E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, December 22, 2014

The murder of two NYPD officers, rhetoric and police safety

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

The assassination of two New York City police officers over the weekend was a shocking incident, and shows the dangers police officers can face. It is important to keep perspective, though, and the response to these murders provides a lesson in how elected officials should and should not behave when a horrific crime like this happens.

First, the response from Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's office was despicable and shameful. I became filled with rage when I read the following in this article on the assassinations:

Rawlings-Blake’s deputy chief of staff, Kevin Harris, said the mayor knows there are a few bad apples that have "done some things that do not honor the uniform," and they need to deal with that.

"But the way in which they do that is not to target law enforcement," Harris told Curtis.

This is shameful. Police misconduct is an important issue, but the time to address it is not in the aftermath of a terrorist assassination of two police officers. Harris should be fired from his job for his despicable choice of words and choice to use this atrocity to take a shot at the police. As the chief of staff, Harris should know better, and how damaging his words would be to the working relationship between his boss and the Baltimore police. Rawlings-Blake needs to apologize to the New York Police Department and the families of the murdered officers.

Where we should be careful in condemning words, though, is blaming "anti-police rhetoric" for the murders of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. The only person responsible for the murders is the terrorist Ismaaiyl Brinsley. There has been some reprehensible and irresponsible rhetoric on both sides of this debate, but trying to blame rhetoric for a terrorist act is an unworthy debater's ploy meant to shut down legitimate (if uncomfortable) arguments.

Finally, murders of police are terrible, but we need to avoid overstating the problem. Police officers are safer today than they have been in fifty years. Police fatalities are way down in pure numbers, and when you consider that there are a lot more cops today than 50 years ago they are even safer as a matter of percentages.

From the Washington Post:

According to FBI statistics, 27 police officers were feloniously killed in 2013, the lowest raw number in more than 50 years. (The previous low was 41 in 2008.) If we go by officer homicides as a percentage of active-duty police, it was probably the safest year in a century.

It has not been just a good year. It has been a good couple decades. Police fatalities have been dropping for 20 years to the point that it is safer to be a cop today than it has been since the 1960's - maybe even since World War I. Overstating the danger to police is dangerous, because it encourages and provides political cover for police militarization and aggressive use of force. We should respect the danger and unique challenges police officers face, but that should be grounded in reality and attached to the duty of law enforcement to serve the public and safeguard civil liberties.


Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.


At December 22, 2014 at 6:32 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Nothing new or shocking about it, in fact, for anyone old or literate enough to remember 1968-73. Cops in every jurisdiction abuse their powers every day, as you've frequently documented. Prosecutors, their police superiors, and the so-called "majority of good cops" do nothing to restrain--much less punish--the rotten apples. Pressure mounts and finds its release--against police, as against women's clinics from your faux-Xian "pro-life" cronies. The people suffering most are still, and always will be, those at the wrong end of the law's long, trigger-happy arm.

At December 23, 2014 at 6:51 AM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

Nothing excuses terrorism and murder.


Post a Comment

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.