Police have the same rights of freedom of speech as the rest of us. However, when they put that uniform on, they are perceived as officials of the city. For them to diss the mayor by this childish stunt makes them look like petulant twits, which is true enough.
Now Ghouliani is saying that the mayor should apologize to NYPD. Nice to see that the guy who shamelessly exploited the death of 3000 people in his city is weighing in, and I hope the mayor gives Mr. 9/11’s suggestion all the consideration that it deserves.
They wear black, son. You want cops who will wear blue, maybe have the city sign a contract with the Crips.
I don’t think they are turning on De Blasio over two dead cops. They’re turning on him for other reasons. They’re just making a scene at this cop’s funeral.
As for turning their backs on him, if that’s all it is, fine. They can have their protest and then go back and do their jobs. That’s not a bad deal.
That doesn’t mean the PBA isn’t a corrupt organization. De Blasio has a lot of work to do.
Kltpzyxm!
You’re going to have to identify exactly who this group of “we” is. Are you preaching to the choir and ignoring the rest of society? You, of course, can admit to doing or saying anything you wish to, but do you actually expect to speak for everyone else? What kind of a compromise(s) are you willing to make in order to make everyone think and speak as you do?
And of course the mayor isn’t going to fire the cops who turned their backs on him. But he might be justified in telling the PBA to take a flying leap in any upcoming negotiations.
I’m unaware of either family of the assassinated NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu complaining about the conduct of the thousands of police officers who have turned out to pay their last respects to Officer Ramos.
Anytime a mayor shows up at an event, it could be considered a political circus.
De Blasio is not the one demanding that the officers who refused to look at him, be fired or disciplined or that they’re guilty of insubordination. It’s internet posters, pundits, media-types, and cop-haters who are pushing that line of (un?)reasoning.
You forget the police union’s contract with the City of New York. The mayor could demand that a particular officer be fired for insubordination. The officer would then be entitled to a hearing. The mayor may get his wish, and then again, he might not.
Thinking about this further, the main issue with the PBA and this protest isn’t the fact that a lot of police did something very disrespectful to the elected leader of their city. It’s that the protest appears to be making the statement that the police, in general, deny that there is any problem with how they treat African Americans. I’m not sure that actually is the message that many police officers intended to send, but when police protest someone for saying that treatment of minorities by the justice system must be improved, that’s the real message they are sending.
We’ve heard a lot of conservatives get all foamy at the mouth that any protest against discrimination by the justice system against minorities is actually an endorsement of riots, looting, violence, and so on. Well, if that’s the card that conservatives are going to play, it isn’t going to take long before the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if police protest anyone who opposes unfair treatment of minorities, then the police doing the protesting are throwing their lot in with racists who want African Americans and Hispanics to be oppressed. In the minds of some, the police saying that they were “thrown under the bus” is going to be just as much a metaphor for support for racial discrimination as was the phrase “states rights” was 50 years ago.
This, my friends, is exactly why hysterical accusations like “peaceful protesters and politicians are actually supporter of looting and violence” should be booed and jeered out of public discourse – because it just breeds the same type of hysterical counter-charges, along the lines that such protests by police show that they have more affinity for protecting bad, racist cops who are their compatriots than to the principle of equal protection of the law and racial equality.
Contrary to what the conservatives in this thread think, I think the NYPD is going to come out the big loser in the public’s esteem over the long run.
That’s a creative interpretation. Now, I’m just some weirdo from the Great Plains who’s never set foot in NYC, but I can imagine an alternative explanation. Wanna hear it?
DeBlasio is a race-mixer, a Democrat, and a civilian. In a department that believes in racial profiling, targeting “mutts,” and its own specialness in various respects (like firearm ownership), attitudes to the mayor can easily go from, “We need to teach him his place,” to, “This guy is the enemy.”
I’m not aware of the De Blasio-NYPD relationship prior to the stop-and-frisk court case but I wouldn’t describe De Blasio’s position as being pro-police. If he was, he would have allowed the NYC lawyers to pursue their defense of stop-and-frisk until the case had run it’s course. It doesn’t make sense, to moi, to screw around with the Supreme’s Terry Stop ruling and then stop short of a happy ending. NYC politicians are now going to appoint more politicians to a political committee to decide, in the best interest of politics, who and when the NYPD can stop and frisk suspects.
De Blasio had agreed with the latest ruling of a judge but the judge was then removed from the case because of bias. It’s not unheard of for a judge to be removed but it’s not a common occurrence either. There needs to be a realistic, mostly acceptable, and legal court ruling or legislative remedy to protect the public, protect the police, and to protect career criminals who are only trying to earn a living.
Oh, and doorhinge? You’re being an ass. The NYPD is not the private sector, and while De Blasio has to (for pragmatic reasons if nothing else) take this with a certain amount of grace, it is reasonable for civilians to be contemptuous of such behavior from these supposed public servants.
Are police denying that there is a problem? You admit that you don’t know what message the police are trying to send but, regardless of police actually meant, you believe that police are acting stupidly.
That sounds eerily similar to something that a soon-to-be-former President once said early in his presidential career. Something along the lines of I don’t know the facts but the police acted stupidly?
De Blasio will soon leave office but the NYPD will be there long after De Blasio has gone to a better place.
I’m all in favor of contemptuous behavior. In order for De Blasio to do his job (be a politician, raise money for the party, get Democrats elected, raise taxes, run the City of New York, shake babies, kiss hands), he needs the NYPD more than the NYPD needs De Blasio.
Nor did any of them say they thought it was a great idea to turn the funeral into a political circus. Which means that nobody except those close to the family has any idea how they felt about it. And those outside who turned their backs were not close to the family almost by definition- those close to the family would have been inside the church . That’s essentially the definition of disrespect - to engage in this display outside the funeral neither knowing nor caring how the family feels about it. The president of the Guardians ( a fraternal organization ) didn’t think it was appropriate at a funeral. Ed Mullins, the head of the sergeant’s union claims he didn’t know about the display in advance. Pat Lynch certainly isn’t taking credit for the display. Neither Mullins nor Lynch is out there saying it was a terrific Idea - the best that Mullins could do is say that he wouldn’t criticize the officers. There’s a reason Mullins and Lynch are distancing themselves from this display.
(Sergeants’ Benevolent Association: “The blood of 2 executed police officers is on the hands of Mayor de Blasio.” Police union head Patrick Lynch: “That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor.”)
Have they been specific about what Blasio has said or done that merits such extreme statements? Or are they the uniformed equivalent of a bunch of gang thugs who can’t tolerate anyone ‘disrespecting’ them in any real or imagined way? Because in the absence of something specific they can point to, AFAICT they’re basically inventing their own reality here.
Are you aware of them saying they approved? Or were consulted?
Boy, a large part of your social support system, does something rude at your father/husband’s funeral … you going to complain about that in public? Does your silence mean you support it or agree with it? That it did not bother you?
Now mind you the back turning seems to have been done by hundreds, not thousands, of cops outside the church watching Officer Rafael Ramos’ funeral on the big screen TVs, and none inside the church were so inappropriate. The family did not have to witness it first hand.
Still the mayor was an invited guest of the family; I highly doubt they invited him in order to have him disrespected and to the funeral turned into a political demonstration against him.
Don’t be an idiot. It was rude to the family. No question. Not as rude as if those inside the church had pulled that crap, but rude.
Again, really no big shit to a mayor. And being as it was kept outside the church and not in front of the family’s vision, not as rude as it could have been. No of course there should not be any discipline meted. The mayor should do as he is doing, ignore it as one would ignore a two old acting out for attention. But in terms of making the situation better, for cops and community both? Stupid and horrible, making things worse.
The message sent is that a mayor stating an obvious truth is “against” them because he is not uncritically “for” them no questions asked, that the police have no room to improve how they handle profiling concerns. My NYPD right or wrong; you are with me or you are against me. Sending that message will not make their job easier or help them gain public support.
The behavior diminishes them in the public eye. The mayors ignoring the behavior elevates him.
The protestors decrying police brutality and bias: have they a point, or are they just making shit up?
If they have a legitimate beef, is there some reason an elected official should not recognize that fact?
And if some nutcase murders two cops, is it reasonable to blame said official for their deaths? Perhaps you can tell us why?
And of much less importance, is there some reason we should be impressed by a vague reference to “something” quoted that you apparently can’t even remember yourself?