Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 11:24 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
At that moment in time, he crossed the line. Rather than retuning the ID and leaving the NON-crime scene home that he no longer had any business being in; he actually held onto Mr. Gates ID and called more cops to the residence. Just holding the ID at that juncture violated Gates' Fourth Amendment rights, which by way of the 14th have applied to all States since the 60's...


This sort of hyper-technical analysis is all well and good if people were able to remain completely mindful of their actions from one minute to another.

This rush to decry violation of rights is symptomatic of what is right and wrong with this country.

While the Taliban appoint fanciful "husbands" to wed and rape female prisoners because Islamic law does not permit the execution of a virgin, and the Mullahs in Iran order the murder and beating of their citizens for the temerity of protesting a rigged election, we have scores of people passionately decrying violations of Constitutional rights and bleating about an ongoing police state in America.

The simple truth of the matter is that and you and so many others on this thread wouldn't have burned a dozen calories if the loud mouthed jerk having his rights trampled was white.

Quote:
It may well have been because he was a loud-mouth jerk... but my experience with Law Enforcement makes me tend to strongly doubt it. I doubt there are many cops out there who aren't frequently berated by irate citizens who are guilty of petty crimes, their mother, boyfriends, etc ad nauseum. I bet it sucks too... but that doesn't give them the power to confiscate the papers of the innocent, invite more intimidating police officers to the scene, nor to arrest a man who is by this point (at the very least) righteously pissed off.


You as a white man have had the experiences that enable you to discern when a white cop is acting on racism?

Really?

I have had run-ins with stupid cops and on one occasion the detective's behavior was far more outrageous than Sgt Crowley’s. I assure you that no one would mistake me for an African-American. These experiences didn't lead me to assume that cops who over-react do so because of race, but perhaps you have had different experience.

Quote:
Whether the Police Officer in question is a stand up guy or not; I don't believe for one moment he arrests a 60 year old white professor under those same circumstances. Needless to say, if he did, he would be just as wrong. I do not see compelling evidence that racism was involved and do not believe such an accusation would pass the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I do, however, think it could easily meet the preponderance standard, and would be happy to wager the attorneys for the powers that be agree.


Well, your experience obviously has been that white people, and particularly loud mouthed white people, never get pushed around by the police. Interesting life you've led there Bill.

You don't see "compelling evidence that racism was involved" and yet you have reached that conclusion without too much trouble.

I can't imagine how we can actually play your wager, but I would take it. Just because the DA chose not to prosecute Gates is hardly proof that he was convinced Crowley was driven by racism. This is an incredible leap of illogic on your part.

Quote:
Again: No doubt his rights were violated, and little as to why. My conclusion was based on the former being "stupid"; the latter is just my personal opinion as to why the former took place. You'll notice I didn't allege any 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendment violations. (Though I did point out when the 14th was interpreted to provide 4th Amendment protections to States.)


Well, we can be thankful for something then, can't we?

(Did you just get a law degree from Phoenix University?)

It's your personal opinion about the latter assertion that concerns me.

The only evidence upon which you could possibly form such an opinion is the fact that Gates is black. Obviously your opinion has also been informed by personal experience that tells you that the police never step over the line with white; only blacks.

Let me ask you the following:

1)Do you believe that every time a black suspect contends he or she is innocent and that the police have racially profiled them, that they are telling the truth?

2)Do you believe that it is possible that clever black criminals have recognized that they have a potential out by making these claims, and will use them to save their asses?

3)Do you believe that the police, no matter how many times they have seen #2, must ignore it as a dynamic at the scene of a crime?

These questions are irrelevant to the Gates incident, but pertinent to your mindset.

Quote:
That a black man whose rights were trampled chooses to use the incident to promote awareness of a frequent asinine double standard is nothing I'll fault him for. I commend him for it. The fact that he's a black man getting the apologies for the unconstitutional treatment from law enforcement isn't the only reason this is getting national attention. He is a prominent black man. Sure, whitey wouldn't get the national attention, but neither do the literally thousands of ordinary black men falling victim to unconstitutionally "stupid" decisions by police officers who may or may not be racist. This same thing happens to less accomplished black men with a regularity that would turn your stomach if you really stopped to think about it.


"Sure whitey wouldn't get the national attention..."

Interesting choice of words.

You don't need to lecture anyone on the fact that African-Americans have an uneasy and disturbing relationship with police.

I don't think that anyone (and I mean anyone) on this thread would argue that blacks attract more attention from the police than whites.

What we cannot discuss (without being castigated as racist) is the fact that blacks, disproportionally, commit more crimes than whites.

Yes, there are all sorts of sociological reasons why black men are led to criminality, but this matters little when a cop is making an arrest.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Gates situation except that he, and you, and others would like to represent his experience as emblematic of the black experience in America.

Quote:
Correct, he should have left, but you can no more prove your gut instinct that it was irrespective of race than I can mine that the white man in identical circumstances doesn't get arrested by Crowley (or anyone else for that matter, I'd wager). This is the part of racism that is nearly impossible to eradicate, and also the part I believe each and every one of us is guilty of to some degree. Not being able to pin-point it, doesn't make the overall effect any less unfair to he who has to endure it, day in and day out.


First of all, my conclusion was not based solely on a "gut instinct."

If you've read anything about Crowley you would know that, on his own dime, he travels to and teaches police recruits about the traps and problems of racial profiling. You would also know that a black superior recommended him for this task, and that he has no record of prior insinuations, let alone arguable contentions concerning racism.

If you read either Crowley's or Gates (albeit this may have changed in the last 24 hours) version of what happened, there is absolutely no evidence that Crowley was motivated by racism.

On the other hand, you and other, have reached the conclusion that Crowley acted through racism for no other reason than the fact that Gates is black.

Quote:
I disagree. For the reasons pointed out in the paragraph above, I think the attention is a good thing that could lead to a greater understanding of the shadowy side effects of racism that are not often even noticed, let alone focused on by those of us not often afflicted by them.


Really?

People who are not black are going to appreciate the legitimate sensitivity blacks have to interactions with the police because some haughty Harvard Professor, who happens to be black, bleats about racism when a cop, who couldn't be more opposite of the stereotype of racist cops, arrests him for being a loudmouthed jerk?

Even "The Eloquent One" realized that his knee-jerk comments did more harm than good in presenting this subject for national discussion.

Quote:
I'll agree that the leader of the free world should be better informed before addressing the situation, but I don't think it's terribly relevant whether the cop arrested him for a crime that didn't happen or a disturbance that he didn't create. Either way, it would have been stupid.


That's because you agree with the premise he prematurely formed (In fact, now that he has discarded it, you press on with it. You Uber-Obamaniac you!)

Quote:
Hollow qualifiers? I don't think so. I have no reason to believe Crowley is any more racist than your average Joe... but I think that's the underlying point. One need not wear white sheets and white hoods to be exta afraid of the black man, or to more easily believe he is guilty of something, or less qualified for... etc. ad naseum... but these more subtle, less provable aspects of racism are no less offensive to he who endures it, and I'd wager I'd be pretty damn sensitive to them myself.


There is absolutely no evidence that Crowley was "extra-afraid" of the black man. Considering that so much has been made of Gates use of a cane, your assertions is pretty laughable.

Blah, blah , blah...

I have never argued that black in America have a uniquely negative relation with law enforcement.

Do they have reason to be suspicious of the motivation of the police? Yes.

Do the police sometimes single them out for interrogation irrespective of whether or not they have exhibited behaviors deserving of suspicion? Yes.

However, there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by falsely characterizing a non-racist police action as racist. Crowley's actions whether stupid or not, were not racist unless you really want to believe that all "whitey" cops are racist.

Quote:
Similarly, I've recently learned just how put off people can be by gender specific allocations, and responded with a conscious effort to police my use of them. Had this subject not come up in conversation, I wouldn't have even thought to look for my error. Hell, I practically worship women, but my demeanor has not always reflected this truth. Awareness is a good thing.


Well, bully for you Bill. I'm glad you are having success actualizing your feminine and liberal selves. It's amazing the effect a good woman can have on a man.

Quote:
In this case, you have a prominent man who literally had his constitutional rights trampled... and to whatever degree that can be exploited to highlight the ugly reality of day to day unnoticed by the majority double standards, for the edification of us all, I'm all for it.


By now, Crowley has been accused of many sins, but it's hard to accept that he literally trampled on Gates rights. Did Gates produce a copy of the Constitution which he claimed as his own; and which Crowley stomped all over?

This is a case of a policeman overreacting to the uncalled for belligerence of a citizen. Black and white have no roles to play here except for the rhetorical bullshit that has ensued.






















Quote:
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 11:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, You really do bring up some salient points, but racial profiling is wrong no matter how we wish to rationalize it. We must presume that all individuals are innocent until proven guilty. To treat innocent people as if they have committed any crime is not right on the face of it. It doesn't matter if in Oakland or Chicago, most crimes are committed by blacks. As we all know, more blacks commit crimes against other blacks than they do towards others. There are also statistics in some communities where most of the crimes are committed by whites. We don't hear too often about those in the media.

If we wish to discuss criminal behavior, we're going to be hard pressed to point our fingers only at blacks.

I once thought (many decades ago) Japanese Americans were one of the most law abiding people in the US, but learned through the years that even people of our culture has committed some awful crimes. I cringed, but I learned the reality of human nature. Nobody is immune from having bad people in their culture.

When I said we have a police state, I was being facetious , but many blacks in our country still feel that way. We're not talking about the criminal element, but the majority of law abiding blacks in this country. Can you see what's wrong with this picture?

Nobody is able to presume future criminal behavior in most cases, because many come from good families and backgrounds. It's no different than a family having a member with a mental disease or developmental disability.

I believe how we react to situations as we have seen and reacted to the police and Mr Gates, we all came away with different perceptions of how they each reacted at the scene, and we all tried to second-guess innocence or guilt by association. Whites backed the white Cambridge police sergeant, and majority of the others probably backed Professor Gates.

As can be expected, we reacted according to our own backgrounds and perceptions.

Let's all remember that in our country everybody is presumed innocent until found guilty of a crime. What crimes others of Japanese decent have committed should have no bearing on me.



rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:10 am
@cicerone imposter,
I would like to point out that I never said wehad a police state. I said the conserative part of our country is working toward a police state.
did anyone notice the article about bush considering sending the army into Buffalo N.Y. when urged to do so by cheney to arrest some terrosts. Bush declined to do so. The only smart thing I can remember him doing.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
This is a case of a policeman overreacting to the uncalled for belligerence of a citizen.


Except the police are supposed to be trained to not overreact.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:51 am
@rabel22,
Quote:
I would like to point out that I never said wehad a police state. I said the conserative part of our country is working toward a police state.


And how do you figure that?
Are conservatives trying to outlaw elections?
Are they trying to eliminate Congress?
Are they trying to outlaw the possession of weapons?

Please explain exactly how conservatives are trying to create a police state.

Quote:
did anyone notice the article about bush considering sending the army into Buffalo N.Y. when urged to do so by cheney to arrest some terrosts. Bush declined to do so. The only smart thing I can remember him doing.


You mean like when President Clinton sent national guard troops into Waco, with a tank, to arrest the Branch Davidians?
Did you have a problem with that?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:00 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
You mean like when President Clinton sent national guard troops into Waco, with a tank, to arrest the Branch Davidians?
Did you have a problem with that?


You mean like when you make **** up? Do I have a problem with that? Yes, I do have a problem with that MM. Clinton did NOT send national guard troops into Waco. You might want to check your facts there before you spout off.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 07:40 am
@parados,
Are you sure you want to tell me I made it up?

Lets look at who took part in the raid.
We know the ATF and the FBI was there, and there were tanks from the Texas NG used n the assault.

Lets look at other people there...

Quote:
75 ATF agents,
3 helicopters manned by 10 Texas National Guard counterdrug personnel as distraction during the raid and filming[1][2]


Gee, look at that. Texas NG personnel.

Quote:
Hundreds of federal agents,
military vehicles (with their normal weapon systems removed): 9-10 M3 Bradleys, 4-5 M728 Combat Engineering Vehicles (CEVs) armed with CS gas, 2 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 1 M88 tank retriever[1][4]


Hey, look there.
Military vehicles, 2 tanks, and a tank retriever were also used.
Those came from the NG, and were driven by NG people.
The ATF and the FBI dont have tanks.

Quote:
Support:[1]
1 Britten-Norman Defender surveillance aircraft,[5]
unknown number of Texas National Guard personnel, for maintenance of military vehicles and training on the use of the vehicles and their support vehicles (Humvees and flatbed trucks),
surveillance from Texas National Guard Counterdrug UC-26 surveillance aircraft and from Alabama National Guard,
2 members of the 22nd Regiment of the British Army's Special Air Service (SAS) as observers,
10 active duty Special Forces soldiers as "observers" (sic) and trainers, also present during assault,
Two senior Army officers as advicers


So we also know that 2 members of the SAS were there, along with Texas NG personnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

There is a list of the weapons and equipment used also at that link.
Now, are you still going to say that Clinton didnt order the Texas NG to get involved?
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 08:31 am
@mysteryman,
personally I think the "Waco incident" was incredibly stupid for all parties involved.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 08:52 am
@parados,
parados, That's the primary problem with MACs-conservatives; they don't remember their own history. They make **** up as they go along, and get caught lying so often, it's not even unexpected. They twist history to meet their own confused minds, and they expand that with more lies. How do these people live in the real world?
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 09:19 am
I am not sure whether anyone else brought this up, but I read that Gates, at one point, vehemently rejected the officer's order to leave the house. Police procedure, I believe, then requires that Gates be arrested.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 09:25 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I am not sure whether anyone else brought this up, but I read that Gates, at one point, vehemently rejected the officer's order to leave the house. Police procedure, I believe, then requires that Gates be arrested.


Incorrect; an officer cannot legally order you to exit your house in MA. And even if there was a law requiring you to comply with a cop requesting you to leave your house, Gates was not charged with that, let alone arrested for it.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 09:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,
This problem could have been settled very early on by Sgt Crowley asking Prof Gates if this was his home. Police procedure needs to be improved if this was not done.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:12 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I think the argument you put out there is the crux of the matter.

Even though a high percentage of persons in the Mafia are of Sicilian or Italian ancestry, it is ignorant to automatically assume that a person of Sicilian or Italian ancestry will have criminal tendencies.

Even though a high percentage of persons in this country illegally are Mexican, it is ignorant to automatically assume that a person of Mexican origin is illegal.

Even though a high percentage of Asians have an aptitude for advanced mathematical concepts, it is ignorant to automatically assume that a person of Asian ancestry will be good at math.

Even though there have been widespread abuses and graft and corruption among Democrat politicians, it is ignorant to automatically assume that a Democrat is dishonest and corrupt.

And even though any educated person knows that racial profiling happens, that racism is real, and that there have been numerous occasions of police conduct, it is ignorant for a Harvard Professor, a President of the United States, or a member of A2K to automatically assume profiling, racism, or police misconduct in the Gates incident.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Incorrect; an officer cannot legally order you to exit your house in MA


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

A police officer, fire fighter, or other emergency personnel can order you out of your house AT ANY TIME in the event of an emergency or other dangerous situation.

There are hundreds of situations where an officer can order you out of your house and can arrest you if you fail to comply.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:24 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Incorrect; an officer cannot legally order you to exit your house in MA


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

A police officer, fire fighter, or other emergency personnel can order you out of your house AT ANY TIME in the event of an emergency or other dangerous situation.

There are hundreds of situations where an officer can order you out of your house and can arrest you if you fail to comply.


Perhaps you can point out the statute in MA law which allows a cop to order you out of your house - and allows him to do so in what clearly is not an 'emergency' situation. I am willing to bet you cannot do this.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
If you think I made up what happened at Waco, then prove it.

I just provided a list of the personnel that were at Waco, and if it was wrong, prove it.

Even the ATF and FBI admit they used a tank at Waco.
And since they dont have them, they had to get the tank from somewhere.
So they got it from the Texas NG.

You are letting your own ignorance lead your thinking, instead of actually trying to learn the truth.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I dont have to.

YOU are the one that said...
Quote:
an officer cannot legally order you to exit your house in MA


You gave no qualifier about an emergency, you simply said it couldnt be done.
You are wrong, it can be done and is often done.

If you lived here and refused an order by me to leave your house, I can and will have you arrested.
Once emergency personnel are on scene, they are in charge.
They wouldnt be there if there was no emergency (real or perceived), and until they are satisfied about there being an emergency or not THEY ARE IN CHARGE.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:31 am
@dyslexia,
I 100% agree.
The govt overreacted and made a peaceful situation a violent one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 10:37 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I dont have to.

YOU are the one that said...
Quote:
an officer cannot legally order you to exit your house in MA


You gave no qualifier about an emergency, you simply said it couldnt be done.
You are wrong, it can be done and is often done.

If you lived here and refused an order by me to leave your house, I can and will have you arrested.
Once emergency personnel are on scene, they are in charge.
They wouldnt be there if there was no emergency (real or perceived), and until they are satisfied about there being an emergency or not THEY ARE IN CHARGE.


Actually, you are the one claiming a legal right, you should be willing to provide evidence that a statute exists in MA law allowing one to do that. You have made a claim, now back it up. I was unable to locate any law allowing police to order you out of your home.

Quote:

If you lived here and refused an order by me to leave your house, I can and will have you arrested.


No, you won't. You may request that the police do so, but when they arrive and determine that it is not a fire emergency - which this case clearly isn't - they would probably be asking YOU why you were harassing me.

Quote:

Once emergency personnel are on scene, they are in charge.


You are simply incorrect about this. Furthermore, how was Gates to know the police officer was an actual officer, when he wouldn't provide his ID? You are not required to exit your house every time someone in a police uniform comes to the door and demands you do, don't be silly, MM.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 11:06 am
@mysteryman,
This was not a emergency situation. The cop was checking identification and wether the man had a right to be in this residence. When he was showen Gates identification he should have left and gone about his bussiness. Everything after the proof of identity and residence was the policemans fault. And it has been pointed that the national guard is a state militia, not federal army untill the president declares a national emergency and federalizes it.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1360
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:17:10