And Sgt. Cowley could have left without continuing to engage Prof. Gates. When neither of them chooses to leave well enough alone, the fault lies with the party who had the greater onus of responsibility: i.e., the police officer, not the citizen whose home he was currently in.
Hahaha, I wondered if you were going to catch that. I got called away by actual (gasp) work before I could actually submit my post to you, then after I submitted that (without previewing again) and saw that Gary had replied in the meantime, I didn’t have a chance to reply to his post until my edit window had passed (more of that pesky work stuff).
Any ruckus Gates was causing could have been halted **just as easily **by walking away as by arresting him. That the officer chose the latter option means that the officer was the one who fucked up.
I agree with you in general that the police have the burden to be calm and responsible. That’s why I don’t find as much fault with Sgt. Crowley in this instance as I do with Professor Gates.
checks forum - yep IMHO I respect your opinion that Sgt. Crowley should have just walked away and I agree that it was one option open to him. In my opinion his arresting Professor Gates was a reasonable course of action given the circumstances in this particular case. I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
That’s what I figured but I couldn’t pass by such low hanging fruit.
Sorry that your friend had such a negative experience. It should be noted that I knew Prof. Gates as a “lowly graduate student,” not in my current role as a (lowly) professor. He certainly didn’t have to go out of his way to be nice to me, and I can certainly point out many profs that were less than pleasant to interact with.
There are a number of troubling facts that are coming to light. First, we know that Crowley’s report is contested factually not only by Gates, but also by Whalen, the witness. She states that she never spoke to Crowley, but the report goes on at length about a conversation that Crowley had with her. Either that’s a complete fabrication, or he was talking to someone who did not call 911. And of course, there’s the issue of the 911 call tape, where Whalen, pressed several times, does not give a racial identifier aside from “I think one might be Hispanic.” She also states that they have suitcases and surmises twice that the men may be the residents of the house.
It’s a clip from Fox News with Shepard Smith and Andrew Napolitano, with Napolitano opining that a) Crowley did not have just cause to be in Gates’ house, and b) being that Gates was in his house, he was wrongly arrested for disturbing the peace. (It seems he takes the view that getting Gates on his porch was a ruse to get him out of the house.) Certainly Napolitano, a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, is not inclined to advocate for a professor who is on a very different ideological plane than he.
I also take issue with the characterization of Gates as an “asshole” or “belligerent.” He had committed no crime, was in the confines of his private home. While he didn’t necessarily bend over backwards to greet Crowley with loving arms, that’s not required of anybody. It was incumbent for Crowley to explain precisely why he was at his home.
Think about it. If the threshold for a police officer to come into your home and demand ID is a call to 911 - that is somehow converted from a neighbor conveying concern of another person, but clearly supposing that the alleged perps actually live in the house to “two Black men with backpacks” - then we should all be very worried. Napolitano, a judge, states that the call is not enough to warrant entering someone’s home.
Furthermore, from Crowley’s report it is not clear how he got in the house. It sounds like Gates let him in. That’s far more cooperative than he had to be. If anything, it sounds like Gates has a clearer understanding of the law and his rights than Crowley did. Whether that’s an issue with training or his own choice to make Gates comply with his orders is another issue.
Sampiro, I’m confused where your vitriol towards Gates comes from. If Crowley had a reputation for putting people in the pokey any time they questioned him, or said something less than flattering about him, I’d actually suspect that perhaps the guy is a jerk to everyone. But he treated Gates improperly, according to at least one judge (who happens to be of a more conservative bent). So Gates is left to figure out why he’s been treated this way. Why is it irrational to not suspect that race has some role in this situation? And also, what the blue fuck does Al Sharpton’s opinion about this have to do with Gates?
In one post you invoke the “racial boogeyman” Al Sharpton and the phrase “race card.” I have to tell you, I’m surprised and a little disappointed. Your posts that I can recall tend to be well thought out. We know that Gates and Crowley have a different interpretation of events - but you chose to believe Crowley’s without acknowledging that there’s a dispute there. Gates states that he did show two forms of ID. We also certainly know that he let Crowley into his private residence, and he did not have to. You even insinuate that Whalen, the caller, is hiding something by having a lawyer speak on her behalf because her account differs from Crowley. It seems you’re very invested in believing Crowley’s account, and not at all considering the myriad possibilities of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and prejudgments from his end.
