The NY Times takes on the NYPD

Well, the spiraling decline of the 'Old Gray Lady' continues.

I have long held the belief that the NY Times had lost all of its credibility and journalistic integrity as it spun a narrative rather than report the facts. The latest piece by the paper’s editorial board, an attack on the Nation's Finest police department, shows once and for all their true colors.

It might sound cool, to their dwindling readership, to blast the police with their harsh advice: "1. Don't violate the Constitution. 2. Don't kill unarmed people. 3. Do your jobs.", but it only serves to highlight their ignorance of the issues at hand. They are like the provocative allegations of a court room attorney who, lacking a credible case, opts to malign his opponent to the jury through name calling and innuendo. I'm curious as to what violations of the Constitution the NYT is referring to? Not killing unarmed people? Not enforcing the law?

This salacious accusation highlights the disconnect between the media and the real world. Police officers do not begin their day salivating at the opportunity to go out and kill someone. Perhaps it is the weight of the responsibility which they carry with them, but the choice of using deadly physical force is one that no police officer takes lightly. The fact is many cops have paid the ultimate price because they were hesitant to pull the trigger.

Law enforcement is a serious business and one that often has deadly consequences, both for criminals as well as the police. A fact, that we were brutally reminded of when, on December 20^th, a madman executed two of NY’s Finest.

Theoretically, in a perfect world all criminals, major and petty, would immediately submit to detainment and arrest when caught by the police. Unfortunately, it has been my experience, borne out of twenty-two years in law enforcement that, realistically, this ‘perfect world,’ does not exist.

Dr. Charles H. Webb said it best: "There is no nice way to arrest a potentially dangerous, combative suspect. The police are our bodyguards; our hired fists, batons and guns. We pay them to do the dirty work of protecting us. The work we're too afraid, too unskilled, or too civilized to do ourselves. We expect them to keep the bad guys out of our businesses, out of our cars, out of our houses, and out of our faces. We just don't want to see how it's done." 

The NYT would have you believe that, based on their superior understanding of all things police, that this is not the case. That unarmed people pose no threat. It’s very easy to write that from the comfort of your office cubicle. It’s an entirely different proposition when you are staring the threat in the face.

So here is my challenge to the media world. Obviously, by virtue of this article and the many others I have written, as well as three books, I feel that I can do YOUR job quite well. Since you seem to be adamant that you know so much of the job I performed for over two decades, I challenge you to do a week of 4x12’s in Brooklyn North. Take your pick. Any precinct that begins with a 7 and ends in an odd number. Heck, I know some of you might live in upstate New York so why don’t we expand it a bit. Perhaps you would like the Bronx, so check out the 41 or the 47.

Hell, I doubt you’d be able to survive a day in a ‘C’ house let alone an ‘A’ house.

I remember someone once telling me: “Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.” I guess the same holds true for reporters.

Then again, maybe I am being too harsh. Perhaps they were just referring to the recent drop in enforcement activity for traffic and minor offenses. You know, the quality of life issues such as public drinking, urination and parking violations. The Times reported that they have all dropped by more than 90% in the wake of the police shooting. What I got a chuckle out of was the fact that they did not mention the minor offense of sale of untaxed cigarettes, loosies to be exact, the very same criminal activity that that Eric Garner was engaged in prior to his death.  

I think it speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy of the left when they make a demand of ‘Do Your Jobs’ and then, a moment later, amend that to ‘but only the ones we WANT you to do……’

After the Garner death the left came unglued that the police were enforcing what they considered bad laws. At that time they claimed that certain misdemeanors or violations should be overlooked. You know, the ones that they don’t believe in. I guess what the Times believes is that the city needs to have two sets of laws. Then when the police arrive, those more intellectually astute folks, like the NYT Editorial Board, can tell them whether to enforce it or not.

Just like the millions of folks on FB, who, despite never having set foot into a police academy, seem to know exactly how to do it better than the police, the Times would have you believe that it is all the cops fault.

Maybe the city can take some advice from them and add a new course covering clairvoyance to the academy curriculum. It could be overseen by the NYT editorial board and the teaching staff could be comprised of folks from the Psychic Medium Network. This way, the next time the police respond to a call they can know whether something bad will happen.

Hey, here is an idea. Maybe we should train the dispatchers in this ability. This way, when the call comes in, they can make the determination as to whether the complainant really needs help.

On second thought, how about we lay the blame squarely at the feet of those responsible: The Criminals.

Every day the police make tens of thousands of arrests, taking people into custody without incident. Where are the politicians and pundits applauding the hard work of the nation’s law enforcement? Yet, when a criminal resists arrest and dies from their own actions, the police somehow become the embodiment of pure evil?

Recently, I’ve heard of a number of journalist folks engaging in highly questionable practices. From writing patently false stories, failing to fully investigate and vet other stories, or being coerced by their bosses into not reporting others because they do fit the outlets core principals or readership. I guess, going by the NYT belief, they should all be publicly admonished.

Instead of vilifying the protectors of the city, the NYT should turn their attention toward their declining readership numbers. Once the flagship of the newspaper industry, the Times’ decline illustrates a problem that seems rather obvious to everyone, other than the editorial board. Rather than being neutral reporters of facts, they have chosen lines and selectively use snippets to support their opinions. At one time the papers motto: "All the news that's fit to print" meant something. Now it would best be served to read: "All the news we see fit to print".

Theoretically, the Times should consider getting back to a non-biased agenda and reporting on the facts, not contrived or misleading opinion pieces. Realistically, they won’t.