Stony Brook Professor Under Fire For Denouncing Officers Who Shot Suspect …Who Was Stabbing Them

A Stony Brook University professor is under fire this week after she called two police officers “murderers” for shooting dead a suspect.  Social Welfare professor Anna Hayward denounced the officers despite the fact that the officers suffered “serious stab wounds” from the suspects before shooting him. I understand the anger of those who have called for Hayward to be fired. The attack on the officers was unwarranted and seems part of long-standing anti-police views. However, as will come as little surprise for many on this blog, I believe that adverse actions would violate core free speech rights.
Hayward was outraged over the shooting and asked on Instagram “Why did a man have to die? What about the man they murdered?”The man stabbed and seriously injured the two officers, one with life-threatening neck wounds. Both officers were taken to Stony Brook University Hospital for treatment. A third officer was also transported for minor injuries.Hayward’s comments are reminiscent of bizarre comments of “The View” co-host Joy Behar on how officers should have shot in the air in the case of Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio. Bryant was about to stab another girl when officers fired to stop her from committing murder.

In this case, Hayward asked “This was a wellness check — why didn’t they de-escalate the situation?” The answer may be that it is hard to “de-escalate the situation” when the suspect is stabbing you in the neck.

It sounds like the university will stand by Hayward’s right to speak freely on such subjects, even statements that are highly controversial. In a January 2 statement, Stony Brook correctly stressed that Hayward made her comments from her own, private, account that is “not affiliated with [the] university.”

However, there was good reason for Hayward to expect that she would be protected. There is no massive cancel campaign or protests on campus.

The support enjoyed by faculty on the left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given faculty with moderate, conservative or libertarian views. Anyone who raises such dissenting views is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. This includes blocking academics from speaking on campuses like a Classics professor due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on the left, including “detonating white people,” abolish white peopledenouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island). At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

When these controversies arose, faculty rallied behind the free speech rights of the professors. That support has been far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.

That will not be the fate of Professor Hayward. She will be correctly afforded the protection of free speech. While this may be an exercise of hope over experience, she may now have greater empathy for the faculty who are targeted by cancel campaign for expressing controversial views. While this may be an exercise of hope over experience, she may now have greater empathy for the faculty who are targeted by cancel campaigns for expressing controversial views.

 

 

113 thoughts on “Stony Brook Professor Under Fire For Denouncing Officers Who Shot Suspect …Who Was Stabbing Them”

  1. Only because she’s a liberal/leftist. If a conservative professor had gone out there and supported the police shooting instead of the criminal who attempted to kill them, they’d be in trouble right now.

  2. Please start putting these nutcases back in asylums. They are a danger to themselves and others, not to mention slandering the good name of fine police officers.

  3. Another example of why free speech is essential to liberty, for had this idiot professor kept concealed her remarkable arrogance and ignorance we rational Americans might not ever have suspected the existence of this threatening malignancy. Like a precancerous skin lesion, Professor Hayward has outed herself and invited preventative treatment. Much as I’d like to think she’ll be professionally shunned, that seems unlikely from her equally arrogant and ignorant peers, so I will hold out hope for preventative treatment in the form of a lawsuit from the officers she so recklessly slandered. Let’s see how skilled she is in deescalating curative justice.

    1. “Cancelling” is not a free speech violation. Unprofessionalism and bringing disrepute to your institution is a good reason to be passed up for promotions or salary increases (and perhaps demotions and salary cuts).

    2. Higher education is NOT a place for free speech, free thought.

      And it does not pretend to be.

      If you work in a college, you must espouse communism.

      That is your job.

      You do not get to promote Kentucky Fried Chicken if you work at McDonalds. It ain’t happening.

      And you do not get to espouse freedom, goodness, and love for traditional American values if you work in a college.

      It ain’t happening. That’s not what we’re selling.

      Hate America or GTFO. Simple as that.

  4. It is not the police’s job to “de-escalate”, and it shouldn’t be. If someone is being violent, to the point where the police have had to be called, their first and only job should be to put an end to the violence and the threat to others. The perpetrator’s welfare is not the point, and should be distant second in their priorities. Once he is no longer a threat to anyone, then the psychiatrists can take over and worry about his welfare, but that should not be any concern of the police. If the only way to stop his violence is to shoot him, it is no loss.

  5. She should just say the police “acted stupidly,” invite them for a “beer summit” in her back yard, serve everyone a delicious, perfectly-grilled filet, together with large glass of cold beer, and invite the media to cover the event from the neighboring yard. She is, after all, a professor of social welfare, and what better way to show it?

