hospital on Saturday, Bratton said he doesn't "support that particular activity." The ambush murders of two New York City police officers is intensifying a rift between the mayor and members of the police force.
"I don't think it was appropriate, particularly in that setting, but it's reflective of the anger of some of them,'' Bratton said.
And:
QuoteOn whether the mayor should give a speech to police or apologize: "I don't know that an apology is necessary."
Quote from: KRonn on December 20, 2014, 10:07:38 PM
Yeah, he was dissing the cops pretty badly from what I've heard, and the cops are damn pissed off at him before this shooting. Now he'll get a lot of blame for fanning the flames against the cops and sounds like he already is, along with others like Sharpton but especially the mayor.
Maybe they should start taking the shooting of citizens seriously. People have been complaining about this for years and, for the most part, nothing was done about it. Now that people are starting to get angry about it, so many of these police unions and departments continue to bunker under and refuse to deal with it.
It is ridiculous, we are not asking for anything more than making sure the relationship between the communities and the police department remain good and people remain safe in their persons and property. You know, exactly what the cops should consider their job #1 instead of covering their asses. Silly me for thinking we were all on the same side. So fuck those passive aggressive losers trying to intimidate the mayor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Both guys seem like douchebags.
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Both guys seem like douchebags.
Bratton and Patrick Lynch?
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Both guys seem like douchebags.
Bratton and Patrick Lynch?
No, de Blasio and Lynch. Was Bratton mentioned in the text I quoted?
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Both guys seem like douchebags.
Bratton and Patrick Lynch?
This is derspiess, you know better than that. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 22, 2014, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Police union president told the Mayor not to attend any police funerals. It's all politics, and rather childish at that.
Both guys seem like douchebags.
Bratton and Patrick Lynch?
This is derspiess, you know better than that. :P
Of course, but I don't really see how de Blasio is coming off as a dick here - and I generally don't even like the man. :D
He's coming off as a dick because he publicly dissed the NYPD, guys who are out on the streets facing danger under his control.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 11:31:19 AM
He's coming off as a dick because he publicly dissed the NYPD, guys who are out on the streets facing danger under his control.
The NYPD is under his control, too. He's their boss.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 22, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
The NYPD is under his control, too. He's their boss.
I could have sworn I just said that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 22, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
The NYPD is under his control, too. He's their boss.
I could have sworn I just said that.
You said the danger was under his control, not the NYPD.
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2014, 11:05:47 AM
No, de Blasio and Lynch.
Of course de Blasio is. It's mayor's sacrosanct responsibility to character assassinate ever unarmed black guy that NYPD cops kill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 11:31:19 AM
He's coming off as a dick because he publicly dissed the NYPD, guys who are out on the streets facing danger under his control.
He ran an election campaign which as in larger part, had him publicly dissing the NYPD. :huh:
Besides, I think the NYPD is being more than a little butthurt. His speech was not an all out attack on them but rather he noted:
Quote"Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years about the dangers that he may face – good young man, law abiding young man, never would think to do anything wrong, and yet because of the 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," he said.
"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?...Are they safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors?"
That's pretty tame / they were living in a fantasy world if they thought he was going to stand happily by with what transpired.
I think Bratton has it right: this is more or less a Democratic/Republican partisan divide at this point. I think it's fair to say that white Republicans in NYC have always been shitting their pants about de Blasio, and worried that he would be an airhead liberal that would turn the city back into ghetto. Cops are about as virulently white Republican as they come, with all the nuanced understanding of politics that comes with it, so I think they already started off with disdain for de Blasio before he even said anything about the Garner incident.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 11:37:53 AM
He ran an election campaign which as in larger part, had him publicly dissing the NYPD. :huh:
Did he? I knew he campaigned against stop and frisk. That wasn't cops being dickheads because they're dickheads, that's cops carrying out policy set by the Bloomberg administration. If he campaigned on cops shooting up blacks for fun, I was unaware of it.
QuoteBesides, I think the NYPD is being more than a little butthurt. His speech was not an all out attack on them but rather he noted:
Quote"Chirlane and I have had to talk to Dante for years about the dangers that he may face – good young man, law abiding young man, never would think to do anything wrong, and yet because of the 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," he said.
"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?...Are they safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors?"
If you accept the premise that blacks who do absolutely nothing are at risk from the police by virtue of their skin color, that would be an attack but a justified one. If you accept the premise the Staten Island choking case is an example of the unfortunate outcomes that can occur when people resist arrest, it is an unjustified attack, which will naturally upset the people it is directed toward.
Should people stopped by the police have the right to negotiate the terms of their surrender? Should a police shooting of unarmed people automatically be a crime? We as a democracy are of course free to come to that conclusion, as long as we are willing to accept the consequences. But to blame police officers who believed they were operating in good faith with the laws and rules as they understood them is not right IMO.
Who else would you blame? Blame the victim? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 12:19:09 PM
Who else would you blame? Blame the victim? :huh:
The dead guy did not do what he was supposed to do under the law.
So therefore should the police kill him - while using tactics that their own handbook says they should do their best to avoid, all is good?
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 12:23:30 PM
So therefore should the police kill him - while using tactics that their own handbook says they should do their best to avoid, all is good?
Of course all is not good. And no, police should not kill every person who resists arrest.
Do you have any serious questions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 12:25:11 PM
Do you have any serious questions?
Ah, you mean like the "serious" (hopefully rhetorical) questions that you asked?
To be serious Yi, I think given the video evidence and the ME report, it was a travesty of justice that the grand jury didn't find the cop open to charges for anything, even reckless endangerment (which from my understanding wasn't even offered up by the DA). After all, for Garner, we aren't talking about whether or not the cop would actually be found guilty - but just if there is enough merit to bring it to trial.
That's little to do with whether people should be able to dictate the terms on which they surrender (though it seems like many wealthy people get that option for their crimes) nor about it automatically being a crime if a police officer shoots an unarmed civilian.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 12:27:39 PM
Ah, you mean like the "serious" (hopefully rhetorical) questions that you asked?
I have heard numerous statements by protesters, activists, and the Al Sharptons of the world that suggest they think my questions are not in the least rhetorical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 12:16:50 PM
But to blame police officers who believed they were operating in good faith with the laws and rules as they understood them is not right IMO.
Doubling back on this - I think it is okay if the police want to be upset at the mayor (really would good measure the DA should be angry) but I think it doesn't make sense for police officer, in uniform, to go about snubbing the mayor. I suppose when I'm angry at the words of the CEO of my company, I could go around snubbing him - but that seems like it would be wildly inappropriate and disastrous.
Cops don't like to be criticized by non-cops, mainly because they're cops and you're not.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 12:33:27 PM
To be serious Yi, I think given the video evidence and the ME report, it was a travesty of justice that the grand jury didn't find the cop open to charges for anything, even reckless endangerment (which from my understanding wasn't even offered up by the DA). After all, for Garner, we aren't talking about whether or not the cop would actually be found guilty - but just if there is enough merit to bring it to trial.
That's little to do with whether people should be able to dictate the terms on which they surrender (though it seems like many wealthy people get that option for their crimes) nor about it automatically being a crime if a police officer shoots an unarmed civilian.
If you believe it was a travesty of justice, then your focus would be on reforming grand juries, or DAs, or other things that impacted this particular travesty. It would not be on warning your black son that New York cops in general are dangerous.
But they are. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2014, 12:52:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2014, 12:33:27 PM
To be serious Yi, I think given the video evidence and the ME report, it was a travesty of justice that the grand jury didn't find the cop open to charges for anything, even reckless endangerment (which from my understanding wasn't even offered up by the DA). After all, for Garner, we aren't talking about whether or not the cop would actually be found guilty - but just if there is enough merit to bring it to trial.
That's little to do with whether people should be able to dictate the terms on which they surrender (though it seems like many wealthy people get that option for their crimes) nor about it automatically being a crime if a police officer shoots an unarmed civilian.
If you believe it was a travesty of justice, then your focus would be on reforming grand juries, or DAs, or other things that impacted this particular travesty. It would not be on warning your black son that New York cops in general are dangerous.
Can't you do both?
Sure. I got the impression Grab On thought they were the same thing, and that making one argument made the other.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 22, 2014, 12:40:51 PM
Cops don't like to be criticized by non-cops, mainly because they're cops and you're not.
Yeah, we get that loud and clear. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 22, 2014, 12:40:51 PM
Cops don't like to be criticized by non-cops, mainly because they're cops and you're not.
Yeah. Nobody likes to be criticized on how they conduct themselves professionally by people who are inexperienced in that profession.
That doesn't mean that cops should be a self-regulating profession. In fact, I suspect it would be pretty unhealthy for a society if cops, or most other civil servants, were exempt from independent review and censure.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-departments-alert-cop-killings-060720821.html
QuoteNY mayor: No protests until after officer funerals
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called Monday for a temporary halt to protests over police conduct as he faced a widening rift with a force preparing Christmastime burials for two of its own and decrying the demonstrations as a factor in the officers' cold-blooded executions.
"I think it's important that, regardless of people's viewpoints, that everyone step back," de Blasio said in a speech Monday at the Police Athletic League. "I think it's a time for everyone to put aside political debates, put aside protests, put aside all of the things that we will talk about in all due time."
De Blasio's relations with the city's police unions have tumbled to an extraordinary new low — one not experienced by a mayor in the nation's largest city in more than a generation — in the aftermath of Saturday's shooting in which the gunman claimed was retaliation for the deaths of black men at the hands of white police. In a display of defiance, dozens of police officers turned their backs to de Blasio at the hospital where the officers died, and union leaders said the mayor had "blood on his hands" for enabling the protesters who have swept the streets of New York this month since a grand jury declined to indict an officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.
De Blasio, in his first extensive remarks since the killings, called for "everyone to put aside political debates, put aside protests, put aside all of the things that we will talk about in all due time."
Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were ambushed Saturday afternoon by a 28-year-old who vowed in an Instagram post that he would put "wings on pigs." The suspect, Ishmaaiyl Brinsley was black; the slain New York Police Department officers were Hispanic and Asian.
The killings came as police nationwide are being criticized following Garner's death and 18-year-old Michael Brown's fatal shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Protests erupted after grand juries declined to charge officers in either case.
On Monday, a prosecutor said a white Milwaukee police officer who was fired after he fatally shot a mentally ill black man in April won't face criminal charges. Lawyers for the slain man's family urged any protesters there to be peaceful.
De Blasio said it was time to focus on the officers' grieving families. He and Police Commissioner William Bratton met with them earlier Monday.
"There's a lot of pain. It's so hard to make sense of it — how one deeply troubled, violent individual could do this to these good families," a somber de Blasio said. "And I think it's a time for everyone to take stock that there are things that unite us, there are things that we hold dear as New Yorkers, as Americans."
Investigators are trying to determine if Brinsley had taken part in any protests, or simply latched onto the cause for the final act in a violent rampage. He started off Saturday in Baltimore, shooting his ex-girlfriend in the stomach before coming to New York and killing the officers. He then ran into a nearby subway station and killed himself.
The police unions blame de Blasio for fostering an anti-police sentiment. Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch declaring that there was "blood on the hands" on the "steps of City Hall and the office of the mayor."
