Why becauseI'm a black man!?

[D_Mylor Mentallydaft]

I still think you talk from a limited perspective of certain realities (or perhaps from a theoretical one). Maybe you should sit around in traffic courts full of minorities and ask yourself if they're all there because they aggravated their own situation...by driving strangely, perhaps.

couldn’t agree more, the reality of minority against the system is something I can read about and be told, but I can’t UNDERSTAND it, no more than a minority can understand what it’s like to be accused of and often punished for something that is impossible to prove, and that is personal opinion and thought

but… Perhaps you’re right, or…. PERHAPS before traffic court, you should go to a county jail or state prison….. see exactly what the MAJORITY is in there race wise and if you have time, federal penitentiary and do a census for race % , on the drive back through the country , ask yourself, is it PERHAPS possible that not all, or most, or hardly any of these people are in there because they are a minority, but instead because they CHOSE to “aggravate their own situation”? and after you figure out that one, ask yourself honestly, if your job was to stop people from breaking the law, and you were expected to catch a certain amount per day, would you go for people fitting (one of ) the criteria for common law breakers, or would you just sit and wait for some one to break a law infront of a car that sorta stands out drivin by a guy who is dressed to stand out?...perhaps

Or maybe minorities should just quietly accept the fact that we're going to encounter racism in law enforcement because the trap's been set, so best to quietly go along with it, expect it in fact, and deal with it as pleasantly as possible to minimize our own discomfort.

In all seriousness, why not? (as far as I know) you’re not a violent person who commits many crime,s but you do look like a lot of folks who do, cops can’t stop and read your blog or banter with you on a forum. So why not deal with it pleasantly as possible to minimize your own discomfort? Hell why limit your expectations to racism in law enforcement, expect it in the world.

Yes.. the trap HAS been set, by every stereotype offender/ cookie cutter dip shit you even slightly resemble. It’s called suffering for the sins of the stupid, i know it sucks, but imagine if you got hassled because of what some idiot did that afternoon AND because of what people did 400 years ago.......

Accepting a thing you CAN NOT CHANGE is a major sign of intelligence and sense, I accept that lots of guys my size, tattooed with guns in one of my kind of cars will cause issues for police. I accept it, expect it and deal with it, see blue lights? Pull over a.s.a.p , TURN THE CAR OFF, roll window down, tunr cab light on and place hands firmly on steering wheel until the officer has seen me and inside the car. How have compromised myself? You expect negativity from them they expect negativity from you, if you show respect and cooperation you are shown it back or at the very least given as little hassle as possible.

By today’s standards everybody is raciest, because at some point we all try not to be by focousing DIRECTLY on the diffrences but refusing to adress them which makes you bitter OR it winds up biting us in the ass, you get fucked over by the police, someone who looked dangerous turned out to actually BE dangerous. Racism has gone from seeing some one of a specific group as being somehow less than you, now its turned into simply noticing differences and common occurrences in others like and unlike you and as hard as they try, you can't police thought. I can have 100 people a day tell me we should all be race blind, gender blind, creed blind and sex blind and the only thing I can think is at the end of the day “blind” means YOU CAN NOT SEE!!!!!!!!!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Axlx: It's a little tiresome watching you accuse me of something that I'm not. Never once have I badmouthed, insulted or generalized ALL cops. You're not comprehending my statements at all, nor are you realizing that I'm looking at the issue from many angles at once. Apologies if you don't see that, but the last person you should be accusing of beung bigoted is me. I do not hate cops... But I do not appreciate anyone that abuses their authority to the level where it can harm civilians physically or mentally.

If you don't want to accept the fact that a Policeman has more freedoms in this world over a regular civilian then that is your problem. Just the fact that they're wearing the uniform, a certain level of trust is bestowed upon them to do the right thing. I'm not expecting them to be perfect, but if a few slanderous words is enough to set one off to either arrest or even mace a person (as in the two individuals I talked about in this thread) then they have a problem.

There's nothing wrong with holding police (or ANY public worker who gets paid by our tax dollars) to a higher standard. People do that with our Presidents all the time (who also have more perks and benefits than a regular citizen) and have no problem criticizing them if they don't live up to theirs. You should stop trying to paint my beliefs as some kind of bigoted and discriminative statement for I would have to be passing judgement on every single policeman out there and I'm not. That is, unless, you thing Crowley is how every policeman or woman thinks and acts.