  6. Professor Turley….your repeated defense of such speech is becoming quite boring, repetitive, and as much as I respect you….far beneath your intelligence and plain old commonsense.

    Such speech may be “legal” and within the speaker’s rights….but it is also disgusting, stupid headed, demeaning to the principles you seem to hold dear.

    Why instead of trotting out yet another almost cut and paste blog entry defending such sordid utterances…..for a change how about posting about two or three sentences and just simply disparage such language and flat ignorant commentary?

    Call a Spade a Spade, Professor and tell it like it is.

    Such talk by the Academia indicts the very principles you stand for.

    You always say ‘good speech” can outweigh “bad speech”….yet you never just blast such bad speech with some of that good speech you tell us about.

    Ignorance as displayed by that Fool in her comments deserves absolute scorn and a thorough investigation as to what she is teaching in her classroom.

    If it is found she is teaching such utter rubbish….the University should fire her for Cause.

    I hope the Cops unloaded on the Perp and left his carcass unable to hold shucks as we say in the South.

    1. That is what true civil libertarians do – they defend the legal right to speak of people who say things that others find disgusting.

      That is why the ACLU once defending Nazi’s marching through jewish neighborhoods in Skokie.

      That is why I joined the ACLU to fight for the right of KKK members and Nazi’s to march in my community.
      And when that fight was won, I participated in the candle light vigil counter protest.

      Criticize whatever speach you want – I may join you.

      But attack he right to speak or those defending the right to speak – and YOU are the villian.

  7. The same side that accuses cops of habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, the same side that accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist…

    …is the same side that pushes for stricter gun control laws which will be enforced by these very same cops in this very same system.

  8. Professor Turley, Please let us know your thoughts on the Speaker of the House situation which has been building since the election and has been playing out on the House floor. Also, please let us know if you have any problem with commenters bringing up unrelated topics to the blog post like I have done here. Thanks.

    1. Excuse me for just a moment,

      What does the selection of a new Speaker of the House, McCarthy, one of the Ring Leaders of the J6 frame up & running Coup against American, the Citizen Owners Stake Holder Trump Supporters have to do with an Anti-American, Cop hating POS Professor Nazi & likely Pedo supporter regarding the subject of this post?

      Also, Have you had your weekly mRNA Booster Shot? Bill Gates wants to know.

      Thks 🙂

  9. OT

    “Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.”

    – Werner Erhart
    _____________

    Kevin “The Bumpkin From Bakersfield” McCarthy may be insane after failing his sixth attempt to be popular.

      1. Thanks for reading…again!

        Does your support here mean I can count on your two votes for Speaker then?

  10. Jonathan: Believe it or not there is other important news besides the controversy at Stony Brooke. There is a circus going on over at the House of Representatives. The House GOP that now controls the chamber has apparently formed a circular firing squad. After 5 votes Kevin McCarthy still can’t secure enough votes to become Speaker. He has made concessions to the far-right, 2020 election denying fringe of the party but they keep moving the goal posts. If this is any indication of how the GOP is going to rule I am not optimistic about the chances of the new Congress actually doing anything for the American people. And that’s why the Dems are looking forward with relish to 2024!

    Complicating the GOP problem is that they are now saddled with the super liar George Santos, the GOP new member of the House. He is definitely a Trump wannabe. Santos’ latest scam is he is advertising that donors who pay between $100 and $500 to attend his swearing in ceremony will receive a round-trip bus trip, lunch and a tour of the Capitol. Fellow NY Congressman Rep. Richie Torres described it best: “George Santos, who never misses an opportunity to violate Congressional Ethics, is charging people for touring the US Capitol…Is the US Capitol one of the 13 properties in the imaginary Santos real estate empire?” Openly advertising your office is for sale is always what I thought Trump had a monopoly on. Donald you now have competition!

    If the GOP leadership is smart, which now is in doubt, they will take a page out of Trump’s playbook and demand Santos provide a copy of his birth certificate! I am really enjoying this spectacle. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving crowd of clowns!

    1. And your comment has what to do about the matter being discussed in this post? Please provide everyone the link to your blog where you discuss issues that are important to you and your readers. Thanks!

    2. Dennis to Turley: “If the GOP leadership is smart, which now is in doubt, they will take a page out of Trump’s playbook and demand Santos provide a copy of his birth certificate! I am really enjoying this spectacle. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving crowd of clowns!”
      Lin to Dennis: “If Dennis is smart, which now is in doubt, he will take a page out of Trump’s playbook and provide a copy of his own (Dennis’) relevance to this blog article. I am really enjoying this spectacle. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving clown!”

    3. Jonathan: Believe it or not there is other important news besides the controversy at…

      this guy has gone from ignorant, to stupid, now into the realm of blog retard.

      It took me 10 seconds the first time visiting here, to understand this is not a news aggregator, or current events forum.

      This is a blog by a constitutional law Prof, that advocates for free speech.

      Retards cant learn. That’s what we have here.

    4. It may take 100 votes, or a different Speaker, why do you view it as some disaster that republicans are not rubber stamping a speaker.

      I am fine with what is going on – this is what actual democracy looks like.
      The Freedom Caucus is getting significant and important concessions out of MacCarthy.

      The GOP Speaker will not end up being the totalitarian queen that Democrats had.
      That sounds great to me.

      At any time any 5 represenatives can challenge the speaker.
      That used to be the norm for over one hundred years.
      But not under pelosi.

      When a bill is up for vote any representative will be able to offer amendments.
      That used to be the norm – but not under pelosi.

      The fight over the speaker of the house is restoring the house of represenatives to the peoples house – not the queens house.

      This is a good thing.
      The rules the freedom caucus is seeking to restore, will benefit democrats and republicans alike.

      What is disturbing is they will be gone again the moment democrats take control.

      As to Santos – Tulsi Gabbard did an excellent job on him as guest host of Tucker Carlson’s show.
      Who on MSNBC or CNN has done the same to Swallwell ? Schiff ? Warren ? Biden ?
      Or the myriads of liars on the left.

      The more I learn about Santos, the more he looks like an ordinary democrat – actually his “lies” are LESS consequential.

      He worked WITH not FOR Goldman Sachs.
      He is Roman Catholic, but there are jews on his mothers side of the family and Judaism is matralineal.

      While these and other tales are problematic, they are nothing compared to the absolute nonsense from Biden’s mouth.
      In his telling of his own resume, he has had multiple dead people to the white house.

      Blumenthal claimed to have served in Vietnam – he did not.
      Warren claimed to be cherokee – she is not.
      Schiff claimed to have seen evidence of russian collusion – yet there was none and we know it.

      And on and on and on.

      I am not happy with Santos’s conduct – and Gabbard handed him his ass.

      He should be expelled from Government – along with Blumenthal, Warren, Swalwell, Schiif, Biden and a host of other liars.

      Until then – he is in good company with the raft of lying democrats.

  11. The good Professor Hayward needs to demonstrate her sincerity.

    She could easily do so by issuing a statement to the effect that she would neither request nor accept police assistance for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to assault, battery, home invasion, rape, larceny, theft, vandalism, stalking, being threatened or struck with a deadly weapon etc. etc. etc.

    Of course even that would ring hollow because she knows darn well that the cops would aid her irrespective of what her wishes might be.

    1. Maybe the police should return her money she paid in taxes for their salaries if they will not give her service.

  12. “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

    – Thomas Tusser
    ______________

    The Bible denies the incoherent and hysterical 19th Amendment which provides unconstitutional favor and inequitable, false status as it reduces the numbers of children and future generations of Americans, causing the continuing dissipation of America as it is subsumed by the communist U.N. and its innate imperative, globalization.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ephesians 5:22-33

    22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

    24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    Merriam-Webster

    equity

    noun
    eq·​ui·​ty ˈe-kwə-tē 
    plural equities

    1 a : justice according to natural law or right

    specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism

    1. “The Bible denies the incoherent and hysterical 19th Amendment . . .”

      “Keep her well-shagged and poorly shod and she’ll not wander far,” (old British proverb)

      Not sure whether it applies to livestock or women. Maybe both.

      1. The proof is in the pudding.

        Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments” and the 19th require the non-enforcement of extant immigration law and the political emulsifiers of affirmative action, forced busing, biased divorce and supercharged, anti-male “domestic” laws, etc., to have any effect.

        These products are innately unconstitutional and they won’t sell in free markets; they require wholly unconstitutional structural support.

  13. Another disgusting take by crazy professor who influences our young adults. I am too a free speech absolutist but you cannot compare what these left wing nut jobs say to anyone on the right except for crazies like Alex Jones. But he too has the right until he defames someone.

  14. “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.”

