This is a good one from a local Philly writer----below is an excerpt.
Police declare 'open season' on Black community
By Betsey Piette
Philadelphia
Published May 14, 2008 11:55 PM
Since 2006, police have fatally shot 35 people in Philadelphia, more than in any similar period since 1980. Already in 2008 there have been three reported deadly shootings by police, including one of an unarmed bystander killed by a cop who fired 11 shots into a house where a number of people, including children, were celebrating New Year’s Eve.
Showing little concern for victims of police brutality, John McGrody, vice president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, said that “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” means nothing to him. (Philadelphia Daily News, May 8)
In the same issue of the Daily News, columnist Michael Smerconish, a former attorney for the FOP, openly advocated that police should shoot suspects to save the time and expense of jury trials!
Read the full article here: http://www.workers.org/2008/us/philadelphia_0522/
I see this was cut and paste from Worker's World
Glad to see we are giving the Troskyists equal time here on YPP. I personally can't get enough of news sources that carry water for Robert Mugabe's discredited regime.
Can we make some space for Bob Avakian and the RCP and the even cultier Laroushies also?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Look at the essay itself, not the political party
I'm not a member of the WWP, and for the record, they're mostly into Stalin, NOT Trotsky.
That said, Betsey Piette is a local writer, and a friend, who does a lot of good work, and has been an important part of the Mumia support network----Coalitions are about working together with people from all political spectrums... And this article is about an important Philly issue and makes very good points... You don't have to be a member of the Workers World Party to get good points from this here. I see no reference to Stalin or Trotsky here, do you?
Do refute something in the article? I think that should be the most important criticism. Why haven't other people in Philly had the guts to challenge the FOP and Smerconish's disturbing comments?
I am personally an anarchist, and therefore oppose authoritarian socialism...And the anarchists were brutally repressed by the Bolsheviks even though they had been anti-capitalist revolutionary allies during the Russian Revolution.
However, through journalists for mumia (Abu-Jamal-News.com), I seek out and help promote the best journalism that confronts the many different issues that Mumia's case represents---and I don't discriminate against people's personal politics... If there is someone who supports the Democratic Party (who I generally disagree with about everything because of their subservience to the ruling class) and they write a good article or make a good point about what I see as an important issue, then I will promote that also..... But don't misinterpret me, I think the WWP is has MUCH better integrity and standards than the Democratic Party!
See what I'm saying? What do you think of these comments by the FOP and Smerconish? Aren't they repulsive? Why isn't there more outrage about those from the pro-capitalist "liberals" here in town?
Smerconish is a clown and an opportunist
Mumia and Daniel Faulkner's pointless killing has basically paid for Smerconish's house in the suburbs and put his kids through Catholic school. I would argue that rhetoric like Betsy Piette's are what has sadly given Smerconish any pathetic claim to "relevance" at all. I would suggest that this kind of stuff is the only reason Smerconish is able to blab on the radio, get published in the paper, enrich himself ghost-writing Maureen Faulkner's book. If you want to freeze things in the worst part of the 1980's and make folks like Smerconish a rich man, by all means spread Ms. Piette's piece far and wide. I just see it shedding heat and not light on the situation though.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
That's a poor response Mr. L; your cat could do better
I don't know if the statistics and quotes cited in the article are true or false, and apparently you don't either. Nothing else is relevant. If they were true and reported by the Inquirer, would that make them more shocking, more reprehensible? Is that your point?
Police brutality is too serious an issue to be dismissed because you don't like the messenger who's bringing it to your attention.
Btw, it seems to me that you can't always believe what you read in the Inquirer either, not to mention the scandalous amount of real news it doesn't feel fit to print.
What statistics?
Beyond the 35 shootings in the first post, the linked article is nothing but "spin" of the worst variety.
The video goes for 11-minutes but the actual beating, as disgusting as it is, lasts for all of 40 seconds.
Editorializing a little for a "news" article, no? This purports to be "fact" not opinion.
The Jones incident was another low point for PPD professionalism in my book, but Jones certainly never had a noose lowered over his neck at any point despite the wording in this article. Also several of the officers who were the most egregious violators in the Jones case happened to be African American, FWIW. BTW- when Jones was apprehended he had already lead the police on a lengthy chase going the wrong way up a one-way street in a stolen police cruiser after shooting the officer the cruiser belonged to with a gun he had wrestled away from the officer - just for a bit of context.
