The NYPD goes the way of the UK police — not protecting a New York Post photographer.
This is important. The NYPD allowed the “greenshirts” at a rally protesting AIPAC to bully and physically assault a NY Post photographer. This video was captured by an alert colleague. It’s another reason always to have a video camera with you at all times.
Our correspondent notes that a particularly negligent police captain should be readily identifiable from this video:
- - - - - - - - -
There’s one police captain who shows up throughout here. If he can be identified, I think it’s worth asking why he took the side of the protestors and not that of the press.
The buddy system is important at events like this — two cameras, so if one person with a videocam is assaulted like this, a partner can record it.
A brief report on the event (including the arrest of some of the demonstrators) has been posted at the New York Post site.
13 comments:
All police in New York city and Boston and Washington DC are cowards. I remember an incident of two girls calling up the police and telling of their room mate being raped and the cops just cruised by in their patrol car. didn't stop at all. That was in DC.
Why they even show up at those events is beyond me.
Damned cowards.
as you watch the video at the link . . .think about it . . .do you want these folks as YOUR neighbors?
I love this photographer! A true New yorker with his thick accent and taking no s**t attitude! I have a feeling that if he had shoved these guys in Sweden or the UK he would have been toast. He was also a big guy which scared that last fellow traveler. I also love how they single the "New York Post" out as a "racist piece of s**t". Possibly because it is the only paper that hasnt caved in to the Palestinians and has many pro-Israel writers.
Well, bye, bye democracy, it was nice to know you, but if 'green shirts' are to have an upper hand, as they do and will, we must part our ways and consider alternatives.
Adam E,
Please repeat after me slowly and carefully: The United States of America is a republic, NOT a democracy.
Say this until you are motivated to find out what the difference is and then watch "the American Form of Government" on youtube.
Sorry, but referring to the USA as a democracy is a sore spot with me.
If, by "part our ways and consider our alternatives", you mean to say that you intend to emigrate to a different country, may I humbly direct you to the post Where Will You Go?
You'd almost think the greenshirts hate America more than the jihadists do.
Thus the reason for Amendment II...
C-Cs
"Please repeat after me slowly and carefully: The United States of America is a republic, NOT a democracy."
You may be correct Call Me Mom,
BUT
Currently The United States is A Democratic Republic.
@Call me Mom
What the U.S.is on paper and what it has become are two different things.
I most respectfully beg to differ with you grainnewale.
The United States is a Constitution - based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.
See the CIA factbook.
NJArtist,
If I may paraphrase Mr. Franklin, we have a republic - if we can keep it.
We have a participatory form of government, which means we have the ability to keep it a republic, if we participate. appropriately.
Call Me Mom,
George Washington once wrote of America as a "democratical republic" so I think its adequate to use as shorthand for the longer description Federal, Constitution-based etc. which takes longer to type.
Islam-o-phobe,
Could you let me know where Mr. Washington referred to America as a democractic republic? I have read some of Mr. Washington's writing myself and he doesn't seem like the type to use any term for the sake of convenience.
Call Me Mom,
I'm not sure where it appears in his writing but I've seen this line quoted in various contexts (paraphrased from memory): "In a democratical republic people must feel an evil before they will see it, which is why this type of government is so slow to act." Thats not the full quote I don't think. Sorry for the vagueness of my response.
I wasn't suggesting that he would use the phrase "democratical republic" as shorthand, just that it would be enough to convey a large difference in meaning between what he understood by the term and what he called "self-created democratic societies" (SOTU, 1794) which he condemned as potential revolutionary states run by anarchist mobs.
Post a Comment