Sergeants Benevolent Associations head Edward Mullins refused to back down from that stance, saying in an interview Monday that "the mayor has turned his back on us — he got elected on his campaign of attacking the police all along."
That link — strenuously denied by the de Blasio administration — was given some credence by Police Commissioner William Bratton on Monday. In an interview with NBC, Bratton said "what's quite apparent, obvious, is that the target of these two police officers was a direct spinoff of this issue of these demonstrations."
Even Bratton, who has steadfastly praised de Blasio, conceded that the mayor was on shaky footing with some in the NYPD. When asked on NBC's "Today" show if the mayor had lost the force's trust and confidence, Bratton said, "I think he's lost it with some officers."
Meanwhile, big-city police departments and union leaders around the country were warning the rank and file to wear bulletproof vests and avoid making inflammatory posts on social media.
A union-generated message at the 35,000-officer NYPD warned officers that they should respond to every radio call with two cars — "no matter what the opinion of the patrol supervisor" — and not make arrests "unless absolutely necessary." The president of the detectives' union told members in a letter to work in threes when out on the street, wear bulletproof vests and keep aware of their surroundings. At the same time, a memo from an NYPD chief asked officers to limit their comments "via all venues, including social media, to expressions of sorrow and condolence."
One directive warned officers in Newark, New Jersey, not to patrol alone and to avoid confrontation. In Philadelphia, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey urged protest leaders to "call for calm and not let this escalate any further." Boston's police commissioner said officers there were on alert.
Officials in New York investigated at least a dozen threats against police since the shootings, and one man was arrested at a Manhattan precinct after he walked in and said: "If I punch you in the face, how much time will I get?" and refused to leave.
It's good that people are finally coming together at a time like this to do what Americans do best: overreact in highly unproductive ways.
Apparently the protesters said that they didn't think it would be a good idea to wait till 12/28 to start at it again - so the protests go on.
CNN had a reporter embedded with the protesters. I got the impression it was one of those "we're against everything" protests.
I'm sure there are certainly people like that involved in protesting.
The ANSWER Coalition is there.
I think with their latest move (turning their backs as he delivered the mayoral eulogy), the mayor should move for random firings up cops that pull that stunt.
And re-education camps for the rest.
Quote from: garbon on December 27, 2014, 10:26:11 PM
I think with their latest move (turning their backs as he delivered the mayoral eulogy), the mayor should move for random firings up cops that pull that stunt.
Agreed, this is truly disgusting. And these same cops wonder why there is such an anti-police sentiment?
Quote from: garbon on December 27, 2014, 10:26:11 PM
I think with their latest move (turning their backs as he delivered the mayoral eulogy), the mayor should move for random firings up cops that pull that stunt.
Yeah, enough with the childish bullshit already, fellas. Unions. :rolleyes:
Doing at the press conference was childish, but whatever, doing it at the eulogy was wrong. you weren't disrespecting just the mayor, you were disrespecting the man he was eulogizing as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2014, 10:41:09 PM
And re-education camps for the rest.
Nah. Random bit to scare the rest into acting properly.
De-Blah-sio
That it's at a funeral is a bit tasteless - though it'd be interesting to know what the officers' families think, they may be entirely behind the protest in which case there's no disrespect there.
But even so I don't think it's that big a deal.
I think it is distressing how out of touch many members of that body continue to be.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2014, 11:04:35 AM
I think it is distressing how out of touch many members of that body continue to be.
What body?
New York's Finest Taxi Service.
Ugh re: the commissioner
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2014, 01:08:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2014, 10:41:09 PM
And re-education camps for the rest.
Nah. Random bit to scare the rest into acting properly.
I think that's the way cops look at you.
While he said that what the officers did was very inappropriate but that it is an expression of how some are currently feeling. He also had this bit:
Quote"This is about the continuing poverty rates, the continuing growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor," he said. "It's about unemployment issues. There are so many national issues that have to be addressed that it isn't just policing, as I think we all well know."
which while those are certainly issues in our country that cause frustration, they have little to do with the frustration with the police - and more importantly issues with the police in New York.
:bleeding: Sounds like a politician trying to straddle a fence way too hard. Then again, it's not like he can go "my cops are just butthurt that they don't have a mayor anymore who will unconditionally defend their jackbooted tactics", which is what it's really all about.
So apparently the cop union in NYPD is engaged in work slowdown, and instructing the cops to always respond with at least two cars. How ironic that the one type of union that really is a danger to the public, and in some cases turns the police force into essentially blue mafia, is the union whose right to existence even Republicans would staunchly defend.
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Sad what it's coming to in NYC. The NYPD are one of the best, if not the best, police forces in the country. They and under former mayors have cut crime way, way down. It was hell on earth there up until about twenty years ago. They did so well that other cities, including here in Boston, copied much of what NYC did. NYC has also beceome very good at anti-terror enforcement.
I hate seeing the cops go this route, and it'll likely backfire on them, just like the over done protests backfired or would likely have even if the cops hadn't been killed. Then too the Mayah has been very anti-cop all during his run for office. At least that's what's being reported and this latest mess has put the final touch on the split.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Responding with two cars is a safety precaution, so they don't get assassinated on calls.
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
Sad what it's coming to in NYC. The NYPD are one of the best, if not the best, police forces in the country. They and under former mayors have cut crime way, way down. It was hell on earth there up until about twenty years ago. They did so well that other cities, including here in Boston, copied much of what NYC did. NYC has also beceome very good at anti-terror enforcement.
I've come across claims that the drop in crime rates was primarily down to trends beyond the police's control - changes in demographics and changes in the economy primarily.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Both. They're essentially not enforcing any minor laws, and one way they're doing it is by responding with excessive number of cars as per union instructions. When you respond with excessive number of cars, it means that you can respond to fewer calls in an adequate manner, which means that you have to triage the calls you do respond to.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Responding with two cars is a safety precaution, so they don't get assassinated on calls.
Or it's union-driven bullshit, under the guise of "safety precaution".
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 02:29:10 PM
Or it's union-driven bullshit, under the guise of "safety precaution".
Well...yeah. Kinda thought that was obvious.
Quote from: Jacob on December 29, 2014, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
Sad what it's coming to in NYC. The NYPD are one of the best, if not the best, police forces in the country. They and under former mayors have cut crime way, way down. It was hell on earth there up until about twenty years ago. They did so well that other cities, including here in Boston, copied much of what NYC did. NYC has also beceome very good at anti-terror enforcement.
I've come across claims that the drop in crime rates was primarily down to trends beyond the police's control - changes in demographics and changes in the economy primarily.
I'm sure there were several factors that helped bring the crime rate down. NYC is a huge and tough city for crime, like any large US city, so it's a tough place for policing. And the police force is about 50% minority, maybe more, which I didn't realize, figuring it was heavily white given all the stuff said by the protesters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 02:35:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 02:29:10 PM
Or it's union-driven bullshit, under the guise of "safety precaution".
Well...yeah. Kinda thought that was obvious.
:blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Responding with two cars is a safety precaution, so they don't get assassinated on calls.
:yes: Saw that once on Rookie Blue when they had a guy sniping cops.
:P
Wow...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mayor-bill-de-blasio-gets-cheers-and-boos-at-nypd-graduation/
QuoteMayor Bill de Blasio gets some boos at NYPD graduation
Mayor Bill de Blasio faced applause, boos and catcalls when he took the stage Monday to address hundreds of new police recruits at a police graduation ceremony.
The mayor spoke at a fraught point in his relationship with the NYPD. The graduation comes two days after hundreds of officers turned their backs to a video monitor as they watched de Blasio eulogize Officer Rafael Ramos at his funeral in Queens. It was the second time officers had done so since the slaying of two NYPD cops.
When introduced at the graduation ceremony, many in the crowd could be heard booing the mayor, reports CBS New York. Others cheered and applauded.
"Let's be honest about the realities of our society," de Blasio told the graduating class of more than 800 new officers. "You'll confront all the problems that plague our society, problems that you didn't create."
Immediately after the mayor made that remark, someone from the crowd yelled, "You did!" to a round of applause.
The mayor also addressed the killings of Ramos and his partner, Wenjian Liu.
"We lost two peacemakers nine days ago," he said. "They will not be forgotten -- they must not be forgotten."
Tensions have been running high between DeBlasio and some of the city's police officers since Ramos andLiu were shot and killed in their patrol car earlier this month. Police union officials blamed DeBlasio for their deaths, in part because of his public support for people protesting grand jury decisions not to indict police officers who had killed two black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
After the officers' deaths, the gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley killed himself.
In online posts prior to the attack, Brinsley said that their deaths would be in retaliation for police killings.
...
Oh yeah, it's going to be like this for a while.
QuoteLynch also encouraged officers to sign an affidavit saying that in the event they're killed in the line of duty, they do not want the mayor at their funeral or wake, a letter that has been criticized by the mayor, NYPD Commissioner and even Timothy Cardinal Dolan.
"If they're not going to support us when we need 'em, we'll embarrass them when we can," he said.
On the recording, Lynch also says of de Blasio, "He is not running the city of New York. He thinks he's running a fucking revolution."
The delegates applauded and cheered.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/12/8558814/private-meeting-union-head-tells-officers-use-extreme-discretion
Time for me to get out!
The union rep: :wub:
Comments in that article. Fuck.
Again I don't really see the problem with the heckling. However I think the whole situation is indicative that de Blasio needs to get booed a lot more and really take them on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 07:25:42 PM
Again I don't really see the problem with the heckling. However I think the whole situation is indicative that de Blasio needs to get booed a lot more and really take them on.
You don't think there is a problem with police force openly rebelling against the city government?
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 07:38:56 PM
You don't think there is a problem with police force openly rebelling against the city government?
That hasn't happened.
Engage the hyperbole drive!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 07:38:56 PM
You don't think there is a problem with police force openly rebelling against the city government?
That hasn't happened.
From where I sit, the cops seem to do what PBA tells them to do, and not what their chain of command tells them to do. That seems a lot like rebellion to me.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 07:38:56 PM
You don't think there is a problem with police force openly rebelling against the city government?
They're not openly rebelling. They don't have to kowtow or sit in dutiful silence when someone says something they disagree with or someone they dislike is saying it.
I can think of numerous Home Secretaries who've been heckled or booed by the police federation here. My view is they're not the military, they don't owe politicians any more respect than any other public sector worker - so long as it doesn't interfere with their work (ie. it'd be inappropriate for any protection officers to be doing this). But the vice versa goes: like every other part of the public sector they probably need lots of reform.
What I'd like to see happen is that de Blasio doesn't get heckled because he's upset their feelings with comments he's made, but that he gets booed because he's a reforming politician taking on a vested interest that's clearly out of touch (captured by producer interests) and needs to be reformed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 07:52:09 PM
They're not openly rebelling. They don't have to kowtow or sit in dutiful silence when someone says something they disagree with or someone they dislike is saying it.
The thing is that de Blasio is not just someone. He is the head of the government which they serve, and they're in uniform. No, in such a situation, you don't have the right to be obnoxious.
QuoteI can think of numerous Home Secretaries who've been heckled or booed by the police federation here. My view is they're not the military, they don't owe politicians any more respect than any other public sector worker - so long as it doesn't interfere with their work (ie. it'd be inappropriate for any protection officers to be doing this). But the vice versa goes: like every other part of the public sector they probably need lots of reform.
