NYPD

NYPD Freakout: "We've Become a 'Wartime' Police Department"

|

NYPD

An email circulated among the New York Police Department sounds like a bad chain letter but it's very serious. The New York Post reports on the e-mail's contents:

"IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest," the statement said.

"These are precautions that were taken in the 1970s when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis," the statement added.

"We have, for the first time in a number of years, become a 'wartime' Police Department," the message concluded. "We will act accordingly. FORWARD MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY TO ANY AND ALL [members of the service.]"

Additionally, the NYPD has instituted a buddy system for foot patrols and is keeping unarmed auxilliary cops off the street.

Individual cops are worried too. "It's f–king open season on us right now," one officer told The New York Post. "When is [Mayor Bill de Blasio] going to step up?"

If the words "wartime" and "open season" are used after two cops are killed in more than 3 years, what word should black people in New York City use? Eric Garner and Akai Gurley are not the only two killed by the NYPD this year, just the most prominent cases.

Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu are the first NYPD officers killed in the line of duty since 2011. Although this police shooting has received a lot of national attention, the response so far is more or less typical. When Officer Melvin Santiago was ambushed and killed at a Walgreens in Jersey City, police claimed gangs were hiding weapons in abandoned buildings all over the city and calling on gangs in other areas to come to Jersey City and help start a war on cops. It never happened.

The difference now is that the issue of police reform has gotten national attention. For the last two weeks, police apologists have been calling civil rights protesters in New York City "anti-police," in an effort to define the broad calls for reform using the most extremist minority of protesters available. It's a familiar tactic for hard-to-defend policy positions. Instead of keeping an open mind about the kinds of reforms that might make policing safer and more efficient, defenders of the status quo insist the "other side" would prefer a chaotic world without cops.

The issues surrounding police reform are not "anti-cop" issues. Things like greater accountability and transparency, independent investigations, and more substantive disciplinary reforms aren't "anti-cop." They're good for police and the people being policed. Returning to the email, the advice to make arrests and write summonses only when "absolutely necessary" is excellent advice, not just for officer safety but public safety too. Police interactions ought to be as limited to the explicit laws meant to be policed as possible. In Staten Island, Officer Daniel Pantaleo and the other cops involved in the death of Eric Garner were ordered by their supervisors specifically to hit the street and find sellers of loose, untaxed, cigarettes. It's a "crime" not worth Garner's life, or a cop's.

It's time for the residents of New York to own up to their share of responsibility in this situation for demanding and supporting an increasing number of laws police are then told to go enforce on the poorest and most marginalized residents of New York City.

Watch What We Saw at the "I CAN Breathe" Pro-NYPD Rally in New York on December 20:

NEXT: Steve Chapman: The Strange Source of Our Cuba Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They weren’t a wartime police department before? They didn’t have an us-against-them mentality before? Civilians weren’t considered the enemy before now?

    1. They weren’t armed with military weapons before? Is Fist of Etiquette subbing for Andrew Napolitano?

      1. If you’re driving at the speed of light, and turn on your headlights, does anything happen?

        /Steven Wright

        1. I put a cup of instant coffee in a microwave… I almost traveled in time.

          /Stevne Wright

          1. Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I’m afraid of widths.

            /Wright again.

    2. Only the criminal ones.
      If you stay within the existing laws – not just the ones you think are “justified” – you have nothing to worry about.

      1. So which laws are you talking about? Those thousands of laws, administrative rulings, and judicial fiats that take up entire bookshelves of space? Those laws?

        Don’t you have to KNOW the law before you can even consider your ability to remain within them?

      2. Keep drinking that koolaid and try not to let your blinders slip off.

    3. They weren’t a wartime police department before?

      They were a Drug War Dept.

      1. So then yes, they were a wartime police department before. A stupid, pointless, costly war, but still war.

  2. Anybody else see a connection between the end of stop and frisk and this uptick in violence toward police officers?

    1. Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu are the first NYPD officers killed in the line of duty since 2011.

      No.

      Troll harder next time.

    2. Nope. I do see a connection between the growing unaccountability of the police and their refusal to live by the same rules as everyone else, not too mention their own hostility toward the public they purport to ‘serve’.

    3. Yes. In fact, I said on another blog that between the Soviet style work camps, known as “prisons”, and the Gestapo style tactics used, like “stop-an-frisk”, it’s no wonder that people want to shoot cops.

      Claire Wolfe said, almost 20 years ago, “it’s too late to work within the system…”. Perhaps it is not to soon to “shoot the bastards”.

      1. Shooting cops doesn’t help solve the problem when decapitation is what is needed.

    4. this uptick in violence toward police officers

      Classic question begging.

      Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu are the first NYPD officers killed in the line of duty since 2011.

      “Uptick” indeed.

      1. I still remember one time a cop fellator on these boards told me that cops in a California City (I don’t recall which one) deserved to make 100,000 dollars a year plus their bloated pensions because MY GOD! IT’S SUCH A DANGEROUS JOB AND THEY MIGHT NOT MAKE IT HOME AT NIGHT!

        I then found a website run by cops listing every fatality suffered by that police department going back to the 1870s. They haven’t had a cop murdered since 1993 and they’ve had 7 cops die violently in the last 140 years.

        Yeah. It’s quite the slaughter house out there. How do the cops manage such a massive amount of violence constantly being visited upon them?

        1. When someone (not me) wrote a sarcastic letter to the editor of the local paper about how the police department should parade its military vehicles like some communist dictatorship, the mayor wrote an angry reply about how it’s a war out there and cops need all the military hardware they can get. So I looked up the stats, and something like three officers have been killed in the line of duty in that city in the last century. War indeed.

          1. Would you also agree that since very few people die of dysentery, therefore we don’t need water treatment plants.

            1. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read in my life. It’s like gazing into the deepest, darkest abysses of human stupidity and stumbling away horrified of the writhing monstrosities you dimly glimpsed therein.

              1. Yes it is dumb. And it’s analogous to sarcasmic’s argument.

                1. Actually, it isn’t remotely analogous. It’s just completely retarded.

                  1. Yeah, it would be more analogous to cite the fact that the city hasn’t had any dragon attacks since they installed the $100 million dollar dragon repellent system.

                    So why are you calling that a waste of money? Do you want the city to be attacked by dragons?

                    1. Sure VG, you write that now, but I’m sure you’ll be among the first ones to cry when Tiamat decides to attack your city.

                    2. Ahahahaahaha

                  2. Wait now Restoras, to a reactionary analogous equals retarded

                2. It is not analogous. Police officers were rarely killed prior to getting military weaponry. They are rarely killed now. Militarization therefore didn’t solve any actual problems, it merely gave cops a bigger boot with which to stave in the skulls of a generally innocent citizenry.

                  This is not like dysentery because water treatment actually solved a problem. Police militarization ‘solved’ a problem which only existed in the incoherent, paranoid fever dreams of the sort of moron that infests American police departments.

                3. It’s not analogous because cops weren’t dying in droves before they had military style hardware.

            2. Would you also agree that since very few people die of dysentery, therefore we don’t need water treatment plants.

              This would make sense if you could show that there was a difference in police safety in that municipality before and after they acquired military hardware.

              Since sarcasmic talked about fatality statistics that went back a century, you wouldn’t be able to do that.

              Your counter here is moronic because of the time series data.

              1. Only because dysentery-causing organisms haven’t changed their MO in the past century. Criminals have.

                1. I was unaware that American criminals have gained access to rocket launchers that would necessitate armored personnel carriers.

                  Where do you live? Gotham City?

                  1. I was unaware that American criminals have gained access to rocket launchers that would necessitate armored personnel carriers.

                    Access and a record of actually using them.

                    Where do you live? Gotham City?

                    I’m guessing he went to college at Tulane and lived for a spell in Pittsburgh before moving to Virginia, because I’ve not seen this handle before and his entire run today has been positively Tulptastic.

                  2. You can buy Yugo SKS’s with grenade launchers at any gun show without a background check.

                    1. You can buy Yugo SKS’s with grenade launchers at any gun show without a background check.

                      And? How many times has a grenade launcher been used in a crime?

                      And good luck buying ammo for it.

                    2. You don’t need to buy ammo for it when you have access to YouTube DIY grenade videos.

                    3. “You don’t need to buy ammo for it when you have access to YouTube DIY grenade videos.”

                      You are literally the stupidest human being I’ve ever had the misfortune to talk to.

                      You are wetting your pants over the theoretical possibility that someone could a) buy a grenade launcher and b) build his own grenades which will fit that grenade launcher despite the fact that this has literally never happened in the history of this country.

                      I think police should have access to bomb shelters in case a criminal builds a nuclear explosive in his basement.

                      How do you know it couldn’t happen? Why do you want our heroes in blue to die of radiation poisoning, you monster?!?!

                    4. Everything that has ever happened had never happened before it happened.

                    5. “Everything that has ever happened had never happened before it happened.”

                      “We must give police officers access to surface to air missiles because theoretically we might be invaded by the Red Chinese. Who are you to say this makes no sense? Everything that has ever happened had never happened before it happened.”

