On the Monday night beating depicted above, which has made national news, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey:
"We have 6,700 members on the city police force," Ramsey said to CNN's John Roberts. "Occasionally we have someone engaging in conduct we're not especially proud of. It happens in any large organization.
Ramsey said the beating should be placed in context.
"We're going through a difficult time this week," Ramsey said.
From the same Inky story:
As he left a morning press conference at FOP headquarters, Nutter commented on his interviews with the national media.
"They're coming in on the tail end of things," Nutter said. "To them it's just one more story. But you can't understand what's happening in this city unless you look at what happened on Saturday and Sunday.
"That's not a justification for what the officers did," Nutter continued. "But that was an anomaly. The incident is not representative of what the department is all about."
The context, the murder of a police officer, Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, on Saturday night, whose killer was caught last night. Again, Mayor Nutter:
Nutter said he felt "anger and disgust" last night as he met Floyd at police headquarters.
"I wanted to see the person who had done this," he said. "It's a disgrace."
He said a "serious message" needed to be sent.
"Stop shooting each other," Nutter pleaded. "Everyone may not have had a storybook childhood," he said, adding that a rocky up-bringing was no excuse for killing another human being.
I don't have much analysis to offer, not sure what to think of it all. Anyone else?
Ramsey will look into it,
Ramsey will look into it, the department will conclude the beatings were no big deal, the Mayor will condone it to not incur the wrath of the FOP, and Lynne Abraham will send at least one of three to death row.
Same as it ever was.
A real conundrum
Obviously, it's unacceptable for the police to treat a suspect like that. Three's no way that the cops weren't simply venting their anger by beating the crap out of suspects already subdued. On the other hand, supposedly, the cops just watched these guys shoot three people in a drive-by. In that sense, I can understand wanting to beat the crap out of those guys.
I don't know what to think either. What I know for sure is that it is horrifying and sad to watch.
I'm similarly confused about how to react to the level of focus on the murder of the cop. Obvioiusly, his murder was horrible - but given the frequency of murders in this City, I feel confused about how to respond to his shooting getting so much attention.
Mayor Nutter's response to police murder
I am very confused also about the way the government ,and media, are dealing with the officer's death. It appears they are advocating that so long as one does not kill a government official, murder is bad but not really. I give my regards to the officer's family, of course, and note that the government was within its rights to do the same; however, we have to remember that although the officer was brutally murdered in cold blood, he was armed, trained to kill, and, most importantly, on duty. An officer's job is perhaps the most dangerous job anyone could have and officers know this. Police officers may get killed in the line of duty, such possibility comes with the job. We need to never forget that we literally pay the police to risk their lives everyday and everyday they gladly accept the challenge. The government as well as our naive neighbors need to come to reality about this. I guess my real concern goes to the unarmed civilians, who are not equipped to protect themselves from armed criminals, who are robbed, beaten, and otherwise preyed on by society's predators.
And another thing: If the mayor is really concerned with the equal protection of all of Philadelphia's citizens then why is it that he is trying to vindicate the police brutality of the three unarmed civilians? If a large group of average (but armed) citizens did such a thing to three police officers, do you think the mayor would be trying his best to justify the citizen's conduct? Of course not. It appears Philadelphia's government is becoming more analogous to large clique than a collective body that serves the sovereign, i.e., the people.The sad reality is that if your not a member of this clique, your murder or unjustified beating is wrong but not really a big deal.
"3 unarmed civilians", really?
Sounds to me like narcotics officers saw a car full of guys try to shoot and kill 3 economic rivals in cold blood and that they rather quickly caught up with the same vehicle with every reasonable expectation that the people in the car would be armed and primed for a fight when they pulled them over.
Oh and 5 of the worst offenders among the responding officers are off the street pending an investigation.
Lets wait to the whole case plays out before we jump to any hasty conclusions.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Fighting fire with fire
As the old saying goes, you can't fight fire with fire. Clearly, Mayor Nutter has chosen this as his course of action.
Instead of his first initiatives coming in the form of sweeping education reform, community enhancement (youth programs, rec. centers, etc.) and other programs to instrument social change, Nutter has chosen to implement Stop & Frisk, as well as 24hour mandatory lock-ups and other police-state policies. The answer to the murder problem in Philadelphia will not be remedied by stripping citizens of their rights, treating them inhumanly and having an heir of being 'above the law', but rather it will come from the ground up. These policies only instill more anger and more violence in citizens, not deter them from committing crimes.
