Said Joshua Williams, 19, last September. Williams, "[o]ne of the most frequently quoted and photographed Ferguson protesters was charged Saturday with setting fire to a Berkeley convenience store last week." Court documents say he has confessed to the crime.
“Josh is one of the young activists, and all of us have taken close to him. We got to know his heart, and he got to know ours,” said Bishop Derrick Robinson, of Kingdom Destiny Fellowship International. “He’s a great kid, an educated kid, a child who knows what he wants and is very active in the community.”
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
“He’s a great kid, an educated kid, a child who knows what he wants and is very active in the community.”
The true tragedy is that this "educated kid" chose to act like a thug and criminal like all the rest of peers.
Some were in disbelief over his reported confession and said the video images are not clear enough.
Did you catch that? The criminal confessed and they have him on videotape committing the crime, and people are still saying he's innocent.
He wasn't even looting, he was just engaged in destruction and disorder.
"We have to come together as one and show them we can be peaceful, that we can do this."
"Williams’ most recent confrontation of St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson during a Ferguson Commission meeting landed him in the pages of this newspaper.
Williams came within feet of Dotson and shouted at him as he tried to answer questions from the panel. “Can someone please get this lying (expletive) ho off the mic!” Williams yelled."
Even when it is conversation it is not conversation.
I am Laslo.
I'm so enjoying the improved race relations since we elected a Black president.
One of the fond meanings, when one black tells another that "You're such a nigger," is that you're acting with self-destructive stupidity.
But that also permitted self-destructive stupidity as a black privilege, and here we are.
He was certainly being active in his community. A double ding there: another activist turns out to be an arsonist at heart, and his faction chooses denial and the attendant weakening of its brand. He really has burned everybody.
His words betray his bigotry towards police.
He thinks the police want excuses to harm black people, when what the police really want is for black people to live peacefully and not commit crimes.
"I learned that we have to stand up and that you can’t get nowhere with violence but you can always move people without it."
I think he just followed his own advice.
"...a child who knows what he wants..."
I hope what he wants is 5-16 years in prison.
a child who knows what he wants
A spoiled entitled brat, obviously in line to be one of the 'elites' who will issue the edicts in an antidemocratic, progressive society...
and is very active in the community
... and is building a resume for his intended post, with help from 'Bishop' Derrick Robinson and our corrupt media.
As he said, you can't get nowhere with violence. The poor preacher was gulled by this smooth talking "educated" young fellow. Ferguson seems populated with the stupid and gullible and violent.
“He’s a great kid, an educated kid, a child who knows what he wants and is very active in the community.”
“Can someone please get this lying (expletive) ho off the mic!” Williams yelled.
Sounds like someone who will show up as a Democrat candidate for city council somewhere, then state legislator, then U.S. Senate. Career path is clear.
"He said he hasn’t missed a single day of marching, protesting or meetings."
IOW, not in school and no job.
"Blogger Fernandinande said...
"He said he hasn’t missed a single day of marching, protesting or meetings."
IOW, not in school and no job."
Wanna be community organizer.
So who was bankrolling this guy? Or was he stealing all along?
a child who knows what he wants
And what he wanted, apparently, was to see Ferguson burn.
And what's up with this business of calling young black men "children"? Joshua Williams aged 19 is no "child." At 18 years old, 6' 4" tall, 292 pounds Michael Brown was no "child."
Fifty years ago (I was there) referring to a black man as "boy" was a reliable indicator of raw bigotry. Now fifty years later here we are again, except it's the liberals who want to use terms demeaning the manhood of black males.
I'm sure there are (possibly many) individual cops who are racist, but I don't think most police forces are necessarily institutionally racist; the problem is that, institutionally, they increasingly are coming to treat all citizens as perps, and are too quick to exert maximum force at the least (or no) provocation. An acquaintance of mine who is a retired NYC police officer was telling us the other night at a holiday gathering that when he would have rookies with him and would train them, he would advise them to initiate interactions with citizens with humility, even apologizing for stopping them, but assuring them that they would try to finish their business quickly and be on their way. As he put it, "You can always ratchet up the forcefulness (and force) as necessary, but you can't ratchet DOWN from 9 or 10 if that's where you start."
He said that many of his colleagues thought he was nuts and believed the only appropriate way to approach citizens was with an immeidately aggressive attitude.
All of us should be fearful of the police.
The Tea Party put him up to it, I'm sure of it.
If there was a "like" button I would click it for Robert Cook's post at 10:24AM
Does he look like DiBlasio's son, or Obama's if he had one?
Uh oh..facts failing..time to change the narrative. Um...making heat for the homeless?
Robert,
Your rules should apply to those being approached as well. None of the recent "perps" would be dead if they exhibited the same level of respect..or simple obedience the vast majority of people do...yes..even when we're annoyed by them.
Notice sydney, that despite the reasonableness of our socialist friend's answer, he is focusing away from the facts and details of this case, and trying to find the loftiest, abstract ground where there may be political agreement. Politicians do this all the time.
Thus ideologues and those seeking radical social change like Cook keep plugging away (Cookie likely hates not the police nor use of force, but the wrong moral authority wielding both, for the laws and enforcement of them under his socialist regime would be 'just', unlike the one we have now, and he just knows such triths because his ideology tells him so)
No, there isn't likely to be radical revolution, but rather a lot of cultural and institutional influence wielded by 'liberals' who can and must see with the radicals and activists from where they sit, vaguely convinced of 'progress' and the 'march of history' and that their path is the right one.
They'll keep focusing on their moral lights, gathering their coalitions, doing the cultural bits that keep suburbia satiated, and keep thinking that what they know is so, when often it simply isn't.
We're moving towards a better place, sydney, a reasonable, socially just, fair, mostly equal place.
If josh is setting the fires, and he's the one out there saying they protesters have to be peaceful, is there hope for the protests? Or was he lying when he said it?
He’s a great kid, an educated kid, a child who knows what he wants and is very active in the community.”
WHO JUST PLEAD GUILTY TO SETTING FIRE TO STORE. So, not so great after all. Or was great until he got involved with the whole protest movement and radicalized to where he's now a bomb thrower. Maybe those pushing the climate of hate are responsible then for setting the climate where a great kid is now an arsonist because he got so drawn up in the rhetoric.
Not saying he isn't ultimately responsible. But this type of social justice mob rule rhetoric tends to radicalize.
Robert cook wrote:
the problem is that, institutionally, they increasingly are coming to treat all citizens as perps, and are too quick to exert maximum force at the least (or no) provocation
That is the meme you are pushing. But the cases used to highlight this problem don't exhibit the traits you are saying are the problem. Neither are the examples of overly militarized police or even cops profiling blacks.
Yet people citing thsese cases have brought all of these issues up as if they are relevant to the cases presented.
No profiling in any one. No excessive force in any one. All instigated because of crimes of perps not actions of cops.
So we have to hear all these faux arguments that really have nothing to do with the two incidents everyone is protesting over.
You can't even tell me these cases are really about racism, even though they involve the death of a black by a white cop.
Never mind all that. Is he a Blood, or a Crip?
I love how they describe him in these glowing terms but then describe this altercation:
"Williams’ most recent confrontation of St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson during a Ferguson Commission meeting landed him in the pages of this newspaper.
Williams came within feet of Dotson and shouted at him as he tried to answer questions from the panel. “Can someone please get this lying (expletive) ho off the mic!” Williams yelled."
CLEARLY a person not prone to mob passions, an eloquent speaker and someone who looks at all sides of a situation and allows all sides to speak their minds.
He appears to be protesting the shooting death of Antonio Martin, which supposedly proves that cops are gunning for black men. Even though video shows that Antonio pulled a gun on a cop out of nowhere. That apparently is deserving of a protest where a store gets looted.
Either Joshua went into the protest movement an angelic cherub and quickly became someone who would target stores for the actions of a single cop who had the temerity ot defend himself from being murdered. OR all of this rhetoric about him wasn't true to begin with.
"Robert,
Your rules should apply to those being approached as well. None of the recent 'perps' would be dead if they exhibited the same level of respect..or simple obedience the vast majority of people do...yes..even when we're annoyed by them."
Spoken like someone who sees non-police as subjects rather than as free citizens.
First, they're not "my" rules; they are the words of a retired police NYC police officer. Second, police officers, as civil servants, paid by us to "protect and serve," have a professional obligation to be respectful and courteous to us; we have no similar obligation to them, certainly not to be "obedient." However, I would bet that most citizens approached by police are, in fact, courteous and respectful. However, I'd also bet that most citizens, whites as well as blacks, would react with greater or lesser degree of resentment and truculence to an officer who is immediately aggressive and disrespectful. No one likes to be bullied, especially by a public servant.
Third, much of the outrage has to do with the disproportionate violence meted out by the police to citizens who have not, in fact, acted with sufficient resistance or aggression to warrant being killed. Your assertion is that we have a duty to be instantly obedient to police officers or we will be to blame for bringing on ourselves whatever police assault--even murder--that may result.
That's a combination of rules 2 and 6. Interesting tactic.
The reason that Cook is one of my favorite leftists here is that he sometimes makes sense and doesn't just spout the company line. What he seems to be saying is that a lot of cops seem to have moved from being public servants to being government employees, who naturally put their own interests above those of their public. And in this case, what they are prioritizing is themselves getting home every night alive and safe.
Why do the police tend to use excessive force these days? I would suggest that it is because they view it as being safer for them. Why did Mike Brown die? Very possibly because Officer Wilson didn't wait for the backup that was (hopefully - his personal radio had been inadvertently switched to the wrong channel) on the way. Would Brown have attacked him like he apparently did, if there had been other cops around? I think it much less likely.
Yes, it has gotten out of hand at times. Many police depts are overly militarized, and why risk yourself on an arrest if you have a SWAT team handy?
My point here is that no one, and esp not the left, should be surprised that the police, more and more, put their own safety above that of everyone else. It is the same sort of capture that we see throughout the government, and is caused by the thing that makes progressive and socialist solutions inevitably fail - government employees are humans first, with all of our corresponding weaknesses.
That said, police work in many places is dangerous work that is important enough that even most avid libertarians agree that it needs to be done, regardless of the capture problem, etc. They are one of our primary bulwarks against anarchy, and the rule of the strongest and most violent. NYC is probably about to see what happens when the rights of the law breakers and criminals are put above the welfare of the police there, as the city seems to be slipping back to where it was 20 years ago.
Robert,
Not your rules..but you appear to be endorsing them.
"police officers, as civil servants, paid by us to "protect and serve," have a professional obligation to be respectful and courteous to us; we have no similar obligation to them, certainly not to be "obedient."
Yes, we are required to obey..due to laws they are hired to enforce. Misunderstanding that can needlessly escalate situations. By the way, they are paid not just to serve and protect you, but all of us. That influences how they have to enforce laws. Most of us get this..a few who didn't are dead.
Robert Cook said...
"... police officers, as civil servants, paid by us to "protect and serve," have a professional obligation to be respectful and courteous to us"
Think of them as proles who have seized the means of production, Bob. They are the Vanguard of the Revolution. Which will be televised, with commentary by Al Sharpton.
Resist we much!
My last post reminded me of the photo of protestors on one side, and riot equipped police on the other. The caption over the protestors was "want more government". The caption over the police was "more government".
In much of the country, the police are not a problem. The bad apples are quickly turned out, when they inevitably alienate the public paying their salaries. The bigger the department though, the further they are from their public paymasters, and the further they are from direct accountability for crossing the line. My partner got a bogus ticket in her small town in MT. Cop was ultimately fired, and sent back to the big city he had come from. That doesn't work with a city of 8 million. Or probably on 1/10 the size. Or maybe even 1/100 the size.
So, now the NYPD may end up with federal oversight. Maybe even lowly Ferguson. Fine, maybe, when your side controls federal law enforcement. But if NYC has problems wit unaccountability with 8 million, how about a federal govt with over 300 million constituents?
chrisnavin.com said...
Notice sydney, that despite the reasonableness of our socialist friend's answer ...
I'm the Anti-Socialist™ and agree with both sydney and Cook.
This "Georgia County Won't Pay Medical Bills for Toddler Critically Injured by Flash Bang Grenade During Drug Raid*" is the kinda stuff people should be getting worked-up about, not about people defending themselves against violent criminals.
*"The raid yielded no drugs and no suspect."
Jupiter said...
Think of them as proles who have seized the means of production, Bob.
They're seizing something, anyway:
ATF Pocket Knives Engraved: "Always Think Forfeiture"
I agree, Fernandinande.
Similar to overzealous race hustlers, liberty focused folk should be careful not to hijack current events not well suited to their message.
So who was bankrolling this guy? Or was he stealing all along?
If you are working and paying taxes; you were.
Robert Cook wrote:
Second, police officers, as civil servants, paid by us to "protect and serve," have a professional obligation to be respectful and courteous to us; we have no similar obligation to them, certainly not to be "obedient." However, I would bet that most citizens approached by police are, in fact, courteous and respectful.
of the three cases that are being highlighted (Garner, Brown and Antonio which people are outraged about) They all involve people not being courteous to cops but resisting, assaulting and pointing guns at their head respectively
ah, the discordance of black "yutes": clever thugs.
Why are the jails crawling with them? This article speaks directly to that question.
F: if Joshua guy doesn't end up in the Senate I think the guy will end up as a professor at school like Columbia andask for Bernardine Dohrn to be his mentor there!
Birds of a feather, flock together.
Big Mike wrote:
Fifty years ago (I was there) referring to a black man as "boy" was a reliable indicator of raw bigotry. Now fifty years later here we are again, except it's the liberals who want to use terms demeaning the manhood of black males.
On Dateline Last Night they had story about a bankrobber who got his kids involved in the robberies. They agreed to be part of the robberies, but the show insinuated that somehow they were kids who didn't quite understand what they were getting into. If they're adults they should not be excused from participating in robberies. Unless they are toddlers they have,or should have learned that bank robberies are wrong. They just wanted the money.
There appears to be a lot of people wanting to make adultes into kids who just don't know better. It's ok, though because all people involved were white. If we can not excuse our white brethren don't see why blacks should some how be infantilized. Unless liberals really think that blacks just don't know any better.
fernanindande wrote:
This "Georgia County Won't Pay Medical Bills for Toddler Critically Injured by Flash Bang Grenade During Drug Raid*" is the kinda stuff people should be getting worked-up about, not about people defending themselves against violent criminals.
*"The raid yielded no drugs and no suspect."
If cops are to be judged wrongly there i'ts because they got the wrong address not because they used a flashbang. If they're serving a high risk warrant, and someone gives them the wrong address they are not in fact wrong to serve the high risk warrant, just who to serve it to
Certainly the county should pay the medical bills of a family if they barge into the wrong house and someone gets injured because they barge in. Not sure though if we should indict cops for that mistake nor charge with murder.
Apparently his approach had, you know, evolved:
"On the night of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson, Williams’s comments on Twitter grew much more hostile. As Ferguson burned, Williams tweeted, “Who burned s*** down we burned s*** down,” and “Man the whole west flossant [sic] is on fire f*** with us again we gave you 108 f****** days to indict him but you didn’t so we burned it down.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395393/fergusons-media-darling-flames-out-ryan-lovelace/page/0/1
Bruce Hayden wrote:
Why do the police tend to use excessive force these days? I would suggest that it is because they view it as being safer for them. Why did Mike Brown die? Very possibly because Officer Wilson didn't wait for the backup that was (hopefully - his personal radio had been inadvertently switched to the wrong channel) on the way. Would Brown have attacked him like he apparently did, if there had been other cops around? I think it much less likely.
Yes, it has gotten out of hand at times. Many police depts are overly militarized, and why risk yourself on an arrest if you have a SWAT team handy?
You've just made the case for over militarizing the cops. IT would act as a deterrent for people who want to assault or kill cops.
"Williams fed off of the Ferguson protests. “Virtually every time I see Joshua, the very first words out of his mouth are, ‘Can I borrow five dollars?’ Or, ‘Can I have five dollars? I want to get something to eat,’” Forbes says. “Apparently he hits everybody up for money.”
walter wrote:
On the night of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson, Williams’s comments on Twitter grew much more hostile. As Ferguson burned, Williams tweeted, “Who burned s*** down we burned s*** down,” and “Man the whole west flossant [sic] is on fire f*** with us again we gave you 108 f****** days to indict him but you didn’t so we burned it down.”
the protesters are actually a lot like N Korea, threatening action if SONY doesn't stop its movie they object to. Here, if the protesters don't get the verdict they want, society is going to burn.
Society doesn't have to be exorted by terrorists. Once he gets into the "we burned shit down" rhetoric he's a terrorist who admitted to violence. Throw the book at him. And crack down hard on his fellow protesters. Certianly his fellow looters. We, as a society need to deal severly with people who think its their prerogative to "Burn shit down". Especially if its over a verdict.
Imagine if whites, during the OJ case said "We better get a guilty verdict here, or we're going to burn shit down!"
Jr:
"Throw the book at him. And crack down hard on his fellow protesters."
How about those jurors guilty of perjury..I've only heard Giuliani express concern about that.
Robert cook wrote:
Third, much of the outrage has to do with the disproportionate violence meted out by the police to citizens who have not, in fact, acted with sufficient resistance or aggression to warrant being killed. Your assertion is that we have a duty to be instantly obedient to police officers or we will be to blame for bringing on ourselves whatever police assault--even murder--that may result.
But the cases you are citing don't suggest that. If you assault a cop or point a gun at a cop or resist a co you are somewhat responsible for the outcome of that transaction with cops. And its really disingenuous to try to prove the case that cops are doing that routinely by using instances where cops aren't and saying they are.
walter wrote:
How about those jurors guilty of perjury..I've only heard Giuliani express concern about that.
If not actually jailed, their stories should certainly be shown to be the bullshit they are. And they should be shamed. They are in fact helping to incite the mob by telling people things that would make it seem like cops are out to kill innocent black folk.
If we were honest about Brown, and Wilson's story is the least bit credible, it wasn't an instance of some kid having his hands up saying "don't shoot". The very phrase that people are glomming onto seems to be the one that is the most fraudulent.
If the story Wasn't that, though and Brown was a thug who attacked a cop who shot him in self defense, would it really even get this level of outrage? No, it was because Darius, the habitual liar suggested that this cop executed his friend.
At the very least he should be called out on his lies on national tv.
walter wrote:
"Williams fed off of the Ferguson protests. “Virtually every time I see Joshua, the very first words out of his mouth are, ‘Can I borrow five dollars?’ Or, ‘Can I have five dollars? I want to get something to eat,’” Forbes says. “Apparently he hits everybody up for money.”
He sounds like Garner with his selling of cigarettes. If this guy kept it up, people would start calling cops and making nuiscance complaints. And then at some point cops would basically tell him he can't keep standing in front of stores begging for money and take him in. And then if he resisted and had a heart attack, they would say cops killed him for asking for five dollars. And no one should be killed for that! So would then indict the whole system because of our totalitarian laws which we need fewer of.
or, alternatively, the cops are there because he's black and they think black lives don't matter.
Pick your poison.
a reporter should ask Darius about the blood trail behind Michael Brown. There's a trail of blood droplets that go back 20 feet which the grand jury touch on. And the reporter should say "Darius, you said that Brown had gotten on his knees and said don't shoot.And that the cop simply executed him. There is, though a trail of blood droplets behind Mr Brown's body. If he was shot where he was then do you have an explanation for why he has a blood trail behind him? Wouldn't that suggest that he moved in the direction of the officer?"
jr565 said ..
"Society doesn't have to be exorted by terrorists. Once he gets into the "we burned shit down" rhetoric he's a terrorist who admitted to violence. Throw the book at him. And crack down hard on his fellow protesters. Certianly his fellow looters. We, as a society need to deal severly with people who think its their prerogative to "Burn shit down".
It has been widely noted that Ferguson is a majority black town, but the blacks mostly don't vote, so they still have a white government. I suspect that is about to change, and the black inhabitants of Ferguson will get a style of policing more to their liking.
jr565 said...
If cops are to be judged wrongly there i'ts because they got the wrong address not because they used a flashbang.
It was the right address, the (one) guy wasn't there.
If they're serving a high risk warrant,
They weren't.
and someone gives them the wrong address they are not in fact wrong to serve the high risk warrant, just who to serve it to.
And they lied about it:
"When they made the buy, they didn't see any children or any evidence of children there, so we proceeded with our standard operation."
Kids' toys and clothes were all over the place.
Drug Unit Involved in Injury to Ga. Toddler Killed a Pastor in 2009
"Ayers told hospital staff was that he thought he was being robbed. His reported last words were, 'Who shot me?'"
Ferdinandante wrote:
It was the right address, the (one) guy wasn't there.
So im not sure then they are wrong to serve the warrant if they assume the person they are targeting is there. But regardless, you wont get an argument that cops couldnt' make mistakes or even engage in criminal behavior. But we'd have to judge that behavior individually and not say that because this happened here its indicative of cop interactions around the country.
"a reporter should ask Darius.."
Eh..if folks perjured, prosecute them.
Giuliani said, “I disagree with the prosecutor on only one thing. I would prosecute all those people for perjury.”A surprised Kelly asked, “Really?” Giuliani elaborated, “To testify falsely in a case in which you can put a man in jail for the rest of his life is an extremely serious crime.”
Ya think?
Police dishonesty is a bigger issue than police violence.
Ferguson, Mo., police spokesman has been put on unpaid leave after initially denying, then admitting that he referred to a memorial for Michael Brown as a "pile of trash" to a Washington Post reporter.
...
"Zoll inititally denied making the statement but later admitted to the remarks and to misleading his superiors when confronted on the issue, the city said in a statement Saturday night.
...
Prior to Saturday's statement, Jeff Small, a spokesman for the city, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Zoll had been misquoted and denied questioning why the Washington Post reporter made the call."
Small = backup liar.
On the other hand, it's revealing that Zoll felt that the need to lie because he called "a collection of flowers, stuffed animals, balloons and other objects," in(?) the street, a "pile of trash", a harmless and perhaps accurate statement.
Fernandinane you seem to be going off on tangents. Finding the individual cases that suit your agenda.
Are such cases in existence. Sure. If I wanted to find a case of malfeasance in any organization I could do it.
This "memorial" was placed in the middle of the street...dooming it to eventual destruction.
Yes..ok..disciplinary action for at most, an insensitive remark. But no repercussions for perjury.
That IS revealing.
The case with cops is, it has to be determined whether, even if they get it wrong, were they acting on good faith at the time. In the case of the preacher you mention, its obvious there were mistakes made. Because they were in plain clothes he didn't recognize they were cops. By the same token though cops were hit by his car and may have thought he was trying to kill them.
A grand jury would have to determine if the cops were in the right to assume he might be a perp and were they in the right to fire their guns.
Its often not cut and dried. We see the result, not what was going through cops mind when the incident occurred.
Ferdinande,
It's up to the citizens in the places where there are questionable police budgets, aggressive tactics and general abuse of authority to send the right signals and take care of business.
That's my convenient answer.
As for the the general anti-police, pro-activist Leftist interests here, I think I understand many of them.
As for the libertarian draw a ring around the individual and move from there take, I think I get them too.
I'm frankly tired of a lot of sentiment piled up against law enforcement right now when a lot of them deserve little of it, and it has consequences for all of us.
Sheriff Clarke tweets:
Did any of the "peaceful protesters" stop this idiot or call police after to help ID him?I'll answer the question. No
I realize that Robert Cook has spoken to a retired police officer, so he is clearly the authority in this area.
But, as someone who has been trained as one for almost 20 years now, Robert Cook is completely wrong.
We are taught that the first level of force is Officer Presence. This means being kind, respectful, and firm. We are trained repeatedly, continuously, and determinedly that we need to stay in control of the situation. If we escalate, we cause the people we are talking to to escalate. If we are calm, we can actually help those we are with become calm. That our behavior can bring a situation up or down and we need to be cognizant of these things.
In my personal experience on the job, the overwhelming majority of Officers are kind, courteous, and friendly.
There are, however, the exceptions to the rule. There are always bad people, in every group. Police are no exception.
Robert Cook's assertion that, "I'm sure there are (possibly many) individual cops who are racist" is just dumb.
Might as well possibly many racist people in America.
Giuliani said, “I disagree with the prosecutor on only one thing. I would prosecute all those people for perjury.”A surprised Kelly asked, “Really?” Giuliani elaborated, “To testify falsely in a case in which you can put a man in jail for the rest of his life is an extremely serious crime.”
What is missing from this analysis is that under normal circumstances, the DA would not have tried to get a grand jury to indict this particular sandwich. He would have considered the evidence and declined to prosecute.
People lie to the police all the time, in cases that can result in serious jail time. This is the crime of "filing a false report". But the crime is seldom charged, unless the police get pissed off about a particular case that causes them a lot of hassle.
Eric the police officer misrepresents my own comments, so how can we assume he is being otherwise truthful?
I never claimed to be "the authority" or even "an authority;" I merely related the recent remarks of one person I know who is a retired NYC police officer (served 20 years). He was making these remarks in a conversation about the protests against the police in NYC and elsewhere.
In any case, I don't know if you serve on the NYC police department, as you do not say, (which leads me to suspect you do not). Your experience may be different in that you (I'm guessing) serve in a different city, and their training may be very different.
Also, there may be great disparity between whatever "official training" the officers on your force (or in any city) may receive as to how to interact with citizens and what actually happens on the streets. The officer I spoke with was not talking about training in the academy, as he was never a teacher in the academy, (in fact, his son had just graduated from the NYC police academy and was to receive his precinct assignment the next day), but was talking about working with inexperienced rookies as an officer in the field.
I have known two other NYC police officers in the past, one who would relate the everyday brutality in the precincts, (police officers dragging handcuffed prisoners up staircases by the ankles, for instance), and another who complained he disliked working in the more affluent precincts of the city, as they would "get complaints if they cussed out" or were otherwise disrespectful toward the citizens on their beat, as opposed to the impunity with which they could be similarly disrespectful or abusive to citizens in the poorer precincts.
Your experience may be very different from the above, but these anecdotes do indicate a prevailing police culture of disdain for the citizens they serve that is matched by the many news reports and videos we see online of police officers being unnecessarily aggressive toward and violent to citizens.
So, Bob. Your opinion of cops based on the information gleaned from conversations with two Police officers.
Explains a whole lot.
Well, Rusty, given that the accounts of several NYC police officers in informal conversations with me at different points in time over many years match up with what we all see of police behavior in news reports and video captured by citizens on scene, why would I not assume they are accurate indicators of the behavior of many cops?
(I do not assert this behavior is universal among police, but, unfortunately, those police officers who do not behave like thugs and who abhor such behavior are generally reluctant to object for fear of the negative impact this will have on their own careers. Shit, there are many NYC cops who still consider Frank Serpico nothing but a rat. Look at the cops who turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio at the one murdered officer's funeral...they disgraced themselves and their department with such insubordinate behavior, not to mention they insulted the slain officer and his family.)
I agree with Eric and disagree with Robert Cook. In my limited experience (63 years on the planet, lots of interpersonal dealings, a few with police) you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Never mind police academy training (which I believe follows the doctrine described by Eric), common sense alone will tell you not to start the bidding at 110%. Give people room and time consistent with your controlling the situation. Presence, voice, demeanor. You can always get physical if needed. Most of us civilians would do well to learn a bit more about what the cop doctrines are, what their (metaphorical) triggers are for taking the control moves to the next level. Standing in the street at 2AM facing a cop who's trying to read a fluid and murky situation is no time to get into a shouting match about the scope of your Constitutional rights. Save it for the station house or the wrongful-arrest suit.
Owen,
"save it for the station house or the wrongful-arrest suit'
Nice defence of tyranny you've got there. I'd feel a lot better about your approach if those guilty ever routinely ended up as homeless people begging for food, rather than getting tiny slaps on the wrist.
Kirk: one of the frustrations of commenting on a blog is being unable to say everything that matters. Or not saying things well enough. So, no surprise, I didn't convey all that I wanted. My point was, if you end up dead, you lose. Act strategically. Emotion is unlikely to help you, or an arresting officer, get through the incident. That said: yes, more accountability would be good. Instapundit has some great ideas on that, including loss of immunity from suit, and recording every encounter. Nothing like knowing you're on camera to get (most) people to behave better.
and the black inhabitants of Ferguson will get a style of policing more to their liking.
Wanna bet crime goes up in Ferguson next year?
"We got to know his heart, "
It's just so unfair to judge someone by what their actions, instead of considering the beauty of what might be in the perp's heart.
Owen,
I do not advocate citizens being belligerent with police officers any more than I advocate police officers being belligerent with citizens.
However, the problem is that more and more we do not see the polite professional police officer who wishes to assist, but the militarized police "soldier," for whom all citizens are hostiles to be treated as soldiers treat the residents they oversee in occupied territories, with contempt and aggression.
Also, while police officers should have the professional obligation to be polite and courteous, citizens have no such obligation, (no matter how well advised it is). A citizen stopped by a police officer should, I agree and insist, be polite and respectful, but a citizen who reacts otherwise, with impudence, irritation, resentment, etc., should NOT, therefore, be subject to maltreatment by the police officer, any more than a salesperson in a retail establishment should be mouthy or disrespectful to customers even if the customers are being assholes.
I do not assert all police are bullies or thugs, but the incidence of bullying or thuglike behavior by police appears to be rising across the land. The attitude of the police union head in NYC, Pat Lynch, in asserting that Mayor de Blasio has "blood on his hands" (in the matter of the two officers murdered last week)--because de Blasio dared give his biracial son the eminently sensible advice to be very careful in any interactions with the police--is indicative of this belligerence as a preexisting attitude held by many of the police, at least in NYC.
(Under Lynch's urging, the police turned their backs on the Mayor at the funeral of one of the slain officers, thus disgracing themselves and insulting the memory and family of the slain officer whose funeral was the scene for this epic scene of group insubordination.)
Even if the development of thug-like behavior of the police appears to be more prevalent than it actually is--a result of videos appearing on YouTube or other social media--we do not hear or see any apparent contrition by those police departments in which actual incidents of police abuse of citizens take place, we see no promises to discipline the officers at fault or to retrain their officers to better insure such incidents do not occur in future. (I'm not talking about just incidents where officers shoot black suspects in murky circumstances, as troubling as many of these incidents are, but also cases such as people being tased for no reason by belliconse cops, or where SWAT teams break into homes in drug raids, terrorizing or even assaulting or shooting the residents, killing family pets, where it is later learned they had the wrong address and terrorized or harmed innocents.)
In other words, it's not just the actual incidents that occur that show the police in a bad light and cause public outrage and resentment, but the lack of any apparent recognition on the part of the police that they have gone wrong in some way.
12/29/14, 9:37 AM
(Edited for minor corrections.)
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Well, Rusty, given that the accounts of several NYC police officers in informal conversations with me at different points in time over many years match up with what we all see of police behavior in news reports and video captured by citizens on scene, why would I not assume they are accurate indicators of the behavior of many cops?
Many?
"all of us should be fearful of the police."
No. Bob, we should be respectful of the police. That does not mean you can't call the one out for being a dick for writing you a ticket or something.
And yeah. I've had heated arguments with cops over their behavior.
t's worth remembering that, just like any public position, the good deeds are typically not newsworthy and negative news sells/generates clicks...if it can be rolled into and feed into an ongoing narrative, all the better.
But stories like this are also out there:
http://tbo.com/ap/national/arizona-police-officer-killed-suspect-dead-ap_national7465075e1f9c4a798e7260cff66d4def?page=1
Closer to home,
A past roommate of mine:
http://www.odmp.org/officer/20668-sergeant-thomas-john-baitinger
An expansive and incisive column published today at Counterpunch on the ills of police forces, reflecting the greater lawlessness and authoritarianism flowing from the top of the American power structure.
"The funeral symbolized the police as enemies of the rule of law, unable and unwilling to bear scrutiny for lawless acts of an ongoing nature but brought to national attention through a sudden condensation of events over the last several weeks."
Oh..THAT'S what it symbolizes...
@Walter:
Yep!
or maybe it reflects their limit for politicians capitalizing on an overblown narrative that dodges the facts when they don't add up.
Your posted link:
"a Fascist spectacle because, already heavily militarized, already implicated in wanton killings of blacks nationwide, the police, many coming from far and wide, used the funeral to demonstrate their demand for acting with impunity and their contempt for authority to reign them in. "
Meanwhile:
"In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops -- and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.
Police shootings, nationwide, are down dramatically from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. The CDC reported that in 1968, shootings by law enforcement -- called "legal intervention" by the CDC -- was the cause of death for 8.6 out of every million blacks. For whites the rate was was .9 deaths per million.
By 2011, law enforcement shootings caused 2.74 deaths for every million blacks, and 1.28 deaths for every million whites. While the death-by-cop rate for whites has held pretty steady over these last 45 years, hovering just above or below the one-in-a-million level, the rate for blacks has fallen. In 1981, black deaths by cop stood at four in a million, but since 2000 has remained just above or below two in a million.
So what's driving this notion that there is now an "epidemic" of white cops shooting blacks when in the last several decades the numbers of blacks killed by cops are down nearly 75 percent? "
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2014/12/18/racial-cop-stories-that-didnt-make-the-cut-n1933217
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा