Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote [Mobile/Archive]

camoor

06-30-2009, 07:58 AM

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which they had done well and black firefighters poorly.
“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action.
“Fear of litigation alone,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
The 5-to-4 ruling, which reversed an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court nominee, will have broad impact, lawyers specializing in employment discrimination law said.
“This decision will change the landscape of civil rights law,” said Sheila Foster, a law professor at Fordham.
The new standards announced by the court will make it much harder for employers to discard the results of hiring and promotion tests once they are administered, even if they have a disproportionately negative impact on members of a given racial group.
Public employers that use civil service examinations and similar tests will be most directly affected, but the principle announced by the court applies to all employers and all sorts of procedures used to rank and sort potential and current employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?ref=business

More in the article.

I don't know about you, but if my house is on fire I want the best trained fireman showing up regardless of their race. It's a ludicrous proposition to put public safety at jeopardy for the sake of political appearances.

speedracer

06-30-2009, 09:31 AM

The decision made by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with firefighters. The fact pattern from the case was diffuse and ill suited to be a precedence case of this magnitude.

What the decision really did was find that Title VII contains "friction" with itself. If you're telling me that Congress wrote the two provisions in question with the intent of friction, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

As always, Scalia, Thomas, and the rest of the whimpering conservative side of the bench will laugh off originalism and the rest of that bullshit they feed to the talking heads.

“ ‘Sympathy’ is not what petitioners have a right to demand,” Justice Alito wrote. “What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law — of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.”
Right. A test in a job dominated by white males advances white males. A job that has gone down in American lore for over a century as dominated not just by "white" males, but by specific tribes of whites. I would like to point out here that I don't know if the test discriminated. But we're talking about a government job where cronyism is rife and racism has a long and storied tradition. Doesn't it make sense to leave discretion to the city, rather than creating a new standard (legislating from the bench for those of you that actually give a shit about such things) by requiring a “strong basis in evidence” (a phrase that is going to be litigated into the ground and cause a new wave of lawsuits)?

I agree with you camoor, in that it should be that easy. Totally. I get that for sure. But these dicks always seem to find a way to hide under "what should be" while pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject. They just use it for interference. This is an area screaming for legislation, not judicial activism.

bmulligan

07-03-2009, 08:22 PM

Wow, reverse racism is still racism. Good show!

Now, if they could only reverse themselves on that whole imminent-domain-for-more-tax-revenue decision...

speedracer

07-06-2009, 09:32 AM

Now, if they could only reverse themselves on that whole imminent-domain-for-more-tax-revenue decision...
You know, if legislators created a law that prohibited domain'ing out people for economic zones, it would be illegal.

I'm feeling a weird shift in the force. Legislating from the bench seems to be ok from those not left of center. Where's thrust when you need him? I wish I could see him supporting this decision (that he totally would) while also keep it real on the whole activist judge thing.

mykevermin

07-06-2009, 12:28 PM

:lol:

Ruined

07-06-2009, 04:03 PM

:lol:

I have a feeling you didn't like this ruling, myke, am I right? :)

IMO, this was a victory for those who want to see people judged by their merits & not their race.

trq

07-06-2009, 05:12 PM

So ... what I'm taking from this thread is that nobody except Speed actually understands the ruling, but everybody has an opinion on it anyway. Okay, so pretty much business as usual then.

lilboo

07-06-2009, 05:20 PM

I'm kind of confused about what this means. :lol: I am at work and trying to read and work at the same time and it's not clicking.

Ruined

07-06-2009, 05:35 PM

I'm kind of confused about what this means. :lol: I am at work and trying to read and work at the same time and it's not clicking.

In a nutshell, the supreme court ruled that you cannot throw out test results of this nature solely because said results would cause a disproportionate amount of people from a particular race scoring higher and hence being promoted (resulting in fear of a racism lawsuit). By doing so, you are discriminating based on race instead of merit, no matter what race is being discriminated against. In this case, it was whites being discriminated against as their test results were thrown away because their race scored higher, resulting in the city fearing they would get sued because of that. And ironically, by throwing out the results for fear of being sued due to whites scoring higher the city got sued and lost in the end anyway.

lilboo

07-06-2009, 05:38 PM

Oh..really?
sigh

Liquid 2

07-06-2009, 08:37 PM

JolietJake

07-06-2009, 09:06 PM

I really can't see why this was such a close decision. Common sense says that those best able to do the job should get the position; I don't know why 4 of the Justices would vote in favor of the city.
I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 09:09 PM

I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.

Seconded.

Liquid 2

07-06-2009, 09:15 PM

elprincipe

07-06-2009, 09:41 PM

I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.

"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?

camoor

07-06-2009, 10:36 PM

Right. A test in a job dominated by white males advances white males. A job that has gone down in American lore for over a century as dominated not just by "white" males, but by specific tribes of whites. I would like to point out here that I don't know if the test discriminated. But we're talking about a government job where cronyism is rife and racism has a long and storied tradition.

You make some interesting points about judicial activism, but to be honest I've never had a problem with the judicial branch flexing its muscles (it's the executive branch I watch like a hawk)

I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".

"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?

Let's not be naive. "Likeable" can also mean anything from "most cutthroat" to "boss's son".

But in this case there was an apparently objective test. Unless someone can prove to me that the white firefighters cheated or were scored favorably due to the color of their skin, I don't buy the arguement that this decision was incorrect.

UncleBob

07-06-2009, 10:58 PM

I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".

Q #32: A white guy's house and some black guy's house is on fire. You have time to put one of the two fires out. Which house do you save?

Everyone who answered anything buy "Save the white guy's house" failed the test.

;)

JolietJake

07-07-2009, 01:00 AM

"Likeability"--for the lack of a better term, or even a real word--is a part of (not a huge part, mind you) one's ability to get a job done, I'd argue. Especially for people like CEOs who need to solicit capital and such, or those working in teams.

I don't see the difference y'all are trying to point out.
I'm not necessarily talking about business executives. For the sake of it, lets say it's an accounting job, IT job, etc.. You have two people, one with more experience and better qualifications, the other has a better personality/is better at kissing ass.

Guess who gets the job, not the one with more experience or better qualifications. I personally think this is why some businesses are in such bad shape, nice people who don't know wtf they're doing.

JolietJake

07-07-2009, 01:01 AM

"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?
Because having a "sunny disposition" does not make you better at doing a skilled job. I don't care if you have a smile on your face every day, if you don't know wtf you're doing, you don't deserve the job.

elprincipe

07-07-2009, 02:24 AM

Because having a "sunny disposition" does not make you better at doing a skilled job. I don't care if you have a smile on your face every day, if you don't know wtf you're doing, you don't deserve the job.

No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 10:31 AM

I know I screw a lot of opportunities for advancement because I don't tell my superiors I love them everyday.

I do my job. I do my job well enough to earn the maximum pay for my position, but every time I post out, my resume gets lost and I don't get an interview.

I remember the last time I posted out of the department. It was for a test lead. My prospective supervisor stated his schedule was a little hectic because he was a junior in college going for a BS in Computer Science.

I got mine in 2002. For some reason, I didn't get the opportunity to talk with his boss about whether I could do the lower job with my superior education and equivalent or better experience.

itachiitachi

07-07-2009, 10:34 AM

No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.
True, but unfortunately in the real world "likeablilty" is mesured by the boss and not the rest of the world. So far more often it means that they know someone, they are a suck up, they are hot and not that they have good people skills, and are hired even though they may be so terrible they prove to be a hinderance.

mykevermin

07-07-2009, 10:48 AM

In modern industrialized capitalist societies, we rarely, if ever, actually hire the best qualified candidate for the position.

Part of it stems from disagreement based on what "best qualified" means. Is it something we can measure in terms of pure, quantifiable productivity? The person who can build the most widgets per hour with the least defective widgets? Or is it the person who won't upset the balance of the workplace; the guy who doesn't share the same high school background as his co-workers, or the same fraternity/sorority, or happens to be a woman in a male-dominated position? Is it the person who happens to be a huge fan of Kenny G, while the boss HATES HATES HATES Kenny G?

You get the idea. Applications, resumes, and interviews are not adequate proxies for idea of the "best qualified" in terms of background, ability, and fit into the workplace. Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?') and you have a recipe for believing, I hope, the reality that a functioning meritocracy is a mythological creature.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 11:46 AM

Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?')

That must be what is killing me. I want 20% more pay to leave my current company, 10% more pay to move within the company and to be hired on immediately instead of a temp-to-fire position.

speedracer

07-07-2009, 11:51 AM

You make some interesting points about judicial activism, but to be honest I've never had a problem with the judicial branch flexing its muscles (it's the executive branch I watch like a hawk)
I agree that there are exceptional times in which the judiciary is required to draw a line in the sand and say "this shit is just flat unconstitutional". I also think both "sides" rely too heavily on the court to draw a line when legislation could resolve the issue, especially when the legislation could be reasonably expected to do it. This is the kind of case where the leg just basically said "eh, let the judges decide". A law could easily remedy the situation. When it would be easy and when it is clear that it is within the leg's power to do so, I think it should be done the way the Constitution provides.

But there is leeway there and reasonable people can disagree as to where the line of judicial restraint should be.

I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".
This is more of the amateur statistician in me that doesn't like what I'm seeing. When you consistently have outliers above the mean that are white and outliers below the mean that are black, one has to wonder why. The reason we're even jumping through these Title VII hoops is because these tests consistently provide results of this nature, so we know for a fact that this is a problem. Title VII provides relief for these problems. If we dismiss the obvious "they're black so they're goddamn stupid and/or lazy" argument, there has to be a logical alternative answer. It's an extremely difficult topic to approach and understand without significant investment (that frankly I'm not interested in doing), but there are glimpses of the current thought here (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html) and here (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/08/29/blacks-and-law-school-discrimination.html) (Don't beat me up for brevity, myke. Gotta start somewhere). At the very least, reasonable people can agree that something's not right.

But in this case there was an apparently objective test. Unless someone can prove to me that the white firefighters cheated or were scored favorably due to the color of their skin, I don't buy the arguement that this decision was incorrect.
And herein lies the problem. Clearly how we write the test affects the outcome. Clearly writing the test with the intent of helping black firefighters feels ethically wrong (if not constitutionally). Yet doesn't supporting the same old paradigm of we test this way and let the chips fall where they may and oh look! White people win again! seem...wrong as well?

The other point was that firefighting has been employment exclusively for whites on the east coast for over a century, specifically Irish whites. And as for cronyism, my brother right now is training to be a firefighter. He knows that when he finishes school he has a job waiting for him, even though he may not test the best or be the best qualified because he knows someone in a position of power that can "help him out". He is white. His inside friend is white. I wonder how many blacks get "inside help". I wonder when it's time for my brother to test for promotion if he'll get just a little more help.

However, NONE OF THIS DEBATE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. The actual case was about Title VII and the court's finding was that the law disagrees with itself, which is complete horse shit if you're all into original intent. In addition, they effectively created a new law. These are the two things that typically makes conservatives cry out in horror. It also completely goes against Chief Justice Roberts's statement that he steadfastly believes in a narrow view of interpretation.

Ruined, I'd like to know how you reconcile this decision with your stated belief in an restrained judiciary.

camoor

07-07-2009, 11:51 AM

You get the idea. Applications, resumes, and interviews are not adequate proxies for idea of the "best qualified" in terms of background, ability, and fit into the workplace. Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?') and you have a recipe for believing, I hope, the reality that a functioning meritocracy is a mythological creature.

I have an idea - let's create an objective test and promote based on that. What could possibly go wrong ;)

depascal22

07-07-2009, 12:28 PM

I'd like to see the test itself. If it's all basic and advanced firefighting questions, then best scores should win regardless of race. If there's questions about yachting, croquet, or Tom Jones, then we have a problem.

But seriously, speed is right about tests being written by white people for white people. I also think the bigger problem is the so-called education most blacks get in inner city schools. If you can show up for class everyday in the hood, you pass.

Suburban schools aren't any better. I was one of two black kids in honors classes my freshman year in high school. All of the other black kids were either in the regular or remedial class. Remedial class only had 1 or 2 white kids. Which kids do you think were better prepared for a firefighting test, college entrance exam, military entrance test, etc.?

elprincipe

07-07-2009, 10:31 PM

True, but unfortunately in the real world "likeablilty" is mesured by the boss and not the rest of the world. So far more often it means that they know someone, they are a suck up, they are hot and not that they have good people skills, and are hired even though they may be so terrible they prove to be a hinderance.

Maybe, if the boss is a horrible boss. A good boss will be able to consider how a potential new team member fits into the existing team structure, and take into account how that will play itself out if said potential member were hired. While you wouldn't want an incompetent employee who fits in well, a good employee whose skill set and personality fit in well with the existing team is better than a good employee who doesn't possess these qualities.

JolietJake

07-07-2009, 10:58 PM

No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.
I didn't even mention teamwork in my original post, you did. That's probably the only time i can think of when it should play a part, but even then maybe not as much as it seems to.

Being a team player and being well liked don't necessarily go hand in hand anyway. I've worked with people i didn't particularity like and still do, but we get along well enough to perform our jobs.

Actually, the reason i haven't gotten along with some of them is because they can't do their fucking jobs correctly. I tend to like people who aren't incompetent.

camoor

07-07-2009, 11:16 PM

However, NONE OF THIS DEBATE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. The actual case was about Title VII and the court's finding was that the law disagrees with itself, which is complete horse shit if you're all into original intent. In addition, they effectively created a new law. These are the two things that typically makes conservatives cry out in horror. It also completely goes against Chief Justice Roberts's statement that he steadfastly believes in a narrow view of interpretation.

Ruined, I'd like to know how you reconcile this decision with your stated belief in an restrained judiciary.

Good point. However it's kind of interesting that the Justices predictably voted along party lines on this one, you'd think there would be less uniformity in opinion on both sides if they really believed in narrow interpretation. Frankly I believe that both sides of the aisle in the Supreme Court care more about their sense of justice then narrow interpretation, despite what they may say in confirmation hearings.

I think that in this specific case it just so happened that the firefighters with the highest scores were white, but I don't see any evidence that this would be the pattern if this test was issued nationwide.

You make a good point about cronyism - yet cronyism also contains checks and balances while tacitly setting up a mentoring system and support network, vital aspects missing from institutionally mandated quota hirings. I don't envy progressive lawmakers, when attempting to redress social injusice the law is a very clumsy instrument.

Back to this case though, all the articles I have read indicate the 60 mult. choice question test was thoroughly objective, and as such it seems to me to be a very fair basis on which to make decisions on promotions.

itachiitachi

07-08-2009, 12:02 PM

Maybe, if the boss is a horrible boss.
No that is if the boss is average, most bosses don't know more than the basics of selecting people(resume, well dressed, on time). They don't know what the signs of good character are so they base character on how much they like them.

Suburban schools aren't any better. I was one of two black kids in honors classes my freshman year in high school. All of the other black kids were either in the regular or remedial class. Remedial class only had 1 or 2 white kids. Which kids do you think were better prepared for a firefighting test, college entrance exam, military entrance test, etc.?
That wasn't the case I my school, but I agree that the education most minorities/poor people receive is not up to par and tends to hinder them throughout their lives.

UncleBob

07-08-2009, 12:15 PM

I understand the argument that minorities don't receive an equatable educational experience. That's all well and good - but it's not the fault of those who administer the test. The fact is, if a minority isn't as well educated and isn't the most qualified candidate for the job, then the job should go to someone who is qualified.

I'm sorry our government provided, union-controlled school system sucks for poor and minority students.

That doesn't mean people should lose their houses and/or lives because someone who is less qualified was promoted.

elprincipe

07-09-2009, 08:45 AM

I tend to like people who aren't incompetent.

You and me both, buddy.

speedracer

07-09-2009, 11:00 AM

What incredible timing. Happening as we debate.

Racism, discrimination widespread inside HFD?
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou090708_mp_racism-inside-hfd.20b25d62.html
...

“I mean, let’s be real. I didn’t come in with a blind eye to where I was working. I am at a place where it is a majority of white males,” said [black] veteran female firefighter Vantrece Williams.

Williams says she's been harassed, but nothing was ever done about it. Mainly because she says many firefighters won’t speak out when they witness something bad taking place.

...

11 News heard allegations of women firefighters being groped by their male co-workers, and an allegation of a male firefighter masturbating over a female co-worker while she was trying to sleep in her bed.
...
The other woman, Jane Draycott, said she transferred to the station after her 17-year-old daughter died in a car accident. "They defaced my daughter's picture and wrote 'dead' on her face, and they wrote 'die' on my face. It was a 5 x7 photograph of her sitting on my lap," said Draycott.

2 female firefighters fearful, want attacks to stop
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6518362.html

In their first comments about harassment that culminated in racist and sexist epithets scrawled across a door at Fire Station 54 at Bush Intercontinental Airport, Jane Draycott and Paula Keyes said they’re devastated by the attacks and at a loss to understand them.

“It’s demented,” said Draycott, a 16-year veteran of Texas fire departments who came to work Tuesday to find not just the graffiti but the mutilation of a treasured photo of her and her teenage daughter who was killed in a 2006 car crash. “Someone is absolutely sick to do this. It’s got to stop.”

Draycott, who is white, said the act was no isolated incident, citing less sensational but still shocking discriminatory acts dating back as far as two years, when she joined Station 54.

Keyes, who is black, said this was the first time she’d been harassed. An eight-year veteran of the department, she only joined the station three months ago.

Draycott said there is no question the abuse is primarily gender directed. She and Keyes were the only women among 50 men assigned to the firehouse.

My personal favorite:
Houston fire chief 'mad as hell' about racist radio broadcast
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou090708_tnt_hfd-racist-message.1ebf2758.html

HOUSTON -- Houston’s city inspector general is launching an investigation into the source of a racist message carried on a radio channel used by the city’s firefighters.

"Frankly, I'm mad, I'm mad as hell," said an emotional Houston Fire Chief Phil Boriskie at a news conference Wednesday afternoon. "The men and women of the Houston Fire Department, they do not deserve this."

Boriskie said someone or someone group "hijacked" HFD's Trac channel 2 around 7:15 Wednesday morning.

"Statements were made that were morally offensive," Boriskie said.

The initial investigation points to a radio from an outside source -- not from the Houston Fire Department, according to the chief.

The case has been turned over to the FCC and the Office of Inspector General for further investigation.

The racist radio broadcast comes the day after racist and sexist graffiti was found scrawled on the women’s quarters at the fire station at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport.
I saw the Chief on TV yesterday. He went on an on about how he was sure it was an outsider that had "hacked" the freq (his words, lulz). A reporter asked him how he could know for sure that it was an outsider and he started talking about the good men and women that serve.

How exactly could an entity without the resources to trace something like this be absolutely sure? They can't. At all. Period. Given the rest of the racist, sexist shit going on over there, anyone willing to take the bet that it really was an outsider? Hell, I used to talk shit about my bosses in the military on the military freq because I knew as long as they didn't recognize my voice, they had nothin. The bosses even called a battalion wide assembly and lied and said they were tracing us and would find me. Since I was the one passing their data, it was all I could do not to fall over lulzing at the damn thing.

Yup.

depascal22

07-09-2009, 11:06 AM

That doesn't mean people should lose their houses and/or lives because someone who is less qualified was promoted.

How do you lose your home because you didn't get a promotion. Buying a home on the foolish assumption that you'll get promoted? That brings judgement into question more than a test.

mykevermin

07-09-2009, 11:06 AM

I saw the Chief on TV yesterday. He went on an on about how he was sure it was an outsider that had "hacked" the freq (his words, lulz). A reporter asked him how he could know for sure that it was an outsider and he started talking about the good men and women that serve.

How exactly could an entity without the resources to trace something like this be absolutely sure? They can't. At all. Period. Given the rest of the racist, sexist shit going on over there, anyone willing to take the bet that it really was an outsider? Hell, I used to talk shit about my bosses in the military on the military freq because I knew as long as they didn't recognize my voice, they had nothin. The bosses even called a battalion wide assembly and lied and said they were tracing us and would find me. Since I was the one passing their data, it was all I could do not to fall over lulzing at the damn thing.

Yup.

We're, as a whole, pretty good about admitting bad stuff happens in society - racism, for example.

We're positively dismal as acknowledging it could happen as a result of people we know, or worse yet, our own actions.

The posts that follow this will only serve to reinforce that racism happens, just not around any of us. Ever.

depascal22

07-09-2009, 11:08 AM

I could tell a story about a racist cop but the last time I told it on CAG, I was called a liar because I couldn't bring forward any proof.

speedracer

07-09-2009, 05:31 PM

Oh good. Republicans have found their base again finally. Oppressed white people. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/09/politics/main5147162.shtml)

UncleBob

07-09-2009, 09:23 PM

How do you lose your home because you didn't get a promotion. Buying a home on the foolish assumption that you'll get promoted? That brings judgement into question more than a test.

If someone less qualified* is promoted for a position that involves saving the life and property of others, then it's putting lives and livelihoods on the line.

*I understand that "less qualified" is often something that could be objective. My initial comment was toward the idea that minority or poor students receive a lower standard of education and that shouldn't be held against them when they don't stack up.

Chuplayer

07-09-2009, 10:59 PM

Blargh! I know I'm going to draw flames for saying this, but if you get a shit education, it's shit luck.

I didn't get two concussions from white people because I'm white or because those assholes were white. I got two concussions because I have shit luck.

I didn't steer out of the way from a moron white cop walking out in the middle of the street from between two cop cars without even looking as if he were Bambi and then total my car in a successful attempt to save his life and watch while the cops lied about it and blamed it completely on me because I'm white or that moron cop was white. That happened because I have shit luck.

If you have the shit luck to have a shitty education, then deal with it. And I don't mean bitch and moan and then do nothing about it. I mean educate yourself so you can do well on firefigher exams such as these.

To be fair, if people in charge, white, black, yellow, red, brown, or whatever else is roaming God's green earth didn't have their heads planted firmly up their asses, we wouldn't have any children, white, black, yellow, red, brown, or whatever else is roaming God's green earth, getting a lower standard of education and creating situations like these in the first place. Until then, these children are going to grow up into adults who are either going to deal with their situation and better themselves or bitch and moan and be leeches on society because leeches know no color.

JolietJake

07-10-2009, 12:32 AM

elprincipe

07-10-2009, 12:50 AM

Has no one else ever had a boss who seemed like a completely unqualified dumbass?

I'm sure that most of us who are out of school can say yes. I certainly can.

UncleBob

07-10-2009, 12:56 AM

In a perfect world the most qualified person would always get the job.That doesn't always happen and it's not going to always happen, i've come to terms with that, so should everyone else.

Has no one else ever had a boss who seemed like a completely unqualified dumbass?

But that doesn't mean it's a good thing and that doesn't mean we should sit by and do nothing while politicians work to move unqualified/lesser-qualified individuals to the front of the line.

depascal22

07-10-2009, 10:39 AM

They've never proven that more houses burned down because of this promotion.

UncleBob

07-10-2009, 12:28 PM

They've never proven that more houses burned down because of this promotion.

It's the risk factor.
Obviously, when you have someone less qualified in higher positions, you are more likely to get poorer results than if you have someone more qualified in that position.

Should anyone be forced to take that risk?

thrustbucket

07-10-2009, 01:07 PM

elprincipe

07-11-2009, 12:24 AM

It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.

Think politics, man. If they did it that way, 80% of the country would object. This way, they can fudge things so that people don't see clearly what they're doing.

speedracer

07-12-2009, 12:42 AM

It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.
I had a dream where you actually read the thread and carefully thought about the contents. You then wrote a tactful, thoughtful response that accounted for the variables far and wide, even the ones that didn't wholly support your position.

It'd be stupid of me to ask if you read the opinion, wouldn't it?

itachiitachi

07-12-2009, 12:19 PM

It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.
I think that statement is pretty racists, you are stereotyping white as people who cheat to get ahead based on the results of a test, even though the is no evidence of biases in the test.

They should try giving this test to minority firefighters that are known to be skilled and see if they score well or not.

speedracer

07-13-2009, 08:33 PM

Isn't institutional denial grand? It can't happen here! We're not racists! It must have been outsiders. Again.

Another possible HFD noose incident reported

Houston’s beleagured fire department suffered another blow today as a top department official confirmed that city investigators are probing a report that a firefighter possessed a rope tied in a noose-like knot at a northwest side firehouse.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6527289.html

And the priceless (top ranked) comment on the story:

How many years of pranks and ribbings and horse play are now considered bad? I'd be willing to bet these guys have done similar practical jokes to each other for decades upon decades...all of sudden, there's an easily offended whiner looking for any excuse to explain why they aren't at the top yet...
I mean really, who gets upset when they wake up to find some dude masturbating while standing over them? People today are such pussies.

JolietJake

07-13-2009, 11:54 PM

But that doesn't mean it's a good thing and that doesn't mean we should sit by and do nothing while politicians work to move unqualified/lesser-qualified individuals to the front of the line.
It's just one of those things that's always going to happen. It's almost like a law of nature. You can try to limit it, but it's going to happen.

camoor

07-14-2009, 01:20 AM

It's just one of those things that's always going to happen. It's almost like a law of nature. You can try to limit it, but it's going to happen.

What, you think it's inevitable that politicians will move unqualified candidates to the front of the queue based on an irrelevant factor such as skin color? While there is an (ugly) precedent for it in history, I would argue it is not inevitable and furthermore it is not the way a rational and civilized society behaves.

HowStern

07-15-2009, 05:14 PM

I wasn't aware that the same fireman who was part of the lawsuit saying the affirmative action style hiring of throwing out test scores was wrong was hired by claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act since he is dyslexic.

So, he gets his cake and eats it too...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_ricci

depascal22

07-17-2009, 12:28 PM

Dude has learned to play the system when he doesn't get what he wants. It's landed him a job and now a promotion. Why not? It's there for the taking.

So should affirmative action be ended? Do you think blacks are in a position where the playing field is leveled? Unfortunately, I don't think it's level at all but many of you will come in here and argue until you're blue in the face that racism doesn't exist anymore even though nooses will hang and blacks will be the majority in the prison system.

UncleBob

07-17-2009, 01:29 PM

Of course racism still exists. Affirmative action is just one example.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 01:40 PM

It's not reverse racism if it's a program that was put into place to combat racism in the first place.

You guys seriously read what you're writing right? That program that was put into place is limiting my opportunities and therefore is reverse racist. Never mind that blacks (or any other minority of color) NEVER got any choice positions in our country's history before the 60's. Even then, it took until 2009 to see a black president and so far we've only seen two Supreme Court Justices.

I hate crappy anologies like this but that's like saying a restraining order limits the abusers rights. See how I did that? Man beats his wife every day and she finally gets enough courage to leave him (or organize protests as it pertains to civil rights). She even files a restraining order and he either kills her or bitches that his rights are now limited.

White people = the man

Black people = the woman

Just in case you guys couldn't connect the dots.

You guys all seem to forget that we wouldn't even have affirmative action if you guys didn't enslave us and then foist Jim Crow on us even when we did get free. Looks like you brought this upon yourselves. Maybe you should stop blaming blacks and go back and cuss out your grandfathers and their grandfathers. Before any of you say that it wasn't that generation, I'm pretty sure that our grandfathers lived in the 60s and there's a strong possibility that some of them turned hoses, dogs, or batons onto protesting/rioting blacks somewhere in America.

UncleBob

07-17-2009, 02:01 PM

I'm sorry - I fail to see how something that promotes a lesser qualified individual over a more qualified individual based solely on the race of the individuals is not racist.

thrustbucket

07-17-2009, 02:32 PM

I'm sorry - I fail to see how something that promotes a lesser qualified individual over a more qualified individual based solely on the race of the individuals is not racist.

You must be new in this forum, otherwise you would know that because of hegemony what you said is only racist if it's the dominant race getting promoted.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 02:32 PM

This country did that for two centuries and now it's a problem? Again, let affirmative action do something for another decade or two and then we'll talk seriously about letting it die. By then, everyone in America should be on somewhat equal footing.

I'm tired of the argument that since you personally never discriminated against blacks that blacks are on equal footing with whites these days. That a few decades of affirmative action can completely erase the horror of several centuries of slavery.

We're very close now but many top positions are still closed off to minorities because of the so-called less qualified angle. You guys act like one standardized test is the end all be all of intelligence. Should your intelligence and ability be judged solely on your SAT scores? Maybe businesses should just look at resumes straight up and never interview candidates. Maybe a less qualified but more charismatic easy going guy might get the job. Oh, the horror.

thrustbucket

07-17-2009, 04:25 PM

depascal22, you are fully missing the point.

What we have here is a case of an organization rewriting it's own rules in hindsight. It stated to ALL it's employees, openly and all along, what the requirements for promotions were. When those requirements were met by some of it's employees, it decided to ignore and override it's own rules. To any clear thinking person, that's unethical.

If your job told you to to do X, Y, and Z and you'd be promoted, and then you did X, Y, and Z only to have them say "sorry, we need to promote someone else because of racial issues", you wouldn't be pissed?

Actually it's come out, that what this really all boiled down to was the city was afraid of one Rev Boise Kimber (http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/06/was_he_the_culp.php), a powerful racially charged local leader that has New Haven city leaders by the short and curleys.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 07:23 PM

mykevermin

07-17-2009, 09:28 PM

Right. This is about keeping whitey down, folks.

It has nothing to do with contradictions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Move along, legal scholars. This is a discussion about race from those who think we need to move past race as a society.

Love it.

;)

UncleBob

07-18-2009, 12:38 AM

Look, it's not about "blacks" or "whitey" or any individual group of people.

Any rule that says one should take race into the equation when determining who should get a position, a raise, a promotion, etc. is racist.
I'm sorry there were black slaves.
I'm sorry Native Americans were almost pushed into extinction.
I'm sorry life isn't fair.

But none of that makes it okay for our government* to say "Yeah, you're a minority, so here's bonus points."

For *anyone* to say that they just want racism to end, then to turn around and claim that one race should get special treatment is just asinine.

(*Yes, I said government. Private businesses *should* be able to hire and promote whomever they want based on whatever criteria they determine.)

Msut77

07-18-2009, 12:51 AM

First of all, no one got promoted. Not even the blacks.

Second, why is one exam the only way to promote people? Would you want to be promoted based on one test? Should one paper test determine if one person is better able to lead while a four alarm is raging? Some people suck at tests but excel in the field. Shouldn't those people have a shot?

You don't think it's odd that every black man failed the test? Maybe this whole test fiasco uncovered the deeper problem in our society. Black people don't get equal educations even 40 years after the Civil Rights movement. You can't tell me inner city public schools are on par with even average suburban schools.

Basically the seminal case for disparate impact was Griggs vs. Duke Power which got in trouble for using cognitive tests etc. that weren't technically needed.

An argument can be made on how a test like this can be make or break important, but meanwhile the firefighter being pushed to the front of the debate had to sue his way in because of his dyslexia. Dyslexia has more than a few symptoms that could be downright dangerous for a firefighter more than I can think of from doing middling on a cognitive test.

camoor

07-18-2009, 02:32 PM

We're very close now but many top positions are still closed off to minorities because of the so-called less qualified angle.

OK, I'll bite. Please name one top position that is closed off to minorities.

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 02:45 PM

depascal22

07-18-2009, 02:55 PM

OK, I'll bite. Please name one top position that is closed off to minorities.

Head football coach at a D-I school.

The majority of players are black but so far we have five (and maybe less than that since Karl Dorrell got canned two years ago at UCLA) coaches for 112 schools. Classic example of the mule being good enough to haul but not lead.

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 03:12 PM

OK, I'll bite. Please name one top position that is closed off to minorities.

As Sonia Sotomayor expresses regret and lament for her "wise latina" remark, many in the public assume that this kind of recognition of the uniqueness of her ethnic background makes her problematic for a position in the Supreme Court. It is a major hurdle she has had to overcome this week during her confirmation hearings.

Samuel Alito mentioned the pride and uniqueness of being brought up Italian in an Italian family during his confirmation hearings - this was not controversial, not debated, not something that fueled the fire of people in the public sphere. It was something he said that was glossed over and not considered as having any significance.

So two things here:
1) The public treatment that only people in minority groups have "problems" with their heritage; the double standard that they must prove themselves worthy for a position *despite* their ethnic background, while whites do not have such treatment. Their ethnicity is viewed as (both, strangely enough) nonexistent and wholly appropriate for the SCOTUS.
2) That statements about one's heritage are irrelevant and/or fine when mentioned by whites, but a problem that must be overcome by minority candidates. Alito was helped by the fact that he was white; Sotomayor's fit for office is questioned by aspects of her ethnicity: we assume her "empathy" is a problem because she's a minority (which means we're scared she won't enforce the racial hierarchy), and that her ethnicity is a problem for her fit because she acknowledges what it is.

Will she be confirmed? You bet. That doesn't negate the fact that she experienced unique, race-based barriers to confirmation that whites do not experience, even if they behave in the same way.

camoor

07-18-2009, 08:14 PM

Head football coach at a D-I school.

The majority of players are black but so far we have five (and maybe less than that since Karl Dorrell got canned two years ago at UCLA) coaches for 112 schools. Classic example of the mule being good enough to haul but not lead.

That's the best example you can think of? I don't know hardly anything about college football and this seems pretty damning on the face of it, but if the worst we have to face right now is contained within a niche position like college football coach I'm not really seeing the logic in your case for the need for across-the-board institutionalized quota hiring. I was interested to see if you could come up with something substantial such as top government positions, top corporate positions, membership to power-broker clubs - important positions like that. The 2008 election really took a bite out of these types of arguements.

As Sonia Sotomayor expresses regret and lament for her "wise latina" remark, many in the public assume that this kind of recognition of the uniqueness of her ethnic background makes her problematic for a position in the Supreme Court. It is a major hurdle she has had to overcome this week during her confirmation hearings.

Samuel Alito mentioned the pride and uniqueness of being brought up Italian in an Italian family during his confirmation hearings - this was not controversial, not debated, not something that fueled the fire of people in the public sphere. It was something he said that was glossed over and not considered as having any significance.

So two things here:
1) The public treatment that only people in minority groups have "problems" with their heritage; the double standard that they must prove themselves worthy for a position *despite* their ethnic background, while whites do not have such treatment. Their ethnicity is viewed as (both, strangely enough) nonexistent and wholly appropriate for the SCOTUS.
2) That statements about one's heritage are irrelevant and/or fine when mentioned by whites, but a problem that must be overcome by minority candidates. Alito was helped by the fact that he was white; Sotomayor's fit for office is questioned by aspects of her ethnicity: we assume her "empathy" is a problem because she's a minority (which means we're scared she won't enforce the racial hierarchy), and that her ethnicity is a problem for her fit because she acknowledges what it is.

Will she be confirmed? You bet. That doesn't negate the fact that she experienced unique, race-based barriers to confirmation that whites do not experience, even if they behave in the same way.

I would agree that Sotomayor's comments ultimately probably amount to much ado about nothing as the quote was apparently taken out of context. Furthermore I am not a fan of the treatment and veiled comments being hurled at her from Republicans, it's good to see they have been forced to tone it down after realizing the public won't stand for it. But fair is fair - I'm no fan of Alito but he would probably never have been confirmed if he had said that a wise Italian-American with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person with a different background who hasn't lived that life and those life experiences. It's one thing to be prideful, it's another to hold up your racial identity as something that makes you superior to others.

elprincipe

07-19-2009, 02:29 AM

As Sonia Sotomayor expresses regret and lament for her "wise latina" remark, many in the public assume that this kind of recognition of the uniqueness of her ethnic background makes her problematic for a position in the Supreme Court. It is a major hurdle she has had to overcome this week during her confirmation hearings.

Samuel Alito mentioned the pride and uniqueness of being brought up Italian in an Italian family during his confirmation hearings - this was not controversial, not debated, not something that fueled the fire of people in the public sphere. It was something he said that was glossed over and not considered as having any significance.

So two things here:
1) The public treatment that only people in minority groups have "problems" with their heritage; the double standard that they must prove themselves worthy for a position *despite* their ethnic background, while whites do not have such treatment. Their ethnicity is viewed as (both, strangely enough) nonexistent and wholly appropriate for the SCOTUS.
2) That statements about one's heritage are irrelevant and/or fine when mentioned by whites, but a problem that must be overcome by minority candidates. Alito was helped by the fact that he was white; Sotomayor's fit for office is questioned by aspects of her ethnicity: we assume her "empathy" is a problem because she's a minority (which means we're scared she won't enforce the racial hierarchy), and that her ethnicity is a problem for her fit because she acknowledges what it is.

Will she be confirmed? You bet. That doesn't negate the fact that she experienced unique, race-based barriers to confirmation that whites do not experience, even if they behave in the same way.

I'm not used to seeing something this disingenuous from you, myke. You know as well as I do that the "wise Latina" controversy had nothing to do with being proud of her heritage, but rather the other part of the quote, which included words to the effect that because of being Latina she is a better judge than a white male. Quite rightly, many have noted that if, say, Alito had said the same thing, his nomination would have been withdrawn immediately.

HowStern

07-19-2009, 12:38 PM

The wise latina thing was her saying she had the experience of being a minority where as a white male has not.

I highly doubt the reason black people were failing this test is because they just plain weren't smart enough. Every black person wasn't smart enough for the test? There are no smart black people? C'mon.

I'd like to see this test. I don't think anyone who hasn't seen the test can argue against Sotomayer's ruling.

depascal22

07-19-2009, 02:07 PM

That's the best example you can think of? I don't know hardly anything about college football and this seems pretty damning on the face of it, but if the worst we have to face right now is contained within a niche position like college football coach I'm not really seeing the logic in your case for the need for across-the-board institutionalized quota hiring. I was interested to see if you could come up with something substantial such as top government positions, top corporate positions, membership to power-broker clubs - important positions like that. The 2008 election really took a bite out of these types of arguements.

Here's the difference. College football coaches are hired by athletic directors with approval of the boosters and other high level university officials. There are interviews but decisions are made behind closed doors with little regard to the best qualified. They basically look for who appeases the boosters the most. Predominantly, a white face is easier to foist on the rich white males that contribute the most to the university's coffers.

Presidential elections are done in the open by the people. Racial bias still plays a factor but not nearly as much because the electorate is so diverse.

How about this? Supreme Court Justice. So far, we've seen two black people in the entire history of the court. You're telling me there's never been another qualified black person in the history of America?

How about Senator? Since 1940, we've only had four black senators and three have been from Illinois. Brooke, Mosely-Braun, Obama, and Burris. That's it.

mykevermin

07-19-2009, 03:56 PM

I'm not used to seeing something this disingenuous from you, myke. You know as well as I do that the "wise Latina" controversy had nothing to do with being proud of her heritage, but rather the other part of the quote, which included words to the effect that because of being Latina she is a better judge than a white male. Quite rightly, many have noted that if, say, Alito had said the same thing, his nomination would have been withdrawn immediately.

It is the strength of the unconscious white privilege in American society that Sotomayor has one of her rulings overturned by the supreme court, and the discussion becomes not one of inherent contradiction of the law (as turns out to be the Supreme Court's decision - but don't let that get in the way of continuing to incorrectly think it's about your beloved "reverse racism"), but of wariness of her jurisprudence. That we cannot trust a minority who ruled in favor of minorities when that ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court. This is a problem, because, we reason, it means that the minority judge only made the ruling on the basis of solidarity and empathy as a member of a minority group, and not on the facts of the case, or of the interpretation of a later-to-be-decided-as-inherently-contradictory law as, well, inherently contradictory.

She's siding with minorities, which permits us to be skeptical of her motivations, and question whether she is an arbiter of justice under the law, or liberalism that sees nothing but oppressive whiteness.

We can't, and you don't, consider her on par with other supreme court justices, because of her ethnicity, and because you can't allow her ethnicity to operate separate from her rulings. Though you do this very same thing for the other justices. It is circumstance that Alito is white and Italian, and that this very case that he ruled in favor of...a man by the name of Frank Ricci?

That's your white privilege. Alito can rule how he pleases and you do not consider it to have any racial bias, motivation, empathy, or hint whatsoever. Sotomayor is considered, on the other hand, to be antithetical to the rule of law when she rules in favor of interpreting a law to support a minority group - DESPITE plenty of case examples where she did not rule in such a manner, because she is a minority and they a minority.

This is your racism. You're surely appalled, and think I'm full of it. But you know for a fact inside yourself that you never considered Alito's ethnicity relevant to his rulings, never saw that an Italian man ruling in favor of an Italian man to suggest corroboration or bias, and never considered the following statement to have any relevance, bias, or racial support to it:

"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Can you IMAGINE if this is something Sotomayor said during her confirmation hearing? Can you IMAGINE how outraged, and appalled, and sickened you would be were she confirmed?

This came from Samuel Alito's remarks during his own confirmation hearing.

This is the power of racism of society. Now I'll allow you to call me names and deny all of this, and rationalize away why it's ok to examine Sotomayor in terms of her ethnicity, but not Alito. That will demonstrate the strength of the other half of racism in modern American society.

elprincipe

07-19-2009, 07:38 PM

It is the strength of the unconscious white privilege in American society that Sotomayor has one of her rulings overturned by the supreme court, and the discussion becomes not one of inherent contradiction of the law (as turns out to be the Supreme Court's decision - but don't let that get in the way of continuing to incorrectly think it's about your beloved "reverse racism"), but of wariness of her jurisprudence. That we cannot trust a minority who ruled in favor of minorities when that ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court. This is a problem, because, we reason, it means that the minority judge only made the ruling on the basis of solidarity and empathy as a member of a minority group, and not on the facts of the case, or of the interpretation of a later-to-be-decided-as-inherently-contradictory law as, well, inherently contradictory.

She's siding with minorities, which permits us to be skeptical of her motivations, and question whether she is an arbiter of justice under the law, or liberalism that sees nothing but oppressive whiteness.

We can't, and you don't, consider her on par with other supreme court justices, because of her ethnicity, and because you can't allow her ethnicity to operate separate from her rulings. Though you do this very same thing for the other justices. It is circumstance that Alito is white and Italian, and that this very case that he ruled in favor of...a man by the name of Frank Ricci?

That's your white privilege. Alito can rule how he pleases and you do not consider it to have any racial bias, motivation, empathy, or hint whatsoever. Sotomayor is considered, on the other hand, to be antithetical to the rule of law when she rules in favor of interpreting a law to support a minority group - DESPITE plenty of case examples where she did not rule in such a manner, because she is a minority and they a minority.

This is your racism. You're surely appalled, and think I'm full of it. But you know for a fact inside yourself that you never considered Alito's ethnicity relevant to his rulings, never saw that an Italian man ruling in favor of an Italian man to suggest corroboration or bias, and never considered the following statement to have any relevance, bias, or racial support to it:

"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Can you IMAGINE if this is something Sotomayor said during her confirmation hearing? Can you IMAGINE how outraged, and appalled, and sickened you would be were she confirmed?

This came from Samuel Alito's remarks during his own confirmation hearing.

This is the power of racism of society. Now I'll allow you to call me names and deny all of this, and rationalize away why it's ok to examine Sotomayor in terms of her ethnicity, but not Alito. That will demonstrate the strength of the other half of racism in modern American society.

That is quite a screed, yet you failed to answer what I posted at all. I didn't question whether Sotomayor ruled one way or another due to her ethnicity. That is not my contention. I haven't seen any evidence to that effect and have not made that claim. The simple fact that one of the firefighters she ruled against happened to be Hispanic is probably enough to shut people up who say that.

But again I'll refer back to my question. The real controversy is that she claimed that she was a "better" judge than a white male due to her heritage. Do you believe that a Latina judge is an inherently better judge than a white male judge? Surely you aren't claiming that Alito said he was a better judge than a female Hispanic judge due to him being a white male, since he did not do that (at least as far as I am aware...feel free to enlighten me).

Can you answer my question this time, regardless of your other feelings? I know they are deeply held beliefs, but they have little to do with my point of contention.

HowStern

07-19-2009, 10:09 PM

1) /Thread. Myke just put an end to all the foolishness. Anyone who tries to argue against that post should just give it up because he is 110% spot on.

2)elprincipe, It is clear you haven't even heard/read the entire speech Sotomayor delivered and I'm not even sure you know the correct quote you are referring to. Considering how completely off you are about what she said.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1
There is the whole speech. It should be read by those who want to have an opinion.

camoor

07-19-2009, 11:46 PM

Here's the difference. College football coaches are hired by athletic directors with approval of the boosters and other high level university officials. There are interviews but decisions are made behind closed doors with little regard to the best qualified. They basically look for who appeases the boosters the most. Predominantly, a white face is easier to foist on the rich white males that contribute the most to the university's coffers.

OK enough on the college football coach already. Like I said, I was hoping for more substance, all you can come up with so far is a specialized part of the entertainment field, which we all know is superficial.

Presidential elections are done in the open by the people. Racial bias still plays a factor but not nearly as much because the electorate is so diverse.

How about this? Supreme Court Justice. So far, we've seen two black people in the entire history of the court. You're telling me there's never been another qualified black person in the history of America?

How about Senator? Since 1940, we've only had four black senators and three have been from Illinois. Brooke, Mosely-Braun, Obama, and Burris. That's it.

America is 13% black. The supreme court is 8% black, that's not too far off. Besides the number will always be off - if there were two black SCJs then the percentage would be 16%, which is higher then the current demographics (to illustrate how silly this game gets). Ideally people pick senators through open elections, in your world should we also throw those voting results out when there aren't enough members from this racial group or that racial group?

America is a country that had people fighting for basic civil rights less then 50 years ago. And today we have a black president. Show me another country that did a turnaround as fast as America without a violent revolution.

VipFREAK

07-19-2009, 11:53 PM

It's not what you know... It's WHO you know...

elprincipe

07-20-2009, 01:33 AM

2)elprincipe, It is clear you haven't even heard/read the entire speech Sotomayor delivered and I'm not even sure you know the correct quote you are referring to. Considering how completely off you are about what she said.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1
There is the whole speech. It should be read by those who want to have an opinion.

Thanks for the exact quote, and yes, I do know about the full thing. She says that a Latina "would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male." Ergo, she is saying that a "wise Latina" is a better judge than a white male by virtue of being a Latina. That is the issue, and my issue, with her. My complaint is not "completely off," unless you have some reasonable explanation as to why that is. Tell me, do you believe that a Latina judge is better than a white male judge? Why or why not? If not, why don't you have an issue with what she said? After all, she basically said it was a mistake in the hearings...even though she had used it six or seven times over the years.

mykevermin

07-20-2009, 01:58 AM

Dude, you have access to the entire context and you choose to ignore it.

You're better than that.

thrustbucket

07-20-2009, 11:41 AM

First of all, no one got promoted. Not even the blacks.

Second, why is one exam the only way to promote people? Would you want to be promoted based on one test? Should one paper test determine if one person is better able to lead while a four alarm is raging? Some people suck at tests but excel in the field. Shouldn't those people have a shot?

Wah. A job is a job, and they are allowed to have the requirements they want.

Taking what you are saying at face value, if an employer had it's promotion contingent on a certain level of education, it could be argued that is discriminitory - not everyone can afford school, right? Such a requirement would clearly only favor rich white people, right?

I have some sad news for you - many jobs, if not most jobs, don't care about your actual job performance or abilities when it comes to being hired or promoted. They make employees play all kinds of games to get promoted, and that's just life. Now if you want to argue against that, I'm with you, but let's not turn it into yet another shaky race argument.

camoor

07-20-2009, 12:07 PM

This is your racism. You're surely appalled, and think I'm full of it. But you know for a fact inside yourself that you never considered Alito's ethnicity relevant to his rulings, never saw that an Italian man ruling in favor of an Italian man to suggest corroboration or bias, and never considered the following statement to have any relevance, bias, or racial support to it:

"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Can you IMAGINE if this is something Sotomayor said during her confirmation hearing? Can you IMAGINE how outraged, and appalled, and sickened you would be were she confirmed?

This came from Samuel Alito's remarks during his own confirmation hearing.

This is the power of racism of society. Now I'll allow you to call me names and deny all of this, and rationalize away why it's ok to examine Sotomayor in terms of her ethnicity, but not Alito. That will demonstrate the strength of the other half of racism in modern American society.

Noone would bat an eye if Sotomayor said this, just as it wasn't a big deal that Alito said this. Now, if Alito had said something along the lines of his experiences as an Italian-American male inherently make him a better judge then someone of a different race or gender, then I could start to see some logic to your post. But you fail to meet that burden of proof, and I find your conjecture to be without merit.

mykevermin

07-20-2009, 12:52 PM

Noone would bat an eye if Sotomayor said this, just as it wasn't a big deal that Alito said this. Now, if Alito had said something along the lines of his experiences as an Italian-American male inherently make him a better judge then someone of a different race or gender, then I could start to see some logic to your post. But you fail to meet that burden of proof, and I find your conjecture to be without merit.

What? Is this fuckin' lazy day on the internet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1
There is the whole speech. It should be read by those who want to have an opinion.

Read it before you repeat, for the umpeenth time, an incorrect assessment of Sotomayor's quote.

depascal22

07-20-2009, 02:51 PM

Show me another country that did a turnaround as fast as America without a violent revolution.

South Africa.

And you completely disregard the low number of senators? You honestly want to say that there aren't any qualified black people in America that want to be a senator? Anyone can run as a Democrat or Republican for a Senate seat? Oh, that's right. The parties tightly control who runs and who doesn't. The Dems can throw Obama out there as a bone to the black community but that doesn't mean we'll get someone else in the Senate anytime soon.

And thrust, your bullshit response to my post doesn't even warrant a counter.

perdition(troy

07-20-2009, 03:09 PM

lulz.

i love reading your posts.

depascal22

07-20-2009, 03:12 PM

lulz.

i love reading your posts.

You should. Your co-workers got tired of reading yours.

camoor

07-20-2009, 04:31 PM

South Africa.

And you completely disregard the low number of senators? You honestly want to say that there aren't any qualified black people in America that want to be a senator? Anyone can run as a Democrat or Republican for a Senate seat? Oh, that's right. The parties tightly control who runs and who doesn't. The Dems can throw Obama out there as a bone to the black community but that doesn't mean we'll get someone else in the Senate anytime soon.

And thrust, your bullshit response to my post doesn't even warrant a counter.

Wow. You're welcome to debate the merits of Obama's presidency all you like, but it's ridiculous and insulting to reduce his Presidential campaign victory as a bone that was thrown to 18% of Americans. I'd say it had more to do with Obama's mastery of the campaign trail, ability to inspire, and politics then the color of his skin.

South Africa has a tragic past and I wish them the best, but I hardly think you can hold them up as a success story when corruption is rampant, white people earn more then four times what black people earn, a quarter of the people are unemployed, and people generally subsist on less then $1.25 a day. We may all whine about the US from time to time but it's no South Africa.

As for the Senators, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince the American public. It's a representative democracy and the people are not forced at gunpoint to vote for candidate A or candidate B.

camoor

07-20-2009, 04:41 PM

What? Is this fuckin' lazy day on the internet?

Read it before you repeat, for the umpeenth time, an incorrect assessment of Sotomayor's quote.

I already stated it was taken out of context.

Welcome to politics Myke. Sorry that judges running for Supreme Court have to choose their words carefully, but if you want to just spout off at the mouth then get another job (or become Senator of Delaware)

If Alito had said the same thing it would have been taken out of context and he wouldn't have a get-out-of-jail-free card to play. Try the thought experiment, switch Sotomayor's quote around with the roles reversed, and then come back if you can honestly not see what I'm saying here.

mykevermin

07-20-2009, 06:02 PM

thrustbucket

07-20-2009, 07:07 PM

And thrust, your bullshit response to my post doesn't even warrant a counter.

Strangely enough, I felt like making a similar response to your previous post.

I guess that means my job bores me a lot more than yours does you.

elprincipe

07-20-2009, 11:45 PM

Dude, you have access to the entire context and you choose to ignore it.

You're better than that.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

What did I ignore? The context is even more damning, quite frankly, unless you have a charitable reading of the phrase "physiological differences."

HowStern

07-20-2009, 11:51 PM

elprincipe

07-20-2009, 11:56 PM

So, she says "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
How is that damning? Because she states it's a possibility that physiological differences can possibly make a difference when judging a case?

She is putting forth reason why the courts should have a varied racial line up. Not just all white men. To get a meld of minds from different backgrounds.

So, it seems you are the racist for thinking this is a bad thing.

Nice ad hominem. Right, I'm the racist for being against racist statements like Latinas are better judges than white men. Wow, you really found me out. :roll: Or maybe I'm racist because you are accusing me of something I never said, such as something as idiotic as being against courts having anyone who is not a white male for judges. Or maybe you're just being an ass.

Here, take a look at this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physiological

mykevermin

07-21-2009, 12:05 AM

I take it elprincipe doesn't see the racial collusion in Alito helping decide in favor of Ricci.

There ain't no such thing as white privilege.

elprincipe

07-21-2009, 12:07 AM

I take it elprincipe doesn't see the racial collusion in Alito helping decide in favor of Ricci.

There ain't no such thing as white privilege.

I don't see any racial collusion in the records of Alito or Sotomayor. I never claimed that as an issue, even though you won't accept what I say. I don't get why you won't just accept that and answer my question.

HowStern

07-21-2009, 12:19 AM

UncleBob

07-21-2009, 02:24 AM

Speaking of strawman, I like this idea that white males grow up with "nothing but privilege"... If there was ever an ignorant statement on the internet...

mykevermin

07-21-2009, 08:42 AM

white privilege ≠ growing up with "nothing but privilege."

Go back to lurking.

camoor

07-21-2009, 08:50 AM

What I can see is that you're saying "I know what the quote means," and also "I want to play the game as if I don't know better, and continue to argue like a numbskull who would willfully misinterpret a quote out of context."

So you know better, but you don't act better.

No, I'm saying there is a vicious double-standard. Some people need to watch each and every thing they say and self-censor it for fear it could be taken out of context. Other people have a get-out-of-jail free card when they make comments that, on the face of them, seem to advocate superiority based on thier race or gender.

Now, it's probably a good thing to watch what you say and ensure what you say reflects your true intent. I'm just saying we should hold every person up to the same standard. Personally I think we should let every person explain their intent and place it in context, but that ain't gonna happen in our land of hysterical split-personality hypocrisy.

Speaking of strawman, I like this idea that white males grow up with "nothing but privilege"... If there was ever an ignorant statement on the internet...

Ironic when someone sees a Chapelle show skit and mistakes it for a documentary.

HowStern

07-21-2009, 11:32 AM

Speaking of strawman, I like this idea that white males grow up with "nothing but privilege"... If there was ever an ignorant statement on the internet...

So, you're saying historically white males have had it harder than hispanics, blacks, and indians in the U.S.? ...If there was ever an ignorant statement on the internet...

;)

UncleBob

07-21-2009, 08:34 PM

Not saying that at all. However, a "white male" does not grow up with "nothing but privilege" simply because one is a white male, as your above statement very much conveys.

HowStern

07-21-2009, 10:13 PM

Not saying that at all. However, a "white male" does not grow up with "nothing but privilege" simply because one is a white male, as your above statement very much conveys.

In the context of this discussion, yes, they absolutely do. White men and politics is PB&J. Hamburger & cheese, etc.

At the very basic level of it white males have never been not allowed to vote like women and other races. Simply because they were white males.

Douglas Wilder was elected in 1989.

Let that sink in. It only took, oh...200 years for the country to see a black governor.

In the realm of politics, the justice system, and government the white male has grown up with nothing but privilege.

I'm guessing you took my statement out of context (there's a lot of that in this thread) and assumed I was talking about white people everywhere with no relation to politics, despite the fact that that would have nothing to do with this conversation.

elprincipe

07-21-2009, 10:36 PM

Because your question is based on taking an ostentatious offense to something we all know is true.

It is a complete given that someone who has grown up at a disadvantage and as a minority will have experiences that will help them judge a situation, "more often than not", better than someone who has grown up with nothing but privilege(see: white male.)

Everything else you said is a strawman. You've completely skewed everything the woman said.

You (and myke) are obfuscating. I asked a simple question: do you agree with what Sotomayor said? It's easy enough to answer; hell, even she said at the hearings it was a "rhetorical flourish that fell flat," thus backing away from the statement. Do you agree with her that what she said is bullshit? And what offense did I take, other than to object to a statement saying that a judge of one ethnicity is superior to a judge of another, which is a ridiculous (and extreme) statement? If what I said is such a "skewed" version of what she said, perhaps you can find more of the quote that proves this; I quoted the entire paragraph and I don't see how I "skewed" anything.

HowStern

07-21-2009, 11:41 PM

OMFG...Not only did I answer your question but I explained why it's a given right in the post you quoted.

itachiitachi

07-22-2009, 10:02 AM

In the context of this discussion, yes, they absolutely do. White men and politics is PB&J. Hamburger & cheese, etc.

At the very basic level of it white males have never been not allowed to vote like women and other races. Simply because they were white males.

That's nice but that was then this is now, no one says hey 200 years ago you could vote but this other guy couldn't, so Mr.I'could'vote'200'years'ago gets the job/scholarship/promotion/ect...
It's more like I know your father/your family gave us a big donation/you are attractive here is a job/promotion/acceptance to an ivy league school.

UncleBob

07-22-2009, 10:22 AM

I'm guessing you took my statement out of context (there's a lot of that in this thread) and assumed I was talking about white people everywhere with no relation to politics, despite the fact that that would have nothing to do with this conversation.

It is a complete given that someone who has grown up at a disadvantage and as a minority will have experiences that will help them judge a situation, "more often than not", better than someone who has grown up with nothing but privilege(see: white male.)

See, I'm not getting politics out of this. I'm not getting anything to do with elections or voting. I'm reading white men can't judge well because they're privileged.

HowStern

07-22-2009, 10:35 AM

See, I'm not getting politics out of this. I'm not getting anything to do with elections or voting. I'm reading white men can't judge well because they're privileged.

Don't worry. You've made it abundantly clear that you hear what you want to hear rather than what is actually being said/discussed.

UncleBob

07-22-2009, 10:45 AM

Yes. You're absolutely right. I want to hear people say "white men can't judge well because they're privileged.".

You know what it is? I just can't read your posts well. It's because I'm a white male. I grew up with all this privilege and now, who needs readin'?

mykevermin

07-22-2009, 10:54 AM

White privilege is not something you always experience. It can be what you don't experience as well.

You won't ever experience this: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/books/blog/2009/07/henry_louis_gates_arrested_cha.html

Henry Louis Fucking Gates. You can't find a more prominent living black scholar in the United States. Not by a long shot. Maybe Elijah Anderson, but I'm straying from the point.

Now, when you read the synopsis of the Gates' arrest, and you come up with excuses and rationalizations that explain why it makes sense that he was arrested, you'll discover another aspect of white privilege: the ability to quickly, efficiently, and sufficiently explain away anthing that looks like it might be that big bad "RACISM" demon you so frequently seek to exorcize. When you read about differential treatment patterns of people, with race the only thing that changes, and TIME AND TIME AGAIN in our era you see that blacks are treated worse, receive worse health care (for the same insurance), are denied access to housing, to rental property, to jobs, to promotions...and you have an explanation and excuse that tries to deny the inherent racism of it all...that, my friends, is white privilege.

Keep your strawmen at bay; I've read enough "anytime you criticize a black person, it's racism" bullshit for five lifetimes. You don't need to respond. Think about it. Sit and let the idea fester for a bit. Ask yourself this: what was the last thing I read, the last thing I saw, the last thing I heard about that I **KNEW** was racism in action. Think about that. How far back do you have to go? How many excuses have you made for reinforcing inequality in our society?

None of us are perfect, ever. But being willingly compliant with allowing racial inequality to proceed, and trying to push the absurd "color-blind society" notion that you all do, is damnable.

Speaking of Gates, I was sitting in the Apple Store yesterday (fucking MacBook Pro is a lemon, man, I swear) - and an older man was throwing a fit of hellfire and brimstone. HE was important. HE was to be taken care of. HE was the customer, and the customer was always RIGHT!

What did he want? He lost one of the plug adapters for his laptop power cable (Macs come with two: a tiny two prong "duck head" and a longer extension cord with a ground on it). He lost the duck head. LOST. HIMSELF. And here he was, in the store, insisting that Apple replace his unit. HE WAS IMPORTANT! (He actually used the "do you know who I am?" line FFS). He was cordoned off from the genius bar (I hate typing that) by four Apple employees, but nevertheless refused to leave, and refused to be quieted. We shall not be overcome, I suppose one might say.

Eventually someone took an old duck head from an old adapter in the back and gave it to him. So he got to act like a child (despite being hifalutin' "DOCTOR SO AND SO") - in front of his own son, teaching his boy the life lesson that, if you make mistakes, and throw enough of a fit, other people will compensate you for your inability to take responsibility for yourself.

Do you think a black man would have received this treatment?

White privilege. A white professor loses his own shit because he's too busy blowing himself intellectually, and gets what he wants by throwing a temper tantrum. Henry Louis Gates gets arrested for going into his own house.

UncleBob

07-22-2009, 11:06 AM

Trust me. I live in frickin' "White County, Illinois". There's racism. I know it. I've experienced it (not personally, but through a former co-worker who was described to me by two different customers as "that tall un-american kid" and "that guy you can only see in the dark when he's smiling"... I walked away from the first customer and wanted to punch the second). I'm not going to deny that racism exists in today's world.

As for the customer you described - as I've mentioned before - I work retail. I've dealt with that exact same customer. In white, black, red, brown, male and female varieties. Pretty much every single time, management gives into them and gives them whatever it is they want. Sometimes, it's just easier to give in - it has nothing to do with the color of the customer's skin.

As per your story in regards to HLG - I honestly cannot comment. I do not know the arresting officer and I'm not about to condemn someone as a racist based on the individual news story you provided. I can't say I'm a fan of the "papers, please" attitude apparently shown by the officer in this case though...

HowStern

07-22-2009, 12:30 PM

Bob, see, again you misunderstand the point.

We aren't talking about racism in the strict sense. You missed the merit of Myke's post.
It's about an unrecognized privilege.

The white professor having the temper tantrum never stopped for a second to think "Oh, I could get in trouble for this." And he was, in fact, rewarded in the end despite his loss being his own fault.

Where as a black person has to stop and think about throwing a fit even if it has to do with their OWN PERSONAL HOME DOOR BEING JAMMED SHUT because they could end up going to jail like Gates, a world renowned scholar!

They don't have the privilege. These experiences give them a different view of the world.

camoor

07-22-2009, 12:49 PM

White privilege. A white professor loses his own shit because he's too busy blowing himself intellectually, and gets what he wants by throwing a temper tantrum. Henry Louis Gates gets arrested for going into his own house.

As UncleBob points out, completely different cases.

Perhaps a better case to compare it to would be this:

Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.
She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.
Drivers in the District can be arrested for blood alcohol levels as low as .01, although the legal threshold for intoxication is .08. Blood alcohol levels vary with food intake, metabolism and other factors and drop by roughly .017 per hour as the liver breaks down alcohol.

Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101968.html

Pic provided. Turns out she also mouthed off to a cop (all that "I'm a lawyer" "You can't do this" stuff). Just watch an episode of Cops and you'll see that cops do not like it when you give them attitude. I remember in HS one dumbass went up to a cop and called him a pig - slam to the ground, cuffs on the back, the whole nine. Personally I think the kid had it coming.

Now - undoubtedly is it unfortunate that this guy's house was visited when if he had looked different he might not have. Things aren't perfect out there, I wouldn't be the first to point that out. Should police investigate when it looks like someone is using brute force to open a door instead of, say, a key? I'd like to think so. Should police be less quick to handcuff or taser uncooperative citizens. Absolutely. Should you ever mouth off to a cop? Look at the stories and decide for yourself.

mykevermin

07-22-2009, 01:41 PM

Yes, comparing it to drinking and driving is so much more apples to fermented apples.

HowStern

07-22-2009, 02:00 PM

LOL..Drunken driving with your headlights off...Trying to get into your house..Hmmm, I see the similarity! Oh, wait..No, I don't.

camoor

07-22-2009, 02:25 PM

Geez.

She had one glass of wine. .03 alcohol level.

Look up any documentation ever written on driving - it's considered safe for healthy individuals to consume one glass, bottle or shot of alcohol before driving. And she happened to foget her lights - I see it all the time, a human mistake maybe worth a ticket at worst.

She was put in jail because she was mouthing off - she admitted that she was uncooperative and the police officer confirmed it.

It's a case of "respect mah autoritah" more then anything else.

Don Chubo

07-22-2009, 03:56 PM

Don't the rest of you guys get it? If you're not myke, then you're hopelessly racist. Period. Of course, it's okay for him to use ethnic slurs:

I missed last night's show because my frickin' laptop died (though with a wonderful resolution to it).

Good to see Jimmie didn't get booted.

I take it Joseph is the loudmouthed, confrontational wop?

elprincipe

07-22-2009, 11:22 PM

OMFG...Not only did I answer your question but I explained why it's a given right in the post you quoted.

So you are admitting you are a racist now?

UncleBob

07-23-2009, 01:15 AM

A racist statement is racist no matter who says it.
A racist action is racist no matter who does it.

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 10:35 AM

Henry Louis Gates gets arrested for going into his own house.

Henry Louis Gates gets arrested for telling an officer “this is what happens to a black man in America” and “you don’t know who you’re messing with”, and then refusing to show them an ID. If an officer gets a report of a possible break-in, shows up to a house with the front door forced open and someone inside the home wtf do you expect them to do? Assume the person in the home (which a break-in reportedly happened at) was the owner and not ask him any questions? The guy was completely uncooperative, and wouldn't even show them his ID. He was a tool, and they arrested him. It's not racism, it's not as Obama puts it that the officers were acting "stupidly", it's officers doing their job.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 10:43 AM

^ He was charged with disorderly conduct, not B&E. So your claim that he did not furnish proof that he was in his own home holds no water whatsoever.

speedracer

07-23-2009, 10:54 AM

This is not a place that is ready to honestly debate white privilege. That's what you get for trying, myke.
Don't the rest of you guys get it? If you're not myke, then you're hopelessly racist. Period. Of course, it's okay for him to use ethnic slurs:
*pulls the string* The airplane goes WHOOOOOOOOOSH.
^ He was charged with disorderly conduct, not B&E. So your claim that he did not furnish proof that he was in his own home holds no water whatsoever.
I have this guilty pleasure. I love hearing when people say "do you know who I am?" to police and end up in jail. But shit guys, if you can't tell a cop to piss off in your own home, what the hell? Is the guy a douche? He sure seems to be. But if you can't be a douche in your own home, something's not right. If you're not arresting him (they weren't initially) and he's not suspected (it seems obvious the cop realized he was the home owner) and he tells you to piss off and get out of his home, that's what you do. The cop was offended the guy was all in his shit. That's not a crime.

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 10:57 AM

Ya, you're right that was just in a few articles I read. I'll change my post to make it fit the great myke's standards.

"Sgt. Crowley asked for the gentleman's information which he stated 'NO I WILL NOT'. The gentleman was shouting out to the Sgt. that the Sgt. was a racist and yelled that 'THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!'. As the Sgt. was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted "You don't know who your (and yes this was their spelling error in the police report, not mine) messing with!"

There ya go. He began the night by refusing to show ID. He then proceeded to escalate the situation to an unreasonable level. He continued to make the situation worse by claiming the officers were "racist" and refused to listen to why they were there.

Quit arguing semantics, it gets annoying.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 11:07 AM

So if he refused to show his ID, it should have been a very simple cuff and stuff arrest, no? Charge him with B&E, disorderly, and resisting. At the least.

ESPECIALLY if you're pissing the cops off. Because we support the police upgrading and downgrading charges based upon being "pissed off," as opposed to violations of the law.

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 11:14 AM

Or, you can look at it as though the officer was trying to show him some respect and not automatically getting out the cuffs. I'd prefer to assume he was trying to not be a dick, but hey, neither of us were there. All we can do is read the police report stating Gates was in the wrong.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 11:17 AM

So we can always believe the police report and only the police report.

Gotcha.

Let's neglect the long and storied history of data that show racial discrimination happening at virtually every stage of policing in America. It happens all the time and hasn't gone away, and will continue to happen - it just didn't happen here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/nyregion/22raids.html

I mean, really now. It never happens. The only racism in the United States right now is that Affirmative Action kept you from getting a job, you didn't get a scholarship because you were white, and there's no such thing as WHITE entertainment television, amirite?

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 11:26 AM

...

Where did I ever say there isn't any racism left in the United States? Do you always need to go to such an extreme? You finally got me. We aren't a utopian society. Good job, you sure showed me the light. Here I was thinking everything in the Unites States was perfect and now I know I was wrong.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 11:35 AM

Well, if your story is "All we can do is read the police report stating Gates was in the wrong," then you are fucking wrong. You're arguing that we should listen to one side of the story - a fool's errand in ANY case - and end our search for facts there.

This, despite this institution (on the whole, not just in Cambridge) having a history of racist and discriminatory treatment, the continuance of which is constantly proven with research, and never has been shown to not exist. Hundreds of years of the same pattern of treatment across city and country, with not an iota of contrary data, and you still act like it doesn't happen enough to worry about, or that this incident is exempt from consideration because a guy being arrested in his own house was pissed off and loud.

Find me a single bit of contrary data or study. Not anecdote, but research, that shows no discriminatory treatment by police.

Good thing G. Gordon Liddy wasn't a black man, otherwise that cop would be dead.

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 12:09 PM

The cops were responding to a fucking break in. You act as though they were just walking down the street, decided they wanted to arrest a black guy, went up to his house and started trouble for no reason. Imagine if the guys house was actually being robbed and the officer just said "Ok, you refused to show me identification but I believe you when you tell me this is your house. I'll just ignore the fact that someone broke into the house through the front door and I'll disregard the call from your neighbor stating someone was trying to break in through your front door." Look at the situation for what it is, one situation. I don't give a crap about anything else in your post. I'm looking at this situation as anything more then one individual situation. You keep saying look at it as "the whole". So why don't you try it out? Has the officer ever had issues regarding mistreatment of race in his record? No. I mean look at the guy. He's even taught classes on diversity for crying out loud.

And honestly, I don't care enough about you or your opinion to research any of the other things you posted about.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 12:13 PM

http://baseballfactory.com/blog/uploaded_images/Horse_with_blinders_small%5B1%5D-719908.jpg

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 12:15 PM

(It's ok, I didn't think you would bother trying to argue with someone about real situations anyways. You should stick to your hypothetical arguments)

HowStern

07-23-2009, 12:20 PM

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 12:45 PM

@troy, Wow..You just don't get it. The man had the right to mouth off to the police.

They came onto his property and accused him of breaking into his own house.

The cops should have apologized and left quickly. Not taking Gates with them. They shouldn't have been on his private property in the first place.

Also, the neighbor is quoted as saying "Two black men." So, you still think race has nothing to do with it?
I never said he didn't have a right to mouth of to a cop. Just try to show some sort of respect, ya know? All the cop was doing was responding to a burglary call, sorry he was doing his job.

The cop would have left quickly if Gates would have just pulled out his ID, stated that it was his residence, and then asked him to leave. There was no reason for him to be upset with the officer responding to a call.

Here, I'll go through the night step by step for you. Gates just returned from China. Gates and his driver got to his house, and he couldn't get in the front door. They decided to break in. A neighbor saw it and called the police. I'm assuming they asked her to describe the scene and the people breaking in (OMG did she really use someone's skin color to describe them? I've never seen that before wataracist). The officer then shows up assuming someone is breaking in, wants to see ID, Gates gets mad starts to get unruly, more cops show up, he continues to be upset, gets arrested and here we are. Something as simple as here is my ID, this is my place of residence, everything is fine turns into a racist witch-hunt.

HowStern

07-23-2009, 12:49 PM

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 12:52 PM

What happened to just trusting the police report? That's a helluva lot of conjecture in there.

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 01:00 PM

Easy to say when you're white and never had to deal with it. I can't imagine the fury going through Gates' head and I won't sit here on an internet forum and pretend I can.

"Oh, here, sir! Here's my ID! Should I bend over for you too?"

So I'm assuming the next time I get pulled over for speeding I should go into rage mode when an officer asks for my license AND registration? It doesn't matter if you're black/brown/white, at some point in your life I'm assuming you've had someone ask to see your ID. It's not a big deal.

And myke, read the police report. I didn't deviate very far from it. The only thing I did was assume the 911 operator asked the neighbor to provide them with some sort of way to ID the suspected robbers. Because that's what they've done when I called.

HowStern

07-23-2009, 01:03 PM

Yeah because speeding and trying to get into your OWN house are totally the same.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 01:04 PM

^ "The cop would have left quickly if Gates would have just pulled out his ID, stated that it was his residence, and then asked him to leave. There was no reason for him to be upset with the officer responding to a call."

Was that in the report?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-23-2009, 01:05 PM

Maybe it's because I'm white or maybe I know not to disrespect John Law ...

I remember when the cops showed up to my house in Elizabethtown about a year after I moved to Indiana.

I was replacing the smoke detector and fixing the fence to make the house rentable.

After I completed repairs and was waiting for my wife to pick me up to return to Indiana, I laid down on the porch and closed my eyes.

I heard some cars pull up. Hmm. Two police cruisers and two cops walking up my driveway. Yeah, they wanted to talk to me.

I unlocked the door to show them I had a front door key. They demanded I stay on the porch.

I informed them I owned the house. They asked for ID. I showed them my Indiana drivers' license. They asked how I got there since no car was in the driveway. I told them the wife was in Bardstown with the kids visiting her mom.

They asked why my neighbors had reported suspicious activity. I told them I had moved out a year ago and the house had been vacant since then. Pointing to the rental sign in the front yard, I told them I had to get renters until the house market turns around.

One of the cops looked through the open door and asked me if anything was in there. I shrugged and told them, "Some wire, a broken smoke detector and a few tools to fix the panels on my privacy fence."

For a few minutes, they did their "run your ID to see if you freak out" routine. Since I didn't scream at them and there was no proof I wasn't on my property, they walked away without so much as a "Sorry to bother you."

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 01:05 PM

@ Stern

Because the cop is automatically going to assume someone breaking into a home is the owner. That's some impressive logic you have there. You would make a great cop.

@ Myke

No, that's called common sense. There is a disturbance, an officer responds, concludes that there is nothing wrong with the situation and leaves. That's how it works in the real world.

camoor

07-23-2009, 01:11 PM

Yeah because speeding and trying to get into your OWN house are totally the same.

Was Myke saying that he was the horse with blinders on, or it was he saying it was you. Because every time it's pointed out that abusive cop behavior has been directed at everyone who mouths off, up go the blinders, and out comes the spin that in every case except Gates the draconian punishment for minor offences was completely justified.

I guess you'll wait to see pics of the employee vicitim before deciding whether the cop who pulled his gun out at McDonalds for not getting served fast enough was justified or not.

HowStern

07-23-2009, 01:11 PM

@Troy

Except he was already in the house when the cops got there. He wasn't "caught breaking in." And the fact that he wasn't stuffing things into bags and making a quick escape should have been an obvious sign he wasn't committing a robbery, no? If you don't think so, well...That's some impressive logic you've got there.

Also, it's abundatly clear you haven't read the police report. Because he did show his ID.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x592691395/Editorial-Cambridge-Police-Department-still-has-a-lot-to-explain

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x631635775/Cambridge-Police-not-releasing-Harvard-prof-Henry-Louis-Gates-arrest-report?popular=true

ToadallyAwesome

07-23-2009, 01:14 PM

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 01:17 PM

Just remember, contrary to evidence that racial profiling and race-based discrimination against minorities exist and persist, that doesn't mean police are racist.

Of course. What do data matter when it comes to opinions?

HowStern

07-23-2009, 01:22 PM

I am going to have to agree with troy here. If ANYONE gets unruly with a cop you will get arrested. This is not uncommon. I am not really seeing the issue.

This event may have been initiated because of some preconceived notions about the current racial issues (very possible) but it no way is it unreasonable for a cop to arrest someone for being unruly. No matter who you are you do not want to raise your voice at a cop. That will never end well.

Maybe if you are black and the cop hates blacks you will get hit with the baton before being cuffed but you will still get arrested.

Troy has no clue what he is talking about. His whole argument was based on the fact that Gates provided no ID but I have provided the links to the police report where the officer says himself that Gates gave him ID.

Why didn't the cop leave immediately after being given ID?

perdition(troy

07-23-2009, 01:27 PM

If you are reading the same report that I am you will clearly see that he initially refused to show him ID. After showing him his harvard ID, the officer radioed the harvard campus police and PREPARED TO LEAVE. Gates then FOLLOWED HIM OUT THE DOOR continuing to yell at him. Read the whole fucking thing next time.

He wasn't arrested until after this. If anything I commend this officer for the initial patience he had with Mr. Gates.

HowStern

07-23-2009, 01:30 PM

He has every right to yell at him on his own private property. The cop had no reason to be there.

I repeat. The police should not have been there afterGates produced identification.

Gates had every right to say whatever he pleased thanks to our first ammendment. The cop should have kept walking and took the verbal abuse BECAUSE HE SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN THERE.

The prosecution knew this. That's why they dropped the charges.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 01:33 PM

If you are reading the same report that I am you will clearly see that he initially refused to show him ID.

If you knew this, why would you willfully sculpt your posts in the way you did, claiming that he refused to show ID?

Why would you knowingly lie to make a point? Is being right on the internet that important to you?

For all the reports you've read, you continue to modify your account of events to contend with the holes being poked through your tales.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 01:50 PM

http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks

Gates' side of the story.

ToadallyAwesome

07-23-2009, 01:51 PM

I looked at the report just now.

Call me naive, but if Gates was initially polite none of this would have happened. From the report, as soon as the officer arrived Gates was saying all sorts of things to complicate the matter. He may have feel justified in doing so because of the pattern of racism in the area but again, it is never a good idea to yell at the police.

You can't really determine if the cop was indeed profiling him for being black. The reason you can't confirm this is because of Gates initial actions. If Gates was polite and the result was still the same then you can 100% say that this cop sucks - but this situation is murky.

Saying that data shows a pattern of racist behavior among cops only gives you really good reason to investigate this particular officer (and this particular case) closely. It does not mean he auto-racist.

The cop did seem to press the matter too much and took the insults somewhat personally. Who wouldn't be angry if someone called your boss and said you were racist?

He should have walked away but did not. I am going to say that he did not walk away because Gates was being an ass - not because he wanted to nail Gates for being black. It is not much better but I really don't think this was based only on race.

EDIT: After reading Gates' side of things it seems like the original caller is the racist one!

UncleBob

07-23-2009, 07:19 PM

Here's a thought - if the cop had let some guy rob Gates' house, we'd be reading a story about how the cops don't protect the black community like they do the white community...

HowStern

07-23-2009, 08:07 PM

^No. We aren't bitching because the cops showed up. We are bitching because they arrested him after he provided identification proving it was his house.

So, what if he was verbally being a dick? It's his property. He has the right to protest. Which, like I said, the prosecutors knew. Hence, why they dropped the charges. Proving the cop was wrong. End of story.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 08:23 PM

Civil rights are only for nice people.

duh. read the fucking civil rights act.

RAMSTORIA

07-23-2009, 08:51 PM

after reading gates' side, the police report, and the story. i dont think either of them are telling the whole truth, i do think they were both out of line, but the cop is the one who took it too far. reading the police report it almost sounds like he did it because there were other cops watching (this is how you handle rabble!).

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 09:09 PM

i dont think either of them are telling the whole truth

To show I agree with this:

HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090721/capt.0fb799e524bc46ddab7ba290713aec51.aptopix_harv ard_scholar_disorderly_ny133.jpg?x=400&y=307&q=85&sig=Rp8I84FK0cztm.QdBsJLAQ--

(yes, it's just a photo, and a photo can be misleading, as ramstoria's sig shows - but he's certainly not as demure as he suggests)

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 09:14 PM

The fantastic Lawrence Bobo chimes in as well:

hat I do know with certainty is that the officer, even by his own written report, understood that he was dealing with a lawful resident of the house when he made the arrest. That same report makes it clear that at the time of the arrest, the officer was no longer concerned about the report of a “burglary in progress” involving “two black males.” No, by this point we’re talking about something else entirely.

Perfectly and succinctly stated.

KingBroly

07-23-2009, 09:22 PM

camoor

07-23-2009, 11:04 PM

The white police sergeant accused of racial profiling after he arrested renowned black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his home was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits about avoiding racial profiling. Friends and fellow officers — black and white — say Sgt. James Crowley is a principled police officer and family man who is being unfairly described as racist.
"If people are looking for a guy who's abusive or arrogant, they got the wrong guy," said Andy Meyer, of Natick, who has vacationed with Crowley, coached youth sports with him and is his teammate on a men's softball team. "This is not a racist, rogue cop. This is a fine, upstanding man. And if every cop in the world were like him, it would be a better place."
Gates accused the 11-year department veteran of being an unyielding, race-baiting authoritarian after Crowley arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct last week.
Crowley confronted Gates in his home after a woman passing by summoned police for a possible burglary. The sergeant said he arrested Gates after the scholar repeatedly accused him of racism and made derogatory remarks about his mother, allegations the professor challenges. Gates has labeled Crowley a "rogue cop," demanded an apology and said he may sue the police department.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4S-r9G0m8HEq4JAFUw7_epFRb9QD99KGKNG4

itachiitachi

07-24-2009, 09:18 AM

UncleBob

07-24-2009, 10:16 AM

Not in regards to this individual case, but the prosecution dropping charges against someone doesn't mean that someone wasn't in the wrong - at all.

speedracer

07-24-2009, 11:02 AM

RAMSTORIA

07-24-2009, 11:21 AM

Who put in the call? I haven't seen much on that person's side of the story. Or where this second black male comes from. And as situations change, the attitude of cops change. More often than not it turns sour.

Also, you can yell no matter what you have. It just depends on what actually comes out and how much it hurts.

didnt you read the story? it was a white woman form the neighborhood. the 2nd guy was gates' driver, hes the one that was trying to open the door forcefully using his shoulder. according to gates the lock was damaged while he was on vacation. the woman saw this and called police.

depascal22

07-24-2009, 11:26 AM

So it turns out it was just a passer-by. The original report made it seem like a neighbor called the cops. I don't think we'll ever get the truth in this event. Both seem to be in the wrong.

I still think the cop should've taken the high road and just walked out. If cops came investigating a burglary of my own home and I'm the only one walking around, I'd be super pissed too.

speedracer

07-24-2009, 01:39 PM

The cops say they have audio of the event. That'd be helpful. Comparing the actual events to the story from both sides would be interesting.

RAMSTORIA

07-24-2009, 02:00 PM

The cops say they have audio of the event. That'd be helpful. Comparing the actual events to the story from both sides would be interesting.

i was just reading about that. youd figure theyd eventually release it, especially if its favorable to the cop.

depascal22

07-24-2009, 02:42 PM

They would release it ONLY if it was favorable to the cop. Even then, it's obvious Gates didn't do anything illegal in the tape. If he broke a law and they had evidence, those charge would still be pending. Embarassing, probably. Illegal, probably not.

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 03:44 PM

UncleBob

07-24-2009, 04:09 PM

I got my clock cleaned by my wife this morning on this one. I was arguing that both of them were idiots but it seemed like the prof was the bigger jerk for screaming racism without solid foundation. She countered that in the situation, one of them was required to act as a professional and one was not. One of them was supposed to be someone that trained others in handling situations like that. One of them should have clearly understood the situation as it unfolded, as irrational citizens is the nature of the job. But to incarcerate this man for screaming stupidity in his own house is insanity.

I don't think anyone is really trying to defend the officer's decision to arrest Gates - although there are plenty that understand that picking a verbal fight with a cop is a stupid idea. Going just by the second hand accounts of the events, I think most of us will agree that the officer should have just walked away.

HOWEVER - the issue at hand (which seems to be getting away) is if the cop's reaction was because of this man's race. Personally, I don't think it is. Again, this is just going by second hand accounts, but it seems to me that anyone who would respond to a cop in this manner would be looking at being handcuffed - regardless of race.

Judging by what's been said, the officer acted in the wrong. Gates acted like an ass. They both owe each other an apology. Hugs and make up.

camoor

07-24-2009, 04:09 PM

I'm curious what those of you who think Crowley is solely in the right have to say about Bobo's take on events. That Crowley arrested Gates after it was determined that the police were no longer concerned about a B&E.

To be fair the cop says he didn't know what he was dealing with.

He didn't know if he was dealing with an upset man whose house had been broken into by a burgler, or a man who had broken the lock on his own house. Since people don't generally force open their own doors, and Gates appeared too slight to be able to bust the door in himself, you could forgive the officer for playing it safe and wanting to talk rationally with Gates (turns out after the dust has cleared we know Gate's driver popped the lock, but how was the officer to know that at the time)

If Gates yelled the policeman out of the house and later a burgler hiding upstairs murdered Gates, then the officer would be facing down a lawsuit.

Knowing what we do now about the officer, I imagine the officer was trying to calm Gates down so he could get the full story and was getting nothing but outbursts of rage and cursing. When Gates pursues the officer through the door, knowing the law Crowley pulls out the cuffs in a gamble that the sight of them will calm the man before the situation really escalates out-of-control. Unforturnately this only further enrages Gates and having escalated to cuffs Gates feels compelled to follow through.

This sounds more like an academic vs cop issue.

RAMSTORIA

07-24-2009, 04:15 PM

I'm curious what those of you who think Crowley is solely in the right have to say about Bobo's take on events. That Crowley arrested Gates after it was determined that the police were no longer concerned about a B&E.

edit: unnecessary post, i misread what you said.

(yes, it's just a photo, and a photo can be misleading, as ramstoria's sig shows - but he's certainly not as demure as he suggests)

misleading AND hilarious

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 04:28 PM

It is indeed funny. And a nice ass, too.

To be fair the cop says he didn't know what he was dealing with.

He didn't know if he was dealing with an upset man whose house had been broken into by a burgler, or a man who had broken the lock on his own house. Since people don't generally force open their own doors, and Gates appeared too slight to be able to bust the door in himself, you could forgive the officer for playing it safe and wanting to talk rationally with Gates (turns out after the dust has cleared we know Gate's driver popped the lock, but how was the officer to know that at the time)

If Gates yelled the policeman out of the house and later a burgler hiding upstairs murdered Gates, then the officer would be facing down a lawsuit.

Knowing what we do now about the officer, I imagine the officer was trying to calm Gates down so he could get the full story and was getting nothing but outbursts of rage and cursing. When Gates pursues the officer through the door, knowing the law Crowley pulls out the cuffs in a gamble that the sight of them will calm the man before the situation really escalates out-of-control. Unforturnately this only further enrages Gates and having escalated to cuffs Gates feels compelled to follow through.

This sounds more like an academic vs cop issue.

So what it sounds like you're saying is that Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly in order to protect Gates. A noble arrest, then.

I know that's the exact same frame I heard from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today - but I wasn't sure I thought even they believed it. Let alone you.

KingBroly

07-24-2009, 04:34 PM

This just gets more entertaining by the day, doesn't it?

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 04:48 PM

No, it's sickening. It's sickening that people can't combat the reality of consistent historical patterns of racial profiling, of racial discrimination, and of differential treatment of blacks by the police. It's sickening that people destroy these patterns by justifying the actions of the police. It's sickening that we make excuses for Gates' arrest. It's sickening that we make justifications for the police actions.

It's sickening that we defend the police, and take them on their word.

It's sickening that our collective covering of ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of blatant racism is what permeates the news cycle. That we consider the police action plausible, or even noble.

It's sickening that we'll talk about this, and never let the names of Dexter Brown or Omar J Edwards cross our lips. Dead black cops killed at the hands of other cops is not something we talk about.

We're scared to death to confront the reality of racism, but collectively willing to talk about how it doesn't exist, or to malign the entire characters of civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, instead of calmly sitting back and thinking "maybe, somewhere, some time, at some point, they have got it right."

We're too busy trying to deny the incredibly racist society we live in while it's right in front of us all the time. That's fucking sickening, and not the slightest bit entertaining.

JolietJake

07-24-2009, 05:16 PM

camoor

07-24-2009, 05:18 PM

So what it sounds like you're saying is that Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly in order to protect Gates. A noble arrest, then.

I know that's the exact same frame I heard from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today - but I wasn't sure I thought even they believed it. Let alone you.

No, I cribbed my notes from the MSNBC morning show. ;)

Seriously though, that's a vast oversimplification and distortion of what I said. I was portraying the scenario I can see going down, knowing that this officer has been lauded by fellow law enforcement of all stripes for his equinanimous treatment of citizens and was even hand-picked to teach recruits on how to avoid racial profiling. That we should weigh the police officer's version of events against Gates version of events. That Gates, a man who approached a police officer refusing to cooperate, cursing him, and denegrating his mother got more second chances then any other person in his position would get in my city doesn't enter into it.

I guess that doesn't count because it's data that flies in the face of your version of what went down, and after all Gates is the only one we should listen to being that he is a professor.

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 05:33 PM

Please tell me you aren't a Jackson/Sharpton fan. Those guys use stuff like this to get their names in the headlines, they don't give a damn about anyone else. Even Martin Luther King Jr. had a falling out with Jackson because he said Jackson used the civil rights movement to promote himself.

You prove my point.

There's not a dichotomy here. There's no "I agree with everything all of them say all of the time" at work in what I'm saying. OTOH, you have shown that in spite of this, the opposite end of the spectrum does exist, and even persists. The "don't believe anything these uppity negroes have to say - they're always up to no good, they're the ones causing trouble, they're the ones who perpetuate racism" claim.

Acknowledging that they have valid points is not akin to hanging on every word they say. Forgive me if I live in a nuanced world where I take into consideration the points being made, as opposed to flippantly disregarding those who make those claims.

Many of you, speaking generally, seem to show something I'm quite amazed by; that you'll never get off your ass to condemn racism in action, but you'll be the first in line to fight those who do get off their asses.

White privilege.

camoor, you're trying to recreate events to satisfy some nonsensical concept of even-handedness - or to justify Gates' arrest because he was an uppity $$$$er that didn't know his place in deferring to a police officer. your scenario, as you even call it, is full of conjecture. we may disgree, but at least I'm not the one making up hypotheticals to excuse one of the people.

I point out that Gates' arrest had zero to do with the burglary and occurred well after the police had established that Gates was, in fact, the proper legal resident of this house. Facts corroborated by all reports and refuted by none of them. You have to extrapolate Crowley's past to make assumptions about how he behaved on this night in particular, in order to weave your fantasy that makes the victim the assailant.

KingBroly

07-24-2009, 05:57 PM

camoor

07-24-2009, 05:58 PM

You prove my point.

There's not a dichotomy here. There's no "I agree with everything all of them say all of the time" at work in what I'm saying. OTOH, you have shown that in spite of this, the opposite end of the spectrum does exist, and even persists. The "don't believe anything these uppity negroes have to say - they're always up to no good, they're the ones causing trouble, they're the ones who perpetuate racism" claim.

Acknowledging that they have valid points is not akin to hanging on every word they say. Forgive me if I live in a nuanced world where I take into consideration the points being made, as opposed to flippantly disregarding those who make those claims.

Many of you, speaking generally, seem to show something I'm quite amazed by; that you'll never get off your ass to condemn racism in action, but you'll be the first in line to fight those who do get off their asses.

White privilege.

camoor, you're trying to recreate events to satisfy some nonsensical concept of even-handedness - or to justify Gates' arrest because he was an uppity $$$$er that didn't know his place in deferring to a police officer. your scenario, as you even call it, is full of conjecture. we may disgree, but at least I'm not the one making up hypotheticals to excuse one of the people.

I point out that Gates' arrest had zero to do with the burglary and occurred well after the police had established that Gates was, in fact, the proper legal resident of this house. Facts corroborated by all reports and refuted by none of them. You have to extrapolate Crowley's past to make assumptions about how he behaved on this night in particular, in order to weave your fantasy that makes the victim the assailant.

OK Sherlock, so if you've got someone berating you, refusing to calm down, refusing to talk rationally, all you know is that it's his house, the door is busted in, and the guy clearly doesn't have the physical strength to do it - so you would automatically deduce the answer to the case of the broken lock. Hey folks, we have our very own Encyclopedia Brown! Why didn't you say so Myke, you can teach your deduction skills to law enforcement all over the country. No longer will we have to talk to people to ensure the situation is secure, we'll just pass our eyes over the scene and instantly know all there is to know!

HowStern

07-24-2009, 06:31 PM

camoor

07-24-2009, 07:31 PM

^What does that have to do with him ending up being arrested for disorderly conduct?

speedracer's wife hit then nail on the head.
Like I've been trying to say. You can't get arrested for disorderly conduct in your own house for speaking your mind. He has the 1st amendment on his side. He has the right to protest. He can say anything he wants to the cop. The cop is more or less trespassing.

Oh, and I'll just leave this here.

I can do this all day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPEeCYPGjm0

"I didn't hear you"

Can you imagine, I mean can you just imagine, if he had said something about Rivieri's mother?

You guys must have some really nice police, round here the cops don't take any guff.

HowStern

07-24-2009, 07:39 PM

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 07:42 PM

OK Sherlock, so if you've got someone berating you, refusing to calm down, refusing to talk rationally, all you know is that it's his house, the door is busted in, and the guy clearly doesn't have the physical strength to do it - so you would automatically deduce the answer to the case of the broken lock. Hey folks, we have our very own Encyclopedia Brown! Why didn't you say so Myke, you can teach your deduction skills to law enforcement all over the country. No longer will we have to talk to people to ensure the situation is secure, we'll just pass our eyes over the scene and instantly know all there is to know!

Forgive me for coming up with the proper answer according to camoor's logic of forgetting the facts and making things up. Using that, here's the wholly appropriate response:

1) arrive at the scene
2) ensure the proper identity of the person seen on the premises
3) arrest them because they were mean and also to protect them from the boogeymen upstairs, who we didn't search the premises for anyway, but let's not worry about reading the police reports when we can have opinions just as easily and save ourselves the time!

Do I get an A now, teach?

camoor

07-24-2009, 07:50 PM

Not sure what your point is. You show an unstable child abusing cop after I show a man who acts like a calm responsible officer of the law despite being yelled at by an unruly speeder.

???

Sort of just damns your own argument. Not that you had an argument...

Excellent point. Poor 300lb Officer Riveri, being intimidated by a hulking 90lb child who is abusing him with unstable threats like "OK I didn't hear you", and "I didn't do anything, dude".

Are you freaking serious? The kids could have some respect for law just like Gates could have some respect for the law, but the kids are teenagers and Gates is a grown man who should know better.

The cop you posted is a saint, the reason they show him on all the car chase reels is because they are more interested in propaganda then reality. If you think you can act that way towards a cop (no matter what you look like) and get away with it, please come to DC and try it. Just make sure you get someone to film it because I want to see.

camoor

07-24-2009, 08:09 PM

Forgive me for coming up with the proper answer according to camoor's logic of forgetting the facts and making things up. Using that, here's the wholly appropriate response:

1) arrive at the scene
2) ensure the proper identity of the person seen on the premises
3) arrest them because they were mean and also to protect them from the boogeymen upstairs, who we didn't search the premises for anyway, but let's not worry about reading the police reports when we can have opinions just as easily and save ourselves the time!

Do I get an A now, teach?

Sorry kiddo you fail, but bring an apple for me on Monday and I'll give you a bite at extra credit.

The officer was surprised and confused by Gates' behavior, he had not ascertained what was going on and couldn't fathom the irrational behavior on Gates' part. He was trying to calm Gates down and ensure everythign was copacetic. Like I said, by the time the cuffs came out it had escalated to the point where the cop probably felt he couldn't back down. Unfortunate and in lieu of further escalation on Gates' part (like physical assault) the cop probably shouldn't have brought out the cuffs, but that's a heat-of-the-moment judgement call that's easy to monday morning qb. I'll tell you this, the officer showed a hell of alot more judgement and restraint then a typical DC area cop would show to anyone.

JolietJake

07-24-2009, 08:14 PM

You prove my point.

There's not a dichotomy here. There's no "I agree with everything all of them say all of the time" at work in what I'm saying. OTOH, you have shown that in spite of this, the opposite end of the spectrum does exist, and even persists. The "don't believe anything these uppity negroes have to say - they're always up to no good, they're the ones causing trouble, they're the ones who perpetuate racism" claim.

Acknowledging that they have valid points is not akin to hanging on every word they say. Forgive me if I live in a nuanced world where I take into consideration the points being made, as opposed to flippantly disregarding those who make those claims.

Many of you, speaking generally, seem to show something I'm quite amazed by; that you'll never get off your ass to condemn racism in action, but you'll be the first in line to fight those who do get off their asses.

White privilege.

camoor, you're trying to recreate events to satisfy some nonsensical concept of even-handedness - or to justify Gates' arrest because he was an uppity $$$$er that didn't know his place in deferring to a police officer. your scenario, as you even call it, is full of conjecture. we may disgree, but at least I'm not the one making up hypotheticals to excuse one of the people.

I point out that Gates' arrest had zero to do with the burglary and occurred well after the police had established that Gates was, in fact, the proper legal resident of this house. Facts corroborated by all reports and refuted by none of them. You have to extrapolate Crowley's past to make assumptions about how he behaved on this night in particular, in order to weave your fantasy that makes the victim the assailant.

Wtf man, i never called them "uppity negroes" and i never said they perpetuate racism. Don't start painting me with the white racist brush. I said i don't like the guys because i think they do nothing but promote themselves. It's my opinion that they do nothing positive for civil rights. They fancy themselves replacements for King and that is far from the case.

Can we not criticize these men lest we be called racists? I'm sure they have done some good, though i believe that the greater good takes a back seat to their own interests.

UncleBob

07-24-2009, 08:24 PM

Myke - you're making your decision, not based on what went on in this individual case, but based on your preconceived notion of law enforcement and race relations.

"He's white - he's obviously racist."

I dare say, you sir, are the one displaying racist behavior.

HowStern

07-24-2009, 08:36 PM

Excellent point. Poor 300lb Officer Riveri, being intimidated by a hulking 90lb child who is abusing him with unstable threats like "OK I didn't hear you", and "I didn't do anything, dude".

Are you freaking serious? The kids could have some respect for law just like Gates could have some respect for the law, but the kids are teenagers and Gates is a grown man who should know better.

The cop you posted is a saint, the reason they show him on all the car chase reels is because they are more interested in propaganda then reality. If you think you can act that way towards a cop (no matter what you look like) and get away with it, please come to DC and try it. Just make sure you get someone to film it because I want to see.

Nope. Sorry.

That cop is how all cops should act(Not the fat child abuser). You can't arrest someone simply because they won't calm down in their own home. Not being calm isn't a crime.

So, the one who didn't have respect for the law is the cop. Seeing as how exercising freedom of speech is a right and the cop arrested Gates for it.

Your video just proves there is more police out there who are unfit for the job and go unreasonably too far. Just like Crowley did. And you seem to be saying that since this is a known fact that cops cross the line frequently that Gates should have STFU. That's some argument...."Cops are dicks so give up your civil rights!"

mykevermin

07-24-2009, 09:04 PM

Wtf man, i never called them "uppity negroes" and i never said they perpetuate racism. Don't start painting me with the white racist brush. I said i don't like the guys because i think they do nothing but promote themselves. It's my opinion that they do nothing positive for civil rights. They fancy themselves replacements for King and that is far from the case.

Can we not criticize these men lest we be called racists? I'm sure they have done some good, though i believe that the greater good takes a back seat to their own interests.

Right. You said "please don't tell me you're a jackson/sharpton fan." I responded in kind. They have good points to make at times. Sorry if I'm not in the knee-jerk station wagon with the rest of you and thoughtless America. But like I said before, so many white Americans (as shown in this thread) are the last to acknowledge racism in action in the US, but the first to rise up and criticize those who do bring up that racism happens.

Sorry kiddo you fail, but bring an apple for me on Monday and I'll give you a bite at extra credit.

The officer was surprised and confused by Gates' behavior, he had not ascertained what was going on and couldn't fathom the irrational behavior on Gates' part. He was trying to calm Gates down and ensure everythign was copacetic. Like I said, by the time the cuffs came out it had escalated to the point where the cop probably felt he couldn't back down. Unfortunate and in lieu of further escalation on Gates' part (like physical assault) the cop probably shouldn't have brought out the cuffs, but that's a heat-of-the-moment judgement call that's easy to monday morning qb. I'll tell you this, the officer showed a hell of alot more judgement and restraint then a typical DC area cop would show to anyone.

Read the report. Read Gates' side. Read Crowley's side. Read up on procedural law. Crowley did not arrest Gates for Disorderly until he was on his porch. Wanna know why? Do yeh? Do yeh?

Look it up yourself, because there's a key portion of what Disorderly Conduct offenses are that prove he was out to get Gates AFTER ascertaining was the owner and resident of the house he was in.

I've said it before, and I've said it again: have an opinion, but be fucking informed. Know the stories, know the law, know procedural law, and then have an opinion. All you're doing is running in circles, picking up and dropping a hybrid of facts and conjecture to build your lego castle of nonsense, and then being upset when it's so easily torn down.

Go. Get to it. Tell me what's so unique about Disorderly that proves Crowley was not at all interested in "justice," not at all interested in protecting Gates from the imaginary burglars they stopped looking for after they were shown ID, and that prove Crowley was being a fucking asshole who utilized a brief moment of opportunity he did not have before in order to do what he did.

I hope I don't have to drop any more hints. Not because I don't want to - but I'd hate for you to shatter my idea that you've half a functioning brain. Look up disorderly. It'll do you a world of good.

Myke - you're making your decision, not based on what went on in this individual case, but based on your preconceived notion of law enforcement and race relations.

"He's white - he's obviously racist."

I dare say, you sir, are the one displaying racist behavior.

It's not that he's white. Police on the whole have a significant, historic, and consistent pattern of anti-black treatment under the law. It's more complex than mere whiteness, and I reject your strawman that you offer in light of actually debating the facts and reports of the incident. You're afraid to do that.

UncleBob

07-24-2009, 09:13 PM

Police on the whole have a significant, historic, and consistent pattern of anti-black treatment under the law.

See, you're looking at this and then deciding that every situation is anti-black. Do you at least recognize the fact that this situation *could* have nothing to do with race?

depascal22

07-24-2009, 09:50 PM

Can't you realize that it could've had everything to do with race? Would the neighbor have called the cops if two white men were walking around a house? Would the cop have arrested a white man that was berating him in his own house?

And I'm not digging the "He's a friend of blacks therefore he couldn't be racist" line. If the chief of police is black, wouldn't you kiss his ass to get cushier jobs like the Diversity Awareness (or whatever that specific PD calls it) post? If that police department is like the military, it's not the most qualified for the post that gets it. It's the guy they want to get off the streets or away from the rest of the flight/squadron. "Hey, Rogers is a real piece of work. Can't do a damn thing. Why don't we make him do the sexual harassment seminar instead of working the beat this week?" "Yeah, that's the ticket."

And the whole "He's a youth coach, therefore he can't be racist" is another load of crap. Have you seen some of the youth coaches out there? Some of them are out for blood and wouldn't hesitate to bench their own kid if it meant a trophy that was a little nicer than all the others.

All that being said, this guy might be a regular joe that just got caught up in the situation. But aren't we paying these guys not to lose their cool? Does he fly off the handle next year because someone told him to fuck off?

camoor

07-25-2009, 01:17 AM

Nope. Sorry.

That cop is how all cops should act(Not the fat child abuser). You can't arrest someone simply because they won't calm down in their own home. Not being calm isn't a crime.

So, the one who didn't have respect for the law is the cop. Seeing as how exercising freedom of speech is a right and the cop arrested Gates for it.

Your video just proves there is more police out there who are unfit for the job and go unreasonably too far. Just like Crowley did. And you seem to be saying that since this is a known fact that cops cross the line frequently that Gates should have STFU. That's some argument...."Cops are dicks so give up your civil rights!"

You're right that cops should act like the guy in your traffic stop. But cops aren't perfect, even American cops who may be some of the most patient and least corrupt cops in the world. They are human beings who have good days and bad days, and some abuse their power. It's beyond naive to expect a cop to sit there while you throw a temper tantrum, create a scene, upset a crowd of people, approach him in a clearly agitated state while calling him all sorts of names and denegrating his mother.

Read the report. Read Gates' side. Read Crowley's side. Read up on procedural law. Crowley did not arrest Gates for Disorderly until he was on his porch. Wanna know why? Do yeh? Do yeh?

Look it up yourself, because there's a key portion of what Disorderly Conduct offenses are that prove he was out to get Gates AFTER ascertaining was the owner and resident of the house he was in.

I've said it before, and I've said it again: have an opinion, but be fucking informed. Know the stories, know the law, know procedural law, and then have an opinion. All you're doing is running in circles, picking up and dropping a hybrid of facts and conjecture to build your lego castle of nonsense, and then being upset when it's so easily torn down.

Go. Get to it. Tell me what's so unique about Disorderly that proves Crowley was not at all interested in "justice," not at all interested in protecting Gates from the imaginary burglars they stopped looking for after they were shown ID, and that prove Crowley was being a fucking asshole who utilized a brief moment of opportunity he did not have before in order to do what he did.

I hope I don't have to drop any more hints. Not because I don't want to - but I'd hate for you to shatter my idea that you've half a functioning brain. Look up disorderly. It'll do you a world of good.

It's not that he's white. Police on the whole have a significant, historic, and consistent pattern of anti-black treatment under the law. It's more complex than mere whiteness, and I reject your strawman that you offer in light of actually debating the facts and reports of the incident. You're afraid to do that.

I'm not upset Myke, it was just a little verbal banter. I'm not upset because the president, who has had a reasonable view all along, is backing down now that the facts are coming out. I'm not upset because it just so happens Crowley has a solid history of fairly treating all citizens, his fellow officers of all stripes are standing behind his good work, and there seems to be little chance for the usual suspects to further their political agenda by dragging his name and career through the mud. I'm not upset because America agrees with me.

Pardon me for saying so, but you seem a little more agitated then usual. Might I suggest laying off the Daily Kos koolaid before you decide to take a header off your ivory tower?

UncleBob

07-25-2009, 02:37 AM

Can't you realize that it could've had everything to do with race?

I'm not saying it wasn't racially motivated.

I'm not saying the cop wasn't in the wrong. In fact, I clearly said the cop was in the wrong.

However, nothing in the facts provided lead me to believe this is racially motivated. It may very well have been - but I'm not ready to call someone racist just because a white guy did something wrong to a black guy.

itachiitachi

07-25-2009, 08:21 AM

I point out that Gates' arrest had zero to do with the burglary and occurred well after the police had established that Gates was, in fact, the proper legal resident of this house. Facts corroborated by all reports and refuted by none of them. You have to extrapolate Crowley's past to make assumptions about how he behaved on this night in particular, in order to weave your fantasy that makes the victim the assailant.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/04/911-police-officer-r.html
http://arkansasmatters.com/content/news/weirdnews/fulltext?cid=219041

Hey look at this a white person arrested, but then she was let go because she was charged with breaking a law that didn't exist. By your logic the only explanation is the cop must be racist against white people.

Or you could realize a lot of cops are jerks to everyone and without knowing how Crowley treats white people who piss him off you have no baseline to compare his actions against, so no information can be assumed and to do so would be closed minded and biased.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-25-2009, 09:36 AM

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=598&sid=1106387

"About 21,000 people were arrested and released without charge in Maryland in 2006, according to the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System. Most of them were in Baltimore."

Reminds me of that in scene in Lord of War where Cage is cuffed by Hawke and let go after 24 hours, is there any shred of legality in that or is it just more Hollywood fiction?

mykevermin

07-26-2009, 03:17 PM

I'm not upset Myke, it was just a little verbal banter. I'm not upset because the president, who has had a reasonable view all along, is backing down now that the facts are coming out. I'm not upset because it just so happens Crowley has a solid history of fairly treating all citizens, his fellow officers of all stripes are standing behind his good work, and there seems to be little chance for the usual suspects to further their political agenda by dragging his name and career through the mud. I'm not upset because America agrees with me.

Pardon me for saying so, but you seem a little more agitated then usual. Might I suggest laying off the Daily Kos koolaid before you decide to take a header off your ivory tower?

You type a lot of words. But you couldn't be bothered to look up Disorderly Conduct.

*sigh*

You know why I get agitated? Because you act like you have a valid perspective on things that is on par with my own, despite having nothing informing you but your opinions. You're fucking lazy, but yet you keep on yammering.

Uncle Bob, you directed some interesting questions at me - once I shake this hangover off I'll try to respond to them.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-26-2009, 04:36 PM

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/disorderly_conduct.html

Disorderly Conduct

Almost every state has a disorderly conduct law that makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to "disturb the peace", or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger.

...

Is this what you're getting at?

mykevermin

07-26-2009, 04:41 PM

camoor

07-26-2009, 06:26 PM

That's just the definition. Now apply it to this situation to demonstrate that Crowley did not arrest/charge Gates to protect him from any would-be burglars in his home.

But good on yeh for doing what was evidently too strenuous for camoor.

The charge was disturbing the peace, of course. When you're trying to secure a scene, you don't have to arrest citizens if they are cooperating. However if a citizen refuses to listen to reason and acts in a non-cooperative way (such as refusing to answer questions while approaching an officer in an agitated state and verbally assaulting them as a crowd gathers), there are a host of charges that can be brought. Sometimes the primary motivation for arresting people is their safety, sometimes arresting a person before they are further endangered is the best option. All of these reasons would not be reflected in the technical charge although they do factor in the officer's decision process.

I had an opinion on the matter based on what Crowley said in one of his first interviews and I don't see how it's incompatible with the charge.

You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out, watch one of the myriad daily half-hour documentary shows on police, detectives, or lawyers. If Gates was pulled over on Broadway and proceeded to throw his temper tantrum, refusing to listen to reason, and was in danger of walking into traffic, he'd probably be hit with the same disorderly conduct charge. That's because there is no "In danger of walking into traffic due to temper tantrum" charge similar to how there is no "In danger of being stabbed in your house by a burgler hiding upstairs due to failing to inform officer of situation while throwing temper tantrum" charge.

You like to talk about nuance but you play semantics when it suits your agenda.

You know what I hate about this case - it was a piss-poor example to hold up as an example of injustice. I'm sure injustice happens everyday but when a foul-mouthed hothead "do you know how I am" professor makes a mess of his making into a huge media event it reinforces the idea that people who complain about injustice really don't have a case.

You threw out the baby with the bathwater Myke, you let your agenda trump the facts of the case and now your lack of impartiality is being exposed.

mykevermin

07-26-2009, 07:18 PM

camoor

07-26-2009, 09:47 PM

FFS. These laws are applied when they occur in public.

Which is why he was not arrested until he stepped outside his front door.

Why did he not want to cooperate earlier and step outside early on?

Because he, unlike you, understands what the law is.

He couldn't be charged with disorderly until he brought stepped outside his house acting the way he did.

Was it that hard to figure out? I'd hate to think so, but you've offered nothing to the contrary.

All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’

My lawyers later told me that that was a good move and had I walked out onto the porch he could have arrested me for breaking and entering.

http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/henry-l-gates-speaks-about-his-arrest-racism-or-cops-behaving-stupidly/

Lets put aside Gates conjecture that he was going to be arrested no matter what he did (if he had stepped outside and been arrested right away the Conn. police would have a lawsuit on their hands, and for good reason). Here Gates admits he has no idea what the law was, he was acting out of instinct. Do you think if he had any idea of what the law was he would have thrown his little temper tantrum and refused to answer the officer's questions? Can you find one any rational lawyer who would advise his client to act as Gates did from this point onward? I feel like you're nit-picking here because you don't want to see the overall picture, that no matter who you are if you mouth off to an officer and refuse to cooperate they're going to treat you as a suspect and pull you in the first chance they get. In this case feel Crowley also had a bad feeling about the situation and wanted to get it under control as quickly as possible. It may appear that I am being generous to Officer Crowley, but it's only after seeing him talk about it, comparing his account to Gates' account, and looking at Crowley's record (which includes commendations from his chief and fellow officers and a stint where he was hand-picked to teach cops how to avoid racial profiling). Gates may have book smarts but he lacks street smarts.

depascal22

07-26-2009, 10:02 PM

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/04/911-police-officer-r.html
http://arkansasmatters.com/content/news/weirdnews/fulltext?cid=219041

Hey look at this a white person arrested, but then she was let go because she was charged with breaking a law that didn't exist. By your logic the only explanation is the cop must be racist against white people.

Or you could realize a lot of cops are jerks to everyone and without knowing how Crowley treats white people who piss him off you have no baseline to compare his actions against, so no information can be assumed and to do so would be closed minded and biased.

You gave two examples where the cops had no idea if the person was white or black. If I had to bet, I'm pretty sure the operator could've believed that he was talking to a black person if he or she was swearing excessively. Unfortunately, it's one stereotype that gets attributed to black people. I've heard country white folk curse with the best of them but I'll still hear them get really pissed when a black man says motherfucker once.

I think it'll be hard for any of you to admit racism is still alive and well in America until you actually walk in a black man's shoes. We're usually the first to get questioned. We're the first to get pulled over. I've had cops threaten to arrest me for calling him sir. I guess he thought I was being disrespectful.

Hell, I heard "I hate $$$$ers" just last night. It wasn't a cop but the fact that someone would just blurt it out just for the fuck of it kind of puts everyone's view of a socially diverse America where everyone is accepted in the laugher category.

My wife's cousin would just threaten to date a black man when she wanted to piss off her parents. Threaten. Not bring a black man home for dinner. All she had to do was say, "I'm gonna find the first black boy I can find and he'll be my boyfriend." It sounds like something a kid would say but her dad would fly into a rage.

Strell

07-26-2009, 11:50 PM

"What the hell kind of country is this where I can't hate a man unless he's white?"

Thank you, Hank Hill.

/didn't read this topic at all

UncleBob

07-27-2009, 02:01 AM

I think it'll be hard for any of you to admit racism is still alive and well in America [...]

Has anyone here said racism doesn't exist?

Is anyone willing to stand up and say it now?

The fact is, you're jumping at the bit to call this incident racism. White man did bad to black guy, so it *MUST* be racism. Because all white men are racists.

Yeah, racism exists. It comes from everywhere.

itachiitachi

07-27-2009, 10:04 AM

You gave two examples where the cops had no idea if the person was white or black. If I had to bet, I'm pretty sure the operator could've believed that he was talking to a black person if he or she was swearing excessively. Unfortunately, it's one stereotype that gets attributed to black people. I've heard country white folk curse with the best of them but I'll still hear them get really pissed when a black man says motherfucker once.
I've never heard the of that stereo type.

And Actually you can usually tell if some one is black or white by there voice, second the had to arrest her is person so they knew she was white when they arrested her.

More over here are some other cases where white people where mistreated by cops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FnY6OKN3RI

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1640194.html

I think it'll be hard for any of you to admit racism is still alive and well in America until you actually walk in a black man's shoes. We're usually the first to get questioned. We're the first to get pulled over. I've had cops threaten to arrest me for calling him sir. I guess he thought I was being disrespectful.
No one said there is not racism, but that doesn't mean every time some one is a jerk to a black person that they are a racists.

Hell, I heard "I hate $$$$ers" just last night. It wasn't a cop but the fact that someone would just blurt it out just for the fuck of it kind of puts everyone's view of a socially diverse America where everyone is accepted in the laugher category.
Wow, you mean Americans will say crude, improper, and rascist things and find it funny?

My wife's cousin would just threaten to date a black man when she wanted to piss off her parents. Threaten. Not bring a black man home for dinner. All she had to do was say, "I'm gonna find the first black boy I can find and he'll be my boyfriend." It sounds like something a kid would say but her dad would fly into a rage.
Unless your wife's cousin is the daughter of officer Crowly this has nothing to do with this debate.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 10:50 AM

I feel like you're nit-picking here because you don't want to see the overall picture, that no matter who you are if you mouth off to an officer and refuse to cooperate they're going to treat you as a suspect and pull you in the first chance they get. In this case feel Crowley also had a bad feeling about the situation and wanted to get it under control as quickly as possible.

Except that (1) you are correct that mouthing off can get you in trouble with the police. I'm not saying that they should, or do, shrug it off. But I am saying that you are more likely to experience those cuffs for mouthing off if you are black. Also, that (2) what do you consider getting "the situation...under control?" What more is there to do now that you've established that the person you're questioning is the owner and resident of the house, and not, in fact, a burglar? What situation are you controlling when you've dropped the pursuit of said burglar to arrest the owner of the house for Disorderly?

See, you're looking at this and then deciding that every situation is anti-black. Do you at least recognize the fact that this situation *could* have nothing to do with race?

First things first, here's your money quote if that's all you want: yes, there is indeed a chance - a glint of a glint of a chance, that this has nothing to do with race. I would also remark that said chance is improbably low - but it still exists. Like "Cubs win the World Series" low.

Now, if you want a genuine answer (and I suspect you do, despite my general lack of niceties to you), I would argue (as I have before) that racism ≠ Crowley having malicious and/or racist thoughts. It's not "fuck this black asshole" that has to be considered to be racist.

It's institutional racism - the justified racism that I contend exists. Rationalized, justified, explained differential treatment due to minority status. The kind of racism that people support, like in Michelle Malkin's "In Defense of Internment." It's the "if you see something strange or suspicious in your neighborhood, you report it to the police." Except, in our America today, which is a helluva lot less integrated geographically than we think, simply being nonwhite in a neighborhood is enough to trigger suspicions. There's plenty of support for the idea of "driving while black" - after all, we applaud those who look after their own neighborhood to report to the police that things seem amiss. Unfortunately, things being amiss can simply mean "I see people who aren't from this neighborhood," and that is most easily triggered by the visible displays of nonwhiteness.

Which, as someone (elprincipe?) pointed out, could have come from the person who initially made the 911 call - not someone Gates knows, mind.

There were half a dozen police on the premises when Gates was arrested - why so many? Now I'm sure Cambridge is a more "ticket for speeding" kind of police jurisdiction, so nothing better to do might explain such a response. Was it fear of a burglary, which might be dangerous? Or fear of the respondent's race? Could be.

I think an audit study would show how the Cambridge police respond to similar emergency calls. Crowley's record may suggest he is an exemplar, but I'd like to see his record as well. As public servants given great power over citizens, this is not too much to ask, IMO.

Crowley may have acted with no racial malice, but that doesn't mean racism did not occur. Amadou Diallo, Omar J Edwards, and Dexter Brown may not have been shot/killed (save Brown) had they been white - but that doesn't mean they were shot because the firing officer(s) hated blacks. So it is indeed racism in those cases, but a more unconscious sort of stereotype internalization.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - conscious, willed disgust/dislike of another race is not the only racism in this world by a long shot; moreover, it's the least dangerous kind, because we're unaware that we possess the unconscious variety, and therefore do nothing to destroy it.

Speaking of overt racism, I saw a cat the other day (while driving to Pittsburgh) wearing a t-shirt that said "Adolf Hitler European Tour 1939-1943" on the back, with a list of cities he conquered and a list of locations of camps. While disgusting on the surface, that's not the kind of racism I'm afraid of. We all know that man is racist. It is those, however, who revile at the idea of this kind of racism but perpetuate their own differential treatment with no malice that are more dangerous. I.e., those who don't consider the possibility of testing bias in the case of how the tests were written for these firefighters. But that's on the topic of this thread, which, at this point, is remarkably off topic.

perdition(troy

07-27-2009, 11:38 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_caller

No race mentioned?

Ouch.

There were half a dozen police on the premises when Gates was arrested - why so many? Now I'm sure Cambridge is a more "ticket for speeding" kind of police jurisdiction, so nothing better to do might explain such a response. Was it fear of a burglary, which might be dangerous? Or fear of the respondent's race? Could be.

Those cops look extremely fearful of Gates race.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Henry_Gates_Porch_072109.jpg

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 11:48 AM

thrustbucket

07-27-2009, 11:57 AM

Myke, after reading your posts on racial relations over the years, it's starting to almost feel as if you are trying to convince us that there is no hope for it fairness at all, and the only way to make everyone get along is for something like 100% segregation - like on a state level. Or perhaps we can just pass some laws that only people of color can legally work with other people of color in any business or law matters. Seriously - It seems like you are that skeptical and jaded.

Either way, given a choice, I'd rather live in a totally segregated country/world than one where I am required to feel and actively practice white guilt, and strive for reparations and affirmative action in all we do. But before you try and say "well of course you would, your white, you'd get the better segregated portion of society in that case" - Know that really I am just sick of feeling somehow politically 'required' to bring a bag of historical racial complexities to every interaction I have with a race other than my own.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 12:00 PM

perdition(troy

07-27-2009, 02:04 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/27/911_tape_reveals_caller_did_not_bring_up_race_of_g ates.html

Audio of the call.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 02:16 PM

Read the police report. She mentioned race after the call and before any action was initiated by Crowley.

This is nothing more than semantic obfuscation; paying it any attention is to divert from the actual issue.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself. She didn't bring up race at point A is immaterial if she did bring it up at point B.

perdition(troy

07-27-2009, 02:20 PM

You never had to repeat yourself; I didn't post it specifically for you to listen to and comment on. If I did I would have posted: Audio of the call for myke to listen to because I care oh so much for his opinion on the situation.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 02:27 PM

It's simply irrelevant in light of your earlier claim that "No race mentioned? Ouch."

Race WAS mentioned, and you refuse to respond to that.

You're willfully peddling an incorrect account of events by ignoring something you KNOW occurred.

Which makes you a liar, and an unreliable source of information.

camoor

07-27-2009, 02:27 PM

yeah. not at all what I would suggest.

I'm interested in getting people to consider racism to be greater and more ingrained in our society than the dude in the Hitler shirt. That's the first step. And I'm not sure what the next step would be.

Education and disarming of privilege are my main concerns.

Noble goals, so why are you wasting your time tilting at windmills? You're acting like those creationists who start with a theory and work their way backwards.

You know what I see here - I see an imperious professor who is shocked that he was treated like a common citizen. I see a guy used to deferential treatment being outraged that he was treated with suspicion by a working-class officer (who showed up to the scene with a tip about burglers and a broken door), and then shocked when the officer arrested him after he stopped cooperating and threw a temper tantrum that drew an audience.

Now you can opine on your pop psychology theories about the subconscious of society (that's some high-concept BS that probably goes over well with your uni buddies). I'd rather hear what Gates said, hear what Crowley said, look at the histories of the two men, and use this information to theorize on what actually happened here in this case instead of coming in with a bunch of nonsensical Freudian subconscious baggage that predetermines my opinion on the matter.

KingBroly

07-27-2009, 02:36 PM

Gates' race wasn't mentioned, or at the very least someone mistakenly identified him as "hispanic" as the call put it. The call mentioned seeing 1 person and not seeing another, but saw 2 suitcases (large?), and I'm guessing that's where the idea of 2 people came from. I don't know who the cop on the phone was, but at the very least it seemed like he didn't want to go out there.

HowStern

07-27-2009, 08:54 PM

This just proves Officer Crowley is a liar.

He said the girl described them as black. She repeats herself about 3 times clearly saying she didn't get a good look at them in those calls.

UncleBob

07-27-2009, 09:12 PM

RAMSTORIA

07-27-2009, 09:21 PM

This just proves Officer Crowley is a liar.

He said the girl described them as black. She repeats herself about 3 times clearly saying she didn't get a good look at them in those calls.

not really. if you read the police report crowley talks with the 911 caller in person before approaching the house. she might not have said their race on the phone, but while waiitng for the police to arrive she may have seen they were black and told crowley when he arrived.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

HowStern

07-27-2009, 10:32 PM

^Yeah, I was thinking that but I'm pretty sure in the audio of the call she says "they are in the house now I didn't see what they looked like." Implying she missed her chance to catch a glimpse.

I'm not positive though. I don't feel like sitting through the call again. Although actually, yeah, here in this article I just re-read while writing this post she denies telling Crowley they were black and repeats she didn't see what they looked like.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_harvard_scholar_caller

@UncleBob, yeah the audio has been released.

KingBroly

07-27-2009, 10:38 PM

I thought she missed the look of one person, but saw another?

RAMSTORIA

07-27-2009, 11:16 PM

she didnt see them while on the phone, but she stuck around long enough for crowley to arrive, so she could have gotten a better look while waiting.

HowStern

07-27-2009, 11:50 PM

That's what I thought but no.

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.
"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/james_crowley) at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/

fullmetalfan720

07-28-2009, 12:29 AM

I saw this while browsing mippin on my cell phone today

"As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself."http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-pal-henry-gates-as-always-whitey.html
The site that this is from a website I haven't heard of before, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt, but wow.
GATES: Probably. I didn't know until -- in 1959 we were watching Mike Wallace's documentary called "The Hate that Hate Produced." It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn't believe -- I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people's faces and telling them off. It was great. I mean, it's what black people did behind closed doors, but they would never do it in -- I mean, they were too vulnerable to do it, say, where they worked, at the paper mill or downtown, as we would call it. And here was a guy who had the nerve to do that, and I think if I had been a character in a cartoon, my eyes would have gone Doing! -- like this. I couldn't believe it. As I sat cowering in a corner of our living room, I glanced over at Mama and her face was radiant. I mean, this smile -- beatific smile started to transform her face. And she said quite quietly, "Amen." And then she said, "All right now," and she sat up and she said, "Yes."http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-gates-on-whitey-malcolm-x-was.html

That's pretty hypocritical of Gates to say.

HowStern

07-28-2009, 01:17 AM

LOL @ gateway pundit

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907200036

@fullmetal, even if Gates did say that how is it hypocritical? He said it was great to see someone tell white people off?? I bet it fucking was. If someone treated me the way black people were treated 40 years ago I would think it was great to see the perpetrators told off too.

The mans race was beaten, excluded, hung, enslaved, abused and spit upon and finally someone stood up to it and he isn't allowed to take joy in that?

So, what do all the racist cop defenders, like camoor, have to say now that it has been confirmed that Crowley lied?

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 02:00 AM

We are now assured that one person is a liar, and it is not Gates.

Sorry if that means you finally have to admit racism happened.

camoor

07-28-2009, 07:54 AM

We are now assured that one person is a liar, and it is not Gates.

Sorry if that means you finally have to admit racism happened.

You're unbelievable. You define a man based on a an alleged police report mistake concerning a minor detail that really has no bearing on anything.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 08:18 AM

camoor

07-28-2009, 08:30 AM

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119135&postcount=220

I didn't say it was Crowley. There are more than 2 people involved here.

You have a police report and an attorney telling two inconsistent stories. One of them, at the least, is necessarily wholly untrue - and not in the "oops" kind of way. In the "I'm not telling you the truth and I know it" kind of way.

Act like a grown up, let's discuss the issue, and stop singling out my posts because you want to disagree with me. Have some fucking integrity.

I was only talking about Crowley, and his response as compared to any other police response to a reported break-in.

You want to crucify a woman's reputation because she reported what she thought was a break-in, I think it's disgusting. It's why the unwritten 11th commandment in America is "don't get involved", because if the lawyers don't get you the media will.

And the only player who started this whole thing by refusing to cooperate with police requests and generally acting like an ass is the only guy you want to defend.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 09:24 AM

Let me get this straight - you're sitting in the spotlight of proof, between the caller's attorney's statement and what is written in the police statement, that one of them is necessarily lying - and you continue to assault Gates, defend the status quo, covers your eyes and ears to racism, and provide support for two people, one of whom is a willful liar, because...well, I don't get your rationale.

I'm done with you until you such time as you become an adult. To maintain no change in your perspective despite all the facts and evidence, coupled with your arguments the past few days repeatedly demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the course of events or the nuances of the law whatsoever (and how they played out in this instance), I'm done with you. If you're too lazy to read and think on your own, then I've better things to do in my day than support a petulant child of an ideologue such as yourself.

itachiitachi

07-28-2009, 10:10 AM

covers your eyes and ears to racism, and provide support for two people, one of whom is a willful liar, because...well, I don't get your rationale.
You still have no proof that Crowley would act any differently to a white person, provide that proof and we will agree that he is racist. Continue to act like a child and call other people blind and imply the are stupid then you're then one that appears to be prejudice.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 10:40 AM

We'll find out when we discover whether he or the woman was lying, won't we?

Race being mentioned in the police report but denied by the woman means either the woman was behaving in a racist manner and lies about it, or that Crowley is indeed acting in a racist manner.

Disregarding my many posts earlier that you either can't comprehend or did not read (I would guess a combination of the two) that point out that Crowley doesn't have to be a conscious, willing, "fuck that black dude" racist for this situation to be racist. I didn't see you have any response to that. You're cherry picking and bringing up points we've defeated long ago. You're quite boring, really.

HowStern

07-28-2009, 10:58 AM

camoor

07-28-2009, 12:21 PM

Those 911 calls back up Whalen's story 99.9999% She states in them one drove off and one is in the house. That was her last chance to see them. At best she could have only gotten a look at Gates through his window after the calls. That's only one black man.

She repeatedly says she didn't see anyones skin color. Maybe one was hispanic. Maybe. Meaning that when Gates heard about a break-in with two burglars the first place his mind went was "two black men" according to his report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip)

Freud again! There sure is alot of psychoanalysis going on, maybe in the next post we could try delving into Crowley's past lives to see why he was karmically destined to have a confrontation with Gates.

I see the PC thought police are hard at work, amazing you can know what is occuring in the subconscious of a police officer based on an alleged mistake about his timeline of learning about the appearance of the suspects. We have gone beyond far-fetched, you and Myke are truly in the land of loony consipiracy theories and crackpot pop psychology now.

Maybe noone was acting in a racist manner, are we now not supposed to identify suspects based on physical characteristics? I mean, if the one-armed man is breaking the lock on the door should we neglect to mention that for fear of insulting the physically disabled lobby?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-28-2009, 12:35 PM

The truth is: Gates hired some black people to rob his house for insurance money and he was the lookout. Honest. That's exactly what happened.

HowStern

07-28-2009, 01:11 PM

Freud again! There sure is alot of psychoanalysis going on, maybe in the next post we could try delving into Crowley's past lives to see why he was karmically destined to have a confrontation with Gates.

I see the PC thought police are hard at work, amazing you can know what is occuring in the subconscious of a police officer based on an alleged mistake about his timeline of learning about the appearance of the suspects. We have gone beyond far-fetched, you and Myke are truly in the land of loony consipiracy theories and crackpot pop psychology now.

Maybe noone was acting in a racist manner, are we now not supposed to identify suspects based on physical characteristics? I mean, if the one-armed man is breaking the lock on the door should we neglect to mention that for fear of insulting the physically disabled lobby?

You completely fail to understand. It's not the use of the word "black" as a description that's offensive.

It's the fact that the caller never used it. Confirmed she couldn't see what they looked like. Yet when Crowley heard about 2 burglars his first thought was "2 black men."

That's the offensice part. His assumption the burglars were black. Not the use of the word black.

ToadallyAwesome

07-28-2009, 02:20 PM

Maybe it was the dispatcher that said they were black!

That's not unreasonable. It is like that telephone game you play in grade school.

I also thought racism applied to something with intent and more malevolent - otherwise it is considered a prejudice. Similar to being wary of guys with giant beards covered in tatoos or assuming that all cute blond girls are nice.

HowStern

07-28-2009, 02:29 PM

No the dispatcher didn't say it....The police report states that Crowley was told it by the witness. Which 1)It's abundantly clear she didn't see the 2 men clearly based on the 911 calls. 2)She plain right out says she never even talked to crowley.

Racism is prejudice based on race.

Doesn't have to be malevolent or even intentionally hateful.

KingBroly

07-28-2009, 02:35 PM

You completely fail to understand. It's not the use of the word "black" as a description that's offensive.

It's the fact that the caller never used it. Confirmed she couldn't see what they looked like. Yet when Crowley heard about 2 burglars his first thought was "2 black men."

That's the offensice part. His assumption the burglars were black. Not the use of the word black.

How do you know what the guy was thinking?

HowStern

07-28-2009, 02:38 PM

omfg..Please read the links if you are going to join in the discussion..

I know what he was thinking BECAUSE HE WROTE IT IN THE POLICE REPORT.

Seriously. Read up about the incident before posting.

edit: sorry to be so snappy :P

RAMSTORIA

07-28-2009, 03:13 PM

It's the fact that the caller never used it. Confirmed she couldn't see what they looked like. Yet when Crowley heard about 2 burglars his first thought was "2 black men."

thats unfair. the police report is written after the fact. its not like he was jotting this down on his way to the scene and just assumed they were black. after the incident he knew the men were black and could have just slipped up on the police report. its likely a very minor mistake that youre trying to twist into unequivocal proof that crowley has disdain for black men.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 03:24 PM

Except the police report said he spoke with the caller before entering the home - her attorney's claim is that none of this ever happened, not that it did happen but race wasn't mentioned.

There is therefore somebody lying - they met and talked or they didn't. And it happens to be the same spot where race is brought up. This is a far more serious violation than misremembering something innocently, which witnesses do all the time. This is either Crowley saying something happened that did not, or the witness lying about something she did say and do.

Alternately, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-wells/hard-truths-and-the-teach_b_245856.html

An op-ed that I think many of you will find more agreeable than I. Too much fence-sitting for my tastes.

RAMSTORIA

07-28-2009, 03:36 PM

the fact that the witness has an attorney involved makes me very skeptical of anything she says. shes a 911 caller, she shouldnt need a lawyer. im sure shes getting far more attention then she ever thought she would with this, but still, she needs a lawyer for what? to talk to the press? that seems a bit excessive (and unecessary).

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 03:43 PM

i won't disagree with that.

EDIT: I will say, however, that she's partially backed up by the audio of her call. What's incongruous right now rests b/w her and the officer - whether or not they talked prior to Crowley going to the house.

KingBroly

07-28-2009, 03:47 PM

Isn't it a felony to make a false claim to the police? Maybe she needs it for that in case they decide to press charges. Skeptical at this stage? Most likely.

I don't think the question of this case is who's lying, but how many and how badly.

HowStern

07-28-2009, 03:50 PM

Yeah I imagine if a police report said I stated something I didn't, with a case that got the attention of the president, I would probably retain a lawyer too.

RAMSTORIA

07-28-2009, 03:51 PM

Isn't it a felony to make a false claim to the police? Maybe she needs it for that in case they decide to press charges. Skeptical at this stage? Most likely.

ok, that makes sense, but they havent leveled any charges, and i havent heard from any source that they are even thinking about charging her.

i wonder if this would still be in the news if obama hadnt opened his mouth about the incident...

itachiitachi

07-29-2009, 09:51 AM

Disregarding my many posts earlier that you either can't comprehend or did not read (I would guess a combination of the two) that point out that Crowley doesn't have to be a conscious, willing, "fuck that black dude" racist for this situation to be racist. I didn't see you have any response to that. You're cherry picking and bringing up points we've defeated long ago. You're quite boring, really.
That's nice, whether he acted he with ill intent or not you still have to show the he would have treated a white person better in a similar situation.

dmaul1114

07-29-2009, 01:04 PM

Yeah, it's really hard to prove any racism or racial profiling here. It could be there in some form (and probably likely is) but it's not overt and could never be proven one way or the other so the race angle of this story really needs to go away IMO. At best you could say the neighbor wouldn't have called the cops if it was a white man and his white driver (despite saying she never mentioned race), or maybe the cop wouldn't have arrested a white person for mouthing off to him like that.

But it's really just a bad situation where Gates over reacted and mouthed off to the cop and started playing the race card right away (which a white person couldn't have done), and the cop over reacted by arresting him for disorderly conduct.

Though I'd be interested in hearing the tapes if the department does release them to hear what Gates said and hear how the officer tried to defuse the situation (if he did) before arresting him. That would be much more telling than all this speculation.

But without having the whole facts, the main thing that bothers me is Gates reaction and apparently playing the race card right away. If I was trying to force open my door with a friend/driver as I forgot my key or it didn't work or whatever, I'd be happy my neighbor cared enough to call it in and happy the cops showed up quickly for once personally as it would make me feel safer in my neighborhood. Especially where I lived in Maryland, though someone did get robbed and pistol whipped in my new condo complex in Atlanta last week as well.

mykevermin

07-29-2009, 01:27 PM

dmaul1114

07-29-2009, 01:34 PM

Given the historical and consistent pattern of disproportionate racial profiling and discriminatory treatment by police, which, as a scholar of policing I'm sure you're well aware of, I'm quite surprised that you would fault someone for reacting in the way Gates did.

I'm well aware of the history, but that doesn't mean people should assume the worst of every cop and play the race card so easily. And again, that's without hearing the tapes and seeing how the situation played out--the cop may well have said something that gave Gates cause to react as he did. But people that are quick to assume racism and play the race card annoy me nearly as much as racists do.

But I really want to hear the tape. If the cop said something to set Gates off, then my view will 100% change. But if the cop just showed up, asked for ID and asked to check the house to make sure there wasn't an intruder (he has no way of knowing for 100% sure that Gates/his driver were who the neighbor called about--could have been another person who already broke in and was hiding in the house), then Gates reaction was completely unwarranted. Like I said, I'd be happy the cops showed up quick and were thorough in checking things if it happened to me since my old (and apparently my new) neighborhood had/has issues with robberies, burglaries and car break ins/thefts.

But again, no way to know without hearing the tapes and seeing how it played out with exactly what the cop said (if anything) that set Gates off. So I remain very tentative in my opinion on the matter, pending more facts.

But also, as a policing scholar who works closely with cops, I tend to be more inclined to wait for facts and not assume profiling/racism in a case where there isn't clear evidence of it until the facts are out. Versus someone like. you who are very concerned with racial issues which puts you on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to speculation. Nothing wrong with that, we just come from different value systems on these issues.