MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Pigs in Zen, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

March 28, 2015 Victor El-Khouri 2 Comments

Remember a few months ago, when anyone who questioned whether or not a police officer always behaved properly was immediately labeled a terrorist and/or a gang member?  If one pointed out that a police officer maybe killed a person by mistake, it was an assault on the very idea of police departments and public safety.

My, how things have changed.

Over the last few days, a New York police officer was arrested for raping a teenage girl.  Another was arrested for domestic violence.  Two cops got drunk, drove the wrong way, and killed two people.

Lest you think this is just a Northeast thing, a police officer in Wichita, Kansas, was arrested for robbing a house.

For some reason, holding a police officer accountable for some crimes is okay, but not shooting unarmed black people.

Look, I don’t think all police are thugs, hiding behind a badge to do bad things.  I think some want to serve their communities.  Others want a job with good wages and union-negotiated benefits. Some are following a family tradition.  Like every occupation open to humans, there is a mix of motivation, ability and empathy.

The problems arise when the police as an institution ignore human error, or try to cover it up.  This is what got Nixon into trouble.  It’s what hurt the reputation of the Catholic Church and Penn State.  People make mistakes, but we expect our institutions to make things right.

When police officers are held accountable for drunk-driving, or statutory rape, that’s a good thing.  However, when shooting black citizens is acceptable or can’t be questioned, that’s a bad things.  I don’t really understand why there is any question about this.

Most recently, in Atlanta, a police officer shot and killed a naked black man.  The victim had a history of mental illness, and I’m sure it’s startling to see a naked man of any race flailing around, even if he was sane (and I can’t imagine that naked public flailing and sane go together too often).  However, it seems to me that the very definition of naked means “unarmed,” so I can’t understand how this shooting can be justified.

Yes, I can understand how the specific police officer in this case perhaps got freaked out and shot in panic.

I just don’t understand why that’s acceptable.

Media Goddess Martha Thomases didn’t really need another reason to wear clothes outside.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Ed Sedarbaum
    March 28, 2015 - 8:30 am

    A minor cavil, having nothing to do with your main point, Martha: Neither Nixon, the Catholic Church, nor Jerry Sandusky “made mistakes.” They perpetrated (and in the case of the Catholic Church still perpetrate) evil acts. Covering them up wasn’t the moral failing, just an additional example of their criminality.

  2. Martha Thomases
    March 28, 2015 - 9:15 am

    You’re right, of course, Ed. What I meant to say is that, in those cases, the initial error/mistake/evil was done by an individual, while the cover-up (which can include smearing the victims) was done by the institution, be it the Republican Party, etc. etc.

    Child abuse is horrid. Protecting (and thereby encouraging) a child abuser is worse, I think.

  3. Mindy Newell
    March 28, 2015 - 12:58 pm

    Martha, you forgot to mention the guy in Michigan who was pulled out of his car Rodney King style this week and beat the crap out of by police, then accused of being a drug dealer because a bag of cocaine was “found” under his seat.

    The judge threw out all charges but the cocaine charge, which the man, a 37 year “on the line in the factory” employee of one of the big car companies in Michigan (I think it’s Ford, but don’t remember) will face in district court.

    However, there is video showing the police officer pulling a plastic bag filled with a white, “sugary” substance out of his pocket. This officer was also fired by the Detroit police force for falsifying evidence though a jury acquitted him of these charges. Still, how the hell did he get another job as a police officer?

    Of course the man (wish I could remember his name, and I’m too lazy to look it up) is fighting the charges…he was offered a plea deal, but refused, saying, “I’m not pleading guilty to something I didn’t do and which I’ve never done.”

    It seems that the closer we get to the end of Obama’s presidency the more frequent these open acts of racism are occurring. Is it because there is some convoluted sociopathic psychology going on that all these bigots feel that they have to hurry up and do something before the black guy is out of the White House? Y’know, let the “country” know how they really feel before it’s “too late?”

    And does that mean that if Mrs. Clinton is our next President, then attacks on women will become even more overt than it is now?

    Just thinking out loud.

  4. Mike Gold
    March 28, 2015 - 4:53 pm

    What, if Mrs. Clinton becomes our next President, then attacks on women should become subtle?

    I can’t imagine those people who desire a return to “The Real America” will feel all that much more comfortable with Clinton than they do with Obama. For one thing, she’s another middle-of-the-roader. For another, she’s a Clinton. For a third, she’s a chick. A New York Senator who’s responsible for the slaughter of our fine Americans in Benghazi. An e-mail burner! A Sandy Berger-hiring, Vince Foster-killing member of the northern elite.

    The Real Americans only want far right wingers. White, male, wealthy, highly Christian, generally southern far right wingers.

    And we still cannot criticize the sundry police transgressions without doing that “Look, I don’t think all police are thugs, hiding behind a badge to do bad things” disclaimer. We don’t do that with other groups. “Look, I don’t think all priests are child molesters.” “Look, I don’t think all college coaches are catalysts in rape coverup.” “Look, I don’t think all female high school teachers fuck their male students.” But every time we talk about another cop killing an unarmed black guy, we feel obligated to run that disclaimer.

    Well, it ain’t working.

    However, that naked black dude in Florida? We do not understand PTSD, except for believing “PTSD” is the politically correct way of saying “shell shock.” (Thank you, George Carlin!) But there is no doubt in my mind that if the actual number of unarmed black men killed by police was, instead, the number of unarmed white people killed by American Muslims, we’d be burning crosses in front of Masques.

  5. Rene
    March 29, 2015 - 2:47 pm

    “For some reason, holding a police officer accountable for some crimes is okay, but not shooting unarmed black people.”

    Well, I can answer that one for you.

    It’s because robbing houses, drunk driving, raping teenagers, are all crimes that happen mostly outside of a political context.

    But when a white policeman kills an unarmed black guy… Well, if Conservative people just admit that that is a hideous thing and the cop should be held accountable, they admit that there is a lot of institutional racism going on, and they admit that their opponents, the Liberals that are always saying there is still a lot of racism going, are right.

    An American Conservative, particularly after Bush, would rather have their eyes pierced by a hot poker than admit that Liberals could be right about anything.

    Same reason, really, for the Church to cover up for pedophiles. They’re rather go to Hell than give ammunition to their critics (of course, by doing that they end up giving MORE ammunition to their critics).

Comments are closed.