That’s different than what you said before – you said there was no evidence. That you aren’t convinced by the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
But what persuaded you to dismiss that evidence? Do you really think there’s not some reasonable possibility that had Gates been white, the cop would have been more likely to try to de-escalate the situation or just walk away? Gates was on his own property and didn’t pose a danger to anyone – even assuming you take the cop’s word for it over Gates (and if so, why would you?), Gates was just being an asshole. It seems to me that the public would have been better served by a cop removing himself from such a mistaken-identity scenario – let the guy rant and rave on his own property if he wants. Expressing anger towards a cop doesn’t seem like it deserves arrest, at least not to me.
If in your example, person A, who was complaining, had said that they thought they were treated differently due to their race, then I think it would be comparable to the Gates situation. Race didn’t come up out of the blue – one of the people involved said that he was treated differently due to his race.
Racism in America is not about individual people being proven to be racists. So that question is irrelevant to me. I don’t care whether any individual white person is a racist or can be proved to be one.
We live in a racist society. That’s the important consideration.
Perhaps it’s a little bit less racist than in the 1940s, but it’s still racist, especially law enforcement and the justice system, and that fact colors every interaction between tje law enforcement system and black people.
It doesn’t matter whether or not any individual cop is “a racist” or can be proven to be one. Racism is baked into the entire system.
Gates is B. Race did come up out of the blue, because Gates introduced it. The officer could have said, I’m investigating a reported suspicious activity, can I see your ID to confirm you live here and what you’re telling me is accurate? If Gates responds with,* ‘there is a non-zero chance you are treating me differently because of my race’ *that is simultaneously one of the people involved saying they were treated differently because of race, and race coming up out of the blue with no basis. Calling it evidence is a stretch.
It’s also what I’m criticizing about your approach. It’s a fundamentally different world view to treat scenario with the mindset that we can’t rule out racism 100% so we should always consider it. No, I would only consider it if there were actual evidence that racism played a part.
If I understand what you’re saying, you take the officer’s word for what happened over Gates (that’s the only way I can see how “race coming up out of the blue” could be true). But even in that case, why did the officer stick around and arrest Gates? Why didn’t he just leave once he confirmed Gates lived there (which happened very quickly in both accounts)?
And why isn’t it okay to suggest that there’s a possibility that Gates was correct? Why are you so afraid of such a discussion? It seems like not being allowed (by custom or whatever) to consider racism without something like finding a basement full of KKK hoods means that lots and lots of racism might get ignored and unremarked upon. Isn’t it better to openly talk about all these possibilities, such that we don’t miss the real, actual incidents that might be related to racism? I suppose that might result in some unjust accusations of racism. But such unjust accusations, if they are indeed unjust, didn’t result in the officer losing his job. No material harm was done by exploring this possibility that Gates might not be delusional.
I understand that there’s probably a big fundamental difference in philosophy here. But yours, to me, seems to be predicated on a huge amount of fear – and IMO, most of that fear is unwarranted. Historically, ignoring the possibility of racism has done orders of magnitude more harm than talking about it.
My understanding of the event was that the officer did leave the residence, and only after Gates followed outside the house while continuing to berate the officer was he arrested for disorderly conduct.
Not sure where you get the idea that fear comes into play. I’m not afraid of the discussion, I’m participating in it. But what I see typically happen, is that the racism grenade is thrown in and all other things are crowded out. For the most part, it’s uninteresting. Combine that with I think the over use of the racism charge dilutes it’s impact, and does harm when trying to address other instances of actual racism.
Sure it’s possible that Gates is correct. It’s also possible that the molecules in your hand will align sufficient to allow your hand to pass through a solid table. Should we talk about the possibility of phasing, Kitty Pryde style, all the time? Yes that’s hyperbole.
I had friends in college who majored in ethnic studies. Every single conversation became about race. That’s great for them, but man it’s tedious and after tending to tone it out, I stopped socializing with them. Maybe they would have eventually had something interesting to say, but I wouldn’t know because I no longer responded to the latest provocation that* this thing was totally racist!*
I bring up issues of race when I think they are relevant, and denounce them when I don’t think they are relevant. I do not think we are better off to openly talk about racism when there is no evidence of racism being a part of whatever is being talked about. I think that sprouts more ethnic studies* majors to dismiss.
By the officer’s account, Gates was on his own porch when he was arrested.
Isn’t that ridiculous? Why is it okay to arrest someone in their own porch just because they’re being obnoxious.
Again this assumes we accept the officer’s account over Gates, and you still haven’t said why you accept the officer’s account and dismiss Gates’.
It’s not reasonable to compare this likelihood of racism to molecules in your hands violating physical laws. Arresting someone on their own porch just for berating a cop is seriously odd, isn’t it? And if so, isn’t it reasonable to wonder why? And if so, isn’t it reasonable to consider the arrestee’s account?
Systemic racism is meaningless in the context of a single incident. Either Gates was targeted because he was black or he wasn’t. Which of those happened may not matter to you but it does to most people.
Obama did affect the racial divide nearly as much as the SJWs who’ve cooked up the concepts of ‘white privilege’, ‘cultural appropriation’ and the Confederacy controversy. None have accomplished a damn thing that is positive and a whole lot that is negative. Each is just one more way to cause black people to hate and resent white people and for white people to resent black people and the SJWs who are endlessly, foolishly and selfishly stoking the fires of racial divide.
