• 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!

Should de Blasio have Attended Officer Ramos Funeral?

Should de Blasio have Attended Officer Ramos Funeral?


  • Total voters
    49
Nail on the head is how I read this opinion piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/o...ered-in-attacks-on-de-blasio.html?ref=opinion
Mayor Bill de Blasio has spent weeks expressing his respect and admiration for the New York Police Department, while calling for unity in these difficult days, but the message doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

When he spoke at a police graduation ceremony at Madison Square Garden on Monday, some in the crowd booed and heckled him. This followed the mass back-turning by scores of officers when the mayor spoke on Saturday at the funeral of Officer Rafael Ramos; the virtual back-turning the day before by an airplane-towed banner (“Our backs have turned to you”), and the original spiteful gesture by officers on the night Mr. de Blasio visited the hospital where Officer Ramos and his partner, Wenjian Liu, lay dead.

Mr. de Blasio isn’t going to say it, but somebody has to: With these acts of passive-aggressive contempt and self-pity, many New York police officers, led by their union, are squandering the department’s credibility, defacing its reputation, shredding its hard-earned respect. They have taken the most grave and solemn of civic moments — a funeral of a fallen colleague — and hijacked it for their own petty look-at-us gesture. In doing so, they also turned their backs on Mr. Ramos’s widow and her two young sons, and others in that grief-struck family.

These are disgraceful acts, which will be compounded if anyone repeats the stunt at Officer Liu’s funeral on Sunday.
From what I just heard on NPR, union and department officials have asked for an end to the back turning from officers. Everyone has made their point, it is time to get about the act of trying repair all the damage that has been done. Which will require both sides to make some changes to their approach. I certainly hope that can be done, but admit I am skeptical.
 
Of course he should. He's the mayor. He didn't call for that officer to be murdered.

If it were a PRIVATE family funeral service and the family didn't want him to attend? No. But if an official and public funeral, of course he should.
 
Nail on the head is how I read this opinion piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/o...ered-in-attacks-on-de-blasio.html?ref=opinion
Mayor Bill de Blasio has spent weeks expressing his respect and admiration for the New York Police Department, while calling for unity in these difficult days, but the message doesn’t seem to be sinking in.

When he spoke at a police graduation ceremony at Madison Square Garden on Monday, some in the crowd booed and heckled him. This followed the mass back-turning by scores of officers when the mayor spoke on Saturday at the funeral of Officer Rafael Ramos; the virtual back-turning the day before by an airplane-towed banner (“Our backs have turned to you”), and the original spiteful gesture by officers on the night Mr. de Blasio visited the hospital where Officer Ramos and his partner, Wenjian Liu, lay dead.

Mr. de Blasio isn’t going to say it, but somebody has to: With these acts of passive-aggressive contempt and self-pity, many New York police officers, led by their union, are squandering the department’s credibility, defacing its reputation, shredding its hard-earned respect. They have taken the most grave and solemn of civic moments — a funeral of a fallen colleague — and hijacked it for their own petty look-at-us gesture. In doing so, they also turned their backs on Mr. Ramos’s widow and her two young sons, and others in that grief-struck family.

These are disgraceful acts, which will be compounded if anyone repeats the stunt at Officer Liu’s funeral on Sunday.

Where has de Blasio said all these great things about cops? Y'know what, the funerals of those cops don't belong to de Blasio. What right does he really have to act all distraught about it now? Aren't they of the same ilk that he told his son not to trust?
 
Your opinion that di Blasio's many criticisms, campaign speeches and comments subsequent to the Garner case were "rightly" made is entirely subjective. And ignores the issues that those stances and criticisms raised and how they contributed to the current state of affairs. Of course you have stated you think di Blasio should just fire all the police officers that turned their back on him, repeatedly. Looking at your participation in another thread about the di Blasio/NYPD matter, you appear to be primarily a di Blasio apologist. And then there is the matter that you tried to insinuate that unless I lived or worked in NY and I took into account your "feelings" on this matter, I should not speak up. On a debate board.

I pointed this out to you earlier. You ignored it. Seeing as you say that di Blasio's criticism of the NYPD for enforcing the "stop and frisk" laws was him rightly pointing out issues? I will point this out again. And it is one of those issues that makes a hypocrite of some posters and their contradictory comments on the whole di Blasio/NYPD fiasco. The NYPD simply enforces the laws, they don't write and pass them. Many of di Blasio's criticisms of NYPD over the matter of "stop and frisk" are unfair and woefully (purposefully?) ignorant of the basic fact that NYPD has to enforce the law until such time as it is rescinded or revoked, as it was. Not surprisingly we have posters at this forum who are complaining in one thread about NYPD not enforcing some laws in a "work stoppage" yet condemning the NYPD for doing their job and enforcing "stop & frisk" when it was the law. This all gets dizzy, contorted and hypocritical on many levels.

Sorry mate, I don't misunderstand your position. Mostly because you have made it crystal clear, while trying to a play a trite cliche of an excuse meant to stifle "debate" on a "debate" board. Besides, at the end of the day unless you are claiming to be a complete dullard, you know any attempt to fire the officers in question (and a lot more of them have turned their backs on di Blasio than just at that funeral) would be a PR disaster of some magnitude. Of course maybe I'm wrong, because you really do seem to think that this mass firing would play well. Because you keep arguing for it. :thinking

First off, I'm not a di Blasio apologist, it'd be more accurate to describe me as critical of the way many police departments, including the NYPD - currently operate. And I wasn't trying to stifle debate by asking you if you were a NY resident - rather I was trying to gauge whether or not you actually knew locals and had a basis for your opinion that my opinions on the subject weren't shared by other local New York residents. I'm not trying to stifle debate - just trying to judge the quality of your comments.

The NYPD doesn't simply enforce laws. There is no local law that says officers must stop-and-frisk anyone. That is a department policy who's legal justification comes out of the SC decision in Ohio v. Terry which allows protective pat downs when officers have a reasonable suspicion to stop someone (btw - if you know cops - and I do, I have several friends and family members who are cops including my kid brother who retired from the NYPD, - "reasonable suspicion" is pretty much whatever the cop wants it to be)

So saying they were "enforcing the law" is factually incorrect. They were stretching their discretion to stop people who otherwise wouldn't have been stopped. And btw a Federal District judge found the practice to be unconstitutional a ruling that di Blasio has stated he will not appeal.

So are you going to get around to countering my statement that the officers are engaged in acts of insubordination or not? That is the crux of my argument.
 
From what I just heard on NPR, union and department officials have asked for an end to the back turning from officers. Everyone has made their point, it is time to get about the act of trying repair all the damage that has been done. Which will require both sides to make some changes to their approach. I certainly hope that can be done, but admit I am skeptical.

Agreed. Back turning was unprofessional, it was at a funereal and the Officers who turned their backs made it into a political statement. Absolutely shameful behavior.
 
First off, I'm not a di Blasio apologist, it'd be more accurate to describe me as critical of the way many police departments, including the NYPD - currently operate. And I wasn't trying to stifle debate by asking you if you were a NY resident - rather I was trying to gauge whether or not you actually knew locals and had a basis for your opinion that my opinions on the subject weren't shared by other local New York residents. I'm not trying to stifle debate - just trying to judge the quality of your comments.

The NYPD doesn't simply enforce laws. There is no local law that says officers must stop-and-frisk anyone. That is a department policy who's legal justification comes out of the SC decision in Ohio v. Terry which allows protective pat downs when officers have a reasonable suspicion to stop someone (btw - if you know cops - and I do, I have several friends and family members who are cops including my kid brother who retired from the NYPD, - "reasonable suspicion" is pretty much whatever the cop wants it to be)

So saying they were "enforcing the law" is factually incorrect. They were stretching their discretion to stop people who otherwise wouldn't have been stopped. And btw a Federal District judge found the practice to be unconstitutional a ruling that di Blasio has stated he will not appeal.

So are you going to get around to countering my statement that the officers are engaged in acts of insubordination or not? That is the crux of my argument.

Where did you read my comments that "your opinions on the subject weren't shared by other local New York residents" at? When none exist? You keep avoiding every thing I state about di Blasio's role in all of this, and I've barely addressed his actions both when he ran for office and since. Given the fact you can't or won't address what I have said but are supplying comments I nor anyone else in the thread has made? Looks like a di Blasio apologist that is deflecting to me.

The men and women of the NYPD that you are so critical of, followed the lawful departmental policies and directives they were ordered to. Until such time as they changed. My incorrect assessment of the policy origins aside, the casting of them as villains for doing so is one of di Blasio's problems with the PD. That you ignore because di Blasio did so "rightly" according to you.

The crux of the matter is that while you complain about and cite "insubordination" and how much like a military (post# 112) NYPD is, you are forgetting one very important and stark distinction. Which is ironic because earlier you seemed to be aware of the fact that the men and women of the NYPD are members of a union. But as long as you choose to continue to ignore those distinctions and the rights that come with them, your argument is unpersuasive. As well as unrealistic as all hell too. You bristled before at the idea you were being emotional and irrational, yet........................
 
Agreed. Back turning was unprofessional, it was at a funereal and the Officers who turned their backs made it into a political statement. Absolutely shameful behavior.
And much the same has been said of di Blasio's behavior. For quite some time too, even before the recent events. Speaking of shameful behavior, I understand this same mayor that has such a controversial relationship with his own PD, could not even make it on time to the funeral of the assassinated officer. ;)
 
Last edited:
And much the same has been said of di Blasio's behavior. For quite some time too, even before the recent events. ;)

He is a Politician, they are professionals. Why sink to a politicians level?
 
He is a Politician, they are professionals. Why sink to a politicians level?
The politician that was late to the very funeral that the complaints about the officers who turned their backs to him at, are being made about? And is the subject of this thread? Possibly, wild idea here, wild one, the death of their fellow officers? One of which the mayor could not even bother to be on time for the funeral of? :wow:
 
Last edited:
The politician that was late to the very funeral that the complaints about the officers who turned their backs to him at, are being made about? And is the subject of this thread? Possibly, wild idea here, wild one, the death of their fellow officers? One of which the mayor could not even bother to be on time for the funeral of? :wow:

And he came out with a BS reply as to why he was late, that is if I recall correctly? Then he came truthful on it.
 
And he came out with a BS reply as to why he was late, that is if I recall correctly? Then he came truthful on it.
Without searching I recall his excuse was pretty 'dog ate my homework' in nature. In any case, Happy New Year!
 
Gad, people - we have two dead cops and lots of emotions around it. Would you all give everyone a break - whether it's the mayor, whether it's the cops, whether it's the residents - let's just chill out, recognize that everyone is affected by this, and stop giving anyone a hard time?
 
Gad, people - we have two dead cops and lots of emotions around it. Would you all give everyone a break - whether it's the mayor, whether it's the cops, whether it's the residents - let's just chill out, recognize that everyone is affected by this, and stop giving anyone a hard time?
Let me get this right. You logged into a "debate forum" and then selected a topic in the "polls" section (that naturally requires a reply and interest in the subject matter) and chose to "reply" to the back and forth happening within it? With this?

Clearly the happiness of the new year is already upon you. In that case, cheers and happy new year!:party
 
Great analogy.

A friend gave me the book "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" when my mom was dying. I admit I read little of it; but the section I read that has stuck with me ever since is something along the lines of - everyone reacts to death differently. And some of those reactions might seem "wrong" to you. But give everyone space to grieve, space to act in the way that they do; don't judge.

Death is so stressful, so hard on people; it really does reveal dysfunctions, but don't get upset at them - just let them pass. That thought has helped me over the years. So whether or not someone thinks the mayor did right or wrong or the cops did right or wrong - let's not fight about it, just accept that everyone reacts differently and move forward.



That is a great book. You should try to finish reading it.
 
Where did you read my comments that "your opinions on the subject weren't shared by other local New York residents" at? When none exist? You keep avoiding every thing I state about di Blasio's role in all of this, and I've barely addressed his actions both when he ran for office and since. Given the fact you can't or won't address what I have said but are supplying comments I nor anyone else in the thread has made? Looks like a di Blasio apologist that is deflecting to me.

The men and women of the NYPD that you are so critical of, followed the lawful departmental policies and directives they were ordered to. Until such time as they changed. My incorrect assessment of the policy origins aside, the casting of them as villains for doing so is one of di Blasio's problems with the PD. That you ignore because di Blasio did so "rightly" according to you.

The crux of the matter is that while you complain about and cite "insubordination" and how much like a military (post# 112) NYPD is, you are forgetting one very important and stark distinction. Which is ironic because earlier you seemed to be aware of the fact that the men and women of the NYPD are members of a union. But as long as you choose to continue to ignore those distinctions and the rights that come with them, your argument is unpersuasive. As well as unrealistic as all hell too. You bristled before at the idea you were being emotional and irrational, yet........................

Happy New Year.

Ok so let me try to clarify what I've been saying and try to answer all of your questions and point in order.

Firstly regarding my comments about my opinion and whether or not it's shared by other New Yorkers, that was in response to this point of yours (post 116)

Sorry guy, I don't think anybody but you "cares" about your tangential point. But like I said, di Blasio could always throw common sense and his own political survivability to the wind and try to go after these officers. What could possibly go wrong? LOL

My point here was simply that my opinion, which you seemed to be saying was unique to me is shared by many of my fellow New Yorkers. Nothing more. It's a minor point and whether or not it's mine along or the opinion of seven million others is really irrelevant and is really obscuring the main points.

I'm not really avoiding de Blasio's role in all of this. I think it's beside the point in a discussion about NYPD's subservience to the elected leadership of the city. While I'll stipulate that de Blasio could have handled things better he is still the elected leader of the city and his ham fisted dealings with the police do not justify the actions of the officers. Employees, be they private or public sector, in general do not have the right to publicly criticize their boss and expect there to be no conseqences for their actions. Doubly so in an organization, like the NYPD or the military, where discipline and respect for the chain-of-command is of paramount importance. And while I'd honestly like to see insubordinate cops fired, I know it probably won't happen because of the union contract. That's a problem - though not one specific to the police but to most public sector union contracts - in NY at least. A contract that doesn't allow for the effective supervision of staff, including firing those who can't do the job properly, is of itself a problem but one that sadly probably will never be addressed given the strength of public sector unions. That again though, really doesn't change the fact that guys with guns who can make life a living hell for the populace if they choose to do so should be fired when show disrespect for lawful authority.
 
Happy New Year.

Ok so let me try to clarify what I've been saying and try to answer all of your questions and point in order.

Firstly regarding my comments about my opinion and whether or not it's shared by other New Yorkers, that was in response to this point of yours (post 116)



My point here was simply that my opinion, which you seemed to be saying was unique to me is shared by many of my fellow New Yorkers. Nothing more. It's a minor point and whether or not it's mine along or the opinion of seven million others is really irrelevant and is really obscuring the main points.

I'm not really avoiding de Blasio's role in all of this. I think it's beside the point in a discussion about NYPD's subservience to the elected leadership of the city. While I'll stipulate that de Blasio could have handled things better he is still the elected leader of the city and his ham fisted dealings with the police do not justify the actions of the officers. Employees, be they private or public sector, in general do not have the right to publicly criticize their boss and expect there to be no conseqences for their actions. Doubly so in an organization, like the NYPD or the military, where discipline and respect for the chain-of-command is of paramount importance. And while I'd honestly like to see insubordinate cops fired, I know it probably won't happen because of the union contract. That's a problem - though not one specific to the police but to most public sector union contracts - in NY at least. A contract that doesn't allow for the effective supervision of staff, including firing those who can't do the job properly, is of itself a problem but one that sadly probably will never be addressed given the strength of public sector unions. That again though, really doesn't change the fact that guys with guns who can make life a living hell for the populace if they choose to do so should be fired when show disrespect for lawful authority.
Another issue at play here is that work stoppages and other tactics commonly associated with unions that are engaged in active protest/disputes are normally cheered on by segments of the political left. In this case we are seeing a lot of people (not necessarily you) who would normally approve of hatever tactics the union members are using to make their case. But as we both seem to agree that there is very little likelihood that pursuing "insubordination" against a large part of the very force di Blasio has already alienated, would be an advisable course of action for di Blasio to take. It certainly won't do much towards conciliation and reconciliation. Happy New Year to you too sir.
 
Another issue at play here is that work stoppages and other tactics commonly associated with unions that are engaged in active protest/disputes are normally cheered on by segments of the political left. In this case we are seeing a lot of people (not necessarily you) who would normally approve of hatever tactics the union members are using to make their case. But as we both seem to agree that there is very little likelihood that pursuing "insubordination" against a large part of the very force di Blasio has already alienated, would be an advisable course of action for di Blasio to take. It certainly won't do much towards conciliation and reconciliation. Happy New Year to you too sir.

Pretty interesting article here re that work stoppage -

The NYPD's 'Work Stoppage' Is Surreal | Rolling Stone

I would think that if the cops are going to back off their aggressive policing of minor offenses, it might actually help relations in the neighborhoods. Part of the issue has been that they are too aggressive in certain neighborhoods. Please read the article before jumping on me for that statement.
 
Pretty interesting article here re that work stoppage -

The NYPD's 'Work Stoppage' Is Surreal | Rolling Stone

I would think that if the cops are going to back off their aggressive policing of minor offenses, it might actually help relations in the neighborhoods. Part of the issue has been that they are too aggressive in certain neighborhoods. Please read the article before jumping on me for that statement.
I'm not going to "jump on" you, hell I might even agree with you. There is a separate thread about this reported work stoppage, that has had a lot in participation. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/213131-nypd-arrests-down-66-since-officers-death.html#post1064143548

The only thing I'll sort of jump at is Rolling Stone. I lost respect and interest in that magazine a long long time ago. Even before they put Jahar Tsarnaev on their cover and even before their recent disgrace with their bogus UVA rape story. There are too many reputable and principled journalist that have written about the NYPD situation for me to bother indulging the hacks at Rolling Stone's "reporting" on anything. Ever. But thanks for the link anyway. :peace
 
Some may not have heard of broken window policing.
Many cities including NYPD use this tactic
Justin Peters: Shattering the ‘broken windows’ theory of policing | National Post

Broken windows policing is back in New York City, and it may have killed Eric Garner. “Broken windows” is an order-maintenance strategy that encourages cops to enforce quality-of-life laws on the grounds that, essentially, nits breed lice. It presumes that a disorderly environment where small laws are broken with impunity leads to bigger problems. This is the mindset that led the police to approach Garner for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes: loose cigarettes today, civil unrest tomorrow.

Though NYPD commissioner William Bratton is a big proponent of broken windows policing, there’s no evidence that the policy is effective in reducing violent crime. At the same time, the effects of order-maintenance policing are felt disproportionately by members of minority groups. In August, responding to critics’ claims that these policies unfairly target people of colour, Bratton told The Associated Press that “it’s not an intentional focus on minorities. It’s a focus on behaviour.” Bratton added, “We are not a racist organization — not at all.”
Maybe Bratton is right. But even if broken windows isn’t explicitly racist, it’s inherently classist, and the two are close enough as to be functionally indistinguishable.

The broken windows theory was first articulated in a 1982 Atlantic article by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson, who argued that “disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence.” That idea is rooted in the work of a mid-century political scientist named Edward Banfield. (Wilson studied under Banfield at the University of Chicago.) Banfield specialized in refuting the main tenet of modern liberalism, the idea that the state should take an active role in improving the lives of its most vulnerable residents. Banfield contended that state intervention could only make things worse.

In his 1970 book The Unheavenly City and a revised edition titled The Unheavenly City Revisited, Banfield addressed the era’s so-called urban crisis: high crime rates, riots, white flight. Liberalism was to blame, Banfield argued — or, at the very least, liberal policies would never help fix the crisis. The Great Society initiatives of the Johnson era had just served to widen class divisions and to encourage members of the lower classes to blame others for their plight, thus fostering feelings of resentment and entitlement.

Like many people, Banfield believed the urban unrest of the late 1960s had been stoked by matters of civil rights. But Banfield believed the problem was that the lower classes had too many of them. Criminal behaviour was human nature — or, rather, in the nature of a specific subset of lower-class humans. “So long as there are large concentrations of boys and young men of the lower classes on the streets, rampages and forays are to be expected,” Banfield wrote. The clear solution was to remove these lower-class youths from the streets posthaste.
 
I'm not going to "jump on" you, hell I might even agree with you. There is a separate thread about this reported work stoppage, that has had a lot in participation. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/213131-nypd-arrests-down-66-since-officers-death.html#post1064143548

The only thing I'll sort of jump at is Rolling Stone. I lost respect and interest in that magazine a long long time ago. Even before they put Jahar Tsarnaev on their cover and even before their recent disgrace with their bogus UVA rape story. There are too many reputable and principled journalist that have written about the NYPD situation for me to bother indulging the hacks at Rolling Stone's "reporting" on anything. Ever. But thanks for the link anyway. :peace

thanks for the thread link! and for not jumping on me! (smile)
 
Something that everyone, including the cops there who won't do their job in "protest," need to understand about any NYC mayor: They are just politicians. This is why guliani ran for president. There's no reason to get so excited when guliani put on some NYPD/NYFD hat at a yankees game after 9/11 to show his "support," as if he joined them in heroically running into the towers.

There's also no reason to get butthurt when blasio can't spare the time of day to go to some funeral. Should he do so when every gas station clerk in the city is killed? Being a cop is actually much safer, yet only cops have the gall to demand the mayor shows up. How about all public employees, not just our "heroes"?
 
I detest de Blasio. He repulses me. But he had to go to both funerals, that I understand. Still, I detest him. If one of those 2 dead men was my husband, I would be hard pressed to allow him to be there. de Blasio sucks.
 
Back
Top Bottom