It begins and ends with education and social change. We must attack the mindset, not the person.
OK this is ridiculous
Nutter is walking a tricky balancing act between those who screaming for blood in response to the murder of a police officer and his response to an arrest of dangerous, violent criminals which clearly went over the line. I'm not all together happy with the statements he's made seeming to make apologies for this obviously unprofessional behavior on the part of the arresting officers, to be frank.
That said, its blatantly misleading to portray this as an intentional mayoral policy rather than an instance of cops stepping over the line under the heat of pressure. That's just a completely ridiculous response.
Sorry that's not even a remotely intelligent or fair assessment of the facts of this case. Not O.K.
Police in this town have a decidedly mixed record in terms of the "culture" of how they approach arrests and that's not OK by me either. However these guys were in the same vehicle that had just attempted a drive-by murder, spraying bullets at a drug-biz rival from a moving car. People who commit acts of violence like this show an extreme lack of humanity because these kind of shootings are notorious for releasing a loose spray of bullets that often kill innocents and children in the immediate area, either from badly aimed shots, ricochets, or bullets that enter nearby houses. Pulling the trigger in this way is inexcusable. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.
A society that lets people spray up civilian neighborhoods with a shower of bullets over B.S. turf battles like this is not a civilized society and not a sustainable, humane society to raise children in. I would prefer that our police officers always behave as consummate professionals but if you want to force people to decide between police brutality in the name of a civilized society and wanton careless murders as if its "either A or B"- well the "progressive" position is always going to be on the side of a safer, more civilized society where folks can go about their business and raise their kids without fear of random sprays of bullets as far as I am concerned.
Fortunately, I feel that is a false dichotomy and that we can expect, no demand a higher degree of professionalism from those we ask to do one our society's toughest jobs than is displayed in this video.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Police Affairs
Sean,
You're right on the money with this post.
website: http://www.drchuckspeaks.com/
Response
Sean,
My post was not intended to claim that this incident was a result of failed mayoral policy. I agree that this specific incident was indeed cops stepping over the line in the heat of pressure, as you put it so eloquently.
However, the intention of the post was to highlight Nutter's first moves in office. Philadelphia has one of the worst education systems of any major city and does very little to affect the lives of the youth, who are a major contributor to crime and murder in the city. They grow up with a violent attitude and a general lack of hope, often leading them to commit the crimes we hear about so often. The men who murdered the officer over the weekend were all in their early twenties/late teens and products of Philadelphia's culture.
Yes, this incident was sparked by the recent murder of an officer, yet the police's actions do not solve anything. I in no way am attempting to justify the drive-by shooting that took place, or the murder of the officer. That being considered, sociological studies and history have proven that responding to acts of violence or aggression with the same does nothing to alleviate the situation. This will only cause more violence against police, something we do not need in this city.
So yes, it was an intelligent response to the incident. It is a tragedy, however Michael Nutter's policy should also be closely examined as well as the police action in this matter.
No discussion warranted
I watched the video again; the only thing that's clear is these cops need to be thrown in jail. If the outcry about this step towards a police state isn't deafening, then I'm sorely disappointed. The only thing that could possibly remedy this disgrace is 15 or so significant prison sentences.
ALL discussion about the crime these three men might have committed is irrelevant. Cops aren't judges, juries, or executioners- and those that think they can act as such are clearly not fit for this important job.
Which three men?
The three men injured by the drive-by shooting from that car or the three men who were subject to police brutality when the car was finally pulled over because both sets of men no doubt were seriously injured. The first three, the shooting victims, had just had someone try to quite literally execute them. As grotesque as the obvious police brutality in this video is to watch, the police were clearly not trying to end the 3 suspects lives so lets be careful how we throw around the "executioner" language.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Either, or. Sean, That is
Either, or.
Sean,
That is exactly my point. It doesn't matter which three men I was referring to, although I was talking about three that were pulled from their car and beaten by on-duty police.
When judging the situation of police brutality, the only thing that matters is what the cops did at that moment, not the mood of the police force. Police brutality and excessive force is always wrong and can't be justified by saying the people the cops were beating up were also bad guys. Cops rob society of our right to punish criminals when they take the punishment into their own hands. All efforts to explain away this action by giving mitigating circumstances should be saved for a discussion on sentencing the police after they've been found guilty where it belongs.
Also, on a semantic note; I believe the word executioner in the phrase "judge, jury, and executioner" means the person who executes the punishment, not only an actual exectuioner. At least that's how I meant it.
