Why becauseI'm a black man!?

[AllHazzardi]

Ohh noo Hazzardi. And just when I was beginning to think you were (at least) an intelligently rational guy.

Are you suggesting that racial profiling exists solely for the purpose of getting that 18% minority of a certain population to entrap THEMSELVES 72% OF THE TIME??

...You being serious? Or are you just tryin' to fuck with us? lol
------
No mention of it being the only reason, hence the words "Part of the whole function"- would think that would imply there are other motives such as hate, racism, and unfair stereotyping of individuals based on race being weighed into action.
-----


I didn't quite get the tail end of that. But you seem to suggest here that any actions taken by "those individuals [who?] are selected to maintain safe operation of society" are justifiable if one resorts to "berating" said authority. To which I would ask, "Would more peaceful actions on the part of these high school students in Birmingham have resulted in the right course of action?" (see attached)
-----
Only the actions taken by those individuals selected to have authority over other individuals which are justifiable in attitude and measure to the lack of adherence of the individual. In other words, proportional response; do not under-react, do not over-react. It would be wise to take that picture as a direct example of when times were extremely disproportionate; we've made progress, but the last step to equality is always the hardest- you have to actually stop in a system where there is continual motion.
------

Most have already acknowledged that Gates could've handled the situation better. The gist of my question was (and remains) can the two situations (Gates and Dylan) be accurately compared to each other.

-------
Yes, they can, because they are both interactions between individuals in varied roles, and thus they can be explained as a dynamic system in which you tabulate the specific information of every constituent element and apply it to everything else within the dynamic system. In other words, you can compare the situation because Gates and Dylan are both PEOPLE(non-diversified noun) rather than a "Black man"(diversified noun) and a "White man"(diversified noun), who are dealing with AUTHORITY FIGURES(societal role) which can only do their job correctly when respected.

People often misconstrue the extent of freedom guaranteed by the inalienable rights; You have the freedom to do anything you want, so long as it does not violate the rights of others- Everyone has *equal freedom*. The rights of life, freedom, and happiness, when using this direct interpretation, between them can consummate every possible violation which would require a law, from Abuse to Mass Murder.

To governmental roles, diversity is supposed to be eliminated; preserve equality by giving no unequal treatment. The government is not supposed to see a black woman or a white man but a person, with no assignment of gender, race, religion, or any individual enactment of Freedom, Life, or Happiness. When Mr. Gates began shouting at the officer, he became a person verbally assaulting an officer, and he was dealt with according to the officer's training. If the officer had provoked him, the officer is an inciter. If Mr. Gates falls for the provocation, he receives the consequences for his actions, while if he does not fall for it, and maintains cooperation and innocence, the issue would've been resolved.
--------


Ohh nooo...And just when I was beginning to think...



________________________

Overall, the biggest problem with current laws, law enforcement, and senate work is that there is no enacted framework to figuring out what things SHOULD be laws and what things SHOULD NOT be laws. Think of it as a "Political Method". The same method also tells you how to construct the laws, or how to interpret the information correctly, or to write it down so there is only one interpretation that is common to all people.

It's my personal philosophy that if a young gentleman is arrested for stealing food because he is in a horrible financial and survival situation as the son of a repetitive rape victim who cannot afford to live a law-abiding life due to the illegal act of another who was never caught, he should suffer no punishment.

 

[MalakingTiti]

Not at all, all he was doing was walking down the street. the other was breaking in to a house. no law broken walking down the street. someone called the cops and said some one suspisious was walking down the street. hard to belive anyone would call the cops about a white man but thats just your own prejudice coming out.

Once again, one has nothing to do with the other. The reality is law enforcement has been conditioned to look differently at non-whites than they do whites. For example, why is there such acceptance for scrutinizing those who appear to be of middle eastern decent after 9/11, yet there was no such campaign regarding young blonde haired, blue eyed men after the Oklahoma City bombing? Race is a serious issue in America and until we start talking honestly about it will be slow to get better.

 

[454925]

Besides the good explanation that AllHazzardi provided...
Policemen are supposed to be able to handle themselves better in these high pressure situations. Civilians are not always going to be civil, nor are they always going to be calm whenever they are approached by authority figures that can take them out of society. In the case of Henry Gates, once the policemen realized that there really wasn't a problem... he should have left. However, his ego got the best of him and he arrested Gates for yelling then called it "Disorderly Conduct". That's where they messed up.

Yeah, we can look at Gates and tell him that he shouldn't have mouthed off to cops. But the only reason why we say that is because we ALL know that there are cops out there who abuse their authority and will invent any kind of excuse to stop, question or even detain you. Ask yourself... what's the BIGGER problem here? We've become so complacent with figures of authority doing the wrong thing, that we've stopped focusing on the more important issue and view the smaller problem as the primary concern. Doesn't that sound even the least bit peculiar?

That's why we have people like our OP making threads acting as if all you have to do is have the "Yes sir, no sir" mentality towards Police and you won't be bothered. And anyone who grew up in the 'hood can tell you that sometimes that just doesn't cut it.

Gates likes to think that he was the victim of racial profiling but he was not as the cops were only doing their job and he's playing the victim like black men are trained to do.

 

[b.c.]

Yes, they can, because they are both interactions between individuals in varied roles, and thus they can be explained as a dynamic system in which you tabulate.............

Your rather nebulous postulations on the dynamics of social justice rather naively belie the facts...

....IN my opinion.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Gates likes to think that he was the victim of racial profiling but he was not as the cops were only doing their job and he's playing the victim like black men are trained to do.

Wow... how extremely ignorant of the recently banned.
"Black men" are trained to play the victim? Really? So, when I hear people like Limbaugh and Beck crying "reverse racism" am I supposed to assume that they're somehow "empowering" themselves?

Try again, numbskull. Oh, I forgot... YOU CAN'T.

 

[b.c.]

Wow... how extremely ignorant of the recently banned.

Sounds like a great idea for a T.V. show: "Banned In Sixty Seconds"

 

[AllHazzardi]

Your rather nebulous postulations on the dynamics of social justice rather naively belie the facts...

....IN my opinion.

In other words, in a dynamic system, everything effects everything else, and you can predict the changes in the system according to their interaction. Psychology:individual
Sociologyeople
Physics:atoms
Politics:states/nations/countries
Police Departmentfficers
Music:notes

These are all dynamic systems, where changes in starting variables create changes in end result. To understand the collective action of any dynamic system, for example, a Culture, one must simply understand the elements which compose it, in this example, the individual, and the interactions between those individual elements.

So we can create essentially a hierarchy of this set of dynamic systems; sciences resemble such hierarchy. In science, we see a compounding order of interactions, one example;physics constructs chemistry, chemistry constructs biology, biology constructs ecology, ecology constructs evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology eventually results in psychology, psychology creates sociology, sociology creates science, religion, and pretty much everything from A to Z in the "Mankind" folder.

By learning the rules of each consecutively more basic system, we learn how to understand and predict a system with as wide a variety as life, theoretical physics, emotions, individual personalities, the economy, and even sex if you so choose to apply it.


In the case of the situations between one Bob Dylan and a pair of officers and one Henry Gates and a pair of officers, by understanding the mentality of the individuals concerned, we can understand what happened and why, and which, in the end, is more efficient and the least hassle without leaving reason for undesirable results. They are different, but once you account for the variables which make them different, they are easily compared, much like apples and oranges.

 

[Gillette]

he's playing the victim like black men are trained to do.

Boom. I think I know now why he was banned.
Proper thing.

Unless a person breaks a law, police are not to arrest them. Gates didn't break any laws. He got mouthy with a policeman, which is not a crime in the state of Massachusetts (as far as I know).

It's been established and confirmed by both the police department and an independent source in the other thread that Gates' behaviour outside, in front of a crowd met the criteria of disorderly conduct. It doesn't matter at what point we feel the degree of severity qualifies, what matters is what degree those trained and experienced with interpreting and upholding the law believe it to be.

Was it stupid of Gates to do that? Of course, we all agree that Gates could have conducted himself better. But here lays the problem... if the cop wanted to get nasty & verbal with Gates he could do that with practically no consequence. The cop could be completely in the wrong, and it still wouldn't matter. He's the one with the gun... you honestly think anyone, unarmed, is going to give a cop abusing authority any real drama to deal with?

Isn't that precisely what Gates did in response to Crowley's audacious request for proof of residence? Because he didn't sound deferential enough at the door?

The cop, himself, even stated that Gates was "lawfully" in his own home. Once he saw that, along with his Harvard University ID, THAT should have been the end of it.

The call Crowley was answering was a report of two males. TWO. He may have wanted to inquire about the other man to be thorough. It's a valid follow up question, don't you think? Gates cut him off as he was starting to ask a question so we may never know what that question was.

Of course, nobody can say something to the police that is inflammatory in nature. So, when Gates kept mouthing off after proving that he was doing nothing wrong, he had every right to be "arrested", right? (sarcasm intended here)

Yes, actually. I'm pretty sure everybody has the "right" to be arrested. Or rather that nobody outside of those with diplomatic immunity has the "right" not to be when breaking the law. Inside his house he was fine, once he carried that ranting outside he was, in fact, doing something wrong.

But people who focus on the actions of Gates to find fault are looking at issues through a moralistic lens because he committed no unlawful crime.

Again by the letter of the law what he did while outside his home was unlawful.

The cop abused his authority.

That's a judgement call based on perspective.
He used his authority in circumstances where the law supported his actions. To head off the "he lured Gates outside in order to arrest him" speculation please let me remind that Crowley's intentions can only be speculation on our parts. It's an equally valid speculation that being outside would put them where disorderly conduct applied and that reminding Gates of that would de-escalate the yelling (as witnessed by neighbours) to rational conversation. It's even possible he hoped Gates wouldn't follow at all.

It's chess. You leave your opponent the option to take one of your pieces, but you leave a guard so that if he does you can take his piece in turn. Your opponent has the option of playing something different. They are not forced to take that specific action but if they do there's a consequence.

Did he have to apply that consequence?
Let's play pretend for a moment.

If you're pulled over for speeding you can get either a warning or a ticket. The cop who gives a ticket isn't an asshole (even though we'll characterize him such because we're unhappy to be caught in the wrong), he's merely proceeding by the book. The cop who lets us off with a warning is being a sweetie pie. Now, if you speed away from sweetie pie right after your warning... sweetie pie is for damn sure giving you a ticket when he pulls you over again. Furthermore, shouting at sweetie pie when he was only going to give you a warning will transform him into by the book guy and earn you a ticket. Shouting at by-the-book guy will not make him sweetie pie. Ever.

He warned Gates twice. Twice, people. Once just verbally, the second time with the handcuffs out as a visual aid. Gates could have avoided the arrest by speaking in a normal tone of voice before or after either of the two warnings. But he didn't.

Three strikes and you're out isn't an abuse of authority. That's actually being quite fair.

 

[b.c.]

In the case of the situations between one Bob Dylan and a pair of officers and one Henry Gates and a pair of officers, by understanding the mentality of the individuals concerned, we can understand what happened and why, and which, in the end, is more efficient and the least hassle without leaving reason for undesirable results. They are different, but once you account for the variables which make them different, they are easily compared, much like apples and oranges.

It is the variables that make them different cases and elimination of them defeats the whole point, which is, that perhaps Gates had more reason to react as he did than Dylan.

As I stated earlier the whole purpose of this thread is to attempt a comparison of the two incidents, to say "Dylan cooperated and he didn't get arrested.”

In one of your earlier responses you suggested that reacting to tactics of racial profiling achieves the desired results, as if a minority objecting to being unnecessarily stopped makes him (or her) the villain. Sounds like something from one of Richard Pryor's routines: "C'mon, those people were resisting arrest."

A June 2000 Minnesota Study on Racial Profiling excerpt included the following:

"Many members of minority groups across the nation have long claimed that police commonly use traffic violations as a pretext to stop a vehicle to investigate other possible crimes, such as drug and/or weapons violations..."

“The stopping of black drivers, just to see what officers can find, has become so common in some places that this practice has its own name: African Americans sometimes say they have been stopped for the offense of ‘driving while black’....I have heard this phrase often from clients I represented in Washington, D.C., and its surrounding Maryland counties; among many of them, it was the standard way of describing the common experience of constant stops and harassment of blacks by police...."

"Profiling is not the work of a few ‘bad apples’ but a widespread, everyday phenomenon that will require systemic reform.”

"In several recent incidents, empirical evidence supports claims of the existence of significant racial profiling, at least in the few jurisdictions in which data are available to test these assertions. For example, a New Jersey study reported that while black and Hispanic motorists made up only 13.5 percent of the drivers on that state’s highways, they represented 73.2 percent of those stopped and searched by the New Jersey State Patrol. Similarly, a recent study of traffic stops in Maryland from 1995 to 1997 revealed that, though black motorists made up only 17.5 percent of the drivers on certain roadways, they composed more than 72 percent of the motorists stopped and searched by the Maryland State Police. Yet another study in four large Ohio cities revealed that black motorists are two to three times as likely to be ticketed as white motorists."

"Yet another study, by the American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois, showed that, although Hispanics make up less than 8 percent of the state’s population, they were 27 percent of those stopped and searched by a highway drug interdiction unit."

As I've already stated, it is in the framework of these well known facts (or at least, well known among minorities) that Gates undoubtedly reacted to the presence of officers in his home, while Dylan (walking alone in a strange neighborhood) did not.

There is also in this thread (and in the other) a tendency to analyze Gates while little is questioned about Crowley.

I would be inclined to question the actions of a trained "officer of the law", especially one who trains others in racial sensitivity. I'd be inclined to wonder whether Crowley asked Gates outside just so that he can arrest him on a bogus charge of causing a public disturbance, after the man showed him his identification.

I'd be inclined to wonder whether officer Crowley needed a sensitivity refresher of his own… whether his classes are really about awareness of racial issues (real and within the minds of minorities) or are merely about avoiding charges of discrimination.

Speculation on my part? Absolutely. No more so, however, than all of the speculation offered on Gates.

 

[AllHazzardi]

It is the variables that make them different cases and elimination of them defeats the whole point, which is, that perhaps Gates had more reason to react as he did than Dylan.

As I stated earlier the whole purpose of this thread is to attempt a comparison of the two incidents, to say "Dylan cooperated and he didn't get arrested.”

In one of your earlier responses you suggested that reacting to tactics of racial profiling achieves the desired results, as if a minority objecting to being unnecessarily stopped makes him (or her) the villain. Sounds like something from one of Richard Pryor's routines: "C'mon, those people were resisting arrest."

A June 2000 Minnesota Study on Racial Profiling excerpt included the following:

"Many members of minority groups across the nation have long claimed that police commonly use traffic violations as a pretext to stop a vehicle to investigate other possible crimes, such as drug and/or weapons violations..."

“The stopping of black drivers, just to see what officers can find, has become so common in some places that this practice has its own name: African Americans sometimes say they have been stopped for the offense of ‘driving while black’....I have heard this phrase often from clients I represented in Washington, D.C., and its surrounding Maryland counties; among many of them, it was the standard way of describing the common experience of constant stops and harassment of blacks by police...."

"Profiling is not the work of a few ‘bad apples’ but a widespread, everyday phenomenon that will require systemic reform.”

"In several recent incidents, empirical evidence supports claims of the existence of significant racial profiling, at least in the few jurisdictions in which data are available to test these assertions. For example, a New Jersey study reported that while black and Hispanic motorists made up only 13.5 percent of the drivers on that state’s highways, they represented 73.2 percent of those stopped and searched by the New Jersey State Patrol. Similarly, a recent study of traffic stops in Maryland from 1995 to 1997 revealed that, though black motorists made up only 17.5 percent of the drivers on certain roadways, they composed more than 72 percent of the motorists stopped and searched by the Maryland State Police. Yet another study in four large Ohio cities revealed that black motorists are two to three times as likely to be ticketed as white motorists."

"Yet another study, by the American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois, showed that, although Hispanics make up less than 8 percent of the state’s population, they were 27 percent of those stopped and searched by a highway drug interdiction unit."

As I've already stated, it is in the framework of these well known facts (or at least, well known among minorities) that Gates undoubtedly reacted to the presence of officers in his home, while Dylan (walking alone in a strange neighborhood) did not.

There is also in this thread (and in the other) a tendency to analyze Gates while little is questioned about Crowley.

I would be inclined to question the actions of a trained "officer of the law", especially one who trains others in racial sensitivity. I'd be inclined to wonder whether Crowley asked Gates outside just so that he can arrest him on a bogus charge of causing a public disturbance, after the man showed him his identification.

I'd be inclined to wonder whether officer Crowley needed a sensitivity refresher of his own… whether his classes are really about awareness of racial issues (real and within the minds of minorities) or are merely about avoiding charges of discrimination.

Speculation on my part? Absolutely. No more so, however, than all of the speculation offered on Gates.

Read again. It's not removal of the variables but accounting for them that allows us to compare these two dynamic systems.

I also didn't suggest that reacting to the profiling achieves the desired result of the individual who is reacting, I said reacting to the profiling achieves the desired result of the authority figure which is perpetrating the profiling; to cause hassle for someone and make an arrest/write a ticket/get to beat someone because they were angered enough to attack.

In both situations it was the behavioral and emotional reactions which controlled the way the situation developed. One chose to react strongly, the other chose to not react and go with the flow.

While people in the thread have tendency to analyze gates, please do not make the mistake of applying that statement to me. The situation could've been resolved peacefully in far too many ways with a difference of action or reaction on the part of either Gates or Crowley.

If Crowley was corrupt and baited Gates into getting cuffed, I would fault Crowley for being corrupt, and fault Gates for falling into the trap. Fool me once.....

If Crowley is not corrupt and is just an idiot, I would fault the test proctor and/or instructors which allowed him to be placed on active duty, and I would fault Gates for not being the more civil of the two(being a professor and all).

If Crowley was not corrupt at all and properly following protocol, I would fault Gates for losing his cool given that fact, and I would fault Crowley for not knowing when protocol is NOT the best choice of action(and not thinking to have a neighbor confirm identity).

There are several more permutations of possible events, but they all come down to a similar line; by changing either Gates' reaction/attitude/temper or Crowley's perspective or ability to think abstractly, the results change accordingly. Flatly fitting the definition of a Dynamic System(or Chaos System), which is defined as a system in which small alterations in initial values create large differences. To understand a Dynamic system you have to understand its constituent values and how they interact, so by examining all possibilities of the scenario equally(including different life experiences and beliefs), we can compare between them to analyze which variables changed in which way to affect positive change, and which variables changed in which way to affect negative change.



If an officer who is profiling attempts to hassle an individual(waste someone's time by stopping them without reason, make up a bogus reason to check things in more detail, plant evidence or provoke individual to make arrest) happens to target an individual who refuses to react in an uncivilized way, most of the function breaks down. Maintain an attitude of compliance with a smile; if they try anything more aggressive than provocation, they will be the ones who suffer penalty. If they request to search your vehicle, you have a lawful right to deny that request(Fourth Amendment). Unless the officer himself is willing to perpetrate a severely illegal act which is on record, you will be on your way in most short order. Most officers who target people based on race or with malicious intent won't be willing to waste 2 hours framing or harassing someone who won't give them the pleasure of it working when they can just let the person go and find another target that's not as resilient to their provocation.

If you find yourself being treated unfairly to a high degree, do not resist; it gives them ammunition against you in court. It's easy to prove a person swung at and/or struck an officer, it's hard to prove the officer provoked the individual who attacked if that officer was good at it.

Once the officer seems done, ask if you are free to go or wait for the officer to say so and be on your way.

Fourth Amendment rights protect you from unnecessary searches, Fifth Amendment rights protect you from self-incrimination(you have the right to choose not to answer any question posed by the officer on the grounds of self-incrimination), Sixth Amendment rights give you the right to have counsel present during any questioning.

The people who are harmed most by profiling are those who do not know their rights.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Fourth Amendment rights protect you from unnecessary searches, Fifth Amendment rights protect you from self-incrimination(you have the right to choose not to answer any question posed by the officer on the grounds of self-incrimination), Sixth Amendment rights give you the right to have counsel present during any questioning.

The people who are harmed most by profiling are those who do not know their rights.

AH: You know I love ya, but seriously... There's so much irony in this statement.

Seems as if none of these Amendments come into play when it comes to certain youths. All one has to do is walk through a shopping mall during the weekend and you can see that knowing your rights doesn't always cut it. I'm just saying... when Special Security and Policemen decide "at random" to search your bags, or force you to answer where you've been, or just decide to detain you for not being cooperative (because you were exercising your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights) all because someone that "fits your description" was alleged of doing something wrong, you can see where all of the knowledge in the world won't prevent you from being profiled.

And yes I am speaking from experience as well as for many of my high school friends.

 

[AllHazzardi]

AH: You know I love ya, but seriously... There's so much irony in this statement.

Seems as if none of these Amendments come into play when it comes to certain youths. All one has to do is walk through a shopping mall during the weekend and you can see that knowing your rights doesn't always cut it. I'm just saying... when Special Security and Policemen decide "at random" to search your bags, or force you to answer where you've been, or just decide to detain you for not being cooperative (because you were exercising your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights) all because someone that "fits your description" was alleged of doing something wrong, you can see where all of the knowledge in the world won't prevent you from being profiled.

And yes I am speaking from experience as well as for many of my high school friends.

Cooperation and Respect go hand in hand; If you cooperate with an officer without respecting him, problems are made, likewise if you respect an officer without cooperating with him(like many people in many current day situations).

Once again, it's nothing to do with preventing profiling in the short term; you have no control over that on the INDIVIDUAL level. It's about preventing that profiling from having effect. If someone profiles you, and you were doing nothing wrong, answer honestly, don't just be uncooperative and plead the 5th when you're asked what you were doing and the answer was chucking change into a fountain. Knowing and exercising your rights properly avoids unfair punishment, and if you enact your right to deny searching, and they do so anyway without a warrant, any evidence found is not admissible in a court of law. Likewise, if you are not fighting back, they have no charge of assaulting an officer to levy upon you.

In the worst case scenario, you might end up in custody without deserving it, but if you maintain innocence(and actually are) and be happy to cooperate, unless you actually are guilty of something you'll usually end up getting away unscathed.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Cooperation and Respect go hand in hand; If you cooperate with an officer without respecting him, problems are made, likewise if you respect an officer without cooperating with him(like many people in many current day situations).

It works both ways in this regard. Sometimes, people with authority come across too pushy or threatening, which is one of the main reasons why certain people will not be so cooperative or respectful. I mean, it's not everyday that someone walks up to you with a gun and a stern face and requests for you to do what he or she says.

Once again, it's nothing to do with preventing profiling in the short term; you have no control over that on the INDIVIDUAL level. It's about preventing that profiling from having effect. If someone profiles you, and you were doing nothing wrong, answer honestly, don't just be uncooperative and plead the 5th when you're asked what you were doing and the answer was chucking change into a fountain. Knowing and exercising your rights properly avoids unfair punishment, and if you enact your right to deny searching, and they do so anyway without a warrant, any evidence found is not admissible in a court of law. Likewise, if you are not fighting back, they have no charge of assaulting an officer to levy upon you.

In the worst case scenario, you might end up in custody without deserving it, but if you maintain innocence(and actually are) and be happy to cooperate, unless you actually are guilty of something you'll usually end up getting away unscathed.

There's also a psychological aspect to these instances that some people forget to mention. For some, it goes beyond just one isolated incident. For certain individuals they are constantly targeted because of the way that they're dressed or the way they talk, how they act, who they hang around with, etc. It becomes a burden on one's psyche to be on the receiving side of such scrutiny repeatedly. Which is why some people (especially minorities) may have an attitude when they're approached by authority. If people are going to accept the fact that there's going to be profiling (intentional or not), they can't be surprised when someone who may have been victim to this more than others gets an attitude. You and I briefly debated on a Gates thread. Without getting too wrapped up in that debate again (because this thread became something very interesting on its own), you can imagine what may have went through his mind when the Police showed up at his door. At 58 years of age, he's probably experienced degrees of segregation, profiling and discrimination that you or I never will (or at least I hope we never do).

I mean, would you get a little annoyed if you had to constantly prove yourself to someone who assumed something was wrong with you? Grant it, that's what we (as humans) are supposed to do regardless. But you can see how tiresome that can become... especially if the assumption is always something negative.

 

[b.c.]

Read again. It's not removal of the variables but accounting for them that allows us to compare these two dynamic systems.

And I hold that in accounting for them one would conclude the two incidents different. The schemata of the two individuals (Gates and Dylan) being different would account for two different yet equally credible reactions.

I also didn't suggest that reacting to the profiling achieves the desired result of the individual who is reacting, I said reacting to the profiling achieves the desired result of the authority figure which is perpetrating the profiling;.

You read again. That's exactly what I said you suggested.

to cause hassle for someone and make an arrest/write a ticket/get to beat someone because they were angered enough to attack.

A ridiculous argument designed to make "perpetrators" out of the very people who have every right to be indignant.

Maintain an attitude of compliance with a smile; if they try anything more aggressive than provocation, they will be the ones who suffer penalty. If they request to search your vehicle, you have a lawful right to deny that request(Fourth Amendment).

A surprisingly naive view of the realities, imo.

 

[AllHazzardi]

It works both ways in this regard. Sometimes, people with authority come across too pushy or threatening, which is one of the main reasons why certain people will not be so cooperative or respectful. I mean, it's not everyday that someone walks up to you with a gun and a stern face and requests for you to do what he or she says.



There's also a psychological aspect to these instances that some people forget to mention. For some, it goes beyond just one isolated incident. For certain individuals they are constantly targeted because of the way that they're dressed or the way they talk, how they act, who they hang around with, etc. It becomes a burden on one's psyche to be on the receiving side of such scrutiny repeatedly. Which is why some people (especially minorities) may have an attitude when they're approached by authority. If people are going to accept the fact that there's going to be profiling (intentional or not), they can't be surprised when someone who may have been victim to this more than others gets an attitude. You and I briefly debated on a Gates thread. Without getting too wrapped up in that debate again (because this thread became something very interesting on its own), you can imagine what may have went through his mind when the Police showed up at his door. At 58 years of age, he's probably experienced degrees of segregation, profiling and discrimination that you or I never will (or at least I hope we never do).

I mean, would you get a little annoyed if you had to constantly prove yourself to someone who assumed something was wrong with you? Grant it, that's what we (as humans) are supposed to do regardless. But you can see how tiresome that can become... especially if the assumption is always something negative.

Of course it's annoying, and of course it's frustrating. Given the likelihood of his past experiences being more of the same, his emotional reaction was entirely logical(that is to say, his emotional reaction was the expected one). But there's something to be said for enduring the trials we are force-fed, so to speak. It's not what trials you end up going through or how many you win or lose, but rather how you change as a result of them. In the end, isn't it overall better if we become better people as a result of our enduring those trials rather than worse people? When we choose to cooperate rather than compete, the idea is that when done properly, cooperation nets gain on both sides, while competition nets a biased gain, and often a loss on one side. Overall the better we learn to understand and temper our own emotions, the more likely we are to make rational and accurate judgments in times of stress.

In the end, Mr. Gates will likely think to himself that maybe he should learn to control his temper a little more; after all, even in cases of repetitive profiling, all previous instances are likely the actions of different individuals with different motives and ideals. Likewise, Crowley will possibly look at the situation and think to himself that maybe he should learn when protocol needs to be flexible; after all, if avoiding a normally inconsequential situation turning into a fiasco is good, then learning to identify such situations is beneficial.

My whole perspective is that in truth, the trials are there to teach us the lessons; If you can glean the correct lesson from the situation before the trial, oftentimes the trial is unnecessary. If, in the moment, we can understand just the right information at the right time and the value of the correction that information recommends, we can avoid many situations of pain, torment, and unhappiness by effectively learning the lesson ahead of time.

When authority figures are being pushy and dominating, they themselves are breaching the basic fundamental ideals of equality- their job is to *police* society, not to *control* it. In other words, authority figures are like sociological mechanics who fix pieces which are falling out of line according to the guidelines set forth(the law). Critical reasoning, separation of individual persona from societal role, cultural conscientiousness, common courtesy are all vital tools to the correct operation of this role, if they are lacking or ineffective, problems will develop.

 

[AllHazzardi]

And I hold that in accounting for them one would conclude the two incidents different. The schemata of the two individuals (Gates and Dylan) being different would account for two different yet equally credible reactions.
------------------
I'll use a simple analogy in science; when we consider the calculated path of an object, we take into account variables such as mass, density, volume, physical shape, resistance, environmental conditions, and force applied. By accounting for these different variables, we can equally understand and compare the paths between a box and a bullet as they result from the interactions of these variables.

When we account for variables, we are declaring the observed objects different, but comparable by the effect of variation of the accounted variables.
-----------------

You read again. That's exactly what I said you suggested.
-----------------
Apologies, from the way you wrote it, it seemed like you were saying I was suggesting that the receiver reacting to the profiling benefits the victim.
-----------------

A ridiculous argument designed to make "perpetrators" out of the very people who have every right to be indignant.
-----------------
Not sure where you get that it's an argument which is in favor of the authorities who are doing this, it's a stated analysis of the nature of profiling and its intended goal. The ideal situation is people NOT be made perpetrators as a result of the profiling, provocation, and unfair treatment. That's the intended goal of the corrupt individuals who perpetrate these crimes. If the individual falls prey, they will have evidence against their case, and receive unfair sanctions that they did not deserve.

I'm all for being indignant if you rightfully should be, I just don't think it's wise to be indignant when you have no reason to be in the present situation. While your past experiences may show one consistent pattern, every given situation can have different results depending on the actions taken by both parties. Knowledge of this allows us to know what actions are best for our desired result, what actions are best the the other's desired result, and what actions are best for mutual benefit in the result.
----------------


A surprisingly naive view of the realities, imo.
----------------
If you deny them the requested search on grounds they have no reason and they search anyway, they are in violation of protocol and the law, and the law is on YOUR side, not theirs.

If they attempt to bait you into self-incrimination and you exercise your fifth amendment rights in the correct way, they cannot arrest you for that crime unless there is substantial proof to your guilt(Plain sight rule).

If they attempt to provoke you into acting uncivilized and you maintain your cool and do not allow yourself to be victimized by their provocation, they cannot arrest you for assaulting an officer.

Any action further into abuse of authority leaves too much evidence behind; audio recordings, video recordings, solidity of story, forensic evidence(bruises, scrapes, cuts, markings on scene, etc), and even polygraph tests(though inadmissible) all are in your favor. To then succeed in covering up and "getting away with it" requires much manipulation or "loss" of evidence, which leads to much suspicion and many bad things when the individuals are caught. An individual who knows enough about the laws and the limitations of the actions of corruption(without penalty) can claim innocence, maintain it, and prove it. You might suffer an amount of unfair penalty on your person, but even in such situations, you are vindicated, sometimes compensated, and the individual responsible is incarcerated. In this case, your blood bought the freedom from further suffering of others who would be subject to the same victimization by the same person.

 

[ungl14]

Henry Gates acted like a child. The Police officer, while acting according to protocol, over reacted.
Obama getting involved...? really... Why is this such a big issue?
Discrimination exists, whether it was used in this case or not I'm not sure, but lets get over it... I've yet to hear of a society in which it doesn't exist. Putting band-aids on issues like these isn't going to stop it. I wish we could all start looking at the world differently.
Why is it the Black Professor and the White cop?
Why can't it be the unruly professor and the overbearing cop?

 

[Gillette]

There is also in this thread (and in the other) a tendency to analyze Gates while little is questioned about Crowley.

I would be inclined to question the actions of a trained "officer of the law", especially one who trains others in racial sensitivity. I'd be inclined to wonder whether Crowley asked Gates outside just so that he can arrest him on a bogus charge of causing a public disturbance, after the man showed him his identification.

I'd be inclined to wonder whether officer Crowley needed a sensitivity refresher of his own… whether his classes are really about awareness of racial issues (real and within the minds of minorities) or are merely about avoiding charges of discrimination.

Speculation on my part? Absolutely. No more so, however, than all of the speculation offered on Gates.

What a load of horseshit.

Speculation on Gates? We don't need to speculate. Gates gives us all the info we need to analyse his behaviour. In an interview he stated that he assumed he was being profiled right from the first words spoken at his door. He states that he didn't like Crowley's tone. Gates admits (proudly) that he cut the officer off as he began to ask a question. "That's when I got firm with him." Gates recounts his own stated insinuation that Crowley is acting based on racism. The other bits such as how he couldn't possibly have yelled and that he was cuffed the instant he crossed the threshold to the porch have been refuted by witnesses, making those statements public lies.

That you would, despite the information presented over the course of this, still harbour suspicion that Crowley acted in a racist manner just shows the depth of your own damage. Truly impressive.

Why is it the Black Professor and the White cop?
Why can't it be the unruly professor and the overbearing cop?

Because if someone cries racism, whether it's true or not, there will always be some who will rally against the injustice. Even when that injustice is imagined.

Is racism a problem still? Absolutely.
Is it present every time someone invokes the rallying cry? Absolutely not.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Is racism a problem still? Absolutely.
Is it present every time someone invokes the rallying cry? Absolutely not.

Even when another cop called Gates a "banana-eating Jungle Monkey"?
Suspended cop Justin Barrett who called Prof. Gates a 'jungle monkey' was turned in by fellow cops

Grant it, he wasn't at the scene and he was turned in by other cops (according to the story). But it easily could have been if Gates didn't live in neighboring Cambridge. Harvard is only just a couple of miles away from the city line. The cop under hot water in the article I linked claimed that he was "just venting" due to the media coverage the story was getting. At the same time, this was in the e-mail he sent out that started the drama: "For if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a ... jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance". Should we accept this as just some misplaced words of anger, or is there real reason for concern?

I stated this before in a different thread, but even I have my biases ever since I was in High School when I was grabbed from behind by a cop, put into some kind of sleeper hold and slammed against a wall all because he claimed I was trying to pickpocket someone in a public bathroom. This all transpired BEFORE he decided to ask me for ID. How is anyone supposed to act civil and remain calm in this situation? Of course, none of this was brought up in court when the charge magically became "disorderly conduct", but he also said that I tried to assault him with my foot. I dunno... if someone you don't know or can't even see grabs you from behind in a strangulation mode and picks you up from the ground, you mean to tell me that your legs are going to remain limp? I'm surprised he didn't consider my "wiggling around" to be "resisting arrest".

What's worse, after all was said and done I was able to get the charges dropped but my counter claims against the police were dismissed by the Judge even without them being heard. So I never got a chance to tell them how the cop threw me down on the side of his police car and punched me in the jaw twice. He walks away scott free, and although I was also "free to go" I still have to live with this unnecessary and dramatic scene playing out in my mind for eternity.

Minorities who have experienced first hand, or through witnessed accounts, any form of unfair treatment of policemen will have their own reasons for being unruly or non-compliant. I'm certain all of this went through the professor's mind when his bout with the Police went down. But with this second story, we now have a situation where one cop who would have arrested Gates for "Disorderly Conduct" and another who would have maced him. If police are hired to keep the peace, then why should any civilian be worried about whether or not one of them is going to overstep his bounds? Isn't there a basic protocol to follow? Why would two different cops, under the same circumstances, end up with different results?

Let's not ignore the racial component of the Gates story even if it's not as blatant as other documented cases.

 

[D_Mylor Mentallydaft]

First off, axlx2009, I'm not stereotype all cops in my post. The last line is nothing more than a sarcastic remark regarding how many people with authority get away with doing stuff that other regular people wouldn't....

well yes..... you are, in saying cops aren't regular people. by that stance, theres alot more cops than harvard professors.... even more so, black harvard professors

What would be the difference if it was a "white man" trying to break into a home, or a nicely dressed Asian man trying to tempt children into his car with candy? You make it sound as if these crimes are somehow "more dangerous" if particular types of people, based on skin color, do them. And you say I'm stereotyping? ...

well yes, a white man, in THAT neighborhood would have been different, the people who saw him would more than likely have known him (yes because white yuppies like other with yuppies more than black ones) and had they not, in all honesty would have recognized him. All the things you would assume are PROBABLY true, right or wrong why pretend it’s not true?

and any well dressed person in the poorer side of town draws attention and any man near children draws negative attention, the kids and candy was the first thing i thought of, the woodsman was on

again, yes you are stereotyping...... i am also, but the point i am trying to make is that far worse than forcing every one into them is pretending
you don't see these things, when in other posts you have used the same terms and description I’ve heard from policemen in regards to a person fitting a stereotype. Its not some unforgivable sin, look at the definition

stereotype
Noun
1. a set of characteristics or a fixed idea considered to represent a particular kind of person
2. an idea or convention that has grown affixed through fixed usage
a conventional or formulaic conception or image; "regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding” Internal representation, mental representation, representation - a presentation to the mind in the form of an idea or image

I walk up on a man in a slicker and boots who talks like an extra from jaws, I think he ain’t from the south. White neighborhood, cops called (not like they just upped on him) he’s trying to shim a window,you, me, anybody would have FIRST thought burglar, cops don’t like burglars, your place gets robbed and the person gets caught, you would hope the cops wouldn’t like him either

Unless a person breaks a law, police are not to arrest them. Gates didn't break any laws. Of course, we all agree that Gates could have conducted himself better. But here lays the problem... The cop could be completely in the wrong, and it still wouldn't matter. He's the one with the gun... you honestly think anyone, unarmed, is going to give a cop abusing authority any real drama to deal with?...

He did actually, in almost every state shouting obscenities is a crime, also there is the disorderly charge, he was both. and we can debate the ease that a cop has bending "suspicion" and other blanket claims into doing more or less as he pleases, but, it's the law, its also the law in several southern states calling a black man a nigger or a motherfucker iniates the first blows of fisticuffs legally, thus with a word you can be assaulted and it is a simple misdemeanor. Foolish but still the law.

and, uhh... yeah, the fella who lives in that big white house and rolls his sleeves up and paces when he talks..... he dosen't carry a gun and he laid into him a good bit...... said he was sorry..... but gates also got the charges droped

So, when Gates kept mouthing off after proving that he was doing nothing wrong, he had every right to be "arrested", right? (sarcasm intended here)...

your words.... why keep pushing a it? i know its hard for any one to do honestly, but meditate a sec to clear your mind, and put yourself in the cops place...... honestly, just do it for fairness sake, think on it a sec.

well, detained and arrested yes, he had the "right" to be, did it make sense? was it really worth the paper work? well, again, the law says that each one of those questions that you and i both say no to, is left solely up to the discression of the officer on scene, and despite what you want to call them, that regular person in a uniform was pissed, and was disrespected infront of his peers and the crowd. he thought it was what the man needed, or deserved rather. and i would bet he knew it would go no where, probably didn't file paper work on it till it got out of hand and his S.O made him writ it up quick and file it.

But people who focus on the actions of Gates to find fault are looking at issues through a moralistic lens because he committed no unlawful crime....

again, YES HE DID, it was a bullshit one, and a bubblegum charge, but he DID. legally the crimes he was arrested for were minor and very petty. but his crimes of stupidity were vast enough he deserved 5-10.
i'm no Harvard professor, i don't know if BIG_E is either, but even we know, pushing that badge is a loose loose, EVERYTIME

The cop abused his authority. That's a more serious issue than anyone yelling insults out of their own home. At least I think so...

again, we are 100% on the level, the cop let emotion sway him and a man who let emotion sway him into acting like an ass infront of his neighbors and engage another grown man in screaming on the steps like children, caught the brunt of it. it happens when you are to foolish to see you've won. but the biggest topic of all of this is, YES there are more serious issues for them, for you and for me, and there are more serious issues of shaving razors for the president of the U.S.A to worry about, let alone sit down and have beers to talk about.