Although I don't think it affects the import of what I said.

facts of the case as well as the credibility of your analysis. If you cannot get basic facts correct about a matter, why should one read/consider/give import to your thoughts about said matter?

You see the same thing in the gun control debates. Gun control advocates often make a proposal that has a lot of merit and deserves consideration. However, they will make some factual error concerning firearms and then, instead of debating the merits of the proposal, have to expend energy debating/editing/rationalizing their mistake.

That is why I felt it necessary to point out your error, so you could edit and then hopefully the full import of your thoughts will be considered.

he/she may be found more credible with a basic fact not being in error.

Kind of like when R's get basic climate change facts wrong ....... you don't really need to give any import to their analysis after that, would you not agree?

Up until reading this thread, I too was under the impression that the girlfriend was murdered. I know I had read that more than once. And the poster corrected him. I do think your reply was unnecessarily "judgy and patronizing."

should not thus disregard what they say about it?

Are you sure you are on the right discussion board? FR is WAY over to the right ---------------------->

My bad.

The reason to disregard what they say is that their conclusions are completely wrong. The twisting of facts to get to those erroneous conclusions are an simple outcome. I don't dismiss because they have the facts wrong. I dismiss them because they're buffoons who intentional distort data to reach unsupportable conclusions.

Not nearly the same thing.

Things fly over your head a LOT, I'm guessing?

Good for a chuckle, though

The guy shot his girlfriend -- clearly killing her was his intent. The mere fact that he was unsuccessful in the attempt doesn't change the overall pattern of what he did, which was what I was pointing to. And frankly, I think anybody who would quibble with the thrust of what I was saying based and that particular inaccuracy is someone whose mind is already made up, and will disagree regardless of how accurate I am in stating ancillary details of my argument. But I will edit the OP in the interest of accuracy.

has knowledge of all the basic facts. For one thing, media accounts can differ on developing events, not everyone has all the basic facts all the time depending on where and when they get the information. To make a long story short, the reader may not know anything about it anyway.

What, do we suppose, does that mean?

Police unions are hardly the only unions to use such rhetoric.

I would imagine that the union and its supporters will use all their political and financial resources to make life as difficult as possible for Mayor deBlasio, within the confines of the law. It's lawful when liberal unions use their resources to oppose conservatives and their policies, and just as legitimate when conservative unions like the police direct their resources against liberals.

Please provide some proof.

Are you familiar with the concept of projection?

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein

And you put it very well. The comments by the PBA and Governor show we have along way to go before there is any justice for young black men anywhere but possibly at some corporate work place.

K & R your post.

A crazy person shoots a woman and two cops, and they immediately slot into a narrative about the Mayor and their outrage that he would dare suggest choking an innocent man to death with an illegal maneuver requires re-training?

Worst possible thing they could have said. And it feeds into a perception that it is cops in general, not the bad apples, who are the problem.

If THIS is their culture -- to cheaply exploit the still-warm bodies of their fallen brothers in a spite-fight with De Blasio -- then the people saying the entire structure of American law enforcement is broken are RIGHT.

serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, or city council, or both? If the NYPD is asserting its authority as a law unto itself, maybe it's time to call in the National Guard, the FBI and the Dept. of Justice to clean that department up, and let the cops on that force choose whether to serve and show respect to the lawfully constituted authority, or hand in their badges.

. . . they were made by the head of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the police officer's union.

The head of the Union doesn't. Any organization has rules about decorum. The cops who turned their backs on the Mayor should be disciplined, and if the union encourages such juvenile behavior and also advocates violence against peaceful demonstrators, it deserves a good federal smackdown.

just an insult or also an implied threat?

The union spokesman is trying to twist this against protestors & de Blasio and it won't work.

And will side with cops who shoot unarmed black kids or police union leaders who think that asking cops to pretty please not shoot unarmed black kids is the reason some whacko with a gun shot cops. They most likely have guns and are not very smart: a worrying combination. But we should no longer listen to them when it comes to working for change.

in Arkansas, Las Vegas, and Pennsylvania, to name a few.

Guess the police union was too scared of RW groups and RW media to even dare find a news camera then, eh?

I like your post and I agree.

. . . then your post is a rather nasty snark. Here's Wikipedia's definition of that word (as coined by Stephen Colbert):

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

Every other account said she was dead. At least someone survived that murderous rampage. And you are correct it doesn't really change anything as far as the shooters intent. Clearly he intended for all his victims to be dead. Now there is another victim. Or rather now there are millions more victims those who will be held accountable for this one person's actions just because of the color of their skin.

I will add that Patrick Lynch is a thug on the intellectual level of Eric Cartman.

Thank you for doing so. Someone needed to.

Have thought before these killings that NY officials (not just the mayor) needed to push back hard against this police union and remind them that like the military, they work for civilians. The BPA has been a very public example of why not just the actions but the culture of some police departments desperately need serious, significant reform. They exude a "Don't ever even question our actions" attitude. And charge us or convict us of anything? Forget-about-it!
After seeing all the online police videos, I'm pro-union but---many police unions have become a protection racket for bad cops and incompetent policing which just hurts the caring professionals who work hard to perform their jobs.

than your comment:

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio names Bill Bratton as New York police chief
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/bill-bratton-appointed-nyc-police-commissioner

NYC’s first lady on Bratton: ‘I told you we can’t trust him!’
http://nypost.com/2014/11/02/citys-first-lady-not-happy-with-bill-bratton/

Hell hath no fury like a first lady whose passed-over pick for police commissioner — the outgoing Chief of Department Philip Banks III — is further scorned.

“I told you we can’t trust him!” a furious Chirlane McCray railed at her husband, Mayor de Blasio, after learning that Police Commissioner Bill Bratton had stood up to Banks during a power struggle Friday that ended with the chief’s resignation, sources told The Post.

By “him” McCray meant Bratton, whom she never wanted to see at the commissioner’s desk.

“She is friendly with Banks, and he was her choice” for commissioner, a source said.

“She was very upset when he resigned,” the source said of ­McCray, who has sat in on NYPD CompStat meetings, and whom de Blasio has called his most trusted adviser.

By Friday afternoon, de Blasio had summoned Bratton to City Hall, blasting him face to face for not catering to Banks, who had resigned rather than take a promotion to No. 2 at the NYPD — a position Banks felt was powerless.

Last Tuesday, Police Commissioner William Bratton announced that with the departure of First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro, he was promoting Chief of Department Philip Banks to take over the post.

On Friday, before Banks could even be sworn in, he announced he wasn’t taking the job and resigned from the police department. Supposedly, Bratton had reneged on a promise to give him real authority as first deputy.

The NYPD’s rank and file reacted with fury Thursday at being “thrown under the bus” by Mayor Bill de Blasio, who said he and First Lady Chirlane McCray had trained their mixed-race son, Dante, about the “dangers” posed by cops.

Pat Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, blasted de Blasio for his inflammatory remarks, which followed Wednesday’s decision by a Staten Island grand jury not to indict cop Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

“What police officers felt yesterday after that press conference was that they were thrown under the bus,” Lynch said.

De Blasio had called the Garner case “profoundly personal for me,” saying that because of “the dangers [Dante] may face, we’ve had to literally train him .?.?. in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.”

The comments angered cops, with one saying, “Did he tell his son to be wary of his police bodyguards, that he should be afraid of them as they pick him up at school and drive him where he needs to go?”

Lynch railed that de Blasio effectively told New Yorkers to teach their kids “that they should be afraid of New York City police officers.”

“That’s not true!” Lynch shouted. “Our city is safe because of police officers. All of our sons and daughters walk the streets in safety because of police officers. They should be afraid of the criminals. That’s what we should be teaching.”

This week Mayor de Blasio cited the “will of the people” as grounds for imposing reforms aimed at making what he basically says is a racist NYPD care about black lives.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025990848

The inner politics, however, are something that none of us really know enough about to address.

. . . the utterly irresponsible statements by Patrick Lynch and the PBA, or the shameful display of officers turning their backs on the Mayor.

And have opened them up to physical attacks.

While the mayor may have had good intentions, there may have also been some unintended consequences.

. . . This was ONE incident by a single gunman who attempted to kill his ex-girlfriend, and was clearly intent on taking his own life. And to gain some notoriety for himself, he latched onto a cause-du-jour. This guy has a very long criminal record, and it is likely he was merely using this as an excuse to vent long-standing anger (due to his own criminality and resulting run-ins). There is no way his true motivation can be known. And for the police to try to characterize themselves as being "under attack" based on a single incident is dishonest in the extreme! They're a bunch of whiners who are pissed that this Mayor, unlike his two predecessors, doesn't kiss their asses.

I don't assume that.

I am more inclined to believe that the Baltimore shooter did see the same national coverage we all have seen and decided to take matters into his own hands.

. . . fit into that narrative?

Nothing in any of the mayor's statements could be remotely construed as calling for or advocating violence against police. His comments about his conversation with his son are consistent with the statements of African American parents across the country. Only in the twisted, fascist mind of police officers or their authoritarian supporters -- or some random nut case -- can that in any way be interpreted as a justification for killing police officers.

It's a pattern.

In this case, the shooter had a lot on his Facebook page, including Koran quotes (and a claim that he spoke Arabic), as well as posts as to his intent--"giving pigs wings". His Facebook page makes his motives very clear and they are about taking revenge on cops for Ferguson and Eric Garner.

Then HE TRAVELS from Baltimore to New York--not a short trip--manages to find two cops at rest and shoots them without them knowing. This isn't just some mentally ill person whipping around a gun: there's a definite plan and the ability to carry it out. He also reportedly told people at the scene of the murder to "watch what I am going to do."

Shooting himself at the end of the murder is very common with certain types of shootings, like school shootings, for example. Shooting the ex beforehand? We need more details--perhaps she was trying to detain him?

Of course, if you believe in conspiracy theories--like programmed zombie assassins--be my guest. But this isn't some run of the mill mentally ill person who managed to get a gun and just start shooting. The planning, the gun, the travel (he must have bought a ticket and paid for his trip) and his wandering around a strange city until he found two conveniently placed cops not paying attention--who were working on "anti-terrorism"--and there's much more than mental illness here.

. . . the suggestion that it is connected in any way to the Mayor's very careful and cautious statement is absurd. The protests would have occurred with or without the Mayor's comments about a conversation with his son. And the anger among many New Yorkers (and not just African Americans), as well as people in other cities, over the number of killings of unarmed citizens (especially African Americans), and over the lack of accountability therefor, was already present. The mayor didn't inflame that situation one bit -- if anything, he probably diffused the tensions somewhat by letting protesters know that their concerns -- which are perfectly legitimate, btw -- were being heard.

in his state of mind, the statement triggered him in some way. Suggesting that his teenage son might not be safe around cops, deBlasio might have inadvertently triggered some memory from the shooter's teens. We simply don't know.

However, I am inclined to agree that the mayor's speech probably had nothing to do directly with the case.

. . . supports my contention that the man was mentally ill. And in that case, one cannot have an intelligible discussion about cause and effect with regard to his motivation.

A lot depends how you interpret his pattern.

Now, if he says he was hearing voices and that the voices told him to kill the cops, you'll have a good case for diminished capacity. (It would be an Andrea Yates case)

But the medication may have been for anything, including depression while he was incarcerated. The therapy might have also been connected with his prison stay, since he doesn't seem to have had health insurance or the ability to stick to a long term therapeutic program. Many prisoners fall into depression due solely to their incarceration. Until we know what meds he was on, how long, and what the actual diagnosis was--and if it was still current--we simply don't know.

In the end, he committed a number of crimes, wasn't terribly good at them, got caught once and served prison time. This does not mean he was mentally ill: the prisons are full of people who were stupid enough to get caught.

This shooting, however, is different. It has a vastly different pattern or "fingerprint" from his life as described by the New York Times. If the Times' pattern had held, Brinsley would have gotten caught after shooting his ex before ever getting out of Baltimore. If the Times' pattern had held, he would not have been capable of a successful assassination of two police officers sitting in their car, with witnesses outside. That's a cold blooded move, and depending on where he was, he had to be able to aim. They were shot "execution style" if you remember, and I can't believe that one of the officers did not resist. I'd love to know how far away they were shot.

Surely if Brinsley were as incompetent as the Times article makes him out to be, he would never have the stealth to carry out an execution style murder like that. It doesn't fit the pattern.

I am left with several options:

1. The Times story is a fiction, at least their interpretation is. The bare bones facts may be correct, but the embroidery wrong.

2. The Times interpretation is absolutely correct, in which case, someone else actually did the murders and Brinsley was picked up on the street in the vicinity as he was acting erratically.

3. Tin foil hat.

. . . or the ability to carry out complex tasks. But it does render discussion of motivation nearly impossible.;

And once again, the mayor's remarks have been cautious and very measured. It is only the fascist, authoritarian mind that thinks it is reasonable to draw a cause and effect relationship between his remarks and the actions of a mentally ill, homicidal and suicidal killer. The mayor NEVER advocated, or even appeared to advocate, violence against the police. The mayor did not cause the protests -- they would have occurred regardless of anything he had said. Acknowledging that there is some validity to the protester's grievances IS NOT a declaration of war against cops, nor does it constitute a lack of support for them. I live in this city, and have witnessed these out of control police thugs personally for over 30 years. There IS a problem, and it was THE MAYOR'S JOB to recognize, acknowledge and take steps to address it. This mayor was elected by an over 50% margin, in part based on his promises to rein in an out-of-control police force. The police are pissed off about that, and will shamelessly seize upon anything they can to discredit the mayor for trying to do what he was elected to do!

What I am telling you is that I don't agree with the Times' narrative. The hapless, bumbling mentally ill guy who suddenly ends up with the capability to travel 3 states, and find and shoot two cops execution style in their police car--which he has planned out in advance according to his Facebook page--is an impossible narrative. Either he was a good deal more competent or he wasn't the real killer.

Your argument about the cops and the mayor may be well taken, but we all have different ways of viewing things. The cops may have felt that the mayor was throwing them under the bus, even if the mayor never intended it that way. There's no accounting for how people feel about things.

. . . and it really matters no one whit how many imaginary lines it crosses as it travels from point of origin to its destination. It's only a three and a half hour bus ride for Christ's sake. If a guy, as a result of mental illness, has decided to focus his rage on police, how much advance planning does it really take to hop on a bus and go to a part of New York that he knew from childhood? You are really reaching here -- and one wonders why.

And I can tell you don't read very critically. I used to work in journalism and I recognize the creation of a narrative when I see it. You clearly don't.

So instead, you make an implication that somehow I am "reaching" and therefore must be suspect.

So, we're going to part here. I simply don't buy the narrative--I can't, it's inconsistent with what actually occurred. Either we have someone bumbling and incapable (in which case, carrying off the execution of two cops is next to impossible) or the narrative is false and the man was quite something else.

And that's my final word on the subject.

Good night.

. . . I would point out that so also is the PBA presenting a narrative. A very self-serving one at that.

Immediately after the police were shot the various electronic pundits announced, on the basis of their tea-leaf readings, that the killer was motivated by the Ferguson and other tragedies and that the blame fell either on the cops in other cities who had shot black men or else on the protestors who marched in complaint against such cops.

Now it comes out that the shooter is identified, a chronic criminal, who had just shot someone else nearly to death and evidently had a long-standing grudge against the NYPD. For all we know, he hadn't even read a newspaper account of the Ferguson and other shootings.

Will the pundits rewind and correct their interpretations? Can I flap my arms and fly to the moon?

It wasn't a hacked account. He says why he is going to kill cops.