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.

Rabel-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:
    Oh, is it really like that? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by noor7300 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:12:08 AM EST
    This is not supposed to happen I think and it will not be proved. new year wishes

    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.

    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 (none / 0) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    Forever? (1.50 / 2) (#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
    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.

    With protesters chanting (none / 0) (#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 / 1) (#10)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    Where they chanted, "Shoot your girlfriend."