I was referring to Dopers participating in this thread, not Gates. The general consensus in this thread seems to agree that Gates playing the race card is probably out of line. You pounding the gavel about the race issue is falling on deaf ears.
One side of the argument is that Crowley was way out of line to arrest Gates. There are many, many reasons why he might have reacted this way. Gates might have insulted him in a particularly hurtful way. Crowley might have been being pissy about being treated with what he sees as a lack of proper respect. Gates might have been throwing a tantrum. Crowley might be a mouth breathing racist and was eager to arrest the guy for the slightest of things. They are all possible. I haven’t seen anyone my side of the argument who really cares what the motivation was. Everyone seems willing to give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on the racism claim. That said, whatever the motive actually is Crowley is fully wrong for his actions. The actions are unjustifiable.
Do you understand why your and others initial desire to take the officer at his word reinforces our complaint? Officers must be held to a much higher standard than a citizen regardless of his education level. The fact that we don’t view officers with the proper skepticism allows them an unreasonable amount of latitude considering the power we grant them.
Agreed. It’s a fundamental part of our justice system that the burden be higher on the authorities. Even in trumped up, politicized cases like these that fact must be reinforced.
He was arrested for disorderly conduct, not disturbing the peace.
I’m not sure what the statute is for a disorderly conduct charge, but I hope that it’s more than just “arguing with a cop”. These charges are in place to protect the public. If the two got into an argument then I suppose the cop was equally guilty of “disorderly conduct”. The fact that he was in his own home makes it extremely difficult to make the argument that the charge was justified. The public was not threatened and the “conduct” would have ended the second the cop got into his car.
The officer simply could have left the moment he saw the mans ID. This argument simply doesn’t hold water. Once Crowley discovered that Gates was the homeowner his staying served no purpose bu to escalate the situation.
Your first two sentences don’t reconcile. If you don’t think he abused his power then you are tacitly approving people being arrested on their front porches. And what is the “allowed to leave” crap? Crowley was the cop, he could have and should have left the second he got the ID. Is there some claim that Gates was detaining him? In what way would Gates have allowed Crowley to leave? If Crowley really wanted to show that he held no ill will to the homeowner he should have just left!
It’s absurd that you make a distinction between the inside of his home and his front porch. The threshold of a door offers some magic distinction? I think Gates rightly presumed that he was within his domain while he was on his front porch. The fact that he followed him outside is justification of nothing. We can’t deduce what intent Crowley had in inviting him onto the porch, and frankly it shouldn’t matter. He was still the one with no reason to be on the premises and I’ve yet to hear how Gates actually broke a law to warrant a continued interaction.
This boggles. So far all we are aware of is that Gates yelled at the cop. He was arrested. Ipso facto, he was arrested for yelling at a cop.
I make distinction between inside a home and outside of it because police should need a warrant to enter your home if you don’t want them there and because if you’re yelling inside your house you are probably not going to be considered a danger to yourself or others. So yelling at a cop in your house is not unreasonable, IMHO; though it’s probably not wise and not respectful of the police officer as a human being. Coming out on the porch and yelling at one cop or at several cops and/or at innocent bystanders can give the appearance of a person who may be a danger to himself or to others. I think that given the way ‘disorderly’ is defined by the law, it is not surprising to me that Professor Gates was found to be in violation of that statute and arrested. Note also that it appears that none of the other police - - Harvard and Cambridge - - attempted to prevent Sgt. Crowley from making the arrest, nor does it appear that any of them are publicly criticizing his handling of the situation on the porch. While cops do close ranks, I don’t think that every single police officer present would have reason to back Sgt. Crowley if they felt he was out of line and if they felt doing so could get them a beer at the White House.
I was considering the police report to be the more accurate version of events before Ms. Whalen came out with her account and after my friend shared his recollections of dealing with Professor Gates, seeing other white waiters deal with Professor Gates, and interacting with Professor Gates when helping deliver food to the Gates’ home for a party. I also weighed Sgt. Crowley’s history of service and the opinions of some of the other police who were present on the site and who supported Sgt. Crowley’s actions. Taken all together, it seemed reasonable to me that Sgt. Crowley would have very little to gain by fabricating the Professor’s actions in the home. I gave less credence to Professor Gates’ account largely due to it fitting what my friend described from his time as a starving student and then as Professor Gates’ professional colleague.
