The NYPD Are Making Themselves Look Really Small With Their Anti-DeBlasio Antics

[Andylusion]

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

Read more:It s Alright Ma I m Only Bleeding The Official Bob Dylan Site

Everyone has to obey authority at some point, or they lose their lives.

You show me someone who never obeys any authority, and I'll show you a person who is a complete and total train wreck.

A person who disrespects the authority of the teacher, will end up failing the class.
A person who disrespects the authority of their spouse in their marriage, will end up single.
A person who disrespects the authority of the law, will end up on prison.
A person who disrespects the authority of their employer, will end up unemployed.

The business owner who disrespects the authority of the customer, will end up bankrupt and out of business.

You can say you don't have to respect the authority of anything, but if you step off a cliff, gravity will exert it's authority over your body, whether you respect it or not.

 

[Andylusion]

It's not an insult at all. Not to me. Respect for authority is a sign of maturity, and adulthood

Respect for legitimate authority is a sign of adulthood and maturity. Respect for all authority figures is a sign of cowardice and low self-esteem.

It's not an insult at all. Not to me. Respect for authority is a sign of maturity, and adulthood

Respect for legitimate authority is a sign of adulthood and maturity. Respect for all authority figures is a sign of cowardice and low self-esteem.

Immaturity, is one who is apparently incapable of understanding that a police officer is in fact, a legitimate authority.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The enforcers of Jim Crow ...legitimate...

 

[MaxGrit]

How are they helping the situation by vehemently, publicly and visibly defying their boss, the mayor of New York City?

They must think that the mayor should pander to their every whim, wish and demand. He doesn't work for the police department, he works the city at large.

Not to mention not setting a good example. They are only making things worse.

Not wanting their boss to get them killed by indulging in irresponsible political theater at the expense of their lives is "small"? If their "whim" is to not have a mayor that puts them in even more danger and makes their job even harder, then that is a whim worth catering to, you idiot. "Making things worse" indeed.

Dumb liberals are like little kids that shit in their own pants and won't have to be responsible for the mess.

 

[bripat9643]

Have they defied any direct orders?

No.

They have every right to protest and a silent turning of the back is certainly more acceptable than shutting down bridges and highways.

That has nothing to do with my OP.

1.They are making themselves look really small, I guess that's who they are right now
2. How are they helping?

I think they are protesting in a perfectly acceptable manner.

Acceptable manner? Then you would support the protests of Westboro Baptist Church too.

The only one the police were disrespectful of was Officer Ramos. They turned his funeral into a political tantrum, just like Westboro.

The Mayor asked for a deescalation of protests and politicizing after the two officers were slain. But the childish police decided to politicize during Ram's eulogy...

You really think the silent gesture of turning a back compares to shouting insults at a funeral?

It politicizes a sacred ceremony where everyone should put that aside and pay their respects to the fallen officer. The NYPD didn't disrespect the Mayor, they were disrespectful of Officer Ramos and his grieving family.

Oh puhleeze. DiBlasio was politicizing the event by showing up. He knew they didn't want to see his sorry ass there. If union thugs turned their backs when he showed up at the funeral of a union brother, you would be cheering them.

We all know you're a hypocrite.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The looney left are making themselves look even smaller (never thought that was possible) with dumb threads like these.

Hypocrites, ALL OF YOU.

When the union strikes it's ok. When the union protests it's ok. When OWS blocked access to private businesses it was ok. When OWS rapped, shit & urinated in public it was excused or ignored. When animals tried to destroy Ferguson it was ignored. When morons protest in malls & block major city streets it's ok.

When a cop makes a benign gesture that lasts 10 seconds & interferes with no one it's a BIG GOD DAMN DEAL.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The left have 0 common sense & absolutely no sense of perspective.

 

[Bfgrn]

That has nothing to do with my OP.

1.They are making themselves look really small, I guess that's who they are right now
2. How are they helping?

I think they are protesting in a perfectly acceptable manner.

Acceptable manner? Then you would support the protests of Westboro Baptist Church too.

The only one the police were disrespectful of was Officer Ramos. They turned his funeral into a political tantrum, just like Westboro.

The Mayor asked for a deescalation of protests and politicizing after the two officers were slain. But the childish police decided to politicize during Ram's eulogy...

You really think the silent gesture of turning a back compares to shouting insults at a funeral?

It politicizes a sacred ceremony where everyone should put that aside and pay their respects to the fallen officer. The NYPD didn't disrespect the Mayor, they were disrespectful of Officer Ramos and his grieving family.

Oh puhleeze. DiBlasio was politicizing the event by showing up. He knew they didn't want to see his sorry ass there. If union thugs turned their backs when he showed up at the funeral of a union brother, you would be cheering them.

We all know you're a hypocrite.

The Mayor would have been disrespectful by not showing up. Mayor de Blasio is the chief of the executive branch of the City of New York that administers all city services, public property, police and fire protection, most public agencies, and enforces all city and state laws within the city.

This is not the first time police thugs have tried to bully a NYC Mayor.

Educate yourself...

The NYC police union has a long history of bullying City Hall 8211 Quartz

 

[Bfgrn]

The looney left are making themselves look even smaller (never thought that was possible) with dumb threads like these.

Hypocrites, ALL OF YOU.

When the union strikes it's ok. When the union protests it's ok. When OWS blocked access to private businesses it was ok. When OWS rapped, shit & urinated in public it was excused or ignored. When animals tried to destroy Ferguson it was ignored. When morons protest in malls & block major city streets it's ok.

When a cop makes a benign gesture that lasts 10 seconds & interferes with no one it's a BIG GOD DAMN DEAL.

Those officers have every right to turn their backs and politicize a funeral, just like their brethren at the Westboro church.

 

[georgephillip]

Immaturity, is one who is apparently incapable of understanding that a police officer is in fact, a legitimate authority.

Not when she's acting outside the law.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Immaturity, is one who is apparently incapable of understanding that a police officer is in fact, a legitimate authority.

Not when she's acting outside the law.

Did those two who were murdered point blank act outside the law not knowing that they were being stalked?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The NYPD never looked LARGER than when they openly turned their back to Communism.

 

[FA_Q2]

First, there is no evidence that Pantaleo was criminally negligent. The paper is entirely wrong on that. It's not up to a police officer to make sure that nothing they do could possibly kill someone... or they would do nothing. Fighting with someone to put them in cuffs alone.... could always result in their death, depending on how they struggle.

If that was the standard Police are required to reach... is to make sure that absolutely nothing they ever do could accidentally cause someone's death... then the moment any person refuses to be put in cuffs, the police would just let them go.

Further, Pantaleo actions were not a deviation from standard practice. His headlock and restraint was a normal and routinely used, and trained tactic.

What Napolitano thinks doesn't mean diddly jack squat. It's very popular to be against the police, to gain favor from the public. I would trust that opinion less than even the opinion of the guy who shot the video.

The one clear fact that is undisputed, is that the Grand Jury, after looking at all the evidence, including evidence you yourself, and everyone else has not seen, made it clear there was no case against Pantaleo.

You claim, that the prosecutor criminally withheld evidence.

I'd love to see your proof of that.

The bold is incorrect though - as was pointed out by one of George's sources.

Does that not make him responsible in some way for the outcome of his actions? He used a tactic that was specifically denied by department policy. That tactic lead to someones death. Now I don't think that he is a murderer but certainly was negligent in using a tactic that the department directed him not to.

How does that not make him criminally negligent?

 

[FA_Q2]

And all those anti cop protesters with their phony police brutality claims, not looking so hot either, think? How many unarmed black males have died as the result of being shot down by armed black assailants? We can look that up on the internet and get the exact numbers, but do we really need too? Things won't look so rosy if we got all the facts, would it?

So black thugs give thugs with badges cover...

I hesitate to ask; what does that mean? Black cops are bad? what?

She's saying, just because Blacks thugs kill blacks, does that make it okay for cops to do the same?

Basically, why even mention Black thugs killing blacks, when that truly has nothing at all to do with alleged cases of police brutality? apples and oranges...

though both topics, including the one you tried to change this thread in to, are worthy of discussion, in my opinion

Here is an excellent thought provoking article Care...

The NYPD s Work Stoppage Is Surreal Rolling Stone

It is very rare that you bring something that I really agree with to the table BFG but this is a VERY good point.

If only the entire nations would stop being the 'tax man' and actually only arrest/cite people that needed to be arrested.

The real kicker is that any can actually say something so damn moronic as 'we are only going to arrest people that need to be arrested!' That should be a damn given - not a protest movement.

 

[georgephillip]

Did those two who were murdered point blank act outside the law not knowing that they were being stalked?

No and their killer would have been indicted by a grand jury. What's your point?

 

[MarcATL]

David Duke hasn't changed from 20 years ago. Neither has Al Sharpton. Kind of my point. They are both anti-Semitic race hustlers. As for your request for seeing a link of Sharpton refusing to acknowledge the hoax. Here it is.

From now on, you may want to look stuff up before you accuse people of being full of it. Please, set aside your emotionalism and investigate instead. It makes for a far more interesting conversation.

He didn't say that he didn't think it was a hoax.

He's taking the GWB/Cheney route and going with the "based on what I knew then..."

So if you buy that from Bush n Co, surely you can believe when Reverend Al Sharpton says so as well.

There were a number of interesting tid-bits in that video clip as well, particularly the nugget about the Central Park 5, and the criticism he got about that only to find years later that he was ABSOLUTELY right on that one. Think his critics were phased by that one bit? I highly doubt it. Then there's the nugget about the Duke Lacrosse situation, his critics saying he shouldn't have gotten involved in that situation. He never got involved in that situation, showing that his critics are just on auto-pilot with their emotions and assumptions. I mean, the man is just hated by a certain segment of the white population. Period, doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do.

With that said, I can understand why some would claim he's unapologetic. You see, his critics want to see him prostrate, on his his knees, and the Reverend will never give them that satisfaction, EVER. And he shouldn't. Historically it's been a position that whites prefer to have blacks in, submissive. That's why today they have a major problem with black protests, perceiving it as some unseemly animalistic rage, when white protest is seen as normal and just. I believe you know this too.

Anyway, do you have a link to where Brawley herself said it was a hoax? I'd be interested to see that as well.

Thanks.

First off, let me apologize. I checked to find where Brawley apologized and all I could find was where she has started to pay for damages caused by her accusations. This is probably why I got confused. Anyway, error noted.
Now, I can't help but notice you are changing the topic a bit. Sharpton does the same thing of course. Asked about Tawana Brawley, Sharpton brings up every other topic he wants to. I noticed he didn't bring up his role in the Crown Heights murder as he helped stoke violence against the Jewish community.
I don't know what Sharpton exactly said about the Central Park 5 but a quick google search certainly showed that Sharpton was being misleading when he claims he had nothing to do with the Duke Le Crosse case. He certainly spoke about it. He was hardly hiding under a rock when the Le Cross accusations were being hurled.
Also, whites don't have a problem with black protests. You have never heard a white person say that blacks have no right to protest. What you have heard are people (white and black) showing sympathy for the victims of the protests. The store owners who's livelihoods have been looted and burned to the ground. I understand, in terms of rhetoric, it is advantageous to conflate looting with protests but it's hardly fair.
You find a parallel between Al Sharpton's Tawana Brawley argument with George W. Bush's argument that he was just going on the information that he had. So I have to ask. Did you defend Bush on the same grounds that you are now defending Sharpton? I think I know the answer to that.
Lastly, Sharpton is good at playing three card monty with the truth. As we saw with the clip I linked, Sharpton tends to mislead, lie, obfuscate and dance around any question he doesn't want to answer. He was asked what he thought about his role in the Tawana Brawley case with 20/20 hindsight. He never answered that question of course.
In actuality, Al Sharpton is just a race hustler with a horrible track record of accomplishment. Luckily, despite the deep pools of racial unrest, most people seem to know this.

What most people know, my friend, is that Reverend Al Sharpton is the go-to guy when injustice, especially where race is concerned, occurs. That's why he's more popular now than he's ever been in his life...and his popularity is growing.

He's only hated by a very small, very rabid, very political and very partisan minority.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The Right has Palin, the Left has Sharpton, the rest of us just shake our heads.

.

 

[ScienceRocks]

De Blasio said to the media that the police are out to KILL his son and kill black men for the hell of it. 99% of police only shoot when they must or they're the ones that end up dead...How dare this asshole spit on our police like this.

What really pissed me off is how these jerks defended the burning of furgason. There's no defense for it.

 

[bripat9643]

David Duke hasn't changed from 20 years ago. Neither has Al Sharpton. Kind of my point. They are both anti-Semitic race hustlers. As for your request for seeing a link of Sharpton refusing to acknowledge the hoax. Here it is.

From now on, you may want to look stuff up before you accuse people of being full of it. Please, set aside your emotionalism and investigate instead. It makes for a far more interesting conversation.

He didn't say that he didn't think it was a hoax.

He's taking the GWB/Cheney route and going with the "based on what I knew then..."

So if you buy that from Bush n Co, surely you can believe when Reverend Al Sharpton says so as well.

There were a number of interesting tid-bits in that video clip as well, particularly the nugget about the Central Park 5, and the criticism he got about that only to find years later that he was ABSOLUTELY right on that one. Think his critics were phased by that one bit? I highly doubt it. Then there's the nugget about the Duke Lacrosse situation, his critics saying he shouldn't have gotten involved in that situation. He never got involved in that situation, showing that his critics are just on auto-pilot with their emotions and assumptions. I mean, the man is just hated by a certain segment of the white population. Period, doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do.

With that said, I can understand why some would claim he's unapologetic. You see, his critics want to see him prostrate, on his his knees, and the Reverend will never give them that satisfaction, EVER. And he shouldn't. Historically it's been a position that whites prefer to have blacks in, submissive. That's why today they have a major problem with black protests, perceiving it as some unseemly animalistic rage, when white protest is seen as normal and just. I believe you know this too.

Anyway, do you have a link to where Brawley herself said it was a hoax? I'd be interested to see that as well.

Thanks.

First off, let me apologize. I checked to find where Brawley apologized and all I could find was where she has started to pay for damages caused by her accusations. This is probably why I got confused. Anyway, error noted.
Now, I can't help but notice you are changing the topic a bit. Sharpton does the same thing of course. Asked about Tawana Brawley, Sharpton brings up every other topic he wants to. I noticed he didn't bring up his role in the Crown Heights murder as he helped stoke violence against the Jewish community.
I don't know what Sharpton exactly said about the Central Park 5 but a quick google search certainly showed that Sharpton was being misleading when he claims he had nothing to do with the Duke Le Crosse case. He certainly spoke about it. He was hardly hiding under a rock when the Le Cross accusations were being hurled.
Also, whites don't have a problem with black protests. You have never heard a white person say that blacks have no right to protest. What you have heard are people (white and black) showing sympathy for the victims of the protests. The store owners who's livelihoods have been looted and burned to the ground. I understand, in terms of rhetoric, it is advantageous to conflate looting with protests but it's hardly fair.
You find a parallel between Al Sharpton's Tawana Brawley argument with George W. Bush's argument that he was just going on the information that he had. So I have to ask. Did you defend Bush on the same grounds that you are now defending Sharpton? I think I know the answer to that.
Lastly, Sharpton is good at playing three card monty with the truth. As we saw with the clip I linked, Sharpton tends to mislead, lie, obfuscate and dance around any question he doesn't want to answer. He was asked what he thought about his role in the Tawana Brawley case with 20/20 hindsight. He never answered that question of course.
In actuality, Al Sharpton is just a race hustler with a horrible track record of accomplishment. Luckily, despite the deep pools of racial unrest, most people seem to know this.

What most people know, my friend, is that Reverend Al Sharpton is the go-to guy when injustice, especially where race is concerned, occurs. That's why he's more popular now than he's ever been in his life...and his popularity is growing.

He's only hated by a very small, very rabid, very political and very partisan minority.

Wrong. He's the go-to guy when the libs want to stir up a race riot. Justice has nothing to do with Sharpton's modus operandi.

 

[bripat9643]

.

The Right has Palin, the Left has Sharpton, the rest of us just shake our heads.

.

When did Palin ever get anyone killed by stirring up a race riot? When did she shake down a corporation by threatening to accuse it of something unseemly?

Puting Palin in the same class as Sharpton is the ultimate insult.