Um . . . I guess I'll follow the Philly PD's lead and avoid a "rush to judgment" about this video:
That certainly doesn't seem open to a wide variety of interpretations.
« Defending HRC | Main | War on Islam »
Rush to Judgment
08 May 2008 12:02 pm
Comments (81)
That certainly doesn't seem open to a wide variety of interpretations.
Yet magically, a variety of interpretations is exactly what will ensue in this thread.
Gotta love the douchebag at the end of the clip who qualifies his colleague's observation that "things don't look good for the officers" with "according to victims' rights advocates". Can't have a journalist expressing judgment, no, that won't do, we must limit ourselves to reporting the controversy!
(And note that this should be *defendants'-rights* advocates, no?)
Wow. That was really scary.
The triple shooting they were fleeing from was probably scary too...I am sure they deserved every kick worthless criminals shooting up the Philly streets...
Wow -- did you see that one cop who was stopped by another office from beating on the guy at the top of the screen, then ran around and started hitting the guy on the right side of the screen with a nightstick?
He wins the crazy award amid very tough competition.
It's better to have monitoring, but, yeah, there supposedly was a shooting, we don't know the context given the video, and I can't see what in the world the suspects were or weren't doing.
I can't see what in the world the suspects were or weren't doing.
I can see what the cops were doing, though. They were beating the shit out of a couple of guys lying on the ground.
They were beating the shit out of a couple of guys lying on the ground.
Posted by James Gary
Right, and if it wasn't part of actual law enforcement, then it was wrong. But were the guys armed? Had they threatened the arresting or pursuing officers? Was it possible that they could still draw weapons?
the operative word is 'suspected' not convicted. and even if they were guilty is this how we want to outsource punishment.
Just wait until people can carry tiny cameras in their eye-glasses or some other small object on their person, so you can never be sure if you are being recorded or not, or if it is being sent to another location for off-site backup. This might cut down both on cop violence and convenient "suicides" - I bet that the DC Madam could have used one.
I agree with the Philly PD. These guys were apparently running from a shooting. They could have been armed. I don't know what PA law is, but it seems to me that the police had some reason to think that those involved in the shooting wouldn't go easily: they ran, and the cost of resisting arrest--maybe with arms--isn't obviously much less than the cost of conviction for killing someone. (Or, perhaps, for shooting someone.) Now, obviously, if the police had bullet proof exoskeletons--perhaps painted red--I'd think very differently.
That said, I don't have a sense of Philly's reputation on police brutality. Maybe it's horrible. Maybe, on consideration, this is every bit as terrible as it looks. But avoiding a rush to judgment seems pretty much like the obvious choice at the moment.
I love convenient suicides!
Had they threatened the arresting or pursuing officers?
What difference does that make?
But were the guys armed? Was it possible that they could still draw weapons?
I don't know. Based on the video, what's your opinion? Do you think kicking a guy in the head while two of your buddies are holding him down was necessary in this situation?
1) Here's the local news story on the incident:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080508_5_officers_off_street_duty_over_beatings.html
2) One theory is that the police swarm was triggered by stress from the killing of the police sargent I mentioned the other day -- although that was a separate incident involving different people.
3) Lacking detailed knowledge of the incident, I'm really not competent to have an opinion.
But the video doesn't make sense from a tactical viewpoint. If the police were being aggressive because they feared one of the men was grabbing for a gun, some of the police should have been standing back with their pistols drawn --prepared to shoot if one of the suspects pulled out the gun.
4) However, another possibility is that the 3 suspects tried to run over someone with their car. A car is a far more dangerous weapon than a handgun -- and police rightfully consider a runover attempt to be attempted murder --justifying use of deadly force.
5) Yet another possibility is that Philly police are feeling vulnerable due to the recent shooting and have consciously --vice emotionally -- decided to send a message to the community in the next few weeks.
Police are the biggest gang on the street -- but they are still greatly outnumbered. Which puts a premium on keeping control via intimidation. The Crips would have grinned in recognition at what was going on.
6) One disturbing thing about the scene is that kicking can easily kill someone if they are hit in the temple. And several people have died from baton strikes to the chest that stopped their hearts. Those strikes have to be used with precision and control -- and I don't see much of that on the video.
