Push to disarm police officers gains steam in New York

Yes let's disarm our law enforcement charged with apprehending criminals including violent and armed criminals. Do you want to live in a community where your law enforcement is unarmed? How about this plan Mr. Bowman, how about you disarm the criminals first and then when you have done that we can talk about disarming the police.

"A New York congressional candidate is arguing that taking guns away from law enforcement will make communities safer. A law enforcement panel reacts on 'Fox & Friends.'





Full video here

https://news.yahoo.com/push-disarm-police-officers-gains-113704607.html

 

Asking police to do what they do and do it unarmed would only lead to a mass exodus of police officers. Then you'd get a chance to see how things are.

 

Police in New York can't really do their jobs without weapons. There are too many armed criminals in the city.

But at the same time, it's become very clear that police no longer have the same mentality they did 30 years ago. Back then, it was very rare to hear of an officer shooting someone who was unarmed. Why? Because the officers didn't treat every suspect as a treat. Now, you look at the footage of any traffic stop, especially those with a black driver, and you are more than likely to see an officer coming out of their car gun drawn, screaming for the driver to get out of the car, even for something as simple as a busted tail light.

Cops have gotten to the point where they have forgotten that they chose to join an inherently dangerous jobs. You hear it every time someone is shot while unarmed, especially when the victim is not doing anything illegal. Police unions and other supporters will ramble on about how it's hard to tell whether or not someone is dangerous and how police shouldn't be liable for mistakes made during intense situations.

But in many cases the situation is only "intense" because the police overreact to EVERY situation, and treat every person as a danger. In many cases where an unarmed person is shot, the officer has every opportunity to defuse the situation and chooses not to.

I will give an example of the types of cops I'm talking about. You might have heard about the officer in Fort Worth who murdered a black woman in her own home. One of the woman's neighbors reported that the door to the house was open. This was because the woman left it open to air out her house because it was hot. Police responded, and the officer in question, without announcng his presents or identifying himself as a police officer shot her through her living room window. She had no weapons, aand there is clear evidence through body-cam footage that she was not a threat. This is the type of cops I am referring to. Ones who just see a black person and automatically treat them as a criminal and a threat, and go out of their way to ensure that there is no chance to refuse the situation.

The cop in that situation has been charged with first degree murder and will face the death penalty.

 

Ahhhh he told her to get her hands up but she point the gun in her hand at him through the window.

Atatiana Jefferson pointed gun at window before Fort Worth officer killed her, nephew told authorities
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...h-officer-killed-her-nephew-told-authorities/

And you got something to support your claim that there are more per capita shootings of unarmed people now than before?

 

Imagine a city where the only people that live there are cops with no guns.

 

Well if you take away the cops' guns, you're going to end up with no cops.

New Yorkers can then police the city themselves.

That would be a hoot.

 

Gross overstatement of the reality. Please note the above described situation is extremely rare. There are over 94 million interactions between cops and civilians every year. Less than one in ten thousand end with some one firing a weapon let alone getting killed.

 

You need to get caught up on your facts.

.

 

There was someone in her back yard in the middle of the night.

 

The fools in NYC need to just look at Baltimore where that wanted no police around, and are now whining about all the killings and the crime.

 

Yes we know, doesn't change the fact a gun was pointed at the officer. The poster to whom I was responding had that and other facts completely wrong.

 

Yes it was as in
" Now, you look at the footage of any traffic stop, especially those with a black driver, and you are more than likely to see an officer coming out of their car gun drawn, screaming for the driver to get out of the car, even for something as simple as a busted tail light."

Leaving out the car was probably stolen or the persons in it had just committed a violent crime or was registered to someone wanted for a violent crime.

 

They should be disarmed before the people are. There is no good reason that the police should be armed in a city where we are not allowed to be armed.

 

You mean other than the fact that every crook in town and all of the Gang bangers that want a gun have one?

 

Open question; Is that what the candidate actually said? It isn't what the quote says but that was presumably taken from some wider context. Do you know what that context was?

 

Power to the People.

 

I might not be a fan of the massive gun ownership in the country, but I couldn't support disarming the police! But I'm interested in your thoughts on how to accomplish the statement I have bolded...

 

I'm asking Mr. Bowman how he would do it because I don't think he can.

 

What do you think I got wrong?

 

If police are disarmed and you are not armed (assuming you are law-abiding, and not already an armed criminal), you'd better get yourself armed and do it fast.

It'll be the wild West with people in blue uniforms who can't do anything.

 

In looking at the video, I didn't see where the candidate suggested officers not carrying firearms. I might have missed it - do you have a link (other than the one you've already shared) where he specifically states that he wants to disarm the police?

 

Jamaal needs to ride along with the police for a month before telling them how to do their job. It's always easy to attempt any job when someone else has to do the work. Jamaal is a dreamer liberal who doesn't have a clue.

 

I didn't say you got anything wrong, I just asked a reasonable question.

I know literally nothing about this other than was is presented in your OP. In the video they present the quote and immediately jump to the conclusion that he's calling for police to be disarmed. To my mind, there is either further relevant information they're assuming viewers are aware of but I'm not or they're making an unreasonable leap of assumption. That's why I asked about the wider context of the quote.

If you know the wider context, I'd be interested to find out. If you don't, I'd be curious whether you really think their interpretation of the statement without any other context was reasonable.

 

Google is a wonderful thing
""It’s time to disarm the police," Jamaal Bowman wrote on Twitter "
https://freebeacon.com/issues/justice-democrats-endorsed-candidate-wants-to-disarm-police/