 

[D_Mylor Mentallydaft]

...Right.

that looks like fun, just hightlight and delete, lemme try!

I merely seem to be quite willingly implying that Crowley acted in a racist manner.

I think it fair to speculate an officer in such matters did not like Gates' behavior. You don't question that

You are being profiled from the start.

you are AT FAULT

How quickly you are to think it was all an act. (In fact, it is you, who are "damaged".

it's unfair a cop is EXPECTED to make 10 drug cases a day, it's unfair you drive the same car and are the same color as a guy he caught with drugs the week before, it's unfair for a harvard professor to think he is smarter than thus some how above the authority of a simple policeman, and all of this SHOULD be made fair........ but as a l.t colonel once told me " SHOULD is a fairy tale word for cripples and crying mothers" and as my dad used to say "who the fuck ever told you life was fair? next you'll tell me (insert popular example of something obvious to the contrary)

 

[D_Mylor Mentallydaft]

Axlx: It's a little tiresome watching you accuse me of something that I'm not. Never once have I badmouthed, insulted or generalized ALL cops. You're not comprehending my statements at all, nor are you realizing that I'm looking at the issue from many angles at once. Apologies if you don't see that, but the last person you should be accusing of beung bigoted is me. I do not hate cops... But I do not appreciate anyone that abuses their authority to the level where it can harm civilians physically or mentally.

If you don't want to accept the fact that a Policeman has more freedoms in this world over a regular civilian then that is your problem. Just the fact that they're wearing the uniform, a certain level of trust is bestowed upon them to do the right thing. I'm not expecting them to be perfect, but if a few slanderous words is enough to set one off to either arrest or even mace a person (as in the two individuals I talked about in this thread) then they have a problem.

There's nothing wrong with holding police (or ANY public worker who gets paid by our tax dollars) to a higher standard. People do that with our Presidents all the time (who also have more perks and benefits than a regular citizen) and have no problem criticizing them if they don't live up to theirs. You should stop trying to paint my beliefs as some kind of bigoted and discriminative statement for I would have to be passing judgement on every single policeman out there and I'm not. That is, unless, you thing Crowley is how every policeman or woman thinks and acts.

not trying that at all, just trying to get you (the seemingly smartest of the few on your side of the arguement) to atleast consider another p.o.v, just for the sake of equal debate.

It IS wrong to hold policemen in this country to a higher standard that you or I, consider holding them to the same standards as a person than us only with more control in life. Money and fame both buy you such stroke in life, as dose personal strength or inteligence , look at the t.v dating show guy wanted for killing his ex, because of his money a resources he had tmeans to act and because of his brain he was able to alude police. and as former chief of police father of american idol second place runner up justin guarinni (sp) Eldrin Bell once said to me, the only difference between a cop and a gangster is the cop pays his taxes and has the motorola and the voice on the other end. Just like a gangster when a policemen walks in a room he expects answers and complience, same mentality. He has to maintain the public's respect for him, and DID warn the man.

i mentioned in another thread i admire england's police force, you must attend collage and pass the recruit process there to even be a street cop with no gun, to be on a armed response team it's a seperate school all together. people on the street have a healthy fear and obvious respect for the street cop, because if mouthed off to he can take out his "billy club" and proceed to knock every one of your front teeth out. his badge allows him to do this and to get this badge he had to spend years not months in school plus a list of physical requirements. Over here, any sorry ass d.u.i having idiot can be a police officer.

and as the son of a very famous police officer, from a family where EVERY PERSON who is not a felon has or dose work in law enforcment except me, I can say this with confidence and break the chain of forced P.C bullshit.

"BLACK MEN BREAKING INTO A HOUSE IN UPPER CLASS WHITE COMMUNITY, THEY ARE ROBBERS AND VIOLENT, GOTTA PUT THEM DOWN BEFORE THEY GET ME!!!"

That is what crowley thought, that is what every police officer on the force for longer than 6 months would/dose think and honestly we both know why. and in the spirit of cutting the bull shit but STILL not being rude i will simply pose a question for you to mull over honestly.

If a lady pointed to a man holding a purse running in the opposite direction and said “please help I THINK that man took my purse” would you stop the man from running away and take the purse from him or stop and ask if it was his?

 

[b.c.]

that looks like fun, just hightlight and delete, lemme try!

I merely seem to be quite willingly implying that Crowley acted in a racist manner.