Spending time together and experiencing each other as they really are is the key to racial harmony, not this endless pitting of one side against the other. What this country really needs to be doing is finding ways to encourage black people and white people to socialize together so they can come to realize that each side is not nearly as bad as they think. The media is responsible for a lot of the impression that blacks are ill-educated, undisciplined trouble makers and criminals and whites are privileged racists. Pressure should be on them too to knock that shit off.
Being on a porch isn’t immunity against a disorderly conduct charge. The officer could have used discretion and walked away, probably should have. But even still, nothing there is sufficient to sustain an accusation of racism.
Because it sounds more plausible. Why don’t you?
It would be odd by itself, but if the fact pattern is that Gates exited his house and engaged in conduct that met the criteria for arrest for disorderly conduct, then it’s not odd. I’m typically skeptical of police. Well, I’m skeptical of everyone. But this officer, by most accounts this played out on the up and up. So unless there were some counterfactual evidence, this is more like another incident brought up by ethnic studies majors. Not everything is about race, and making everything about race is bad for advancing society toward being less racist.
No, that’s not the important thing. The important thing is that this kind of treatment is part of the everyday experience of black people and it is largely absent from the everyday experience of white people.
By making the issue whether you can prove that a particular person was being racist in a particular instance, you will practically never find racism.
And that’s because people who are intentionally being racist will deny it and there will be no specific proof when (in the vast majority of cases) people who are acting under an unconscious racial bias or within a system that itself is implicitly racially biased.
The result will be the patently ludicrous conclusion that racism almost never plays a role in such cases. We know that that is untrue.
So the result will be perpetuation of a system heavy with race-based injustice but no way to address it.
All you are doing is preserving for white people the benefits of a racially biased system while maintaining plausible deniability for it.
There were two accounts. You’re saying the officer’s account is more plausible, but so far I can’t figure out why you think so. In both accounts, the officer took the decidedly odd (and contrary to “protect and serve”, IMO) path of arresting a man on his own porch for berating him.
In the officer’s account, Gates was acting strange and like a jerk. In Gates’, the officer was acting strange and like a jerk. Why is one account more plausible than the other?
This is kind of a weird 20 questions where each response is answered with a “why?” without offering a response of your own. Based on my personal life experiences, it seems more plausible because it conforms better to how I understand and experience the world. Because if I’m Gates, I’m not opening the door at all. No one in my house is going to open the door to anyone, especially police. I’m one step away from getting the “Do you have a warrant” doormat, and I know the officers in my town by name.
The fact that he opened the door tells me he wasn’t prepared for the encounter and he’s already out of his comfort zone, off balance so to speak, so responding in a way that escalates the situation is consistent with that. Police typically have the upper hand because for them it’s their normal day, and for the person they are in contact with, it’s an out of the ordinary experience.
Because in that situation acting strange and like a jerk should not result in an arrest.
Assuming that what the cop said was true, that Gates was acting strangely and like a jerk, we should presume that the arrest was unjust because the cop failed to articulate something that can reasonably be considered a crime.
So we are not wrong to presume that the cop was in the wrong.
And let’s recall exactly what Obama said—
None of that presumes that the cop consciously acted with racist intent. Every sentence of that is exactly correct.
As a white man, I did not hear this as the president “siding” with anyone. Just making the point to anyone that might be thinking otherwise, that simply “looking like Trayvon Martin” doesn’t mean you’re a thug.
Unless you think President Obama’s son would likely be a thug. Which I suppose some people do…
Sorry for not offering more of my own views – feel free to ask more questions and I’ll answer them.
That Gates was probably “off balance” could be consistent with both accounts, IMO. I don’t see how it pushes you towards one or the other. I think they’re both relatively plausible – meaning neither one is a totally nutty, out there scenario. If I had to lean towards one I’d lean towards Gates, based on the less plausible (IMO) initial reaction of Gates in officer Crowley’s account. But it’s not overwhelming either way, IMO.
But I want to step back a minute. You indicated that it was out of line, so to speak, for me to suggest that racism might be involved. But I think Gates’ account is plausible – at least as plausible as the officer’s. So if Gates’ account is plausible, then isn’t it reasonable to talk about the possibility of a racist motive? If so, then the disagreement is just about whether or not Gates’ account is plausible, not whether or not it’s reasonable to talk about the possibility of racism in instances like this one.
This is what the disorderly conduct law says (it was updated Oct-2015, so I’m operating under the assumption that it wasn’t materially changed):
So assuming what the cop said is true, then Gates was acting in a way sufficient to sustain a charge of disorderly conduct. If the cop is lying, then, well, the entire police report should be disregarded.
None of that presumes the government faked the moon landing. On July 21, 1969, every sentence would be exactly correct. Do you think this implies the government faked the moon landing? I do.
I don’t find Gates’s account plausible. If I were on a jury, based on the information available now I would discount his testimony.
And do you hold that it’s unreasonable for someone to find it plausible? If not, then you must hold that it’s reasonable for someone to suspect a more than trivial chance that racism was involved.
Is the problem that Gates was arrested on his porch or is it that he was black and arrested on his porch?
That incident provided a suitable example to talk about at least a few things. Obama could have talked about not assuming racist motivations. He could have talked about respectfully dealing with police. He could have talked about authoritarian leanings of policing. He could have talked about the polices duty to protect and serve.
Any of these would have been fine and helped the country. Instead, he focused on the racism angle. That worsened race relations because it generates defensiveness from one segment and hyper sensitivity from another.