Police Union President Blames Protesters and Mayor for Officers' Murder

Just when the police were about to get some sympathy as a result of the killing of two Brooklyn police officers, the President of the Police Union, Patrick Lynch, takes to the microphones and outlandishly claims there's blood on the hands of protesters and the Mayor. Think Progress has the video.

What a ridiculous claim. The protesters in New York and the Mayor had nothing to do with these killings. The only person responsible is a man from Atlanta with several outstanding warrants who was fleeing Baltimore after having shot his girlfriend. His depraved acts have nothing to do with the thousands of New Yorkers who protested peacefully, or the Mayor, who endorsed their right to do so.

Rabble-rouser Lynch deserves nothing but a Bronx cheer. The NYPD should get a better spokesman. Lynch is a disgrace.

< Two Brooklyn Police Officers Shot and Killed
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    With protesters chanting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    "What do we want? Dead cops!

    It is not out of the question that someone would take that message to heart.

    I guess I missed the part (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    Where they chanted, "Shoot your girlfriend."

    No, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    it does kind of contribute to the environment.

    If Rush Limbaugh and talk radio can be cited by the President for contributing to the climate that created the OKC bombing then the police criticism can be fair.

    If Sarah Palin can be a contributing factor to the Gabby Giffords shooting then the protesters can be considered a contributing factor.

    I think this killer was nuts and evil. I think his decision to kill the cops was motivated by a sick form of martyrdom.

    You can't but oil next to a match and not expect a fire. For both sides of this issue.


    The guy who targeted (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Palin was nuts, and, as I noted, he didn't need any encouragement to shoot his girlfriend.

    Your false equivalency is noted.  


    I think we need to remember that ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    bocajeff: "If Rush Limbaugh and talk radio can be cited by the President for contributing to the climate that created the OKC bombing then the police criticism can be fair. If Sarah Palin can be a contributing factor to the Gabby Giffords shooting then the protesters can be considered a contributing factor."

    ... public protests don't spontaneously occur in a vacuum, and that in this instance it's been the abusive behavior by police toward people of color which has instigated the public actions in the streets -- and not vice versa.

    I'm not seeking to excuse random acts of retaliatory violence committed against individual officers, such as yesterday's tragedy in Brooklyn. But you and others, such as former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, are engaging in nothing more than bait and switch.

    More specifically, you're offering two false equivalencies in your comment here, as a means to perhaps muddle the discussion regarding the cause and effect of these protests.

    First, you're alluding that the issue of police brutality is somehow similar to the 1995 OKC bombing and the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. And second, you're equating legitimate street protests in response to such brutality with the provocative and increasingly incendiary public spew of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. And quite honestly, both comparisons are rather noxious and offensive.

    Such an attempt to shift blame for the present state of affairs to citizen protestors is actually quite boiler plate as a rhetorical device. It's a shopworn argument that's invoked ad nauseum by the so-called "law and order crowd," whenever they wish to avoid any further uncomfortable discussion of an inconvenient issue.

    But while absolving the police of responsibility for their own misbehavior might make their apologists feel better personally, what good do these sorts of false equivalencies offer the rest of us, really?

    Now, I'll grant you that individuals on both sides of this issue have been quite over the top of late, and some of them are certainly capable of bad and sometimes even appalling acts.

    But in terms of the original subject of public discussion -- which, again, is the abusive behaviors and attitudes exhibited time and again by law enforcement personnel toward people of color -- logic must preclude the notion that both sides can somehow be wrong equally and simultaneously.

    (Unless, of course, one is also inclined to hold an abused child somehow responsible for having provoked his own beating at the hands of an enraged parent.)

    Rather, only one side is in the be wrong on this particular issue and I can assure you, that side's advocates aren't the ones who've taken to the streets in public protest over the other's behavior. As such, those who protest police brutality are the ones who possess the true moral authority here.

    And further, this malignant issue can only be diffused by an admission of culpability on the part of law enforcement and public officials, not by a doubling down on stupid. And it will be ultimately resolved only by a sincere effort to address public concerns and grievances, and correct the present unacceptable situation.

    Anything done otherwise will be simply another kick of the can by public officials down a well-trod road to nowhere, until such time as that can becomes the social equivalent of an IED.



    I fail to see how your comparison (4.20 / 5) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    Applies well.  Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin trade in strawmen and conspiracy theory along the lizard brain neuropathways.  People protesting police brutality and militarization have the names, faces, film footage of real dead people along with their own personal experiences visited upon them, family, friends, peers, coworkers, and the country has had it.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by bocajeff on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    The point I am trying to make, and I know you will dispute, is that it's easier to demagogue and point fingers than to actually get to the roots of the problems and fix them.

    NYC Mayor could have helped quell the vitriol but he didn't, as well as members of the police force. I'm 2000 miles away and I knew about marchers chanting about killing cops as well as cops protecting their own vile behavior.

    But let's be honest about this: There are racists who couldn't care less if Eric Gardner or Mike Brown were killed. There are also people who are glad that these cops were killed (go to twitter to find them).

    I find the entire thing sad and disgusting because instead of tackling the problems people would rather name call and ridicule.



    bocajeff: "The point I am trying to make, and I know you will dispute, is that it's easier to demagogue and point fingers than to actually get to the roots of the problems and fix them."

    ... when you compare the legitimate and publicly expressed anger over the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown with the toxic vitriol of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, as though both are worthy of condemnation in equal measure?

    Do you seriously believe that public officials in these communities can be trusted at this point to resolve the issue of police brutality of their own volition, if only the people marching and chanting in the streets would shut up and return peacefully to their homes?

    The surest way get these protesters to pipe down is for those same public officials put forth a good faith effort to clean up the acts of their own respective police departments -- in particular, by reforming wholesale the manner in which their officers interact with their community's minority residents.

    The excessive abuses which the New York police officers once regularly visited for no good reason upon homosexuals in the mid-20th century, only began to be curbed when members of the LGBT community resisted their oppressors spontaneously and en masse.

    This finally occurred when officers sought to arrest patrons of the Stonewall Inn on public morals charges during the early morning hours of June 29, 1969, which drew a large and very hostile crowd into the streets of Greenwich Village in response.

    The same thing happened ten years later in San Francisco's "White Night Riots" of May 1979, when former policeman Dan White was shockingly convicted only of negligent homicide in his willful twin killings of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk six months prior, and received an absurdly lenient sentence of five years imprisonment as a result.

    When a few SFPD officers decided to celebrate White's de facto murder acquittal by heading to the Castro District to physically harass its residents, the entire city was in for a very rude awakening when those residents reacted quite violently and took the battle back down Market Street to the very doorsteps of City Hall.

    In both of these cases, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's readily apparent that the patience of the oppressed community had finally been exhausted at that point, completely unbeknownst to local officials. And the ensuing public backlashes against police authority were provoked when the people in charge continued to act like it was still business as usual.

    I would offer that what's happening currently in the African American communities of New York, St. Louis and elsewhere is really no different.



    On a day where many (none / 0) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:48:39 PM EST
    thousands of protesters were, peacefully, exercising their first amendment rights a small group of outsiders, who, rapidly, travel from city to city in the hope of appearing larger than they actually are, slipped into the much larger demonstration.

    Mingling among the peaceful demonstrators, the "dead cops" troublemakers were professional agitators, race-baiters, and anti-government protesters, who only wanted to promote violence.


    I expect Union representation to pull out (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    All the stops.   It is a side of a debate.

    But for the Conservatives around here wailing about protestors "causing" this, if guns don't kill people...people kill people, a protest doesn't kill people...people kill people.

    Apparently this man was a solo (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:08:43 AM EST
    violent protestor.

    We'll never know all the factors (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:36:34 AM EST
    that caused Brinsley to do this. Everyone looks bad here.... the protesters, the mayor, the police union, the athletes.

    LOL, why, it's McBain (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:32:57 AM EST
    "We'll never know all the factors"

    Not if you have anything to do with it.

    "Everyone looks bad here.... the protesters, the mayor, the police union, the athletes."

    Personally, I would have included the shooter, but, that's just me.

    And, you left out the cops, aren't they part of "everyone?" That's right, cops are always innocent


    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:49:29 AM EST
    The two dead cops are innocent on this one.

    There's no need to take an attitude like that (none / 0) (#38)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:52:23 AM EST
    It doesn't help the discussion.  I hope you won't do it again.

    I thought it was obvious the shooter was a horrible person, but yes,  I should have included him.  As for the cops, the two who were just murdered were innocent. If you want to explain why cops look bad, go ahead. Maybe, I'll agree.    


    The problem with posting on blogs (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:42:38 AM EST
    is that nuance doesn't always come through.

    The long-time posters here, and, I, rarely have a problem interpreting each others meaning, or, frame of mind, or, the context of a comment.

    So, what I considered a light hearted greeting to an almost friend, and feeling comfortable as friends do around each other, I'm saddened that the liberty I took of a friendly little familiar jab elicited such a somber retort. I'm a life-long New York City kid, I don't bruise that easily.

    To each their own. The scroll button exists for a reason; I suggest you utilize it, I know I'll be.