I now stand corrected and regret that I placed such weight on Sgt. Crowley’s report. I would like to see him questioned about the parts that don’t match up with Mr. Gates’ statement and especially with Ms. Whalen’s statement. As I posted upthread, it may be possible that Sgt. Crowley did speak to a witness on-scene who he thought was Ms. Whalen; it could be that he made it up. If the latter, I think Sgt. Crowley should be disciplined.
As for my choice of the word “allow”, you seem to want to deconstruct it and claim it means that Mr. Gates could exercise authority and detain Sgt. Crowley, but I believe that what I meant was rather clear. Mr. Gates could have calmed down and quit yelling when he saw that the police were leaving. He appears to have not done so. It appears that his actions continued to escalate things and had he taken other action the police would probably not have felt the need to arrest him.
My father was a career Air Force officer who saw his first action at Pearl Harbor and only narrowly missed serving in Vietnam. I am a product of his upbringing and of JROTC high school. One of the lessons I learned from my dad was that even if you are right and the cop is wrong, you don’t antagonize the police when they are standing right in front of you. They have a dangerous job, they don’t know if you are going to get violent, and they have the ability and discretion to arrest you. I’d rather choke back my words, take the ticket, note the badge number, not get arrested, and then call a lawyer. Having helped a friend get out of jail after cops confused his ‘limping in the rain’ for ‘public intoxication’, I’m well aware of the capriciousness that can happen.
As you appear hard-wired to be skeptical of and to mistrust police, also because of my upbringing I am more hard-wired to trust. In all my personal interactions with police - - from traffic stops to a suspected burglary in my own home - - I have found them to be professional and to behave rationally. Finally, I have friends who are law enforcement officers and I worked with them in the chaos after Hurricane Katrina. Your personal experiences may be different than mine.
If that is the case, I can see why you have bigger issues with the police and see this event as supportive of your perspective. I look at this case and say dad was right.
So… You are welcome to think that my opinion stinks or that it’s not rational by your standards. Given your constant criticism of me in this thread, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you do feel that way about it. So be it. I disagree with your view that people should be able to yell at police all they want from their front porch. Just as I’ve concluded that I’m not going to convince you of my position, I hope you’ll conclude that you’re not going to change mine.
And here’s maybe another reason why I find our arguing over somebody getting arrested for ‘small potatoes’ may not be our biggest problem with police/citizen interactions…
N.O. cop shoots teenager to death in Algiers
by Leslie Williams, The Times-Picayune
Wednesday July 29, 2009, 11:50 PM
A New Orleans police officer shot and killed a 15-year-old boy in Algiers late Wednesday, police said.
NOPD Assistant Superintendent Marlon Defillo said the teenager was one of two people who caught the attention of police assigned to the Cutoff area because of an increase in property crimes such as burglary and auto theft.
As police approached the two people about 9:20 p.m., the teenager ran away. The other person was detained by police.
Police pursued the teenager. When they caught up with him at Berkley Drive and Lancaster Street, Defillo said, he “came out with a long rifle,” apparently .22-caliber, which he refused to drop upon an officer’s demand. At that point, Defillo said, one officer shot the teenager at least twice. He died at the scene. Police withheld his identity until his family could be notified.
Police recovered the rifle, which had a 30-round chip in the magazine, Defillo said. Defillo said his initial information suggests that the officer’s response to the situation was appropriate.
A judge who wasn’t there and I’m sure there are other judges who would disagree. To me the fact the officer isn’t a jerk to everyone means there was something about Gates that ticked him off.
I think we would all agree it’s inconceivable that anybody who’s been a police officer for as long as Crowley has has never
1- Investigated a suspicious incident that turned out to be explicable
2- Has never had a citizen “cut up” when questioned
3- Has never encountered a black man
4- Has never been called names
So what was it about Gates that caused him to act this way when he doesn’t usually act this way? Possibilities are 1) his race- which there’s no evidence of this being, and 2) the severity of Gates’ anger, which it’s almost inconceivable to think that a 58 year old sober man could be some sort of record setter in the career of most cops, thus my position- and it’s been the same since my first post- is that Gates picked the wrong time/wrong cop to go off on.
