2 NYPD Officers Dead In Brooklyn Shooting

[Rhea]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop

What a surprise FOX affiliate lies to increase hysteria and hate.
Wonder how many cops wives are going to post about how awful and inciting they are?

 

[Trausti]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop

You're aware New York and Baltimore are two different cities?

 

[Derec]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop

You're aware New York and Baltimore are two different cities?

Also the phrase used is different.

 

[RavenSky]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop

You're aware New York and Baltimore are two different cities?

You are aware that the video supposedly showing protesters in New York shouting "dead cops" was also doctored by "Fox and Friends" to make it appear that Al Sharpton was leading that march, when that was a total lie, too, right?

It is entirely possible that a very small handful of idiots were shouting "dead cops" or "kill the cops" but it is entirely more probable that - given the evidence-based track record - your video clip is bogus.

In any case, a single (probably phony) video clip does not support Ron Burgundy's broad-brushed position that "protesters" in general have been "hysterical and violent" or generally "painting cops as evil murderous racists" - therefore directly caused the deaths of two police officers.

If anyone is stirring up hysteria and violence, it is people repeating the Faux News lies with the videos and false claims of Al Sharpton's involvement. The VAST MAJORITY of the protests everywhere have been peaceful, reasoned, inspiring. The VAST MAJORITY of the protests everywhere have been wonderful demonstrations of citizens and police working together even as the citizens are calling for the bad apples to be removed from the police force. But video clips of those don't make the rounds of Faux News and rabid right wing websites. Those videos are not posted by people like you in thousands of chat forums across the country. Only the very few showing clashes (often started by police themselves as in California), the looters (misidentified as "protesters") and the doctored videos claiming people are calling for death.

I live in Miami. The protests here have not been anywhere near the size of those in New York, but they have been frequent. Guess which one made the local news? The one wherein the protesters blocked a bridge during Art Basel week. The only violence occurring in that protest were from the self-entitled motorists - one of whom flew into a rage and made a tire-squealing illegal u-turn up onto a sidewalk, plowing through a side-walk cafe nearly hitting pedestrians and diners scrabbling out of his way. (But it is the protesters who are hysterical and violent )

I didn't see the Wynwood march covered by televised media. I was there. It was apparently too peaceful and didn't piss off enough testosterone-laden motorists in their SUV's. The Midtown protest didn't make the local news either. Neither did the Freedom Plaza march in the CBD. Know what did make the evening news? The protest that was cancelled. Want to know why? Because local right-wing-nuts were demanding to know who was going to pay for the police presence that turned out for the protest that didn't happen.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Nexus]

I keep hearing this complaint or question.

Are the demonstrators going to protest that these cops were murdered?

We hear a similar question when some ask why aren't they protesting black on black criminals since they harm more people that cops.

The obvious response which they are missing is that criminals are held accountable by the justice system after they commit violence. If Ismaaiyl Brinsley had not committed suicide and the DA chose not to seek an indictment then the police and their sympathizers could legitimately ask the question why is no one protesting Ismaaiyl Brinsley.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Given that there was a warrant for his arrest and the cops have a history of killing people they're trying to arrest, it seems that he was merely standing his ground. I don't think there was much basis for a conviction here.

 

[Malintent]

how very reductionist of you. the fact that he posted on facebook that he was specifically out to punish cops for the Brown shooting is being conveniently ignored by you.

And is that why he shot his ex-girlfriend too?

I cannot speak for the mind of a crazy person.

 

[laughing dog]

And is that why he shot his ex-girlfriend too?

I cannot speak for the mind of a crazy person.

And yet you did when you quoted his facebook page.

 

[Malintent]

how very reductionist of you. the fact that he posted on facebook that he was specifically out to punish cops for the Brown shooting is being conveniently ignored by you.

In that case, if either of the cops had been indicted he wouldn't have done it, right?

I cannot speak for the mind of a crazy person.. .what he would or would not have done is beyond any rational discussion. Might he not have? maybe there would have been another reason sited by him.
Are you victim blaming?

Look, if you didn't look at me in that funny way that made me uneasy, then I wouldn't have gone on a murdering streak. so.. um.. YOUR fault.

So it's the stonewalling of LE that's the issue. Since you want to link the two, let's link them correctly.

I don't know what LE means. My comment was an UNLINKING of race to reaction, and a LINKING of behavior to reaction.

And to the point of ignoring issues, you ignore a vast right wing propaganda industry that undoubtedly contributed to Miller's crime. What shall we do about that?

We shouldn't 'bother' criminals because society has done them wrong and made them that way? Is that what you are saying? It is your fault for not giving enough to the poor that he got shot during the commission of a violent crime?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I cannot speak for the mind of a crazy person.. .what he would or would not have done is beyond any rational discussion.

So there is no linkage between the protests and the shooting. Otherwise, you are speaking for the mind of a crazy person. When it suits your purposes.

I don't know what LE means. My comment was an UNLINKING of race to reaction, and a LINKING of behavior to reaction.

LE is Law Enforcement. You can't link behavior to reaction without his (crazy) mind. I have no dea what your unlinking comment is supposed to mean.

We shouldn't 'bother' criminals because society has done them wrong and made them that way? Is that what you are saying? It is your fault for not giving enough to the poor that he got shot during the commission of a violent crime?

No, if we are going to hold demonstrators and activists responsible for the Brooklyn shooting, are we then going to hold right wing groups responsible for Jared Millers cop killing? Are they not, based on your reasoning, through their agitations creating an unsafe environment for police?

 

[arkirk]

There is a linkage between the killing of Brown and Garner and the two cops being gunned down in NY. The protests were against police violence against black people. They were not for violence against the police. The linkage however was in the mind of a person with diminished capacity and no interest in non violent protest. It was Fox news that continually promotes racist violence that found a dishonest way to link the killings of the cops to the protests and still did nothing in behalf of justice for
Brown and Garner.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you want to count all the people cops shoot as evidence of their violence against "us" (which what ksen was doing and what I responded to), then you need to show that they are all innocent shooting victims.

Sir, please don't shift the goalpost. You need to show evidence that they are the violent criminals you say they are. Get with it, chop chop.

I already directed you toward a good deal of relevant empirical evidence and you have completely ignored every bit of it. So, start engaging in honest rational discourse, chop, chop.

And I know that you don't have that information because that information is not kept.

Actually, there is plenty of relevant information about who and why cops shoot, just not complete compiled records of all such shootings kept on a national level.
What we do have is a great deal of information highly relevant to fine folks cops spend much of their time interacting with and arresting as the defining part of their job. All of that information, some of which I supplied and your predictably completely ignored and cut from your response to me, supports the idea that cops are mostly shooting violent criminals that harm other people.

Actually no, you just brought up statistics about convictions and arrests. Fatally wounded individuals are not tried, in a court of law. As the prominent cases brought forward in recent weeks show, not all of those shot by police are guilty of violent crimes.

Every piece of data I have referenced is logically relevant to the relative probability of threat vs. no-threat in the people that cops shoot. Your inability to understand logic and know what it is to engage in evidence based reasoning is not my failing.

Cops are paid to go to places where criminal activity is reported and to confront the people involved, and thus they spend a majority of their time in areas with established high rates of violent crime and illegal gun possession.

Really? I'll pass that along to the police officers I know.

No need, they all already know it as do all rational people who do not deny the fact that there are more frequent patrols in higher crime areas and that most calls cops respond to are in higher than average crime areas, something that is true by definition. If you want to throw out some red herring about the time they spend in station, then that will demonstrate the sincerity of your rhetoric. The point is that of the time in which cops are interacting with and thus might potentially shoot members of the public, a disproportionate amount is spent in areas with high crime rates and illegal guns.

You state that cops spend a majority of their time in high crime areas. Knowing police officers, I know this is simply not true. Yes, there may be more police patrolling those areas that other, but there are a huge number of police officers in this country and most patrol relatively peaceful places.

I am referring to the police involved in most of the shootings in questions. Shootings by cops tend to occur in the same areas as shootings by non-cops. This is no coincidence, they are causally related. The racial groups most likely to be shot are same groups most likely to shoot at cops, shoot other people, and have illegal guns (all stats I already pointed you towards and you ignored).

And how do you know about illegal guns?
This seems to be a fantasy since most guns can be obtained legally and are obtained legally. I'd like you to bring up some stats on this belief.

Wow, you really know nothing about anything related to crime. About 80% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally and/or not legally registered to the person possessing it. That doesn't count the 30,000 to 40,000 attempts per year by people to illegally buy guns from otherwise legal gun dealers. . Basically, it is illegal gun possession if any firearm is possessed by any person that is not licensed and is not the registered owner of that particular gun. Even if they are a licensed, registered owner, it is illegal possession if the gun is possessed in any manner not allowed by their licence (e.g., if its concealed). Every single handgun possessed by any person under age 21, is illegal. Such illegal gun possession is rampant, particularly in the areas where most shootings by cops occur. About 6% of teens in grades 9-12 in the US have carried an illegal gun within the past year, with illegal gun possession in grade 12 being notably higher that that, and among high school drop outs likely much higher. Obviously, that 6% average is highly variable with many areas having near 0% teen gun possession others closer to 20%. Every year, about 1% of 18 year old males is arrested on an illegal weapons charge, and 80% of those are black males, which means that about 5% of 18 year black males are arrested every single year on illegal weapons charges. It is probable that less than 10% of actual instances of illegal weapon carrying are actually caught, which tells you that when a cop enters an area with several black males aged 16-24, there is a high probability of at least 1 person carrying an illegal weapon.

There is more than enough violent crime and illegally armed persons on the streets for them to deal with. They do not need to go around just inventing situations to use force.

WTF? Why would they seek out trouble?

Are you so ignorant about the job description of cops that you would ask "why would they seek out trouble?" IF you actually know any cops, they would laugh at the absurdity of such a question. Crime is trouble, their job is to seek out and investigate crime and arrest people suspected of committing them. IOW, the sole purpose for which cops exist and are paid is to seek out trouble and troublemakers and confront them.

I really don't think you know any cops. Cops don't seek out trouble, they respond to calls and incidents and do their best to avoid or escalate troublesome situations.

Calls and incidents are by definition, "trouble", so responding to them is seeking out trouble, as is driving around on patrol looking for suspicious activity.
Play all the semantic games you want, but you cannot avoid the obvious reality that the members of the public that cops seek out and are most likely to engage with are disproportionately criminals who harm other people and/or people who live in areas with high concentrations of such criminals. That is all that matters to any argument I have made.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Sir, please don't shift the goalpost. You need to show evidence that they are the violent criminals you say they are. Get with it, chop chop.

I already directed you toward a good deal of relevant empirical evidence and you have completely ignored every bit of it. So, start engaging in honest rational discourse, chop, chop.

As shown above all we have is pleading. Let's begin again: http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...oklyn-Shooting&p=101018&viewfull=1#post101018

Every piece of data I have referenced is logically relevant to the relative probability of threat vs. no-threat in the people that cops shoot. Your inability to understand logic and know what it is to engage in evidence based reasoning is not my failing.

But I never asked about relative probability of threat v. no threat. So I'm not sure what your arguing. Let's say I have a flat tire, do you help me diagnose it by checking the oil?

Cops are paid to go to places where criminal activity is reported and to confront the people involved, and thus they spend a majority of their time in areas with established high rates of violent crime and illegal gun possession.

Really? I'll pass that along to the police officers I know.

No need, they all already know it as do all rational people who do not deny the fact that there are more frequent patrols in higher crime areas and that most calls cops respond to are in higher than average crime areas, something that is true by definition. If you want to throw out some red herring about the time they spend in station, then that will demonstrate the sincerity of your rhetoric. The point is that of the time in which cops are interacting with and thus might potentially shoot members of the public, a disproportionate amount is spent in areas with high crime rates and illegal guns.

You state that cops spend a majority of their time in high crime areas. Knowing police officers, I know this is simply not true. Yes, there may be more police patrolling those areas that other, but there are a huge number of police officers in this country and most patrol relatively peaceful places.

I am referring to the police involved in most of the shootings in questions. Shootings by cops tend to occur in the same areas as shootings by non-cops. This is no coincidence, they are causally related. The racial groups most likely to be shot are same groups most likely to shoot at cops, shoot other people, and have illegal guns (all stats I already pointed you towards and you ignored).

I'd like to see the hard data for this claim because a lot of cops get shot in rural areas, and I would thing that higher density would result in higher numbers. And what are these racial groups more likely to shoot? Or are we only looking at Black neighborhoods here.

And how do you know about illegal guns?
This seems to be a fantasy since most guns can be obtained legally and are obtained legally. I'd like you to bring up some stats on this belief.

Wow, you really know nothing about anything related to crime. About 80% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally and/or not legally registered to the person possessing it

That's not total crime, that is convicted felons still in prison. These were prisoners who agreed to be interviewed for the survey. And your data says that 42% bought their guns off the street or illegal source not 80%. And if you don't know, private sales are legal.

That doesn't count the 30,000 to 40,000 attempts per year by people to illegally buy guns from otherwise legal gun dealers. .

Attempting to purchase from a gun dealer is not the same thing as using a gun in a crime.

Basically, it is illegal gun possession if any firearm is possessed by any person that is not licensed and is not the registered owner of that particular gun.

Wow! What a redefinition! I am going to stop here because you are obviously not familiar with the United States.

There is more than enough violent crime and illegally armed persons on the streets for them to deal with. They do not need to go around just inventing situations to use force.

WTF? Why would they seek out trouble?

Are you so ignorant about the job description of cops that you would ask "why would they seek out trouble?" IF you actually know any cops, they would laugh at the absurdity of such a question. Crime is trouble, their job is to seek out and investigate crime and arrest people suspected of committing them. IOW, the sole purpose for which cops exist and are paid is to seek out trouble and troublemakers and confront them.

I really don't think you know any cops. Cops don't seek out trouble, they respond to calls and incidents and do their best to avoid or escalate troublesome situations.

Calls and incidents are by definition, "trouble", so responding to them is seeking out trouble, as is driving around on patrol looking for suspicious activity.
Play all the semantic games you want, but you cannot avoid the obvious reality that the members of the public that cops seek out and are most likely to engage with are disproportionately criminals who harm other people and/or people who live in areas with high concentrations of such criminals. That is all that matters to any argument I have made.

You really need to do a few ride alongs because what you are describing sounds more like a television police drama than reality.