• 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
rocket88 said:
There's the problem right there. The police learned to use overwhelming force for even the smallest infractions, and used it in this case.
Click to expand...

Zero tolerance and overwhelming force are different. I assume you understand the difference.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the context established by de Blasio's anti-police campaign for office, his remarks were understood by many as a broad questioning of police legitimacy. In the environment of fragile social peace in NYC in recent weeks, that made a violent incident more likely. Your second paragraph is just a broad smear that does not merit a response.
Click to expand...
Your perception of de Blasio's actions "anti-police" and your belief that his actions "made a violent incident more likely" isn't salient to me. Such a perception seems rooted in misplaced anger and frustration.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Mayor de Blasio expressed sympathy for Black New Yorkers who are sick of racial profiling and its, sometimes fatal, consequences. He did this while also calling for peaceful protest and making it clear that he did not think all police officers were a problem. To argue that such measured behavior inspired someone to kill two people is absurd. It is a leap of logic so wide that it could only be made by those determined to arrive at that conclusion. So no, the Mayor is not responsible.

I also want to note that my hypothesis is that most of the people who are trying to blame de Blasio and others for this murder are people who were already opposed to the anti-police-brutality demonstrations taking place nationwide. I suspect that they are using these deaths to promote a position they already held and shame/scare people into stopping the protests and other forms of criticism. If I am correct, then their behavior is even more absurd and shameful than it is on the surface.
Click to expand...

We can end the thread right here! Bingo!
 
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 prez, as you call him has hundreds of people protecting him. A NYPD officer has only himself and a partner.
 
274ina said:
The police, and 100 years of terror are responsible for the killing of 2 pigs.
Click to expand...

What an embarrassingly classless post. :3oops:
 
CanadaJohn said:
De Blasio, in my view, came out and spoke as a person who supported the Garner family after the GJ verdict, not as the Mayor of a major American city with a high population of minorities and a history of tension between police and those minorities.

When De Blasio spoke, why was he surrounded only by black people, none of them police officers? Why did he not say anything about the good work that police do for the city? Why didn't he speak about respect for the GJ process and the GJ decision?

He spoke only of the pain felt by the father and family of Eric Garner, whom he called a "good man". Did he know anything about Eric Garner and his criminal record?

Did De Blasio take responsibility for his role in the crackdown on illegal cigarette sales in NYC? Did he say that he and his city council were wrong to push police to exert what seems like zero tolerance in that regard?

De Blasio could have done a lot for his city to help it get past this event but he chose to exploit it on an irrational and emotional level and he wasn't man enough to take some of the blame.

He deserves all the backlash he's getting and going to get for his role in this sad situation.
Click to expand...

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Lots of folks saw only a chance to exploit tragedy and stoke resentment for personal political gain.
 
de Blasio is one of many who shares some responsibility. But he is far from alone.

I loved what the cops did to him in the hospital that night.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Your perception of de Blasio's actions "anti-police" and your belief that his actions "made a violent incident more likely" isn't salient to me. Such a perception seems rooted in misplaced anger and frustration.
Click to expand...

De Blasio's campaign for mayor was built around an anti-police message. By delegitimizing the police he made an incident like this more likely.
 
The Mayor needs to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve some sort of grudging reconciliation. No, I don't know what they are. I also don't know what reasons there would be for his resignation, but De Blasio needs to do something.
 
The guy who shot the cops is the one who is reponsible.

While the mayor and others may've acted unwisely in ways that helped enflame the population, the only person responsible for the actual murder is the person actulaly perpetrating the murder
 
If anyone is interested and gets a chance, visit CNN and have a look at the Rudy Guilliani interview from this morning. The man was brilliant in basically eviscerating De Blasio, Sharpton, and Holder.

I particularly liked his comment about De Blasio and his use of his son for political purposes and questioning why De Blasio warned his son about interaction with the police and didn't encourage his son to respect and cooperate with police if he had contact with them. And rather than be afraid of police he should have advised his son to be careful around black youth because the chances of being the victim of violence at the hands of other black youth is astronomical while being the victim of violence at the hands of police is miniscule.

Guilliani is the anti-PC politician and that's what makes him great - he lays it out there honestly, straight forward, even if it's uncomfortable. More politicians should be like him.
 
Zyphlin said:
The guy who shot the cops is the one who is reponsible.

While the mayor and others may've acted unwisely in ways that helped enflame the population, the only person responsible for the actual murder is the person actulaly perpetrating the murder
Click to expand...

That's fair, but it's not actually legally correct. Courts have frequently found that those who incite or encourage violence can be found culpable when the violence they encouraged occurs. It's why Michael Brown's stepfather was being investigated for criminal behaviour when he encouraged the crowd to burn Ferguson down.

People with a microphone have to temper their hate speech.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the context established by de Blasio's anti-police campaign for office, his remarks were understood by many as a broad questioning of police legitimacy. In the environment of fragile social peace in NYC in recent weeks, that made a violent incident more likely. Your second paragraph is just a broad smear that does not merit a response.
Click to expand...
****, that remark is so ****ing out of touch, it's not even funny.

Thousands March Across Nation to Protest Police Killings of Black Men - NBC News
 
iacardsfan said:
The only person responsible for the tragic deaths of those officers was the man that killed them, Ismaaiyl Brinsley. It is not the fault of the protesters, it is not the fault of the media, it is not the fault of the mayor. Ismaaiyl Brinsley made a decision to attack those police officers. It is sad, but nobody has blood on there hands except for him. There are policemen in this world who abuse their power, hence the protests. But even the most devout of protesters would not advocate for the killing of police officers who have done nothing but serve their city. Even with all the negative attention toward our officers, it was never about getting back at police officers. It was about bringing those who abuse their power to justice. Mayor de Blasio does not own fault in this either. The only peorson who deserves the blame is that bas**** in a body bag who decided to target innocent public servants.
Click to expand...

I believe some blame might be directed to the cop that applied
the chokehold on Garner. Perhaps the NYPD for not indicting
him, but they did fire him, I think. DeBlasio simply stated what
millions of others feel, and by not having NYPD stand with him
when he said it was suggesting they might alter future actions.
 
Jack Hays said:
De Blasio's campaign for mayor was built around an anti-police message. By delegitimizing the police he made an incident like this more likely.
Click to expand...
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?
 
DaveFagan said:
I believe some blame might be directed to the cop that applied
the chokehold on Garner. Perhaps the NYPD for not indicting
him, but they did fire him, I think. DeBlasio simply stated what
millions of others feel, and by not having NYPD stand with him
when he said it was suggesting they might alter future actions.
Click to expand...

A young black man was shot 14 times and killed by a cop in Milwaukee, they fired him too, no decision yet if they're going to charge him.

National Guard on alert if needed for Dontre Hamilton protests in Milwaukee
 
tres borrachos said:
de Blasio is one of many who shares some responsibility. But he is far from alone.

I loved what the cops did to him in the hospital that night.
Click to expand...

de Blasio pretty much turn his backs on the cops, I'd say turn about is fail play.

Hear that there's a recall petition against de Blasio. Already collected 50,000 signatures. Hell, they just voted this left wing nut into office. His term already over? Already under threat? Would seem to be the case.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If anyone is interested and gets a chance, visit CNN and have a look at the Rudy Guilliani interview from this morning. The man was brilliant in basically eviscerating De Blasio, Sharpton, and Holder.

I particularly liked his comment about De Blasio and his use of his son for political purposes and questioning why De Blasio warned his son about interaction with the police and didn't encourage his son to respect and cooperate with police if he had contact with them. And rather than be afraid of police he should have advised his son to be careful around black youth because the chances of being the victim of violence at the hands of other black youth is astronomical while being the victim of violence at the hands of police is miniscule.

Guilliani is the anti-PC politician and that's what makes him great - he lays it out there honestly, straight forward, even if it's uncomfortable. More politicians should be like him.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Handled the 9/11 aftermath pretty well also. Fair to say that he's a leader. A real leader. Not what often passes for leadership in may other's eyes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Courts have frequently found that those who incite or encourage violence can be found culpable when the violence they encouraged occurs.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Yes, I understand that, and the guy is quite clearly mental. But if De Blasio had been more supportive of the cops, you honestly think this guy would have been like "yeah, I guess I won't shoot any cops today"?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have hurt.
 
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...

Not it doesn't. It means they think he acts like Hitler and a dictator.

If, however, that same group blocked off city streets shouting "what do you want? Dead presidents, when do you want them? Now. and the secret service and those in power did nothing to stop it, then those in power would have blood on their hands.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, but it's not actually legally correct. Courts have frequently found that those who incite or encourage violence can be found culpable when the violence they encouraged occurs. It's why Michael Brown's stepfather was being investigated for criminal behaviour when he encouraged the crowd to burn Ferguson down.
Click to expand...

No, it is the exact opposite: The vast majority of such people, regardless of their socio political orientations, are not found culpable for resulting violence. The US judicial thought gives alot of deference to freedom of speech. As such, one needs to try pretty hard to be convicted of inciting violence. Most right wing and left wing demagouges avoid it by claiming:

- "Well, I was speaking in the hypothetical sense" or-
- "Well, what I really said is that violence is justified if "X" happens..." .
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Mayor de Blasio expressed sympathy for Black New Yorkers who are sick of racial profiling and its, sometimes fatal, consequences. He did this while also calling for peaceful protest and making it clear that he did not think all police officers were a problem. To argue that such measured behavior inspired someone to kill two people is absurd. It is a leap of logic so wide that it could only be made by those determined to arrive at that conclusion. So no, the Mayor is not responsible.

I also want to note that my hypothesis is that most of the people who are trying to blame de Blasio and others for this murder are people who were already opposed to the anti-police-brutality demonstrations taking place nationwide. I suspect that they are using these deaths to promote a position they already held and shame/scare people into stopping the protests and other forms of criticism. If I am correct, then their behavior is even more absurd and shameful than it is on the surface.
Click to expand...
thank you a very logical answer
 
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
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Mayor de Blasio expressed sympathy for Black New Yorkers who are sick of racial profiling and its, sometimes fatal, consequences. He did this while also calling for peaceful protest and making it clear that he did not think all police officers were a problem. To argue that such measured behavior inspired someone to kill two people is absurd. It is a leap of logic so wide that it could only be made by those determined to arrive at that conclusion. So no, the Mayor is not responsible.

I also want to note that my hypothesis is that most of the people who are trying to blame de Blasio and others for this murder are people who were already opposed to the anti-police-brutality demonstrations taking place nationwide. I suspect that they are using these deaths to promote a position they already held and shame/scare people into stopping the protests and other forms of criticism. If I am correct, then their behavior is even more absurd and shameful than it is on the surface.
Click to expand...

Absolute bull****. The police work for the mayor. With a single phone call he could change racial profiling policy any time he wishes. He was waxing the weenies of voters, "I'm on your side, vote for me!" and the asshat got caught jumping fences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom