• 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
There was a catastrophe in my community about 15 years ago, and people gathered the same evening for an impromptu memorial service in an arena. Bush the Elder had been in Europe, but he flew back immediately and was seated on the stage...but he never spoke a word; he was simply there. Ever since, I have admired him greatly. It was not his place to speak (even though he was a former President)...and if he had, then the service would have become about him. But he was there, and this meant the world to me and others then and now.
 
If it's arrogant, why are YOU presuming yourself?
That's a fair point. I am assuming that the officer would not have wanted it and he may well have. I suppose I'm going by the family permitting de Blasio to speak. If the family had felt as strongly about de Blasio as the officers did, I believe they would have asked him not to attend or made a comment about it when they spoke to the press. Because they didn't do so, I believe that they were, at the very least, fine with de Blasio speaking if only for the fact that they were too overcome with grief to care. Now, if it turns out that the family support the officers' actions, then I'll change my position. Thus far, though, it seems more likely the officers' protest was not family approved and thus, in my opinion, inappropriate.

It would seem you only support protest, no matter the venue, when the cause meets your agenda.
I don't support the Ferguson, Garner, et al. protesters because "they meet my agenda". That's an extremely reductionist and, frankly, offensive way to refer to my support. My support of that movement is not so trivial as a political "agenda" just as the police officers' anger with de Blasio is not merely an "agenda". Nobody who's protesting or supporting protests on either "side" is doing so for such shallow reasons. I hope you get that.
 
That's a fair point. I am assuming that the officer would not have wanted it and he may well have. I suppose I'm going by the family permitting de Blasio to speak. If the family had felt as strongly about de Blasio as the officers did, I believe they would have asked him not to attend or made a comment about it when they spoke to the press. Because they didn't do so, I believe that they were, at the very least, fine with de Blasio speaking if only for the fact that they were too overcome with grief to care. Now, if it turns out that the family support the officers' actions, then I'll change my position. Thus far, though, it seems more likely the officers' protest was not family approved and thus, in my opinion, inappropriate.


I don't support the Ferguson, Garner, et al. protesters because "they meet my agenda". That's an extremely reductionist and, frankly, offensive way to refer to my support. My support of that movement is not so trivial as a political "agenda" just as the police officers' anger with de Blasio is not merely an "agenda". Nobody who's protesting or supporting protests on either "side" is doing so for such shallow reasons. I hope you get that.

Offensive way to refer to your support? You've made it very clear you're doubling your efforts to expose the "Blue Line" that exists. It is offensive to suggest Cops are out to kill people because of the color of their skin and then hide the action behind a complicit justice system. To suggest that is true and to push it is the embodiment of agenda.
 
Why would back-turning be "unwise"? What does "wisdom" have to do with this silent protest?
 
Offensive way to refer to your support? You've made it very clear you're doubling your efforts to expose the "Blue Line" that exists. It is offensive to suggest Cops are out to kill people because of the color of their skin and then hide the action behind a complicit justice system. To suggest that is true and to push it is the embodiment of agenda.
I don't think cops are "out" to kill people because of their race. However, there is a lot of institutional racism within the police department that is hidden behind a complicit justice system. If you don't agree, then so be it. I consider you part of the problem. It's also unfortunate that you truly believe that the protests are as trivial as a mere "agenda" and not about a deeply felt frustration with a demonstrably flawed system. That you and others have such an opinion makes my support of the protests that more urgent and strong.
 
There was a catastrophe in my community about 15 years ago, and people gathered the same evening for an impromptu memorial service in an arena. Bush the Elder had been in Europe, but he flew back immediately and was seated on the stage...but he never spoke a word; he was simply there. Ever since, I have admired him greatly. It was not his place to speak (even though he was a former President)...and if he had, then the service would have become about him. But he was there, and this meant the world to me and others then and now.

But, and that is a big but, the mayor of New York is the person who appoints the police commissioner and thus is responsible for the police department in his city. For that reason him being there and speaking is much more logical than a president being present at a disaster anywhere in the US where he was just there to pay his respect/support the citizens of that area. The mayor was talking as the highest responsible administrator for the police department, not there just as a show of respect/support the citizens.
 
Why would back-turning be "unwise"? What does "wisdom" have to do with this silent protest?
Why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church gets more criticism when it protests at funerals than it does when it protests elsewhere? What is it about funerals, specifically, that people tend to be more careful about?
 
I don't think cops are "out" to kill people because of their race. However, there is a lot of institutional racism within the police department that is hidden behind a complicit justice system. If you don't agree, then so be it. I consider you part of the problem. It's also unfortunate that you truly believe that the protests are as trivial as a mere "agenda" and not about a deeply felt frustration with a demonstrably flawed system. That you and others have such an opinion makes my support of the protests that more urgent and strong.

Of course an agenda driven agitant would see me as part of the problem. That is the fallacy of the agenda you tried to deny. Insuring the deeply felt frustration is manipulated away from a real effort to address the problem has been the MO for decades.
 
No, that's not a fact. As I stated, the amount of Black people stopped by police under stop-and-frisk was disproportionately high. The percentage of stops far exceeded the percentage of crime committed by Black people.

And the percentage of people stopped by RIDE drinking and driving spot checks far exceeds the number of people who commit the crime of driving while drunk. Should police stop doing that and let drunk drives ride roughshod over the rest of the driving public?

Police go where crime is usually found and where communities want/need protection from crime - plain and simple.
 
And the percentage of people stopped by RIDE drinking and driving spot checks far exceeds the number of people who commit the crime of driving while drunk. Should police stop doing that and let drunk drives ride roughshod over the rest of the driving public?

Police go where crime is usually found and where communities want/need protection from crime - plain and simple.
Can you comment on the fact that your original comment that police proportionately stopped people of color under stop-and-frisk was incorrect before moving onto the reasons behind such disproportionate stops?
 
Why do you think the Westboro Baptist Church gets more criticism when it protests at funerals than it does when it protests elsewhere? What is it about funerals, specifically, that people tend to be more careful about?

Who was protesting the funeral of Officer Ramos? Nobody.

Officers were protesting the presence of the Mayor, a divisive figure in NYC at the moment and his attendance was counter to the police union, collectively, asking that he not attend the funeral of any officer who dies on duty which they stated prior to these two officers being murdered.

I will say, just as an aside, those on the left who are constantly touting the value of unions and union solidarity throw all of that out the window pretty quickly when they don't support the union or the action taken. If it had been sanitation workers showing the same disrespect to the Mayor, the silence from the left would be deafening.
 
Can you comment on the fact that your original comment that police proportionately stopped people of color under stop-and-frisk was incorrect before moving onto the reasons behind such disproportionate stops?

My comment wasn't incorrect. It was factually bang on. In NYC today, and particularly so in the early 1990s when Stop, Question, and Frisk was first stepped up, crime is disproportionately committed by and victimizes black people in their communities. As a result, what you call disproportional black/police interaction in these communities is actually directly proportional to the amount of crime committed. And those black communities - with the exception of those committing crimes - are in the majority supportive of the police efforts to reduce and eliminate crime in their areas.

Ignore the facts all you want - your need to coddle black criminals as poor souls being victimized by racist police is clearly transparent.
 
Still, the hope is that for just an hour during a funeral, mourners can put away their differences and "play nicely."

It's also true, though, that this funeral was a unique opportunity for the rank-and-file to silently protest. They have no ordinary contact with their boss, and so the unique moment was seized.
 
Who was protesting the funeral of Officer Ramos? Nobody.
I said "protesting AT a funeral" not "protesting a funeral." Now, would you like to try again by commenting on my actual argument.

Officers were protesting the presence of the Mayor, a divisive figure in NYC at the moment and his attendance was counter to the police union, collectively, asking that he not attend the funeral of any officer who dies on duty which they stated prior to these two officers being murdered.
I know what they were protesting. When they did it at the hospital, it was fine. At the funeral, not so much.

I will say, just as an aside, those on the left who are constantly touting the value of unions and union solidarity throw all of that out the window pretty quickly when they don't support the union or the action taken. If it had been sanitation workers showing the same disrespect to the Mayor, the silence from the left would be deafening.
This should be directed at other people because I haven't thrown my support of unionism out of the window. That's why I cringe when people say that the officers who killed Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Akai Gurley, Tamir Rice, et al. should be fired without due process. I think the officers should be fired, but with the due process that unionism secures. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
As a result, what you call disproportional black/police interaction in these communities is actually directly proportional to the amount of crime committed.
If you're going to insist on saying this, can you show me the statistics that demonstrate this. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
I think he should have gone. He is their leader and boss, and he was being blamed, erroneously, for their deaths. Though he should have just been there for support and kept quiet, I suppose.
 
I said "protesting AT a funeral" not "protesting a funeral." Now, would you like to try again by commenting on my actual argument.


I know what they were protesting. When they did it at the hospital, it was fine. At the funeral, not so much.


This should be directed at other people because I haven't thrown my support of unionism out of the window. That's why I cringe when people say that the officers who killed Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Akai Gurley, Tamir Rice, et al. should be fired without due process. I think the officers should be fired, but with the due process that unionism secures. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You compared the Westboro Baptist Church protestors to the NYC police officers. The WBC protests the funerals. If you didn't mean to suggest the police were protesting the funeral you shouldn't have tried to compare them to the hateful WBC.

Your final comment doesn't address the point I made. I'm not surprised, since I know my point to be true and you wouldn't have an answer for it.
 
I wonder: if Deblazio had apologized for his naive coments, would the police officers have turned back around? This was De Blazio's opportunity to start to bridge the gap that has formed between him and those he is tasked with leading. If you are a leader and you choose to speak in that situation, you've got to do better than typical political speak. I saw this as a lost opportunity for him to really step up and be a leader instead of just another politician. Unfortunately, he is a politician and not a leader. It's nothing we didn't know already.
 
I don't see their actions as being any worse than any of the Ferguson protests. They had a statement they wanted to make, they made it and it was peaceful. All things were supposed to respect when those who are protesting police are doing their thing.

There's a huge difference. In uniform the officers are acting in their official capacity as police and as such the mayor is their commander. Their free speech are limited in the same way as military officers who cannot publicly criticize their commanders - including the President. The actions of those officers qualifies as insubordination.
 
di Blasio as mayor is pretty much required to go. The problem lies in the fact that di Blasio destroyed the relationship between himself and NYPD when he was running for mayor. And he has continued to destroy it since then, particularly with the comments he put out in the media about the advise he was giving to his own son. The damage is irreparable and di Blasio clearly has no idea how to repair the damage. An obvious apology will never occur to him to offer. You can't run NYC without the support of the NYPD. IMO di Blasio might as well not even bother running for re-election, in speaking to family and friends in NYC, I am learning his now considered toast. Just my two cents worth.
 
You compared the Westboro Baptist Church protestors to the NYC police officers. The WBC protests the funerals. If you didn't mean to suggest the police were protesting the funeral you shouldn't have tried to compare them to the hateful WBC.

Your final comment doesn't address the point I made. I'm not surprised, since I know my point to be true and you wouldn't have an answer for it.
I wrote in my initial comment that I was comparing them on the basis that they both protested AT funerals. I hope that's clear now.

My final comment directly addressed what you said. I wonder what it is you think I wrote if you disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom