"A specious comparison"
Making sense of the police beating
"A specious comparison"
I haven't written anything all week about the Philadelphia story that's making national news, the alleged police brutality that was captured on film a TV news crew. It's a weird situation -- to the world and national media, officers shown kicking and clubbing three suspects on the ground is a "shock video," and that's understandable, but they haven't lived the context that we have here in Philadelphia -- since the assassination of a police officer in cold blood wasn't as big news to them. Of course, there's no video of the act of wanton inhumanity that killed Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, so it doesn't get the same level of coverage.
I think most people here in Philly are disappointed by the incident -- we want professionalism from our cops, which means responding forcefully at times but also rationally, something that's often easier said than done. The things that really trigger raw outrage -- the beating of an unarmed suspect in a minor crime, like Rodney King --just aren't there. Also, the video doesn't tell the whole story -- it's impossible to see whether the suspects on the ground are still resisting or not -- which is why the best thing for now is simply a full investigation. It's hard to disagree with both Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and Mayor Nutter when they say "it doesn't look good" but that we need to know more.
Not surprisingly, Christine M. Flowers waded in on this today, and she said:
Liberal critics like this usually don't worry too much about being inconsistent. They never met a specious comparison they didn't like.
So it isn't a surprise that they've now focused on an alleged case of "police brutality" in the heated hours after Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was executed. Although you hate to see this type of behavior, it's certainly understandable how officers who'd lost a brother and who were under a heightened state of stress might have flown off the handle when apprehending suspects involved in a triple shooting, two of whom turn out to have records involving drugs and firearms.
But hey, why worry about details when you have a chance to scream about police brutality?
But I think Christine is worked up over liberal anger that she expected to find but that just isn't there. Let's face it, there's a lot of liberals here in Philadelphia, but I have not seen them racing to criticize the cops on this one -- for the reasons discussed above. The lone comment that she's so worked up about in her column was uttered by a lawyer for one of the defendants; I hardly think someone advocating for his client is suddenly a spokesman for all liberals. The attorney's comment compares the alleged police brutality to abuses in Iraq.
Indeed, there is no comparison to Abu Ghraib -- because Abu Ghraib is far worse. Whatever happened on the streets of Philadelphia was an act of passion, committed in the midst of an urban gun war. The torture at Abu Ghraib was premeditated and undertaken for dubious reasons at best and often for no reason other than the sport of inhuman cruelty. Many of the subjects of this mistreatment either had doing nothing wrong or were there for minor offenses. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were approved at high levels. And the detriment to any good the U.S. could possibly accomplish in the Middle East, and to the image of America around the world, has been incalculable. And yet Christine somehow uses a Philly policing controversy (I'd explain her logic, but it's hard to follow) to rationalize what happened 11,000 miles from home.
She's right about one thing.
It's a specious comparison.
I know the cops angry over the loss of one of their comrades but there's really no excuse for beating unarmed suspects. Does beating suspects bring back Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski? No.— James TL- Well, we know that ol' Christine disdains stuff like "evidence" - it's simply not important to lawyers. Quite frankly, I do think the cops *appeared* to go a little overboard, but they *were* chasing a car that had to be assumed "armed and dangerous" (having just been involved in a triple-shooting incident) - and we don't have audio or clear street-level video. As a supposed "liberal" (since I don't agree with creating fourth branches of government, torture, restricting American rights, massive pork barrel spending, passing on our debt to our grandchildren, etc. like the "conservatives") I have to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. That said, the incident should be investigated and appropriate discipline should be determined by the "facts" - something that tends to annoy the "conservatives" around here.— E.Plebnista
- So Will thinks "Christine is worked up over liberal anger that she expected to find but that just isn't there," huh? Well, let's compare this statement with two from Elmer Smith: 1) "this city is not about to go up in flames, despite what I think is a clear instance of police brutality," and 2)"it was a sickening spectacle reminiscent of scores of similar incidents here and elsewhere." Sounds pretty critical of the police to me, which is typical of the left. And note the phrase "this city is not about to go up in flames." This clearly implies Mr. Smith thinks there is a great deal of "anti-police" anger out there (there is NOT). But like I said, this is typical of the left. Members of that portion of the political spectrum have been serving up their "the police are evil" routine since, well, since the days of Marx and Engels. It fits their world-view that police are just one of the "tools of oppression" the capitalist class uses to oppress "the people." Sorry Will. I'm with Christine on this one.— George Tomezsko
- Wow, reading Christine's "column" you really do get the sense that she very much hates her fellow Americans - all the bluster about "what liberals think" is amusing in it's deranged lunacy. Like Elmer Smith notes, the city is NOT about to erupt in flames, there is NOT a groundswell to attack the cops and all the hang-wringing and foot stomping and desperate searches for "implications" of the "conservatives" won't make it so. See, "liberals" use "facts" while "conservatives" cling to their ideological hatred of their fellow Americans. And that's sad. Very, very sad.— E.Plebnista
- Until we get robots to be policemen, stuff like this will happen. Some advice until we reach that day. When the police tell you to stop, just do it. Don't give them a chnace to even think you are resisting.— Ramon
- Shorter Flowers: Two wrongs make a right. Better to imprison 100 innocents than let 1 guilty go free. They deserved it. Liberal judges, liberal lawyers!— Politburo
- Is it understandable that the cops beat unarmed suspects after they were already on the ground, surrounded, and incapacitated? Yes. They, apparently, had just watched someone who was in that vehicle shoot up a group of people. Is it acceptable? No. It's improper police procedure.— Talking point sleuth
- This says it all. http://youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8— legatus
The beating is not right, the police should know better by now. I do, however, understand their frustration.— jmc
Comment removed.- I don't think Will claimed that no one was speaking about the incident. He's saying that liberals (who aren't a homogeneous group, btw), generally aren't "focus[ing] on an alleged case of "police brutality"" as Flowers claims.— Politburo
- "Indeed, there is no comparison to Abu Ghraib"...but I'll write a paragraph about it anyway. Talk about a specious comparison. How did you get from point A to point B on that one Will?— jimmymack
- The paragraph you reference is a contrasting paragraph, not a comparative paragraph. So what exactly is your point?— Politburo
- Abu Graib was not torture Will. Hijinks and sick horseplay by a few drunken national guardsmen. You don't understand that do you? In your slanted brain, it was all ordered and orchestrated by the dumbest president ever? Right?— justablogger
- Abu Graib was not torture Will. Hijinks and sick horseplay by a few drunken national guardsmen. You don't understand that do you? In your slanted brain, it was all ordered and orchestrated by the dumbest president ever? Right?— justablogger
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
