Coward fatally ambushes 2 NYPD, commits suicide (1 Viewer)

[Two Deep]

Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".

Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.

You're acting like the cops decked this guy and then put the boots to him when he was down. They pushed him up against the vehicle, frisked him, asked him if he was a ####### ####### (legit question at the time) and then pushed him away. If that equates to "tuning him up" in your mind, I am afraid I can't discuss this with you any further.

well thank god they didnt put him in death choke hold cuz thats been known to happen

Only if you are fat and sickly..

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

 

[jonessed]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the interviews, the study, and the FBI database figures are so laughable as not worthy of a FFA discussion?



Seems a bit extreme, but this is a tough subject for some people to discuss.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Maybe my criticism is too harsh, though.

No, your criticiques are fine. It's your personality that needs work.

 

[Jayrod]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Maybe to those with some kind of anti-cop bias, but to the rest of us further explanation was necessary, so thanks for the rest of your comments.

 

[Jayrod]

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, study finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, January 5, 2015

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.
“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.
The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”
In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”

A 48-participant study using simulations instead of actual incidents of use of force, as reported by the Washington Times. Hold the phone, guys. This changes EVERYTHING.

Maybe my criticism is too harsh, though. The text also discusses data from actual incidents, albeit second-hand as compiled and analyzed by a cop who shot a black guy.

Did you read the account of his shooting of the black guy? Seems to be a justified shooting, since he saved his partners life. So why exactly does that mean his findings are discounted?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Classic Tobias here. Probably read, but auto-tuned out the rest about how the guy he killed stabbed his partner in the chest, lol. It isn't even an active thought process he is so brainwashed.

While I don't agree with the article's main premise, I do think this part is at least discussion worthy and helpful...

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

 

[Henry Ford]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Classic Tobias here. Probably read, but auto-tuned out the rest about how the guy he killed stabbed his partner in the chest, lol. It isn't even an active thought process he is so brainwashed.

While I don't agree with the articles main premise, I do think this part is at least discussion worthy and helpful...

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

I don't think the issue is the actual shooting - it's the virtual impossibility of removing research bias from the equation. He's a viable case study, and he's doing the analysis. That's not a good combination for a study of any kind.

 

[jonessed]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Classic Tobias here. Probably read, but auto-tuned out the rest about how the guy he killed stabbed his partner in the chest, lol. It isn't even an active thought process he is so brainwashed.While I don't agree with the articles main premise, I do think this part is at least discussion worthy and helpful...

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBIs national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the citys population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

I don't think the issue is the actual shooting - it's the virtual impossibility of removing research bias from the equation. He's a viable case study, and he's doing the analysis. That's not a good combination for a study of any kind.

Researchers are rarely, if ever, unbiased. The bias should be separated from the study via the way the experiment is set up. The details aren't really given to us here though.Nothing in that article about him personally would discredit his work.

What's his supposed bias anyway? That having shot a black man in the line of duty would lead him to believe that it's harder to shoot black people?

 

[Henry Ford]

Researchers are rarely, if ever, unbiased. The bias should be separated from the study via the way the experiment is set up. The details aren't really given to us here though.

Nothing in that article about him personally would discredit his work.

I agree. However, as you pointed out, the details aren't really given to us.

I'm not on the "point and laugh at the article" side, but I do think it should be taken with a massive grain of salt unless those details are clarified.

 

[El Floppo]

fwiw- looks like they caught the two suspects in the recent cop-shootings.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Maybe to those with some kind of anti-cop bias, but to the rest of us further explanation was necessary, so thanks for the rest of your comments.

My pleasure. I guess I thought it would be incredibly obvious that a 48 person study of the behavior of non-police officers in a simulation would tell us absolutely nothing about the racial biases of police officers in real life situations. I also thought it would be just as obvious that the broader study where people were basically asked if they're racists would be useless and totally absurd. And I thought it would be equally obvious that a cop who shot a black person (justified or not) would be a terrible person to conduct an evenhanded study of police racial bias in shootings. Apparently I was wrong and these things were not as obvious to others as I had assumed. My mistake.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Classic Tobias here. Probably read, but auto-tuned out the rest about how the guy he killed stabbed his partner in the chest, lol. It isn't even an active thought process he is so brainwashed.While I don't agree with the articles main premise, I do think this part is at least discussion worthy and helpful...

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBIs national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the citys population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

I don't think the issue is the actual shooting - it's the virtual impossibility of removing research bias from the equation. He's a viable case study, and he's doing the analysis. That's not a good combination for a study of any kind.

Researchers are rarely, if ever, unbiased. The bias should be separated from the study via the way the experiment is set up. The details aren't really given to us here though.Nothing in that article about him personally would discredit his work.

What's his supposed bias anyway? That having shot a black man in the line of duty would lead him to believe that it's harder to shoot black people?

The fact that he shot a black man is just a little extra icing on the cake. A current or former cop is not the right person to conduct a study as to whether cops have racial issues, period. He's obviously going to look to defend his peers. And the methodology shows that. He basically did a small sample size simulated exercise with a bunch of non-cops (all three of those factors are fatal flaws IMO), and then supplemented it by asking a bunch of cops if they were racists or not. Surprise! They said no.

I mean how does the absurdity of that not make people laugh?

 

[BobbyLayne]

fwiw- looks like they caught the two suspects in the recent cop-shootings.

So, manhunt over, are they going back to Slowdown?

 

[El Floppo]

fwiw- looks like they caught the two suspects in the recent cop-shootings.

So, manhunt over, are they going back to Slowdown?

this whole thing is so.... shameful.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

That the article, the study, and the conclusions of both are so obviously worthless that it's hilarious that someone did it, someone else wrote it up, and someone else posted it here.

It would be like if I invited a bunch of my friends over to play Call of Duty and we kicked ### and I wrote up an article downplaying the various hazards of the war in Afghanistan based on our successful and efficient game play.

Actually, even that doesn't do justice to its absurdity, because it doesn't capture the whole "cop who killed a black guy doing the analysis" angle.

Maybe this would do justice to its absurdity:

It would be like if **** Cheney and George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had been playing Call of Duty in 2005 and they kicked ### and then had the federal government write up a NIE and Bush gave a State of the Union address downplaying the various hazards of the war in Iraq based on their successful and efficient gameplay.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

2 more cops shot in the Bronx per Yahoo!

Should be OK per reports. One shot in back, other in the arm.

well this proves it...its a dangerous job

Is this supposed to be funny?

Did you laugh?

Nope.

Not sure why anyone would laugh...doesn't mean someone wasn't trying.

Is this supposed to be funny?

since when is stating the obvious funny?

 

[Sammy3469]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

 

[Jayrod]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

 

[Sammy3469]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

 

[Jayrod]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

 

[El Floppo]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

combine police taking a sabbatical with this kind of thing, and what's the agenda other than being frustrated that people we, the tax-payers, are paying to do a job, are actively not doing it AND also screwing around on top of it.

that's like me taking a paid leave of absence for fake health reasons and then hurting myself while doing this kind of crap (and getting caught on camera).

 

[Henry Ford]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

If you get hurt intentionally riding on the hood of a vehicle provided to you by your job, you should expect to get heavily disciplined. It's how they avoid having more idiots file for worker's compensation on a regular basis.

 

[tdoss]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

I have more of a problem with them trying to pass it off as officer fell out of stationary car. If that's the case...just shows how they'll lie when reporting anything.

 

[Jayrod]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

If you get hurt intentionally riding on the hood of a vehicle provided to you by your job, you should expect to get heavily disciplined. It's how they avoid having more idiots file for worker's compensation on a regular basis.

Right, but this is hardly limited to the police profession and not an indication of anything other than this guy is an idiot.

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

I have more of a problem with them trying to pass it off as officer fell out of stationary car. If that's the case...just shows how they'll lie when reporting anything.

They? Who is they?

If you mean these two cops, good point. If you mean police as a whole, that's a stupid generalization to make from this incident.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

If you get hurt intentionally riding on the hood of a vehicle provided to you by your job, you should expect to get heavily disciplined. It's how they avoid having more idiots file for worker's compensation on a regular basis.

Right, but this is hardly limited to the police profession and not an indication of anything other than this guy is an idiot.

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

I have more of a problem with them trying to pass it off as officer fell out of stationary car. If that's the case...just shows how they'll lie when reporting anything.

They? Who is they?

If you mean these two cops, good point. If you mean police as a whole, that's a stupid generalization to make from this incident.

ya ...whats wrong with you...cops never lie about anything...ever

 

[Boston]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

 

[Lutherman2112]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

 

[tdoss]

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you actually want the people you pay to actually do their jobs, but call me old fashioned.

If everyone that ever goofed off on the job for a few minutes got fired, unemployment would reach 100%.

Again...agendas and all that.

If you get hurt intentionally riding on the hood of a vehicle provided to you by your job, you should expect to get heavily disciplined. It's how they avoid having more idiots file for worker's compensation on a regular basis.

Right, but this is hardly limited to the police profession and not an indication of anything other than this guy is an idiot.

Good ole NYPD officers.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The two guys were just being immature idiots. Nothing more, nothing less. Happens in every profession in every field around the world and this didn't hurt anyone besides the one idiot who cracked his head.

Pretty much irrelevant unless you have an agenda.

I have more of a problem with them trying to pass it off as officer fell out of stationary car. If that's the case...just shows how they'll lie when reporting anything.

They? Who is they?

If you mean these two cops, good point. If you mean police as a whole, that's a stupid generalization to make from this incident.

What the hell? Not even sure how you stretch that to mean all of policedom. I was talking about these two jack@zzes.

 

[glock]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

Never did see a good link from that nasty beeyotch.

 

[Boston]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n1939997

There you go...hopefully someday I'll become enlightened enough to start reading Maureen Dowd columns...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n1939997

There you go...hopefully someday I'll become enlightened enough to start reading Maureen Dowd columns...

I don't want to read Coulter or Dowd.

Now a debate between them, I might pay to see.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n1939997

There you go...hopefully someday I'll become enlightened enough to start reading Maureen Dowd columns...

 

[TobiasFunke]

Good read from Coulter...

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n193999

Doesn't surprise me that a Coulter fan fails with a link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/01/07/dying-for-a-cigarette-in-new-york-n1939997

There you go...hopefully someday I'll become enlightened enough to start reading Maureen Dowd columns...

I don't want to read Coulter or Dowd.

Now a debate between them, I might pay to see.

Referring to anything by either of them as a good read is hard to believe. Unless it's that recent Dowd column about her experience with marijuana in CO and you're saying it was a good read because of the unintentional comedy.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

And some people are still wondering why the public is losing trust in the police department. link

Oh come on. He's lucky someone didn't punch him in the face. That is purposely trying to antagonize.

Man sues city over being roughed up by NYPD while filming dance video

Alexandre Bok was grabbed by police and slammed against a van while he filmed a video for Ellen DeGeneres’ ‘Dance Dare’ segment in and around Grand Central. He seeks damages not to exceed $5 million for the abuse and suppression of his freedom of expression.

He was ready for a brand new beat — just not the type the NYPD had in mind.

A dare inspired by Ellen DeGeneres went horribly wrong when an innocent man danced in the street near some NYPD cops, a new lawsuit against the city charges.

On Christmas Eve Alexander Bok filmed a video of himself grooving around Grand Central Station for part of Ellen’s recurring “Dance Dare” segment on her daytime show.

He “spent several hours … dancing behind strangers and creating a truly comic video,” documents filed in Manhattan Federal Court Thursday claim.

But when Bok, 22, started shaking it Gangnam Style by six cops outside Grand Central, they didn’t see anything funny about it.



Video shows them grabbing the goofball and slamming him against their police van.

“What the f--k is wrong with you?” “What are you dancing in the street for? “Are you a f-----g a--hole?” they said, according to documents.

Box, sporting white pants and a grey sweater, tells them “I’m sorry” and tries to explain.

“The officers were not interested in listening, and treated plaintiff like dirt,” documents charge.

The cops — working four days after a police-hating lunatic killed Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in Brooklyn — shoved him to the ground and let him go.

“They acted as nonchalantly as if they had just squashed a bug,” documents read.

Bok's attorney, Bob Tolchin, said the cops showed blatant disregard for Bok's constitutional rights.

"He's very upset. He's outraged. This is not supposed to happen in America," Tolchin said.

Bok told the Daily News the spill broke his $300 microphone and hurt his knees. His video of the encounter went viral.

"In my mind I was just doing the 'Ellen dance," said Bok, of Washington Heights. "I never expected to go that way."

The experience has left him nervous around the boys in blue.

Alexander BOK via YouTube Bok alleges he was roughed up by police as he filmed his clip around Grand Central in December.


"Now I feel uncomfortable when I see police officers," said Bok, who added that he aspires to be "the greatest artist of all time."

Bok, whose real name is Alexandre Nzebele, seeks damages not to exceed $5 million for the cops’ suppression of his freedom of expression. The suit even cites Mick Jagger, David Bowie, The Who, and the Mamas and the Papas, who have all covered the song, “Dancing in the Street.”

“Dancing is protected speech, not a crime,” documents read.

“Just because a police officer did not like plaintiff’s dancing behind him for a few seconds did not give the officer, or the other five officers, the right to harass or verbally abuse the plaintiff, or to push him onto the ground.”

A spokesman for the city Law Department said it had not yet been served with the lawsuit. A rep for the "Ellen" show did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-sues-roughed-nypd-filming-video-article-1.2104263

 

[Short Corner]

2 more cops shot in the Bronx per Yahoo!

Should be OK per reports. One shot in back, other in the arm.

well this proves it...its a dangerous job

Is this supposed to be funny?

Did you laugh?

Nope.

Not sure why anyone would laugh...doesn't mean someone wasn't trying.

Is this supposed to be funny?

since when is stating the obvious funny?

You'er the one that asked.