• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it fair to say the mayor where the 2 cops were killed was partly responsible?

was it correct to say the mayor had blood on his hands

  • Total voters
    43
Zyphlin said:
However, you need to have a relatively clear deliniation between the person who is supposedly "inciting" or "encouraging" said violence and those actually committing it.

There is a difference between an individual speaking directly to a knowingly enflamed group and advocating a specific type of criminal activity, that a person in said group ends up going out and doing....and simply advocating in a broad venue that something was wrong, with no direct adovcation for any specific or even broad type of illegal activitiy.

Indeed, one of the explicite requirements of incitement I believe is that it must be specifically be encouraging, instigating, encouraging, etc, in order to cause someone to commit a criminal act.

If I go out and say "YEAH! THE COWBOYS SUCK ASS!" to a crowd of people...and then someone stabs a Cowboys player...I'm not likely to be found guilty of "inciting". Even if my words did somehow motivate that person to do that...which in this case we have zero evidence that anything the mayor said motivated the murderer...it still doesn't necessarily mean my comments were made for the purpose of convincing him to commit such a criminal act.

The incident you're quoting is an instance of a specific person urging people to commit a specific crime. That's an entirely different situation to what we have here with regards to the mayor
Click to expand...

I can agree with that - it's just a very thin line between the rhetoric of anti-cop speech we've experienced in America this past couple of months and a direct call to violence. You can see it in those who come out to protest and get caught up in the emotion of the day and spew even more violent hate such as the "what do we want, dead cops..." chants. You can also see it in the assassin who came from Baltimore to kill NYC cops - there is no plausible explanation why he chose not to kill Baltimore cops but drove to NYC to target that city's cops other than the anti-cop hate speech that has been spewing from various mouths following the GJ non-indictment in the Garner case.

There has to be some level of responsibility accepted by those who know full well there are people with fragile and dangerous mental capacity deficiencies who will readily take such language as their call to arms and who will see murdering a police officer as a righteous thing to do.

It's why I think De Blasio's use of his son as a political tool in this situation was dangerous.
 
plutonium said:
i notice a pattern here ...this also happened in los angeles when ever someone (the mayor of nyc or the police chief of los angeles stands up for the citizens of the city and may say one little thing negative about the police or their procedures they are not fit for office....the police are not better than the citizens why do people make them better. ..why can a police make a mistake and get away with it and a citizen cannot... what some of you people want citizens to do is let the police do what ever they want to do to citizens at their will with no questions asked....you will be sorry when one of your relatives get hurt or killed by them it just has not happened yet......now what i see right now and this is what the police are doing they are against the citizens if one of their cops make a mistake no questions asked ... a citizen will turn another citizen in if they make a mistake or break the law
Click to expand...

The vast majority of black people in NYC, in Ferguson, Missouri, and any number of other cities in America are very supportive of police and the work they do in their communities, particularly as it relates to fighting black crime and black on black crime. They don't care if the officers are white, black, pink or polka dot, they just want to feel safe in their homes and on their streets as they try to survive and live out each day.

Clearly, from your comments, you don't believe in the American justice system. You complain the police or presumably the police officer in the Garner case "made a mistake" and they are above the law and no questions ask. Well that's just so much bull **** and you know it. The officer in this case was subjected to the grand jury process and a "jury of his peers" deemed there was insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime. But that's not good enough for you - you want him charged and likely convicted because your views are more important than the views of the grand jury panel charged with making the determination. Too bad for you - that's the way the system works and if you want to be civilized in a society of mixed views, you have to accept those decisions you disagree with as well as those you do agree with, without spewing hate about the system when it doesn't go your way.
 
CanadaJohn said:
it's just a very thin line between the rhetoric of anti-cop speech we've experienced in America this past couple of months and a direct call to violence.
Click to expand...