More to the point, this is the last thing the new mayor and commissioner need at the precise moment that they're stepping up enforcement in advance of the summer crime spike. There was also a recent cop shooting last week and a cluster of cop shootings last October; surely this inflamed the arresting officers' tempers.
Keep in mind, this is a city where the (then predominately Irish and Italian) police once accidentally incinerated a block of rowhouses in a standoff. Many African-Americans don't believe it was an accident. Mayor Nutter has talked about increasing trust in the police, as more cooperation improves enforcement. I can't see how law-abiding North Philly residents are going to want to cooperate more after seeing this video.
Um, Cid. Not sure how kicking a guy in the side when he's face down on the ground really helps stop the danger of a suspect pulling a gun. Seems like maybe helping get cuffs on him would be more effective. I guess I'd prefer our police officers don't use the "beat them into submission" approach.
Kicking? Pussies.
Re Doug-E's comment "Not sure how kicking a guy in the side when he's face down on the ground really helps stop the danger of a suspect pulling a gun "
------------
It distracts him.
Especially if you aim for the floating ribs, solar plexus or kidneys. heh heh
Kicking someone on the ground who is actually capable of shooting you is, from a self-defense point, about the stupidest thing you can do.
I aksed my buddy Scalia, and he said that this is perfectly fine behavior. After all, the suspects had not been convicted of any crime, so this could not be interpreted as "punishment".
I asked my buddy Scalia, and he said that this is perfectly fine behavior. After all, the suspects had not been convicted of any crime, so this could not be interpreted as "punishment".
I asked my buddy Scalia, and he said that this is perfectly fine behavior. After all, the suspects had not been convicted of any crime, so this could not be interpreted as "punishment".
Wow -- did you see that one cop who was stopped by another office from beating on the guy at the top of the screen, then ran around and started hitting the guy on the right side of the screen with a nightstick?
Whoa. That guy had a job to do.
Sorry for the multi-post. I thought I caught my spelling error in time, but... apparently not.
Dude. While I have no problem with criminals getting tossed around, shoved to the ground, sat on, etc, there is no possible reason why a cop might need to kick someone in the ribs a few times after he's been handcuffed. The fact that someone might try to invent a reason to justify that is frightening.
This video looks pretty bad for the police. But I will say in an attempt at moral defense of the members of the service that incidents like this usually happen in response to a particularly heinous crime, either against a PO or a child, or an otherwise innocent bystander. The cops here, as in other cases I'm familiar with, are incensed, and perhaps understandably (yet perhaps not legally, or consistent with Dept. guidelines) administer a little street justice against what they consider to be perps who will likely be released quite soon due to a lazy prosecutor or a perp-loving judge (this is a cop's perspective and not necessarily my own). What this almost certainly was not (and this is also true of the Bell case)was a bunch of good old boys sitting around the station house saying "lets go get us a couple of [expletive]s."
Again, I'm not saying what the officers did was right, but I think that you should have a little bit of context and understanding as to how incidents like this happen. Remember that being a cop requires an enormous amount of restraint, and the overwhelming majority of MOS are to be commended for exercising this restraint. Think of it this way: If you caught someone who shot and murdered (or raped) a 6 year old, would you exercise restraint or would you beat the son of a bitch to within an inch of his life. I would choose the latter. And this is why I could not be a police officer.
From the Philly news story, right at the end:
Police said they had found fifteen 9mm cartridge casings at the shooting scene. No gun was found in the vehicle.
So just to be clear this appears to be three unarmed men who were being beaten by 15 cops.
I'm not backing the police reaction. Mostly I can't tell what they heck is going on, and I have zero idea of how police act to deal with potentially armed suspects.
It's not necessarily the case that those who recommend holding back from absolute declarations in the absence of what seems like relevant information are backers of police violence.
It's not necessarily the case that those who recommend holding back from absolute declarations in the absence of what seems like relevant information are backers of police violence.
I don't know, El Cid. If you comment here, you're a liberal, and therefore by definition a fascist, and therefore by definition a supporter of police violence.
