- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

NYPD Turns Backs on De Blasio

This is big. And this is bad news for the city: [1]

A blue wall of silently seething police officers turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio [2]Saturday night — literally.

As the mayor and his entourage snaked through a jammed third-floor corridor at Woodhull Hospital, where two officers had been pronounced dead [3] just hours earlier, scores of grieving cops faced the walls — and away from the leader they believe has failed them.

Earlier, de Blasio approached a cluster of cops at the Brooklyn Hospital and offered, “We’re all in this together.”

“No we’re not,” an officer replied tersely, according to a cop who witnessed the icy scene.

Horrible day for the NYPD. I don’t blame them for this show of disrespect to de Blasio. If trust has broken down so much that the city’s police force sees the Mayor as the enemy, there are going to be some horrible days for all of New York City.

UPDATE: Gang, what I mean by “I don’t blame them” is not “they were right to do this,” but that I understand why they did it, in the emotions of the moment. It was as shocking as they intended it to be, and I hope they do not do it again. Similarly, I understand it when people whose family member has been killed by cops have over-the-top reactions to it, initially. I think we should extend some limited grace to people in those situations.

UPDATE.2: Oh God: [4]

But the scene outside Woodhull Hospital [where the bodies of the two murdered officers were brought] wasn’t entirely supportive. “You’re a bunch of killers,” a passerby told cops standing sentry there, according to one police source. And short distance from the crime scene—where a crowd was backed up by the police tape—a few members of the crowd repeated “f**k the cops” within earshot of a Daily Beast reporter.

One 30-year-old local who gave his first name only as Carlos, didn’t hear the fatal gunfire but saw the hysteria aftewards and walked to the police tape.

“A lot of people were clapping and laughing,” he said.

“Some were saying, ‘They deserved it,’ and another was shouting at the cops, ‘Serves them right because you mistreat people!’” he said.

What do you want to bet word had spread among those cops that people in the neighborhood were clapping and laughing over the murder of their colleagues?

273 Comments (Open | Close)

273 Comments To "NYPD Turns Backs on De Blasio"

#1 Comment By Reinhold On December 23, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

[5]
I was wrong, here’s a huge bust of the untaxed cigarette market.

#2 Comment By Michael Guarino On December 24, 2014 @ 1:22 am

Regarding lead paint and violent crime rates, its interesting that murder rates are not correlated to lead paint use and disuse.

I suspect the lead paint/crime correlation will end up on [6] eventually. It is not totally absurd because mental degeneration is associated with lead exposure, and because boomers tend to provide a decent corpus of evidence towards the hypothesis of mental degeneration (Exhibit A: [7]), but it is incredibly far-fetched. It is also a very convenient explanation for someone with the politics of Kevin Drum, who initially floated the idea.

The situation is almost certainly more complicated, and the effects of broken windows policing has not been thoroughly discredited, from my understanding.

Really, the only thing we know for certain about the decline of crime since the 90s is that we know little about the decline of crime since the 90s.

#3 Comment By Michael Guarino On December 24, 2014 @ 1:38 am

Not sure if this is on topic enough, but there is a really fantastic dialog between Glenn Loury and John McWhorter about this whole topic of police violence and the aftermath of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The basic theme of the dialog is the polarization precipitated by the two stories, which almost certainly will serve the interests of no one long-term.

[8]

#4 Comment By panda On December 24, 2014 @ 3:06 am

At this point, I am probably flogging a dead thread, but I really would be curious in hearing what the people who think that every word a cop says about their feelings and fears is sacrosanct think about this:
[9]

“euters 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.”

#5 Comment By Glaivester On December 24, 2014 @ 5:54 am

I doubt anyone who cares will see this at this deep point in the thread, but the Fox Baltimore affiliate just admitted they were wrong in saying that protesters were calling for the death of cops:

That’s a separate incident from the one that most people are referring to:

[10]

“What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”

#6 Comment By Glaivester On December 24, 2014 @ 5:58 am

My favorite part about that rant is that he complains that DiBlasio ***allowed*** the protests. Guess what: all those complaints about trumped freedoms, constitutional rights, and Don’t Thread on me things, apply to Black people (and liberals) too, despite the fact they are not real Americans. No one needs to give them frigging permission to protest whatever they want.

Uh – I believe he is not required to allow protests without permits on the street or on the bridges.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to block traffic. It’s like burning the American flag in protest; you cannot forbid someone from burning the flag per se but it’s still illegal to do so in any setting where it is illegal to have an open flame (e.g. in the a dynamite warehouse).

#7 Comment By JonF On December 24, 2014 @ 6:19 am

Re: the story that the mayors office tried to bury was that there was a crackdown on sale of out of state and untaxed cigarettes

Does this have anything to do with Garner? He was selling loose individual cigarettes, at a mark-up. Presumably he got them from cigarette packs on which the usual tariffs had been paid. Resale of this sort of very common in low income communities (yes, the extra mark-up hardly helps the poor). We have guys hawking bottled water for ridiculous prices at intersections in the summer, and guys who roam the Metro trains selling socks and the like. Before being disdainful one ought think that these vendors are at least trying to earn money in an entrepreneurial manner.

#8 Comment By panda On December 24, 2014 @ 11:16 am

“I do agree it is ‘outwordly’ [which I think means ‘outworldly’, which I think means ‘unthinkable’] simply because few politicians dare to connect illegal immigration to crime, and few still do so consistently and certainly not in the specific, and over the top way that the AG and President have used the Michael Brown killing.”

Let me reverse myself. We have nothing in common politically, but, unlike some other voices on this forum, I tend to respect you for honesty, and avoidance of genocidal fantasies. However, the notion that Obama’s rhetoric is “over the top” is, to my view, so ridiculous, so outside observable reality, that I simply don’t think there is any point in arguing the matter (and notice, that you not once cited anything he actually said).

#9 Comment By panda On December 24, 2014 @ 11:18 am

“Uh – I believe he is not required to allow protests without permits on the street or on the bridges.

In other words, what you are saying is that nothing in the First Amendment actually requires the state to permit anyone to express their opinions in public. I do wonder what you think about people who makes similar arguments about the 2nd amendment.

#10 Comment By panda On December 24, 2014 @ 11:47 am

Here is a close analysis of the actual words that Holder and Obama spoke on the Garner/Brown issues, finding no instances whatsoever of either using incendiary rhetoric: [11]

The only way you could make that argument is because Black people are so violent by nature, any acknowledgment of their grievances is a form of agitation against law and order. That is an ancient tenet of American political life, going back the early 1800s at least, and it was obscene then as it is obscene now.

#11 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 24, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

Panda responding to Glaivester’s Uh – I believe he is not required to allow protests without permits on the street or on the bridges.: In other words, what you are saying is that nothing in the First Amendment actually requires the state to permit anyone to express their opinions in public.

Panda, your unqualified (as in having no additional clarifying words) rejoinder is a non sequitur. Nothing in the First Amendment sanctions any form of speech that creates or could create a public safety violation. Every jurisdiction at every level has laws or ordnances that superficially curtail speech but easily pass muster on constitutional grounds. I invite you to expand your comment to clarify your intention here.

#12 Comment By JonF On December 24, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

Re: That’s a separate incident from the one that most people are referring to:

Why should we believe the other instance is legit either? If the Right is now stopping to doctoring video to further a racist agenda, a la the Breitbart-O’Keefe school of slander and propaganda, than I don’t think we can trust anything coming from those corners.

#13 Comment By JonF On December 24, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

Re: Really, the only thing we know for certain about the decline of crime since the 90s is that we know little about the decline of crime since the 90s.

Some of it is simple demographics: there are fewer people in the crime prone age group.

#14 Comment By JonF On December 24, 2014 @ 1:28 pm

The ‘What do we want, dead cops’ thing is on cellphone video.

IMO, that makes it even more suspect. Someone could have taken the video then had the chant voiced over it. Technology today makes it very easy to fake such things.

#15 Comment By Brian On December 24, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

John f
We seem to agree. I’m not being disdainful of pan handlers and the like.
My point is that the average nyfd officer is not out harassing these guys, they usually go from call to call. When they do confront these folks it’s almost always because they’ve been ordered to from on high. Or that they’re responding to a 911 complaint.
I don’t believe the narrative that cops are just out looking to get after every poor black guy that they see.

#16 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 24, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

Nothing in the First Amendment sanctions any form of speech that creates or could create a public safety violation.

There is, however, a RIGHT peacefully to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Generally, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that viewpoint-neutral time, place and manner regulation, of speech, assembly, marches, etc., passes constitutional muster.

It appears, from the language references, that some police officers hold against the mayor that he has failed in his duty to suppress the expression of the viewpoint that the police are not doing their job properly (which some certainly are not).

Mass marches in a crowded setting such as every square inch of NYC do pose a question of the rights of others to travel to work, make essential deliveries, etc. So a permit process is not ipso facto unreasonable or unconstitutional. However, such reasonable regulation can easily be applied in an unreasonable manner to suppress a disfavored point of view.

(E.g., literacy tests for voting might have been reasonable, if there were a massive effort to teach all formerly enslaved people and equally illiterate po’ white trash to read and right. In practice, it was manipulated to refuse even the most erudite persons of African descent any chance of voting, and selectively to bar the less favored sort of “white” citizens from voting, although some illiterates were among the favored few.

#17 Comment By Reinhold On December 24, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to block traffic.”
If the protest is corralled onto the sidewalk as the police prefer it, the police ride their motorcycles in the street and block traffic. Protests that are allowed to march in the streets usually move very swiftly through traffic. IF the tactic in question is blocking an interstate highway, then the police will certainly arrest everyone doing so. Protest is not about what you are allowed to do.

#18 Comment By Franklin Evans On December 25, 2014 @ 9:32 am

The incredibly simple and utterly mundane purpose behind regulated and officially permitted (the paper, not the decision) public actions of any sort is logistical and potentially life-saving: they divert public transit routes, notify first responders and hospitals of the time, place and duration of the disruptions to usual access, and give local businesses and residents time to prepare or get their personal cars out of the area.

Spontaneous demonstrations need to have a damn good reason for bypassing that mundane process, and if it doesn’t entail some sort of official denial of their application for the permit easily traceable to political or social opposition, I not only don’t care about their river of tears, I will personally go after them if someone needing emergency care suffers or dies as a result of their actions.

They can sacrifice themselves to harsh treatment and jail time for their causes. I will take notice. But the moment they force someone else to make that sacrifice, they not only lose my notice they lose my trust and respect.

#19 Comment By Glaivester On December 25, 2014 @ 11:39 am

Does [the crackdown on selling untaxed cigarettes] have anything to do with Garner? He was selling loose individual cigarettes, at a mark-up. Presumably he got them from cigarette packs on which the usual tariffs had been paid.

Yes, because selling loose individual cigarettes is illegal, whether they have been bought in taxed cartons or not, because it is difficult or impossible for the police to tell whether loosies were bought taxed or untaxed.

Resale of this sort of very common in low income communities (yes, the extra mark-up hardly helps the poor). We have guys hawking bottled water for ridiculous prices at intersections in the summer, and guys who roam the Metro trains selling socks and the like. Before being disdainful one ought think that these vendors are at least trying to earn money in an entrepreneurial manner.

Once again, JonF, you miss the point entirely. People who bring up that Garner was selling loosies are generally not trying to defame his character. Rather, the point is that these type of things will inevitably happen if you declare war on untaxed cigarettes. DeBlasio did declare war on untaxed cigarettes. If you are upset that the cops seemed to be harassing someone for a minor vending crime, blame DeBlasio, not the cops.

#20 Comment By M_Young On December 26, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

panda

The Reuter’s link doesn’t say how their “sample” of 25 black officers was arrived at, but a clue might be that they gathered at a bar to have wings and beer. Sounds like one of the many ‘black’ this and that grievance groups in this country. Black policeman’s society, black fireman’s society, black teacher’s society etc. etc.

Further the one specific claim attributable to a named source is that the guy was stopped while jogging in central park, showed ID, and then went on his way. Oh, the horror, the horror! As for the more violent confrontations, I would take them with a huge grain of salt unless (as they are not) they were described, in quoted speech by the alleged victim on the record.

Why, if a specific guy can come forward about being stopped while jogging can’t some of these other people be quoted — maybe even just a first name? Perhaps, as in the Rolling Stone rape hoax, because it makes ‘The Narrative’ unfalsifiable.

#21 Comment By M_Young On December 26, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

panda — Obama claiming Trayvvon Martin as his non-existent son was over the top. The AG’s very presence in Ferguson was over the top, as was the presence of federal officials at the funeral of Michael Brown.

‘Cautious’ statements like Obama’s — well, most cops are okay but many are biased etc — are read ‘on the street’ as delegitimizing cops and worse. This is especially true as they function in synergy with more extreme statements by folks like Obama advisor Sharpton.

#22 Comment By Aegis On December 26, 2014 @ 9:27 pm

“‘Cautious’ statements like Obama’s — well, most cops are okay but many are biased etc — are read ‘on the street’ as delegitimizing cops and worse.”

“The Streets” can go to Hell if they can’t take well-founded, nuanced-to-the-point-of-being-milquetoast, critiques of the sort that Obama, Holder, and DeBlasio have offered thus far.

#23 Comment By JonF On December 29, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

Re: Rather, the point is that these type of things will inevitably happen if you declare war on untaxed cigarettes. DeBlasio did declare war on untaxed cigarettes.

Except that you have not established that the cigarettes were “untaxed”. If Garner was simply buying up packs of cigarettes, opening them, then selling individual cigarettes at a mark-up (as in my Baltimore example of the water sellers who often have cases of bottles sitting beside them) then any taxes due were paid, and the price Garner charged included the tax.