Two More NYC Cops shot

[phgreek]

Two New York City police officers shot and wounded | Reuters

Since the leaders can't or are not motivated to end this...The realization that this thing is headed toward something that will irreparably divide NY, and this nation, is setting in for me...

 

[autry_denson]

Since the leaders can't or are not motivated to end this...The realization that this thing is headed toward something that will irreparably divide NY, and this nation, is setting in for me...

to what are you referring with the terms "this" and "this thing"?

 

[Rizzophil]

This trend doesn't appear it's going to stop anytime soon

 

[NDdomer2]

Maybe I am reading this one wrong but this seems different from the other cop shootings. These guys were responding to a robbery in which they were shot at. Doesn't sound like race or targeting the police. Just criminals trying to get away. Just my opinion.

 

[Rhode Irish]

This trend doesn't appear it's going to stop anytime soon

Criminals shooting cops is as heartbreaking and as unhealthy for society as cops shooting unarmed citizens. But at this point, the latter is more of a trend than the former. Cops getting shot is a tragedy, but please resist the temptation to regard it as an organized effort by the people to go to war with law enforcement. Crazy people are a known occupational hazard for police, unfortunately. The last thing the rest of us need is a more militarized, more agitated and more aggressive police force. Stay safe out there, but don't make every non-uniformed person the enemy.

 

[dales5050]

Criminals shooting cops is as heartbreaking and as unhealthy for society as cops shooting unarmed citizens. But at this point, the latter is more of a trend than the former. Cops getting shot is a tragedy, but please resist the temptation to regard it as an organized effort by the people to go to war with law enforcement. Crazy people are a known occupational hazard for police, unfortunately. The last thing the rest of us need is a more militarized, more agitated and more aggressive police force. Stay safe out there, but don't make every non-uniformed person the enemy.

You want to back up your comment about how cops shooting unarmed citizens is more of a tend than criminals shooting cops? Have any numbers or just conjecture?

Why is an honest conversation so difficult for people like you? Both Michael Brown and Eric Garner were criminals. They were not just citizens as some want to frame it but CRIMINALS.

Some people don't have the courage to say this but a cops life is worth more than a criminal. The reason is simple. A cop HAS to engage a criminal when a crime is being committed. It's their job. The same is not true for a criminal. So in a conflict, the cops life is more valuable.

You tell people to be safe out there..when what you don't have the courage to say is be safe from Police.

Why can't people like you start with don't be a criminal out there.....

If we had less people in this world like Brown and Garner IT WOULD BE SAFER out there.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Maybe I am reading this one wrong but this seems different from the other cop shootings. These guys were responding to a robbery in which they were shot at. Doesn't sound like race or targeting the police. Just criminals trying to get away. Just my opinion.

This is how I read it as will. Two plain clothed cops shot responding to a robbery. Someone attempting to execute a cop is lunacy and a sign of chaos but dealing with a criminal doing whatever they can to stay out of prison is part of the job description.

With that said, I do feel like the recent headlines may have created a quicker trigger finger from the other side. It seems like some have rationalized the idea of shooting cops as necessary.

I have a ton of respect for these men and women, especially in times like this. I feel for their families.

 

[autry_denson]

This trend doesn't appear it's going to stop anytime soon

I think there are a few relevant trends going on in relation to policing and crime.

the big trend is that violent crime has been dropping for 20 years, and continues to drop in most big cities including New York, including in the past year. that trend dwarfs any other.

the second trend is that a growing number of police interactions w residents have been recorded. police probably aren't behaving any different than in the past, but more people are being exposed to the types of interactions that police frequently have with residents. this has created much more tension than is common.

those are two very salient trends. then there are short-term shocks and individual events. one other very important short-term shock in NYC is the NYPD's decision to stop arresting people for minor crimes. over the past two weeks the # of summons and arrests for minor crimes has dwindled down to almost 0. this is truly astonishing - but again, it's a short-term shock and hopefully will not become a long-term trend.

as for individual events, there are examples like the killing of the two NYPD officers a couple weeks ago. a horrible tragedy. there were also 2 shootings yesterday, which sadly happen on a fairly regular basis. these are tragedies, not trends. if there is a rising level of violence toward police that persists over a couple months, it might be thought of as a short-term shock - if it continues over a period of months and years, then we can think about it as a trend and try to figure out causes.

but if you're making dire predictions based on individual events, you're mistaking individual events for broader trends. and if you're trying to explain individual incidents with broad social forces, you're going to have a hard time.

 

[IrishinSyria]

You want to back up your comment about how cops shooting unarmed citizens is more of a tend than criminals shooting cops? Have any numbers or just conjecture?