No, there's a very direct line. Just as there was a very direct line between actually calling for violence, and using firearm language in an analogic manner, as was the case with Gabby Giffords. There's a VERY significant line between criminal speech worthy of legal condemnation, and simply unwise inflammatory language.

Did the mayor or others perhaps make inflammatory statements? Sure. And if you want to go at them for inflaming the situation then I can understand that. But that is a lot different than actually being responsible for, or having a hand in, the actual criminal act that ends up happening.

"What do we want, dead cops" is absolutely problematic and I'd have no issue with police taking action against someone leading such a chant, as that is open advocation and incitement towards a criminal act.

Suggesting police officers got it wrong, that there's mistreatment of african americans, or even stupid comments like the cops just beating and killing people at will is an entirely different realm of culpability. They may enflame a situation, but they're definitely not responsible for someone else deciding to actually act criminally.

there is no plausible explanation why he chose not to kill Baltimore cops but drove to NYC to target that city's cops other than the anti-cop hate speech that has been spewing from various mouths following the GJ non-indictment in the Garner case.
Click to expand...

That's crap that there's no other plausible explanation. That's laughable.

Here's a COMPLETELY palusible explanation for why he went to NYC instead of Baltimore.

Garner was killed by NYC cops, so the man wanted to kill NYC cops in retribution.

Explain to me how that's less plausible than "he wanted to kill NYC's because of anti-cop rhetoric".
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I didn't see de Blasio's campaign in that manner and I believe that people who saw his anti-abuse-of-power message in that manner either have a dangerous idea of police power or a distorted view of reality. I'm curious though, if someone assassinates President Obama, would the people who endorse anti-Obama messages be responsible for that?
Click to expand...

Only if the anti-Obama messages rose to the level of the calls for "dead cops" in NYC in recent weeks. De Blasio ran for office on an anti-police platform and that set the context for everything he has said recently.
 
Jack Hays said:
Only if the anti-Obama messages rose to the level of the calls for "dead cops" in NYC in recent weeks.
Click to expand...
Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police in a way that would NOT have made him responsible for this murder, in your eyes. Or is all criticism of police from this point forward now responsible for murder any hypothetical future murders?

De Blasio ran for office on an anti-police platform and that set the context for everything he has said recently.
Click to expand...
What quote from de Blasio makes you think he is anti-police instead of just anti-police-abuse?
 
Zyphlin said:
No, there's a very direct line. Just as there was a very direct line between actually calling for violence, and using firearm language in an analogic manner, as was the case with Gabby Giffords. There's a VERY significant line between criminal speech worthy of legal condemnation, and simply unwise inflammatory language.

Did the mayor or others perhaps make inflammatory statements? Sure. And if you want to go at them for inflaming the situation then I can understand that. But that is a lot different than actually being responsible for, or having a hand in, the actual criminal act that ends up happening.

"What do we want, dead cops" is absolutely problematic and I'd have no issue with police taking action against someone leading such a chant, as that is open advocation and incitement towards a criminal act.

Suggesting police officers got it wrong, that there's mistreatment of african americans, or even stupid comments like the cops just beating and killing people at will is an entirely different realm of culpability. They may enflame a situation, but they're definitely not responsible for someone else deciding to actually act criminally.



That's crap that there's no other plausible explanation. That's laughable.

Here's a COMPLETELY palusible explanation for why he went to NYC instead of Baltimore.

Garner was killed by NYC cops, so the man wanted to kill NYC cops in retribution.

Explain to me how that's less plausible than "he wanted to kill NYC's because of anti-cop rhetoric".
Click to expand...

I'll grant you there's no direct link, but words have meaning and substance, particularly when they're voiced by leaders in any community.

And it's really funny that you think this guy in Baltimore all of a sudden, out of the blue, decided that Garner was murdered by cops and needed to be avenged. How did it get into his conscience thoughts? No black guys killed in Baltimore by police?