                    6. Dekikon is a copsucking troll. He has nothing to say that he can back up with any useful info. You all should just ignore him..

                    7. Everything that has ever happened had never happened before it happened.

                      Either it’s Tulpa or a sock of a regular. Even your average weapons-grade moron isn’t dumb enough to trot this out.

                    8. OBVIOUSLY THE NYPD NEEDS ACCESS TO PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERIES!!!11ONEELEVEN

                    9. Haha holy shit. You’re one of those guys who wets his pants thinking about Al Qaeda everynight, aren’t you? I’ll bet you think the TSA and NSA are the only things holding back the brown hordes.

                    10. Are you posting from Iraq or Afghanistan?

                    11. “You can buy Yugo SKS’s with grenade launchers at any gun show without a background check.”

                      Assuming this is true, these grenade launchers have been used in 0 crimes in American history. Point me to one instance of such a weapon being used. One.

                      I’ll wait.

                    12. No, no you can not. Also, the only grenade launchers for the SKS are the spigot type (M59/66); good luck sourcing those rounds.

                    13. Can you buy a brain at any gun show? ‘Cause you should look into that.

                  3. Whch brings us back to tme question of the water treatment plant.

                    Seriusly; there has GOT to be something in ghe water in Gotham. Look at the architecture; it isn’t just since Bruce Wayne started poncing aroind in his Batsuit. There has been something seriously wrong with Gotham for a long time.

                2. The last time someone killed a cop in that city was the mid 90s. Before that there was one in the 70s, and then the 20s. That’s it. No need for military hardware. Unless they want to parade it down the street and give the children a chance to run along side while their moms throw flowers at the brave soldiers who occupy their city.

                  1. Unless they want to parade it down the street

                    And the Mayor and Police Chief stand on the wall of the Kremlin City Hall and wave.

                3. Only because dysentery-causing organisms haven’t changed their MO in the past century. Criminals have.

                  Yup.

                  They’ve changed it in ways that made cops much safer.

                  The vast – VAST – majority of crime that takes place in the US today is conducted in ways designed to specifically hide from and avoid interactions with police.

                  In my entire state, I doubt there are 100 arrests a year that even really required the police to be armed. I can’t remember any news accounts of an arrest in the last 15 years that would have required an APC. Not one.

                  1. And the average concealed carry permit holder dies of old age having never been in a situation where he needed to be carrying a gun to protect himself. I guess we don’t need concealed carry rights either.

                    1. “Needs” got nothing to do with it when we’re talking about fundamental rights.

                      Meanwhile, The State doesn’t have rights.

                    2. Look at those strawmen burn!

                  2. This reeks of Tulpa

                    1. He’s got ~66% of the tells that give away a Tulpa sock.

                  3. Wow, you do that well with keeping track of crime blotters, huh? I can’t imagine a life that boring or without purpose.

        2. It was probably dunphy. Or Tulpa.

      2. Going from zero to 2 is more than an uptick, it’s an infinite percentage increase.

        Remember the shit Bloomberg took when he bragged about having the seventh largest army in the world in the NYPD? You think the NYPD was the one giving him shit for referring to the NYPD as an army?

        This is why I said I couldn’t bring myself to shed a tear for those dead cops – the NYPD has been on a war footing against the general public for a long time but the general public has refused to admit it. Once you go to war, anybody wearing the uniform of the enemy is fair game. It doesn’t matter if you’re operating a tank on the front lines or back at camp cooking meals for the troops or off in another country ordering supplies for the troops.

        1. To quote my wife after watching me play JFK: Reloaded, “If you weren’t on a list before, you sure are now!”

          1. I’m confident he was just moved higher on several lists.

        2. Good thing for you, and yours, that the police don’t think that way.
          The obvious “uniform” for your type is no uniform, at all, and by your rules, you are all “fair game”.

          1. Well all right then. War it is.

    5. If only the NYPD had been allowed to go down to Baltimore to stop-and-frisk this guy before anything happened.

      1. Hey, NYPD was in Ferguson…why not Baltimore?

    6. What uptick in violence toward police officers? One incident is not a trend.

    7. OMG it’s serious! That is just adorable.

  3. IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest,” the statement said.

    That part at least sounds like a good idea.

    1. Shouldn’t this be, you know, the default position?

      1. Should be. I feel like this is just setting them up for a “nice city you have there, shame if something were to happen to it…”

        1. That does seem to be the position they are taking.

        2. That was my first thought too – they’re gearing up for a “work stoppage”. Wouldn’t surprise me.

      2. That’s the default position of a peace officer who sees his job as keeping the peace. We haven’t had peace officers in a long time, they’re all law enforcement now. It’s all “respect my authoritah” and not “if you’re going to be an asshole, go home and be an asshole in the privacy of your own home and not out here in public”.

    2. So they are going to arrest jaywalkers and speeders? Or just stop enforcing those laws?

      They sound like a bunch of pansies.

    3. So they admit they were making arrests when it wasn’t necessary huh?They are pissed because many want to take away some of their power and immunity. These cop union thug praised the cop who killed Garner,and the guy has other suits against him.They never admit wrong doing,ever.

  4. Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest,”

    Isn’t this generally a good thing?

    1. crap. refresh, how do it work.

    2. Aye. A very good thing.

    3. I have a feeling that our definition of absolutely necessary and theirs is quite different.

  5. That “open season” bullshit has been floating around facebook for the last few days.

    1. A Deer runs across road and hits car. It’s open season on cars!

      1. Suicide cervines cause thousands of deaths each year. Or was it hundreds? Or maybe dozens?

        1. Suicidal deer are probably the most dangerous thing in Michigan outside Detroit.

        2. Thousands would be more correct. In Illinois, I counted ten dead deer along Interstate 57 from mile 126 to 112, the day after the first, three day, shotgun season! My brother hit one in his truck o the way home from seeing my mom for the last time, in the hospital. My mom died and the deer is hamburger! Since we were away from home, because she was shuttled two hours away for surgery, I said it was mom’s kill!

  6. You can’t overstate how badly the liberals have fucked this up. This entire episode stands as proof that any attempt to work with progs, even on areas where they might agree with you is doomed because Progs are so inherently retarded and evil. Here we had a legitimate case of police brutality and lack of accountability that finally made some national news. Libertarians and some of the Right immediately saw the case for what it was; an example of how our insane laws victimize the poor and how police unions have made police unaccountable. The progs of course didn’t see it that way. “What the fuck are you talking about” was the response given by the head smug retard Jon Stewart. No. The Garner case was all about individual cops being racist and evil. The problem was cops are racist and hate black people. Sure enough some nut too that to heart this weekend and murdered two cops who were sitting around watching the world go by. Now of course the police are angry as hell and blame the progs and really anyone who thought the Garner case was an outrage for the two murders. Such are the wages of blaming the Garner case on the evils of individual cops rather than larger issues like unions and laws.

    1. ^ I agree with all of this. Police officers are paranoid, delusional morons. Progressives are paranoid delusional morons. As a result, when progs come in conflict with police departments someone is bound to get killed due to the vast, seemingly endless sea of stupidity which is on display.

      1. The whole thing is like watching two angry retards in a cage match with chain saws.

        1. Except there’s no cage.

          1. And they all want cake

      2. The whole thing is like watching two angry retards in a cage match with chain saws.

        1. And the liberal and conservative media are on the sidelines, licking their chops.

        2. Except the chain saws are squirrels.

        3. It’d be fun to watch if we we’re locked in the cage with them. At some point in time the progs will realize they need the cops to enforce their insane laws. The cops realize their gravy train funding is under threat and the two retards decide it’s OUR fault.

          1. Of course they will. You watch, give it a few months and the entire Dem operative media establishment will have rewritten the history of these murders. By this time next year every right thinking member of the hive will talk about how the NRA and those right wing nuts caused the murder of these two brave police officers. You watch.

            1. The problem with victimless crime is it really isn’t victimless. As long as they are crimes, you have a victim and he is the one having is ass hauled away for committing the victimless crime. But more gun laws, yeah, let’s do that instead.

              1. The whole concept is insane. I use drugs and harm myself. It is not a “victimless crime” really. It is a crime where the perpetrator and the victim are the same person. The state arrests criminals in order to do justice for the victims of their crimes. We have a criminal law system so that victims can get justice in a fair and orderly way and don’t have to resort to vigilante justice to get it. Think about that in the context of drug use. The state is stepping in to punish me for victimizing my better nature. WTF? It makes no sense.

                The state should only regulate behaviors that affect the commons and other people. So what should be illegal is me being stoned in public such that I cause harm to other people or me driving stoned and wrecking my car. There there is a real dispute between and other people. But me using drugs in my home or using them such that I function well enough in public so that I don’t bother anyone? That is totally at odds with any rational justification for criminal law.

                1. Every now and then, you give me hope, John. 😉

                  1. Fransisco,

                    I have tried to explain that concept to conservatives so many times and they just won’t fucking listen. They refuse to understand that if you are going to say that the state can step in to stop people from using drugs, you have given away the argument to Progs. Why can’t and shouldn’t the state also step in to stop people from owning guns or eating sugary foods or anything else society decides is “harmful”.

