L.A. CONFIDENTIAL: YOU CAN'T BEAT A CAMERA

Comedian Richard Pryor told a story of being caught in flagrante
delicto -- if you have to ask, don't ask -- by his wife. Thinking
quickly but not well, he asked "Who are you going to believe: me or
your lying eyes?" Don't be surprised if you hear some police officers
and their apologists ask the same question during the investigations
into yet another videotaped beating of a black suspect.

"Surprised," heck. A group known affectionately as the "yeah-buts" has
already started their defense of this latest incident of police
misconduct in Los Angeles.

Even though the cop, identified as Officer John Hatfield, 35,
vigorously whomped away at the prone suspect as though his name was
"McCoy" instead of Stanley Miller, a caller to MSNBC's "Scarborough
Country" television show started his "yeah-but" defense with "We can't
see what he's doing with his right hand."

Oy. Check this out, homes. Unless Miller had an Uzi or a CD of Michael
Bolton's greatest hits, there was nothing in his hand to justify that
kind of assault.

Remember the apologists for the four uniformed thugs who beat Rodney
King in 1991? "Yeah, but we didn't see what happened before the camera
went on." Or "Yeah, but he was on drugs."

Yeah, right. It's obvious -- no, since we can't believe our eyes, it
appears -- that Miller had surrendered, knelt down and was being
straddled by another officer. Hatfield arrived late, kicked Miller in
the head and introduced his flashlight -- and we're not talking one of
those lightweight, plastic Eveready babies, either -- to other parts
of Miller's anatomy. (Despite 11 whacks, Miller didn't seem to be
seriously injured.) If Shakespeare was correct and the whole world is
a stage, then the whole of Los Angeles is a movie set. Don't these
cops know that by now? Even if not every citizen has a video camera,
TV station helicopters do. Yet Hatfield evidently felt comfortable
enough to assault Miller anyway with news helicopters and his
colleagues hovering nearby. This and any other beating of a black
motorist by police is naturally going to recall the ghost of the 1991
King beating and the riotous aftermath of a jury's "not guilty"
verdict a year later.

Of course, what goes unmentioned by many "yeah-buts" who decry
lawlessness -- unless, of course, it's under the color of authority --
is that riots erupted only after the evidence-defying verdict. Prior
to that, residents waited for the judicial system to do its job. Was
justice really served in the first King-beating cops trial? Will it be
served this time?

You can bet we'll hear, as the "yeah-but" caller on Scarborough's show
intimated, that Miller was probably on drugs that gave him superhuman
strength, making him a lethal threat. A lame excuse? Yeah, but they
may buy it. When Nathaniel Jones died last year after a beating by
Cincinnati cops -- again, on videotape -- it was often mentioned that
"Yeah, but the man weighed 400 pounds and had illicit drugs in his
system." What wasn't mentioned was that the 400-pound man was only
5'8" tall. Hardly an intimidating specimen.

And if drugs make someone that strong, it's no wonder the Olympics
bans them. Otherwise, we'd have sprinters posting eight-flat times in
the 100 meters or deadlifting 900 pounds.

If Miller is found guilty as charged of grand theft auto in Los
Angeles, by all means bring the full power of the law down upon him.
But not a police flashlight.