Unless people want to be serious about the issues this will just go on and there will be other such tragedies.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'll grant you there's no direct link, but words have meaning and substance, particularly when they're voiced by leaders in any community.

And it's really funny that you think this guy in Baltimore all of a sudden, out of the blue, decided that Garner was murdered by cops and needed to be avenged. How did it get into his conscience thoughts? No black guys killed in Baltimore by police?

Unless people want to be serious about the issues this will just go on and there will be other such tragedies.
Click to expand...

The killer had a history of mental instability.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police in a way that would NOT have made him responsible for this murder, in your eyes. Or is all criticism of police from this point forward now responsible for murder any hypothetical future murders?


What quote from de Blasio makes you think he is anti-police instead of just anti-police-abuse?
Click to expand...

For Mayor de Blasio and New York Police, a Rift Is Ripped ...

www.nytimes.com/.../a-widening-rift-between-de-blas...The New York Times


13 hours ago - Since Mr. de Blasio's crusade on the campaign trail against what he ... After reports of an attack on two police lieutenants during protests on the ...

". . . Since Mr. de Blasio’s crusade on the campaign trail against what he viewed as overreaching by the police in the Bloomberg administration, those close to the mayor have professed that securing the trust of officers was an essential, complicated task.

And for much of the department, it seems, he has fallen far short.
“This is a nightmare of the highest magnitude for everyone,” said Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association. Leaders at City Hall, he added, “need to dig down deep in their souls and understand that campaigning to be a leader is easier than being a leader.”. . .
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The killer had a history of mental instability.
Click to expand...

I'd submit to you that anyone who commits murder has some form of mental instability, often historical. The point, from my perspective, is that there are apparently an infinite number of mentally unstable individuals who need little to help justifying such actions. It's why people should be careful and self-filter their own inflammatory rhetoric.
 
Jack Hays said:
For Mayor de Blasio and New York Police, a Rift Is Ripped ...

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forumsde-blas...The New York Times


13 hours ago - Since Mr. de Blasio's crusade on the campaign trail against what he ... After reports of an attack on two police lieutenants during protests on the ...

". . . Since Mr. de Blasio’s crusade on the campaign trail against what he viewed as overreaching by the police in the Bloomberg administration, those close to the mayor have professed that securing the trust of officers was an essential, complicated task.

And for much of the department, it seems, he has fallen far short.
“This is a nightmare of the highest magnitude for everyone,” said Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association. Leaders at City Hall, he added, “need to dig down deep in their souls and understand that campaigning to be a leader is easier than being a leader.”. . .
Click to expand...
You quoted people agreeing with you. I asked for quotes from de Blasio that show he is anti-police. Also, you didn't answer my other question : Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police in a way that would NOT have made him responsible for this murder, in your eyes. Or is all criticism of police from this point forward now responsible for murder any hypothetical future murder
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You quoted people agreeing with you. I asked for quotes from de Blasio that show he is anti-police. Also, you didn't answer my other question : Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police in a way that would NOT have made him responsible for this murder, in your eyes. Or is all criticism of police from this point forward now responsible for murder any hypothetical future murder
Click to expand...

De Blasio's past campaign rhetoric makes it difficult for him to be credible in support of the police. And I have not said he was responsible for the murders. I said his rhetoric made an attack more likely. His campaign characterization of stop-and-frisk as discriminatory was the beginning of anti-police incitement (and also a lie).

". . . And he's been helped by a much-discussed campaign ad starring his multiracial son, Dante, who wears his hair in a 1970s-style Afro. The 15-year-old tells voters that his father is "the only one who will end a stop-and-frisk era that unfairly targets people of color.". . .



Yet Another Democrat Takes The Lead In NYC Mayor Race ...

www.npr.org/.../2013/.../yet-another-democrat-takes-the-lead-in-nyc...NPR


Aug 29, 2013 - New York City public advocate Bill de Blasio has surged to a commanding ... August 29, 2013 3:31 AM ET ... candidates for mayor of New York City face off for a debate on Aug ... De Blasio has positioned himself as the anti-Bloomberg: an ... especially since a federal judge ruled that the police department's ...
 