Police may not be the military, but they're not that far off, especially in this day and age in US. They're not just the run of the mill public servants, they're the only people with guns. I think it should be alarming when the only people with guns want to dictate who they should answer to.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 07:58:51 PM
The thing is that de Blasio is not just someone. He is the head of the government which they serve, and they're in uniform. No, in such a situation, you don't have the right to be obnoxious.
If they're worst they're doing is being obnoxious then you should probably reel back from their open revolt :P
But ust because they're public sector workers doesn't mean they lose their rights to opinions or to expressing them. Nurses, teachers, firemen, police are all welcome to boo and heckle as many politicians as they want just like anyone else unless they're, for example, guarding the Mayor or showing him round their classroom - then it would be very obnoxious.
QuotePolice may not be the military, but they're not that far off, especially in this day and age in US. They're not just the run of the mill public servants, they're the only people with guns. I think it should be alarming when the only people with guns want to dictate who they should answer to.
Yeah I don't like the trend of militarisation either. It probably won't help to tell them they've got to stand to attention when addressed by their CinC.
They're not trying to dictate anything. They're showing their disapproval of him (though I think it'll backfire for him) which I think is okay. He should show them the election results and get on with the business of giving them something to boo about.
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 07:58:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 07:52:09 PM
They're not openly rebelling. They don't have to kowtow or sit in dutiful silence when someone says something they disagree with or someone they dislike is saying it.
The thing is that de Blasio is not just someone. He is the head of the government which they serve, and they're in uniform. No, in such a situation, you don't have the right to be obnoxious.
[/quote]
At least in theory, the cops don't serve the Mayor, or even the city government--they serve the people of NYC.
Quote
Police may not be the military, but they're not that far off, especially in this day and age in US. They're not just the run of the mill public servants, they're the only people with guns. I think it should be alarming when the only people with guns want to dictate who they should answer to.
In the US, even in New York City, the police are hardly the only people with guns.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 08:07:41 PM
He should show them the election results and get on with the business of giving them something to boo about.
I don't see what that proves. He didn't run against the police department.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 08:22:00 PM
I don't see what that proves. He didn't run against the police department.
I don't follow.
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 08:18:27 PM
At least in theory, the cops don't serve the Mayor, or even the city government--they serve the people of NYC.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Hell, I don't even see the cops on the beat being "militarized". The at-15's stay in the trunk if the department has them.
You only see the Armored Stuff roll out with SWAT.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
I don't follow.
You seemed to suggest in your previous post that De Blasio's election was a winning rebuttal to the feelings among the police that he had unfairly criticized them. I don't see how the two are related.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 08:30:25 PM
You seemed to suggest in your previous post that De Blasio's election was a winning rebuttal to the feelings among the police that he had unfairly criticized them. I don't see how the two are related.
They don't. That's not what I meant. He won an election and has a mandate. I think the NYPD are out of touch (as I say captured by producer interests) so he should reform them. That'd give them, like any other vested interest, something to really heckle about.
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2014, 08:25:55 PM
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 08:18:27 PM
At least in theory, the cops don't serve the Mayor, or even the city government--they serve the people of NYC.
:lol:
In theory, the government represents the people, for logistical efficiencies and such, so dps's point fails even on that count. We even have things called elections where we work out the details of such an arrangement. It is customary to accept the results of such "elections" in our society, even if you don't like them, but we all know that some people are much better at it than others.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2014, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Hell, I don't even see the cops on the beat being "militarized". The at-15's stay in the trunk if the department has them.
You only see the Armored Stuff roll out with SWAT.
The only real problem with the armored stuff is that it's wasteful spending for most jurisdictions. Generally if you can either buy an armored vehicle or hire three more police officers you should probably go for the officers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2014, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Hell, I don't even see the cops on the beat being "militarized". The at-15's stay in the trunk if the department has them.
You only see the Armored Stuff roll out with SWAT.
Here in NYC area it used to be fairly common until recently to have people in the subways dressed up like they just came back from patrolling Fallujah. Really helped build connections with the civilians. But, hey, we all know that the difference between a successful terrorist attack and a thwarted terrorist attack is the quality of armor and weaponry that cops possess.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:45:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2014, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Hell, I don't even see the cops on the beat being "militarized". The at-15's stay in the trunk if the department has them.
You only see the Armored Stuff roll out with SWAT.
The only real problem with the armored stuff is that it's wasteful spending for most jurisdictions. Generally if you can either buy an armored vehicle or hire three more police officers you should probably go for the officers.
The small ones are a bit useful. The MRAP, not so much.
They should have grabbed the Humvees
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 08:34:12 PM
They don't. That's not what I meant. He won an election and has a mandate. I think the NYPD are out of touch (as I say captured by producer interests) so he should reform them. That'd give them, like any other vested interest, something to really heckle about.
Not sure part of his electoral mandate is publicly insulting the police department.
BTW, what the hell do you mean by producer interests?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:45:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2014, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
I'm not bothered by the "increasing militarization of the police", and of all us I'm the one who best fits the profile of a crazed lone gunman, which is the demographic most inconvenienced by armored vehicles.
Hell, I don't even see the cops on the beat being "militarized". The at-15's stay in the trunk if the department has them.
You only see the Armored Stuff roll out with SWAT.
The only real problem with the armored stuff is that it's wasteful spending for most jurisdictions. Generally if you can either buy an armored vehicle or hire three more police officers you should probably go for the officers.
The main issue is with mentality that militarization brings, and that goes for both sides. If you're a cop who's dressed for war, you're going to start viewing your job as a soldier at war. You're not, you're a citizen interacting with other citizens. As for non-badged citizens, try as you might, you'll probably want to interact with one of these officers much more than with the other:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3138/3048823751_79e84096e4_m.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fbg%2FLeelee%2Bis%2BNYPD%2Bin%2BQueens%2BNsCc25o65hrl.jpg&hash=1319266ff4ea1fd8c5096bd9d6066ff3c16366c9)
EDIT: Yes, I realize that the second cop is actually an actor, but it was very hard to find a friendly-looking real NYPD cop on Google Image.
Not only an actor, but an attractive woman. You're really loading the deck.
I think a lot of police started thinking of themselves as soldiers long before assault rifles became common. I mean, they give themselves military ranks and uniforms and such.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 08:52:02 PMNot sure part of his electoral mandate is publicly insulting the police department.
Activate the hpyerbole drive! :P
QuoteBTW, what the hell do you mean by producer interests?
I thought it was an American phrase that had made it's way over here - but apparently it's very New Labour. My understanding is that it's a problem in the public sector that the institutions often end up serving the producers (teachers, doctors, police, firemen) rather than the consumers (children, the sick, the public in general). So the producers capture the organisation so it reflects their goals and prejudices rather than those its supposed to serve. So you try and reform them so that their interests align more effectively in various ways.
In the UK the police are the last great unreformed public sector - hence why even a Tory gunning for the leadership like the Home Secretary is now starting to talk about reform and getting heckled by the Police Federation over it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 09:06:49 PM
I think a lot of police started thinking of themselves as soldiers long before assault rifles became common. I mean, they give themselves military ranks and uniforms and such.
You get the small departments out there with tons of sergeants and brass out there in hick land?
Had a township chief here put 6 stars on his uniform. Called him Grand admiral to his face once. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:07:52 PM
Activate the hpyerbole drive! :P
:mellow: Not at all. The statement was public. The police felt insulted.
Okay. I wouldn't interpret the police taking offence at something (cue Viking) de Blasio said, as de Blasio insulting them. I'm surprised you would.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 09:13:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:07:52 PM
Activate the hpyerbole drive! :P
:mellow: Not at all. The statement was public. The police felt insulted.
Yeah, many feelings were hurt.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:16:38 PM
Okay. I wouldn't interpret the police taking offence at something (cue Viking) de Blasio said, as de Blasio insulting them. I'm surprised you would.
The distinction eludes me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 09:29:07 PM
The distinction eludes me.
Which public insult do you mean?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:33:33 PM
Which public insult do you mean?
The comment about advice to his son.
Right, I thought I'd missed one :lol:
Here's the comment:
QuoteChirlane 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.
I don't think that qualifies as publicly insulting. If it does then we might as well just give up on the idea of public discourse because there's nothing left to say without causing offence.
If someone felt insulted by that I'd say they were a big girl's blouse and needed to stop being so bloody sensitive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 09:29:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:16:38 PM
Okay. I wouldn't interpret the police taking offence at something (cue Viking) de Blasio said, as de Blasio insulting them. I'm surprised you would.
The distinction eludes me.
Really? You don't see the difference between perception of offensiveness and actual presence of offensiveness? I never figured you to be one of those people who subscribe to "perception is reality" theory when it comes to offensive remarks.
I never thought he'd be on the same side as a Union, but our little Yi still has surprises.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 10:05:32 PM
I never thought he'd be on the same side as a Union, but our little Yi still has surprises.
Bratton was right the first time, before he fell on his balls while trying to straddle the fence. It's a Democrat/Republican issue first and foremost even before Garner was choked, and cop unions have always been squarely in the Republican camp. People with authoritarian mindsets and intolerance for nuanced thinking seem to always find a comfortable place there.
What we're seeing with de Blasio is pretty much what we saw with Obama: white Republicans utterly lost their shit even before the object of their vitriolic hatred even had a chance to earn it.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 10:20:40 PM
People with authoritarian mindsets and intolerance for nuanced thinking seem to always find a comfortable place there.
And apparently on Languish.org. ;)
:)
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 02:27:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
A work slowdown and responding with two cars, or responding with cars is the work slowdown?
Both. They're essentially not enforcing any minor laws, and one way they're doing it is by responding with excessive number of cars as per union instructions. When you respond with excessive number of cars, it means that you can respond to fewer calls in an adequate manner, which means that you have to triage the calls you do respond to.
How the hell can the union get away with issuing these kinds of orders on a public safety issue?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
How the hell can the union get away with issuing these kinds of orders on a public safety issue?
Well, what are they going to do to it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:07:52 PM
I thought it was an American phrase that had made it's way over here - but apparently it's very New Labour. My understanding is that it's a problem in the public sector that the institutions often end up serving the producers (teachers, doctors, police, firemen) rather than the consumers (children, the sick, the public in general).
Careful, or DGuller will lecture you on how they should serve the government, not the general public.
And Garbon, I did say "in theory".
Quote from: jimmy olsenHow the hell can the union get away with issuing these kinds of orders on a public safety issue?
That kind of shit is what you get when you allow public employ unions.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2014, 11:25:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
How the hell can the union get away with issuing these kinds of orders on a public safety issue?
Well, what are they going to do to it?
Fire the ring leaders.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 01:10:25 AM
And Garbon, I did say "in theory".
I laughed as it seemed like a completely irrelevant...well I hesitate to even call it a point. :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
Right, I thought I'd missed one :lol:
Was there another one? :unsure:
QuoteI don't think that qualifies as publicly insulting. If it does then we might as well just give up on the idea of public discourse because there's nothing left to say without causing offence.
If someone felt insulted by that I'd say they were a big girl's blouse and needed to stop being so bloody sensitive.