I agree
No "mood" in the police force justifies beating a suspect after they are down on the ground - period. On the other hand, with the knowledge arresting officers had going into the situation - suspects in a car that an undercover narcotics officer had just seen speeding away from a multiple shooting they would be remiss to not approach removing those suspects from the car with extreme caution. Beyond that, once the situation seemed to be under control which in the video seemed to happen in the first few seconds, any supervising officer not intervening to stop the beating is particularly in the wrong - which does seem to be the tack the Internal Affairs is taking, at least from the Inky article above.
Also, FWIW, the number officers being investigated has been expanded to thirteen.
Also besides Police Internal Affairs and the DA, the Feds are apparently looking at the incident.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Attempted Murder
1 more thing.
Some of the cops that were kicking the suspects and using their clubs on them should be tried for attempted murder.
So I'm not even willing to concede your point about the word "executioner".
Sounds almost . . .
like something Lynn Arbraham would do.
Conflating Aggravated Assault with "Attempted Murder", I mean. ;)
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Education Reform vs. Policing
The problem is the time frame for turning around Philly's failing schools is not the same time frame for police responding to a series of shootings and counter shootings between rival drug factions (which appears to be the back-story of the shameful incident captured in this video). The scale of the problem is not the same, though they are clearly related. Its not an "either or" situation and its misleading to portray it as such.
Philadelphia city government currently does not have total oversight, not does it contribute the largest financial investment, in the Philadelphia school district. The state does - indirectly - through the School Reform Commission under the terms negotiatied between then Mayor Street and then Gov. Ridge. To be frank, I suspect that some members of city government and some members City Council are just as happy to be able to pass the buck on the mess that is the Philly School District. Its politically convenient to be able say "It's out of our hands."
Mayor Nutter to be clear has in fact set bold goals for improving our pathetic graduation rates, goals he's laid out explicitly, goals that activists will be able to bash him on when and if we fall short. He's also indicated that he is interested in Philadelphia City Government resuming local control over the schools eventually, indicating that he does in fact want the buck to stop with him - the mayor's office - eventually. More than that Nutter and sometimes YPP contributor Councilman Goode passed a bill increasing the ammount of local property taxes going to fund the schools before Nutter was even sworn in.
Still the SRC says it needs much, much more, as does the state's recent "costing out study". The big story in the background is that a huge chunk of funding for schools comes from property taxes and in case you didn't notice we are in an economic downturn triggered mostly by a crisis in the housing/credit industry. Hence the recent scurry of meetings, some controversially not open to the public, where Nutter's budget manager prepares City Council for the bad news of likely hard budget choices as Nutter's first budget needs to be revised due to the downturn.
The other big issues around education reform is that Rendell is trying to push through package to make education funding more standard and more equitable state wide and seeing push back from a Republican State Senate and razor thin Dem House. That and continuing questions about some very poor accountability practices in how the SRC conducts its business with what money it does have (though the "coosting out study" says its $1 billion less than it should have).
Thats whats going on with education reform, some of which gets discussed here in great detail by folks like Helen Gym and it has very little to do with Ramsey's reorganizaton fo the police department which from what I have seen has been (this horrible incident aside) a series of steps mostly in the right direction.
Sorry but if you are going to use cheap rhetoric about education reform you got to step up your game a little because its a big and complicated issue.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Why the double standard?
If City Council and the Mayor can break the law with 'fighting crime' as the justification why can't the police do the same?
Who are we to judge if our government acts in an illegitimate fashion?
Who are we to complain if heads are cracked and the constitution is violated and laws are broken in our name? Isn't the promise of future 'safety' worth it?
I just wish the Mayor would come right out and say the rule of law is subject to bending, just as long as your motives are just . . .
I get that you are being sarcastic
I'm just not sure I know what you are talking about.
How has the mayor or City Council broken laws in terms of "fighting crime". They might have skirted breaking the Sunshine Law with those budget meetings the other day but in terms of law enforcement, I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
If this is rather obtuse grumbling about the legal application of "stop and frisk", I suggest you
check your facts.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Well, disgust disguised as sarcasm . . .
Specifically I'm speaking of the Philly gun bills that Council ratified and Nutter signed into "law."
There is no question those actions violated Art I, Sections 21, 25 & 26 of the PA constitution, Title 18, §6120 of the PA Criminal Code and also a PA Supreme Court ruling reaffirming Art. I §21 as enforceable upon Philadelphia and upholding §6120 of the UFA applying it directly to the legislative and executive powers of Philadelphia government.