Why is an honest conversation so difficult for people like you? Both Michael Brown and Eric Garner were criminals. They were not just citizens as some want to frame it but CRIMINALS.

Some people don't have the courage to say this but a cops life is worth more than a criminal. The reason is simple. A cop HAS to engage a criminal when a crime is being committed. It's their job. The same is not true for a criminal. So in a conflict, the cops life is more valuable.

You tell people to be safe out there..when what you don't have the courage to say is be safe from Police.

Why can't people like you start with don't be a criminal out there.....

If we had less people in this world like Brown and Garner IT WOULD BE SAFER out there.

Unarmed criminals...rhetoric with underlines is fun!


Anyway, I don't understand why there's such a drive to take a stand here...

Obviously, it's bad when police use excessive force, and it's bad when criminals shoot and kill police. It makes sense that there's more national discussion and hand-wringing when police kill unarmed civilians (even if they may have committed petty crimes) because we, as a society, give our police a lot of responsibility and power and in return, we expect them to use that power with appropriate discretion. On the other hand, we give nothing of the sort to criminals. There is a well established system that will hunt these criminals down and bring them to justice.

So if the point of the op was that crime sucks, then I agree. But if the point was that these shootings are indicative of some coming (race?) war that will tear our society apart OR that they in some way validate every police officer who has ever shot anybody...I absolutely disagree. Police getting hurt in the line of duty is tragic. It is not a harbinger of things to come or an excuse for police misconduct in other cases (broadly...the risk of violence can certainly explain why individual officers can be a little more trigger happy than they ideally would be.)

 

[Rhode Irish]

You want to back up your comment about how cops shooting unarmed citizens is more of a tend than criminals shooting cops? Have any numbers or just conjecture?

Why is an honest conversation so difficult for people like you? Both Michael Brown and Eric Garner were criminals. They were not just citizens as some want to frame it but CRIMINALS.

Some people don't have the courage to say this but a cops life is worth more than a criminal. The reason is simple. A cop HAS to engage a criminal when a crime is being committed. It's their job. The same is not true for a criminal. So in a conflict, the cops life is more valuable.

You tell people to be safe out there..when what you don't have the courage to say is be safe from Police.

Why can't people like you start with don't be a criminal out there.....

If we had less people in this world like Brown and Garner IT WOULD BE SAFER out there.

I know it is difficult to make sense when you are emotional, so I'll ignore some of the more insane things you've said here. But here are some unarmed people shot by police (not all, but this gives a good sampling). I know of only two cops shot in "retaliation" to this point, although maybe there is a less publicized incident or two somewhere out there.

As far as calling the unarmed civilians that were shot "criminals," I'm not sure I would agree with that, but at most the two men you referenced were guilty of misdemeanors or lesser violations. I don't think committing a misdemeanor makes you a "criminal," but even if you do, you cannot believe those crimes are punishable by death without the benefit of the due process guaranteed to them by the constitution.

The idea that a cop's life is more valuable than anyone else's is so infuriatingly stupid and abhorrent it is hard for me to calmly address it, but suffice it to say that that attitude is a major contributor to current problem between the police and the policed.

When I said "be safe out there," I was talking to the police. I guess maybe I can also ask the police not to be criminals out there, but I kind of thought that went without saying.

Nobody is rooting for criminals, but any amount of reasonableness and wisdom would tell you that criminals deserve some punishment that is proportional to the crime they have committed, but a civilized society cannot go around killing everyone that commits a minor offense.

My post was not intended to dredge up the Brown/Garner arguments, only to say that killing police is a tragic occurrence and to plea to police to understand 99.9999% of the people they are assigned with protecting and serving do not wish them harm.

 

[dales5050]

Unarmed criminals...rhetoric with underlines is fun!


Anyway, I don't understand why there's such a drive to take a stand here...

Obviously, it's bad when police use excessive force, and it's bad when criminals shoot and kill police. It makes sense that there's more national discussion and hand-wringing when police kill unarmed civilians (even if they may have committed petty crimes) because we, as a society, give our police a lot of responsibility and power and in return, we expect them to use that power with appropriate discretion. On the other hand, we give nothing of the sort to criminals. There is a well established system that will hunt these criminals down and bring them to justice.

appropriate discretion eh? Where is the responsibility on the criminal to no resist police...even after committing a petty crime?

You mention taking a stand. Why is it that a 'stand' all of a sudden becomes a plausible consensus on the deaths of Brown and Garner? Why wasn't a stand taken from the thousands of gang related homicides each year?

People seem to want to 'take back their community' from the police but seem to be indifferent to taking back their community from gangs. Why is that?

So if the point of the op was that crime sucks, then I agree. But if the point was that these shootings are indicative of some coming (race?) war that will tear our society apart OR that they in some way validate every police officer who has ever shot anybody...I absolutely disagree. Police getting hurt in the line of duty is tragic. It is not a harbinger of things to come or an excuse for police misconduct in other cases (broadly...the risk of violence can certainly explain why individual officers can be a little more trigger happy than they ideally would be.)

I don't think it's a race war. It's a poverty war. Poverty knows no color. We have an infrastructure of poverty that has removed all respect for law and order in society for many.

FWIW, I am 100% against police misconduct and the ranks of police departments across the US need to be thinned out of unqualified police officers. But until these tools are put in place, you have to support the folks who simply want to make it home at night.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

appropriate discretion eh? Where is the responsibility on the criminal to no resist police...even after committing a petty crime?

You mention taking a stand. Why is it that a 'stand' all of a sudden becomes a plausible consensus on the deaths of Brown and Garner? Why wasn't a stand taken from the thousands of gang related homicides each year?

People seem to want to 'take back their community' from the police but seem to be indifferent to taking back their community from gangs. Why is that?



I don't think it's a race war. It's a poverty war. Poverty knows no color. We have an infrastructure of poverty that has removed all respect for law and order in society for many.

FWIW, I am 100% against police misconduct and the ranks of police departments across the US need to be thinned out of unqualified police officers. But until these tools are put in place, you have to support the folks who simply want to make it home at night.

The bolded is one of my biggest takeaways from all this as well and perfectly stated.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The bolded is one of my biggest takeaways from all this as well and perfectly stated.

I think it is important to keep in mind that while both gang violence and death-by-cop involve young black men, the two situations are meaningfully different. While gang violence is also tragic and deplorable, the problem with it isn't that the perpetrators of it are being protected by the system. There may be institutional disinterest in dealing with it, but known shooters aren't being brought in front of grand juries only to have the prosecutor torpedo the case. Known perpetrators aren't protected, they are sentenced to life in prison or death (as is appropriate). There may be an issue with how hard we try to identify perpetrators in those cases, but dealing with them justly isn't an issue.

In the cases where cops are shooting civilians, known perpetrators were protected by the system. That is what people are protesting. If the cops that killed Brown and Garner were tried and convicted people wouldn't be out protesting those incidents, even thought they would still be tragic. That is the point I feel people are too willing to miss.

 

[autry_denson]

Why wasn't a stand taken from the thousands of gang related homicides each year?

People seem to want to 'take back their community' from the police but seem to be indifferent to taking back their community from gangs. Why is that?

This is an assumption that is based on what is seen from media representations, so I understand it. But a cursory amount of research - a minute or two - reveals that there are hundreds of marches, protests, and more importantly a large and powerful organizational network that is based in the nation's most violent neighborhoods and is constantly working against violence in those communities. People who are sometimes active in protesting police shootings of residents are often extremely active in working against resident violence against other residents. It is rarely covered in the press, so you may not be aware of it. But your assumption of indifference couldn't be more wrong. Many people who have studied the drop in crime have pointed to the rising movement against violence in the communities hit hardest by it as a central factor helping to explain the crime drop.

To state it more forcefully: your assumption is understandable but it is completely, 100% false.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

This wasn't a targeted police shooting. 2 plainclothes cops after a robbery suspect when he shot at them. One in the arm and one in the back. I have friends in this precinct, thankfully vests were worn. I pray for their full recovery. By targeted, I mean the main intention at the start wasn't to shoot the police.

 

[dales5050]

This is an assumption that is based on what is seen from media representations, so I understand it. But a cursory amount of research - a minute or two - reveals that there are hundreds of marches, protests, and more importantly a large and powerful organizational network that is based in the nation's most violent neighborhoods and is constantly working against violence in those communities. People who are sometimes active in protesting police shootings of residents are often extremely active in working against resident violence against other residents. It is rarely covered in the press, so you may not be aware of it. But your assumption of indifference couldn't be more wrong. Many people who have studied the drop in crime have pointed to the rising movement against violence in the communities hit hardest by it as a central factor helping to explain the crime drop.

To state it more forcefully: your assumption is understandable but it is completely, 100% false.

Rarely covered in the press eh?

I guess if there is not a shakedown to be had or the urge to burn and loot the very neighborhood you live in...the media is just not interested. Is that what you define as 'being active' in protests?

You suggest that there is a large and powerful organizational network in place right after you suggest it's invisible unless the mainstream media gives it attention. That's contradictory at best.

The reality is, as a society, we all have trouble finding blame in ourselves. Taking a stand is not about protesting or marching but rather dealing with the issues at hand.

For every study you can present that gives credit to a 'movement' against violence being the reason for a drop in crime, I can show you two studies that show eduction, employment and parental participation are even more significant contributors. You can deduce in your own time the reason for each.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

I think it is important to keep in mind that while both gang violence and death-by-cop involve young black men, the two situations are meaningfully different. While gang violence is also tragic and deplorable, the problem with it isn't that the perpetrators of it are being protected by the system. There may be institutional disinterest in dealing with it, but known shooters aren't being brought in front of grand juries only to have the prosecutor torpedo the case. Known perpetrators aren't protected, they are sentenced to life in prison or death (as is appropriate). There may be an issue with how hard we try to identify perpetrators in those cases, but dealing with them justly isn't an issue.

In the cases where cops are shooting civilians, known perpetrators were protected by the system. That is what people are protesting. If the cops that killed Brown and Garner were tried and convicted people wouldn't be out protesting those incidents, even thought they would still be tragic. That is the point I feel people are too willing to miss.

If the cops that killed Brown and Garner were tried and convicted, it would be a much greater miscarriage of justice. Wilson and Pantaleo didn't commit crimes. Brown and Garner did.

 

[dales5050]

In the cases where cops are shooting civilians, known perpetrators were protected by the system. That is what people are protesting. If the cops that killed Brown and Garner were tried and convicted people wouldn't be out protesting those incidents, even thought they would still be tragic. That is the point I feel people are too willing to miss.

Bullsh*t!

The 'protesting' (read: looting and rioting) was done in Ferguson before even a grand jury was convened.

The fact that you suggest bringing a police officer, who was attacked and acted in self defense, to trial, let alone face a conviction, as a solution to the utter ignorance and misdirected rage of a community and race baiters is disgusting.

You want to know how Brown does not get killed? Here are some answers:

1 - He does not commit a strong armed robbery.
2 - He does not attack a police officer.

Brown is dead because of his own actions. Period.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Bullsh*t!

The 'protesting' (read: looting and rioting) was done in Ferguson before even a grand jury was convened.

The fact that you suggest bringing a police officer, who was attacked and acted in self defense, to trial, let alone face a conviction, as a solution to the utter ignorance and misdirected rage of a community and race baiters is disgusting.

You want to know how Brown does not get killed? Here are some answers:

1 - He does not commit a strong armed robbery.
2 - He does not attack a police officer.

Brown is dead because of his own actions. Period.

This is the height of ignorance, and the reason that we cannot have nice things in America in 2015.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If the cops that killed Brown and Garner were tried and convicted, it would be a much greater miscarriage of justice. Wilson and Pantaleo didn't commit crimes. Brown and Garner did.

Totally disagree.

 

[dales5050]

This is the height of ignorance, and the reason that we cannot have nice things in America in 2015.

Typical.

I have nice things. People like yourself may not. Then again, I don't break the law.

Do you need help with anything else today? Who else is oppressing you from your goals and dreams? Since I am feeling charitable...here is the key to you unlocking your dreams of nice things...

 

[autry_denson]

This is the height of ignorance, and the reason that we cannot have nice things in America in 2015.

it's the reason why discussions go downhill on this site. the most incoherent, extreme, illogical poster is the most vocal and the most convinced of his brilliance and righteousness. others who disagree w each other but make coherent arguments are drowned out. I always think 'maybe this time will be different...'

 

[autry_denson]

it's the reason why discussions go downhill on this site. the most incoherent, extreme, illogical poster is the most vocal and the most convinced of his brilliance and righteousness. others who disagree w each other but make coherent arguments are drowned out. I always think 'maybe this time will be different...'

actually let me amend my own post - it's not 'this site', it's the internet. put the same group of people in the same room and experiments show that discussions rarely descend to the opinions of the lowest common denominator.

 

[Irish Insanity]

^perfectly said.

 

[Rhode Irish]

it's the reason why discussions go downhill on this site. the most incoherent, extreme, illogical poster is the most vocal and the most convinced of his brilliance and righteousness. others who disagree w each other but make coherent arguments are drowned out. I always think 'maybe this time will be different...'

When I say ignorance, I really mean it in the truest definitional sense. A true lack of knowledge and information. I also perceive contempt and a complete lack of empathy for fellow man that is really just sad. Everything is "us vs them" with no consideration for what legitimate grievances people may actually have and what can be done to address them, and no acknowledgement that ultimately we are all on the same team. This argument started because I said it was tragic that a cop got shot, but please do not try to turn the idiotic behavior of a couple people into a war between the police and the citizenry. What a radical statement....you can see how it would get someone riled up.

Typical.

I have nice things. People like yourself may not. Then again, I don't break the law.

Do you need help with anything else today? Who else is oppressing you from your goals and dreams? Since I am feeling charitable...here is the key to you unlocking your dreams of nice things...

That my statement would be answered with "I have terrific personal possessions" is pretty telling. You don't know anything about me, or what kind of person a person "like me" is, or what type of things I have. Your guess would probably be wildly inaccurate based on these hilarious comments, but that was obviously not the point. Nobody is oppressing me personally. I have a great life. But I am not only concerned about myself.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

it's the reason why discussions go downhill on this site. the most incoherent, extreme, illogical poster is the most vocal and the most convinced of his brilliance and righteousness. others who disagree w each other but make coherent arguments are drowned out. I always think 'maybe this time will be different...'

It's not just this site. Disagreement is fine. We all come from different places and our views and opinions are formed by our different experiences. I understand fully that people see things from a complete opposite viewpoint than I do. I don't think they are wrong, and I don't necessarily think I'm right. Just different roads lead us to where we are. My opinions are more experience based, being in the streets and seeing a much different vantage point. There are some smart dudes on here, and even if I disagree with their point, I don't think less of them as people. It does usually seem to deteriorate to the lowest common denominator.

 

[dales5050]

it's the reason why discussions go downhill on this site. the most incoherent, extreme, illogical poster is the most vocal and the most convinced of his brilliance and righteousness. others who disagree w each other but make coherent arguments are drowned out. I always think 'maybe this time will be different...'

In this discussion you have not made a coherent argument. All you have provided for is conjecture. Let me illustrate:

In post #14 you did not provide any actual information to back your opinion. You simply suggested that your opinion was validated by research that could be done by others. This is a hollow argument.

Since then you have actually said nothing of substance on the topic at hand. You simply said others views are incoherent, extreme and illogical...while at the same time offering zero basis of your view.

You're not being drowned out. You're view is too shallow to suffer from drowning.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

A pretty interesting take from Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone.

Page 2 of The NYPD's 'Work Stoppage' Is Surreal | Rolling Stone

An excerpt:

If you're wondering exactly what that means, the Post is reporting that the protesting police have decided to make arrests "only when they have to." (Let that sink in for a moment. Seriously, take 10 or 15 seconds).

Substantively that mostly means a steep drop-off in parking tickets, but also a major drop in tickets for quality-of-life offenses like carrying open containers of alcohol or public urination.

My first response to this news was confusion. I get why the police are protesting – they're pissed at Mayor de Blasio, and more on that in a minute – but this sort of "protest" pulls this story out of the standard left-right culture war script it had been following and into surreal territory.

I don't know any police officer anywhere who would refuse to arrest a truly dangerous criminal as part of a PBA-led political gambit. So the essence of this protest seems now to be about trying to hit de Blasio where it hurts, i.e. in the budget, without actually endangering the public.

So this police protest, unwittingly, is leading to the exposure of the very policies that anger so many different constituencies about modern law-enforcement tactics.

First, it shines a light on the use of police officers to make up for tax shortfalls using ticket and citation revenue. Then there's the related (and significantly more important) issue of forcing police to make thousands of arrests and issue hundreds of thousands of summonses when they don't "have to."

It's incredibly ironic that the police have chosen to abandon quality-of-life actions like public urination tickets and open-container violations, because it's precisely these types of interactions that are at the heart of the Broken Windows polices that so infuriate residents of so-called "hot spot" neighborhoods.

 

[IrishLion]

^Now THAT is interesting.

The police are now refusing to act upon the enforcement of certain laws that get so many people in an uproar in the first place, and the reason they're doing it illustrates how it's all about the $$$$$.

EDIT: I'm aware that any minor citation is simply aimed to generate revenue; I'm just saying it's interesting that the potential hypocrisy is being put so clearly on display by the very agents of the questionable system.

 

[dales5050]

It's incredibly ironic that the police have chosen to abandon quality-of-life actions like public urination tickets and open-container violations, because it's precisely these types of interactions that are at the heart of the Broken Windows polices that so infuriate residents of so-called "hot spot" neighborhoods.

This is not ironic.

Enforcing broken windows is what has caused the residents of these neighborhoods to dislike the police. It was this enforcement that led to the confirmation of Eric Garner. it was this enforcement that led to the mayor telling his son how to 'protect' himself from the police.

If enforcing broken windows is going to expose police to what recently transpired in NYC...why bother? It's what 'the people want' so give it to them. It's not worth the risk to police officers to try to enforce quality-of-life actions.

Be careful what you wish for.