You don't find it insulting because presumably you've bought into the narrative that America's cops are engaging in arbitrary acts of violence against black men.
As a thought experiment, try to imagine this is not true. Can you seen then how the mayor's statement can and should be perceived as an insult?
But it is just a true statement. I suppose one could take issue with the mayor saying it, when he did, but it seems bizarre to take an insult out of a statement about how parents worry / what they tell their non-white children. (In fact, from re-reading the statement, he doesn't even seem to explicitly mention race in that section.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 09:30:40 AMYou don't find it insulting because presumably you've bought into the narrative that America's cops are engaging in arbitrary acts of violence against black men.
As a thought experiment, try to imagine this is not true. Can you seen then how the mayor's statement can and should be perceived as an insult?
That's not quite my narrative. But I don't find it insulting because it's not insulting. It's a very carefully and delicately phrased statement. I can't, no matter what imaginative leap I make, see how words that vanilla could insult anyone.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 09:48:33 AM
That's not quite my narrative. But I don't find it insulting because it's not insulting. It's a very carefully and delicately phrased statement. I can't, no matter what imaginative leap I make, see how words that vanilla could insult anyone.
Tone only gets you so far Shelf.
The tone's inoffensive. The content's inoffensive. I don't know what else there is.
If you are hyper-sensitive, looking for outrage and a reason to take offence then I think you probably could, but that's about it. In my view it's People's Daily 'hurting the feelings of the Chinese people' level sensitivity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 10:30:07 AM
The tone's inoffensive. The content's inoffensive. I don't know what else there is.
If you are hyper-sensitive, looking for outrage and a reason to take offence then I think you probably could, but that's about it. In my view it's People's Daily 'hurting the feelings of the Chinese people' level sensitivity.
Would you take offense if I accused you of arbitrarily beating up black people?
[Insert joke about wishing you were big enough to beat up black people.]
Would you take offense if I accused you of arbitrarily fucking over black people?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 10:32:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 10:30:07 AM
The tone's inoffensive. The content's inoffensive. I don't know what else there is.
If you are hyper-sensitive, looking for outrage and a reason to take offence then I think you probably could, but that's about it. In my view it's People's Daily 'hurting the feelings of the Chinese people' level sensitivity.
Would you take offense if I accused you of arbitrarily beating up black people?
[Insert joke about wishing you were big enough to beat up black people.]
Would you take offense if I accused you of arbitrarily fucking over black people?
The statement doesn't say that. :huh:
Exactly :huh:
Perhaps you two could tell me what he was saying then. In particular please explain the significance of the parts about "because of history," and "even a law abiding person."
Don't get me wrong, I think de Blasio was pointing out that there are things that need to be fixed with the police department (if only to lessen fears of NYC citizenry with regards to their children and the police) but he did it in a very measured and careful way. I think you last quoted portion speaks directly to the narrative that 'if black people would just behave, they would have no need to fear the police / none of this would happen' which has been floating about after all of these incidents.
I don't think he was accusing the NYPD of arbitrarily beating up black people. :wacko:
So something needs to be fixed, and it's something that causes fear amongst "the citizenry," but it's not arbitrarily beating up black people.
Reckless driving? Discharging firearms in the air?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 11:10:01 AM
So something needs to be fixed, and it's something that causes fear amongst "the citizenry," but it's not arbitrarily beating up black people.
Reckless driving? Discharging firearms in the air?
No and you know that's not it. :P
Here's something of relevance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-usa-police-nypd-race-insight-idUSKBN0K11EV20141223
QuoteOff duty, black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police
rom the dingy donut shops of Manhattan to the cloistered police watering holes in Brooklyn, a number of black NYPD officers say they have experienced the same racial profiling that cost Eric Garner his life.
Garner, a 43-year-old black man suspected of illegally peddling loose cigarettes, died in July after a white officer put him in a chokehold. His death, and that of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, has sparked a slew of nationwide protests against police tactics. On Saturday, those tensions escalated after a black gunman, who wrote of avenging the black deaths on social media, shot dead two New York policemen.
The protests and the ambush of the uniformed officers pose a major challenge for New York Mayor Bill De Blasio. The mayor must try to ease damaged relations with a police force that feels he hasn't fully supported them, while at the same time bridging a chasm with communities who say the police unfairly target them.
What's emerging now is that, within the thin blue line of the NYPD, there is another divide - between black and white officers.
Reuters interviewed 25 African American male officers on the NYPD, 15 of whom are retired and 10 of whom are still serving. All but one said that, when off duty and out of uniform, they had been victims of racial profiling, which refers to using race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed a crime.
The officers said this included being pulled over for no reason, having their heads slammed against their cars, getting guns brandished in their faces, being thrown into prison vans and experiencing stop and frisks while shopping. The majority of the officers said they had been pulled over multiple times while driving. Five had had guns pulled on them.
Desmond Blaize, who retired two years ago as a sergeant in the 41st Precinct in the Bronx, said he once got stopped while taking a jog through Brooklyn's upmarket Prospect Park. "I had my ID on me so it didn't escalate," said Blaize, who has sued the department alleging he was racially harassed on the job. "But what's suspicious about a jogger? In jogging clothes?"
The NYPD and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the police officers' union, declined requests for comment. However, defenders of the NYPD credit its policing methods with transforming New York from the former murder capital of the world into the safest big city in the United States.
EX-POLICE CHIEF SKEPTICAL
"It makes good headlines to say this is occurring, but I don't think you can validate it until you look into the circumstances they were stopped in," said Bernard Parks, the former chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, who is African American.
"Now if you want to get into the essence of why certain groups are stopped more than others, then you only need to go to the crime reports and see which ethnic groups are listed more as suspects. That's the crime data the officers are living with."
Blacks made up 73 percent of the shooting perpetrators in New York in 2011 and were 23 percent of the population.
A number of academics believe those statistics are potentially skewed because police over-focus on black communities, while ignoring crime in other areas. They also note that being stopped as a suspect does not automatically equate to criminality. Nearly 90 percent of blacks stopped by the NYPD, for example, are found not to be engaged in any crime.
The black officers interviewed said they had been racially profiled by white officers exclusively, and about one third said they made some form of complaint to a supervisor.
All but one said their supervisors either dismissed the complaints or retaliated against them by denying them overtime, choice assignments, or promotions. The remaining officers who made no complaints said they refrained from doing so either because they feared retribution or because they saw racial profiling as part of the system.
In declining to comment to Reuters, the NYPD did not respond to a specific request for data showing the racial breakdown of officers who made complaints and how such cases were handled.
White officers were not the only ones accused of wrongdoing. Civilian complaints against police officers are in direct proportion to their demographic makeup on the force, according to the NYPD's Civilian Complaint Review Board.
Indeed, some of the officers Reuters interviewed acknowledged that they themselves had been defendants in lawsuits, with allegations ranging from making a false arrest to use of excessive force. Such claims against police are not uncommon in New York, say veterans.
STUDIES FIND INHERENT BIAS
Still, social psychologists from Stanford and Yale universities and John Jay College of Criminal Justice have conducted research – including the 2004 study "Seeing Black: Race, Crime and Visual Processing" - showing there is an implicit racial bias in the American psyche that correlates black maleness with crime.
John Jay professor Delores Jones-Brown cited a 2010 New York State Task Force report on police-on-police shootings - the first such inquiry of its kind - that found that in the previous 15 years, officers of color had suffered the highest fatalities in encounters with police officers who mistook them for criminals.
There's evidence that aggressive policing in the NYPD is intensifying, according to data from the New York City Comptroller.
Police misconduct claims - including lawsuits against police for using the kind of excessive force that killed Garner - have risen 214 percent since 2000, while the amount the city paid out has risen 75 percent in the same period, to $64.4 million in fiscal year 2012, the last year for which data is available.
REPORTING ABUSE
People who have taken part in the marches against Garner's death - and that of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown - say they are protesting against the indignity of being stopped by police for little or no reason as much as for the deaths themselves.
"There's no real outlet to report the abuse," said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, a former NYPD captain who said he was stigmatized and retaliated against throughout his 22-year career for speaking out against racial profiling and police brutality.
Officers make complaints to the NYPD's investigative arm, the Internal Affairs Bureau, only to later have their identities leaked, said Adams.
One of the better-known cases of alleged racial profiling of a black policeman concerns Harold Thomas, a decorated detective who retired this year after 30 years of service, including in New York's elite Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Shortly before 1 a.m. one night in August 2012, Thomas was leaving a birthday party at a trendy New York nightclub.
Wearing flashy jewelry, green sweatpants and a white t-shirt, Thomas walked toward his brand-new white Escalade when two white police officers approached him. What happened next is in dispute, but an altercation ensued, culminating in Thomas getting his head smashed against the hood of his car and then spun to the ground and put in handcuffs.
"If I was white, it wouldn't have happened," said Thomas, who has filed a lawsuit against the city over the incident. The New York City Corporation Counsel said it could not comment on pending litigation.
At an ale house in Williamsburg, Brooklyn last week, a group of black police officers from across the city gathered for the beer and chicken wing special. They discussed how the officers involved in the Garner incident could have tried harder to talk down an upset Garner, or sprayed mace in his face, or forced him to the ground without using a chokehold. They all agreed his death was avoidable.
Said one officer from the 106th Precinct in Queens, "That could have been any one of us."
Right Grab On, racial profiling and arbitrary violence. So either Di Blasio is desperately overegging the profiling pudding (why would his son need to take extra care about being pulled over for driving while black?) or he's accusing the NYPD of brutality towards blacks.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2014, 01:31:35 AM
Fire the ring leaders.
The ring leaders aren't even on the NYPD payroll anymore, AFAIK, leading the union is a full-time job (but I could be wrong on that point).
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2014, 01:31:35 AM
Fire the ring leaders.
The ring leaders aren't even on the NYPD payroll anymore, AFAIK, leading the union is a full-time job (but I could be wrong on that point).
You're probably correct; it's certainly the case in most unions. In fact, increasingly, union leadership is made up of professional administrators and lawyers, guys who never actually worked the job their members do.
In other news, the DA who decided to get the chokehold cop not indicted by the grand jury will likely run for Congress, for the seat vacated by Michael Grimm. Something in this whole business doesn't smell right.
And traffic citations are down 94% for the last week: http://jalopnik.com/traffic-stops-in-new-york-city-just-dropped-an-insane-9-1676382903. :blink: What a bunch of petulant thin-skinned scumbags. Does PBA not realize that they're one publicized drunk-driving mass-casualty accident away from a shit-ton of negative publicity?
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:03:17 PM
In other news, the DA who decided to get the chokehold cop not indicted by the grand jury will likely run for Congress, for the seat vacated by Michael Grimm. Something in this whole business doesn't smell right.
Was the hold the cop did not allowed by the NYC police? When I first saw the video I thought the cop must have been in the wrong. But later I heard that it wasn't the chokehold that had been banned that he used, but basically a take down the cop used. That may not be quite correct because so much noise has come out, and the Grand Jury info and verdict gets drowned out. But a Grand Jury has a very low bar to indict, much lower than a court trial evidence to actually convict someone of a crime. Same thing for the Ferguson Grand Jury where it really seemed a case of cop self defense. It just has seemed that so much got blown out of proportion about what actually happened.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
Was the hold the cop did not allowed by the NYC police? When I first saw the video I thought the cop must have been in the wrong. But later I heard that it wasn't the chokehold that had been banned that he used, but basically a take down the cop used.
It may not have been technically a chokehold, but they don't teach you to take people down like that, either.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:03:17 PM
In other news, the DA who decided to get the chokehold cop not indicted by the grand jury will likely run for Congress, for the seat vacated by Michael Grimm. Something in this whole business doesn't smell right.
Was the hold the cop did not allowed by the NYC police? When I first saw the video I thought the cop must have been in the wrong. But later I heard that it wasn't the chokehold that had been banned that he used, but basically a take down the cop used. That may not be quite correct because so much noise has come out, and the Grand Jury info and verdict gets drowned out. But a Grand Jury has a very low bar to indict, much lower than a court trial evidence to actually convict someone of a crime. Same thing for the Ferguson Grand Jury where it really seemed a case of cop self defense.
The grand jury verdict does not get drowned out at all, everybody remembers perfectly well their results. What's in doubt is the good faith of the prosecutors involved in the case. Prosecutors everywhere have quite strong incentives to not antagonize police with which they work closely, so there is quite an enormous conflict of interest in the whole system. The fact that grand juries are typically rubber stamps for prosecutors does more to advance the skepticism of their good faith in these cases than it does to clear the names of the officers involved.
My understanding is that in NY whenever a cop kills someone the DA is required to take the case before a grand jury.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 08:25:58 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
Was the hold the cop did not allowed by the NYC police? When I first saw the video I thought the cop must have been in the wrong. But later I heard that it wasn't the chokehold that had been banned that he used, but basically a take down the cop used.
It may not have been technically a chokehold, but they don't teach you to take people down like that, either.
Do they teach you to shoot a guy with 41 bullets holding a wallet in his hands?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 08:52:24 PM
Do they teach you to shoot a guy with 41 bullets holding a wallet in his hands?
Depends, shithead. You, I'd use 82.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:03:17 PM
In other news, the DA who decided to get the chokehold cop not indicted by the grand jury will likely run for Congress, for the seat vacated by Michael Grimm. Something in this whole business doesn't smell right.
Was the hold the cop did not allowed by the NYC police? When I first saw the video I thought the cop must have been in the wrong. But later I heard that it wasn't the chokehold that had been banned that he used, but basically a take down the cop used. That may not be quite correct because so much noise has come out, and the Grand Jury info and verdict gets drowned out. But a Grand Jury has a very low bar to indict, much lower than a court trial evidence to actually convict someone of a crime. Same thing for the Ferguson Grand Jury where it really seemed a case of cop self defense.
The grand jury verdict does not get drowned out at all, everybody remembers perfectly well their results. What's in doubt is the good faith of the prosecutors involved in the case. Prosecutors everywhere have quite strong incentives to not antagonize police with which they work closely, so there is quite an enormous conflict of interest in the whole system. The fact that grand juries are typically rubber stamps for prosecutors does more to advance the skepticism of their good faith in these cases than it does to clear the names of the officers involved.
Well then, find out if the Grand Juries aren't being done right, if prosecutors hold too much power, rather than this cop hating movement that just undermines the protests. Cops are being targeted now, ambushes, and a lot of hate being directed at the cops.
In the Ferguson case where it all started it seemed pretty clear that the cop acted in self defense. So why did that get so blown up into a cop hating spree? People still protest with "hands up, don't shoot" which apparently never happened.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2014, 09:28:45 PM
Well then, find out if the Grand Juries aren't being done right, if prosecutors hold too much power, rather than this cop hating movement that just undermines the protests.
What people are protesting against is lack of accountability. It only ends with complicit DAs; it starts with fellow cops themselves.
QuoteIn the Ferguson case where it all started it seemed pretty clear that the cop acted in self defense. So why did that get so blown up into a cop hating spree? People still protest with "hands up, don't shoot" which apparently never happened.
It didn't start in Ferguson, that's just when the rage boiled over. It often happens that way, sometimes the incident that pushes things over the edge turns out to be a less than ideal cause celebre. That doesn't automatically negate all the ill will that has been building up for many years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 12:05:50 PM
Right Grab On, racial profiling and arbitrary violence. So either Di Blasio is desperately overegging the profiling pudding (why would his son need to take extra care about being pulled over for driving while black?) or he's accusing the NYPD of brutality towards blacks.
It is my impression that a significant percentage of the Black population of the US is very wary of the police, to the point that law-abiding citizens of those demographics consider "don't ever call the cops under any circumstances" good practical advice, and that humiliation, profiling, and being killed are thought significant risks of interacting with the police. In other words, getting "the talk" (like the one deBlasio gave his son) about how to behave around police to minimize the risk of being killed when they target you due to your race is a pretty common feature of growing up a Black boy; and that it is a common sense response to the facts.
That's my impression, anyhow. Given that, I'm wondering if you think that:
1) That it is inaccurate, and most Black people in the US in fact do not think law-abiding Black men are being unfairly targeted by the police in a biased fashion, nor do they think they are at higher risk of injury and death while interacting with the police? (So deBlasio is misrepresenting how the Black community views the situation)
2) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, but those fears are unfounded - law-abiding Black men in the US are not targeted more frequently, nor are they at greater risk for negative outcomes from interacting with the police, even if they may think so? (So deBlasio is accurately representing how the Black community views the situation, but they are wrong in their perception)
3) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, and those fears are well founded, but it is rude, impolite, or otherwise improper to bring them up? (So deBlasio is accurate and correct, but should not have talked about it)
Well I don't know about "any circumstances" but yes I do think there is a risk inherent with every interaction I have with the police.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
And traffic citations are down 94% for the last week: http://jalopnik.com/traffic-stops-in-new-york-city-just-dropped-an-insane-9-1676382903. :blink: What a bunch of petulant thin-skinned scumbags. Does PBA not realize that they're one publicized drunk-driving mass-casualty accident away from a shit-ton of negative publicity?
I could be wrong, but I've been told that NY cops make huge amounts of money. On Long Island I was told the starting salary is into the 6 figures (I realize that isn't NYC where it is less edit--and checking it seems it depends on experience, but the salaries are pretty high http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/struggling-suffolk-boosts-cops-pay/ ). The job must be far safer than it has been in the past.
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2014, 12:05:50 PM
Right Grab On, racial profiling and arbitrary violence. So either Di Blasio is desperately overegging the profiling pudding (why would his son need to take extra care about being pulled over for driving while black?) or he's accusing the NYPD of brutality towards blacks.
It is my impression that a significant percentage of the Black population of the US is very wary of the police, to the point that law-abiding citizens of those demographics consider "don't ever call the cops under any circumstances" good practical advice, and that humiliation, profiling, and being killed are thought significant risks of interacting with the police. In other words, getting "the talk" (like the one deBlasio gave his son) about how to behave around police to minimize the risk of being killed when they target you due to your race is a pretty common feature of growing up a Black boy; and that it is a common sense response to the facts.
That's my impression, anyhow. Given that, I'm wondering if you think that:
1) That it is inaccurate, and most Black people in the US in fact do not think law-abiding Black men are being unfairly targeted by the police in a biased fashion, nor do they think they are at higher risk of injury and death while interacting with the police? (So deBlasio is misrepresenting how the Black community views the situation)
2) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, but those fears are unfounded - law-abiding Black men in the US are not targeted more frequently, nor are they at greater risk for negative outcomes from interacting with the police, even if they may think so? (So deBlasio is accurately representing how the Black community views the situation, but they are wrong in their perception)
3) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, and those fears are well founded, but it is rude, impolite, or otherwise improper to bring them up? (So deBlasio is accurate and correct, but should not have talked about it)
How about they do have those fears, and there is some basis for having them, but they are overstated by a considerable degree?
Quote from: alfred russel
I could be wrong, but I've been told that NY cops make huge amounts of money. On Long Island I was told the starting salary is into the 6 figures (I realize that isn't NYC where it is less edit--and checking it seems it depends on experience, but the salaries are pretty high http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/struggling-suffolk-boosts-cops-pay/ ). The job must be far safer than it has been in the past.
Why would a high starting salary suggest that the job is safer than it used to be?
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
Does PBA not realize that they're one publicized drunk-driving mass-casualty accident away from a shit-ton of negative publicity?
America works best when we say UNION YES!
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:41:23 PM
Why would a high starting salary suggest that the job is safer than it used to be?
It wouldn't. It is just that crime rates have plummeted in NYC (and elsewhere).
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:41:23 PM
Why would a high starting salary suggest that the job is safer than it used to be?
It wouldn't. It is just that crime rates have plummeted in NYC (and elsewhere).
So you decided to just randomly put two things that have nothing to do with each other together in not just the same post, but the same paragraph?
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:41:23 PMHow about they do have those fears, and there is some basis for having them, but they are overstated by a considerable degree?
So, the Black community has those fears and they have some basis in reality, but let's not get too carried away?
Yeah I guess that's option 2.5) - somewhere between 2) and 3). Fair enough.
I hope the pigs tonight just totally slack off in Times Square. :)
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:41:23 PM
Why would a high starting salary suggest that the job is safer than it used to be?
It wouldn't. It is just that crime rates have plummeted in NYC (and elsewhere).
So you decided to just randomly put two things that have nothing to do with each other together in not just the same post, but the same paragraph?
The intended theme of the paragraph was: NYC cops: quit acting like brats.
I was hoping the reader would get there by putting together the implications of:
Sentence 1 & 2: They make a lot of money
Sentence 3: Their jobs aren't so dangerous
combined with what I quoted from DGuller.
:)
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:28:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
And traffic citations are down 94% for the last week: http://jalopnik.com/traffic-stops-in-new-york-city-just-dropped-an-insane-9-1676382903. :blink: What a bunch of petulant thin-skinned scumbags. Does PBA not realize that they're one publicized drunk-driving mass-casualty accident away from a shit-ton of negative publicity?
I could be wrong, but I've been told that NY cops make huge amounts of money. On Long Island I was told the starting salary is into the 6 figures (I realize that isn't NYC where it is less edit--and checking it seems it depends on experience, but the salaries are pretty high http://nypost.com/2014/02/28/struggling-suffolk-boosts-cops-pay/ ). The job must be far safer than it has been in the past.
You are wrong. Google would be your friend. Starting pay of six figs for a proby, I doubt that.
http://www.nypdrecruit.com/benefits-salary/overview
Quote from: 11B4V on December 31, 2014, 01:57:23 PM
You are wrong. Google would be your friend. Starting pay of six figs for a proby, I doubt that.
http://www.nypdrecruit.com/benefits-salary/overview
$90k after 5.5 years seems rather decent to me. :)
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 01:46:26 PM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2014, 01:41:23 PMHow about they do have those fears, and there is some basis for having them, but they are overstated by a considerable degree?
So, the Black community has those fears and they have some basis in reality, but let's not get too carried away?
Yeah I guess that's option 2.5) - somewhere between 2) and 3). Fair enough.
It's not like they're being lynched anymore, you know. They can vote now!
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:53:20 PM
I was hoping the reader would get there by putting together the implications of:
Sentence 1 & 2: They make a lot of money
Sentence 3: Their jobs aren't so dangerous
combined with what I quoted from DGuller.
:)
Luckily, the reader knows you're talking out of your ass.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:59:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 31, 2014, 01:57:23 PM
You are wrong. Google would be your friend. Starting pay of six figs for a proby, I doubt that.
http://www.nypdrecruit.com/benefits-salary/overview
$90k after 5.5 years seems rather decent to me. :)
That is rather low. Most likely offset by OT however.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 31, 2014, 02:00:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:53:20 PM
I was hoping the reader would get there by putting together the implications of:
Sentence 1 & 2: They make a lot of money
Sentence 3: Their jobs aren't so dangerous
combined with what I quoted from DGuller.
:)
Luckily, the reader knows you're talking out of your ass.
To make sure the reader understood that, I prefaced sentence 1 with "i could be wrong" and remarked in sentence 2 "I was told that". :)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-benefits-of-fewer-nypd-arrests/384126/
Quote...
NYPD officers and union leaders have been at odds with Mayor Bill de Blasio in the wake of the Eric Garner case and the killings of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos this month. In their latest move, officers have begun a "virtual work stoppage" throughout the city by making fewer low-level arrests and issuing fewer citations. The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, New York's largest police union, urged its members not to make arrests "unless absolutely necessary," according to the New York Post's report.
Although safety is cited as the reason for the police union's move, political considerations are central. "This is not a slowdown for slowdown's sake," a police source told the Post. "Cops are concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them." The NYPD slowdown also comes amid protracted contract negotiations between police unions and the mayor's office.
The Post, which enthusiastically championed the NYPD during this year's turmoil, portrayed this slowdown in near-apocalyptic terms—an early headline for the article above even read "Crime wave engulfs New York following execution of cops." But the police union's phrasing—officers shouldn't make arrests "unless absolutely necessary"—begs the question: How many unnecessary arrests was the NYPD making before now?
Policing quality doesn't necessarily increase with policing quantity, as New York's experience with stop-and-frisk demonstrated. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg asserted that the controversial tactic of warrantless street searches "keeps New York City safe." De Blasio ended the program soon after succeeding him, citing its discriminatory impact on black and Hispanic residents. Stop-and-frisk incidents plunged from 685,724 stops in 2011 to just 38,456 in the first three-quarters of 2014 as a result. If stop-and-frisk had caused the ongoing decline in New York's crime rate, its near-absence would logically halt or even reverse that trend. But the city seems to be doing just fine without it: Crime rates are currently at two-decade lows, with homicide down 7 percent and robberies down 14 percent since 2013.
The slowdown also challenges the fundamental tenets of broken-windows policing, a controversial strategy championed by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton. According to the theory, which first came to prominence in a 1982 article in The Atlantic, "quality-of-life" crimes like vandalism and vagrancy help normalize criminal behavior in neighborhoods and precede more violent offenses. Tackling these low-level offenses therefore helps prevent future ones. The theory's critics dispute its effectiveness and contend that broken-windows policing simply criminalizes the young, the poor, and the homeless.
Public drinking and urination may be unseemly, but they're hardly threats to life, liberty, or public order. (The Post also noted a decline in drug arrests, but their comparison of 2013 and 2014 rates is misleading. The mayor's office announced in November that police would stop making arrests for low-level marijuana possession and issue tickets instead. Even before the slowdown began, marijuana-related arrests had declined by 61 percent.) If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?
The human implications of this question are immense. Fewer arrests for minor crimes logically means fewer people behind bars for minor crimes. Poorer would-be defendants benefit the most; three-quarters of those sitting in New York jails are only there because they can't afford bail. Fewer New Yorkers will also be sent to Rikers Island, where endemic brutality against inmates has led to resignations, arrests, and an imminent federal civil-rights intervention over the past six months. A brush with the American criminal-justice system can be toxic for someone's socioeconomic and physical health.
The NYPD might benefit from fewer unnecessary arrests, too. Tensions between the mayor and the police unions originally intensified after a grand jury failed to indict a NYPD officer for the chokehold death of Eric Garner during an arrest earlier this year. Garner's arrest wasn't for murder or arson or bank robbery, but on suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes—hardly the most serious of crimes. Maybe the NYPD's new "absolutely necessary" standard for arrests would have produced a less tragic outcome for Garner then. Maybe it will for future Eric Garners too.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/nypd-slowdown-arrests-de-blasio-union-chief
QuoteNYPD work slowdown not official but 'understandable', says union president
A reported work slowdown by NYPD officers has not been sanctioned by one of the city's largest police unions, the Detectives' Endowment Association (DEA). However, its president calls the move "quite understandable".
Arrest rates in New York City fell by 66% year-on-year for the week starting 22 December, according to the New York Post. This decrease has been attributed to disgruntled police officers frustrated with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who remains at odds with police union chiefs following the fatal shooting of two NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, in Brooklyn last week.
DEA president Michael Palladino told the Guardian that "no work stoppage has been sanctioned by the unions", but added as officers were now "targets for execution" it was "enough to make anyone hesitate regardless of your profession".
...
I've heard suggestions that deBlasio could do pretty well to run on "I reduced pointless and expensive traffic tickets by 94%" and that many New Yorkers are in fact not upset that the NYPD is doing less arrests for minor offences.
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
I've heard suggestions that deBlasio could do pretty well to run on "I reduced pointless and expensive traffic tickets by 94%" and that many New Yorkers are in fact not upset that the NYPD is doing less arrests for minor offences.
Depends on how long you think that will last.
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
I've heard suggestions that deBlasio could do pretty well to run on "I reduced pointless and expensive traffic tickets by 94%" and that many New Yorkers are in fact not upset that the NYPD is doing less arrests for minor offences.
I think the only thing that could change that is if we do see an uptick in other crimes a la what the broken windows theory would suggest.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2014, 02:38:07 PM
I think the only thing that could change that is if we do see an uptick in other crimes a la what the broken windows theory would suggest.
I'm thinking we won't, but it remains to be seen.
On the other hand, the police is saying they're still responding to significant crimes so an uptick will presumably be dealt with adequately.
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2014, 02:38:07 PM
I think the only thing that could change that is if we do see an uptick in other crimes a la what the broken windows theory would suggest.
I'm thinking we won't, but it remains to be seen.
On the other hand, the police is saying they're still responding to significant crimes so an uptick will presumably be dealt with adequately.
Yeah, I suppose we'll see.
I'm not sure how you can deal adequately with an increase in homicides, for example. :P
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
I've heard suggestions that deBlasio could do pretty well to run on "I reduced pointless and expensive traffic tickets by 94%" and that many New Yorkers are in fact not upset that the NYPD is doing less arrests for minor offences.
That may well be the case for most of the minor arrests and tickets, but traffic enforcement is no joke. NYC drivers are bad enough and reckless enough as it is; if you send a message out there that the roads are unregulated raceways, tragedies can happen on a scale much bigger than what the cops are "fearful" of.
Quote from: derspiess on December 31, 2014, 02:37:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
I've heard suggestions that deBlasio could do pretty well to run on "I reduced pointless and expensive traffic tickets by 94%" and that many New Yorkers are in fact not upset that the NYPD is doing less arrests for minor offences.
Depends on how long you think that will last.
Yeah, I'm sure the NYPD will stop that if they think it's making the mayor more popular :lol:
Though, I suppose, that could be seen as backing down... if it turns out their action is to stop most pointless hassling and people are mostly happy about it, I'm not sure what their next winning move is from that position.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2014, 02:38:07 PM
I think the only thing that could change that is if we do see an uptick in other crimes a la what the broken windows theory would suggest.
I don't think this will last long enough to validate or invalidate that theory.
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
It is my impression that a significant percentage of the Black population of the US is very wary of the police, to the point that law-abiding citizens of those demographics consider "don't ever call the cops under any circumstances" good practical advice, and that humiliation, profiling, and being killed are thought significant risks of interacting with the police. In other words, getting "the talk" (like the one deBlasio gave his son) about how to behave around police to minimize the risk of being killed when they target you due to your race is a pretty common feature of growing up a Black boy; and that it is a common sense response to the facts.
That's my impression, anyhow. Given that, I'm wondering if you think that:
1) That it is inaccurate, and most Black people in the US in fact do not think law-abiding Black men are being unfairly targeted by the police in a biased fashion, nor do they think they are at higher risk of injury and death while interacting with the police? (So deBlasio is misrepresenting how the Black community views the situation)
2) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, but those fears are unfounded - law-abiding Black men in the US are not targeted more frequently, nor are they at greater risk for negative outcomes from interacting with the police, even if they may think so? (So deBlasio is accurately representing how the Black community views the situation, but they are wrong in their perception)
3) Most Black people in the US do in fact have those fears, and those fears are well founded, but it is rude, impolite, or otherwise improper to bring them up? (So deBlasio is accurate and correct, but should not have talked about it)
#2 is probably closest to my opinion, though I'm not totally clear on why my opinion is relevant. Presumably we're talking about a dispute between the mayor NYC and its police department.
I say closest because "negative outcomes" covers a huge amount of territory. It's not disputed that blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately targeted under Bloomberg's stop and frisk policy, presumably because they live disproportionately in high crime areas. But then I again, as I've already mentioned, I don't see how Di Blasio's advice to his son is warranted if the "negative outcome" in question is a stop and frisk, or being pulled over while driving.
Di Blasio wants to ban horse-drawn carriages.
It was a campaign promise.
Putting horses out of work. :mad:
That's what they get for not having a union.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2014, 01:59:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 31, 2014, 01:57:23 PM
You are wrong. Google would be your friend. Starting pay of six figs for a proby, I doubt that.
http://www.nypdrecruit.com/benefits-salary/overview
$90k after 5.5 years seems rather decent to me. :)
Hell of a lot better than the military pay scale. And we don't get overtime either.
With all that NYC actually needs, and this ass-clown campaigned on banning the tourist horse drawn carriages? :huh:
He wants to replace them with vintage taxi cabs which cost 170K. :huh:
Some speculation that the ulterior motive is to snatch the prime real estate the stables are on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 04:06:47 PM
Some speculation that the ulterior motive is to snatch the prime real estate the stables are on.
There's got to be an ulterior motive. Horse-drawn carriages are one of the big "romantic" things to do in New York, besides kissing atop the Empire State Building and pissing in the subway. What's he planning on doing next, trying to outlaw
When Harry Met Sally?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2014, 03:46:15 PM
#2 is probably closest to my opinion, though I'm not totally clear on why my opinion is relevant. Presumably we're talking about a dispute between the mayor NYC and its police department.
I say closest because "negative outcomes" covers a huge amount of territory. It's not disputed that blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately targeted under Bloomberg's stop and frisk policy, presumably because they live disproportionately in high crime areas. But then I again, as I've already mentioned, I don't see how Di Blasio's advice to his son is warranted if the "negative outcome" in question is a stop and frisk, or being pulled over while driving.
I'm a bit surprised at you Yi. Seriously. I thought you libertarian aspect would bothered by unwarranted stop and frisk and being pulled over without just cause.
Maybe you should withhold the majority of your surprise until *after* I've expressed an opinion about stop and frisk.
Then perhaps you should, as your post gave the impression you didn't think it was a big deal.
I should express an opinion, because you thought I already did?
Quote from: KRonn on January 01, 2015, 03:53:27 PM
With all that NYC actually needs, and this ass-clown campaigned on banning the tourist horse drawn carriages? :huh:
Politicians make many different promises. Given the mistreatment of horses in the city, I don't see what is so terrible about it.
Of course you are probably just posting out of your ass again. Do you even have any idea what New York needs?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 04:06:47 PM
Some speculation that the ulterior motive is to snatch the prime real estate the stables are on.
There's got to be an ulterior motive. Horse-drawn carriages are one of the big "romantic" things to do in New York, besides kissing atop the Empire State Building and pissing in the subway. What's he planning on doing next, trying to outlaw When Harry Met Sally?
There is nothing romantic about a horse drawn carriage ride in NYC.
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
There is nothing romantic about a horse drawn carriage ride in NYC.
Are you saying the movies LIED to us? :blink:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 01, 2015, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
There is nothing romantic about a horse drawn carriage ride in NYC.
Are you saying the movies LIED to us? :blink:
That's unpossible.
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2015, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 01, 2015, 03:53:27 PM
With all that NYC actually needs, and this ass-clown campaigned on banning the tourist horse drawn carriages? :huh:
Politicians make many different promises. Given the mistreatment of horses in the city, I don't see what is so terrible about it.
Of course you are probably just posting out of your ass again. Do you even have any idea what New York needs?
Yeah right, out of my ass. Lol. I'm sure the honorable Mayah could pass laws for the treatment of the horses instead of shutting down a tourist tradition in NYC. And he is an ass clown, as a left wing nut, just as a right wing nut would be also an ass clown.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 06:50:39 PM
I should express an opinion, because you thought I already did?
It's called "clarification".
No it's not. Clarification is when you explain a position that was originally stated with in an ambiguous or confusing manner.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 06:50:39 PM
I should express an opinion, because you thought I already did?
I also had gained that impression
You two fuckers are drunk. How did you get that out of his statement?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 01, 2015, 09:32:33 PM
You two fuckers are drunk. How did you get that out of his statement?
Holiday season over - Languish - normal service resumes. :cool:
Quote from: KRonn on January 01, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 01, 2015, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 01, 2015, 03:53:27 PM
With all that NYC actually needs, and this ass-clown campaigned on banning the tourist horse drawn carriages? :huh:
Politicians make many different promises. Given the mistreatment of horses in the city, I don't see what is so terrible about it.
Of course you are probably just posting out of your ass again. Do you even have any idea what New York needs?
Yeah right, out of my ass. Lol. I'm sure the honorable Mayah could pass laws for the treatment of the horses instead of shutting down a tourist tradition in NYC. And he is an ass clown, as a left wing nut, just as a right wing nut would be also an ass clown.
So like I assumed you have no knowledge of new York's issues around them. Carry on then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2015, 04:06:47 PM
Some speculation that the ulterior motive is to snatch the prime real estate the stables are on.
There's got to be an ulterior motive. Horse-drawn carriages are one of the big "romantic" things to do in New York, besides kissing atop the Empire State Building and pissing in the subway. What's he planning on doing next, trying to outlaw When Harry Met Sally?
Don't fuck with Mr. Zero.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2014, 10:39:10 PM
While he said that what the officers did was very inappropriate but that it is an expression of how some are currently feeling. He also had this bit:
Quote"This is about the continuing poverty rates, the continuing growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor," he said. "It's about unemployment issues. There are so many national issues that have to be addressed that it isn't just policing, as I think we all well know."
which while those are certainly issues in our country that cause frustration, they have little to do with the frustration with the police - and more importantly issues with the police in New York.
I think that they actually tie together. After all, if it wasn't for the increasing disparity between the losers and the winners, there wouldn't be much support for the sort of tactics that the police have been adopting in recent years. People are scarred and looking to hold onto what they have. They're willing to allow the police to behave badly if that's what it takes.
So police commissioner told cops not to turn their backs on mayor at funeral for 2nd police officer. Some police still went and did so. Time for some firings? <_<
Notwithstanding the probability that the police contract(s) don't include back turning as a cause for firing, it's generally frowned upon in the US to fire civil servants for expressing disagreement with an elected official's political positions.
I've changed my mind on this because I've heard that apparently the family did ask for no protests by police at the (first) funeral. I don't think it's some terrible threat to democracy but I think the police should've respected the family's wishes :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 12:24:22 PM
Notwithstanding the probability that the police contract(s) don't include back turning as a cause for firing, it's generally frowned upon in the US to fire civil servants for expressing disagreement with an elected official's political positions.
I think this goes beyond expressing disagreement with the mayor's political positions and into the territory of expressing contempt for him personally.
And beyond that, I think it's unintentionally rather disrespectful towards the fallen officers as well.
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2015, 01:57:04 PM
I think this goes beyond expressing disagreement with the mayor's political positions and into the territory of expressing contempt for him personally.
Not that I necessarily agree with you, but should that be a firing offense in your opinion?
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2015, 01:57:04 PM
I think this goes beyond expressing disagreement with the mayor's political positions and into the territory of expressing contempt for him personally.
And that's just the public stuff. Imagine how they treat you on the inside if they don't like you. Yay for cop culture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 02:33:03 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2015, 01:57:04 PM
I think this goes beyond expressing disagreement with the mayor's political positions and into the territory of expressing contempt for him personally.
Not that I necessarily agree with you, but should that be a firing offense in your opinion?
Insolence is usually a firing offense, especially when it's part of a pattern rather than a one-off meltdown episode.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
Insolence is usually a firing offense, especially when it's part of a pattern rather than a one-off meltdown episode.
I doubt there's many cops who have had multiple opportunities to diss the mayor. Also, it doesn't seem very clear if he's their boss or not.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
Insolence is usually a firing offense, especially when it's part of a pattern rather than a one-off meltdown episode.
Like that displayed by the teachers of Wisconsin and New Jersey?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2015, 03:56:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
Insolence is usually a firing offense, especially when it's part of a pattern rather than a one-off meltdown episode.
Like that displayed by the teachers of Wisconsin and New Jersey?
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 04, 2015, 12:26:40 PM
I've changed my mind on this because I've heard that apparently the family did ask for no protests by police at the (first) funeral. I don't think it's some terrible threat to democracy but I think the police should've respected the family's wishes :(
This right here, if that's the case, is why those NYPD officers are obstinate unprofessional fucks. "They" should have respected the family's wishs. POS.
Quote
Police chief's anti-racism sign lauded, criticized
PITTSBURGH (AP) — Pittsburgh's new police chief is being praised by the mayor but criticized by a police union president for being photographed on New Year's Eve holding a sign that says: "I resolve to challenge racism @ work."
The sign also has a Twitter hash tag that says "# end white silence." Chief Cameron McLay was photographed holding up the sign that someone had brought to the city's annual First Night celebration.
Mayor Bill Peduto said he saw the picture on social media and liked it so much he re-posted it on his own Facebook page.
"I thought, 'What a great way to begin the new year,'" said the first-year mayor, who hired McLay in September.
Peduto said he believes the chief was simply recognizing that racism exists and acknowledging there's work to be done restoring trust between the city's police and the black community.
But Fraternal Order of Police president Howard McQuillan said the sign paints city police as racists and violates a policy governing police participation in social media. McQuillan took issue with the mayor's previous comments criticizing the police and saying departmental reforms were needed, and fired off an email to the mayor, which the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Sunday.
"By Mayor Peduto labeling us 'corrupt and mediocre' and now our current Chief insinuating that we are now racist, merely by the color of our skin and the nature of our profession, I say enough is enough!" the email said.
In an email to the union, McLay apologized if he offended officers but defended his posing with the sign, saying it was a "statistical fact" that policing efforts have "a disparate impact on communities of color."
"The predominant pattern of our city's increased violence involves black victims as well as actors," wrote the police chief, who is white. "If we are to address this violence, we must work together with our communities of color."
The brouhaha over the photo comes as the city continues to grapple with incidents that have angered blacks in the city.
McLay last month put Officer David Derbish on desk duty while the U.S. Justice Department reviews the officer's shooting of a black motorist, 21-year-old Leon Ford, who was left paralyzed after a 2012 traffic stop.
Ford, who is suing the city in federal court, was acquitted in September of aggravated assault for allegedly endangering officers by driving away from the stop. Ford contends in his lawsuit that officers apparently thought he was a wanted gang member but refused to believe they had the wrong person even after he gave them various pieces of identification. Ford contends he didn't try to flee, but that his car was knocked into gear as officers tried to yank him from the vehicle.
The Allegheny County district attorney has yet to decide whether Ford will be retried on lesser remaining charges, prompting protests and causing Ford's name to be mentioned in recent marches and other demonstrations relating to the shooting of an unarmed black man by police in Ferguson, Missouri.
McQuillan told the chief in his email that the poor morale among officers needs to be addressed and is made worse by "pandering to the community at the expense of the police community."
In his email, McLay pledged to meet with commanders of the city's police patrol zones "to talk these tough issues through."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fmcclay-facebook-257x345.jpg&hash=cfc131e55eef5ca0e3dde589e2fec509a31470c8)
#hashtagssolveproblems
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2015, 09:19:38 AM
#hashtagssolveproblems
Well they certainly make it easier for the media to latch onto a story. :)
#bokoharamiswinning
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2015, 09:37:45 AM
#bokoharamiswinning
Well yes that is related to one hashtag that annoyed you.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2015, 09:39:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2015, 09:37:45 AM
#bokoharamiswinning
Well yes that is related to one hashtag that annoyed you.
You're not going to win with white people from Ohio.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-union-pushes-for-cops-to-be-included-in-federal-hate-crimes-law-183729328.html
QuotePolice union pushes for cop killings to be included in federal hate crimes law
In the wake of the murder of two New York City police officers and a national debate about policing, the National Fraternal Order of Police is asking for the Congressional hate crimes statute to be expanded to include crimes against police officers. The union has more than 300,000 members.
Violence against police officers that is motivated by anti-police bias should be prosecuted as a hate crime, the nation's largest police union is arguing in a letter to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders this week.
"Right now, it's a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their skin, but it ought to be a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their uniform as well," said Jim Pasco, the executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.
"Enough is enough! It's time for Congress to do something to protect the men and women who protect us," Chuck Canterbury, the president of the union, said in a statement Monday. The group has long lobbied for harsher punishment for those who harm law enforcement officers.
The organization argues that "ambush attacks" — like the one in which NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were killed last month — are frequently motivated by hatred of the police. According to FBI statistics, about 21.7 percent of non-accidental law enforcement deaths since 2004 were ambush attacks.
In general, the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty has declined since the 1970s, reflecting the fall of violent crime in the United States in general. It's not clear who in Congress would take up the union's call to introduce such legislation. In the past, Democrats such as Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Republicans such as Peter King of New York have sponsored union-backed bills.
A hate crime is defined by Congress as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." If local authorities decline to prosecute a hate crime, the federal government can take over, making hate crime offenders more likely to face prosecution.
Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who shot himself after killing the NYPD officers last month, posted anti-police messages on social media before carrying out the ambush. His is the kind of crime the union hopes to prevent by classifying it as a hate crime.
The 1969 federal hate crimes statute has been expanded before. Sexual orientation and disability were added to the law by Congress in 2009 after lengthy lobbying efforts by LGBT groups.
According to FBI statistics, the majority of hate crimes are motivated by racial bias.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-writing-tickets-making-arrests-de-blasio-article-1.2066294
QuoteDe Blasio speaks out about NYPD cops' back-turning at officers' funeral: 'They were disrespectful to the families'
'I think it defies a lot of what we all feel is the right and decent thing to do,' the embattled Mayor said Monday during a press conference in which he and police Commissioner Bratton touted a 4.6% drop in crime citywide in 2014. Ironically, the number of summonses issued during the week ending Sunday dropped more than 90% compared to last year in a work slowdown as part of the rank-and-file's continued protest against de Blasio over perceived anti-cop sentiments.
Mayor de Blasio gave the cops who turned their backs on him a good smack Monday.
Speaking for the first time about the public dissing he endured at the funerals of hero cops Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, de Blasio said "they were disrespectful to the families involved."
"I can't understand why anyone would do such a thing in the context like that," an angry de Blasio said. "And I think it defies a lot of what we all feel is the right and decent thing to do."
"I also think they were disrespectful to the people of this city, who in fact honor the work of the NYPD," he added.
De Blasio declined to dwell on some of the sharpest barbs that have been hurled at him, particularly from Patrolmen's Benevolent Association boss Patrick Lynch.
Lynch earlier accused the mayor of having "blood on the hands" after Ramos and Liu were murdered.
"My feelings don't matter here," de Blasio said. "What matters is the people of this city who I think expect more from all leaders than those kind of unfair and inaccurate statements."
"Obviously it was a totally inappropriate statement, totally inaccurate. It's evident. So I'll leave it at that."
De Blasio was followed by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who branded as "selfish" the hundreds of officers who turned their backs on de Blasio at the Liu funeral on Sunday.
"I share the mayor's concern about the idea of what's effectively a labor action being taken in the middle of a funeral," he said. "I think we need to focus much more on the vast majority who did what was expected rather than the few who embarrassed themselves and effectively took so much attention, so much attention."
Deeply upset, Bratton lamented that the front pages of The Daily News and other newspapers "focused on them, the selfishness of that action, the selfishness of it."
"The funeral is no place for that," he said. "Come demonstrate outside City Hall. Come demonstrate outside police headquarters, but don't put on your uniform and go to a funeral and engage in a political action."
Bratton had explicitly asked officers not to engage in a repeat of the back-turning that hundreds of cops had done earlier earlier at the Ramos funeral. But hundreds defied Bratton anyway.
In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said President Obama has got Bratton's back.
"The part of Commissioner Bratton's letter I think that resonates most strongly here at the White House is that those who are attending those funerals are there to pay their respect for the service and sacrifice of the two officers who were being laid to rest," Earnest said. "And certainly the President believes that their service and their sacrifice is worthy of celebration and respect and should be afforded all the outward symbols of the honor that they've been given."
...
Meanwhile all of this has made this a national story. Hopefully it is unrelated and they'll be okay. :(
http://news.yahoo.com/nypd--2-officers-shot-in-the-bronx-042649723.html
QuoteTwo police officers were shot in the Bronx Monday night, the New York Police Department confirmed Monday night.
Details of the shooting and the condition of the two cops were not immediately known, the department said.
The incident occurred in the Fordham section of the Bronx at 184th and Teibout Avenue and police are still searching for a suspect.
Local New York City television news outlets reported the officers were rushed to St. Barnabas Medical Center and that their injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.
WNBC in New York reported one officer was shot in the back, but is believed to have been wearing a bullet proof vest that may have saved his life while the second officer suffered a graze wound to the elbow.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/09/bratton-confirms-nypd-slowdown-says-officers-returning-to-normal-work/
Experiment: over
QuoteBratton confirms NYPD slowdown, says officers returning to normal work
William J. Bratton, the New York City police commissioner, confirmed that NYPD officers have been engaging in a work slowdown, resulting in a drop in the number of arrests and summonses.
"Quite clearly, we're in a slowdown," Bratton said in an interview with NPR. "It is being corrected."
Bratton said that the department has been working to identify where and when this is taking place, but added that officers on the street are beginning to return to the work they did before the slowdown began late last month.
"I think the officers themselves have on their own been beginning to return to normal patterns of work, so we're coming out of what was a pretty widespread stoppage of certain types of activity," he said.
Police had been making far fewer arrests in recent weeks and handing out far fewer summonses for minor crimes. The drops have been substantial, with some precincts going a week without handing out a single ticket. This has occurred as the highly-public rift between New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and some police officers has only worsened. During the funerals for the two NYPD officers gunned down while sitting in their squad car last month, officers turned their backs on de Blasio while he spoke.
During a joint news conference Monday to trumpet the city's drop in crime last year, de Blasio and Bratton criticized these protests for drawing attention away from the officers being honored. At the same news conference, the two men downplayed the slowdown, saying it was too soon to draw conclusions about what was going on.
Bratton said the drop in arrests and other law enforcement activities could have been due to the holiday season, mourning for the two fallen officers or a number of other explanations. But he vowed Monday to figure out what was going on, saying that he would look "precinct by precinct, tour of duty by tour of duty, sector car by sector car, officer by officer" if necessary.
"We will deal with it very appropriately if we have to," he said.
Well this is an encouraging piece of news. Could be Mr. Union Man has overplayed the political hay he was trying to make.
http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/screaming-match-breaks-out-between-cops-union-head-over-de-blasio/
QuoteScreaming match erupts between cops, union head over de Blasio
Tempers exploded among the NYPD's rank-and-file yesterday when insurgent PBA members blasted union President Pat Lynch for demanding an apology from Mayor de Blasio instead of focusing on the safety of officers.
During an "open mike"session near the end of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association's monthly meeting, one union delegate said that what cops really needed were new patrol cars, better computers, updated bulletproof vests and more manpower, sources told The Post.
"I don't care if the mayor apologizes or not, I just care about safety!" the delegate yelled, according to a source.
On Monday, an exclusive Post report revealed how most NYPD cops are wearing body armor that should have been replaced years ago because the warranties have expired.
Lynch has demanded an apology from de Blasio for a lack of support in the aftermath of the Eric Garner grand-jury decision, particularly when the mayor announced that he had told his mixed-race son, Dante, to be wary of cops.
All-out dissention erupted following the delegate's outburst Tuesday, and the meeting of roughly 400 cops degenerated into a shouting match, another source said.
In a statement released afterward, Lynch tried to downplay the incident at Antun's catering hall in Queens Village, blaming "a few agitators." Lynch also vowed to "continue to voice the serious concerns of New York City police officers to this administration at City Hall and Police Plaza and not be distracted by sideshows.
"The frustration with the mayor's policies and concerns for safety continues to be expressed by our members," he added.
"They are rightly angered by the lack of support from City Hall, the dangerous lack of staffing, the lack of proper equipment to deal with the lethal environment we face and the reinstituted quota policies and retaliation against police officers who fail to meet them."
But another source, who called the meeting a "blowout," said: "Patty is losing control of the union. That's the bottom line."
Also Tuesday, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton took a shot at Lynch over the war of words with de Blasio, which Bratton called "unfortunate" and "inappropriate."
"My relationship with Pat is both a personal and a professional one," Bratton told PBS's "Charlie Rose" show. "Do I agree with everything he's doing? Certainly not. And I think in this instance that I'd certainly trust my concerns about it."
Wonder when the next union election is.
And the fucker caves. Though perhaps he is just demonstrating the proper deferential behavior that residents of the city should adopt when dealing with the NYPD.
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-mayor-takes-tact-latest-grand-jury-decision-152640080.html
QuoteNYC mayor takes new tack after latest grand jury decision
Eric Garner and Akai Gurley were black men killed by New York City police officers. Although both deaths provoked anger in the city's minority communities and renewed debate about policing in the nation's largest city, the grand juries in each case brought different outcomes, with one officer indicted, one not.
And there was another striking difference: the public reactions from Mayor Bill de Blasio.
De Blasio was emotional and pained in December after a grand jury declined to indict an officer for placing Garner in a fatal chokehold, but he was cool and restrained last week when the officer who shot Gurley in a darkened stairwell was charged with manslaughter. That measured response may have helped the mayor maintain the uneasy truce he has struck with a police force that recently rebelled against him.
"The change in strategy implies the mayor may be trying to avoid fallout similar to the prior incident," said Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political science professor. "If his previous response was judged to be problematic, the mayor may be learning from what he perceives to be mistakes."
Garner's death last July was captured on cellphone video shown around the world. It included his repeated cries of "I can't breathe!" after Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who is white, wrapped Garner in a chokehold. Police maintain it was a legal takedown maneuver.
When the grand jury on Staten Island, the city's only majority white borough, declined to indict Pantaleo on Dec. 3, it reignited a rage that had been simmering since a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, declined to charge a white officer in the shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old.
The moment was precarious for de Blasio, who enjoyed the support of the city's African-American community and centered his administration on mending relations between the nation's largest police force and the communities of color.
With protests breaking out across the city, he traveled that night to a small church on Staten Island where the Garner family worshipped and addressed the moment by saying he understood black families' despair, framing it in the context of his own biracial teenage son.
"I've had to worry over the years, (my wife) Chirlane has had to worry: Is Dante safe each night?" he said. "And not just from some of the painful realities of crime and violence in some of our neighborhoods but safe from the very people they want to have faith in as their protectors."
Two weeks later, when a man who had ranted online about Garner and Brown killed two city police officers, de Blasio's words were held against him by police union leaders, who blamed him for creating an anti-New York Police Department sentiment they believe led to the killings. Patrick Lynch, head of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association, said the mayor had "blood on his hands," and officers turned their backs to de Blasio repeatedly.
After weeks of tension, the rift faded, in part because public opinion turned against the police as de Blasio took the high road, largely refusing to criticize the union leaders.
That peace was endangered Feb. 10 when a Brooklyn grand jury indicted Officer Peter Liang, who is Asian-American, for shooting Gurley in a housing project stairwell. As minority activists applauded the indictment, police union leaders, who had called the shooting accidental, were quick to urge that Liang receive a fair day in court.
With his relations with police again in the spotlight, de Blasio took a very different tack than he did two months prior.
Instead of an emotional speech, his press office put out a three-sentence statement in which the mayor "urged everyone to respect the judicial process as it unfolds."
The next day, de Blasio faced reporters and was careful not to say anything that could appear to antagonize the police or share in any satisfaction that minority communities may have felt about the indictment. He again deferred to the judicial process, warned against comparing the two cases and noted that the Garner case was particularly painful "because people watched every second of his death."
His aides dismissed the notion that de Blasio changed tactics because he was second-guessing his comments after Garner's death.
"He calibrates according to context and circumstances while always steadfast to the core principles of public safety and reform," Peter Ragone, a senior adviser to de Blasio, said Monday.
The police unions, to this point, have declined to comment further. Liang could face up to 15 years in prison.
Wrong cop got indicted as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Chokehold should be doing time. Officer Panic McClusterfuck should be fired for his accidental discharge and have to deal with the wrongful death suit for many years.
Why is that caving? There seems to be no disagreement about the facts, nor does there seem to be a disagreement between facts and the grand jury decision. It really was an accident, so what is there to be outraged about?