<p>I work with police and I am friends with a significant number of law enforcement officers. I have an issue with them that they see things as you are either with us or against us. I do not agree. There are times when those in authority need to tell their subordinates your action were wrong. When that happens every person that makes up the rank and file of the entire unit cannot react as if they do not have support. Soeone posted earlier about police wanting unwaivering support. I think that goes to far.</p>
<p>Of course it does–which is where all this seems to have started. It is reasonable to not support cops that choke-hold a petty criminal to death. It is reasonable to have issues with a 12-year-old being executed in a park, no questions asked. It is reasonable to wonder why a young man holding a product sold in the store he is standing in is such a grave threat that he too must be shot to death. And it’s reasonable to have doubts about a justice system that allows a lying faux witness and a biased prosecutor to determine the outcome of a case that has a lot of questions and uncertainties to it.</p>
<p>
When you arrive at a conclusion that matters, feel free to share it and we’ll both chuckle at the irony of us running into each other, over and over, yet only one us of developing an issue over it.</p>
<p>Umm… when you do, would you provide the cite for your claim a while back, the one about 'hate crimes against minorities have been increasing"? </p>
<p>“an adviser to kings”</p>
<p>I would ask who the heck you are referring to but I am fairly certain I know exactly who you are calling “kings.” </p>
<p>
The thing you are missing is that in this instance, it is FACTUALLY CORRECT that Al Sharpton is present and is causing further problems. It’s not theoretical, it’s hot historical. It is not possible to understand how the city in which I live and for which two members of my immediate family work came to be in such a mess without understanding the sequence of events. Maybe there are people who have an agenda re Sharpton, but in this instance, if you (the mayor, everyone else) don’t acknowledge the damage he is currently doing, it can’t be fixed.</p>
<p>
Tom, you know I think the world of you. However, this isn’t really reflective of the current situation. The Brooklyn Bridge attacks on two lieutenants were a huge, huge thing here and were terribly handled by the mayor. There is simply no way around that. While subordinates need to accept orders from their superiors (and what about the direct order from DeBlasio the week before Eric Garner’s death to target illegal cigarettes?), sometimes superiors need to accept responsibility for the unintended consequences of those orders. The mayor did not do that. And always, always, always when a subordinate is injured in the line of duty, following the orders of the superior, the superior must acknowledge and support the injured while condemning unequivocally the perpetrators. The mayor did not do that either.</p>
<p>One thing I will credit the mayor for today is laying low and letting things calm down. That is very wise.</p>
<p>Either you missed the ‘Richelieu’ part or you’ve a deeper understanding of things you consider provocative than I do. (That last would go without actually saying, I know but the point is I haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about. Could just be I’m not quite as deep as you suspect.)</p>
<p>Share whatever it is and I’ll disavow whatever I didn’t mean. 
</p>
<p>I agree he mishandled the attack of the officers on the Brooklyn Bridge badly. I was referencing his press conference after the Garner decision.
I also should clarify that while I think those in authority need to address wrong doing they need to be equally supportive when the police are correct in their action and there is a tragic event.</p>
<p>It is a fine line. </p>
<p>“The thing you are missing is that in this instance, it is FACTUALLY CORRECT that Al Sharpton is present and is causing further problems.”</p>
<p>No, that is your bias. Leading protests over this issue or any issue is not wrong and it’s not wrong for Mr. Sharpton to represent the minority community, of which he a part of, on issues effecting minority communities. </p>
<p>These types of issues are always uncomfortable to confront and very often cause tension - but it should never mean they should be stopped. </p>
<p>I am certain there are many people who believe the protesters should just sit down and shut up. </p>
<p>Well, if what they’re protesting is a based on a lie like the Ferguson myth that an innocent black teenager was shot by a mean racist cop I do think someone should clear that up, but it’s probably too late.</p>
<p>marie the difficult thing is we each see our different “truth”.</p>
<p>Sure, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a real truth in each of these cases and leaders are supposed to sort it out and explain it, not heighten the misunderstanding and deepen the divisions for their own purposes. And, plenty of them know exactly what they are doing. Although, it got out of hand which was also entirely predictable. </p>
<p>“marie, why won’t you respond to my questions? Do you really think the “anti-cop mentality” just started this August? How, then, would you explain all the manifestos and violent acts by others who have proclaimed their hatred of law enforcement? Or are those cases different somehow?”</p>
<p>The current cops are randomly shooting black teenagers for no reason meme started in August and was untrue in the Ferguson case. And what a bombing in Oklahoma 20 years ago has to do with that I don’t know. But, you have already said that you approach these things by choosing to ignore the parts and participants that you don’t care to acknowledge so I don’t know how to have a reasonable discussion under those circumstances. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the heck? They couldn’t call NJ state troopers and have the bus pulled over? They couldn’t do ANYTHING but track him until he dumped the cellphone? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How incredibly incompetent! No wonder the Baltimore FOB released that inflammatory statement that I linked earlier, they were trying to cover their own idiocy with a smokescreen. And they demand “unequivocal support”? The bloodshed will continue unless they get unequivocal support? They must love the Reverand Al, he is so good at distracting everyone. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-killer-was-adrift-ill-and-vengeful.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-killer-was-adrift-ill-and-vengeful.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0</a></p>
<p>Whoa Greenwitch, Chief Bratton in NYC has taken great pains to say that the Baltimore P.D. acted promptly to get the word out to NYC to be on the lookout for the fugitive.</p>
<p>
Yes that is true. There certainly are. I agree with you.</p>
<p>However, the conflict between the mayor and the police came after several weeks of protests had gone off uneventfully. Both sides were in agreement at that point that the most important thing was to keep the protesters, the police and the public safe. that happened for weeks despite significant expense and disruption, but the rights of the protesters were protected, as they should have been.</p>
<p>The problem came several weeks later when the protesters were in danger and the police were actually attacked and injured. That is the point at which relations between the mayor and the police went off the rails. When officers are injured in the line of duty, particularly on video the same way the Garner homicide was, there isn’t really a gray area for their boss. It has to be all support for the police and all condemnation for the attackers. I can’t believe that is even a question for debate.</p>
<p>Additionally, the police know and have always known that Garner was targeted due to a specific and immediate edict by the mayor. People all over the world are saying “this man died for THAT?” and they are right. However, the mayor should just come out and say that he ordered that crackdown and apologize for the unintended consequences, rather than trying to hide the memo and duck responsibility. That didn’t help at all, and certainly was a contributing factor to the deaths of two police officers and the attack on two others (possibly three). The mayor didn’t physically attack anyone, but his lack of experience in such an important role has led him to make poor, shortsighted and harmful choices.</p>
<p>I don’t know if this is all the chanting that people are hearing, but in at least one protest, it is a major news outlet that is ginning up the outrage in a completely dishonest way. Here’s one station’s story about the Sharpton March, and then the real story. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the type of reporting that deliberately and maliciously misrepresents the truth. If you only listen to the Fox video, you get manipulated into outrage.</p>
<p>“It has to be all support for the police and all condemnation for the attackers. I can’t believe that is even a question for debate.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but the use of the word “alleged” has nothing whatsoever to do his support. Imo, it is a stupid excuse by the police to paint the mayor as unsupportive because he used that word about the attackers. You are free to have a different opinion. </p>
<p>“That didn’t help at all, and certainly was a contributing factor to the deaths of two police officers…”</p>
<p>I don’t think anything that has been happening of late contributed the the deaths of the two cops on Saturday. The perpetrator was a deranged individual with a long history of violence and mental illness who possessed a gun. I think I will blame the killing of the cops on the NRA. </p>
<p>
Yes I am free to have a different opinion based on the entirety of the situation and the facts. There is more to the story than the use of the word alleged. As you pointed out, you are not willing to take my word for anything (which is reasonable) and you have so far chosen not to delve any deeper. That’s also fine, but that being the case, I can find your opinion less than worthwhile and can wonder why you continue to speak on an issue you aren’t willing to be fully informed about.</p>
<p>
There is no connection between the NRA and illegal guns as the one used in these murders was.</p>
<p>Is there any circumstance under which you would find the behavior of a democratic elected official unacceptable enough to disagree with it?</p>
<p>
I think that position is delusional and requires significant effort to craft. If you don’t think “anything” that happened “of late” contributed, how do you explain the killer’s reference to the Ferguson and Staten Island cases? Those certainly happened “of late” and I can’t imagine how you would disagree with the killer’s own connection to those events.</p>
<p>“There is no connection between the NRA and illegal guns as the one used in these murders was.”</p>
<p>I don’t care if the gun was illegal. Our laws are not strong enough to protect against anyone who wants a gun from getting gun, legal or illegal. The NRA has made sure of that. And after all…I’m told guns don’t kill people, so, it matters not a wit that this gun was gotten illegally. </p>
<p>“I think that position is delusional and requires significant effort to craft. If you don’t think “anything” that happened “of late” contributed, how do you explain the killer’s reference to the Ferguson and Staten Island cases? Those certainly happened “of late” and I can’t imagine how you would disagree with the killer’s own connection to those events.”</p>
<p>Because delusional individuals frequently use things in the headlines as reasons for their actions. This is not new a phenomenon and it happens all the time. </p>
<p>And I don’t care if you find my opinion less than worthwhile. </p>
<p>“Is there any circumstance under which you would find the behavior of a democratic elected official unacceptable enough to disagree with it?”</p>
<p>Of course. Andrew Cuomo, for instance. Joe Lieberman was another. </p>
<p>@lakewashington - the definition of prompt is not informing the NOPD of a killer on the loose at least 3 1/2 hours after you know he is in NYC. That’s the “blue wall” talking its BS again. Maybe I’m wrong and the New York Times is just neglecting to tell us of contact between the two police departments other than the 2:11 PM fax. Was there any? </p>
<p>
</p>