NYPD
New Yorkers Who Like Cops Don’t Like De Blasio

By Harry Enten

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is in a tight spot politically after the fatal shooting of two New York Police Department officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, on Saturday. In an effort to close the divide between himself and the city’s police, de Blasio on Monday called on those protesting a grand jury’s decision not to indict an NYPD officer in the choking death of Eric Garner to suspend their demonstrations.


De Blasio’s problem is that many of these marchers are part of his political base, while the NYPD’s base of support is quite different. That is, if a voter approves of the job the police are doing, then he or she is very likely to disapprove of the job the mayor is doing.


This can be seen in a recent Quinnipiac University poll in which support for both the police and de Blasio were split nearly down the middle. Fifty-one percent of voters approved of the job the police were doing, while 41 percent disapproved. A similar 47 approved of the job the mayor was doing, while 38 percent disapproved. Among the 17 subgroups (age, borough, political identification, race, sex, etc.) released by Quinnipiac, support for one is the inverse of support for the other. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. The Mayor played with matches and helped start a fire.
Click to expand...
The shooter was a nutcase and the mayor had nothing to do with it. It was the video of the cops killing him that outraged the shooter. HAVE YOU SEEN IT??
 
pbrauer said:
The shooter was a nutcase and the mayor had nothing to do with it. It was the video of the cops killing him that outraged the shooter. HAVE YOU SEEN IT??
Click to expand...

Anti-Police Rhetoric Unlike Anything I've Seen - Howard Safir, Time

". . . . When Ismaaiyl Abdulah Brinsley brutally executed Officers Ramos and Liu he did so in an atmosphere of permissiveness and anti-police rhetoric unlike any that I have seen in 45 years in law enforcement. The rhetoric this time is not from the usual suspects, but from the Mayor of New York City, the Attorney General of the United States, and even the President. It emboldens criminals and sends a message that every encounter a black person has with a police officer is one to be feared. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will never know what was in the mind of Brinsley when he shot officers Ramos and Liu. However we do know that he has seen nothing but police bashing from some of the highest officials in the land. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
De Blasio's past campaign rhetoric makes it difficult for him to be credible in support of the police. And I have not said he was responsible for the murders. I said his rhetoric made an attack more likely. His campaign characterization of stop-and-frisk as discriminatory was the beginning of anti-police incitement (and also a lie).
Click to expand...
Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police that would have not, from your perspective, made an attack more likely? Or would any criticism of the police from him have made an attack more likely?

". . . And he's been helped by a much-discussed campaign ad starring his multiracial son, Dante, who wears his hair in a 1970s-style Afro. The 15-year-old tells voters that his father is "the only one who will end a stop-and-frisk era that unfairly targets people of color.". . .

Yet Another Democrat Takes The Lead In NYC Mayor Race ...

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums2013/.../yet-another-democrat-takes-the-lead-in-nyc...NPR

Aug 29, 2013 - New York City public advocate Bill de Blasio has surged to a commanding ... August 29, 2013 3:31 AM ET ... candidates for mayor of New York City face off for a debate on Aug ... De Blasio has positioned himself as the anti-Bloomberg: an ... especially since a federal judge ruled that the police department's ...
Click to expand...
A quote from his son is not a quote from him. That said, given that the quote was part of his campaign, I'll accept it. I don't, however, believe that advocating an end to stop-and-frisk and saying that it unfairly targets people of color is anti-police. Stop-and-frisk is a policy. Saying that stop-and-frisk is a problem is saying that that specific policy is a problem, not police. Police didn't even come up with the policy. To draw the conclusion that de Blasio is anti-police from that stance requires an extraordinary leap of logic. Also, a federal judge found that stop-and-frisk was discriminatory as did a report by New York Branch of the ACLU and a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights. De Blasio was right about that.
 
pbrauer said:
Totally ridiculous, but that's what I've come to expect from you... Partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


Chants by the protesters that DeBlasio supports include but are not limited to...

