Partisanship to Death

And The New York Times Still Hates Cops

Polarization to death

We saw a rousing speech from the President this week. Naturally, it was mostly positive and certainly one-sided. That’s how these speeches go. He did mention some temporary pain with the tariffs, but otherwise everything is wonderful according to President Trump.

We don’t expect the Democrats to be vociferously cheering Trump’s policies. Quite frankly, no one should be lustily applauding a policy that they are strongly opposed to.

But we saw a different tone yesterday. Polarization has reached its zenith.

As with all state-of-the-union-type speeches in recent decades, there were guests in the crowd that are used to highlight successes, bravery, tragedy, and past failures. They are props, yes – but they are also people.

Sit on your hands for the tariffs. Decry immigration enforcement if you are opposed. Turn a blind eye to the successes of an administration you disagree with.

But when a child fighting cancer is recognized by the President of the United States: stand and cheer. When a cop’s widow is acknowledged by a nation for her sacrifice, stand on honor her. Applaud a young man who wishes to serve this country. Stand in solidarity with a mother who lost a child to a murderer. Have a modicum of respect for the Office of President – an office constitutionally elected by the people.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. We would be writing this article if the parties were reversed. This is an American issue. Show some respect.

And maybe grow up. Ping-pong paddles with bumper-sticker messages? Please. Representatives having to be escorted out of the chamber. Enough! It’s time for this act to move on.

The New York Times Knocks the NYPD…. Again.

This week the NY Times did yet another hit piece on the NYPD. No surprise, but this was a months-long investigative story on a shooting that happened back in September. The Times carefully constructed this hit job.

The shooting involved a violent and emotionally disturbed person in the subway system, a Mr. Derell Mickles. At the end of the incident, Mr. Mickles and two innocent people had been shot, one very seriously, and a cop had been shot by his partner. Not a good look for the NYPD for sure.

What led to this encounter and why were innocent people put in the line of fire? Mickles walked past two uniformed cops into the transit system without paying the fare. The cops escorted him out of the system instead of arresting or summonsing him. Mickles returned shortly thereafter and again entered the system without paying. This time he was carrying a knife in his hand. It’s all on video.

The Times would have you believe that the officers caused the confrontation with Mickles. The article states that the officers, “chose to follow him.” As if watching a knife wielding emotionally disturbed person walk into the transit system without paying is something that a cop can ignore. If the cops turned a blind eye and Mickles stabbed someone, they could be facing criminal charges. I wouldn’t be defending them either.

The cops follow Mickles up onto the platform where Mickles menaces the officers with the knife and moves towards them. The NY Times fails to mention that Mickles threatens to kill the two cops, stating, “You’re going to make me kill you.” He also yells, “shoot me!” at the officers. While this drama is unfolding a crowded L train is about to enter the station.

Things were about to get a lot more dangerous very quickly. In a perfect world, a conductor would have seen the confrontation on the platform and kept the doors closed. That didn’t happen. Instead, Mickles jumps on the occupied train, mixing in with passengers. Now cops were faced with uncooperative cop-haters like subway passenger David LaFauci who refused to obey the laws of common sense and the officers’ commands to get off the train. (David walked home from this incident and spent the rest of his day giving passing cops the finger).

Now people are in the way, the cops are way too close to the knife wielding man, and a mobile confrontation is occurring. Taser darts miss their mark as they often do (the two darts separate when fired and both have to hit and stick for the device to work). Things are going south quickly.

Mickles charges, cops shoot – tragedy ensues. Mickles is struck and injured. Two passengers are shot and wounded. One of the injuries will never heal. An innocent man is shot in the head by a bullet and suffered permanent brain damage. One of the cops was shot by his partner.

The NY Times is sure to mention that the subway fare is only $2.90. That the cost of enforcement is likely more than the financial loss to fare evasion. That broken windows is a bit of a crackpot idea. Naturally, they point to the fact that most fare evasion enforcement is against “people of color.” As if racist cops are forcing minorities to jump the turnstile. All to throw shade on two cops who tried to do their jobs correctly and with the minimal amount of force necessary.

What should these cops have done? It’s tough to hear, but they would have been justified in shooting as that train approached the station. That sounds callous but it’s true. Police work can be a deadly job. It can be mentally scarring for cops. But tough decisions and protecting innocents are part of the job. Cops are trained to stay a minimum of 21 feet from a person with a knife. There is no training to physically disarm a person with a knife – that’s just in movies. And, apparently, The New York Times.

When the situation allows, police should give as much time as possible to negotiate or disarm a person in crisis. The NYPD is remarkably restrained in this regard. I have sat outside emotionally disturbed people’s apartments for hours as hostage negotiators have tried (successfully) to peaceably resolve a standoff. And they should. If it takes all day. In fact – that is NYPD policy.

But sometimes waiting puts innocent people at risk. People can’t be safely isolated. It happened here with tragic results.

The one thing we can count on is The New York Times finding fault with the cops either way. They would be calling for these two officers to be indicted if they shot this knife wielding maniac immediately. Unfortunately, many of their readers would have been on board, as evidenced by the comments section excerpts listed below.

These cops should not be publicly maligned. They were in a difficult, no-win situation. They would have been vilified by the desk jockeys at the Times regardless of their actions.

Police work sure looks safe and simple from The Times editorial room. A room that’s safe thanks to the NYPD.

Just a few excerpts from our intellectual betters who read and comment at the New York Times:

With all the Technology we have, can't we make a Tazer that is 1000X, 10,000X more powerful? To be used only in deadly force situations. Police carry both pistols and Tazers. No more innocent bystanders getting shot.

Point blank, the police were scared to go hands on with a guy with a knife. So scared that they employed firearms from a distance and shot each other and innocent bystanders. Cops get paid a LOT to do a sometimes dangerous job. These cops did not do their job.

The police initiate a shooting spree and give an innocent bystander permanent brain damage over $2.90

I agree that he should have been stopped, detained, and given a citation, but it’s not clear that this guy intended to commit a violent crime on the subway. Some NYrs carry knives for protection against other NYrs. Having a knife does not entail lethal intent.

I don’t understand why none of the officers simply pulled out an extendable baton and whacked the knife out of his hand

Like a car chase that ends in a terrible crash, there is no reason to escalate a turnstile jump into a shooting incident! What idiots would pull guns inside a crowded train or on a platform? There is a case for containment but unless the suspect has a gun I don't see how gunfire in a subway car is justified. This "broken window" policing was proven to be racist and ineffective years ago and this incident proves it again. Also is anyone keeping track of the lawsuits here? For a fare jump the city is now going to payout north of 100 million.

Free transportation is the obvious solution. The equation of cost is clearly too great to enforce payment. But education, healthcare and education will never be free with conservative thin skins.

Thanks for reading The Ops Desk. Stay Safe!