I don't quite get this post. Are you trying to imply that by leaving out the bulk of your rather lengthy post I've deliberately changed the meaning of your words? LOL. No just saving space. My comment ("right") applies to the whole of it.

It's unfair a cop is EXPECTED to make 10 drug cases a day, it's unfair you drive the same car and are the same color as a guy he caught with drugs the week before, it's unfair for a harvard professor to think he is smarter than thus some how above the authority of a simple policeman, and all of this SHOULD be made fair........ but as a l.t colonel once told me " SHOULD is a fairy tale word for cripples and crying mothers" and as my dad used to say "who the fuck ever told you life was fair? next you'll tell me (insert popular example of something obvious to the contrary)

Yeah, life's unfair. But the title of the thread was "Because I'm A Black Man" in which the o.p. implied that Dylan acted correctly and Gates didn't.

I offered background information as to why one such as Gates might respond to looking up and seeing officers in his home (asking him if he belonged there) in the manner that he did.

That's not saying he didn't overreact. I've already acknowledged that. That's not saying I would've done the same. (I'd have been pissed) but I wouldn't have. I'm only offering a perspective:

Given the historical references as well as Gates' own personality, position, "authority" (assumed or otherwise) one might argue that Gates' response was no more out of the ordinary that Dylan, having been stopped on a street in a neighborhood where he'd not likely be.

That's my opinion. Whether you think it's a "fair" one or not.

couldn’t agree more, the reality of minority against the system is something I can read about and be told, but I can’t UNDERSTAND it, no more than a minority can understand what it’s like to be accused of and often punished for something that is impossible to prove, and that is personal opinion and thought

but… Perhaps you’re right, or…. PERHAPS before traffic court, you should go to a county jail or state prison….. see exactly what the MAJORITY is in there race wise and if you have time, federal penitentiary and do a census for race % , on the drive back through the country , ask yourself, is it PERHAPS possible that not all, or most, or hardly any of these people are in there because they are a minority, but instead because they CHOSE to “aggravate their own situation”?

They're there for all sorts of reasons, obviously. I guess what you're trying to imply is, if there is a majority of minorities in traffic court or prison it's because they either belong there or caused themselves to be there. In many cases, true. However, an objective person could not ignore statistical evidence I already supplied (re. racial profiling).

Racial profiling and inequities under the law aren't illusions or myth. They exist. Therefore when people think they're being discriminated against it is not a "card". It is in their minds real, whether correct or not.

and after you figure out that one, ask yourself honestly, if your job was to stop people from breaking the law, and you were expected to catch a certain amount per day, would you go for people fitting (one of ) the criteria for common law breakers, or would you just sit and wait for some one to break a law infront of a car that sorta stands out drivin by a guy who is dressed to stand out?...perhaps

Hmmmm...now "lemmeseehere". Are you asking me would I be RACIALLY PROFILING PEOPLE? Based on "the criteria for common law breakers? I think you kinda lost me here. Why don't you tell me what the FUCK is the criteria for a "common" law breaker?

By today’s standards everybody is raciest, because at some point we all try not to be by focousing DIRECTLY on the diffrences but refusing to adress them which makes you bitter OR it winds up biting us in the ass, you get fucked over by the police, someone who looked dangerous turned out to actually BE dangerous. Racism has gone from seeing some one of a specific group as being somehow less than you, now its turned into simply noticing differences and common occurrences in others like and unlike you and as hard as they try, you can't police thought. I can have 100 people a day tell me we should all be race blind, gender blind, creed blind and sex blind and the only thing I can think is at the end of the day “blind” means YOU CAN NOT SEE!!!!!!!!!

I don't think I've suggested anything here resembling "blindness" - or at least, not by YOUR definition of it. Awareness, perhaps.

 

[AllHazzardi]

ask yourself honestly, if your job was to stop people from breaking the law, and you were expected to catch a certain amount per day, would you go for people fitting (one of ) the criteria for common law breakers, or would you just sit and wait for some one to break a law infront of a car that sorta stands out drivin by a guy who is dressed to stand out?


---Translation

Ask yourself honestly, if your job was to prevent crime and maintain the rule of law, and there is a quota for things to find, would you look for people who fit the description of people who might be breaking the law, or would you sit back and wait for someone to break the law? For example, something completely out of the ordinary which would lead to a conclusion of likelihood of crime; a guy walking around with a ski mask hanging out of his pocket and gun visible in his belt. Given you are an officer, this would be a person of interest to you. Now consider criminals who put more effort into attempting to hide their activity, as well as people who make a job out of it(black market). The natural response is to begin looking at all available visual details, and that includes skin color.


------Opinion

The problem is in the natural response we have made a faulty assumption; that an individuals non-controllable physical appearance(skin color, eye color, racial features) has any relation to their disposition to commit a crime.

Additionally, we are also troubled by a certain correlation of events which looks to link the same, and is very persuasive to the human mind; Certainly profiling exists, and so officers target individuals with certain outward appearances, behaviors, and skin colors. But I wonder; would this profiling have more than one motivation? Perhaps it isn't just racism, but that in truth, people of different different financial situations have different dispositions towards crime, and the distribution of population within those financial situations determines the pool that "criminals" come out of. In other words, if financial situation is inversely proportional to criminal activity(eg; one had no reason to turn to crime to improve one's financial situation), then certainly the answer to the question of which skin color(eg, white or black) is more or less likely to be in a random sample of that financial situation.

So there is profiling and racial stereotyping relative to deciding who is likely to commit a crime, and there is a reason that profiling targeted that race. We can correct for a lot of profiling incidents by having officers, rather than maintaining a loss-prevention style of crime interruption(Stop them before they do something wrong), should maintain a wait-and-see style(stay visible in the area, they'll know the officer is there, if they commit the crime, the officer moves in). The result is that instead of having a situation of officers looking for crime to interrupt, we have a situation of officers walking around and maintaining a good image to the public, whose mere presence will often be sufficient to deter crime; additionally officers should, as usual, notify over radio of suspicious activity, and if a second officer is nearby, he tends to stay nearby. Only those criminals who DON'T leave when an officer is visible are the ones who should be targeted by law enforcement; the ones who don't leave either don't notice the officer, do the crime anyway, or are not actually committing a crime in the first place; at this point the suspicious activity has become a suspected crime, and is reported as such, if an officer is nearby, he moves to the officer. The final determination comes with approach; confirm a crime has been committed, call for back-up (by this time the second officer is very close, only a few moments away at worst). The crime is then interrupted and the guilty parties arrested with very few instances of unfair arrest or profiling.

It's all about reducing the effect on both sides of the equation, and it is done by reducing the reasons the negative effects occur(in this case, profiling).

 

[b.c.]

The problem with profiling (as you've hinted at above) is the assumption that a particular type of individual will commit the crime. For example there were these interesting facts from a Miami profiling study (though somewhat dated):

"Similar search disparities were found by Lamberth (1997) in his study of the stop and
search practices of the Maryland State Police. In a visual survey of traffic violators along the
I-95 corridor through Maryland, Lamberth found that 17.5 percent of the speeding violators were Black, while 74.7 percent of the violators were White. However, of the 823 motorists searched along I-95 from January 1995 through September 1996, 600 or 72.9 percent were Black. In other words, Blacks were stopped and searched far more frequently than the rate at which they were observed speeding along the interstate."

"As for police treatment of minorities in Denver after stops occurred, Whites and
Hispanics were more likely than Blacks to receive a citation, while Blacks were more likely
than Whites or Hispanics to receive a verbal warning. In contrast, Blacks and Hispanics were
substantially more likely than Whites to be the subjects of all types of searches; these
differences were more extreme with traffic stops than with pedestrian stops. As studies of the Maryland State Police and the North Carolina Highway Patrol revealed, Blacks and Whites were found in possession of contraband at approximately the same rates in Denver."

In fairness, other parts of the report contain different results, as you stated, depending on the search area, makeup of the population in a certain area, etc.

But the above excerpts (and other similar findings) pretty much shoot holes in the theory of one race or the other being representative of "common law breakers".

 

[D_Mylor Mentallydaft]

I
That's my opinion. Whether you think it's a "fair" one or not.

They're there for all sorts of reasons, obviously. I guess what you're trying to imply is, if there is a majority of minorities in traffic court or prison it's because they either belong there or caused themselves to be there. In many cases, true. However, an objective person could not ignore statistical evidence I already supplied (re. racial profiling).

Racial profiling and inequities under the law aren't illusions or myth. They exist. Therefore when people think they're being discriminated against it is not a "card". It is in their minds real, whether correct or not.

I don't think I've suggested anything here resembling "blindness" - or at least, not by YOUR definition of it. Awareness, perhaps.

as to the "common law breakers" thing the next post answered it

not talking about opnion, i am talking about reality. But since you did mention opnion and being fairness, if it's ok for the professor to expect a level of respect for his age and position (which he is totally entitled to) therefore justafying his behavior, the same goes for the police officer....

as for the court room.....you could logicly argue that in a room of 20 black defendants 15 of them were found in possession of drugs, weapons, probation violations d.u.i ect, because of stops baised on profiling. What you seem to not see is I AGREE WITH YOU! THEY ARE!...... but here is the question that matters.... you clone/record your girlfriend/boyfriends cell phone to keep track of what they are up to because you suspect it. Is that wrong and an invasion of privacy? yes it is, then you catch em red handed fucking around...... nit picking as to HOW you found out is like blaming the ground for taking the drops of milk you spilt when you were trying to steal a whole jug. if they were't drunk, or high or holding or straped or dumb enough to run, the profiling stop ends with a smart ass comment and them told to go home. Planting drugs or weapons on some one is FEDERAL time, they only do in the 1 in 500 million odds kinda situation that movies get made about.

there are alot of flaws in law enforcement, major weaknesses ... none more damning that they are forced to become as bad as we make them. and long before the day of the beat cop on your street that knows you by name and asked how you did on the math tests, the LOW people in this country are going to have to adress some SERIOUS cultural issues and stop thinking they deserve something just because they want it, sorry ass methed out white HEALTHY white people on disabbility, blacks with 4 kids, food stamps and a suburban on 22s, people who want to make our money then pay nothing back, and victimized who slip into their role like a warm bath and sit in it till they die.

untill the people steped on the most by reality start accepting reality, cops that arrest you out of anger andjails full of men and schools filled with the future jail residents. Its my observation, it may not be something many people want to hear, but it is what it is

 

[B_VinylBoy]

not trying that at all, just trying to get you (the seemingly smartest of the few on your side of the arguement) to atleast consider another p.o.v, just for the sake of equal debate.

It IS wrong to hold policemen in this country to a higher standard that you or I, consider holding them to the same standards as a person than us only with more control in life. Money and fame both buy you such stroke in life, as dose personal strength or inteligence , look at the t.v dating show guy wanted for killing his ex, because of his money a resources he had tmeans to act and because of his brain he was able to alude police. and as former chief of police father of american idol second place runner up justin guarinni (sp) Eldrin Bell once said to me, the only difference between a cop and a gangster is the cop pays his taxes and has the motorola and the voice on the other end. Just like a gangster when a policemen walks in a room he expects answers and complience, same mentality. He has to maintain the public's respect for him, and DID warn the man.

i mentioned in another thread i admire england's police force, you must attend collage and pass the recruit process there to even be a street cop with no gun, to be on a armed response team it's a seperate school all together. people on the street have a healthy fear and obvious respect for the street cop, because if mouthed off to he can take out his "billy club" and proceed to knock every one of your front teeth out. his badge allows him to do this and to get this badge he had to spend years not months in school plus a list of physical requirements. Over here, any sorry ass d.u.i having idiot can be a police officer.

and as the son of a very famous police officer, from a family where EVERY PERSON who is not a felon has or dose work in law enforcment except me, I can say this with confidence and break the chain of forced P.C bullshit.

"BLACK MEN BREAKING INTO A HOUSE IN UPPER CLASS WHITE COMMUNITY, THEY ARE ROBBERS AND VIOLENT, GOTTA PUT THEM DOWN BEFORE THEY GET ME!!!"

That is what crowley thought, that is what every police officer on the force for longer than 6 months would/dose think and honestly we both know why. and in the spirit of cutting the bull shit but STILL not being rude i will simply pose a question for you to mull over honestly.

If a lady pointed to a man holding a purse running in the opposite direction and said “please help I THINK that man took my purse” would you stop the man from running away and take the purse from him or stop and ask if it was his?

There is something REALLY wrong if you honestly think (and believe) that a person "with a badge" has a right to beat up on a civilian for merely badmouthing or talking about them. Just because we know that a few cops will stoop to these extreme measures for the most frivolous situations, it doesn't make it right. We, as civilians, know that there's a few bad apples out there and we adjust our lives so that we avoid the conflict. That doesn't make someone who does decide to get vocal to a cop deserving of the abuse. It's not as if we can tell by looking at a man in uniform whether or not he will snap at the mere wording of something he doesn't like. In this instance, as long as the person is not getting physical or threatening anyone's life then there's no need for police to put a hand on them.

I will not try to validate (in any shape or fashion) the actions of an authority figure who will bend and stretch the law to such levels just so (s)he can arrest someone for wording a few racial statements. If a few of my closest friends and I could arrest people for calling us the "N-Word" or some racially enticing slur over the years, we could probably imprison an entire New York city block of people. In fact, some culprits on this very board wouldn't even be here anymore. Because I'm certain in the comfort of their private homes, they've called me a lot worse than "boy".

But I digress...
Unfortunately, Crowley is more emotionally sensitive to these issues than others. You may think his actions were justified, however, if he wanted to make a REAL statement and show his credibility to the badge he would have never taken the racial bait that Gates was spewing, did his job and then moved on. At that instance, Gates would be the one looking like a fool trying to instigate a routine call into a racial incident. Then perhaps I would side more with those who are looking at Gates as the problem. And ironically, if we as citizens were more adamant in demanding higher standards for our boys in blue, we wouldn't have to worry so much about the "sorry ass d.u.i having idiot" wearing a badge and taking a billy club to a civilian for something as mindless as a "ya mama" joke.

 

[Gillette]

VB, what makes you certain that it was the slander that caused Crowley to arrest Gates? Crowley offered two warnings in front of a crowd. Had Gates complied with either of those, the disorderly conduct would have ceased leaving no justification for an arrest. If the slander made Crowley want to arrest Gates why give him the warnings and the opportunity to avoid it? Gates stated to Crowley after simply being asked for his ID that he was going to file a complaint against him. Do you really think he wanted to exacerbate that by adding an arrest?

Is there anyone here that can say with absolute certainty that Crowley would not make, or hasn't already made, a disorderly conduct arrest under similar circumstances but without the taunts? If not then assuming the taunts were the reason for the arrest is poor form.

"BLACK MEN BREAKING INTO A HOUSE IN UPPER CLASS WHITE COMMUNITY, THEY ARE ROBBERS AND VIOLENT, GOTTA PUT THEM DOWN BEFORE THEY GET ME!!!"

That is what crowley thought,

The problem with assuming this being Crowley's thought is that the caller never said there was a black man there. "Hispanic, maybe", was her description of the driver with no description of Gates. Crowley's first knowledge of Gates's skin colour was upon seeing him through the window by the front door. He didn't see a thug, he saw an older man with glasses wearing a button down shirt. I doubt this triggered the alarm bells in his head that you suggest it did.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

VB, what makes you certain that it was the slander that caused Crowley to arrest Gates? Crowley offered two warnings in front of a crowd. Had Gates complied with either of those, the disorderly conduct would have ceased leaving no justification for an arrest.

Well, I'm hoping Gates said something nasty because if it was just a cantankerous, old man being loud then the Disorderly Conduct call looks even more shameful. One of the other reasons why I don't agree with the arrest is because Gates was at his own home. Saying that a crowd formed would have more leverage with me if this was just a routine call in public. But crowds form wherever police go, even when there isn't a problem. And when it's happening in your own home, I tend to think a person should have that right to be as loud as they want as long as no neighbor is complaining about the noise. It's not as if Gates had a megaphone and was announcing to the entire block his disdain of the entire process.

If the slander made Crowley want to arrest Gates why give him the warnings and the opportunity to avoid it?

In all honesty, at that point I think Crowley just wanted to validate his reasons for being there. What could have been an issue of breaking & entering or something more serious turned out to be an old man who lost the keys to his own home. He found himself, in front of his peers, being barricaded by Gates with various statements and he didn't like it.

Gates stated to Crowley after simply being asked for his ID that he was going to file a complaint against him. Do you really think he wanted to exacerbate that by adding an arrest?

Some cops don't even care about their actions because they know most people will not go forward with their complaints or it will never make it to court. I already gave a detailed example on how a crooked cop saw what he wanted to see with me, took it upon himself to make my life miserable (including assaulting me) and managed to walk away scott free even when I brought a counter claim. The charges against me were dismissed and the court didn't even want to hear my side of the story.

Is there anyone here that can say with absolute certainty that Crowley would not make, or hasn't already made, a disorderly conduct arrest under similar circumstances but without the taunts? If not then assuming the taunts were the reason for the arrest is poor form.

Then what else could it be? Reports state that Crowley was bringing Gates in for "yelling". The only reason why I'm assuming it's slanderous is because I really want to try and understand why anyone would consider yelling at someone from their own home is considered Disorderly Conduct. In all my years of living, I've never seen that happen before especially in cities like Boston, Cambridge or New York.

The problem with assuming this being Crowley's thought is that the caller never said there was a black man there. "Hispanic, maybe", was her description of the driver with no description of Gates.

However, to paraphrase we do know that one of Gates' first response to the cop was, "Why because I'm black?" The racial bait was already injected into this argument at that moment. Even if Crowley didn't mention race in his description, the fact that he did nothing to dispel or even discredit the claim leads me to believe that it did play a factor. One thing I know from experience is that when someone is called a racist, they usually say or do whatever it takes to prove otherwise.

Crowley's first knowledge of Gates's skin colour was upon seeing him through the window by the front door. He didn't see a thug, he saw an older man with glasses wearing a button down shirt. I doubt this triggered the alarm bells in his head that you suggest it did.

And seriously, if Crowley only visualized "an older man with glasses wearing a button down shirt" or even perhaps a distraught woman, I'm sure that he would have done what was necessary to calm and quiet the situation without resorting to arresting them. Or at least made an attempt to get out of the person's business once he realized that there wasn't any impending danger to himself or anyone around him. Gates is stupid for mouthing off to a cop. We all agree with this. However, Crowley's actions were not noble and I wish people would stop trying to paint the victim as the problem here. Not that it means anything, but the man never even apologized. I don't think Crawley himself sees what was wrong with that entire scenario. However, I would expect someone objective to do so. Even if you take the skin color of the two men out of the equation (which in some ways I've tried to do), you still have their actions to contend with and it still looks like Crowley invented a reason to bring Gates in. This may not have been racism, but it definitely was a bad call on the police.

 

[b.c.]

Well, I'm hoping Gates said something nasty because if it was just a cantankerous, old man being loud then the Disorderly Conduct call looks even more shameful. One of the other reasons why I don't agree with the arrest is because Gates was at his own home. Saying that a crowd formed would have more leverage with me if this was just a routine call in public. But crowds form wherever police go, even when there isn't a problem. And when it's happening in your own home, I tend to think a person should have that right to be as loud as they want as long as no neighbor is complaining about the noise. It's not as if Gates had a megaphone and was announcing to the entire block his disdain of the entire process.

In all honesty, at that point I think Crowley just wanted to validate his reasons for being there. What could have been an issue of breaking & entering or something more serious turned out to be an old man who lost the keys to his own home. He found himself, in front of his peers, being barricaded by Gates with various statements and he didn't like it.

Some cops don't even care about their actions because they know most people will not go forward with their complaints or it will never make it to court. I already gave a detailed example on how a crooked cop saw what he wanted to see with me, took it upon himself to make my life miserable (including assaulting me) and managed to walk away scott free even when I brought a counter claim. The charges against me were dismissed and the court didn't even want to hear my side of the story.

Then what else could it be? Reports state that Crowley was bringing Gates in for "yelling". The only reason why I'm assuming it's slanderous is because I really want to try and understand why anyone would consider yelling at someone from their own home is considered Disorderly Conduct. In all my years of living, I've never seen that happen before especially in cities like Boston, Cambridge or New York.

However, to paraphrase we do know that one of Gates' first response to the cop was, "Why because I'm black?" The racial bait was already injected into this argument at that moment. Even if Crowley didn't mention race in his description, the fact that he did nothing to dispel or even discredit the claim leads me to believe that it did play a factor. One thing I know from experience is that when someone is called a racist, they usually say or do whatever it takes to prove otherwise.

And seriously, if Crowley only visualized "an older man with glasses wearing a button down shirt" or even perhaps a distraught woman, I'm sure that he would have done what was necessary to calm and quiet the situation without resorting to arresting them. Or at least made an attempt to get out of the person's business once he realized that there wasn't any impending danger to himself or anyone around him. Gates is stupid for mouthing off to a cop. We all agree with this. However, Crowley's actions were not noble and I wish people would stop trying to paint the victim as the problem here. Not that it means anything, but the man never even apologized. I don't think Crawley himself sees what was wrong with that entire scenario. However, I would expect someone objective to do so. Even if you take the skin color of the two men out of the equation (which in some ways I've tried to do), you still have their actions to contend with and it still looks like Crowley invented a reason to bring Gates in. This may not have been racism, but it definitely was a bad call on the police.

In short, it's what I (and a few "others") have already stated:
Crowley acted "stupidly".

 

[Northland]

In short, it's what I (and a few "others") have already stated:
Crowley acted "stupidly".

As did Gates. Both parties behaved poorly.

 

[b.c.]

As did Gates. Both parties behaved poorly.

I already said they both did. I'd have held the trained officer to the higher standard.

 

[Northland]

I already said they both did. I'd have held the trained officer to the higher standard.

Why let Gates have a lower standard? That alone would scream of racism if it was a reverse situation where a black officer did the things which Crowley did to a white educator who behaved the way in which Gates behaved.

Gates has been around enough years and has given enough lectures and written enough prose to have known damned well what he was doing throughout the ordeal. He may not have expected it to go as far as an arrest. He may have just been intending to taunt the officer; he did however, know that he was behaving inappropriately at some point in their encounter. If he did not, then he is none too bright and should be dismissed from his post immediately.


I hold all people to the same standards, to do differently is wrong.

 

[hung]

I would suggest that this topic be filed.

Some would say that we still have a problem in the U. S. A. regarding racial harmony. I would say that as long as we have people on this planet that there will not always be harmony for everyone.

Human Nature - A Fact Of Life. Unfortunately!!!!!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Why let Gates have a lower standard? That alone would scream of racism if it was a reverse situation where a black officer did the things which Crowley did to a white educator who behaved the way in which Gates behaved.

Nobody said or assumed that. The fact that we all criticize Gates for his actions prove this. And again, if you take the skin color of each person out of the equation you still have the same actions.

Gates has been around enough years and has given enough lectures and written enough prose to have known damned well what he was doing throughout the ordeal.

Oh, the irony of this statement.

He may not have expected it to go as far as an arrest.

And for good reason... because it shouldn't have.

He may have just been intending to taunt the officer; he did however, know that he was behaving inappropriately at some point in their encounter. If he did not, then he is none too bright and should be dismissed from his post immediately.

Well, if Crowley isn't getting dismissed, put on probation or even getting docked for pay then why should Gates? Hell, Crowley didn't even do the publically moral thing and apologize (not that it even mattered, but the gesture would have been nice).

If anything, Gates experienced the worse of the exchange. He was taken away from his home in handcuffs. He was arrested and treated like an everyday criminal for merely voicing disdain on a process at his own home. Not sure if that ever happened to you, but that's a humiliating experience that really affects you psychologically.

I hold all people to the same standards, to do differently is wrong.

A policeman can mouth off to a citizen, dream up a reason to arrest someone and in some instances assault someone and can usually walk away scott free without even apologizing. All a civilian has to do is raise his or her voice and they get arrested. Let's not ignore the obvious here just so you can hold onto your rhetorical beliefs of "equality" because to put a citizen on the same social level & status of an authority figure is ridiculous.

 

[Northland]

Why let Gates have a lower standard?

Nobody said or assumed that. The fact that we all criticize Gates for his actions prove this. And again, if you take the skin color of each person out of the equation you still have the same actions.

Actually, somebody did:

I already said they both did. I'd have held the trained officer to the higher standard.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Actually, somebody did:

Your question was, "Why should we hold Gates at a lower standard".
Perhaps we should be more clear on what this is... should it be based on morals, such as how one should think or conduct themselves in public? Or is it based on social status, where it's obvious that the playing field is not level?

 

[Northland]

Your question was, "Why should we hold Gates at a lower standard".
Perhaps we should be more clear on what this is... should it be based on morals, such as how one should think or conduct themselves in public? Or is it based on social status, where it's obvious that the playing field is not level?

I pointed out what had been said, no matter how I worded it, you would have turned it around for your own benefit. I made clear, all should be held to the same standards. This is regardless of economic status, educational status, gender, race or religion or anything else. Back in the Gates/Crowley thread in the ETC. section, someone said that as an esteemed professor Gates should be treated better. That indicated that Gates should be getting a different treatment than the homeless man, the factory worker, the day laborer, the high school drop-out. Too much of that already exists as is seen with celebrities on a regular basis.


And if the playing field is not level, then perhaps it is time to ask yourself why it is that you won't allow it to be. What are you doing to level the field?

Going back to the start, I asked Why should we hold Gates to a lower standard, after B.C. said that Crowley should be held to a higher standard (as I showed in my previous post), which you said nobody had done. I did not ask just for the laughs, I asked because it was and is part of what is wrong with the mentality of certain individuals who seem to believe that one group must have higher standards than another. That is the sort of thinking which just furthers discrimination.