After years of declining crime, a spike in city violence

[kbm6893]

There are three factors involved:

1. Police Misconduct - That kid in the stairwell in NYC wasn't committing a crime. He's still dead, and the guy who shot him is still walking around free. Yet, there's no uproar about it from particular quarters who cry crocodile tears over armed strongarm robbers.
2. Political Opportunism - There is a pattern of manufactured outrage over justified shootings, such as that of Michael Brown, while criminal acts by police, such as the shooting of the driver who sought to identify himself per the cop's orders, and the kid killed in the stairwell by the NYPD receive virtually no attention. The logical conclusion is that this isn't about justice for the victims of police criminality, but instead a calculated campaign to paint violent criminals as "victims" and to "normalize" their aberrant behaviors. In reaction, police union types exploit the exploitation to try to normalize aberrant behavior by police. It's a case of dueling sociopaths.
3. Moral Cowardice - City officials, KNOWING full well the fraudulent nature of the claims by the social justice warriors, rush to curry favor with the social justice warriors, allowing the Revolutionary Communist Party and its ilk, and their ignorant cannon fodder to run wild, while the victims are left to fend for themselves... usually as disarmed targets.

The people who live in these communities VOTED for what they have, frequently (as in the case of Richard M. Daley) for decades. My only conclusion is that they WANT what they've got, since they keep voting for it.

None of this is any more surprising than stomach trouble following a steady diet of five day old roadkill.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to allow them to impose their psychopathologies on me. My answer has been, is now, and will always be "No, I refuse."

The cop who shot the guy in the stairwell messed up, no doubt but I worked those same housing projects and must have done vertical patrols thousands of times. And we always had our gun out.

You have to walk those stairwells to understand. The lights are often out, usually by neglect but often because the drug dealers and robbers want them out. Shell casings, crack vials, and human excrement litter the stairs.

Simply put, there is not one of us here who would not have a gun out if they were walking into those stairwells.

 

[transit]

There are three factors involved:

1. Police Misconduct - That kid in the stairwell in NYC wasn't committing a crime. He's still dead, and the guy who shot him is still walking around free. Yet, there's no uproar about it from particular quarters who cry crocodile tears over armed strongarm robbers.
2. Political Opportunism - There is a pattern of manufactured outrage over justified shootings, such as that of Michael Brown, while criminal acts by police, such as the shooting of the driver who sought to identify himself per the cop's orders, and the kid killed in the stairwell by the NYPD receive virtually no attention. The logical conclusion is that this isn't about justice for the victims of police criminality, but instead a calculated campaign to paint violent criminals as "victims" and to "normalize" their aberrant behaviors. In reaction, police union types exploit the exploitation to try to normalize aberrant behavior by police. It's a case of dueling sociopaths.
3. Moral Cowardice - City officials, KNOWING full well the fraudulent nature of the claims by the social justice warriors, rush to curry favor with the social justice warriors, allowing the Revolutionary Communist Party and its ilk, and their ignorant cannon fodder to run wild, while the victims are left to fend for themselves... usually as disarmed targets.

The people who live in these communities VOTED for what they have, frequently (as in the case of Richard M. Daley) for decades. My only conclusion is that they WANT what they've got, since they keep voting for it.

None of this is any more surprising than stomach trouble following a steady diet of five day old roadkill.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to allow them to impose their psychopathologies on me. My answer has been, is now, and will always be "No, I refuse."

The officers in both cases you cited, the Pink Houses in NY, and in South Carolina have been arrested, charged and indicted.

 

[cmort666]

Simply put, there is not one of us here who would not have a gun out if they were walking into those stairwells.

Simply put, in NYC, none of us who aren't cops would be allowed to HAVE a gun, or carry it, much less have it out in that stairwell.

Shooting the wrong person with that gun would be a one way ticket to state prison.

 

[cmort666]

The officers in both cases you cited, the Pink Houses in NY, and in South Carolina have been arrested, charged and indicted.

The damage is already done. No matter what they do to the cop who shot him, that kid's not coming back.

Do you think that the guy in South Carolina is going around telling his friends and family that the cops should be "proactive" or that they deserve the "benefit of the doubt"? Do you think the family of the dead kid is saying either of those things?

Actions have consequences. One of those things is a loss of trust.

 

[Comrad]

I'm 65 and so I guess that makes me old.

And we old guys like to sit around talking about how the country, and especially the younger kids are going down the tubes.

But I remember Sunday dinners as a kid at my grand parents house when my grandfather talking about how the country and younger generation was going down the tubes back then.

