Sunday, February 05, 2017



City Commissioners Ask Black Florida Mayor to Resign After Referring to Police Officer as a ‘Pig’

Hostility to the police among blacks is a huge problem so any encouraging of it is very problematical.  Black hostility puts cops on hair-trigger alert when they approach blacks so any false move on the part of the black can get the black shot.  So this is literally a life and death matter

The Stuart, Florida City Commission is demanding the resignation of Mayor Eula Clarke for making a derogatory remark last month about a Stuart Police officer, referring to him as a “pig.”

According to a complaint by the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association (PBA), which represents Stuart Police officers, the mayor entered a local convenience store, saw Officer Edward Fitzgerald speaking with an employee, and said: “I didn’t know we were serving pig tonight.”

“No City of Stuart employee should be subjected to verbal harassment or demeaning comments by one of the City’s elected officials,” the complaint stated.

“We’re outraged,” PBA president John Kazanjian said, calling the mayor’s remark “just a slap in the face…we don’t need someone like that as a public servant.”

Stuart Police Chief David Dyess told local TV channel WPTV that he was “kind of stunned or shocked that the mayor would make a comment like that to the officer.”

Mayor Clarke has repeatedly apologized for the incident, including sending a formal letter to Kazanjian in which she confessed: “I am so sorry for this entire event.”

“My choice of words, and my speech, was patently offensive, and I would hope that Ofc. Fitzgerald, and all law enforcement officers will forgive me for this transgression,” the mayor wrote.

SOURCE

12 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

Another ungreatful jerk who got elected maypr Frankly they need to appoligise as well

Anonymous said...

She apologized; she made a casual mistake.
Only those who have never made a mistake are entitled to criticize.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:22.

Only those who have never made a mistake are entitled to criticize.

This is one of those statements that on the face seem to make sense but really show a lack of critical thinking.

So when a police officer shoots an unarmed person when there is no threat to the officer's safety, as long as he apologizes, only people that have never been a LEO are entitled to criticize.

When a truck is overloaded and decouples causing an accident where people are injured, as long as the driver of the truck apologizes, only people who have ever been a truck driver are entitled to criticize.

When a referee makes a bad call or screws up a rule, as long as they apologize, someone who has never been a sports official is not entitled to criticize.

Even more ridiculous is the idea that someone is "entitled" (believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.) to make a comment on a situation. No one has permission to make a comment on the conduct of a public figure because they aren't allowed to do that. They aren't "entitled" to offer an opinion.

What a bunch of shallow thinking that is.

Like it or not, Anon 3:22, the Mayor made a stupid comment and the people in her town, her area and across the country have the right to criticize her comment. You have the right to say "she's apologized - move on," but your comment on only certain people being "entitled" to criticize is ridiculous.

crow said...

Anon 3.22 is a lefty. She believes only certain people should be entitled to criticise, others should remain silent. The desire to silence others is a sure sign of being a lefty.


Re. "...Black hostility puts cops on hair-trigger alert when they approach blacks so any false move on the part of the black can get the black shot.  So this is literally a life and death matter"

Also, blacks love to play brinkmanship when given orders by police officers. When a police officer tells a black to stand back, he steps forward, when told to stand still, he keeps moving, twitching, cocking and waving his hands around, talking incessantly, inching forward and feinting attack initiatives. Blacks know this behaviour puts police on edge, and gets blacks shot, but blacks don't care about that; they enjoy stressing cops and they enjoy being victims, so they win either way.



Anonymous said...

That comment displays a mindset that indicates it was not just casual remark. That was a display of her true personality and she should be held accountable the way so many white people are held accountable for remarks about black people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Spurwing Plover the fighting shorebird said...

And speaking on the subject of pigs i see Nasty Nancy(Pelosi)has tried to get them to return that rotten art piece shows cops as pigs returned Just typical liberal demac-RAT

Anonymous said...

Crow:

Re. "...Black hostility puts cops on hair-trigger alert when they approach blacks so any false move on the part of the black can get the black shot. So this is literally a life and death matter"

You and John Ray have apparently never taken a ride with an actual law enforcement officer. People of all races engage in this type of brinkmanship. It is not just blacks whose actions seem to make the statement of "you're not the boss of me!"

