All (or most of) the above arguments seem to conveniently glide over two important things.
1. The documented existence of racial profiling. and
2. The historically cultural settings (and the related issues: race, gender, location, wealth, etc.) which may influence how each and every one of us may or may not react in such a situation.
Are we to conclude from the above arguments that Dylan acted more correctly than Gates, or that he had less reason to act as Gates did?
If we're suggesting that he had just as much reason (by way of his fame), can we assume it to be the same as reason (by way of position coupled with race)?
How do we asses which is the greater or lesser basis for a potential reaction. Which more valid or invalid? Justifiable or not?
How do we factor in personality and extenuating circumstances (such as one being in one's own home while the other in the streets of an unfamiliar neighborhood)?
Is not a comparison of the Dylan and Gates incidents like comparing apples to oranges?
1. Part of the whole function of racial profiling relies on the individual reacting in a negative manner. The entire action of profiling is done in a way to stimulate negative response, whether it be for a traffic violation and a "random" search, or interacting with an individual on the street. When you fight back, you're falling into the trap. If you are innocent, then profess that and be cooperative the entire time. If they're corrupt enough to plant or manipulate evidence, they're foolish enough to get caught.
2. Regardless of cultural or historical background, when you willfully live in a society, you are voluntarily giving those individuals which are selected to maintain safe operation of society the power they wield. To prevent this from being too vulnerable of a forbearance, we as a culture have a long history of civil disobedience- If you think you are right and within your rights, you have every freedom to stand your ground. You do NOT have a freedom to berate, assault, or harm others; those acts are in violation of the basic principle of equality of pursuit of happiness. You can reject an order, but if you remain peaceful, you are treated as such. If you are within your rights and are unfairly treated, it is not you who ends up having the more severe punishment by society. If people just shrug it off, or always fight when they're being unfairly treated, it doesn't make that balance of consequence happen quite the same way.
Neither was more correct. They each chose to act the way they wanted to, or thought was better, and the results were very different. One situation was a much bigger snarl than the other, that is the only statement I would make about the two in unison.
We can tell which actions are justified by using a method of common interpretation; not by "majority" choice, but rather by the interpretation which is described by the common elements to all possible individual interpretations. In other words, the simplest interpretation which is common to all of the complexities of the individual interpretations. By using such a thing, we can effectively value, if you will, the justifiable response based on perpetration of an individual beyond the barrier of society's rules for their position. Both reactions were equally valid; the same choice was presented to both individuals, and they chose differently, so their results differed. One could just be said to be a lot less of a hassle than the other.
Honestly, if I were in his situation, given consideration regardless of race and claim, I would've been glad the officers showed up. In my mind, the image of an effective police officer is one who walks up and questions an individual trying to break into a home. If I were in Mr. Gates position, I likely would have turned to the officer and said I'm glad he showed up, told him that don't have my keys and I can't get in, and ask if he could help or call a locksmith. I'd act this way because, odds are, I can get the police to open the door for me. The reason they are likely to help is because one, I didn't immediately run away, and two, the first interaction was a request for assistance from the officer(pretty much his job). Act calmly, cooperate with requests for identity, and in most cases you'll be done before you know it and no worse for wear.
Neither was more correct or chose better, they went about things in different ways and the results were different. I will only maintain that one situation would be a lot less intrusive into free time or work time than the other.
- You know, I really don't get the phrase apples and oranges.... because they can be compared in SO many ways and are in fact fairly closely related in the grand scheme of things. Taken to an extreme extent, even very different objects can be considered very similar as they share any differences in common.