Since it must be OK to violate solemn oaths and the public trust to "enforce" the "law;" what standard are we using to give the cops so much grief for cracking some noggins?
Don't forget to tip your waitress!
Funny one, Jeerleader! I mean, surely, someone who compares passing a law to force a lawsuit and a confrontation over it, to 15 police officers beating three suspects, has to be kidding.
What a jokester you are! In the words of Lou Agre, you are a real card.
I'm not laughing.
Was there a memo I missed that explained how and why the Mayor breaking the law to "force a lawsuit and confrontation" is OK? That's a heck of a criteria to guide our lawmakers and executive in the execution of their official duties.
Let's just hope no other government employees want to join in to the fun because acting illegally to force a confrontation and lawsuit is usually considered a bad thing.
Are there other constitutional limits on power on their hit list?
Commissioner Ramsey has some great experience crushing public demonstrations and violating the rights of citizens and getting sued for it, sounds like he was a perfect pick for the job given the new rules under which the city operates.
I'll be here all night!
A Rabbi, a Priest, and a Minister Walk Into a Bar. Then a horse walks in. The bartender says "Why the long face?"
Typical
For you, rules only apply to cops & conservatives; when elected liberals break the rules is a laughing matter.
Just for future reference, at what section number in the Uniform Firearms Act of the PA Criminal Code do you no longer consider its violation a crime? Let's take a look:
Section 6105 covers different 'possession and use' crimes like robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder etc . . . yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6106 covers covers carrying a gun without a license; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6110 covers possession of a gun by a minor; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6112 is a big one, it covers all the rules for selling and transfer of ownership of a gun; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6113 covers the rules for licensed firearms dealers; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6115 makes it illegal to loan money using a gun as collateral; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6116 prohibits using false ID to obtain a gun; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6117 covers the prohibition on obliterating manufacturers marks to frustrate authorities in ID'ing the gun; yeah, a violation of that section should probably still be considered a crime . . .
Section 6120 prohibits counties, municipalities or townships to, "in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components;" yeah, a violation of that section . . . HEY!!!!!!!!!
BINGO!!!!!! We arrived at the section where Dan thinks violations are no longer considered a crime! It's just a gentlemanly suggestion, it does not really restrict the powers of the Council and Mayor, come on now Jeerleader, stop it you jokester. . .
Section 6121 prohibits the ownership of armor piercing bullets . . . Uhhhhh, wait a minute, are we back to crimes again???
So, according to Dan, stuck within the PA Crimes Code, in the vast number of sections of the Uniform Firearms Act enumerating a myriad of firearm criminal offenses, is one lone section prohibiting certain actions but where thinking its violation is a crime is unreasonable, actually to the point of being laughable . . .
I find that position unreasonable, indefensible and disgusting. It approaches laughable only when one realizes how perfectly it meshes with liberal "values" as applied to only liberal elected officials . . .
Is this thing on?
A man and his wife were having an argument about who should brew the coffee each morning.
The wife said, "You should do it, because you get up first, and then we don't have to wait as long to get our coffee".
The husband said, " You are in charge of the cooking around here and you should do it, because that is your job, and I can just wait for my coffee."
Wife replies, "No you should do it, and besides it is in the Bible that the man should do the coffee."
Husband replies, " I can't believe that, show me."
So she fetched the Bible, and opened the New Testament and shows him at the top of several pages, that it indeed says:
"HEBREWS"
Meanwhile in NuttyNutterMayorLand . . .
A felon, recently released from prison, Mayor Nutter and a bunch of regular Joes are sitting in a bar.
The felon pulls out his illegal gun and starts threatening everybody and robbing them. He shoots a few people and runs away.
The mayor dials his cell phone, calls the Police Commissioner and tells him that they need to call a press conference denouncing the NRA beholden state legislature, the gun manufacturers, George Bush and the Easter Bunny and to immediately demand "sensible" gun control laws that will only impact the honest citizens of PA.
The bleeding and dying on the floor of the bar have a good laugh; a bit gurgly but good nonetheless . . .
Video link is down
I notice that the original video link posted here is down. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that it looped the beating section and how much that Fox29 viewed it as copyright infringement? Actually rather embarassingly I have to admit the time stretching and recutting of the original version fooled me to a certain extent and led me to make an untrue assertion about the the length of the beating somewhere else. It appears to last for about 40 seconds in the unaltered version.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.