Two NYC Cops Shot In Ambush

[DonnieNarco]

It does not seem like letting people protest or talking to Al Sharpton is turning a back on anyone.

 

[kmoose]

The mayor's job is to run the city, not to be a cheerleader for the police.

For someone who is obviously as big a college football fan as you appear to be, I am just ASTOUNDED by the ignorance of this statement. That's like saying that the Head Football Coach's job is to coach the team, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything stupid he says at fundraiser or other public event.

But, for the record, I never said that he should cheerlead for the team. I merely said that I felt that the police were using the publicity of the deaths to call attention to what they felt was a lack of support.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

It does not seem like letting people protest or talking to Al Sharpton is turning a back on anyone.

Clearly you're not seeing the point that I'm trying to make so im not going to respond to this anymore. It's not allowing the protests that is the problem. It's what they are being forced to allow to happen under order not to intervene. And talking to Al Sharpton that is the problem, it's the fact that he is allowed to lecture your police commissioner with his questionable past that infuriates them. Are you actually being serious here? I feel like I'm being punked. Look up Tawana Brawley. You'll know all you need to about the reverend Al.

 

[kmoose]

It does not seem like letting people protest or talking to Al Sharpton is turning a back on anyone.

Letting people take over a major road and shout "What do we want? DEAD COPS!! When do we want them? RIGHT NOW!!!!" could be construed as turning your back on the cops.

 

[DonnieNarco]

It's about opening a dialogue and like it or not Al Sharpton does have some pull. While I do not believe he represents the will of the people, he has connections that can get him places. If he only brought in Sharpton I could see the problem.

I don't know how De Blasio would be able to stop what people chant. I do not know how many people were chanting that but taking away a 1st Amendment right and silencing protest over what someone was saying is not the right way to go about it, in my opinion. That would be like taking away guns from all New York police officers after the one shot the man in the stairwell.

 

[kmoose]

I don't know how De Blasio would be able to stop what people chant. I do not know how many people were chanting that but taking away a 1st Amendment right and silencing protest over what someone was saying is not the right way to go about it, in my opinion. That would be like taking away guns from all New York police officers after the one shot the man in the stairwell.

It's not so much about what they chanted, but the platform they were given to do it from. As Guliani said, you don't let them take over a city street and march right down the middle of it chanting for dead cops. You make them gather in smaller groups on the sidewalks or in parks. You let them speak their mind, but not in such a manner that the police department feels like you did absolutely NOTHING to at least minimize the effect.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Streets are traditional public forums for free speech. It would be unconstitutional to say protests could not occur there. While permits can be needed for planned protests, reaction to recent news gives people the protection to use the streets for a protest.

 

[Old North State Irish]

I also don't really understand what De Blasio should have done differently. Didn't he just say he told his son how to act around police to cause as little trouble for himself as possible? Isn't that what every parent does?

I agree that this was not the day for the officers to silently protest but they have had enough. Please don't read anything into my response as I am as even minded as they come but I would like to make a few comments. We as humans will never agree in unity on everything but here are my thoughts.

1. That is not accurate that the mayor simply had a talk with a son about acting right around the police. He did an interview on national tv and stated that he has had multiple talks with his son about the dangers of simply being black while in the presence of the police. This was to insinuate that the police ARE racist as a whole. Just as the president, first lady and AG Eric Holder each held pressers on a national stage dialing up racial divide (during the previous couple of weeks). This is a messaging brand that they as a political faction have chosen to stir up.
2. The NYPD made well in excess of 200,000 misdemeanor arrest this year in witch tens of thousands involving the use of hands on force. There was one death as a result of these arrest. You MUST have two things happen in order for bad things to come out of an encounter with the police. You must first have a person committing a crime and you must have a person who is actively resisting arrest.
3. Why where the police there in the police dealing with EG? Because the Mayor's Office had sent out a memorandum to the police (city wide), directing them to tamp down on the illicit sale of "loose" cigarettes because of the loss of tax revenue coming in to the city.
4. Does anyone in their right mind think that this group of officers wanted this man to die? I should hope not. Yes his death was ruled a homicide by the coroner because he died in a homicidal manner. He did not commit suicide, he dies in a physical altercation with another human being(s) (i.e. the police). Just like in Furgeson, his death is homicide because the officer rightfully so-shot and killed him. The NY coroner stated:
"Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined" He also stated that pressure on his neck and chest also contributed to his death.
5. I hate like hell that Mr. Garner died. He should not have died on this day but he was also a habitual criminal and another sole lost to the underbelly of society (no job, no education, etc).
6. All over this nation on a daily basis since Ferguson, police are being singled out simply because of the uniform that they wear. Some folks like this fact but the vast majority of our citizens do not. I watch my back and have not changed in one way the manner in which I do my job.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Banning protests in the street would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test established in multiple Supreme Court cases because it would not be the least restrictive mean of silencing speech that makes a clear and present danger, like that chant would most likely be interpreted as.

 

[gkIrish]

Streets are traditional public forums for free speech. It would be unconstitutional to say protests could not occur there. While permits can be needed for planned protests, reaction to recent news gives people the protection to use the streets for a protest.

False. The Constitution doesn't allow protesters to block traffic just because they are reacting to recent news.

 

[DonnieNarco]

I agree that this was not the day for the officers to silently protest but they have had enough. Please don't read anything into my response as I am as even minded as they come but I would like to make a few comments. We as humans will never agree in unity on everything but here are my thoughts.

1. That is not accurate that the mayor simply had a talk with a son about acting right around the police. He did an interview on national tv and stated that he has had multiple talks with his son about the dangers of simply being black while in the presence of the police. This was to insinuate that the police ARE racist as a whole. Just as the president, first lady and AG Eric Holder each held pressers on a national stage dialing up racial divide (during the previous couple of weeks). This is a messaging brand that they as a political faction have chosen to stir up.

Statistics show that black people were incredibly more likely to be stopped for stop & frisk. It is wise to tell a black person how to interact when they are statistically more likely to be stopped.

2. The NYPD made well in excess of 200,000 misdemeanor arrest this year in witch tens of thousands involving the use of hands on force. There was one death as a result of these arrest. You MUST have two things happen in order for bad things to come out of an encounter with the police. You must first have a person committing a crime and you must have a person who is actively resisting arrest.

This has not been the case in New York every time. The man, Akai Gurley, who was shot in the stairwell was not doing anything. One death is still enough for scrutiny when it was preventable.

3. Why where the police there in the police dealing with EG? Because the Mayor's Office had sent out a memorandum to the police (city wide), directing them to tamp down on the illicit sale of "loose" cigarettes because of the loss of tax revenue coming in to the city.

I may be wrong, but I read something on New York City's government website that mentions nothing about selling loosies to be an arrestable offense. Here is my source. If that is true, he should not have been subject to arrest in the first place.

4. Does anyone in their right mind think that this group of officers wanted this man to die? I should hope not. Yes his death was ruled a homicide by the coroner because he died in a homicidal manner. He did not commit suicide, he dies in a physical altercation with another human being(s) (i.e. the police). Just like in Furgeson, his death is homicide because the officer rightfully so shot and killed him. The NY coroner stated:
"Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined" He also stated that pressure on his neck and chest also contributed to his death.

Yes it was homicide. I believe it was negligent homicide. It was unnecessary to arrest Garner, and the manner in which he was restrained was highly dangerous. If someone dies easier than someone else, they still died. It would be like blaming a small woman for having more serious injuries than an NFL linebacker if they were hit by a car.

5. I hate like hell that Mr. Garner died. He should not have died on this day but he was also a habitual criminal and another sole lost to the underbelly of society (no job, no education, etc).

People's wealth should not be tied to their profession. Eric Garner was not a lost soul but a father and husband who died due to the actions of somebody else. He committed minor crimes that did not harm anyone.

6. All over this nation on a daily basis since Ferguson, police are being singled out simply because of the uniform that they wear. Some folks like this fact but the vast majority of our citizens do not. I watch my back and have not changed in one way the manner in which I do my job.

 

[kmoose]

Banning protests in the street would not pass the Strict Scrutiny test established in multiple Supreme Court cases because it would not be the least restrictive mean of silencing speech that makes a clear and present danger, like that chant would most likely be interpreted as.

Dude, it is NOT legal in the US to protest in the street, unless you have a permit. Even the f'ing ACLU acknowledges that.

certain types of events require permits. For example:
•A march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk, and other events that require blocking traffic or street closure;

And the permitting process provides broad discretion for the city to approve, or disapprove the permit. There are, however, limitations as to why the city can deny a permit.

 

[Grahambo]

What a simple world some people think they live in.

If you don't think the mayor turned his back on the cops then so be it, your opinion is yours but since you don't work in the NYPD, you haven't a clue how they truly are affected and I will take their word over Internet posters. Look back on all of his pressers and read between the lines, he tossed them under the bus hard. If you don't see it, again, your opinion to keep.

The reaction to Garner and Brown were over the top. Stop pointing fingers at the cops and start looking at the root of the problem. Garner caused his own death. So did Brown. If you disagree then enjoy your stance. At least I've walked in the cops' shoes.

Protesting is fine but causing major traffic jams and disturbing the peace is not fine and is illegal.

I forgot people think they're experts in policing as well as constitutional scholars among other things. Keyboard warriors.

And no, this isn't directed at anyone. Just my general opinion of what I've seen all over. I'm getting sick and tired of the nonsense.

 

[Grahambo]

I smell a troll.

 

[DonnieNarco]

False. The Constitution doesn't allow protesters to block traffic just because they are reacting to recent news.

Would it not depend on time, place, manner laws in the place where the protest is occurring?

 

[kmoose]

Would it not depend on time, place, manner laws in the place where the protest is occurring?

I thought you were knowledgeable on this subject. After all, you were telling us how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue. Now you have to ask basic questions? It's as if you are telling us how to win the Super Bowl, and then asking if the receiver in motion can move toward the LOS before the snap of the ball.

 

[gkIrish]

Would it not depend on time, place, manner laws in the place where the protest is occurring?

There are time, place, and manner laws that restrict the ability to protest in the streets pretty much everywhere. I'd be interested to see an example where there are no such laws. You made it sound like people can just start running through the streets because of freedom of speech, which is why I said that wasn't true.

 

[DonnieNarco]

What a simple world some people think they live in.

If you don't think the mayor turned his back on the cops then so be it, your opinion is yours but since you don't work in the NYPD, you haven't a clue how they truly are affected and I will take their word over Internet posters. Look back on all of his pressers and read between the lines, he tossed them under the bus hard. If you don't see it, again, your opinion to keep.

The reaction to Garner and Brown were over the top. Stop pointing fingers at the cops and start looking at the root of the problem. Garner caused his own death. So did Brown. If you disagree then enjoy your stance. At least I've walked in the cops' shoes.

Protesting is fine but causing major traffic jams and disturbing the peace is not fine and is illegal.

I forgot people think they're experts in policing as well as constitutional scholars among other things. Keyboard warriors.

And no, this isn't directed at anyone. Just my general opinion of what I've seen all over. I'm getting sick and tired of the nonsense.

I do not believe that Garner caused his own death. I believe he was killed by another during an unlawful arrest. He should not have been arrested for selling loose cigarettes as that is not an arrestable offense (until someone can show me something to the contrary). I also do not believe that Brown caused his own death necessarily, although the robbery put him in a bad place, as I do not believe Witness 40 and Darren Wilson.

Disturbing the peace is a key component of civil disobedience, which has been used as long as history has gone on to voice concerns.

I also believe that the NYPD is too biased and blinded to see that they are not being slighted. Being critiqued and not necessarily treated above normal citizens is not having their back turned on.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Dude, it is NOT legal in the US to protest in the street, unless you have a permit. Even the f'ing ACLU acknowledges that.



And the permitting process provides broad discretion for the city to approve, or disapprove the permit. There are, however, limitations as to why the city can deny a permit.

On the same page it says this:

However, the First Amendment prohibits such an advance notice requirement from being used to prevent protests in response to recent news events.

I believe every city would grant the permit because there wouldn't be a clear and present danger and it would not be the least restrictive mean.

 

[DonnieNarco]

I thought you were knowledgeable on this subject. After all, you were telling us how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue. Now you have to ask basic questions? It's as if you are telling us how to win the Super Bowl, and then asking if the receiver in motion can move toward the LOS before the snap of the ball.

I was trying to be respectful as gkIrish expressed knowledge in the law. While I have studied Mass Communication Law previously in my life I am nowhere near an expert, and I did not want to be confrontational or make claims that I could not back up.

 

[DonnieNarco]

I smell a troll.

In what way could I be trolling?

 

[DonnieNarco]

Garner is not an isolated incident for the NYPD, as Akai Gurley, stop and frisk, and planting evidence show. They should be subject to criticism for many actions they have taken over the years. NYPD's reputation procedes themselves in many cases.

 

[Old North State Irish]

Statistics show that black people were incredibly more likely to be stopped for stop & frisk. It is wise to tell a black person how to interact when they are statistically more likely to be stopped.

Again, I think this is getting lost in the weeds. Blacks are without a doubt getting stopped at a higher rate...they commit the vast majority of major crimes. Today Blacks comprise approx. 13% of the US population. Between 1976 and 2005, they committed more than half of all murders. Blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder than any other race. They are eight times more likely to commit robbery. They are 3 times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun in a crime and twice a likely to use a knife as non-black races. To put a fire out, you spray water at the source.

This has not been the case in New York every time. The man, Akai Gurley, who was shot in the stairwell was not doing anything. One death is still enough for scrutiny when it was preventable.

Vaguely familiar with this case but I believe this was the one where he had a wallet in his hand??? Awful situation and police were absolutely wrong in that case from all that I know.



I may be wrong, but I read something on New York City's government website that mentions nothing about selling loosies to be an arrestable offense. Here is my source. If that is true, he should not have been subject to arrest in the first place.

You may be correct but with how slanted the media is to the left, this would have been all over the news. This is a fact. A citizen MAY resist an unlawful arrest with all the power they can muster (this includes physical resistance). That is why I do not believe you are correct on that. Also, the supervisor that oversaw this arrest was black as well on the duty Captain for this precinct.


Yes it was homicide. I believe it was negligent homicide. It was unnecessary to arrest Garner, and the manner in which he was restrained was highly dangerous. If someone dies easier than someone else, they still died. It would be like blaming a small woman for having more serious injuries than an NFL linebacker if they were hit by a car.

Good point, however, the reason the police were there dealing with him was because the shop owners in the area (all minorities) kept calling the police about him selling loose cigarettes. Would he have died had he simply turned around and not resisted-no. So the real question is was it an arrestable offense? I would that it had to be.



People's wealth should not be tied to their profession. Eric Garner was not a lost soul but a father and husband who died due to the actions of somebody else. He committed minor crimes that did not harm anyone.

He did not deserve to die, but the circumstances led to that end. What profession? A criminal-is that a profession? He died because of his actions. The police didn't knock on his door and drag him out in the street and kill him. He was committing a crime which brought the attention of the police.

 

[kmoose]

I was trying to be respectful as gkIrish expressed knowledge in the law. While I have studied Mass Communication Law previously in my life I am nowhere near an expert, and I did not want to be confrontational or make claims that I could not back up.

And yet, you typed out this little gem:

Streets are traditional public forums for free speech. It would be unconstitutional to say protests could not occur there. While permits can be needed for planned protests, reaction to recent news gives people the protection to use the streets for a protest.

 

[DonnieNarco]

His profession, whether he had one or not, should not make him part of some underbelly. Selling loosies is not enough to make him a scourge of society.

In my opinion he should not have been in the position to resist because he should not have been arrested for selling loosies. His reaction made sense, as the cops did not witness him sell the cigarette, I believe. Many people would pull away in that situation. He did not assault a cop. He did not commit a serious crime. He had about as minor of a resistance as possible.

The news is slanted towards what will sell. I do not watch the news so I do not know if that was reported. I have read it before, although I doubt I could dig up where.

Gurley startled a cop by opening a door where the cop was. The cop shot and killed him.

Although those stats correlate more for socioeconomic status, it still was disproportionate towards black even against those stats. Black people are not inherently more violent or criminals or dumber. I believe stop & frisk to be a major violation of civil liberties for everyone in New York, and De Blasio cutting back on it is a good thing.

I responded in backwards order. Sorry got confused haha

 

[DonnieNarco]

And yet, you typed out this little gem:

I do not know why that would be confrontational, and I sourced it with the ACLU's website in an earlier post.

 

[kmoose]

I may be wrong, but I read something on New York City's government website that mentions nothing about selling loosies to be an arrestable offense. Here is my source. If that is true, he should not have been subject to arrest in the first place.

It really doesn't matter if it was an arrestable offense or not. An officer can place you in handcuffs as he investigates a potential crime being committed. The charge of "Resisting Arrest" is not just for resisting an actual arrest, it can cover resisting being handcuffed, as well.

resisting arrest

n. the crime of using physical force (no matter how slight in the eyes of most law enforcement officers) to prevent arrest, handcuffing and/or taking the accused to jail. It is also called "resisting an officer" (but that can include interfering with a peace officer's attempt to keep the peace) and is sometimes referred to merely as "resisting."

And Eric Garner was certainly resisting being handcuffed.

 

[kmoose]

I do not know why that would be confrontational, and I sourced it with the ACLU's website in an earlier post.

It wasn't confrontational...... it was simply wrong! And you can't back it up. You say you sourced it with the ACLU website, but you didn't. The quote you used from the ACLU website had to do with the city not denying a permit. It did NOT say that people could spontaneously march down the middle of the street, without a permit, in reaction to recent news. The people who were marching in NYC and chanting "Dead cops!' did not have a permit. What they were doing was illegal, yet the mayor ordered the police not to intervene and/or arrest anyone. THAT is an example of why the police feel like he has not supported them.

 

[Booslum31]

It wasn't confrontational...... it was simply wrong! And you can't back it up. You say you sourced it with the ACLU website, but you didn't. The quote you used from the ACLU website had to do with the city not denying a permit. It did NOT say that people could spontaneously march down the middle of the street, without a permit, in reaction to recent news. The people who were marching in NYC and chanting "Dead cops!' did not have a permit. What they were doing was illegal, yet the mayor ordered the police not to intervene and/or arrest anyone. THAT is an example of why the police feel like he has not supported them.

The more that mayor opens his mouth (or doesn't)...the more you realize that he's a douche-knuckle.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Arresting people for prote sting like that would cause more harm than good. It would just make people angrier and more likely to act out violently, especially if tear gas or rubber bullets are used. Arresting someone for an inconvenience while not causing any damage would be counter productive for the police.