    – Gordon A. Eadie
    ______________

    “This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”

    – Nick Saban
    __________

    “Beer For My Horses”
    Toby Keith

    Well a man come on the 6 o’clock news
    Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused
    Somebody blew up a building, somebody stole a car
    Somebody got away, somebody didn’t get too far yeah
    They didn’t get too far

    Grandpappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
    A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
    Take all the rope in Texas find a tall oak tree,
    Round up all them bad boys hang them high in the street
    For all the people to see

    We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
    Too much corruption, and crime in the streets
    It’s time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
    Send ’em all to their maker and he’ll settle ’em down
    You can bet he’ll set ’em down

    You know justice is the one thing you should always find
    You got to saddle up your boys, you got to draw a hard line
    When the gun smoke settles we’ll sing a victory tune
    And we’ll all meet back at the local saloon
    And we’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing
    Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses
    Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

  15. For those of us who believe in the old Greek-style Socratic teaching, I say: (1) don’t punish or restrict her, BUT, (2) Stony Brook should invite the local police chief to stand before her classes, reiterate her comments and give an explanation/counter-argument as to why he/she believes Hayward’s conclusions were/are inappropriate. I understand that her comments were made offsite and independent of the school. But who wants to bet that her Instagram account was not known to her students? Further, I suspect she might have expressed/advanced similar views to her students under different cases/current social events….
    The reason these incidents are particularly egregious to me (in academic settings) is because (1) most students look up to their teachers/instructors/professors as knowing more than they do, and (2) even if the students were allowed to debate/argue an opposing view back to Hayward, very few would act on that, for fear of alienating Hayward and suffering her disapproval, or a lower grade (under some pretense on her part).

    1. For those of us who believe in the old Greek-style Socratic teaching, I say: (1) don’t punish or restrict her, BUT,….

      Re: men behaving like women, and women behaving like men, the Jews were onto something in the Old Testament times…

      1. Estovir: If your video clip was intended to make me laugh, you succeeded!
        If you intended it as critical of my comment, I regret that it went right over my head!
        In any event, Monty Python series so ahead of its time (in tongue-in-cheek humor)!

        1. Humor!!! it keeps the crazies in me in check. Besides watching Monty Python videos is far better than taking xanax

          😬

  16. She’s right. The officers were not “heroes” in the modern model. The suspects were not unarmed, not lying in prone positions, not escaping a riot. Their abortion could not reliably be attributed to a existing progressive condition. In the modern model, they should be the cause for nationwide insurrections in the mode of some, select [black] lives matter.

  17. Jonathan: Since the brutal murder of George Floyd and other unarmed Black men around the country there has been widespread criticism of racist police practices. Some even calling for defunding the police. I am not one of those. So now comes Anna Hayward’s criticism of the killing of Enrique Lopez and you have once again jumped to several conclusions not warranted by what little we know about what actually happened. Maybe the Suffolk police had no other choice but to kill Lopez. Maybe, as Hayward says, there was a chance to “defuse the situation”. Considering we know know so little about what actually happened we should avoid drawing any conclusions. NY AG Letitia James says her office will conduct an investigation. MAGA supporters will naturally view any investigation of the shooting as “biased” considering she just successfully prosecuted the Trump organization. This incident is charged with polarized views on both sides. Nevertheless, perhaps this incident is a chance to step back from all the usual political rhetoric.

    But you seem to want to add to the controversy by blaming the university for not denouncing Hayward. You attribute this to “support enjoyed by faculty on the left”. You even imply that had this involved a conservative she would have been “immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination”. Why the overkill? Why turn this one isolated incident into a general defense of campus conservatives? Because this incident serves a political agenda that goes beyond the killing of Lopez.. So you can push your frequent complaint that university conservatives don’t have the same “free speech” protections as those on the “left”. I seriously doubt Stony Brook would have taken a different position had Hayward been a conservative. I say let there be a full investigation and let the facts determine the outcome. Your usual political rhetoric is not adding to any clarity about the killing of Lopez!

    1. Dennis to Turley: “But you seem to want to add to the controversy…Your usual political rhetoric is not adding to any clarity…”
      Lin to Dennis: “But you seem to always want to create controversy… Your usual political rhetoric is not adding to any clarity.”

    2. Dennis McIntyre, at what point does a policeman give up on defusing the situation? When the knife has entered his neck for the second time. You bring up unarmed black men being killed but it is obvious that the person in question was armed. The police tried to hard to defuse the situation resulting in their hospitalization with very serious wounds. Their proper reaction to a person coming at them with a knife should have been to shoot for center mass and empty the clip. They responded with too much leniency. Of course it’s not you who will have to live with a handicap for the rest of your life due to a knife wound. It’s not you who may have to give up your carrier because you can no longer physically perform your job. Your compassion is overwhelming good guy.

    3. Since the brutal murder of George Floyd and other unarmed Black men around the country there has been widespread criticism of racist police practices.

      And yet, your side calls for stricter gun control laws which will be enforced by these very same police.

      Explain that.

    4. George Floyd should be alive, but he should be in jail. Floyd is an American citizen who should have had his day in court. This guy was no angel.

      1. George Floyd should have eschewed a low life of crime and taken care of his health.

        No Deaths – 237 Neck Restraint Incidents – 44 Suspects Unconscious
        _______________________________________________________

        “Minneapolis Police Used Neck Restraints 237 Times, Left 44 People Unconscious Since 2015, Records Show”

        “Minneapolis Police Department officers have used neck restraints to subdue at least 237 people since 2015, according to an NBC News report published on Monday.”

        “The report, which analyzed Minneapolis police records dating back roughly five years, also found that officers’ use of the disarming restraint tactic caused subjects to lose consciousness in 44 of those instances.”

        – Newsweek, 6/1/20

        1. Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. Everyoen with a brian knew that at the time.

          Was Chauvin a good cop ? I do not know. Should he have been fired ? I do not know.

          Did he Kill George Floyd – absolutely not.

          The 12 members of the jury are immoral. They knew better but wanted their pound of flesh.

      2. The only way Floyd was going to live was if paramedics got Narcan to him soon enough.

        That is the “crime” here – I beleive it took 9+ minutes for Emergency medical assistance to arrive.

        Reminds me of when I called 911 because there was a knife fight in front of my house.

        The Police station is 4 blocks away. 45 minutes after the 911 call – the streets now completely empty,
        some 20 cruisers with lights flashing arrived.

        I was pretty sure after that if I was in serious trouble – 911 was not going to save me.

    5. George Floyd died of a drug overdose, making him the perfect marytr.

      Those like you have done more harm to any effort at meaningful police reform.

      It is not 1960. The police have been very effectively reducing Crime and violence throughout the country until your efforts recently handicapped them and have caused crime and violence to spike again.

      Myriads of efforts have been made to find systemic racism in policing – none have succeeded.

      In 2019 4 unarmed black males were killed by the police and 1 unarmed black female.

      Over 100 Police officers were killed in the line of duty.

      Today the increase in the deaths of young black men in Chicago alone dwarfs the number of blacks killed by police in an entire year throughout the country.
      The increase in the number of black children – under 10, killed in chicago is greater than the total blacks killed by police in 2019.

      There is lots of Rot about black parents giving their Kid’s “The Talk” – Would that be the one about police ?
      Or the one about getting murdered by other blacks on the way to school ?

      The overwhelming majority of blacks in this country want MORE police, not less.
      And the rates are even higher in poor communities.

      Your idiocy is murdering blacks.

      YOU are the real RACIST.

      While there are real reforms of policing, law enforcement and criminal justice that some of use were trying to move forward on,

      Instead IDIOCY like “defund the police” has likely made any possibility of meaningful and beneficial reform impossible for a decade.

      You forget the central precept of the Hippocratic oath – “First do no harm”.

      You are doing a fantastic job of proving the the core of conservatism – however bad you thing things are, change is more likely to make things worse than better.
      So if you are going to change something – Know what the h311 you are doing FIRST – as those on the left CLEARLY do not.

      YOUR RACIST stupidity has wreaked havoc on a generation of minority kids.

      At long last have you no shame ?

    6. I can list a large number of potential criminal justice reforms that had an excellent chance of improving our system, that have died for atleast a generation because of YOUR RACIST STUPIDITY.

      And you are actually Proud of being an idiot.

      The stupid ham fisted nonsense that resulted from the Chauvin conviction, and the BLM riots, and the defund the police moment, is a major part of what is driving minorities to the republican party.

      You have inarguably made things worse.

      There is more crime, more violence, more murders – and the overwhelming majority of victims are minorities.

      YOU OWN THIS.

      Typical leftist idiocy.

      Slogans over carefully thought out and tested reforms.

      Your stupidity has even risked creating the actual systemic racism that did not exist before your nonsense.

  18. So the professor has a right to her opinion and speech.
    However, when she is recognized as a professor teaching at a specific university her speech is no longer viewed as being just her opinion and carries a bit more weight.

    The University should have the right to censure or rebuke her for her comments. But leave it at that.

    I recognize that it becomes difficult to separate yourself from work.
    Were I to post something using my real name… even if I say that my statements do not reflect the views of my employer, it becomes hard to separate it.

    The fact that she espouses her beliefs, ignoring the facts of the situation, she should be censured by the university or at least counseled on why her comment was inappropriate.

Leave a Reply