I'm glad to hear you are so indignant however, Stan. Had a lot of police shootings up in West Mt. Airy lately?
There's a way to make the case that drastic changes needed to be made in police oversight in this town and I honestly think articles like this are more effective at giving fuel for the fire for the Smerconish's of the world than stating the case in a way that brings more of the general public over to the side of reform. Again thats just my personal opinion. Obviously you differ.
Edit - OK this is another thread its probably better if I just sit it out for the duration at this point. I'm out.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
The non-sequiturs just keep coming
Apparently the issue is not 35 police shootings, it's a)who wrote the article and b)that there may or may not have been a lot of police shootings up in Mt. Airy lately. And the fact that the latest brutality only lasted 40 seconds.
Now I understand. I'm out too.
Breaking my rules
Stan, at a certain point the language becomes so ridiculously loaded, the prose so purple that it drowns out whatever truth there is in the message. For me this article is a clear example of writing that goes well over that line.
I think strategically you need to decide if your goal is really beefing up police accountability or if it setting yourself up as as more groovily "radical" than the likes of me takes precedence over getting your point across to wider audience. Honestly on the broad specturm of things, I don't perceive myself as the reactionary right-wing on the need for civilian oversight of the police. Honestly I think compared the "middle-of-the-road" of Philadelphia, I'm pretty far over on the side of greater civilian oversight.
In terms of the high numbers of police shootings at civlians more recently, I would wonder to what extent that was a reflection of a higher number of incidents where civilians pointed firearms at police officers. I'd love to see an objective statistical breakdown, but my gut feeling is that petty criminals and lower level drug players are far more likely to be armed these days than in the past. The same goes for civlians who just so happen to out their mind on drugs and involved "fits of passion" domestic disputes. Philadelphia today I would argue is probably more heavily armed today than it was 20 years ago and the number of police shootings are in part a reflection of that. Without real numbers of course, that would be total conjecture on my part.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
You don't think Sean
You don't think Sean pointing our glarring inaccuracies in a propagandist article is worthwhile?
An uptick in police shootings could be blamed on a lot of things, including police training, oversight and internal procedures. But, perhaps it can also be blamed on the increasingly dangerous jobs police officers have in enforcing the law when the criminals are, sometimes, better armed than the police. Also, given the increase in the number of shootings and murders that Philadelphians have experienced in the last 3 years, the streets our police partrol are certainly more violent. As a point of reference, 798 civilians were murdered in Philadelphia in 2006 and 2007 and over a thousand were shot.
My belief: the increase in police shootings does not fall entirely on the Philadelphia Police Department and its officers. 35 shootings to me says nothing compared to the facts of each individual shooting. This is why police shootings should be (and are) thoroughly investigated.
Police brutality also needs to be thoroughly investigated for wrong doing. Excessive force is not just illegal, it is wrong. But, regardless of that investigation, the three men who were on that video tape likely committed a crime too. Let's hope that the outrage over there beating does not take away from their own criminal prosecution.
I agree with Sean, the article cited above does little, if anything, to positively resolve the issue.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
G., seriously
You look at that tape, and your primary reaction is that you hope that the outrage over their beating doesn't take away from the prosecution of the suspects? I assume you didn't intend it that way - but I can't hope but notice that you distance yourself, linguistically, from the outrage. You don't say, "my" outrage, or "our" outrage.
The actions of the officers in that situation is an outrage. Period. As I've said before, I can understand that there may have been a connection between them seeing someone fire into a crowd from that car and their reaction. But that doesn't, in any way, lessen the outrage.
My point is this - when you say that police brutality needs to be investigated, you undermine (at least to me), the seriousness of that message when you next say that you're concerned about the reaction to the shooting might affect the prosecution of the guys who got beat. It's as if you're saying that what's primarily important to you about the outrage is that the suspects might get off easier.
You also seem to not see that the very best way to mitigate any feelings of police brutality is to aggressively police the police. You say that shootings should be thoroughly investigated, but don't speak about the concerns out there that they haven't been in the past, and that there is insufficient infrastructure to do so in the future.
As for the outrage, I've
As for the outrage, I've seen the tape and it seems outrageous. No dispute there. Am I outraged? Yes.
But, if you read the articles about the 3 suspect's preliminary hearing today, you would understand what I mean about undermining their prosecution for the underlying criminal act. They don't get a free pass because of what happened after their own criminal act. Do you disagree?
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080516_Hearing_today_for_3...
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Don't disagree
But. What precedent do you have that criminals get a "free pass," due to police brutality? Do you think that if there's sufficient evidence that these guys were part of the shooting they will walk?
Based on previous history, I'd say that there's far more evidence that police are not always held sufficiently accountable for irresponsible conduct. And I'd think that anyone who takes a balanced view of effective law enforcement would agree that the first step in generating positive long-term, farther-reaching outcomes from a situation like this is to make it as clear as possible that the police adamantly avow that such behavior is incredibly counterproductive.
This situation needs to be viewed as containing very separate components. Anything that conflates the two only drives the wedge separating police and the communities they patrol deeper. A failure to detach the two components only further blurs those distinctions in a way that creates an even more viscous circle. If you think that reaction to the clear brutality contributes to an an environment that justifies criminality, it stands to reason that you should focus on uncoupling the different components.
Seriously, crimes don't excuse brutality
I don't think its OK to beat suspects into submission - ever. But the fact the car had sped away from a triple shooting means that the cops would be foolish not to approach that car with guns drawn and to be extremely careful in apprehending those three men. It was not a routine traffic stop. The cops had every reason to suspect that all three men in that car were armed and had just tried to kill several people standing on a corner. Thats not insignificant.
Again, the behavior on that tape is not appropriate to my eye but I think the potentially extremely dangerous nature of that arrest does mean that it would be wrong to expect it to be a routine arrest. Several of the officers crossed the line from caution in a dangerous situation to what appears to me to be unwarranted violence.
RE Policing the police: Internal Affairs has taken 13 cops off the street including a seargent who should have been exercising oversight over the scene. that was based on comparing the video to tapes off the police radio at the scene. The investigation into the police conduct has been joined by the DA's office (I know, Lynn Abraham, but still) and FBI. If you want to complain about the investigation after its done, I'm all ears but at least it must be admitted a lot of eyes are looking at it. It will be hard to sweep something under the rug under such circumstances.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
There's no but
Who thinks that the cops should have treated it like a routine traffic stop? What does that have to do with beating, and kicking suspects on the ground after they were clearly subdued?
I don't have a problem so much with how the police have reacted thus far. It seems to me to be balanced. My problem is with not recognizing that what happened is incredibly counterproductive to reducing violence, and not recognizing that there is a history of problems with the police holding themselves accountable for unacceptable actions. Will this incident be swept under the rug? Not likely. But that doesn't address the larger issue at play. This is a highly visible case which reveals more widespread problems, problems for which there is a lacking infrastructure of accountability.
I hope that the outcome of this case is not simply to hold these particular cops accountable - which it seems is starting to happen - but to also provide impetus to create structural reform.
Smerconish and the FOP
What I found most shocking and important in this article I posted are the quotes from the FOP and Smerconish....... I find it amazing that those 2 could make statements like that and not be harshly criticized by everyone in Philly.
I agree
But I didn't see the quote properly sourced either and the overall tone of the article makes me suspicious of its veracity. Smerconish is a gigantic idiot who flirts with statements that ridiculous constantly but he's also a lawyer who is well versed at making his reactionary extremism sound palatable. The FOP quote I'm even more skeptical of, considering the source.
Do you care to link to the DN article it claims to pull the quote from?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Link to Smerconish article
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/columnists/20080508_Michael_Smer...
Above is the link to Smerconish's article.
Re the other new comments on the blog, there is absolutely no justification for the attack on those three guys----regardless of what had happened... In no way at all did that vicious beating serve to protect those police from a possible attack from those guys.... They just went and beat the crap out of them, and that had absolutely no relationship to an alleged sincere attempt by the police to protect themselves from a possible attack. Certainly it was not a "routine traffic stop," and police should be "careful" but in no way does this concern translate into what the police actually did. In reality, the police were probably really pissed about the killed police officer from a few days before, and they took out they're aggression and frustration on these guys---which is 100 percent wrong... Further, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that this kind of stuff happens alot, but is not actually caught on video.