" What do we want ? " " Dead Cops " " When do we want them ? " " Now " !!

Yes, he's got blood on his hands.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police that would have not, from your perspective, made an attack more likely? Or would any criticism of the police from him have made an attack more likely?


A quote from his son is not a quote from him. That said, given that the quote was part of his campaign, I'll accept it. I don't, however, believe that advocating an end to stop-and-frisk and saying that it unfairly targets people of color is anti-police. Stop-and-frisk is a policy. Saying that stop-and-frisk is a problem is saying that that specific policy is a problem, not police. Police didn't even come up with the policy. To draw the conclusion that de Blasio is anti-police from that stance requires an extraordinary leap of logic. Also, a federal judge found that stop-and-frisk was discriminatory as did a report by New York Branch of the ACLU and a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights. De Blasio was right about that.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to draft remarks for de Blasio. Given his history, his margin for error in criticizing the police would be small indeed.

The decision against stop-and-frisk was stayed by a higher court and the judge who made that decision was removed from the case.
 
Jack Hays said:
Anti-Police Rhetoric Unlike Anything I've Seen - Howard Safir, Time

". . . . When Ismaaiyl Abdulah Brinsley brutally executed Officers Ramos and Liu he did so in an atmosphere of permissiveness and anti-police rhetoric unlike any that I have seen in 45 years in law enforcement. The rhetoric this time is not from the usual suspects, but from the Mayor of New York City, the Attorney General of the United States, and even the President. It emboldens criminals and sends a message that every encounter a black person has with a police officer is one to be feared. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will never know what was in the mind of Brinsley when he shot officers Ramos and Liu. However we do know that he has seen nothing but police bashing from some of the highest officials in the land. . . . "
Click to expand...
Maybe the is a reason for the anti police rhetoric, I asked you if you watched the video of Garner being killed by the cops, but you did not answer. Gee, wonder why. :roll:

Was the gun used to kill the cops partially responsible?
 
pbrauer said:
Maybe the is a reason for the anti police rhetoric, I asked you if you watched the video of Garner being killed by the cops, but you did not answer. Gee, wonder why. :roll:

Was the gun used to kill the cops partially responsible?
Click to expand...

Like everyone else in the US, I saw that video several dozen times.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Is there any way de Blasio could have criticized police in a way that would NOT have made him responsible for this murder, in your eyes. Or is all criticism of police from this point forward now responsible for murder any hypothetical future murders?


What quote from de Blasio makes you think he is anti-police instead of just anti-police-abuse?
Click to expand...
You keep stating the operative words. Critical "of police". Let me ask you...what would be YOUR response if people cited a specifc example of despicable behavior committed by a black person and were critical "of black people"?

And there is your answer. de Blasio should have been a ****ing HERO. He should have cited the millions of honest hard working cops out there every day putting their lives on the line and DEMANDED that the questions raised about the Garner incident be addressed with the specific officer involved. If there were other examples, cite them as well. He should have, as the leader of NYC, set the tone for those discussions. He should have demanded it of the scumbags like Sharpton. He should have IMMEDIATELY and from the highest rooftops in NYC and on every media outlet throughout the city demanded responsible dialogue and not sensationalist bull**** that ended up causing people to chant in the streets "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? RIGHT NOW!"
 
Last edited:
plutonium said:
I think the New York police union said the mayor had blood on his hands for the 2 police getting killed....does that also mean if republicans call Obama a dictator or a hitler and he gets assassinated they will have blood on their hands...if it provokes someone to kill the prez
Click to expand...



The head of the police union is disgustingly exploiting a tragedy. "Blood on his hands" is pure hate-filled rhetoric designed only to fuel the debate and play martyr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom