First off, in case it has to be said (and it probably does), the targeted killing of two cops in New York City was a reprehensible crime (http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_27178551/police-2-nyc-cops-shot-car-critically-injured).
The reaction to it, though, is an interesting conversation itself. From the Police Chief to the Police Union to Rudy Giuliani, blame has been leveled at Mayor De Blasio and his recent criticism of the police, as well as people (particularly Eric Holder and Pres. Obama) across the nation who have offered generalized criticism of police activities, specifically in the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, but in many other cases besides. Quoth Giuliani, "We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News on Sunday. “The protests are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, a lot of them lead to violence, all of them lead to a conclusion. The police are bad, the police are racist. That is completely wrong." Tweeted NY Governor George Pataki, "Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of [Holder and De Blasio]." (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/21/politics/gop-pols-blame-nyc-mayor-for-cop-shooting/, http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/21/us/new-york-police-officers-shot-reax/index.html)
Is this a legitimate accusation?
The irony here (unacknowledged by the police defenders, but noted in http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/lets-blame-conservatives-all-killings-theyre-responsible) is how this echoes blanket criticisms of groups (Muslims, blacks, gays) by figures on the Right which have seemingly led to subsequent violent acts against those communities. If it's disingenuous for voices of the Right to deny any blame for those crimes, it's disingenuous for voices of the Left to avoid such critiques.
(The argument by anyone that "Well, this stereotype is true and those others are false" is unhelpful. Blanket demonizations are almost never real, and parsing through what is real and what is not is rarely the strong suit of lone wackos, violent extremists, angry mobs, or drunken yahoos.)
So I'll agree that rhetorically rounding up all of group X and treating them as an imminent threat that needs to be Gotten before They Get You is a dangerous tactic to take. The blanket demonization of all cops as trigger-happy jackbooted thugs who (literally) get away with murder is grotesquely unfair and unhelpful.
Though, four thoughts:
1. It's ironic that the majority of targeted, ideological attacks against law enforcement in recent years have been from folk on the fringe Right, concerned about the government coming to take their freedom.
2. It's also ironic that this murder was hardly a considered or thoughtful or organized anti-police response, given that the attacker shot his former girlfriend earlier in the evening, then committed suicide before capture..
3. The rhetoric of most mainstream commentators against brutality or killings by the police has not been about vengeance, or deporting / criminalizing / punishing / getting rid of an entire group (the police, in this case), but about seeking reforms to stop specific behaviors. There have been, of course, people out toward the edges who have gone beyond that, but translating De Blasio's words about how he's had to talk with his son into a call to "hate the police" is hardly accurate, either.
4. It's ironic that defenders of the police, such as Giuliani and various police commissioners and union chiefs, are similarly absolutist in their rhetoric — "All cops are noble and righteous defenders of society" is no more accurate than "All cops are jackbooted thugs who like killing minorities," and arguably just as corrosives.
The question is, can one still criticize particular actions, or point to broad contexts and generalized patterns of action? Can one point to specific police actions that seem unjust, biased, inappropriate, whether particular killings or policies stuch as stop-and-frisk, and at judicial actions that enable such activities, and suggest that they are inappropriate, wrong, or even deserving of punishment and reform? Are the police above criticism?
The answer has to be yes (subject to challenge and counter-criticism, of course), otherwise nobody can criticize or see change in anything. One just has to be careful about how widely and in what way one might be tarring with a broad brush. At the same time, the police cannot be immune to individual, particular criticism, any more than any group, and arguments about broader patterns, while needing careful scrutiny, also can be legitmate in themselves and necessary for any broader reforms that are necessary.
Criticism that calls for violence against any group is wrong. And criticism against a grouip need to consider the action such criticism may engender, as well as the fairness of the criticism toward the group as a whole and the individuals within it. But that doesn't mean that criticism toward any members of a group must be avoided, or that the only possible positions are X Are Paragons or X Are Demons. Giuliani, et al., do the cops no favors by seeking to render them immune from all censure, either.
Amazing how conservatives have used this police killing to further divide the country. They seem to be Cvs able to increase power by pitting people against each other
Good post Dave
+Paula Jones It does seem to be being taken advantage by some. (To be fair, the events leading up to it have also been take advantage by some; demagoguery is not a monopartisan domain.)
2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney is leading the Republican pack and hes NOT EVEN A CANDIDATE. Several recent polls surveying the 2016 Republican Candidates – all undeclared – Rand Paul a Counstituttional Moderate Doctor and SENATOR, Mitt Romney Corporate Head made milliins raping corporations of their profits into bankruptcies killing hundreds of thousands of jobs and Ex Liberal FlipFlopper and liar. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush whos brother is responsible with Dick Chaney for the 9/11 Masaquire in Manhatan. and his Father made the ' New World Order ' declaration as President aka Globalist Fascist. His dad Prescott Bush supplied and supported The Nazis, Hitler and the SS in exterminating gassing shooting and experimenting on Jews, Brits, Russians, and Polish citizens … WHO YOU VOTE FOR JUST MAY KILL YOU!
"The argument by anyone that "Well, this stereotype is true and those others are false" is unhelpful. Blanket demonizations are almost never real," …I think there is more to this argument than that.
One) The police are a system, and it is really the system that is being criticized… or, alright, demonized. I will accept that – recent discussions are very much focused on what is wrong in the system, and it's fair to say that killing unarmed black men isn't their primary purpose. But it's clear that our current plan wherein they basically police themselves and are, therefor, effectively above even their own laws, let alone everyone else's, not only is obviously broken, but really shouldn't be surprising in that.
Two) I think it is also significant to note that the police force is a selected group; one that you have to apply for and be accepted by, which makes it qualitatively very different from being black, gay.. indeed, even Muslim. The corruption that has infused our police system is a very serious and very real problem that isn't addressed by putting them on the same level as groups that don't choose their members.
+Kingsley Lintz There's some validity in what you're saying. There are aspects of the police system (I would say the judicial system, since prosecutors and judges are complicit in it) that is broken, or, rather, that can only be fixed by reforms in the system (independent review bodies, for example). But it's a passingly fine line between criticizing against the system and criticizing all the individuals in the system.
As a generalization, police have generally banded together, the "thin blue line" against the rest of the world. In some ways this is understandable — groups (esp. voluntary groups) tend toward mutual support, and the police experience is (especially in more urban settings) a very different world than what most other folk encounter, being on the front line with the most violent, seamy, depressing of realities of the human condition. That tends to create internal solidarity that keeps even the "good cops" in the system from effectively monitoring the "bad cops," and that's exacerbated by the very real dangers of alienating the rest of the group so that others don't have your back in case of danger.
In short, police identify with, and are mutually responsible for, "the system."
So, yes, there is a degree to which criticism of the system leaks (justifiably and unjustifiably) into criticism of the individuals involved, esp. in the front lines of where that system and individuals interact with the public.
The problem being that unjustifiable part. I tend to believe that cops are, like any other group, their own mixed bag. There are some truly dedicated and wonderful sorts. There are some bullies and trouble-makers. And there are a bell curve majority in between. A key issue, it seems to me, is how to effectively reach those folk on the "virtuous" end of the spectrum, to get their buy in to reform, and to recognize how their contribution is overall a positive one for society even as we address the problematic behaviors and actions of others (and their enabling network).