That said, I have not heard one single critic of the police beating, try and say that if those guys in the car had done something seriously wrong (like being involved in a shooting incident) that it is ok and/or justifiable because of the police attack. The point is that the police do not grant the right to a fair trial and the assumption of innocent until proven guilty .... Rather, they just went after them with their violent assault. This sets such a dangerous precedent
I agree with this
Smerconish's thing is really a pro-death penalty piece. His usual brand of wrapping himself in the flag Maureen Faulkner to make a name for himself. It doesn't in my read say exactly what your Worker's World article says it says. It walks that line that gets him the support of thousands of Eagle's fans unfortunately.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
FOP Statement in Daily News
Ok, I tracked down the FOP Statement from the May 8 Daily News. Here is the link, with the relevant exceprt:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/18764344.html
John McGrody, a vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, showed little concern for the welfare of the suspects beaten by Philadelphia police officers.
"We're generally not dealing with people returning from a Tupperware party or the library," McGrody said. "They committed a felony in the presence of police."
Police officers have the "most dangerous job" in the city, he said, and the public shouldn't judge too harshly.
"Everybody has not seen the whole tape," he said, "but what's clear is that three gun-toting felons were fleeing an active shooting scene. Police officers respond with the use of force in the same way it's dealt to us. We're grateful none of our police officers were hurt."
-------------
Then there was this letter to the editor:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/18853529.html
Exactly
this statement
is extremely disturbing. There is no excuse for such a lack of accountability. This, along with a blatant disregard for the value of human life on the part of those shooting up our communities is exactly what will continue to exacerbate the problems.
Clarification
Out of curiosity, IF these three guys are in fact guilty of as you so eloquently put it "a blatant disregard for the value of human life on the part of those shooting up our communities", would it still bother you for the FOP guy to say they weren't "dealing with people returning from a Tupperware party"?
Polemical or not a drive-by shooting is accurately described as "not at Tupperware party". A drive-by shooting is an attempt to rob someone else's family of a son, father, brother, etc.
IF it turns out these guys were trying to take someone else's life that evening, will you also be outraged at the "open season on black folks" statements as well? Because IF the three suspects in fact were part of a drive-by attempt, then they were the only ones who were literally hunting black folks like deer that evening. Thats what a drive-by is, its hunting human beings like deer.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sorry, Sean
As I see it, you are consistently choosing to create strawmen and orient yourself towards a divisive exchange. If you seriously can't understand what I find incredibly offensive and counterproductive in the FOP statement, so be it. I'm done. Worn out.
That's a shame then
Because no you did not successfully put your point across to me if your beef is really with the Tupperware comment. Shooting at other people is fundemantaly one of the worst things a human being can do to another. What the cops did in that video makes me angry but whoever was doing the shooting makes me literally want to puke.
To me it seems like there is a fundamental moral flaw in putting being "righteous" over a realistic assessment of ohow deeply f--ded up it is to point a gun at another human being and attempt to take their life. Nothing and I mean nothing makes that OK.
I can not see for the life of me how saying that can even remotely be confused with making apologies for police brutality but I feel like a bunch people have tried to do exactly that to me today and I ain't havin' it.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Once again, Sean
The main reason you find so much to disagree with people about is that you fabricate other's opinions in ways that don't reflect reality. To think that I wouldn't agree that shooting someone is "fundamentally one of the worst things a human being can do to another" is flat out absurd. Something's seriously wrong with your approach.
Try a different approach, and we'll chat.
Explain in your own words
What is so disturbing with this statement in and of itself
I get that a court gets to decide ultimatelly but that is easily a lazy speech convention. I suspect that you are implying that he's saying "It doesn't matter what we do, they committed a felony" but that interpretation depends largely on a projection on your part. Literally it only says "police have to deal with rough customers" (true) and "that in those instances extraordinary procedures are called for" (spin - this was clearly cops behaving in an unprofessional manner).