I’ve said consistently that I thought Crowley acted unprofessionally. Taking Gates to jail is absolutely ridiculous; people who’ve broken no laws should be arrested only when they present a threat to themselves or others and it’s laughable that a AARP member with a cane was going to go out and whip some ass. I agree with Colin Powell’s assessment that
And I’ve said the entire time I think Crowley should be reprimanded. He owes Gates an apology.
HOWEVER, I think that Gates was also culpable. I can understand that he was tired, his hip hurt, he didn’t want to be disturbed, here’s a guy asking him for ID, it was irritating. But, you know what, all of us have had days in which we’re tired and cranky and don’t want to be bothered, but that doesn’t give us the right to jump down somebody’s throat for doing their job, which I think Gates did.
He didn’t say he suspected race had something to do with this. He said it did. No qualification. This is unproven and, in fact given Crowley’s past and the vouching for him by his colleagues, unlikely, yet Gates has never even given the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this is not racially motivated.
Regarding Sharpton, about whom for the benefit of other dear readers “racial boogeyman” is Hippity Hollow’s term, not mine, I mention him, frankly, because he happened to be on television discussing the incident (in spite of the fact he wasn’t there [and yes I get the irony, but I’m not discussing it on TV or for personal publicity]) when I happened to write the above and so I used him as an example of the race-card playing in this affair.
Or perhaps we were on the same side.
Where did I not acknowledge a dispute? I’ve said all along that it’s a Rashomon incident and I think the truth lies between the versions (cite).
Crowley acknowledges he had ID before he arrested Gates, this isn’t in contention. Why do you seem to persist in believing that Crowley just slapped cuffs on him for no provocation whatever?
I’ll admit this is probably more conspiracy theory nonsense, but you must admit it is unusual. Incidentally it’s worth remember that Whalen was the caller and not the witness; the witness was another lady. It’s possible that the dichotomy of accounts is related to this.
Are you accusing me of something? If so please say it outright.
I happen to think that both men overreacted. I have said this all along. I think Crowley should be reprimanded and I have said this all along. I also don’t happen to think it’s about race. I also think that automatically assuming a white policeman is a racist, which Gates did, and which his lawyer (who wasn’t dealing with jetlag or personal inconvenience) just automatically took for granted as well.
Now, is the fact I’m a white male relevant here? Probably, I’ll admit it. But, just as black men and other minorities have reason to carry grudges against white authority figures based on absolutely indisputably real and ongoing inequities both personal and national level, I have been on- and I have witnessed others I knew to be innocent on- the receiving end of completely unfair allegations of racism when what existed was a race neutral disagreement. In a phrase, it gets old.
Now many people will read this and think or type something to the effect of “Boo hoo hoo, poor white guy… you don’t know what oppression is”, but it’s really not a pissing contest. Trust me- there are many who will read this and not respond but who will definitely say amen. Allegations of racism can be a career killer; like child molesting or wife beating or whatever, just the accusation makes you guilty in the eyes of some, and thus it should not be anyone’s default.
Gates is too smart, too highly esteemed, too at the summit of his career, too rich, too famous, too “the Man” to default to “I’m a victim”. This will sound patronizing, I know, but it really is sincere: I know many black people who went through Jim Crow, who got the living shit beaten out of them trying to be treated as humans and who are just nameless forgotten privates now, and when someone like Gates just automatically screams racism, it infuriates me and- I don’t blame you or particularly care if you don’t believe me when I say it but it is sincere- but a large part of that is because it INSULTS and DENIGRATES what these people went through. I think of Liz, a friend of mine, probably my mother’s closest friend on Earth, who when she was young was called a “high yellow nigger woman” in a police report- I’ve actually seen it. Now this isn’t Harriet Tubman we’re talking about but a woman who retired from the workplace last year. Or the black people from my childhood who called me “Mister Jon” when I was 4 and they were 70, or referred to themselves in racist terms and had seen family members killed and raped and everything else and known fully well that the law would do exactly jackshit about it- I know racial horror stories on a first name basis. I’ve heard old fart judgest call black men ‘Boy’ in my own lifetime- I’m 42 and this has been since I’ve been an adult. Do you have ANY IDEA how insulting it is for a rich professor to lump himself in with them with his comments on how “I now know what it’s like to be a poor black man in this country at the mercy of the law” and such other total nonsense uttered by Gates? (It reminds me of when Adrian Brody said he now knew what it was like to be a Jew in the Holocaust after making The Pianist- no son, you don’t, you know what it’s like to make a movie about being a Jew in the Holocaust.)
Of course I argue also that prejudice from authority is multilayered. Having spent time impoverished, unable to secure legal representation when you are absolutely in the right, the arrogance of judges who think because you have no money you’re trash (I could tell you some real horror stories about my battles with arrogant rich bastard judges 20 years ago), I think corrupt authority figures are every bit as much classist as they are racist.
In any case I’m moving further from whatever supply line I have left, but the points are:
Skip Gates cried racism when I think the most objective and reasonable observer would agree none has been proven and there’s a more than reasonable doubt
that no racism exists. Such things are extremely harmful on a social and an individual level and, frankly, imho, a form of selfish self-pitying narcissism when leapt to as quickly as he seems to have done by his own account. (It could be argued that this is less a problem than racism, much as it could be argued river pollution is less harmful than air pollution, but the point is both are harmful and neither should be ignored and swept away.) It offends me personally, and I’m not the only one, and that’s why I find myself in the infuriating and sickening position of being on the same side of an issue as Ben Stein and Glenn Beck and why you find many many other people seeming to take this personally- it’s because we relate to it from a personal perspective, and because Gates seems to i
Anyway, it’s late, I’m tired, I doubt this makes sense, I’ll post it anyway and say Hail Marys, L’chaim.
I’ve seen no evidence that Crowley and the police were leaving. Crowley specifically invited the homeowner onto his porch to continue discussing the situation “because he couldn’t hear his radio inside”. All indications are that Crowley was making no attempt to end the discussion or leave the situation.
Additionally I’ve yet to hear anyone fill in the blanks on exactly why, after Crowley saw the mans ID and confirmed he was at his own home, he wasn’t immediately leaving. Why was he in the house at all? Why was there any discussion beyond that point?
You’re leaving out a big one:
5 - Crowley and the Cambridge PD have on numerous occasions arrested people on trumped up charges and Gates is the first with the wherewithal, stature and profile to make a national case out of it. Have we seen how many times Crowley has arrested people who have argued with him?
You’re probably right. Had it been Skip Gates the single dad and plumber instead of Skip Gates the famous professor he’d have probably just hurled in a tear gas canister, opened fire when he came running out and then planted a bloody machete and some angel dust near the body. It’s what I would have done and got rid of my neighbors with the annoying Chow when calls to the condo office did nothing.
A Nobel Laureate at Columbia (Special Guest Star James Earl Jones) who happens to be the former professor of the Mayor (Brian Stokes Mitchell), the judge, Jack McCoy, and the godfather of talk show superstar Opal Wingate (Loretta Devine) is arrested by a veteran police officer (Special Guest Star John Travolta) who happens to be the author of 4 textbooks on what not to do when arresting elderly Nobel Laureates. Somehow the episode ends with a shooting in the courthouse stairwell involving Special Guest Star Richard Chamberlain, and a Chardonnay at Gracie mansion.
And as a added attraction to our current show, we have this, wherein one of Crowley’s colleagues e-mails his cronies – and a major newspaper! :eek: – likening Gates to a “banana-eating jungle monkey.” And then straightfacedly insists he’s not racist. Apparently he’s of the crowd who thinks that if you’re not wearing white hoods, burning crosses on people’s lawns, and lynching folks, then you’re not racist. Cuz no one has ever referred to Blacks as jungle bunnies or monkeys in a racist fashion. And they routinely use those same names for Whites. :rolleyes:
Apparently primate training techniques have advanced greatly since I last visited a zoo because I’ve never seen a monkey so much as needle a security guard, much less rant at a police officer.
The “going off on” that seems to be consistent is that Gates questioned if his situation had something to do with being Black. It’s a question that many innocent people have asked - is this happening because I’m poor? Because I’m homeless? Because I’m Latino? Because I’m gay? Usually it’s buried in the back of a memoir or a graduate school essay. But Gates, a man of privilege, asked it right then. And Crowley, if he’s as advanced as an assortment of observers claim, should have not taken umbrage; he should have simply said, “No sir, I’m here to respond to this call…”
What is so incendiary about asking - and I say asking because that’s the only agreement between the two accounts?
Again, “jumping down somebody’s throat” is Crowley’s interpretation of what went down. And I don’t think Gates is necessarily saying that Crowley wears a sheet on weekends, either. But procedurally, when the outcome of this situation is that an innocent homeowner is arrested, there’s serious problems there. And Gates’ body of work is historical, and analyzes issues through the lens of race. I’m willing to accept that other factors might be at play here: assholism, classism, etc. But it seems ludicrous to say that race is absent from this interaction. Where, for example, did the claim that “two Black men with backpacks” come from when we know from the 911 tapes that Whalen never made this statement? Whalen also claims she tried to identify herself to Crowley, but he told her to step back. He didn’t have all the facts, had a chance to clarify the account from the caller, but chose not to. Why?
In my mind, people invoke Sharpton when they’re attempting to dismiss claims of racial bias - hence him being a “racial boogeyman.” And again, countless numbers of people have commented on the case. What’s interesting is the juxtapositioning of Powell and Sharpton. The reality is that neither man was present, and each man is entitled to their opinion of what went down.
And there’s that term again.
There was provocation, certainly. Gates dared to ask the officer for his badge and name. And he questioned Crowley about the role of race in their interaction. I suppose the difference we have is that I don’t see how that leads to any kind of justifiable arrest.
It’s not unusual at all. Whalen works at Harvard. As I said upthread, I was completely shocked that a person that works for Harvard Magazine doesn’t know who Gates is (let’s set aside the stuff about her not seeing him, etc.) - the clarification of how the call was made explains a lot of sense. Especially since this story has gone national, it makes a lot of sense for Whalen to have someone experienced in legal matters to make statements on her behalf. Furthermore, since the spectre of litigation has been raised, it strikes me as logical to retain counsel, especially when commenting on an issue that may end up in court.
And the details really expose Crowley as being either loose with the facts, or doing a poor job getting the information he needed to do his job correctly on the scene. I’d like to know why he went into a home where a suspected breaking & entering report was called in with two potential suspects by himself. Crowley stated that his primary concern was his safety; why did he take this risk? Did he know more than he let on about the scene?
If you are trying to get me to say “Sampiro is a racist,” I’m not. But I am saying quite clearly that your perspective greatly favors a literal interpretation of Crowley’s account, and a fairly complete dismissal of Gates’. You also seem very invested in proving that Crowley did not act in any way out of racial prejudice, where it seems logical to at least entertain that it may have in fact played some kind of role in their interaction. I just think that’s a really extreme position to take.
Of course I am making the assumption that race did have a role - but I’ve never said that it’s 100 percent racism.
I’m not sure if I agree both men overreacted. I do think Crowley did. At this point, I’m choosing to believe Gates’ account of their encounter over Crowley’s, and though I would probably approach it differently (I ain’t famous, I wouldn’t challenge the cop the way he did) I don’t think there’s an overreaction on Gates’ part. Perhaps. But an equivalent overreaction would be Gates calling his shift supervisor and (successfully) pressuring him to take him off active duty.
I appreciate your understanding that your racial identity colors (ha!) how you view this, as does mine. But I am male, I am middle class (now), and I am straight. So I am aware of all of those privileges that those identities carry. When I interact with people across dimensions of gender, class, and sexual orientation, at times I have societal leverage that the other person does not. I’ve never been called a sexist, heterosexist, or a classist, but I have been reproached about my language, or assumptions I make in these areas. My reaction is not “I’m not a [insert your favorite]-ist, go to hell!” It’s “Did I really make an assumption or statement that inadvertently put someone down?”
I know some people have interacted with me and think I harbor sexist, classist, homophobic, and perhaps even racist views. But I don’t see how it helps me to refute those claims by using my “power” (I guess I can give a student who calls me out in such a way a low grade?) to silence or refute such accusations.
Interesting. But I profoundly disagree with your characterization that it’s somehow less noteworthy or harmful when a rich privileged Black guy observes that race is affecting him in a negative way. Of course, most Black people in America are not experiencing the vitriolic, violent, overt racism that people your mom’s friend’s age did. But virtually all academic observers of race relations (Omi, Winant, Sanjek, etc.) argue that the nature of racism has changed. It’s a huge mistake, IMO, to think that unless you’re spit on or called a nigger, that racism is dead and gone. It’s far more insidious and covert nowadays.