                    All they ever say is “but drugs are different” as if that answers the argument and drugs are somehow the only harmful activity one can engage in. It just drives me insane. I actually had a long email back and forth with Jonah Goldberg over this subject. He got so angry about it, the guy won’t answer my emails anymore. He used to answer all of my emails. After that email exchange he hasn’t for about six months. All he had to say was “drugs are different” and “that is an old argument” like it being old somehow makes it invalid.

                    1. SoCons have a bizarre belief that drugs control the person taking them, enslaving them or some such nonsense.

                      Yet somehow, they also believe that nicotene, alcohol and pharmaceuticals don’t enslave people.

                      It’s a completely irrational, emotionally driven belief. One that we need an effective way to defeat, but so far I haven’t found one.

                    2. VG,

                      That is exactly what it is. A lot of them, including Goldberg, have close family members who were or are degenerate addicts or drunks. They have a hard time accepting that maybe the problem was their loved one being a degenerate not the drugs themselves.

                      The fact is tens of millions of people have used even the hardest of drugs without ever becoming addicts. Lots of people used cocaine back in the 1970s, and they got older and wiser and stopped doing it. People take opiate based pain pills all of the time and when their script runs out, they don’t run to the doctor for more or become addicts. That to me totally disproves the “drugs are different because they enslave us” theory. If they really did, everyone or all but the most virtuous who tried them would become slaves to them. And of course that is not true. Very few people who try drugs become addicts.

                    3. The fact is tens of millions of people have used even the hardest of drugs without ever becoming addicts.

                      Anthony Kiedis mentions in his autobiography how Flea used to do heroin with the rest of the band, then decided to stop with no effort because he just didn’t like how he felt the next day. This contrasts sharply with Kiedis, who was a hopeless junkie for decades.

                    4. There are tons of stories like that. Keith Richards, who used heroin for almost a decade, used it strictly to ensure he never ODed. And he became physically dependent on the drug and would occasionally kick it and suffer through the withdrawals. When the police finally caught up with him in Canada and he faced the choice of giving it up for good or losing his career, he stopped using and never looked back.

                      Was he an “addict”? Physically he was. But he was also one of the hardest and most productive people in the music industry during that time, constantly touring and producing basically an album a year. I have no desire to use heroin or live his life. At the same time, his example puts lie to the idea that using heroin automatically makes you a thief or a degenerate or unproductive or enslaves you to a life of dependence on it.

                    5. Addiction(to anything really) is about pain–either physical or emotional– when/if the pain goes away the need for the coping mechanism (drugs,alcohol, gambling, religion, food, etc.etc.) goes away.

                    6. I have been saying that for 15 years.

                    7. Cannabis cures cancer.

                    8. I used to correspond with Jonah. He was mildly anti-prohibition then. It seems like a disease. You join with the conservatives on a few issues and pretty soon you are a socon.

    2. Yep, not to go all godwin but

      The progs response to police abuse is analogous to saying that the problem with the holocaust was psychotic guards instead of fucked up policy.

  7. This thing is so bad that it very well may end in DeBlasio having to resign because you can’t function as mayor when the police department to a man hates your guts and blames you for the murder of two cops. DeBlasio is a malignant retard who never should have been elected to anything. The fact that he is mayor of any city, let alone New York is a national disgrace. So, his sorry ass political career ending would be in some ways justice finally being served. The problem is that it will set the precedent that the cops can run off any mayor they don’t like and end the career of any mayor who tries to hold them accountable for anything. If DeBlasio were anything but a fucking retard and had made the Garner case about accountability and the problems with the system and not the “RACISM!!” of every individual cop, the cops wouldn’t be able to do that. But thanks to him and the rest of the evil retards they can and now the Garner case will result in police being even less accountable and absolutely no change in the laws that caused the incident in the first place. What a fucking mess.

    1. Or, he could magically grow balls and tell them shut up and do their jobs – or he’ll hire cops who aren’t cowards.

      1. Good luck with that. I don’t like cops anymore than anyone on this board. Like it or not, you can’t function as a mayor of a big city at war with the police department. They don’t have to like you and in fact probably shouldn’t. But they can’t as a group feel justified and telling you to fuck off. So you can’t as mayor get up and tell the city how racist all of your cops are. Even if it is true, what are you going to do about it? Fire all of the cops? Hardly.

        And you also have to realize that even though being a cop is a pretty safe job, occasionally cops do get killed. You don’t want to ever give the cops an excuse to blame you for the death of an officer. So you don’t make blanket statements about the cops. You talk about the union and specific cases and you also (gasp) talk about the laws.

        You can make the case against laws in a very cop friendly way. If we send our police out to enforce unjust and idiotic laws, we can’t then be surprised when the populace hates the police for doing their jobs. How about saying something like that? A prog like DeBalsio never would because that would require thinking and perhaps concluding passing a law isn’t t he solution to every problem and we can’t have that.

        1. Actually, in any but maybe the 20 biggest cities in the country, you could in fact tell them to fuck off. If they walk out, call in the state police and the national guard.

          DiBlasio is fucked because NYC is one of the 20 cities that are too big for you to do that.

          1. This is true. In most cities you also have the country sheriffs and the state police who could take over for the city cops if need be.

            Regardless, in any city, one of the biggest jobs of being mayor is being able to relate to and control the cops. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t be mayor. IN fairness, I probably shouldn’t be mayor because I am not diplomatic enough to deal with the cops.

            1. Pull a reagan and tell them to get back on the job and then fire the ones that don’t show up en masse.

              1. They aren’t walking off the job. They’ll be right there…. just in time to haul away the bodies.

                “Sure, you say there’s a robbery in progress. We’ll be along.”

                The victims will be the disarmed law-abiding citizens.

          2. You mean that people won’t self-organize and implement non-coercive means of protecting rights when the government law enforcement leaves? What kind of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist are you?

            1. Yes, it is truly amazing how people who have shown no respect for the rights of individuals, as evidenced by their own voting habits, would not undergo a spontaneous metamorphosis into totally different people.

              It’s almost like socialism, i.e. institutionalized dependency enforced with violence, has a fundamentally corrupting influence on people.

            2. Except, as we saw in the aftermath of Sandy, that is exactly what people do. Here in NYC (specifically the Rockaway Peninsula) we lost electricity for 22 days. Yet, the traffic flowed smoothly in the absence of flow control devices because of emergent order. After the looting of all the businesses adjacent to the public housing projects that occurred on the night of the storm, we formed armed patrols (just like we did in post-Katrina NOLA where I and other members of the Vieux Carre Defence Force, armed to the teeth, patrolled Da 1/4 on bikes and motorcycles) and put out copious signage that non-residents will be stopped and questioned and looters will be shot on sight. We had neighborhood cookouts to share foods that would otherwise spoil and to foster a greater sense of community. It was safer and more peaceful for those 3 weeks than it is with our normal NYPD presence. Emergent order, Tulpa. Learn about it!

              1. You’re a VIGILANTE!11!

                ::::collapses onto fainting couch::::

              2. Until the National Guard showed up to take the weapons away from you militia nuts…. which is exactly what happened in NOLA.

                1. Uhh… no it’s not. The firearms confiscations were conducted by the NOPD under Eddie Compass (the court put the kibosh on it and Compass was forced to resign). In my part of town, the French Quarter, the National Guard was nowhere to be seen. I worked at one of the two bars that remained open during the aftermath (Johnny White’s FTW!! We were trading cleaning supplies and canned goods for booze) and we had Blackwater guys come drink on a regular basis (they were headquartered in the Irish Chanel/Lower Garden District) but the Nasty Guard never showed up. The reason for this, emergent order. We residents already had the situation well in hand and did not need state apparatchiks to instruct us to do what our families have been doing on the Gulf Coast for 300+ years.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Compass

          3. So what you’re saying is New York needs to be broken up into 10 cities.

            Then when intensities break out and the PD in one of these 10 new towns proves worthless, the state police/guard can take over until a new PD is formed.

            1. So what you’re saying is New York needs to be broken up into 10 cities.

              More than that. The city itself is well aware that Manhattan alone could just as easily be 12 different towns.

              1. I was channeling Ted Nugent….

                Most big cities have more than 1 police district, generally the indication that the town is too big.

                I’ll also note that most big cities also have residency requirements for police and other employees. But if you looked at the residencies BY police district, you’d find that all the cops live in one or 2 districts – which means the majority of the police in a given district probably don’t live in the distrct they police.

                1. It works that way in NY as well. NYC has requires you to live in a NY county adjacent to the city limits, so most officers do, IIRC. Staten Island, the most suburban borough, is lousy with cops and would likely be more so if the residency rules were tightened.

                  1. NYPD also forbids officers from being stationed in the precinct in which they live; ostensibly to prevent the corrupting influence of neighborly familiarity.

                    1. When did that start? My cousin spent a solid 15 years living basically across the street from the 122.

                    2. 2006 was when I learned this but to be perfectly frank, I was told this by my cop neighbors (so take it with a grain of salt) when I asked why so many cops live here in the Rockaways but the ones on duty at our local all live in mainland Queens.