I disagree with the comment but I feel that public officials do that level of "spin" at every level of government every day, dozens of times a day.
Sincerely, I feel anger at the individual officers involved in this incident but sincerely I don't get the extraordinary disappointment aimed at that comment in particular or why anyone would put put a whole lot of weight behind it as symbollic of everything thats wrong with the police-community relations.
Screw it. I don't really care in the big picture why you get bent out shape over this comment in particular. Police the world over have attitudes that are probably far worse, certainly in any city I have lived in East Coast or West. I don't like it either, just not shocked by it.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Not to butt in
I think one of the drawing lines around this argument are those who view this comment on its own, given the specific circumstances of this case, and those who view it in the context of larger concerns about police abuse that have been happening for years. The fallout from last November's murder of Charles Cassidy is still in a lot of people's minds. Everyone wanted that young man caught, but according to a friend who lived in Germantown, a number of people throughout his (my friend's) neighborhood had their homes busted open by police and were not treated very nicely. Once? twice? maybe we pass it off in the heat of the moment. But we have to look at this situation both in its specifics and address the larger issue of what many people feel is also a culture in the department that makes community people feel angered or intimidated rather than assured and safe.
I know
I've been pulled over in my neighborhood only to have the cop (in this instance African-American) stammer "Oh I didn't realize you were . . . who you are" indicating i didn't match the racial profile of who they were looking for though apparently my car did. Racial priveledge is handy sometimes, no?
I'm not clueless. I'm just equally as wary of ridiculous knee-jerk stereotypes about police as I try to be about other people.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Damn
The more I read those statements (including the one lower down), the more pissed off I get. Totally unacceptable.
FOP History of Psycho Statements
I assume your talking about the FOP statement, and I'm glad to hear that other folks are outraged by it..... It is very disturbing, and the Philly FOP has a long history of making such repulsive comments... like when the 3 cops got charged with the Aug 8, 1978 beating of Delbert Africa, police launched a massive protest and the FOP spokesperson said "They should have the bum and then there wouldn't be any problem today"... Notably the charges against those cops was dropped. I have some video-footage of this in the video I made, along with some classic Rizzo quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm3ARQLqFNM
The FOP also made a similar statement about Mumia, saying that the police should have outright executed him that night, instead of giving him a trial... However, the police did arguably try to kill Mumia that night when they arrived at the scene. He had already been shot (officially by PO Faulkner), and was then viciously beaten and wasn't taken to the hospital of over a half-hour, where witnesses state that he was actually beaten even more...
The key point with these 2 cases is similar to our current thread----police decide ahead of time that the "suspect" in their sites is so bad that they deserve a vicious beating, and/or execution (which is the clear intent in Smerconish's recent column) without any sort of fair investigation of the evidence.
This is indeed, very disturbing
yawn
This is such a polemical thread (forgive me for saying that twice in a week, but it is true). Dig deeper! Critically think!
Who controls resources in our city? Who benefits from this kind of interplay? Can both "sides" stop throwing out emotionally charged rhetoric and actually say/do something useful/interesting/change-making?
And again, Rizzo. Long dead. Our most recent Police Commissioner was an African-America man who was quite consistent in saying that the police could not not make any real changes without addressing poverty and other societal constructs.
contrast
I agree with Ray about the tiredness of this thread, and about the reductio ad Rizzo arguments.
But I would qualify the last note on poverty this way: the police can't ultimately reduce the motivation to commit crimes, or maybe even the total number and rate of crimes, through better policework alone. But we can, should, and must make changes in the whole apparatus of law enforcement -- the police force, the district attorney's office, the courts, prisons, etc. -- to be more effective and just in how they solve, prosecute, and punish criminals.
I think if we separate those two ideas, and keep both tracks going at once, the discussion could be more fruitful. Although as Ray points out, the conflict between the two may not be accidental: a good deal of the politics in this city boils down to one extreme that offers only police solutions to poverty problems and another that offers only the reverse. In the meantime, the real institutions of power go unthreatened and unchanged.
the tilt
I agree Tim that the PPD and the courts could be tilted at poverty reduction/addressing systemic problems. That's why we need to elect Seth.
But even bigger than that, we need to see everyone in leadership in this city (elected and not) understand that poverty reduction is the most strategic and moral thing we can do to improve Philadelphia's future.
Law enforcement and poverty, different things
The only way that law enforcement literally "reduces poverty" it already does way too much already. Continuously expanding prisons makes jobs and that "reduces poverty" in a fashion but law enforcement can not and should not be expected to "produce" jobs. It's there to stop people whose activities get in the way of the rest of us just getting along building our own lives, nothing more, nothing less. Admittedly at a certain level in this city the level of violence and crime maybe actively drives away jobs from some of our neighborhoods but I am pretty sure thats not what you mean.
"Poverty" is kind of too vague a word for the multiple layers of social dysfunction that plague our city and feed into the cycle of violence. If it were simply "poverty" you could just write everyone a big check and they would stop shooting at each other over petty beefs. The young men shooting each other in this city are almost never killing each other because they literally can't afford to eat. Its a way more nefarious web of broken family structures, broken schools, chronic unemployment, drug enforcement that says "its OK to push this illicit economy into those kinds of neighborhoods, and culture of misplaced bravado and shallow materialism.
If we dump everything into the word "poverty" without being more specific, its no longer targeted enough to do much good terms of figuring out the "how" of urban violence.
Its not just lack of dollars that makes Philly's mean streets mean, its a very particular system of failure of the social fabric.
That said there are million and one things we can do to direct people away from crime and the underground activity before they feel that their only choice. There are a million and two things to make sure they have other options once they do get caught up in it and, as eventually happens, they get busted.
I also agree those couple millions of things are more interesting than whats been going on in this thread.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Yes, those are what I was referring to
For what it's worth: I think tying this incident to the Mumia case or incidents related to MOVE is probably not likely to achieve much in the way of positive outcomes. I'm sympathetic to your perspective, but see those cases as being, in balance, tangentially related to the problems that exist in our City today.
That's not what the Worker's World article says
It says:
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Legitimate critique
Yes, apparently Piette was quoting the letter to the editor, and I agree that this is unclear in her article, so you do make a legitimate criticism...
I'm glad that got cleared up....
While the direct quote was unclear and I feel it is fair to criticize the article for that, I think the intent of his actual statement is essentially the same, because the FOP guy was essentially defending the police behavior, and police actions were in violation of the due process rights that defendants are entitled too.
To be clear
I disagree the FOP guy but what he is saying is that he believes that in the incident in question an appropriate level of force was used. You don't think that, I don't think that, half the TV watching population in the US doesn't think that. But that's what he's saying - that he thinks it was a legit excercise of police power, not that there should be no limits to police exercise of power.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
New article on the case
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/19001469.html
Here is an article from today's Daily News that gives an update on the "video-taped beating" case, with changed accounts of the incident.
On both investigations
I would argue that patience, increased transparency and letting the legal system play out in court is probably the best policy.
Meanwhile some other police related local news stories showing both how far we've come and how far we need to go.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/19038534.html
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080516_3_ex-Phila__police_officer...
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
On a related note
Just got a notice for an event that perhaps several of the folks interested in this topic, on all sides of the discussion, might be interested in attending. Looks to be quite an impressive collection of guests and speakers.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
More on Philly Cops and Racism
Hey folks, this is an excellent and very interesting article published today in Counterpunch, which I think is very related to our previous discussion. Check it out:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna05192008.html
The Criminals are Still in Charge
Meanwhile all ten defendants in the suit have prospered in the Philadelphia police force. Many have been promoted. The new Mayor, Michael Nutter, an African American, has taken no action against them as a result of the trial. In fact, he has said nothing publicly about the McKenna/Carnation victory. Instead Philadelphia's solicitor told the media that the city is disappointed and will investigate legal opportunities to challenge the verdict. By its inaction Philadelphia continues to protect racist officers, fostering a climate of intimidation that no doubt contributed to the May 5th 2008 beatings.
This is pitiful
Michael Nutter knows that his support comes from white voters; he wishes to keep this support. Thus, talking about punishing whites for their shameful treatment of minorities will scare away a large portion of his support. To be short, Nutter is tap dancing.
Koba