And the point that Gates is making, I think, is that all of the things we’re told that will insulate us from racism - academic achievement, professional accomplishment, money, social standing, age, etc. - might not. It’s a lesson that plenty of folks in the entertainment world know, but if we were going to draw up a list of “Black folks least likely to run afoul of the law,” I suspect “world-famous Harvard professor” would be atop the list.
I guess you’re saying that I’m not objective (agreed, but nobody is, so there) and reasonable. Because my read is that Gates raised the question of the significance of race in the interaction and that set Crowley off. I think race was significant in their interaction. You’re choosing to believe Crowley’s statement that Gates said he was a racist; I think he might have extrapolated that from his statement.
Anybody know how long we have to keep this thread going or how heated it has to get before we can get to have a beer in D.C.? (I don’t drink generally but I might make an exception.)
I actually like this. Maybe it will become a meme that when you have a racial dispute, you go have a beer and hash it out. Both Crowley and Gates have excellent choices (Blue Moon and Red Stripe) while Obama boshes it by opting for… a Bud Light.
One other thing, Sampiro. This got cut off of my earlier response:
I’m somewhat skeptical of this power that non-White folks now have. Can I really accuse any White person of being a racist, and instantly be taken seriously? Can women accuse men of being rapists/wife beaters and be taken seriously? I think reasonable people don’t immediately take one person’s accusation as gospel without an appraisal of the facts. Some might, sure.
If anything, if a person of color levels an accusation of racism (barring a burned cross on the lawn) I would argue the dominant response is to a) dismiss the significance of race in the situation and b) accuse the person of playing the “race card.” And you sure as hell better not do it too often, because then you’re like Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson.
Which is precisely why I’m so careful with my words.
These two sentences make no sense to me in combination. If you agree that police should be calm and responsible, why do you find more fault with the citizen than with the officer?
Ahahaha, seriously? You think a police officer would rat out another officer for a beer with the President? Unless that officer is going to get to live in and work out of the White House from that point forward, I sincerely doubt it.
Personally, I am a stubborn bitch who has a very hard time dropping anything until I’ve been convinced that I’m wrong (you may have noticed). If I thought a police officer was abusing their authority against me, I’m quite sure I’d have a hard time leaving well enough alone until the officer disengaged and left. Once again, being a jerk isn’t a crime, or there would be one hell of a lot more people arrested. And again, if the situation could have been equally resolved by walking away as by arresting Gates, why was the arrest the correct action to take?
No one is saying that this isn’t the **smart **thing to do. What we are contesting is that because the police **can **abuse their power, that it must pass without notice (or, indeed, approval) when it does. The issue at hand is not whether it would have been **a good idea **for Gates to keep his mouth shut, smile politely, and then file a report; it’s whether he was **justifiably arrested **for simply getting verbally confrontational with a police officer while in his own home.
It is never polite, but it also never **illegal **and never justifies arrest. Which is the point of the thread.
Because the picture that has emerged from this instance is that Sgt. Crowley did not lose his head but Professor Gates did.
Look. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand your argument. There are lots and lots of examples where the police have abused their discretion in applying ‘disorderly’ statutes. Cases where people have been hauled out of their cars and stunned with tazers; cases where ambulance drivers are choked by state troopers. I don’t think that abuse happened in this instance. If I thought that Sgt. Crowley had abused that discretion I’d be siding with Professor Gates, but he sure looks calm in the photo taken from the sidewalk while Professor Gates is still screaming.
But that’s not what he was arrested for doing. He was arrested for disorderly conduct in public.
I pointed out upthread that had Professor Gates been arrested inside his home I’d be pretty upset about the situation. He was arrested outside of his home, probably as Sgt. Crowley was in the process of leaving, probably after he ignored two warnings that if he didn’t quit making a scene he would be arrested for disorderly conduct.
It does not appear that he was lured outside and then had handcuffs slapped on him without warning. Had that happened I’d agree that the arrest was not justified.
It looks like the principals in the matter have had their meeting and have decided to agree to disagree on their differences. I’m offering to do the same with you.
Apparently he’s of the crowd who thinks that if you’re not wearing white hoods, burning crosses on people’s lawns, and lynching folks, then you’re not racist. Cuz no one has ever referred to Blacks as jungle bunnies or monkeys in a racist fashion. And they routinely use those same names for Whites. :rolleyes: