December 21, 2014

"Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases."

Said Al Sharpton.

AND: "NYPD cops furious with Bill de Blasio turn their backs on the mayor as he enters hospital where officers died."

153 comments:

Humperdink said...

There is only one reason why The Most Reverend Al was so quick to spout this line. Because he knows, just like at Freddy's Fashion Mart, he and others like him lit the fuse.

Mayor Bill DeSocialist is going to have a bigger problem though.

rhhardin said...

Community organizers think of themselves first.

That's moral leadership in the narrative.

virgil xenophon said...

"Any use of the names..."

Riiiiight...

Gahrie said...

Sharpton wouldn't recognize the pursuit of justice if it threw his criminal ass in jail.

JAORE said...

Any use of Al Sharpton is reprehensible and a gross injustice.




Yet MSNBC stands proud.

Humperdink said...

Al was hugely disappointed this unfortunate double assassination interrupted his strong-arm activities at Sony. He is building quite an impressive resume.

Vile Pliskin said...

This has nothing to do with talk about Michael Brown was executed while surrendering, or that Garner was choked to death.

ISIS, al Queda, various self-radicalized lone wolves have nothing to with Islam, (mandatory modifier) The Religion of Peace.

Rape Culture is so dominant on a college campus that 9 frat brahs would certainly plan a three hour torture-rape, and the whole Greek system needs to be punished on the basis of single sourced article in grampa's rock n roll mag.

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party MIGHT not have pulled the trigger in Tuscon, but we all know they created the condition for it to happen.

The MSM, Obama Admin, and Universities have formed and service an Axis of Narrative.

Tank said...

I blame the Rams and Lebron James.

Oso Negro said...

Even the Reverend Al might be feeling a bit squeamish at this latest turn of events. He was sure quick with the condemnation in this case.

Hagar said...

No, but he is smart enough to know this sort of thing can cause blowback on him.

Hagar said...

With Sharpton it is all about Al Sharpton and the Benjamins.

Krumhorn said...

It was breath-taking to see that hallway of police turn their backs on the mayor as he and his entourage paraded through. I would have been mortified to have been on the receiving end of that. But, then, the lib/progs are immune to shame. It's not in their emotion kit.

- Krumhorn

FullMoon said...

The shooter is a hero among his peers, although kind of a chicken shit way of going about it. Had a black guy in SF bay area (Oakland?)several years ago pulled over for something minor, ended up in a chase and gunfight, shooting through walls, killing police. He is a legend in that community.

Had one recently where the bad guy used a woman as a human shield, cops killed the lady with 10 or so bullets, bad guy survived.

michaele said...

Interesting (no, not really) how most news organizations are not yet showing a picture of the shooter, Ismaail Brinsley. I was curious last night when I first read the story and googled his name. Lots of pictures on his My Space page where, surprise, surprise, he presents himself as an angry black man. The only place where I saw his picture in connection with the shooting was The Daily Mail.

wendybar said...

This was predictable. When Obama tells protestors "stay the course", and protestors chanting "What do we want? DEAD COPS, when do we want it? NOW!!!"...then DeBlasio meets with leaders of the protests while condemning cops....

Quayle said...

For their own selfish purposes, they stoke the passions of the people with division and enmity , and they now reap the uncontrolled conflagration of hatred and violence.

Then they want to disavow all responsibility.

"Yes I saw opportunity in a small fire. Yes I fanned the flames unrelentingly. But, honestly folks, I didn't want to burn the forest down.

Scott said...

Al Sharpton doesn't want metaphoric blood on his hands.

FullMoon said...

The mayor’s office later issued a statement responding to the PBA, saying, “It’s unfortunate that in a time of great tragedy, some would resort to irresponsible, overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people...."

un fukin' believable

rhhardin said...

All these bodies have large respective symbolic roles to play in a TV world, the entertainment choice of serious people today.

Bobber Fleck said...

Our fear now should be "copycat" killings.

Scott said...

PBA local president Pat Lynch got in front of the news cameras yesterday and, in so many words, named Bill Di Blasio as responsible for the murder of the two police officers.

Both men are horse's asses. But I think Lynch aspires to be known as a fetid scumbag; and in that quest he is well on his way.

Unknown said...

---Both men are horse's asses. But I think Lynch aspires to be known as a fetid scumbag; and in that quest he is well on his way.---

How should Lynch have reacted after DeBlasio raised the cities racial tension and highlighted cop racism. What was DeBlasio’s reaction when mobs called for dead cops?

Paul said...

So now Sharpton crawfishes and goes back on all the race baiting he has been doing.

Hope the NYPD calls in sick when Al wants police protection or escorts. Him and Jessie Jackson.

Scott said...

Bratton may be the commissioner, but Lynch is the face of the NYPD to 8.4 million New Yorkers.

How should Lynch have reacted? With a little class. For him to be using this tragedy to launch a protracted pissing match with the mayor does nothing to instill citizen confidence in the NYPD. Thuggish rhetoric fosters a perception of NYPD officers as thugs. Lynch is hurting the cops he's presumably representing because he's too fucking stupid to play the political game the right way.

jr565 said...

Scott, Deblasio is getting exactly what he deserves. Cops want nothing to do with him. he was acting like a lefty advocate rather than mayor, and scapegoating cops.

jr565 said...

And in the case of Garner, cops were enforcing HIS directives. Suddenly his son needs to be wary of cops? Because they are targeting blacks racially?
He, like all lefties is using this as a means to spread racial disharmony furthering the lefty meme of the racist society that targets blacks. Cops don't want to be sent home in body bags beciase the mayor likes to stoke those same fires.

tim in vermont said...

"Deny, deny, deny." - Bill Clinton

Humperdink said...

Anyone keeping a tally of the dead bodies Sharpton has had a hand ... er ... voice in?

tim in vermont said...

too fucking stupid to play the political game the right way.

I agree, he should have gone along with the celebrations at the cops death, the clapping and cheering at the scene, and ignored the "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" chants. You know, shown some class!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

I blame the expanded Electorate.

Gahrie said...

. For him to be using this tragedy to launch a protracted pissing match with the mayor does nothing to instill citizen confidence in the NYPD.

Maybe you weren't paying attention. The mayor attacked the police first.

Bob Boyd said...

“Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases,” Rev. Al Sharpton said in a statement.

That seems backwards. Shouldn't he be saying, 'any violence or killing of police is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases?'

jr565 said...

this is dedicated to Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Bill Deblaisio and MSNBC, and all the racial merchants and protest kids:
http://youtu.be/wmin5WkOuPw

Owen said...

Tim in vermont @8:36:

"'Deny, deny, deny.' - Bill Clinton"

Amen. The all-important narrative is --whatever you make it. As with theater, the trick is never to break character. The trick to con tricks is --confidence.

I've watched Al Sharpton since Tawana Brawley days. He is never going to apologize. He is never going to acknowledge responsibility for anything. Credit? Sure, he'll take credit. Preferably when it's not due. That kind of theft, the more brazen the better, sends a message of intimidation. Thug theater: it never changes.

Scott said...

Love him or hate him, Di Blasio won 72% of the vote in the mayoral election of 2013; and his prior career in city politics made his views well known. He is an asshole progressive, and that's what the voters wanted.

When Lynch calls Di Blasio a murderer, he's also slinging shit at the people who elected him. That may stroke the personal views of some people, but it is massively stupid politics that ends up hurting the NYPD in the long run.

The Drill SGT said...

Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that this is an inflection point. The stupid protesting of white liberals will soon be mostly over, and fewer and fewer will listen and respond to the Black revience hate mongers like Sharpton. They crossed the line with their demand to kill cops. Mike Brown likely died because he tried to take a cop's gun and kill him. And Garner likely died as an accidental victim of the bureaucracy. Neither death appears intentional. Brown, if hadn't been so stoned, should probably have expected to die for what he did. Garner probably wouldn't have absent an underlying medical condition. But the deaths of these cops were completely 100% premeditated. And that killer had been egged on by white liberals and Black race mongers.

The police have always been the thin blue line between the middle class and the lower classes. They tended to come from the lower middle class, where they knew their opponents on the other side of the line better than most of us. We may not like the police, but we respect very much what they do for us, because it is something that needs very much to be done, but most of us couldn't do it.

Much has been made of the division of Blue America from Red America. But underneath this is the reality that much of this division is between the middle class on the one hand, and the lower class and the elites on the other, with the latter using the former as their useful dopes to maintain their power to extract special favors from the government.

This was an attack aimed directly at the middle class, because it was aimed directly at those we ask to stand between us and anarchy. On days like this, I almost feel like walling off the parts of Blue America that believe that yelling for the death of cops for doing their dirty, dangerous jobs is justified. Let them kill each other - the fatherless thugs from the inner cities allowed to prey on the stupid liberals who try to coddle and excuse them. And, outside those enclaves, the rest of us can live in an ordered society of laws.

Humperdink said...

@Scott. I disagree. The cops have enormous power here. They will be overly cautious and the citizens will come out the worse for it, especially in the inner city. When that happens, the appropriate response from NYPD will be: "call the mayor".

Big Bird, as someone called his honor, is going look like a fool in the long run. If you've lost your (emphasis your) police department.....

Bruce Hayden said...

Anyone keeping a tally of the dead bodies Sharpton has had a hand ... er ... voice in?

I, for one, am going to boycott MSNBC (and probably NBC) as a result of their support of Sharpton, and their providing him a platform for spewing his racist hate. I will not stay where it is played in public areas, and will not watch its shows in private. If enough do this, I think that we can make a change. (I am rethinking having just signed up for Comcast cable, that being their primary corporate owner).

Skeptical Voter said...

Who me? Responsible for anything? I was only talking man.

Sharpton apparently still hasn't paid that libel judgment against him in the Tawana Bradley case.

The man is a moral moron.

CWJ said...

Bob Boyd beat me to it. Sharpton's comment was just bizarre. Too late! There has already been plenty of violence done in Fergusson in Brown's name. And as Bob Boyd points out it doesn't exactly condemn killing police.

But of course, Sharpton was only clumsily doing damage control. This was "for the record" for his benefit. Not anyone else's.

Scott said...

Do the math. There are 51,000 people working for the NYPD vs 8.4 million New York City residents. Do you think the NYPD can function effectively if New Yorkers don't respect them? How does Pat Lynch enhance the esteem of New Yorkers for the NYPD by calling the mayor who they elected in a landslide a murderer?

Original Mike said...

Heck of a job, Mayor!

pm317 said...

The elevation of Al Sharpton in these last 8 years directly by the Obama WH shows you their real motive and character.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Scott

I see your point, but on the other hand there are 51,000 people working for the NYPD and only one Bill De Blasio. The 8.4 million New Yorkers need the cops more than they need one politician.
If it was any other union that was pissed off there'd be tactics used like a work slow down. Maybe the cops will do their version. Show up promptly to life and death matters, but anything else they could take their sweet time.
Another one is safety. We can't be effective, efficient or timely due to concerns for the safety of our officers. Another one would be to cut way back on writing citations. That would hit the city in the pocket book.
If the mayor can't make the the police dept. run then the people will find someone who can.

chickelit said...

Scott said...
Do the math. There are 51,000 people working for the NYPD vs 8.4 million New York City residents. Do you think the NYPD can function effectively if New Yorkers don't respect them?

It appears that a loudmouth minority of New Yorkers support the killing of cops, but I haven't seen any data w/r/t whether New Yorkers as a whole admire de Blasio's continued urge to give police the finger.

Respect works both ways. Stop pretending it doesn't.

Wilbur said...

"I, for one, am going to boycott MSNBC"

No need. The public effectively already is.

I would suggest that if it only occurred to you now that patronizing NBC or any of the MSM is a poor choice, then you haven't been paying attention.

CWJ said...

Granted Brown and Garner are dead. But their deaths gave a collection of petty criminals, polititians, race hustlers, bleeding hearts, and professional athletes license to loot, pontificate, shakedown, morally preen, and showboat respectively. IOW, look at ME! It's what they do.

It was never about Brown and Garner. It was always about them. It was all great fun until some angry black man takes them at their word and executes two cops sittng in their squad.

If any good comes of this, it's if the above groups STFU, and bring this sordid preening pantomime to an end.

chickelit said...

pm317 said...
The elevation of Al Sharpton in these last 8 years directly by the Obama WH shows you their real motive and character.

And just how did Al Sharpton insinuate himself into advising SONY? link. That just seems too contrived to be coincidental. The man should be as toxic to PR as Donald Sterling.

pm317 said...

@chicklit.. yes.. shaming the Sony chief to meet with Al Sharpton (of all people) has VJ's fingerprints all over. And, giving him a seat at various other tables, and this Sony thing takes the cake. But why? What does he have on Obama? I don't think the WH is just using him for all things race related.

Owen said...

Scott: I almost bought your argument but I think the appeal to moderation has (irony alert) its limits. As Instapundit says, quoting a very great man, "punch back twice as hard." Similarly: "a gentleman is never unintentionally rude." Sometimes even a moderate has to take the gloves off and call an a**hole exactly that. Yes, it hurts the cause of moderation; but hey, omelette, eggs. This kind of crazy requires an answer: a strong one, and without hesitation.

Fine, the answer has been given. If Lynch is smart he will now raise the tone and move back toward a more moderate stance. He can afford to do so; De Blasio is the one who has to rebuild any goodwill, and it will take him the rest of his life even to make a start on that.

BDNYC said...

Scott, you seem to think the voters had some deep and intimate sense of De Blasio when they elected him. That's simply not true. Mr. Wilhelm merely won a sorry Democratic primary -- the other leading contenders were a fat mean lesbian, an unindicted criminal, and a Twitter pervert -- and he did so by using his son's afro.

The more voters have gotten to know him, the less they like him.

This NYPD kerfuffle is going to hurt him in the long run. Just watch.

Michael K said...

"Thuggish rhetoric fosters a perception of NYPD officers as thugs"

Feeling a little heat for your support of the race baiting in NYC, are you ?

The cops are angry at the Mayor. They have good reason. He will be lucky if one doesn't do an Indira Gandhi on him and claim PTSD.

jr565 said...

hey, why' s Revenant not posting about the cop shooting? id like to hear his theories on cops.

BDNYC said...

Non-blacks in the outer boroughs are going to turn hard against De Blasio, if they haven't already. Even liberal whites in Manhattan are smart enough and self-interested enough to want the protection of the police. It's a delicate balance here. Some of the most expensive real estate in the city is mere blocks from the projects.

Michael K said...

"I, for one, am going to boycott MSNBC "

How can you boycott something that nobody uses ?

Bob Boyd said...

chickelit said...
"And just how did Al Sharpton insinuate himself into advising SONY?"

I guess SONY was telling the truth. They did call the White House.

RJ said...

"Do you think the NYPD can function effectively if New Yorkers don't respect them?"

Any New Yorker who can remember the 1970s and 1980s should be scared sh*tless about the police being diminished.

MayBee said...

Scott: 8.4 million New York City residents.

752,604 of whom voted for Di Blasio.

Anyway, this seems like an odd argument. You can't criticize a politician because it upsets the majority who voted for him?

Charlie Currie said...

Sharpton has blood on his hands...again.

MayBee said...

Maybe Valerie Jarrett and Rev Al are madly, passionately in love.

MadisonMan said...

Wow, I actually agree with something that Al Sharpton said.

The broken clock twice a day, etc. factor.

Scott said...

Oh, you're saying that if you weren't one of the 750k who voted for Di Blasio, then by default you are part of 7.65 million people who are against him.

That's like the rationalization Obama made for ignoring the results of the 2014 congressional elections.

You can ignore elections. You can make stupid inflammatory ad hominem attacks. No law against it. But if politics is about getting things done, you have to wonder what Pat Lynch is trying to accomplish by calling Bill Di Blasio a murderer. Nobody here has yet explained how Pat Lynch's purple rhetoric is going to enhance the esteem of New Yorkers for the NYPD and enable cops to do their work more effectively to the benefit of all of the city's citizens.

BDNYC said...

Scott: it's de Blasio, not Di Blasio.

MayBee said...

Oh, you're saying that if you weren't one of the 750k who voted for Di Blasio, then by default you are part of 7.65 million people who are against him

I'm certainly not saying that. You are the one who invoked the number of New Yorkers and their support of Di Blasio.

I would say, the majority of New Yorkers don't want a mayor who panders to his voters so much that he forgets the cops need support and respect, too.

And I say that because that's what the majority of people want.

ThreeHeaded Throop said...

Said Al Sharpton, stepping quickly in an attempt to dodge the tidal wave of shit headed his way.

Perhaps a little more accurate.

I don't know what Obutthole will do. Yawn, probably.

Unknown said...

Note that Sharpton's comment was NOT a condemnation of killing police. His problem seems to be that the killing gave his own cause a bad name.

MayBee said...

I don't think Pat Lynch needs to talk like that, but New Yorkers seem to understand aggressive verbalization quite well. They aren't a real inhibited group.

I also think they are sophisticated enough to understand what is happening, here. The police are mad and hurt, and the mayor went too far in criticizing them for a good pander. He's a politician. He's going to have to figure out a way to smooth things over.

Original Mike said...

"you have to wonder what Pat Lynch is trying to accomplish by calling Bill Di Blasio a murderer."

Whether or not it's smart, I imagine he's pushing back against de Blasio's vilifying the police.

Scott said...

De Blasio, i stand corrected. Thank you.

Owen said...

Scott, this thread was (is) about the appalling hypocrisy and moral failure of an ostensible "leader of the African-American community." Threads evolve, of course. But what I see in your remarks is a sustained effort to change the subject to "What a nasty name Pat Lynch used! That's really a dumb thing to do!"

Is your larger idea here, "How politicians of any stripe hurt themselves by trying to score cheap points"? Or is "De Blasio is being unfairly attacked"?

John Lynch said...

Shooting police is terrorism.

Terrorists always have a political arm, and that arm always claims to deplore violence and refuses to be held accountable. The political arm always blames the target of the violence for causing it.

We aren't there yet, but I can see the outlines.

Scott said...

The larger issue is public figures trying to assign or deflect culpability for criminal acts on to people or institutions.

My first post was on Sharpton and referenced the "blood on hands" metaphor. I thought it was weird for Sharpton to expressly distance his followers from this criminal's sentiments.

The post immediately following mine brought up the murder of police officers. My subsequent posts responded to that post and subsequent responses.

You're accusing me of thread hijacking. I get it. This is my last post in this thread, go talk about Sharpton.

Christopher said...

The NYPD's anger with DeBlasio started well before this shooting and has more to do with his perceived pandering than with anything else.

The police understand politics and usually are willing to put up with a lot of BS so long as it doesn't interfere with their job or put their safety at risk.

Unfortunately for DeBlasio they believe he made the situation worse in order to score some cheap political points and this is the result.

DeBlasio may be able to get them to stop turning their backs to him, but he will never regain their trust.

Owen said...

In light of Scott's announced boycott of the thread, I have authorized my media relations team to issue the following apology.

mccullough said...

The hands up don't shoot and I can't breathe movements have come to a halt.

This hurts Sharpton in the pocketbook. How is he going to pay the $4 million in back federal income taxes he owes?

JAORE said...

Mayor de Blasio started out pandering to his base. Told us all that he instructed his child to be wary because police are racist. Expressed outrage at the outcome of the investigation. Met with protesting groups. Bad enough, and certainly enough to raise the ire of the police.

In the ensuing time protests have included assaults on police. "Peaceful protesters" have called for killing of cops. Certainly an opportunity for politicians to say, "By God, that's too far! And will be dealt with." Must have missed that, beyond the generic I support peaceful protests, not the bad stuff....blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps Scott can point me to the Mayor's real efforts to deescalate the rhetoric or tension. Or calls from the Mayor to investigate groups calling for violence.

No?

Wow, and you think the response after two police are assassinated is politically insensitive?

Well, at least he got your attention. Might be the first time.

mccullough said...

de Blasio can't make the cops respect him or prevent them from disrespecting him.

He is under the mis-impression that his power extends to controlling individual police officer's expressions.

He also won't be able to control a blue flu or a myriad of other things police can do.

In Chicago, the mayor's son was mugged across the street from his house.

furious_a said...

Two more scalps for Al Sharpton's lodge pole.

MayBee said...

In Chicago, the mayor's son was mugged across the street from his house.

Yeah, I'm kinda doubting this story.

I always doubt the "I had to go outside to make a call and was beaten up for my phone" stories. Especially on a heavily policed street.

William said...

I saw Sharpton's announcement. He deplored the murders. Then he played a phone recording of a threatening call he received. It is important to remember in this tome of mourning that Al Sharpton is the true victim here.....Sharpton appeared with the family of Garner. I don't think they want the jury pool on the wrongful death case to harbor any ill will towards them.....An enterprising reporter would endeavor to discover how much Sharpton has made in these wrongful death cases. And it was all tax free.

MayBee said...

I thought Scott was being interesting (even though wrong :) )

William said...

The liberal narrative appears to be that it was the solitary act of a crazy man and that the actions of Lynch are divisive and ill considered.....,.Well, yes, it was the act of a crazy man. But how many of Sharpton's audience are, in fact, crazy men. There was very little in the rhetoric of Sharpton or, for that matter, DeBlasio that would serve to diminish the irritabilities of the crazies among their followers.......Perhaps Lynch is outspoken, but he is speaking for his members. DeBlasio speaks for the entire city and his rhetoric is far, far more divisive. Bloomberg was, on most issues, a reliable liberal, but he would never allow himself o get caught in such obvious traps.

BDNYC said...

I get the feeling Rev. Al is still an informant. Otherwise his continued freedom is hard to understand. He's bulletproof.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

""Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases.""

That magical about-face by Sharpton is worth remembering, as evidence that his formidable demagoguery can be applied to whatever audience he selects.

A study of his fluid concept of 'justice' from situation to situation should be worth a Masters degree at the least, at one of our noble Universities.

Big Mike said...

Sharpton's sure trying to back peddle hard, isn't he?

But I agree that deBlasio has the bigger problem right now.

MadisonMan said...

Maybe Valerie Jarrett and Rev Al are madly, passionately in love.

Oh Ick.

Time to scrub my eyeballs.

pm317 said...


I guess SONY was telling the truth. They did call the White House.


thread winner!..

and Obama told in his last press conference, Sony should have instead called him.

Big Mike said...

Make that the bigger self-made and readily foreseeable problem.

James Pawlak said...

Perhaps he is correct. The names which should be used are Al Sharpton, B. H. Obama and (What's his face)the mayor of NYC.

Robert Cook said...

The police anger with Deblasio is a result of their inability and unwillingness to take even the slightest hint of reproach from the authorities above them, however warranted it may be.

traditionalguy said...

THe trouble is killers who break the strict NYC Gun Control Laws. NYC needs a better class of killers.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
The police anger with Deblasio is a result of their inability and unwillingness to take even the slightest hint of reproach from the authorities above them, however warranted it may be.
"

THe police anger with Deblasio is that he's a lefty douchebag who disparages cops to further his lefty bonafides.

Kevin said...

And if ANYONE knows about "justice", it's Al "You Faggot" Sharpton...

*SNORT*

Achilles said...

Scott said...
"PBA local president Pat Lynch got in front of the news cameras yesterday and, in so many words, named Bill Di Blasio as responsible for the murder of the two police officers.

Both men are horse's asses. But I think Lynch aspires to be known as a fetid scumbag; and in that quest he is well on his way."

Wrong. The mayor is responsible for this violence on several levels.

1. He supports the state policies that the police were enforcing. Black market sales of cigarettes is the natural result of the NYC tax system.

2. The city tasked the police with enforcing this law. He is on the hook for Garner's death even more so than the city police.

3. He met with people who chanted about dead police.

Deblasio needs to go. So do the policies he pushes. The result of a police state that is indistinguishable from the mob is what we have today.

jr565 said...

Deblasio also has an senior adviser to Deblasio's wife, Rachel Nordlinger who is dating a convicted killer and interstate drug trafficker who nearly ran over a cop while driving her car only last year, and who has called cops pigs on Facebook on multiple occasions.
Rachel previously served as chief spokeperson for Al Sharpton.

If you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas. So, even before Deblasio opened his mouth and inserted his foot into it there was the appearance that he was aligning himself with people who are naturally antagonistic towards cops.
Then when the incident occurs, Deblasio has to act like the lefty c*nt that he is even though in fact the cops were cleared by a grand jury.

The cops RIGHTLY feel that this turd doesn't have their back, and has an axe to grind. And so, are showing him their backs.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
"The police anger with Deblasio is a result of their inability and unwillingness to take even the slightest hint of reproach from the authorities above them, however warranted it may be."

If you are following the progressive cookbook the police were just following orders from their generals.

The city jacked up the cigarette taxes and created the black market. They then tasked the police with enforcing their stupidity and greed. The police caused the death of a guy selling loosies and are the ones facing blow back.

Not only is Deblasio more responsible for the death of Garner than the police, he went out and slagged the police he put in that situation. Deblasio, and you apparently, are total scum.

Bruce Hayden said...

It goes beyond DeBlassio - The two guys in the video with guns pointed to a cop's head apparently are NYC public defenders. An office that apparently gets $20 million a year from the city.

n.n said...

That's Sharpton's modus operandi. Actually, the social complex's (e.g. civil rights) business model is to extrapolate to unprincipled extremes, then exploit anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in their web. How ever will they sustain their racket?

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
Not only is Deblasio more responsible for the death of Garner than the police, he went out and slagged the police he put in that situation. Deblasio, and you apparently, are total scum.

Well Giulliani also went after people for minor crimes. It's how he brought the crime rate down. I'm not going to blame Giuliani if someone resists arrest while committing a minor crime and gets killed by cop as if it's the enforcement of the law that's the problem.
But Giuliani didn't then throw his officers under a bus when they did in fact get into an altercation with someone who wound up dead during a routine arrest and label the cops as racist.

pm317 said...

These protests are way too well organized. Wonder where they are getting their resources and encouragement! Obama won't work with congress and has absolutely no skills at negotiation and such but he is great at inciting/calling these professional protesters to action. Go figure.

Achilles said...

jr565 said...

"Well Giulliani also went after people for minor crimes. It's how he brought the crime rate down. I'm not going to blame Giuliani if someone resists arrest while committing a minor crime and gets killed by cop as if it's the enforcement of the law that's the problem."

We all need to decide what we want the state to use force and kill some of us to protect. We all need to have the liberty to walk down the street and conduct business in safety. We should have reasonable assurance that our private property will be protected.

Government protection rackets? Not so much.


Anonymous said...

Wow, several shots fired just turned around a huge segment of America that won't condone or accept this. Think, The Boston Massacre, Border Ruffians and "Kansas, Bloody Kansas," The Raid on Harper's Ferry, and for our younger readers, Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

Of course I thought once a middle-aged white woman was beheaded, by a muslim, in America, something would be done, too.

Humperdink said...

On the bright side, I have yet to hear the letters NRA associated with these murders. But it is early.

Michael K said...

"The police anger with Deblasio is a result of their inability and unwillingness to take even the slightest hint of reproach from the authorities above them, however warranted it may be."

Yeah, well the two cops found out what you lefties consider " the slightest hint of reproach ."

Congratulations. You will get a free ticket to the next Sharpton rally.

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
We all need to decide what we want the state to use force and kill some of us to protect. We all need to have the liberty to walk down the street and conduct business in safety. We should have reasonable assurance that our private property will be protected.

Government protection rackets? Not so much.

You don't get to conduct illegal business in safety. If you're selling, crack say, you don't get to walk down the street in safety if selling crack is illegal. If you are selling illegal handbags and don't have a vendor license (in NY) you can't sell on the street.
If you DO have a license and you are competing with someone who doesn't the law should side with you since you paid for the license, and they didn't. I'm sorry, but your libertarianism is anti law and order.

Anthony said...

Too bad the shooter killed himself. He undoubtedly had a bright future in academia eventually.

jr565 said...

"We all need to decide what we want the state to use force and kill some of us to protect." Fundamentally dishonest. Cops didn't kill him BECAUSE he was selling loosies. He only wound up on the ground because he resisted.
Essentialy what you are arguing is we should have no misdemeanors. Because cops might have to enforce that law, and bad things might happen if people aren't inclined to go gently into the squad car.

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
We should have reasonable assurance that our private property will be protected.

Businesses who sell cigarettes legally deserve to have their private property protected too. And if they are engaged in commerce legally and are paying the costs to do business legally they should have said legal business protected from illegal business. Which will require cops enforcing said laws that support legal business.
Example. Someone sells booze at a bar to someone who is underage. OR someone sells booze without a liquor license. Since we can only sell booze if we have that and since acquiring that is very expensive, its not fair for businesses who go through that process to have to compete with people who, say sell booze out of the back of their truck.

buwaya puti said...

All law enforcement will lead to the occasional tragedy. In a large country with a rather violent criminal class many tragedies can be expected, seeing as human beings, some of them very defective ones, are both the subjects of and the agents of the law. Whether the rate of these inevitable tragedies is acceptable (irreducible under the circumstances, or acceptable as a tradeoff) is something that properly should be argued by emotionless Vulcans, with data and mathematics. Anything else really is irrational.
There will always be tragedies available for emotional exploitation.
This present business is pure politics, waving the bloody shirt to improve election turnout and move polls. Its all tribal politics, Tutsi vs Hutu, no Vulcans in sight.
The problem with waving the bloody shirt though is that peoples reactions are unpredictable and it can backfire badly. It can go very wrong indeed. Among other things, the tribesmen are undisciplined, not under control, and can get into unplanned scrapes.
Granted the people running this protest project are doing it with cool heads with a limited objective, but they have been running great risks given the nature of the materials they are working with. Hopefully this incident will serve as a warning.

DavidD said...

I like Bruce Hayden's first comment above; I'm pessimistic about how much violence it's going to take for an inflection point to be reached, though. I'm also pessimistic about the chances of coming out of it into anything other than outright Totalitarianism.

jr565 said...

The issue with DeBlasio, even before this whole Hands up don't shoot garbage was who he surrounded himself with.

Heres a website that links to the various things Rachel Noerdlinger is involved in. Why was she hired by Deblasio in the first place, and why hasn't he fired her yet.

She appears to be anti cop, a racialist, her son is anti cop, in 2000 while working for Sharpton, she tried to call for a boycott of the local police union and any company that contributed to the policemans benevolent association, which help pay for cops legal defense.

http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/70653/Long-Growing-List-Rachel-Noerdlinger-Ethics-Issues#.VJcM1sAs

Why is she sitting in on top level meetings involving cops?
Cops are looking to the mayor seeing how he's going to come down on all things law and order, and seeing this person being given a key role in the administration. Why? Clearly Deblasio does not have cops backs.
If you want to know where the animosity towards deblasio is coming from you can start here.

Michael K said...

"If you want to know where the animosity towards deblasio is coming from you can start here."

Yes, he was elected by a small fraction of the city that votes by a magical theory of government. They want to be radicals politically yet, at the same time, to be safe and protected by those icky policemen who didn't go to Harvard or Columbia.

The same people hate the military because they feel safe. A San Francisco county supervisor wanted to disband the Defense Department a couple of years ago. The battleship Iowa was turned down by San Francisco as a historical exhibit and is in Los Angeles harbor now.

Its magical thinking and Potemkin villages all the way down.

Achilles said...

Scott said...

"Do the math. There are 51,000 people working for the NYPD vs 8.4 million New York City residents. Do you think the NYPD can function effectively if New Yorkers don't respect them? How does Pat Lynch enhance the esteem of New Yorkers for the NYPD by calling the mayor who they elected in a landslide a murderer?"

No, I don't think the NYPD can function effectively. The mayor's office tasked them with enforcing a mob style protection racket and threw them under the bus when someone eventually got killed.

The sad thing is the left is trying to blame the cops for this when they were 100% responsible for creating a black market and using cops to force people into compliance to protect their income stream. The progressive left is the new mob.

But that isn't even enough. After sending the cops out as mob enforcers they use an accident to foment racial division and throw them under the bus.

Achilles said...

@ jr565

The government takes about 60-70% of the income of those legal businesses off of cigarettes. They are probably taking $10 for every $1 the store owner gets to keep if the store owner is making a profit at all. They do it because they have a monopoly on legal force. Are you endorsing this?

Original Mike said...

" I'm sorry, but your libertarianism is anti law and order."

Man, that "libertarianism" stick up your butt must hurt. You should have a doctor look at it.

Gary Rosen said...

"Anyone keeping a tally of the dead bodies Sharpton has had a hand ... er ... voice in?"

Crown Heights - 2
Freddie's Fashion Mart - 7
NYPD - 2

Sharpton death toll now 11, and counting. But Cookie's jiggy with it.

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
The government takes about 60-70% of the income of those legal businesses off of cigarettes. They are probably taking $10 for every $1 the store owner gets to keep if the store owner is making a profit at all. They do it because they have a monopoly on legal force. Are you endorsing this?

I'm not a fan of the law. But govt does have a right to enforce it. And those people selling cigs legally are willing to pay the cost to do business. They don't get to rewrite the law for their own use, simply because they don't find it convenient.

richard mcenroe said...

I see Sharpton's point. He already has a high enough body count to his credit without just piling it on in the fourth quarter...

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
They are probably taking $10 for every $1 the store owner gets to keep if the store owner is making a profit at all. They do it because they have a monopoly on legal force. Are you endorsing this?"

Am I endorsing that govt has a monopoly on legal force? Yes. Who else would enforce laws?
I don't see how it would work any other way.

Brando said...

I have a hard time believing Rev Al has any remorse about dead cops, especially if neither is a member of his preferred race. More likely he realizes this might make more than a few guilty whites realize that cop hating might have bad consequences.

jr565 said...

If a store isn't making any money selling cigarettes they can not sell cigarettes. One of the drug store chains just stopped selling cigs in fact.
If people dont like the price of cigarettes they can stop paying for them. OR can go to another state where the cost is not as onerous. The issue is selling the cigarettes illegally. no one has the right to do so. You just don't.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
Man, that "libertarianism" stick up your butt must hurt. You should have a doctor look at it.

very often it seems like the libertarian stick is the same as the liberal stick and it hurts exactly the same.

jr565 said...

Here we are having a discussion about the culpability of the liberals who incited violence and yet I'm remembering the libertarians using this exact same issue to try to further their agenda too. And using cops as scapegoats there too. First it was militarized police, then cops are jack boot thugs carrying out the orders of big govt.
We have to look at as either racist society or tyrannical society. It's neither. It's just something that happened.
I guess I just expected better from libertarians. Their shtick is getting just as tiresome though.

Nick Gillespie is on Reason magazing talking about before we rush to blame everybody we blame the shooter. That would be nice if Reason magazine hadn't blamed the onerous taxes for Garners' murder.
Yes lets blame the shooter. Lets also blame the guy selling the loosies for being in a situation where cops would arrest him.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/21/in-the-rush-to-blame-everyone-for-the-sh

Original Mike said...

From where I sit, jr, it's the liberal and conservative sticks that are difficult to distinguish. But my point is, what does the Garner case have to do with libertarianism?

Bruce Hayden said...

Essentialy what you are arguing is we should have no misdemeanors. Because cops might have to enforce that law, and bad things might happen if people aren't inclined to go gently into the squad car.

With Big Mike Brown, he probably didn't commit a misdemeanor right before he died, but rather, one or more violent Class B felonies (assault on a police officer, aggravated assault, and/or attempted murder) in the presence of (and to) a police officer. And, yet, Officer Wilson is seen as being in the wrong, and was supposed to have let the gentle giant escape arrest. It is one thing to draw the line with misdemeanors, and quite a different one to draw it between violent Class A and Class B felonies.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
From where I sit, jr, it's the liberal and conservative sticks that are difficult to distinguish. But my point is, what does the Garner case have to do with libertarianism?

A lot of libertarian pundits jumped on it to blame Deblasio's cigarette taxes for Garner's death. Thats not why he died. He died because he resisted. He could have resisted any law.

jr565 said...

Hayden wrote:
With Big Mike Brown, he probably didn't commit a misdemeanor right before he died, but rather, one or more violent Class B felonies (assault on a police officer, aggravated assault, and/or attempted murder) in the presence of (and to) a police officer. And, yet, Officer Wilson is seen as being in the wrong, and was supposed to have let the gentle giant escape arrest. It is one thing to draw the line with misdemeanors, and quite a different one to draw it between violent Class A and Class B felonies.

In brown's case I agree. It wasn't a misdemeanor. In Garner's case it was. (Or at least selling loosies is.) Cops are not supposed to let him skate arrest either.

jr565 said...

"A lot of libertarian pundits jumped on it to blame Deblasio's cigarette taxes for Garner's death. Thats not why he died. He died because he resisted. He could have resisted any law."
And before they made that argument we had to listen to the argument about militarized police even though it too really had little to nothing to do with the shooting of Michael Brown or the subsequent rioting that ensued. Even though cops were on the scene with "militarized gear" the first night no one was shot or beaten. And they largely let the looters destroy stores.It was largely a tangential issue.

Ann Althouse said...

"A lot of libertarian pundits jumped on it to blame Deblasio's cigarette taxes for Garner's death."

Rush Limbaugh is a libertarian?

richard mcenroe said...

Bruce Hayden: At least 10 deaths, and counting...

richard mcenroe said...

Scott -- the 72% (actually 17% of the available electorate) already hate the cops. Nothing the NYPD does with them will make any difference.

jr565 said...

"Rush is a libertarian?"I'd say rush is a libertarian as opposed to a Libertarian. A conservative with libertarian leanings, like many conservatives. And he found an attack that allows him to go after big govt. While Id agree with him that the tax is certsinly too high, he's goign into thr weeds adopting the libertarian argument.
reason.com made they same argument, as did Instapundit, who are both more Libertarian than Rush.

Jupiter said...

Wow, nice video. They really did stick it to the bastard, didn't they. That's gonna leave a mark. Plus, they are saying they are going to send two patrol cars to every 911 call, and make arrests only if absolutely necessary. I lived in NYC in the 80's. Some fun!

There was a story I used to hear a lot, among the artsy white kids who roughed it on the Lower East Side in NYC in the 80's. It started out with a group of people walking on the sidewalk, going to a bar, or a party, or an opening, whatever. "And then these two black guys came up to us ...". Usually, no one got hurt. I don't remember seeing many cops in Alphabet City.

I just drove over to the library to pick up my daughter. On the street in front of my house, three punks were walking in the middle of the road. They didn't move over, I had to pull off the side. All three wearing blue, which means Crips. I've had guns in the house for years, but I guess it's time to start carrying.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

Libertarian. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

jr565 said...

Original Mike, responding to arguments from, largely libertarians and libertarian leaning publications. it's a libertarian argument.
There is always some overlap between conservatives and libertarians which is why Rand paul who is basically a libertarian is also Republican. Where they diverge is on things like foreign policy, and its largely the Libertarians making arguments about a militarized police force.

jr565 said...

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/liberal-shocked-that-making-everything-i

Libertarian argument.

Original Mike said...

"I'm sorry, but your libertarianism is anti law and order."

No. I read your article, and nowhere (unless I missed it) does it call for not enforcing the law. The call is for fewer laws.

Milwaukie guy said...

buwaya puti speaks great truths. mu kudos.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
"No. I read your article, and nowhere (unless I missed it) does it call for not enforcing the law. The call is for fewer laws."

but the law was in place and Gardner violated it. Also how many fewer laws do you want and what if the legislature disagrees?
In the case of selling loosies, sure it's a minor offense, but by the same token there is no reason why society needs to legitimize black markets simpy because peope, don't wat to enforce laws. Then change the law.
I don't in fact know that Gardner was arrested simply because he sold loosies. Or the full history behind his arrest.
Regardless, though, I don't care if selling loosies is a minor crime, the state has a right to go after people selling loosies. just as it has the right to go after people selling booze from a truck.

Because to not do so undermines legitimate business. the state collects taxes from legitimate businesses, and legitimate businesses pay money to go into business. If you don't need to go into legitimate business and can still sell goods, then what's the point of going into legitimate business?
Let's take two bars. One goes through the process of spending thousands of dollars getting a liquor license and another one sets up shop and doesn't have any licensees at all. One takes great pains to card everyone who comes through the door, and the other serves anyone who comes in. One pays taxes and the other doesn't. If the state doesn't enforce those laws, why should any legitimate business actually follow the law? Because following the law is expensive.
But it's just selling beer! a non violent crime.so what? You don't get to set up an illegal shop simply because it's a non violent crime.
If I was a restaurant and some cart set up shop in front of my business and didn't even get a license for the cart I'd call the cops because I'm paying thousands of dollars in rent, and this guy is hurting my business and isn't allowed to be there. I'm paying money to be there. He isn't. If I can get a license to sell good, then so should he. And if he doesn't, the law should side with me, and not let him operate with impunity. I get the benefit of the law, because I'm following the law.

Libertarians keep talking about how we shouldn't enforce certain laws. If you don't you are harming me, the legitimate business owner. And I'm the one paying the taxes. Not fair, and frankly immoral. Which is why I'm suggesting your argument is anti law and order.

Unless business is completely unregulated and anyone can sell anything without following rules, then you need to enforce those rules and not support black markets.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"Also how many fewer laws do you want"

A lot fewer. This is where conservatives and liberals are alike. They both want to micromanage society.

"and what if the legislature disagrees?"

I, for one, agree that the law needs to be enforced. But if you've got a zillion laws you are setting up many encounters between police and citizens and some will turn out badly. If you support a zillion laws, you bear some responsibility for that.

"Libertarians keep talking about how we shouldn't enforce certain laws."

No, you keep saying that but he piece you linked to did not. As far as I can tell, libertarians argue for fewer laws, not non-enforcement.

bbkingfish said...

O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox News, Guiliani, and the other thugs who have been goading the African-American community to violence must really be proud of themselves today. I'm sure their ratings are through the roof.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
A lot fewer. This is where conservatives and liberals are alike. They both want to micromanage society.

If you want ANY laws you are for a little micromanagement of society. If you want to make the case that libertarians are for no laws, then make that case. Only it's a case for anarchy.
It's like saying you are for or against deregulation. Deregulation of what? Does deregulation mean NO regulation? Not as far as I've heard. It seems means removing laws, and then writing new ones.
But not removing all regulations.
We live in a civil society not the Road Warrior.

jr565 said...

Original Mike wrote:
I, for one, agree that the law needs to be enforced. But if you've got a zillion laws you are setting up many encounters between police and citizens and some will turn out badly. If you support a zillion laws, you bear some responsibility for that.

That's dumb. Whats the magic number of laws betweeen 0 laws and a zillion where cops wont step on the feet of citizens and get into an interaction that will turn out badly? You'd have to ask me about specific laws, and I'd say yes or no.

You say loosies are a problem. Suppose the tax for cigs was 5 dollars instead of ten dollars. And it still created a black market, only smaller. If cops are going to enforce that law there is the exact same chance of something bad happening if cops come to arrest you or cite you for selling loosies and you resist. it's not the law that affects your injuries, it's what happens when the cops pull you to the ground. And what determines that are things like Gravity, and velocity, and force applied.
Even if there were NO sin tax applied to cigarettes cops would still enforce the laws. Would the argument then be that the tax itself is what creates the black market and we should stop enforcing tax collection (not sin tax collection).
Take a restaurant selling food, no sin tax required. And take a cart that sets up shop outside without a license to sell. The restaurant is going to want the law to get that cart out of the way because it has no legal reason to be there. What if something bad happens when the cops tell the guy to leave? what if they tell him to leave and every day he keeps coming back to the same spot? so they start arresting him for seling without a license? He might get hurt when cops come for the 1000th complaint and arrest him and he decides to resist. What then?
Dont enforce laws that allow for businesses to conduct themselves legally.
No taxation without representation. I pay the tax as the business owner, you don't as the illegal cart. I get representation, you don't .If you don't enforce that, I'm not paying my taxes either.
You can't conduct business that way.

jr565 said...

If cops tried to arrest a guy selling food out of a cart illegally and he died while resisting would libertarians say the govt killed a man for selling hot dogs? ALl he was doing was selling hot dogs! How dare the govt step in and tell a man he can't sell a hot dog. They killed him for selling frankfurters!. Govt is a monster!
But think about all the other carts in the city that went through the process of getting a license to sell on a corner.
As a conservative I'm for business. And even free enterprise. But it doesn't mean the illegal cart gets an advantage over legal carts because libertarians dont want to enforce any law that doesn't involve a violent offense.

jr565 said...

Collecting a sales tax (if there is one) is not optional. though I imagine a business that doesn't pay the govt their tax could get a nice advantage over the business stupid enough to collect tax.

Original Mike said...

"If you want to make the case that libertarians are for no laws, then make that case."

I don't. But you sure want to stick those words in my (and other's) mouths.

When you've used all the straw in your county to construct your straw men, do you intend to start on the next county over? I was wrong. That's not a stick up your butt. It's straw.

RonF said...

Rev. Al wouldn't know justice if it smacked him in the face. And if there was justice, it would.

jr565 said...

original Mike, Note I said IF, not that you did. However, the implication of your words is that you don't support govt enforcing laws that protect businsss.

How would a cart selling food illegally be any different than a guy selling loosies illegally. Is it simply beciase of the sin tax? if there were no sin tax but Mike was still selling loosies it would still be a nonviolent crimes and he would still be engaged in illegal commerce. And if cops went to arrest him and he resisted he still might die?Should the govt enforce said laws or not?

Would the cops going after the cart selling food illegally be one of those laws you think we should do away with? Why cigarettes but not food? Or beer?
Or hand bags. Or jewelry. I live in NYC so see people selling stuff on the street every day. A lot of them don't have licenses. What are up you suggesting cops,should do? Or govt? Let them operate without a license unmolested? Even though people who sell stuff on the street need a license and pay a lot of money to get one?
garner could,have been selling any of those illegally.

Eric said...

In brown's case I agree. It wasn't a misdemeanor. In Garner's case it was. (Or at least selling loosies is.) Cops are not supposed to let him skate arrest either.

I don't see any workable system that has cops letting people evade arrest if they put up a fight. When you make something a misdemeanor you have to accept the fact that some number of people are going to die in altercations with police as a result of your new law.

The cops aren't the problem here. The problem is the number and breadth of the laws the police are being asked to enforce.