:)
Did anyone who is suggesting this is defensible actually watch the video? There are four cops for each suspect, going at them for 15 seconds after they are on the ground. Go to 25 seconds in, and watch the group on the right. Three guys have the suspect subdued, and one cop goes over and gives him seven good whacks with his nightstick. I understand they might be pissed off and running on adrenaline, but they're supposed to be professionals. They are supposed to represent legal justice, not street justice.
But I will say in an attempt at moral defense of the members of the service that incidents like this usually happen in response to a particularly heinous crime, either against a PO or a child, or an otherwise innocent bystander.
Chiming in as a criminal lawyer, let me say:
Bullshit.
It happens: All.The.Time. It doesn't matter what the supposed crime is.
The joke in bail court, when you see a guy with a black eye: he's charged with Assault Police; the guy with both black eyes? Assault Police x 2.
McKingford:
Chiming in as an attorney for police officers, I will respond to your crude reaction to my post by saying that you put too much faith in your client's version of events (understandable, as I do mine). I disagree strongly with your statement that the type of crime is irrelevant.
Black eyes and split lips are easily obtained in a scuffle with police or anyone else for that matter. I was really referring in my post to the melee/serious beating type incidents like the one in this video.
Peter Moskos, author of "Cop in the Hood" who was a Baltimore police officer, and who is generally very supportive of police, doesn't have any scruples about "rushing to judgement." He says:
I find it inexcusable. I’m sure these guys who were beat are not good people. And no, I don’t know the whole story. But I can’t imagine any scenario where it’s these beatings are justified.
http://www.copinthehood.com/
Right, and if it wasn't part of actual law enforcement, then it was wrong. But were the guys armed? Had they threatened the arresting or pursuing officers? Was it possible that they could still draw weapons?
I take it you know next to nothing about restraining techniques. If you did you would understand that a multiman beatdown is both less efficient and less effective and a simple hold.
Kicking a person in the head doesn't do much to stop him from pulling a gun unless you knock him clean unconscious. Lock up his arms and legs and he can't get to a weapon. No danger to the officers and no stupid video inflaming community-police hostility.
2 years of jujitsu made me a lot less tolerant of these kinds of incidents. That looks much more like an uncontrolled display of raw emotion and rage and not the emotionless well-controlled use of violence that police should be engaged in.
Getting back to the rush to judment point. The position of police unions is not really that private citizens like Matt can't make a judgment, it is that Department and City Executives (usually Chiefs and mayors) should not rush to judgment, since this can serve to improperly influence the supposedly objective work of the investigators (who are of course public employees themselves who work under these executives' supervision), and less importantly, incense the public into further non-productive animosity against all police officers.
2 years of jujitsu made me a lot less tolerant of these kinds of incidents.
Two years? That's an argument that the police haven't been trained properly, not that this was solely rage and emotion.
As I said, it's entirely possible that this is just as awful as it looks, but I'm not sure what the cost of finding out more is supposed to be.
laborlibert,
To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest it happens in every instance, just that it happens regularly enough that the type of crime alleged generally has little to do with it. That being said, there is a pretty strong correlation between a chase (either on foot or in a car) and a beat down once the accused is caught.
I generally put little stock in the client's uncorroborated version. My confidence in my assertion arises from those instances where there is an independent witness and/or video (although I do find it uncanny, in those instances where my client's version is uncorroborated, how closely their version of events matches those instances where there is corroboration). Indeed, some of those videos are actually from police booking desks - just as an example of how nonchalant the police are about where and when they put the boots to people.
I love to see these monkeys getting beat. They deserve it.
Most cops are just thugs with uniforms and badges. Hey, I am glad they are on my side most of the time and are trying to stop the thugs without unifroms and badges. But they are still thugs at heart and need to be strictly controlled so that they don't unleash their basic animalistic nature on the populace.
So, how would one define a "police state", then?
Jerry,
Is it safe to assume you're a Clinton supporter?
Stacy is it safe to assume you are a See You Next Tuesday for linking Jerry to Clinton?
Hmm.
I count about 15 police officers in that video. Assuming that each of the three people getting their asses kicked has the normal amount of hands with which to draw a weapon, that means that there are six different hands that can be used to draw a gun.
So if you allocate one burly police officer to each of those six hands, you're left with 9 more police officers.
Use three of those to apply handcuffs (with the aid of the cops holding onto the arms) you're STILL left with 3 more cops to help out.
I see no possible way that "self defense" can be claimed by the cops here. I see a mob beating three helpless men. Whether they are criminals or not is irrelevant. It is not the job of police officers to punish criminals. That is the job of the court systems. It's just their job to catch them.
In other words, there is no excuse for what is happening in that video. I hope every single one of those cops are charged with aggravated assault and stripped of their badges.
Hmm.
I count about 15 police officers in that video. Assuming that each of the three people getting their asses kicked has the normal amount of hands with which to draw a weapon, that means that there are six different hands that can be used to draw a gun.
So if you allocate one burly police officer to each of those six hands, you're left with 9 more police officers.
Use three of those to apply handcuffs (with the aid of the cops holding onto the arms) you're STILL left with 3 more cops to help out.
I see no possible way that "self defense" can be claimed by the cops here. I see a mob beating three helpless men. Whether they are criminals or not is irrelevant. It is not the job of police officers to punish criminals. That is the job of the court systems. It's just their job to catch them.
In other words, there is no excuse for what is happening in that video. I hope every single one of those cops are charged with aggravated assault and stripped of their badges.
Stacy is it safe to assume you are a See You Next Tuesday for linking Jerry to Clinton?
Huh,
Huh?
Huh,
Stacy
So judging by the behavior or my browser and that of my friends, as well as the number of double-posts in this blog, it is set up so that when you click on "Post", it submits my comment post.
If it at the same time gives me an error messages, which forces me to use the browser's back button to go back and correct my misspelled email address before I can submit my comment, then whatever I just typed is submitted twice, in the form of a double post. Once for the error, and once after correcting it.
Something to fix, perhaps?
So judging by the behavior or my browser and that of my friends, as well as the number of double-posts in this blog, it is set up so that when you click on "Post", it submits my comment post.
If it at the same time gives me an error messages, which forces me to use the browser's back button to go back and correct my misspelled email address before I can submit my comment, then whatever I just typed is submitted twice, in the form of a double post. Once for the error, and once after correcting it.
Something to fix, perhaps?
Here's a clip that shows them stopping the car (there isn't any sound). It doesn't look like a high-speed chase to me: the car is moving slowly and under control, then pulls over and a ton of cops rush up.
A shrink for a big city PD once told me that the psychological screening for police offcers involves weeding out the trusting and empathetic.
The cop who turns his back on a suspect is the cop who gets shot in the back of the head. I guess if you want to date a man in uniform, go hang out at firefighter bars.
It is curious that you never see police brutality on COPS. Either they edit those scene out or, more likely, when you know you're being videotaped you try to avoid doing things that could get you thrown in prison.
Police dashcams have cut down on this (does Philly PD have them?) and requiring every officer to wear a lipstick cam would cut down on this even more.
No one is going to quibble if the video shows someone who fights a cop getting the crap beaten out of him. But this wasn't a one on one fight, this was a gang beating. If all of these cops had lipstick cams running that they knew DA could subpoena, they would have stopped after a couple of punches.
You guessed it: I am for Clinton, and proudly so.
And this video proves why Obama cannot beat Clinton, McCain, or any other real candidate for president. Who do you think most Americans are rooting for in this video? The cops, that's who! Most people don't want to have our country destroyed by hordes of gangbangers!
It's time they get punished! They've used affirmative action to take our jobs and opportunities away. They've taken our safety away, taken our communities away. Now they want our country.
Maybe Obama can run for the presidency of South Africa. The experiment of letting blacks run that country has turned out well.
Or look at what happened to Zimbabwe when the whites gave up control. Um, no thanks. Time to tell BHO to go back where he came from. We real Americans can run our country just fine, thank you.
Jerry,
That has to be a parody. There is way you are that stupid. "Most people don't want to have our country destroyed by hordes of gangbangers." Really? Wow. If I ever met you, I would bind you in shrinkwrap while blaring Master P and Silk the Shocker. In addition, I would beg all my black friends to run a train on your daughter/wife. Whichever one you love more...
That said, I don't have a sense of Philly's reputation on police brutality.
Hmm, I'll open the bidding with "historically legendarily awful." As in burned down an entire fucking block of a black neighborhood in the 1980s. And described by Human Rights Watch in 1998 as "grappling with the latest of the corruption and brutality scandals that have earned them one of the worst reputations of big city police departments in the United States."
Now, it's possible that they've turned things around in the last ten years, but given what's on tape there I wouldn't count on it.
Jerry,
By the way, when I talked about the train to be ran, I meant WHILE you watch. Just so there is no confusion.
I find the comments to the effect of "maybe the cops were reacting to the mood on the streets" or "sending a message" to be very short-sighted. While every bit of excessive force used on these suspects is morally wrong, the even bigger picture problem is the message that the cops really sent, or rather the message that the community really gets.
Everyone in that area, and everyone in other urban areas who see that video, are just going to think that much more that cops are violent thugs, and it just escalates the antagonistic relationship between citizens and police, heightening the distrust and aggression. The more people don't like cops, the more the cops are in danger, the more everyone is worse off.
The position of police unions is not really that private citizens like Matt can't make a judgment, it is that Department and City Executives ... should not rush to judgment ... and less importantly, incense the public into further non-productive animosity against all police officers.
Posted by laborlibert | May 8, 2008 2:10 PM
If the public gets incensed, it's the fault of police officers like those in the video and their supporters, not by private citizens like Matt or city executives.
In other words, there is no excuse for what is happening in that video. I hope every single one of those cops are charged with aggravated assault and stripped of their badges.
Posted by Jim Crozier | May 8, 2008 2:53 PM
"Charged with aggravated assault" is an interesting way to put it. It makes me wonder what the likelihood is. Personally, I might think of apologists for mob violence like laborlibert as anything other than fascists if they can, say, provide two examples of a police officer spending time in jail for police brutality.
Damn, it seems I spoke too soon. After four of the officers involved in the Rodney King assault were acquitted in their state trial, they were tried in federal court and two of them were found guilty. So I was wrong, there are examples out there of police officers going to jail for police brutality. And it only took four days of rioting!
(For the record, I actually have some sympathy for the officers, in some ways. Really tough and stressful job, mob mentality, heat of the moment, etc. One of those two officers convicted of beating King attempted suicide, apparently. The thing that really pisses me off is the tolerance for police brutality from the institutions and the general public.)
These guys will be acquitted because the case will be moved out to Pittsburgh where a bunch of bitter, God and gun clinging white racists won't see the issue.
At the same time, MSM does justice a mis-service by showing these videos without the full context. Kind of like Rodney King. No one realized that there was another black man in the car who was arrested without incident. All they saw was "poor" Rodney getting a beat down.
Well, Ted, given your taste in "music" and interest in gang rape, it's not hard to guess your race. Like others of your kind, you cannot be trusted to behave or even speak civilly in the public square.
I think the Philadelphia police department has done just about what any reasonable person would expect over the years. When violent simians run free through the streets bent on destruction and rape, police need to respond--and that response cannot be conflated with mere "policing." If an animal control officer puts down a wild dog, is the officer accountable to the "community" of dogs? No. The REAL Philadelphia community supports these police because they're the last buffer the city has from utter chaos.
Re Jerry's comment "The REAL Philadelphia community supports these police because they're the last buffer the city has from utter chaos."
-----------
Bullshit. Everyone knows that the last buffer against social chaos is the South Philly Mob. With backup from the Mummers, if needed.
The REAL Philly thinks that anyone who wants to create a police state because he's trembles with girlish fears is a pathetic pussy.
And that anyone who refers to "violent simians running through the street" should be dragged out into Rittenhouse Square at high noon and buttfucked by three large convicts.
Yes, Don, blacks seem to like buttfucking a lot more than they like law and order.
When selective enforcement of the laws (crack vs. powder sentencing, anyone?) and continual harassment and suspicion always fall on your head, I suspect you'd have a problem with police as well. Why don't white hoodlums ever get beatdowns like this?