    Police Unions are proving (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    themselves thin-skinned little children lately. They make completely unprofessional statements then demand respect from the populace in the same breath. Poor spoiled brats. I have no use for any of them.

    America's mayor.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    blames the people he hates.

    The former mayor also criticized President Barack Obama, Holder, and Al Sharpton for addressing the underlining racial tensions behind the failure to indict the white police officers who killed Garner and Mike Brown in Ferguson. "They have created an atmosphere of severe, strong, anti-police hatred in certain communities. For that, they should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

    I can't stand this guy. It's time for him to crawl back into the woodwork that he came out of.

    Is this information (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    He made statements on social media suggesting that he planned to kill police officers and was angered about the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases.

    José Martín: 6 Ideas for a Cop Free World (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 04:06:49 AM EST
    Here's the Rolling Stone link.

    I like the mental health one (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 08:05:32 AM EST
    The rest sounds like sociology classroom babble that I took part in in college.  I remember a professor trying to convince me that we didn't need stop signs.

    Easy to discuss when you're safely within the walls of a secure campus and not in a drug ridden crime ridden neighborhood.

    What these areas need is a total new style of policing similar to the story that appeared on 60 minutes a year ago.

    Less policing is exactly what these areas don't need.   Of course family structure and a decent education system would help as well but we've been working with that for , well forever.

    Also I agree with Jeralyn that the protesters are completely a non-factor in this murder but the union does have room to criticize the mayors overly political reaction to the Garner episode immediately following it.   Their reaction to his reaction is obviously way over-the-top but I don't think we should ignore that the mayor was a little too political when he responded.

    Also try to put yourself in the shoes of the average patrolman or police officer. You've been taking quite a few hits from all sides lately and some of them have not been fair. One can understand that they are a little sensitive right now but that does not excuse them blaming protesters for the acts of criminals.   I would only caution an us versus them attitude when it comes to the police force. When I need the police force I'm awfully glad that they're there.


    They need policing that isn't filled... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    ...with the military, bully, I-am-a-God-you-are-just-a-stupid-civilian mindset that police work attracts. Also, those neighborhoods definitely DO NOT need what they will see in terms of policing for the next few decades: PTSD afflicted military veterans being domestic cops. And I will reiterate my stance on this: you can be a cop or a soldier, not both. Period. Separation of church and state in law enforcement.

    The fact is, Slado, I haven't had an interaction with a police officers, in the 20 or so I have had through my life, in which I, a white guy, was treated with anything but disrespect, condescension and disdain.

    The personality type that police work attrats and recruits is a death sentence for these neighborhoods.

    It is wrong, and inexcusably so.


    In another thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    i condemned the killing of police officers in part because I have them in my family.  I now endorse and agree with your comment completely for the same reason.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    a lot of what you say is true. My racist nephew wants to be a police officer. I really cannot think of a worse person to give that authority to. Hopefully the police department will have a good screening system and he will not be allowed to be one.

    Just ridiculous (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:00:41 PM EST
    Blatant stereotyping and group think to describe huge groups of people.

    Replace cops with Muslim and you can see the same over the top reaction we saw post 9/11.

    Maybe you're right.   Just put up a fence, set up some checkpoints and we'll just let the cops work the nice neighborhoods.


    Forever? (1.33 / 3) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:34:47 AM EST

    Actually, family structure was pretty stable up to the War on Poverty.  

    Wrong! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    The War on Poverty at 50

    Still, that rate is considerably lower than two important benchmarks.  First, thanks to a recent study by poverty scholars from Columbia University (see chart and source below), we can track this improved metric back to the latter 1960s.  In 1967, about 26 percent were poor compared to 16 percent in 2012.

    And what does help break down family structures?

    There's a counterargument -- one as old as poverty itself -- that says don't blame the economy; the poor themselves have made life choices that consigned them to poverty, like not getting enough schooling, single parenthood, or having children out of wedlock.  Clearly such choices have always played a role in driving up poverty, but how have they changed over time, and what's their relative importance compared to the broader economic trends noted above?

    In fact, research released Monday by some of my colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that such demographic and educational trends have often moved in opposite directions, some pushing toward higher poverty rates, others pushing toward lower ones.  Regarding the latter, for example, the share of adults with higher educational attainment has risen significantly, family size has shrunk, and a lot more women are in the paid labor market.  Pushing the other way -- toward higher poverty -- are a larger share of single-parent families and lower employment rates for men (I wouldn't be so quick to assign this one to behavior versus structural economic changes).

    Fortunately, the Economic Policy Institute publishes a revealing decomposition on the relevant roles of these poverty determinants, including inequality -- which, by steering any given level of economic growth away from the low-income families, leads to higher poverty -- family structure, education, and so on.  Their analysis shows that between 1979 and 2007, the increase in inequality was the single most important factor in their analysis, increasing poverty by 5.5 percentage points.  The shift to single parent families added 1.4 point to poverty over those years, but educational upgrading reduced it by almost twice that amount.

    so please quit channeling Heritage Foundation bulls*hit.


    Family structure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    Family structure was indeed fairly stable until the War on Poverty.  Your post did not address that at all.  

    Before WOP the vast majority of black children were born into two parent households.

    Post WOP the vast magority are born to single parents.

    BTW, the fairly steady decline in the poverty rate flattened out with the advent of the WOP.


    Poverty rate graph. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    You should (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    read the comments on that article. The US Census did not do poverty rates until 1960 so the figures were entirely bogus apparently prior to that.

    Conservatives doctoring numbers again? Tell me it isn't true? LOL. And the person that originally put up those numbers prior to 1960 apparently started backing off them.


    No poverty before 1960 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:51:54 PM EST

    Who cares when it started? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    Right now it's an epidemic.   Can we agree on that?

    No family, bad schools and bad CJ lead to black males more likely to have a record then attend college.   This is not sustainable and the tired policies we've been using for 50 years aren't working.  

    Obama sad it best, time for something different.


    Wrong! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    From Ta-Nehisi Coats in the Atlantic:

    But while it's true that you see a dramatic increase in single-family homes in 1960, the gap is about as old as our data. Ruggles was able to get ahold of census micro-data and basically concluded as much. If you look at the report you can see on Table 2 that as early as 1880 there were roughly double the percentage of black children born to single mothers as to whites (13.1 to 5.9.) Ruggles concludes:
    ...[T]he finding of recent studies that the high incidence of single parenthood and children residing without parents among blacks is not new. The pattern is clearly evident as far back as 1850 among free blacks. From 1880 through 1960, the percentage of black children with at least one absent parent was fairly stable and about two-and-one-half times greater than the percentage among whites. Recently, the percentages of both black children and white children with absent parents have risen dramatically...

    Race differences in family structure have expanded throughout the twentieth century, especially over the past three decades. But the fundamental differences in the percentage of children residing without parents began well over a century ago. The critical question remains: What is the source of this distinctive African-American pattern of single parenthood? Recent economic changes can be invoked to explain the growing differential between black family structure and white family structure, but they cannot explain why blacks started from a higher base.
    Again, you see a big shift in 1960. But that's true for both black and white families, and it's a shift that has been oft-commented upon. The change in marriage is not a "black" problem, and I am not even convinced that it is a "problem." People who want us to go back to 1880 should have the intellectual courage to advocate for the entirety of their vision, not just the parts they like. It is not simply a question of "Is marriage good for kids?" It's "Are shotgun marriages good for kids?" "Should marriage be valued at all costs, including enduring abuse or ill-treatment?" "Should women marry men regardless of their employment prospects and their contact with the correctional system?"

    My sense is democratic. I think that human beings are pretty logical and generally savvy about identifying their interests. Despite what we've heard, women tend to be human beings and if they are less likely to marry today, it is probable that they have decided that marriage doesn't advance their interests as much as it once did. It's worth noting that it is not simply women with children who aren't marrying, but women period. Indeed, black women today who are unmarried are having fewer kids than at any point in our recorded history. Mouthing platitudes about culture is fun if you want to be right. But if you really want to know, it's a little harder.

    Then the question is (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    .... if poverty and single mother families isn't the cause of this what is?

    No idea, Jim. There is literally nothing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    in your FBI crime stats page to indicate the background of any of the arrestees, whether white, black, brown, native American or Asian.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    Would you care to expound on this?


    it is probable that they have decided that marriage doesn't advance their interests as much as it once did.

    Why, in your opinion, would be driving that?


    It looks like (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    ...speculation based on a strawman evaluation.

    Any statement that starts out by saying that it is "probable" that people the speaker looks down on hold opinions that might, if they actually existed, conveeeniently support his speculation, does not sound like rigorous science.


    Why someone (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 06:12:39 AM EST
    would put spam in a thread as serious as this one escapes me.

    This may be OT (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 04:38:45 AM EST
    but I think that the alienation between the police and the people is largely due to the fact that they are called upon to enforce ridiculous and antiquated laws related to prohibition - the war on drugs.

    They also are the ones designated by the State to harass people who wish to peacefully protest.

    So, the cops become the enemy - or the representatives of the enemy.

    This is not to say that there are no natural born sadists among them. But they way that they are used by the State certainly encourages mean behavior with which many may begin to identify.