And that was in the 1950s.

But somehow the country survived, and now the 50's are viewed as the good old days.

Me too and that decline that began back in the day is a downward spiral that has gotten much steeper in recent years and really picking up speed. I think and hope the rubber band is pretty well stretched out and the snap back is coming, if not the peppers will be happy they prepped.

 

[kbm6893]

Simply put, in NYC, none of us who aren't cops would be allowed to HAVE a gun, or carry it, much less have it out in that stairwell.

Shooting the wrong person with that gun would be a one way ticket to state prison.

Wrong. But nice try deflecting. You were crucifying the cop and you don't even know all the facts. Google Richard Neri, NYPD. He did the same thing back in about 1999. Not indicted.

Legal or not, if you had to walk into a crime infested dark stairwell, would you or would you not take a weapon? The cop who shot that kid isn't interested in the screwed up NYC gun laws.

And while it is unjustifiably wrong how NYC doles out carry permits, but home defense permits are given to pretty much everyone who applies. Might take a while but they're given.

 

[cmort666]

Wrong. But nice try deflecting. You were crucifying the cop and you don't even know all the facts. Google Richard Neri, NYPD. He did the same thing back in about 1999. Not indicted.

I know the kid's dead and there's no allegation that he attacked the cop or committed any crime, certainly not one that would justify killing him.

Legal or not, if you had to walk into a crime infested dark stairwell, would you or would you not take a weapon?

People who live in those buildings do it every day. If they're caught with a firearm, they're arrested and prosecuted. If the kid had been found carrying a gun for self-defense, that would have been the justification for killing him, even if the cop had no idea he was armed. Lovely Catch-22 there, huh?

You're asking me if I advocate violating the law. The answer is "no".

How much, in time and money, does it cost the average person to own a handgun in NYC?

For that kid it was a rigged game, nobody to protect him from the guy who killed him and no right to defend himself.

 

[transit]

The damage is already done. No matter what they do to the cop who shot him, that kid's not coming back.

Do you think that the guy in South Carolina is going around telling his friends and family that the cops should be "proactive" or that they deserve the "benefit of the doubt"? Do you think the family of the dead kid is saying either of those things?

Actions have consequences. One of those things is a loss of trust.

Ah. That old chestnut.

The "community" doesn't trust the police because, for example, in the over one hundred year history of the consolidated City of New York Police Department there have been a dozen bad shoots where the "community" didn't get the judicial result of their choice.

Right.

 

[cmort666]

Ah. That old chestnut.

The "community" doesn't trust the police because, for example, in the over one hundred year history of the consolidated City of New York Police Department there have been a dozen bad shoots where the "community" didn't get the judicial result of their choice.

Right.

You're buying into the narrative of the social justice warriors that the only thing that matters is when a cop shoots somebody... even if it's justified.

1. Those bad shoots don't seem to matter to you.
2. False arrests, and a variety of other acts of misbehavior don't seem to matter to you either.

You have no legal duty to care. On the other hand, the victims and, their families and the community have no legal duty to just let those things go.

It's an interesting dance:

The social justice warriors assert that the criminal acts of thugs don't matter. Cops can't shoot somebody even if he's trying to disarm and shoot a cop.

The other side claims that criminal acts by the police don't matter. Cops can shoot innocent people because they're "scared".

Both sides of that equation are aberrant in the extreme.

You explain to me why the guy in South Carolina should trust the police. He has NO such duty, only a duty to obey the law... which he was doing when he was shot.

 

[kbm6893]

I know the kid's dead and there's no allegation that he attacked the cop or committed any crime, certainly not one that would justify killing him.


People who live in those buildings do it every day. If they're caught with a firearm, they're arrested and prosecuted. If the kid had been found carrying a gun for self-defense, that would have been the justification for killing him, even if the cop had no idea he was armed. Lovely Catch-22 there, huh?

You're asking me if I advocate violating the law. The answer is "no".

How much, in time and money, does it cost the average person to own a handgun in NYC?

For that kid it was a rigged game, nobody to protect him from the guy who killed him and no right to defend himself.

The kid who died would have been prohibited from owning any weapon, because he had a felony arrest record. So while I will
Admit the cop screwed up, I can't fault him for having his gun out sinc mine was always out in those stairwells. Only difference between me and him is chance.

I don't approve of the NYC gun laws. Neither do most cops. But you abide by the laws of where you live.

 

[joe sacco]

Doug M, Good post. Thanks. Best, Joe

" What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed."

Alexander Pope

 

[transit]

You're buying into the narrative of the social justice warriors that the only thing that matters is when a cop shoots somebody... even if it's justified.

1. Those bad shoots don't seem to matter to you.
2. False arrests, and a variety of other acts of misbehavior don't seem to matter to you either.

You have no legal duty to care. On the other hand, the victims and, their families and the community have no legal duty to just let those things go.

It's an interesting dance:

The social justice warriors assert that the criminal acts of thugs don't matter. Cops can't shoot somebody even if he's trying to disarm and shoot a cop.

The other side claims that criminal acts by the police don't matter. Cops can shoot innocent people because they're "scared".

Both sides of that equation are aberrant in the extreme.

Wrong. Across the board.

I'm not certain where you are, so I'll make no assumptions; however, you feel free to tell me what I don't understand, when I live and have always lived, right in the middle of it. I absolutely have a duty to care.

The People of the State of New York have let nothing go. They have indicted that officer. You are attempting to paint the duplicitous picture that the bad shoot was "let go" at the same time you say that indicting the officer doesn't mean anything. It can't be both.

I've met (as in, eye contact; "nod", not that we are buddies) many of the "community leaders" that I (-suspect) you only see on TV. Met Al Sharpton? Jesse? Jeffries? etc.?

I object to your assertion that I have bought into anything.

Who claims that criminal acts by the police don't matter? I certainly haven't.

Every genuinely criminal act by the police in my career here (-into its third decade) has resulted in prosecution. Many other legitimate uses of police force have resulted in the "community's" willful ignorance of the law, political pandering, and occasional riot/uprising, but that matters not at all to the facts.

The latter dramatically outweigh the former. Ad absurdum.

 

[cmort666]

Wrong. Across the board.

Not wrong at all.

The kid's dead. No matter what (if anything) happens to the cop, he'll remain dead.

And as expected we see excuse making for the killer.

As I said, nobody has any sort of legal duty to care about his killing, the shooting of the guy in South Carolina, the beating of Carolina Obrycka or anything else that cops have done.

At the same time, the public at large has no duty to ignore those things, or the excuse making for them.

The average New Yorker has no legal ability to carry (or own, for that matter). He certainly has no legal ability to shoot somebody because he's "scared".

 

[transit]

The average New Yorker has no legal ability to carry (or own, for that matter). He certainly has no legal ability to shoot somebody because he's "scared".

And if he does...

...he'll be indicted.

-Precisely as that officer has been.

Not to offend sir, but you're completely wrong.

If your issue is actually to discuss the violation of the Second Amendment in the City of New York however, I think we'd find ourselves on quite the same page. But the two are not the same.

The notion that the "community" at large has any legitimate cause to distrust the police in New York is logically indefensible.

I challenge anyone, anywhere, at any time, to bring a fact based argument to support that position.

I will counter; with fact alone.

Place your bets.

 

[cmort666]

And if he does...

...he'll be indicted.

-Precisely as that officer has been.

He hasn't even gone to trial yet, and unless I'm mistaken, is out on bail.

 

[transit]

He hasn't even gone to trial yet, and unless I'm mistaken, is out on bail.

So?

Are you objecting to the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution, or the Eighth?

Or is it that he actually gets a trial?

 

[cmort666]

So?

Are you objecting to the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution, or the Eighth?

Or is it that he actually gets a trial?

I'm saying I don't consider justice in the case a foregone conclusion.

 

[transit]

I'm saying I don't consider justice in the case a foregone conclusion.

Should "justice" be a "foregone conclusion"?

If your opinion of the outcome is not reinforced, does that mean that the outcome is not "just"?

If so, then your opinion is correct.

-And more, you may be well in line with the opinion of the "community."

But that has nothing to do with justice. It doesn't matter how you, or the "community," or I feel.

It really doesn't.

We used to be a nation of laws.

Therein lies the rub.

 

[Kanewpadle]

One would think that we have matured past the Us vs Them attitude.

And it puzzles me when people who support the 2A and the American way of life, who don't want their rights infringed upon can pass judgement on others when they have never been in their shoes.

 

[ClayCow]

One would think that we have matured past the Us vs Them attitude.

And it puzzles me when people who support the 2A and the American way of life, who don't want their rights infringed upon can pass judgement on others when they have never been in their shoes.

You wont ever find a group united. Within each group there will be subgroups. I mean, republican party and democratic party runs the gamut of views. The radicals on either side almost agree with eachother on some issues. Were humans, we all see things a different way and interpret things in different ways.