Two NYPD executed

[nightflight]

It's difficult when people aren't. You've spent most of this thread spreading blame around to people who aren't the murderer. I don't recall if you mentioned him at all up until this point.

Its not without precedent. Back in 2011 the media and many on the left told us that we needed a new tone, a "new civility". Heck, even the President got in on that, making a speech at the Tuscon memorial service.

Not sure why all of that has changed now.

 

[seven2014]

Yes. What would you suggest?

First, I would punish the guilty. Saying that the officers did no wrong is outrageous. Choke holds were banned in NYC in 1993, so why were they allowed to still be used?

Secondly, lets stop all of this inflammatory rhetoric from all sides. Starting with Giuliani. He act as if America has had a love affair with the police in this country since forever. It also seem that he has forgotten that people have the right to protest, and demonstrate.

 

[variant]

Its not without precedent. Back in 2011 the media and many on the left told us that we needed a new tone, a "new civility". Heck, even the President got in on that, making a speech at the Tuscon memorial service.

Not sure why all of that has changed now.

Civility is good, we should all abhor violence and the promotion of such.

Do you think it's uncivil to protest police actions seen as wildly unfair by the populace?

How do you feel about people saying the mayor has blood on his hands for discussing the matter without overwhelmingly favoring the police? Think that is civil?

Are you going to pay attention to people who say they want non-violent protests instead of a break down of civil society?

Just wondering.

 

[brewmama]

Civility is good, we should all abhor violence and the promotion of such.

Do you think it's uncivil to protest police actions seen as wildly unfair by the populace?

How do you feel about people saying the mayor has blood on his hands for discussing the matter without overwhelmingly favoring the police? Think that is civil?

Are you going to pay attention to people who say they want non-violent protests instead of a break down of civil society?

Just wondering.

"Without overwhelmingly favoring the police"? Hardly that. He more accurately overwhelmingly disfavored the police.

If what happens is nonviolent protests rather than a breakdown of civil society, then I might believe them. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

I know it's already been mentioned, but just to refresh:

"No evidence suggested Loughner had a political motive. His friends said he never listened to talk radio. They, however, did note he was a fan of the far-outside-the-mainstream Zeitgeist movement. But the facts were overwhelmed by the Left’s “climate of hate” rhetoric. Despite having no evidence Loughner ever saw Palin’s map or even knew who Palin was, the Left convinced more than a third of the public she was at fault and convinced nearly half that political rhetoric was to blame.

The Left’s Collective Amnesia

That was four years ago. Now that we appear to have a legitimate case of politically-motivated assassination of two NYPD officers, the Left has discarded the “climate of hate” argument. Meanwhile, some on the Right have been warning anti-cop vigilantism was on the rise. Here’s Michelle Malkin ten days ago:

Today, fear and political correctness reign on the streets. Few truth-tellers in public office will call out the cop-hating cultists seeking racially driven retribution. Social justice mobsters sucker punch cops in New York while “peaceniks” cheer. Police officers have been attacked with hatchets, knives, and bottles from the Big Apple to Canon City, Colorado. In Oakland, “F–k the pigs” has been a constant refrain. In St. Louis County: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.” And in Denver, dedicated police officer John Adsit remains in critical condition after being mowed down by a vehicle while escorting Ferguson protesters last week. Witnesses reportedly applauded and the ongoing investigation of the driver has been characterized as “complex.”

And a week before the shooting, a You Tube video appeared in which NY protesters can be heard chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” Given that some within their own movement are anti-police, the Left is sticking its collective fingers in its ears. Slate, which once made the extended argument about what was taking place “outside Loughner’s head,” now says no one should pay attention to what was taking place inside Brinsley head."

Progressives Suddenly Forget How 'Climate of Hate' Operates

 

[variant]

"Without overwhelmingly favoring the police"? Hardly that. He more accurately overwhelmingly disfavored the police.

Not the quotes I read. They seemed like a rather sober assessment of the situation to me.

Unless you're not seeing the same racism as the rest of us:

Consider their stories: a black man with a criminal record going back 30 years - and a white man with a criminal record going back 30 years. Both were approached by authorities for crimes that they've been convicted of in the past. The black man, unarmed, is taken by physical, hands-on force that proves to be lethal. The white man, armed, organizes a resistance militia where firearms are directed at federal agents by American citizens - and the government backs down.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/07/1349856/-Comparing-Eric-Garner-to-Cliven-Bundy#

If what happens is nonviolent protests rather than a breakdown of civil society, then I might believe them. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

Again, calling for peaceful protesters and peaceful politicians to be to blame for violence of others.

Then you follow it up to repeat the same tired "it's justified to blame those who speak out for peace for violence because someone else did it before" routine.

Consistently you are saying your argument is wrong and invalid . What am I to do with an argument like that?

You don't get to both criticize people and say they don't stand for civility when they do, and then say you get to be uncivil toward them in your assigning of blame to them because someone else may have done that (which you think is wrong).

That position is completely incoherent.


If we GRANT YOUR PREMISE COMPLETELY and say that it was wrong to blame Sarah Palin, it follows that it is wrong to blame people not calling for violence now no?

To say otherwise means you don't wish to treat others as you would wish to be treated.

 

[brewmama]

Not the quotes I read. They seemed like a rather sober assessment of the situation to me.

Unless you're not seeing the same racism as the rest of us:



Comparing Eric Garner to Cliven Bundy

Again, calling for peaceful protesters and peaceful politicians to be to blame for violence of others.

Stop twisting things. I did not say that, I was just answering your question. I didn't say they were to blame.

Then you follow it up to repeat the same tired "it's justified because someone else did it before" routine.

Consistently you are saying your argument is wrong and invalid . What am I to do with an argument like that?

Do you misread everything? Where did I say anything was justified? I'm just pointing out the major hypocrisy on the left.

As for not seeing racism, it's more on your side than mine.

"On NPR, a black graduate of Yale Law School tells the most popular podcast in America how she and another Yale law grad have fun cutting in line at movie theaters, then laughing at the white people too afraid to confront them.

A few minutes later, an African novelist details how she learned to become an American by becoming instantly and constantly angry at white people. Again in the Ivy League.


Every black newspaper and web site in America is full of one fairy tale after another of white privilege, white violence, white hatred. Open season on black people, anyone?

Meanwhile in the real world, in places like Baltimore, black mayors tell black police departments not to arrest black people. Then they say crime is down. And in the court room, black juries are loathe to convict black defendants. They call it a Bronx jury.

We can call it black privilege.

The mayor of New York brags about giving his son The Talk: White racism is everywhere. White racism is permanent. White racism explains everything. He counsels his son to care for his life when dealing with what an NAACP leader calls the police: Klan members without sheets."


Read more: Articles: The Brooklyn Slaughter and the End of Gotcha
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[variant]

Stop twisting things. I did not say that, I was just answering your question. I didn't say they were to blame.

You said:

If what happens is nonviolent protests rather than a breakdown of civil society, then I might believe them. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

What am I supposed to take from this?

Do you misread everything? Where did I say anything was justified? I'm just pointing out the major hypocrisy on the left.

I read your post as a justification of blaming left regardless of any call for violence, for the violence, as it seemed was it's intention.

As for not seeing racism, it's more on your side than mine.

"On NPR, a black graduate of Yale Law School tells the most popular podcast in America how she and another Yale law grad have fun cutting in line at movie theaters, then laughing at the white people too afraid to confront them.

A few minutes later, an African novelist details how she learned to become an American by becoming instantly and constantly angry at white people. Again in the Ivy League.

Every black newspaper and web site in America is full of one fairy tale after another of white privilege, white violence, white hatred. Open season on black people, anyone?

Meanwhile in the real world, in places like Baltimore, black mayors tell black police departments not to arrest black people. Then they say crime is down. And in the court room, black juries are loathe to convict black defendants. They call it a Bronx jury.

We can call it black privilege.

Doesn't look here like you addressed what I said about the differences between Bundy and Gardner and the reactions to them.

Do you derail everything into a anti liberal screed then?

Do you really expect any group peaceful or no to answer for everyone, anyone in that group ever says???

The mayor of New York brags about giving his son The Talk: White racism is everywhere. White racism is permanent. White racism explains everything. He counsels his son to care for his life when dealing with what an NAACP leader calls the police: Klan members without sheets."

He told his child he had to be careful around the police, it happens to be good advice.

 

[Vylo]

Oh man black people can cut in lines more easily. Such black privilege.

 

[brewmama]

I asked "Are you going to pay attention to people who say they want non-violent protests instead of a break down of civil society?"

And you said

"If what happens is nonviolent protests rather than a breakdown of civil society, then I might believe them. But that doesn't seem to be happening."


What am I supposed to take from this?

That the violent protesters seem to have the upper hand. With the blessing of the Justice Dept and the NYC mayor, since "De Blasio, according to Dietl, is most concerned with placating his union and left-wing allies. As a result, he said cops are told “hands off” and to let demonstrators “do what they want,” even if they are inciting violence or disrupting the city with their lawlessness.

Dietl said it is a “disgrace that our great police department have to be treated this way,” especially when gang members are talking about killing cops on the social media."

What is so hard about what I said?

I read your post as a justification of blaming left regardless of any call for violence, for the violence, as it seemed was it's intention.

Of course you did.
I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I'm sure it has nothing to so with anything I've said.

Doesn't look here like you addressed what I said about the differences between Bundy and Gardner and the reactions to them.

Not yet, but I do know that Garner (if that is who you mean) was reported to the police by the store owners, and he did not cooperate with the police.

Do you derail everything into a anti liberal screed then?

Do you really expect any group peaceful or no to answer for everyone, anyone in that group ever says???

Don't know how I'm derailing. I also don't understand your questions, unless they are just a way to deflect from anything I have said or asked.

He told his child he had to be careful around the police, it happens to be good advice.

He made it racist, and inflamed more hatred from blacks with what he said.


Bill de Blasio details talk with son about dealing with cops - NY Daily News

Former NYPD Detective: Anti-Police Sentiment in NYC like 1970s Under 'Idiot' Mayor de Blasio - Breitbart

 

[Smidlee]

He told his child he had to be careful around the police, it happens to be good advice.

No. he told the public he told his child.... There is a difference. One he speaking as a father while the other he speaking as mayor which add fuel to the fire. One was wise the other was foolish.

 

[variant]

That the violent protesters seem to have the upper hand. With the blessing of the Justice Dept and the NYC mayor, since "De Blasio, according to Dietl, is most concerned with placating his union and left-wing allies. As a result, he said cops are told “hands off” and to let demonstrators “do what they want,” even if they are inciting violence or disrupting the city with their lawlessness.

Dietl said it is a “disgrace that our great police department have to be treated this way,” especially when gang members are talking about killing cops on the social media."

What is so hard about what I said?

Noting of course that the cop wasn't killed by a protester but a guy who drove in from Baltimore and shot two people randomly.

So, what you are doing is blaming protesters for a straight up murderer, regardless of if they called for it or not.

Of course you did.
I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I'm sure it has nothing to so with anything I've said.

You mean you haven't been trying to justify blaming people who haven't called for violence? Because it sure looks like that is exactly what you are doing.

Not yet, but I do know that Garner (if that is who you mean) was reported to the police by the store owners, and he did not cooperate with the police.

And when you are black or poor that gets you beat to the ground in NYC over a petty crime.

If you're a white guy from Nevada you have millions of dollars and an armed militia and Fox News at your back you can basically wave your middle finger at the authorities.

There are of course no disparities in enforcement. Except for all the ones we know about...

Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?_r=0

Don't know how I'm derailing. I also don't understand your questions, unless they are just a way to deflect from anything I have said or asked.

You posted a bunch of grievances against various people saying various things having little to do with the conversation.

Many liberals (myself included) abhor the use of violence in this case as in others.

He made it racist, and inflamed more hatred from blacks with what he said.

The mayor did not cause racism to be an issue here, he merely commented on it in a way you don't agree with.

 

[variant]

No. he told the public he told his child.... There is a difference. One he speaking as a father while the other he speaking as mayor which add fuel to the fire. One was wise the other was foolish.

He's allowed to speak as both a father and a Mayor, being public about your feelings is one of those inalienable rights we keep prattling on about.

The police simply don't like what he said, but it in no way shape or form was an attempt to legitimize or instigate violence against them.

The Mayor feels he needs to tell his kid to be careful not to reach for his cell phone around police more likely to misinterpret this because he is black and he has every right to be upset that he has to tell his kid this.