                2. AAAHHHH WANNNNNGOOO ZE TAAANNNGOOOOOO…

    2. I have a feeling they are going to find DeBlasio floating in the East River.

      1. See, the pollution problem was solved, a few decades ago, nothing could float in that river as it would dissolve!

    3. The thing you have to remember about DeBlasio is that he is, above all else, a Sharpton puppet. When gauging how he will react to any situation, simply figure out the outcome that is most beneficial to the NAN grievance machine and assume that he will take a course that ends up there. It’s shockingly predictable.

    4. In fairness to De Blasio, he offered very tepid, mild criticism and the cops freaked out because any critique of their limitless authority is by its very nature illegitimate.

      I don’t think De Blasio did anything wrong. I think the NYPD is run by petulant children who threw a whine-fest when daddy said they weren’t special.

      1. No, De Blasio associated himself with Sharpton and the worst of the protesters. And his criticism, tepid or not was for the he wrong reasons. The problem is the entire system not that all cops are racist, like if Garner had been white the whole thing never would have happened. He is getting exactly what he deserves.

      2. The problem with DeBlasio’s criticism was that, while it was substantively weak tea, it was framed in probably the most inflammatory way possible. At no point did he question procedure, accountability, or the wisdom of using police to enforce tax law (not surprising, since the crackdown was from his office). He automatically went to accusing them of racism.

    5. DeBlasio being mayor of NYC doesn’t affect anyone but the dolts who choose to live there and the poor schlubs who can’t afford to escape.

      That’s an improvement over Bloomberg, who tried to export his nonsense by lawsuits and using NYPD as spies and agents provocateurs in other states.

    6. DeBlasio is no doubt a piece of shit but his remarks had nothing to do with the actions of a lunitic. The shooters own malfunctioned brain is solely reponsible.

    7. DeBlasio is a malignant retard who never should have been elected to anything.

      Didn’t the FOP support his election?

    8. LOL, De Blasio resign. There’s a better chance of Obama resigning.

      1. If the police get a case of the blue flu and start letting crime go back up, all of those dipshit liberals on the upper east side who put that asshole in office will turn on him real quick. I give De Blasio a 50/50 at best chance of making it through his full term as mayor.

        1. Libertarians suddenly don’t believe in self-organization. Color me unsurprised.

          1. Yes, libertarians don’t believe that socialists are peaceful people who would organize into rights-respecting communities.

            What a shocker!

            1. So your utopia doesn’t work unless everyone in it is a good libertarian.

              1. Produce one libertarian who says that liberty will result in no crime.

              2. A libertarian society–there is no such thing as utopia–is not going to form from a non-libertarian population. Again, is this supposed to be some sort of shocker?

                The question is about what the rest of us must suffer to prop up the illusions of an immoral philosophy.

          2. a). You don’t understand what self-organization means
            b). John explicitly admits that he’s not a libertarian.

            Double fail.

            1. “No True Self-Organization”

              1. Self organization is ineffective if you don’t have any arms to defend yourself. What the fuck are a bunch of upper east side yuppies supposed to do? Fight off the criminals with their Iphones and artesnal mayonnaise jars?

              2. I’m sorry your strawman didn’t count.

          3. How exactly is a city that has been completely disarmed supposed to “self organize”? The reason why gun rights are so important is so that you don’t have to rely on the police entirely for your personal safety. Without guns, people are defenseless against criminals.

            Second, Libertarianism is not the same as anarchism. So no Libertarian needs to believe in the collective self defense unicorn. The two ideologies are different you fucking half wit.

          4. …Where did this come from?

          5. John doesn’t claim to be a libertarian.

            1. Even if I did, it is a stupid point.

        2. Ehh, I don’t think it will get that bad, and even if it does, I don’t think De Blasio would relent. He’d play harder to his base about how horrible the NYPD is and he’s a victim of their rogue policies. It may hurt his reputation with the people at large, but I think he’s more interested in what his particular sect thinks of him. They’ll feed his ego and keep him financially secure for life.

  8. See?! If Eric Garner, and Thomas Kelly, and John Crawford, and Jose Guerena, and Tamir Rice, and Christopher Roupe had all not died from the peaceable tactics of the friendly, pre-wartime police, this would never have happened!

  9. When Officer Melvin Santiago was ambushed and killed at a Walgreens in Jersey City, police claimed gangs were hiding weapons in abandoned buildings all over the city and calling on gangs in other areas to come to Jersey City and help start a war on cops. It never happened.

    It did so happen, they just didn’t rush into it. They are playing a long game of asymmetric warfare against the various local PD’s. This is phase 2 of the war on cops, and we’ll all be worse off when these anarchists win.

    We should be supporting the police’s rights to trample our in the name of officer safety; it’s the only way to maintain a properly functioning state of limited powers.

  10. And of course the cops are learning all of the wrong lessons from this. It would never occur to them that the fact that many in the community they are hired to protect hate their guts and are happy to see them die means perhaps something has gone horribly wrong and needs to change. No, this just shows that everyone who doesn’t love them is a criminal animal and the solution is to be even bigger oppressive assholes.

  11. Newtown had absolutely no impact on my view of the 2nd amendment, and this assassination has absolutely no impact on my view of police accountability.

    Sorry.

    The media wants to use SJW argument tactics here (“Cops were attacked so that means everyone against the police in a policy dispute is therefore wrong”) and that’s just not going to fly with me.

    1. It doesn’t me either. The guy was a fucking nutcase who should have been locked up years ago and he finally blew a gasket and did real harm. Had he not shot the cops over the Garner protests, he would have no doubt killed someone else for some other insane reason.

      The only thing that makes it tempted to unfairly blame this on the Garner protests is that the Progs behind the Garner protest are such evil hypocritical retards they deserve it. These are the same people who blamed Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting. Worse, give them a few months and they will convince themselves that the shooter who did this was a member of the right wing and inspired to do it by the NRA.

      My hatred of the Progressives aside, this guy’s act has nothing to do with police accountability. Just because some nut in New York murdered a couple of cops, doesn’t make it okay for some cop in Cleveland to murder some kid for the crime of holding a toy gun.

      1. I am increasingly agreeing with Mark Steyn when he said that ISIS was attracting criminals with a cause to allow them to do what they wanted to do and be lauded rather than being condemned for it.

        This is a similar thing. This guy wanted to kill himself. He wanted to kill his girlfriend. But that’s what losers do. Killing the cops made the rest heroic.

        1. Steyn is absolutely right and is making a point that should be obvious to anyone who has ever been to war or knows anything about history or human nature. Some people’s only real skill in the world is dealing violence. We always tell ourselves that war is so horrible and no one would want to be invollved in it but that is just a bunch of happy horse shit. War, for some people, is the greatest high one can ever know. It is also for some people the only thing they will ever be good at and the only opportunity for their lives to end in anything but a pointless death. Clyde Barrow, of Bonnie and Clyde infamy, was by all accounts a natural killer and gun fighter. That guy killed dozens of cops, and not just by cowardly ambush but by out fighting them in real gun fights, because he was such a natural in dealing out violence. Make him a decade younger and he might have war hero. Its a fine line.

    2. Personally, I love that we’re required to have a nationally sanctioned Day of Mourning for two dead police officers but the media does not give a flat fuck about John Crawford or Tamir Rice.

      Those cops did not deserve to die. Neither did Tamir Rice. It’s a bit sick that only one of those corpses merits weepy reminiscences of the victim being broadcast on national T.V.

      It’s almost like cops are viewed as a better class of citizen than the people they’re supposed to protect or something.

      1. Finally noticing the caste system, eh?

      2. I bet nobody ever called Tamir Rice or John Crawford for help with a violent attacker.

        1. It’s too bad, too. I bet a twelve year old probably would do a better job of maintaining order than the average badged nitwit in big city police departments.

        2. “I bet nobody ever called Tamir Rice or John Crawford for help with a violent attacker.”

          They were actually called on by violent attackers, who then proceeded to end their lives. The violent attackers just happened to be wearing blue costumes.

        3. I bet nobody ever called Tamir Rice or John Crawford for help with a violent attacker.

          Were either paid a $100,00+ /year to be called in such situations?

          More importantly, just because one calls the on the blue heros when being violently attacked does not mean that they’ll intervene before you are seriously injured or killed. In fact, standard procedure is to keep a safe distance until the attacker is exhausted – in the name of officer safety.

          Because at the end of the day, their going home safe to their families is much more important than protecting civilians.

          1. VG, didn’t you get the memo? LEOs don’t work for the people, they work for the state, so of course they have no obligation whatsoever to intervene, help, or even watch as you are drawn and quartered with a broadsword, beaten with a hot pink pipe wrench, or shot by their partner. Their job is to enforce the laws that the state requires them to and to investigate crimes after the fact. Cops were never intended to be a deterrent or an intervention tool. They are the show of force that the government requires to ensure that those who currently hold seats of power can continue to rob the rest of us blind while our attentions are carefully directed elsewhere, time and time again. Most people refuse to believe the truth about what LEO’s jobs really are until I point out that it is impossible for a civilian to be the litigant in a criminal case. It is the state, not the victim. Victims are nothing more than witnesses for the prosecution, there to help the state win their case against the defendant. If the legal system from top to bottom actually were designed to ensure equal representation and protections under the law, our nation would have evolved quite differently, I suspect.

    3. The left and the right have switched talking points, yet again. It’s almost as though they didn’t believe their own talking points in the first place.

      1. The defenses of Bush’s unconservative actions by “conservatives” and the defenses of Obama’s illiberal actions by “liberals” ought to have given that fact away long ago.

  12. When I was in the Navy, my department head frequently warned us that “perception is reality” ie. that people’s behavior was directed by their perceptions, and even if their perceptions were incorrect, they would act as if their perceptions was correct.

    The police have a perception that non-police are a threat to them. They are warned that every traffic stop could have a guy leap out and start firing on them with an AR-15. This perception is furthered by their frequent contact with the dregs of society. Additionally, the victimless crimes they investigate and the people they arrest, or refer to the courts for prosecution mean that they are frequently lied to by people who feel that they are being hassled for no good reason.

    What the police do not seem to understand is that their methods for coping with this threat are seen as absolutely inappropriate by the citizenry. In the past few years I can count 7 murders right off the top of my head, including the disoriented car crash victim murdered by the police as he pled for help.

    The perception these incidents create in the citizenry is that the police act with relative impunity, that they are lawless, that they are a danger to the citizenry.

    Naturally, there are non-cops that want to retaliate, to use violence to put fear in the hearts of the police. And when they do commit these acts of violence, it is further proof to the police that their perception that they are hated and targets for killing is the correct one.

    1. Perception, while not reality, can affect things in the same way as if it were. This points to how harmful the race mongers are. While I think most cops are unaccountable assholes, I do not think most cops are racists out to get black people. The disturbing thing about the Garner video is how not racist and really how “professional” the cops seem in killing the guy. They don’t seem like they hate Garner or hate black people. They think they are fairly doing their job, which involves choking to death anyone who gives them any problems. If the cops had gone berserk and started yelling “get the nigger”, that tape would be less disturbing because it could be written off as being the result of a few depraved minds. The fact that they are so matter of fact about killing him, to me at least, is much worse because it shows the cops think they are doing their duty when they kill him. That is what really scary evil looks like.

      That race mongers cause people to totally miss that and conclude every cop is racist, which has the same effect on public attitudes towards cops as the cops being racist. That in turn causes cops to hate the people they police and turns into a feed back loop of mutual distrust and hatred. Again, Progressives are retarded and evil.

      1. I do not think most cops are racists out to get black people.

        You are correct.

        They are classists out to get poor people.

        1. I don’t even think it is that. They are mostly out to do their jobs and to do well in their career. The problem is that our system is built such that the way to do that is to go after poor people. Change the laws and change the system and cops won’t do nearly as much harm.

          Cops will always be nasty and fuck with people. It is the nature of the job and indeed there are some people out there who are real sociopaths whom we want cops fucking with. But the more laws you pass, the more people cops are going to have a reason to fuck with.

          It is like prison guards. You are never going to attract a good class of people to be prison guards. It is just too shitty of a job to attract anything but the lowest quality applicants. The solution to that is you need to be very careful who you put in prison so that those guards are interacting only with people who really deserve to be there and for whom society has left no other choice to deal with them other than locking them up.

          1. Change the laws and change the system and the police will call it a war on cops.

            1. No they won’t. And even if they did, that won’t work. Calling fewer wars a war on cops is so fucking stupid even cops couldn’t get away with claiming it.

        2. Most cops are poor people. Many of them collect decent (union-extorted) salaries but they don’t understand how to build wealth and so live paycheck-to-paycheck. Just like a professional athlete, if you are a couple of paychecks away from destitution, then no matter how large your income, you are (mentally) poor.

          The don’t hate poor people, it’s just that poor people are easy marks. As would they be if they weren’t on the force. As others have pointed out, many cops are fundamentally bullies at heart. That is because, in their stunted zero-sum worldview, one can either be the bully or the bullied. The lines between cop, criminal, and peasant are very thin.

          1. They don’t hate poor people. They just look at them as easy marks for arrest and general harassment and thus as a way to succeed in their jobs.

      2. The fact that they are so matter of fact about killing him, to me at least, is much worse because it shows the cops think they are doing their duty when they kill him. That is what really scary evil looks like.

        “”the nation needs to realize, when we tell you to do something, do it” – Jeff Folmer, Cleveland PD Union Head.

        That’s the difference between how the law works in theory and how it works in practice.

        And: (trigger warning, link to Salon) The U.S. faces an epidemic of not only police violence — but police insurrection against civilian oversight.

        1. When things are so insane, Salon makes sense, we are well and truly fucked.

    2. including the disoriented car crash victim murdered by the police as he pled for help.

      As in most cases, there are a lot of details in that case that make it not so simple.

      http://www.oregonlive.com/clac…..for_1.html

      1. I’m writing about the murder Randall Kerrick. According to google my claim of impunity is wrong. Though the first grand jury declined to indict (the only case they refused to indict on) a second one did indict the cop for voluntary manslaughter.

        Somehow I had missed the news about the second grand jury.

  13. Things like greater accountability and transparency, independent investigations, and more substantive disciplinary reforms aren’t “anti-cop.”

    You don’t understand. Being a cop means you get to do strut around and do whatever you want (who is going to stop you, the cops?), and that you get to use violence on anyone who doesn’t immediately obey your every whim.

    Anything that might change that is “anti-cop.”

    Duh.

  14. “It’s f?king open season on us right now,” one officer told The New York Post. “When is [Mayor Bill de Blasio] going to step up?”

    Pants-shitting fear and paranoia. HEROES IN BLUE!

    1. You expected them to act differently than their federal brothers?

  15. Additionally, the NYPD has instituted a buddy system

    I thought they already had that. It’s called “The Blue Wall”.

  16. Sigh.

    The problem is that at least an element of the protests are “anti-cop”. And that really is unfortunate. It makes telling the police “Guys, you really are making your own job that much harder by escalating every situation and alienating the general public.” that much harder when your putative allies are screaming “Fuck the pigs! More dead cops!”.

    Also, I am not going to kid myself. There’s no way the police aren’t going to spend most of their time enforcing laws amongst the poorest and most marginalized residents. They’re the ones more likely to be breaking the law. Investment bankers in Manhattan aren’t, by and large, in the business of buying or selling loosies. Muggers aren’t likely, by and large, to have sidelines as corporate lawyers.

    Reform is necessary. But, poor rhetoric doesn’t do that cause much good.

    1. Poor people are often poor for a reason. And one of the biggest reasons is that they don’t follow rules well and they don’t have good judgement or make good decisions. What happens is all of these hard working, responsible, rule following Progressives vote for laws they think are going to solve problems. If you like rules and are good at following them and think everyone else is just like you, you think just making more rules is the solution to any problem. So, people smoke and that is bad for them, lets just tax the hell out of them for doing it and make it illegal to sell untaxed cigarettes. People drive unsafe cars, lets just make illegal to do that and so forth. All these sorts of laws do is criminalize being poor. We take a whole class of people who before were just kind of screw ups and only a danger to themselves and we make them criminals and send out cops to harass them and make them spend their lives in and out of the criminal justice system.

      It is that mentality that killed Eric Garner and kills a lot of other people every year. Our society has stopped ed having any realistic conception of what laws can actually accomplish.

      1. Yes and no. One thing your argument omits is that, for the less affluent, compliance isn’t necessarily an affordable option. Think about it this way, for a banker in Midtown, the cigarette tax is a pain in the ass. But, it’s not the difference between smoking and not smoking. For a guy in the South Bronx, paying the tax means you probably won’t be able to smoke. For the affluent, a prohibition on unsafe cars doesn’t mean you won’t get to drive. For the poor, it may very well.

        1. No my argument takes that into account. In fact is it essential to my argument. Since poor people are not generally good at following rules and often poor at judging risk, they will just not pay the tax and smoke anyway or drive an unsafe car without the proper registration or safety sticker and risk arrest. This is why so many of them run afoul of these kinds of laws. The guy in midtown, will not risk jail to avoid the tax and will just cut down on smoking if he can’t afford it. The guy in the South Bronx will break the law because he wants to smoke and doesn’t have very good judgement.

          1. Since poor people are not generally good at following rules and often poor at judging risk, they will just not pay the tax and smoke anyway or drive an unsafe car without the proper registration or safety sticker and risk arrest.

            I think you’re kind of missing my point. It isn’t clear to me that poor people need to be worse at following rules or exercising judgement to arrive at that end. The fact is that the taxes have different consequences for our guy in midtown and our guy in the South Bronx. The guy in midtown can afford an extra $35 a week. For the guy in the South Bronx, you’ve just told him he has to stop smoking. Period. The only way he can afford it is breaking the law. If you said the same thing to our guy in midtown (say passed a $150 per pack tax), he’d break the law just as quickly.

            1. No. you are missing the point. They don’t have to be but they often are. Is that all of it? No. But it is some of it. Some of it is as you say, the poor people can’t afford to live with the rich Prog rules and make the rational decision to risk it because they have no other choice.

              But don’t kid yourself Bill. A lot of people are stupid and do stupid things. They will go out and spend money on booze or a high end stereo and not have the money to insure their car or pay their registration or pay their tickets. There are plenty of people out there who end up in jail for not paying their tickets, not because they didn’t have the money, but because they spent the money they did have on stupid shit.

              The more legalistic our society is, the more those kinds of people are going to end up in jail. You are incredibly naive if you think most poor people have good decision making skills or that there are not huge numbers of people out there who seem to not understand cause and effect very well.

              1. Actually, my point is that your stipulation of poor decision-making is completely unnecessary for the point that we both seem to be making. No offense, but it’s a continuation of the prog delusion – if we could just imbue those poor people with our good judgement and ability to follow rules, everything would be fine. Well, no, it wouldn’t. “Our” ability isn’t really all that superior (I’ve known plenty of middle class people who make bad decisions, but do so with credit cards). We flatter ourselves that it is because we aren’t faced with the same decisions.

                1. No Bill, we are faced with those decisions all of the time. And we make them well every day. If we didn’t, we would be poor. Poverty is a moral condition not a monetary one.

                  It is not flattering ourselves. It is recognizing reality. If you don’t believe me, go hang around poor people sometime or talk to any professional social worker or defense attorney. You won’t believe the things people do.

      2. Those laws are the expected outcome of people who think you can reshape human nature on a whim with pretty words. It’s amazing(and in a twisted way a compliment to our public schools) that so many people understand nothing about human beings.

    2. Except that’s not how it works. The cops tend to protect rights and investigate victimful crimes primarily in the wealthy and business-heavy areas, while enforcing victimless crimes primarily in the poor neighborhoods.

      1. It’s shocking how many people over the age of 25 haven’t figured this out.

        1. To some extent it’s understandable, since most large US cities in 2014 have a gigantic sea of poverty surrounding a couple of spots of wealth and economic activity. It would be very hard to thoroughly patrol the poor areas for real crimes. Drug deals and prostitution are widespread enough that they can be picked off at leisure, though.

          Oh yeah and the poor areas don’t pay much in taxes or make campaign contributions.

      2. That’s partially true, but not as explanatory as it might seem at first pass. The thing is that victimless crime in affluent neighborhoods takes place in private, behind closed doors.

        A call girl on the Upper East Side is probably offering her services through Backpage. A drug dealer in the Meatpacking District is probably operating in a club, at least moderately discretely.

        In poorer neighborhoods, that tends not to be an option.

  17. What are they expecting DeBlasio to step up and do?

  18. “It’s f?king open season on us right now,” one officer told The New York Post. “When is [Mayor Bill de Blasio] going to step up?”

    What the fuck is deBlasio supposed to do? Tuck them in at night and read them bedtime stories? Make smores?

  19. in the 1970s when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis

    Hmm. A little fact-checking might go a long way.

    Here’s a story on NYPDers killed in the 1970s.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/ne…..-1.9735167

    (1) Masone and Cerullo. Not an ambush/execution, but a gunfight. Accused were acquitted.

    (2) Glover and Ready. Killed during a traffic stop by the driver. Doesn’t fit my definition of ambush and execution.

    (3) Jones and Piagentini. OK, shot from behind while on patrol. This one counts. Apparently 7 other cops were killed and 30 wounded that year, but no details.

    That’s it, from this article which presumably has the worst of the worst. Two unquestionable ambush/executions, in one incident.

    Maybe there’s more. But so far, I think the cops are lying about the ’70s being a time when they were routinely ambushed and executed.

    1. The NYPD in the 70’s routinely and institutionally engaged in extortion and racketeering.

      Sometimes one racketeer will shoot another racketeer in the back. Shit happens.

    2. Seven cops killed and 30 wounded in a year is pretty high. That is a lot of cops even for a city like New York.

      I am not unsympathetic to the risks cops take. I am totally willing to make it the death penalty for anyone who murders a uniformed officer in the line of duty. The trade off for that is, no more no knock raids, no more lack of accountability to for police shootings and violence.

      The way to protect police is to make it clear that if they kill a cop they are going to the chair. Cops need to understand that their uniform and their badge is the only thing that protects them. If someone wants to kill them, they will. My action will beat your reaction every time. Its called having the drop on you. No amount of trigger happy bravado will ever change that. If cops want to be safe, they need to put their AR 15 away and put a fucking uniform on and make it clear who they are.

      1. “Seven cops killed and 30 wounded in a year is pretty high. That is a lot of cops even for a city like New York.”

        It was in the 1970’s when NYC’s murder rate topped out at like 30 per 100,000. I’m willing to bet that with 7 dead cops the murder rate among police wasn’t much higher than that.

        As a result, even in years when you had a lot of police fatalities it still wasn’t much worse than the general population.

        1. 7 out of 35,000 is a 0.02% fatality rate.

      2. The way to protect the police is to prosecute or at least fire the corrupt ones. If you don’t, the corrupt ones gain the power over the honest ones.

        1. I’ll believe in honest cops when I see them speaking out when one of their own murders an unarmed innocent.

        2. That won’t save t hem from being whacked by the occasional nut. You are never going to stop a real nut who wants to kill a cop and doesn’t care if he dies doing so from killing cops. It just happens once in a while. What you can protect against is an ordinary criminal accidentily killing a cop because he didn’t know he was a cop or deciding that it is worth the risk to kill the cop in hopes of getting away entirely. Those are the only two cases you can deter. And you do that by making killing a cop in uniform the worst crime one can commit and by making cops wear uniforms and always identify themselves. That way every criminal knows its a cop and knows shooting them will turn whatever crime they are guilty of into a death sentence.

          You also make things safer for cops by getting rid of three strikes laws and absurdly long sentences. Giving a criminal life in prison means he has nothing to lose by killing a cop if doing so might allow him to escape.

          1. The act of placing the lives of cops above those of ordinary citizens is what causes cops to be assholes.

            Killing a cop should have the same exact punishment as killing anyone.

            1. No. We send cops out to do a job. We give them the authority to arrest people and we give them the duty to step into some very nasty situations and deal with some very nasty situations.

              We want cops to be peace makers. We want people to respect cops such that when a cop steps into stop a bar fight to dumb ass drunks sober up and stop it. You don’t get that by treating assault on a cop as the same thing as assault on someone walking by.

              It is the same reason why we have the felony murder rule. We give witnesses to crimes extra protections and make killing them worse than killing someone else, because we want criminals to understand that killing the witnesses is not the way to get away with a crime. Same thing here. We want criminals to understand that when the cops show up, knock it the fuck off. So assaulting or killing a cop in the line of duty is a worse crime than ordinary assault.

              It is not about their lives being more valuable than yours or mine. It is about deterring criminals from committing assault or murder in the name of getting away with their crimes.

              1. AND THEN, you do this… 🙁

                Giving anyone “special” rights insights resentment and reinforces the notion that cops are better than citizens. Which is WHY cops are assholes.

                1. They are not better than citizens. But what they are is the the force of law. And people should be expected to respect the law.

                  You can’t have it both ways. If you want to hold cops to a higher standard of behavior, and I certainly do, then you also have to admit that they have a special duty and authority that comes with being a cop.

                  I am happy to say that any person who knowingly assaults or kills a cop in the line of duty can hang. The flip side of that is that any time a cop commits a crime, they are going to be punished much worse than an ordinary citizen will be. With power comes responsibility. So if a cop commits assault or forgery or abuses his position, he is going to hang just like the guy who kills or assaults a cop doing his duty. The two concepts go hand and hand.

                  1. When different laws apply to killing a cop vs killing a peasant, you get a tiered system of law. Unfortunately this tiered system goes the opposite of what you want. If a cops life is more valuable than that of a peasant, then why should a cop have to follow the same laws as a peasant? Why should a cop have to follow any laws at all?

                  2. I have to disagree, John.

                    Murder is murder. Assault is assault. The laundry the victim happens to be wearing at the time doesn’t even go skin deep.

                    Once you start down the road of giving government officials special status, well, we all know where that ends.

                    That said, I see no disconnect between higher standards for cops because we give them special authority and powers. I don’t see why special authority and powers need to necessarily require that they also get special protections.

                    I live in a world where authority brings with it concomitant responsibility, not special privileges and protections. I can and should get fired for shit that even my Deputy GC shouldn’t get fired for, because I have more authority.

                    1. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. T

                      No its not. And you of all people should understand that. If all murders and assaults were the same, we would not have a range of punishment available for each case. Some murders and assaults really are worse. Some of them are exceptionally guestroom or are against very sympathetic victims. The law punishes people more based on the nature of the victim all of the time. If I beat up a drunk tonight after work I am not going to be punished nearly as much as I would if I beat up a six year old kid. But you would never say the kid’s life is more special than the drunk’s under the law because of that. No. it is just that the nature and seriousness of a crime depends in some measure on the nature of the victim.

                      Assaulting or killing a cop in the line of duty is not the same as assaulting a non cop. The reason for that is that we expect cops to make peace and step into violent situations. So we want to deter people from assaulting and killing them. When you assault a cop in the line of duty you are assaulting not just the person but the authority he represents. That makes the crime worse.

                      RC you are letting your dislike of cops interfere with your thinking here. Either that, or they didn’t teach criminal law when you were at Harvard, which is entirely possible.

                    2. Make one law that treats cops differently than peasants, and you’ll get more. The logical conclusion will is what we have now, where the cops can do any damn thing they please, including murder, and nothing else happens.

                      Your good intentions are making you blind to the results.

                    3. You totally miss the point sarcasmic. It doesn’t treat cops differently. It treats the people who attack cops differently. And the price for that added protection is that cops are treated differently and harsher when they commit a crime.

                      You guys get so angry about this stuff you let it get the better of you.

                    4. Who is angry?

                      I completely understand your argument, and I would agree with it if I thought it would work in practice. But it does not. It has the opposite result.

                    5. I sure as hell am angry sarcasmic. This shit pisses me off to no end. But that doesn’t change my opinion of the proper role of law in protecting police and allowing them to do their jobs.

                      And yes, it is not working in practice. But it has in the past. Cops were not always this unaccountable. They only became so thanks to unions.

                  3. I oppose special punishments for killing cops as long as there aren’t good protections for people who kill police in self defense.

                    1. That is just it Zeb, the both go hand and hand. You give cops special protection but the necessary price of that is you hold them to a higher standard of accountability and punish them more when they commit a crime.

                    2. How’s that second part working out, John?

                    3. You fix it by fixing the second part not by breaking the entire system. As much as I dislike cops and what they are doing, a system that totally fucked them would be worse than what we have now. We would be even less able to get honest people to be cops and copes, rightfully feeling the system is out to get them, would be even more brutal and corrupt than they are now.

      3. The way to protect police is to make it clear that if they kill a cop they are going to the chair.

        I think this would go a ways to making Capital Punishment “more legitimate” as well. Especially if these cops are wearing cameras.

        Not that I *want* my government executing people, but there are people who should be executed and this would clearly demonstrate that the person is a threat to others/society at large.

        1. The reason why capital punishment has become such a joke is we have forgotten the reasons why we have it. It has just become a punishment for criminals we really don’t like. That is not what it should be. It should be a special punishment reserved for certain crimes that it is very important to deter. And those crimes are killing a witness to a crime or in the process of committing a crime, killing a peace officer, or murdering someone while in prison.

          You want to make robberies less dangerous, go back to a strict felony murder rule and make it clear to criminals that if anyone dies while they are robbing them, it means death. They used to have that rule and real armed robberies were much more rare because no thief wants to risk making a regular theft case into a capital murder case.

      4. Seven cops killed and 30 wounded in a year is pretty high.

        Yeah, but I was looking to validate the claim that “police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.”

        No way to know if any of the others killed that year were ambushed and executed, but I doubt it.

  20. “These are precautions that were taken in the 1970s when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis,”

    Weird. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered that.

  21. Aw c’mon…I was no hero, but even I didn’t act quite so paranoid and fearful in, you know, a real war.

    Deep breath there, NYPD. First week I was in Iraq, we had more deaths than the NYPD has had in the last 10 years. We didn’t stack arms and hide in our FOBs as a result.

  22. “When Officer Melvin Santiago was ambushed and killed at a Walgreens in Jersey City, police claimed gangs were hiding weapons in abandoned buildings all over the city and calling on gangs in other areas to come to Jersey City and help start a war on cops. It never happened.”

    Sounds like a bad adaption of “The Warriors” to me. “War-ri-ors, come out and play-ay.”

  23. Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest

    Um…

    Shouldn’t this be the normal standard?

    1. In anything but a fucking police state, YES. But thinking that way requires understanding that the solution to every undesirable behavior isn’t to tax it or make it a felony.

    2. How is a police department supposed to be funded then, smart guy?

      1. Ordinary taxes. To depend on people breaking the law to fund the police creates perverse incentives.

  24. Killing a cop should have the same exact punishment as killing anyone.

    You monster. What crazy thing will you say next, that cops should be expected to obey the same laws as the rest of us?

    1. There really isn’t a subject you can’t think in a completely shallow way about is there? You should have been a Prog Brooks. The speaking in tag lines and mouthing talking points in lieu of thinking would have suited you.

      1. Sorry John, but Brooks is right. Once you have a tiered system of law, it’s not going to end with the cops being held to a higher standard. Quite the opposite.

  25. “IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest,” the statement said.

    Translation:

    WE ARE CALLING A WORK SLOWDOWN SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE MUNICIPAL REVENUES. LET US OFF THE LEASH, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MONEY KEEP ROLLING IN.

    1. Ding. Ding. Ding.

      We have a winner.

    2. To call their bluff, you cite the reduced arrests, etc as a reason to cut the number of police…

  26. Thank you for telling us IT’S ALL THE PROGZES FAULT, John.

    Jesus fuck- talk about shallow thinking and obsessive one dimensional “analysis”.

    It’s good to see our tax dollars hard at work.

  27. It’s a familiar tactic for hard-to-defend policy positions. Instead of keeping an open mind about the kinds of reforms that might make policing safer and more efficient, defenders of the status quo insist the “other side” would prefer a chaotic world without cops.

    The statist status quo in arguing is to offer false choices. It’s the only way they know how, as Bastiat picked up on long ago.

  28. How come no ones blaming the PA State Trooper killing on anything other than the guy who did it?

  29. “It’s time for the residents of New York to own up to their share of responsibility in this situation for demanding and supporting an increasing number of laws police are then told to go enforce on the poorest and most marginalized residents of New York City.”

    This kicker is offensive in its ignorance. De Blasio, whom I think is a total clown, won by a landslide largely on a platform of policing reform, and his stance on stop-and-frisk led to the tactic dropping 70% from last year, and more than 90% from its high 2011 high. Further, you’ll get in less trouble for smoking a joint in a bar than a cigarette, and possessing up to 25 grams of pot will longer result in an arrest.

    There are plenty more changes to be made here in NYC to address the needs of the disadvantaged and to make all of us freer, but blaming anyone other than Brinsley for what happened is stupid, blaming New Yorkers even more so.

  30. A thorough search of Time’s archive produced no stories about the threat that communists, black nationalists or prison gangs pose to police.

  31. $6370 , I didnt believe that my brother was realy earning money in there spare time at their computer. . there moms best frend had bean doing this for less than seventeen months and by now repayed the loans on their cottage and got a brand new Porsche 911 .
    navigate to this site ==—-==—- http://www.jobsfish.com

  32. If not for the actions of DeBlasio, Obama, Sharpton, & the media, I believe those two cops would be alive today. If not for the actions of Brown & Gardner, they too would be alive today. PERIOD.

    1. You’re a disgrace to the name. And also likely a troll. Begone.

  33. So a friend of mine called the cops because someone stole a fake penguin from his lawn this past weekend.
    I don’t even know what to say to real humans anymore.

    1. What kind of resale market can fake penguins possibly have?

      1. *crafty look starts across face*

        Why? Know anyone who needs one?

  34. Wasn’t it in a NY prison that a mentally ill inmate was allowed to literally roast to death? Why isn’t the NYPD up in arms over how the actions of law enforcement in general across the country is putting them in danger?

    1. That would require self-awareness and self-reflection.

      Nah, it’s just better to blame DeBlasio (a person in office for less than a year) or Obama for casting a light on institutional problems that go back decades.

    2. Cops have only themselves to blame. They hide behind their unions and PDs both of which work diligently to cover up police crimes using tools like “internal review” (read whitewash), and Grand Juries (read kangaroo court).

  35. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  36. The amount of blame being leveled at elected officials (the NYC mayor, Sen Paul, all the way up to President Obama) by police-defenders is utterly ridiculous.

    Questioning (politely) whether our police forces are perhaps unduly aggressive when arresting citizens is somehow “anti-cop”? WTF? You can blame these elected officials for a whole lot of stuff; “advocating an atmosphere where it’s okay to kill cops” is definitely not one of them.

    1. Yep – losing patience with conservative cop-suckers.

  37. The historically corrupt NYPD has said the officers were both killed by “headshots.” Blood would have splashed against the far window…or bullets gone through it.

    http://thenypost.files.wordpre……jpg?w=840

    This is a staged psyop, the extent of which is practically unimaginable: the two officers may have been the only honest NYPD cops, were killed with headshots elsewhere, and placed in the vehicle; similarly the “perp” may have been “suicided” elsewhere and placed in the subway, where his shoe was then laced up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_aSTY3mXnk

    1. I fucking LOVE anticop truthers!

      thank you for making my day!

      (note: many anticop bigots are very trutheresque since most of their hate comes from erroneous beliefs in all sorts of fantasies about police conduct, but i am talking REAL fucking awesome black helicopter truther shit like this shitnozzle!!!0

      THANK YOU for making my day!!!!\\

  38. Good for them! fucking awesome!

  39. This is for Sarcasmic who is still erroneously referring to “Suspension with pay” for cops, which does not exist. But it’s actually more for people who actually want to learn the reality and not live in a fantasy world.

    I have explained this several times, but he is clearly either willfully ignorant, too stupid to understand or likely still so butthurt over being correctly convicted of a crime he committed (iow the justice system worked, as it sometimes does) that he simply lies…

    COPS ARE PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY IN MANY SITUATIONS BUT NEVER SUSPENSION WITH PAY

    THE FORMER IS ***NOT DISCIPLINE***.

    The latter ***is***

    There is no such thing as suspension with pay, and yes I have seen the media on rare occasion refer to that, but just as they make errors in all sorts of ways, they err there, just like Sarcasmic.

    A cop can be placed on admin leave for many reasons (not all inclusive list)

    1) he is involved in a traumatic incident , like he has to give CPR to a baby that dies in his arms (actual example in my dept). It’s not punishment and it in no way reflects negatively on the officer. It’s simply a means to seperate them from their current duties (patrol, detective, whatever) for a host of reasons. In the case mentioned, it’s to allow the cop to get some counseling, do some healing, “refresh” the battery etc.

    1. 2) he is involved in a shooting or an incident involving an in custody death. BY POLICY, most agencies mandate admin leave. It has nothing to do with suspected misconduct. It is a prophylactic measure to protect the cop if it is controversial shooting, to protect the public ON THE CHANCE it was a bad shoot and there is something wrong with the officer (mental or criminal), to give the public the confidence that no officer will be put back on the street after killing somebody UNTIL the facts are vetted, to allow the officer time to emotionally heal, and in many agencies it is mandatory they are screened by dept. psychologist to make sure there are no PTSD etc. issues that need correcting before return to work, etc. etc., it is for the safety of the officer, many of whom are too affected by the incident to be able to work safely (be properly on guard with officer safety etc).

      3. There is a training issue. Even if through no fault of the officer, there is some error discovered (he missed a mandatory class or something) that is required before he can go back to work

      4) a metric assload of other reasons that have nothing to do with discipline

      Suspension is ENTIRELY different than Admin leave and is ALWAYS without pay.

      SUSPENSION IS ***PUNISHMENT***. It only occurs AFTER an investigation (see: due process) has been conducted and I am pretty sure it must be preceded by Loudermill but don’t quote me on that.

      hth

  40. “police militarization” is a myth and, thusly, the arguments for “police reform” is also fallacious as it is based on a false premise.

  41. I don’t know if Ed Krayewski considers himself one, or not, but if there was push on for “things like greater accountability and transparency, independent investigations, and more substantive disciplinary reforms” for journalists, said journalists would consider it a “war on journalists”.
    Mostly because, in today’s world of double-speak those desires, really end up putting the one at the business end of the “reform” at a disadvantage compared to other people in society.
    This kind of crap came up many years ago. The panacea, then, was “civilian” review boards. Notice anything changing? That’s because even “civilians”, when presented with the whole story, most often came to the same conclusion as the police review boards.

  42. “… cops involved in the death of Eric Garner were ordered by their supervisors specifically to hit the street and find sellers of loose, untaxed, cigarettes. It’s a “crime” not worth Garner’s life, or a cop’s.”
    Amen, Bros and Bro-esses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    But? But? But how about that them thar pepples who DARES to blow on a CHEAP PLASTIC FLUTE w/o a doctor’s prescription?!?!? Hunh? Hunh? Tell me about THAT one, about the “cheap plastic flute police”?!?! WHEN is anyone in the USA really gonna face just HOW preposterously, pretentiously arrogant our Government Almighty has gotten, in micro-managing our every last stinkin’ cough or wheeze on a cheap plastic flute, and in PUNISHING our every last little stinkin’ act of defiance?!?! How many billions of tons of petty tyranny must be added up, on the parts of the parasites, before the host is justified in taking out a few bastards? I dunno, just askin’? About that them thar “lung flutes”, cheap plastic flutes, use that (“lung flutes”) as a search string, and see http://www.churchofsqrls.com to see that I am not fibbing? If you cough, with the assistance of a cheap plastic flute, to knock lung boogers loose, in the USA, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, without blessings by a Morally Superior Government-Almighty-Blessed Physician of the Magical Prescription Powers, in the USA today, you are a SCUM CRIMINAL!!!

  43. The late and lamented/unlamented Mr.Garner, depends on who you ask/speak with violated the law, there is little question on that score, though might well question the law that was involved. In plain English, the taxes levied on cigarettes in New York are flat ridiculous.
    Mr. Garner was subject to arrest for his “crime”, he had not however committed a capitol offense. By the way, the police officers involved did not go out, intending to kill anyone.

    So here,we are faced with the following questions.

    1. Who or what led to the killing. A questionable level of taxation gave rise to Garner’s actions, which were a violation of law. Ergo, it was the level of taxation that is/was culpable.

    2. Who or what is responsible for the ridiculous level of taxation in the jurisdiction. Plainly, it is the elected things, put int office by the people.

    3. One remaining question, in so far as I can see, is the following. Whose interests are served by the ridiculous levels of taxation that ultimately led to Mr.Garner’s “crimes”. I would not say that it was the interests of the people of New York whose interests were served.

  44. “i CAN breathe”: what a fucking sick, twisted slogan for a police rally.

  45. May I offer a bit of perspective?

    Everyone and everything in existence exhibits a Bell Curve. That is: for any given trait, there are a small number on each “end” and a vast majority in the middle. Various rules and ratios apply: 80-20 Rule, 2% Rule, standard deviation, etc. Curves may be skewed or symmetrical.

    Cops – in every culture, through all of history – have ALWAYS had a few bad apples (the bullies, the sadists, the power-mad). The percentage has varied based on the culture, the organization, whether they were also the culture’s military arm, etc.

    What has changed, all over the world, is our ability as a global culture to RECORD (videocams and cell phone cameras) and COMMENT ON (the Internet) the actions of the *few* bad cops. This ability inflates the perception of the number of bad cops.

    What has also recently changed is the influx of freebie surplus military gear (“scarifying” those perceptions), and the influx of war veterans. The veterans often bring “break things and kill people” and “instant response” training/mentality to a traditionally “protect and serve” and “sort out the suspects down at the station” type of job.

    The non-cop’s changed perceptions of the problem lead to justified rage, bad attitudes, and confrontation. And THIS can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as police forces respond to what THEY perceive as a ratcheting up of the “lawlessness and disorder” crowd.

    Analysis of and solutions to the problem must take these facts into account.

    1. AND the sales of military equipment to public police forces just MIGHT have been seen as a Positive Thing by the Military, who could unload a lot of surplus gear which Might not fall into Real Enemies’ hands… AND as a boon to the city or state police folks who could get some neat hardware at bargain-basement prices!

      Every silver lining has a cloud and everyone forgets to think about Unintended Consequences of their Well-Intentioned Actions.

      So, what has changed here? Nothing but the size of the toys. Again.

    2. Hi Old Guy In Stanton,
      Well written, well considered thoughts there… Thanks!

    3. The problem of police overreach is systemic, and it’s a direct result of the efforts by government to criminalize trivial behaviors and regulate every aspect of life. The people who have taken jobs as cops saw the results of the drug war and widespread militarization. They bought into it, and decided they wanted to be a part of that.

      There are not “a few bad apples.” There’s a rotten, maggot-infested tree. Nowhere is this better illustrated that at the NYPD.

      If you want to know how bad things are in NYC, google for Frank Serpico’s reaction to the shootings.

  46. Oh, silly me… I thought the only Unintended Consequence of the public reaction to these police killings (and everything from Ferguson, MO, et. al.) would be that uniformed police would be ‘just a little hesitant to draw and fire,’ under even the most dangerous circumstances, and that would result in an ‘uptick’ in death rates for civilians…

    We’ll see..

  47. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.paygazette.com

  48. If you declare war on the citizens that you’re ostensibly paid to protect, why are you surprised when you take casualties?

  49. NYC police commissioner Kerik went to prison. The NYPD is a “branch” of the Mob. When are Bush and Cheney going to hang for 9/11? The NYPD isn’t doing anything about it.

    The historically corrupt NYPD has said the officers were both killed by”headshots.” Blood would have splashed against the far window…or bullets gone through it.

    http://thenypost.files.wordpre……jpg?w=840

    This is a staged psyop, the extent of which is practically unimaginable: the two officers may have been the only honest NYPD cops, were killed with headshots elsewhere, and placed in the vehicle; similarly the “perp” may have been “suicided” elsewhere and placed in the subway, where his shoe was then laced up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_aSTY3mXn

  50. “what word should black people in New York City use?”

    Eric Garner and Akai Gurley were killed accidentally.

    Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were murdered. On purpose.

    There’s a difference.

  51. Unjustified Violence by Cop and Violence towards Cops are two very different problems.

    The first one will be tougher to solve than the second one. It will require time and a paradigm shift in the attitude of voters, politicians, and police leaders.

    The second one requires that any violent crime be punished so harshly that an actual, rather than imagined, deterrent is created.

  52. just before I saw the receipt which said $5461 , I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actually bringing in money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this 4 only about twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on there house and purchased themselves a Audi Quattro . this link………..www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.