Of course the opposite side of that is cops giving what are essentially unConstitutional orders as well. For example, cops have ordered that people not record them or take pictures of their actions. Cops have demanded (and seized) cameras. Cops have ordered people to get off of their own porches so they cannot witness police working in the street or at another home.

It's insane and that insanity crosses all racial barriers.

(Most insane thing these days is that in Kentucky, a man was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and then that charge was up to a hate crime because he made a disparaging comment about the police and called them a name.)

Think about that. The chief of police later said that resisting itself was a hate crime against police and that is the way the man (who happens to be a white guy) was charged.

Lots of blame to go around when it comes to the interaction between police and citizens. To blame it all on one race is pure ignorance.

Jub Jub Bird said...

Lets portray U.C. Rioters as wild rabid ravanous beasts and demacrats as pigs

crow, bird that watches patterns, said...

Anon 10:30
Of course there are examples of all behaviours in all groups, dumbo.

I am generalising. Every word, every concept, is a generalisation with a central bulk of generalised meaning tapering out to less common meaning. We think and communicate in generalisations. It is not possible not to do so. The leftist claim that one should not generalise is just a leftist ploy of argument designed to shut people up.

A lesson in clearer thinking, dumbo.
Anecdotes don't counter generalities. An anecdote is an example of something that happened. Anecdotes only prove what is possible, what can happen. And as anything that can happen tends to happen, there is an anecdote for everything, for every possibility. Only weight of numbers proves generalities. A generality is a recognisable pattern within a majority.

The general pattern, the expectation, and the reality is, that blacks play brinkmanship with body language more so than most other races.

No I have not been out on patrol with police officers. I have dealt with many different races in prisons though, and I can tell you that African blacks play brinkmanship with their body language more than any other race does. They like to move their hands quickly as if to strike you then just scratch their dumb head, they like to keep you on edge and make you flinch if they can, they like to keep twitching and inching forward, cocking their head and jaw, they like to slip their hand into their pocket or behind their back as if they will pull out a weapon when they might not have a weapon at all. It is all part of intimidation, of them amusing themselves, and keeping you not knowing when the real attack will come. Playing such general and habitual brinkmanship frequently gets them shot.

Anonymous said...

Crow,

Wow, Your response was quite the exercise in a lack of critical thinking, wasn't it?

You made a generalized statement saying, "blacks love to play brinkmanship when given orders by police officers," but when confronted for any sort of "proof," you make my point that all races practice the same brinkmanship.

You then double down on your lack of thinking and say, "anecdotes don't counter generalities." (Actually they do, but that is another issue.) If you hold that view, then certainly "anecdotes cannot prove generalities." Yet that is exactly what you try to do in order to prove your point - that blacks love to play brinkmanship more than any other racial group - because you have seen it in prison.

Even if one were to accept your anecdote as being true, you are failing to take into account the racial makeup of the prison(s) in which you say you saw this behavior.

In other words, the more you talk and write, the more your point gets shown to be just some racial moronic thinking without any basis in reality.

BTW - it is really cute when your argument leads off with calling someone a name. You don't realize it, but you lost the discussion at that point because all you showed is that you cannot discuss or debate as an adult.

Stymphbalian Bird that Man Eating bird witha Brass Beak who shoots his feathers said...

Liberals dont do anything but whine that all they ever do WHINE,WHINE,WHINE their never satisfied

Anonymous said...

The liberal troll displays a real lack of critical thinking and it does not pay to respond. for example they say:

"So when a police officer shoots an unarmed person when there is no threat to the officer's safety, as long as he apologizes, only people that have never been a LEO are entitled to criticize."

when the original statement was:

"Only those who have never made a mistake are entitled to criticize."

Those who have never been an LEO is a much bigger group than those who have never made a mistake. Humans make from 8-24 mistakes an hour on average so the second statement could be refuted by that. Using someone's mistakes against them is valid if the number and severity of those mistakes is significant. Vilifying someone for mistaking the response to an attempt at humor is probably not valid. Crucifying someone for a perceived mistake is even worse.


MDH


MDH