 

[Smidlee]

He's allowed to speak as both a father and a Mayor, being public about your feelings is one of those inalienable rights we keep prattling on about.

The police simply don't like what he said, but it in no way shape or form was an attempt to legitimize or instigate violence against them.

Have you ever heard of something called "responsibility"? It's just as important if not more than the freedom. Freedom of speech without responsibility is a fire out of it's fireplace.
You think is wise for anyone in power like the President to watch what they say in public?

 

[variant]

Have you ever heard of something called "responsibility"? It's just as important if not more than the freedom. Freedom of speech without responsibility is a fire out of it's fireplace.

You think is wise for anyone in power like the President to watch what they say in public?

Nobody shot anyone because the mayor told the truth to his kid and was open about it.

 

[Smidlee]

Nobody shot anyone because the mayor told the truth to his kid and was open about it.

You doubt the power of the tongue? The tongue is a much greater weapon than people realize. Again you are confusing the difference between what he told his son and what he told the public what he told his son.

 

[Vylo]

He made it racist, and inflamed more hatred from blacks with what he said.

No, the people committing racism made it racist.

 

[variant]

You doubt the power of the tongue? The tongue is a much greater weapon than people realize.

I'm guessing from the murderers own tongue that he shot the officers as revenge for Eric Gardner and Michael Brown.

The police were already upset at the Mayor who ran on a campaign to stop the practice of "stop and frisk" and decided to say and do some ridiculous things.

So unless you think talking to the public about how you talk to your kid about interacting with the police turned back time and decided to not indict Eric Gardners killer, I doubt the Mayors words are what did it.

 

[brewmama]

No, the people committing racism made it racist.

Same thing.

 

[Vylo]

Same thing.

Not at all. Police acting racist is made no more racist by people talking about it.

 

[brewmama]

Noting of course that the cop wasn't killed by a protester but a guy who drove in from Baltimore and shot two people randomly.

How can you say he wasn't a protester? He made it quite clear he was. There are protesters in many more places than NYC. And of course, you are ignoring all the other violence done by the protesters.

So, what you are doing is blaming protesters for a straight up murderer, regardless of if they called for it or not.

I'll say it one more time and then I'm giving up. Yes, a PROTESTER committed murder, other protesters have called for it, other violence had been perpetrated against the police by protesters. NO, not EVERY SINGLE protester, but those calling for peace don't seem to be making much headway. As I have said over and over, yet you keep trying to twist it into something else.

At the same time, as I have also shown over and over, the hostility has been fed and incited by those in charge, such as Obama, Holder, and De Blasio.

You mean you haven't been trying to justify blaming people who haven't called for violence? Because it sure looks like that is exactly what you are doing.

No. Calling for violence has NOTHING to do with it. (Again) What matters is how those in power continue to feed the anger and encourage protesters with statements like how racist whites, the police, America, whoever else is over and over, without trying to defuse it.

And when you are black or poor that gets you beat to the ground in NYC over a petty crime.

If you're a white guy from Nevada you have millions of dollars and an armed militia and Fox News at your back you can basically wave your middle finger at the authorities.

There are of course no disparities in enforcement. Except for all the ones we know about...

Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?_r=0

That has been rebutted before, but here it is again.

"Instead of just asking people to fill out a form, the Census Bureau also visits 3000 families and asks them to answer about 45 minutes worth of more detailed questions, including some version of this: Do you smoke pot?

They found black and white people admit to smoking marijuana in about the same amount. That’s it. No testing. Just talking.

They assembled their answers in a report called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health. Soon the talking heads figured black people were arrested four times more often for apparently committing the same amount of crime: Smoking dope.

And that is how the big ‘everyone commits crime in the same amount but only black people are arrested’ hoax was born.

That is it. That’s all there is. And it is not even close to being true."



Read more: Articles: Racial Fairy Tales from the NAACP

You posted a bunch of grievances against various people saying various things having little to do with the conversation.

You mean like you keep doing with Clive Bundy?
My posts on the other hand were directly applicable to either the OP or something you said.

The mayor did not cause racism to be an issue here, he merely commented on it in a way you don't agree with.

He exacerbated it.