Jerry writes: "Yes, Don, blacks seem to like buttfucking a lot more than they like law and order."
Just like your mom, Jerry. Just like your mom.
Which is why you're the product of anal drip.
Jerry,
I'm a white man. And no, No Limit is my cup of tea when it comes to hip-hop, but you are missing my point. My point is that its obvious that rap music probably scares you as much as a black man's sexuality. Well, probably not AS MUCH. I'm sure the idea of your daughter sleeping with a black guy is enough to drive you over the edge. That's why I'm so confident karma will make it happen. You are sad. And I even assume you're joking.
There's no possible way that is correct police procedure.
1) If the suspects were presumed to be armed, you don't rush the goddamn car with a crowd of cops, and try to drag them out. You surround the fucking car, order them out, drop all weapons, get on the ground.
2) Once said suspects are on the ground, you don't rush up and start beating on them. First of all, if any of them have a concealed weapon they didn't drop - and this is indeed a possibility a cop has to take into consideration - because I did, when planning my robbery, although in fact I didn't have a second weapon - the proper approach is again to surround the suspects with guns drawn to cover the officers doing the pat-down and cuffing.
Any of you morons ever even seen a cop show on TV? Christ, they at least get that right. Watch the scene in Terminator where Reese is arrested after killing Andy Good - it's precisely the same scenario - a fleeing suspect in a shooting murder - except no car is involved.
This is just totally a case of out of control cops. No doubt about it whatsoever.
And this shit happens because cops are both incompetent and cowardly. They can't take on an armed criminal because they're lousy shots (most, not all - a NYPD study showed cops only hit what they're aiming at 25 percent of the time - criminals only 11 percent) and they have to call for five hundred more cops as backup whenever they run into a problem. And when they do that, they end up pumping fifty bullets into a guy when a half dozen would have been more than enough - or they end up using five guys to beat down one who's already on the ground busted up and screaming like Rodney King while a dozen more stand around who should have been helping restrain the individuals if they were actually a threat.
When you see cops standing around while other cops beat somebody and they don't have guns drawn to cover the other cops, you're seeing a beating, not a threat to the cops.
Get a fucking clue.
Fuck cops. Death to cops. The only good cop is a dead cop. And I don't care who's offended by that statement.
Dick Hack once again lives up to his name:
"Any of you morons ever even seen a cop show on TV?...Watch the scene in Terminator where Reese is arrested after killing Andy Good - it's precisely the same scenario - a fleeing suspect in a shooting murder - except no car is involved."
Are you fucking kidding me? I prefer to engage in constructive argument when I post here, but after offering up a gem like this I really believe you should go kill yourself.
We will finally be able to deal with these situations properly when advanced programmable super-powered bio-engineered and/or cybernetic organisms do all the policing. I saw it on this TV show.
"As in burned down an entire fucking block of a black neighborhood in the 1980s."
That was the idiot black mayor's idea, in response to situation involving an idiot black cult. Don't blame that one on the police.
Re Jerry's comment "Yes, Don, blacks seem to like buttfucking a lot more than they like law and order."
---------------
Well, I'll be dammed. You see a lot of odd sports of nature on the Internet but Jerry is a first: A WANNABEE Racist. Ha ha ha
Someone who sprouts off nasty comments but is careful to use politically correct phrases for African-Americans.
Word of advice, Jerry. For your own safety, I suggest you withhold your sociological observations if you're ever in Fairmount Park here in Philly.
That's okay -- no need to thank me. I would do the same for a white man.
"Word of advice, Jerry. For your own safety, I suggest you withhold your sociological observations"
I always find this sort of response to someone who says racist things about blacks to be odd. Blacks' alleged propensity toward violence at the slightest offense is a negative stereotype often repeated by those who are racist against blacks. So why validate this stereotype in your response?
I agree with the Philly PD. These guys were apparently running from a shooting.
Anybody with sense runs from a shooting. It's not clear to me why you think that merits a savage beating from twenty officers.
laborlibert: "I really believe you should go kill yourself."
After you, nitwit.
The obvious reason I cited the show was as an example of how even TV gets the way it's done in real life correct.
But the morons here are saying, "Gee, I don't know."
Look at the fucking video and use common sense. This is not how cops operate when they're scared of being shot at.
Ted2,
Jerry is clearly a deeply racist pig, but please keep your gang-rape fantasies off this liberal site.
And Fred's right about threatening a racist with violence -- it just confirms his worldview.
According to the mayor, Police Commissioner Gregore J. Sambor and Managing Director Leo A. Brooks decided at the site of the action to use the explosive device, then obtained his approval some 20 min. before the drop.
And if you don't want to believe the mayor's word:
Sambor told reporters he did not recall who first suggested using explosives to demolish the roof bunker, though he added that Lieut. Powell of the bomb-disposal unit "came up with the recommendation" that they "create" the kind of device that was later dropped by Powell himself. The Philadelphia Inquirer published an impressively detailed report that for at least 18 months the police had been working up contingency assault plans and studying the Move bunker in photographic blowups. For weeks and possibly months, the paper said, police had been secretly testing various explosives, including Du Pont's Tovex TR-2, which was later used in the attack. While Sambor stuck to his contention that tests showed no reason to suppose Tovex would cause a fire, the Inquirer cited technical lore from Du Pont stating that a detonation would produce heat of from 3,000 degrees to 7,000 degrees F, and quoted Du Pont's insistence that the explosive was intended to be used underground for mining and quarrying, not in the open.
MOVE were indeed idiots, but that didn't justify burning down the block around them -- and I fail to see how the fact that they were (mostly) black mitigates things at all. If living next to idiots is good cause to have your house burned down, I fear for your neighbors.
Re Fred's comment "Blacks' alleged propensity toward violence at the slightest offense is a negative stereotype often repeated by those who are racist against blacks. So why validate this stereotype in your response? "
-----------
Because if some black guy wanted to whip Jerry's ass, I would hold the black guy's jacket while he did it. Even though I'm a white man.
Why? Because I've seen what racism does. And I've seen what the police state mentality does.
So I think it's only fair that those who advocate those vicious policies experience just a little bit of what they're advocating.
Maybe if Jerry got a good asswhipping, he might have a little more understanding of that video we're discussing.
Jerry is an idiot. Homosexuality is actually almost unheard of among Africans and African Americans. Most Africans absolutely get the vapors when they hear about gay marriage and things like that; more than once when I was living in Africa and reading about San Francisco bath house culture, it made me deeply ashamed of my country. (Not that I wasn't already ashamed of it for our foreign policy adventures and rampant capitalism.) Perhaps this is just one aspect in which they are more civilized than us. Increasingly it looks like Black American and African people are going to be the salvation of my (Anglican) church. To this we owe them an unfathomable debt.
And yes, racists like Jerry deserve to be sent to the salt mines.
Correction: homosexuality is traditionally uncommon among _Christian_ Africans. It was however a popular pastime among some East African kings apparently, under Muslim influence...evidently they were following the lead of the medieval Islamic culture.
Hector is comical. He hates, hates, hates racism, but homophobia? What's wrong with that? It's just a civilized response to bath house culture.
"Homosexuality is actually almost unheard of among Africans and African Americans."
Hector,
You parade your ignorance here. Why do you think the AIDS rate for African Americans is so high? Never heard of the "down low"? Just because most aspects of gay culture are antithetical to mainstream African American culture doesn't mean that a significant minority of black men don't like to have sex with other men. Plenty have been having unprotected homosexual sex, and then having unprotected sex with their girlfriends.
I don't know what the sexual mores were in the part of Africa you spent time in, but it's also worth remembering that in many cultures that are overtly hostile to gayness there is nevertheless a significant amount of homosexual intercourse. This is true in parts of the Arab world, Iran (whose president denies the existence of gays in his country), etc.
You speaking from experience, Fred?
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm all in favour of the police being videoed all the time. It's going to change the nature of being a police officer alot. But I'm less sure about the rest of us being videoed all the time in the same way.
Posted by otto | May 8, 2008 12:11 PM