Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
There's also the fact that the 911 caller's statement contradicts the police report regarding the attribution of race prior to encountering Gates (and simply denying that they talked before Crowley went to the house).

I'm prone to believing a police report that seems to adequately specify this incident over a person who has retained an attorney to speak for her - but on her side, she can rest on not having mentioned race during her emergency call at all. In the end, irrespective of Gates, either the caller or Crowley is guilty of making a monumental lie about their account of events. and I'm *very* interested to see which of the two it is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

Oh that Huffington-post, why don't they ever pick a side?

Why don't I find it hard to believe you think the huffington-post is too moderate? You've gone beyond extremist, you're acting like a defense lawyer here. Trying to distract with side issues, trying to insinuate that witness testimony over small details matters more then the big picture.

I'm glad fellow posters like Itachiitachi keep their eye on the ball - would Crowley have treated a white person better in a similar situation? To my mind you've never come close, never really even attempted, to put forward a reasonable case that he would have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There's also the fact that the 911 caller's statement contradicts the police report regarding the attribution of race prior to encountering Gates (and simply denying that they talked before Crowley went to the house).

I'm prone to believing a police report that seems to adequately specify this incident over a person who has retained an attorney to speak for her - but on her side, she can rest on not having mentioned race during her emergency call at all. In the end, irrespective of Gates, either the caller or Crowley is guilty of making a monumental lie about their account of events. and I'm *very* interested to see which of the two it is.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, like I said, there's a lot of info that needs to come out before I can form a firm opinion for sure.

But like you, I tend to believe the police report over her. The tape of the call doesn't mean she didn't mention race if Crowley stopped by her house first before going over to Gates. But you're right that it will be interesting to see who is lying here, irrespective of Gates.
 
[quote name='camoor']=
...would Crowley have treated a white person better in a similar situation? To my mind you've never come close, never really even attempted, to put forward a reasonable case that he would have.[/QUOTE]

That's the key question and it's one that we can probably never answer.

Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

My gut feeling is that he would have, that Crowley just had enough of putting up with the attitude and non-cooperation and said "fuck it" and arrested him and that it had nothing to do with race.

He showed up, and was just doing his job and trying to make sure there wasn't an attempted break in and wanted to make sure there wasn't any intruder in or around the house that got there before Gates etc., and just blew up at the way Gates reacted.

So I do agree more or less with the stance taken in that column.

But again, that's just a gut feeling and I really need more info (ideal the police tape--assuming we can hear both Gates and Crowley right from the start to see what set it off) to form any kind of firm opinion. Especially with problems with the story like the contradictions between the police report and witness comments Myke noted above.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why don't I find it hard to believe you think the huffington-post is too moderate? You've gone beyond extremist, you're acting like a defense lawyer here. Trying to distract with side issues, trying to insinuate that witness testimony over small details matters more then the big picture.[/quote]
The devil's in the details. My cop brother always said you could tell when a report was bullshit because the details would be shitty. He said cops are constantly cataloging the events as they happen (especially vet cops) because of their conditioning to the paperwork. When things get... unusual, something's up.

Reasonable people coming to reasonable conclusions that are in such conflict makes for interesting reading.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's the key question and it's one that we can probably never answer.

Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

My gut feeling is that he would have, that Crowley just had enough of putting up with the attitude and non-cooperation and said "fuck it" and arrested him and that it had nothing to do with race.

He showed up, and was just doing his job and trying to make sure there wasn't an attempted break in and wanted to make sure there wasn't any intruder in or around the house that got there before Gates etc., and just blew up at the way Gates reacted.

So I do agree more or less with the stance taken in that column.

But again, that's just a gut feeling and I really need more info (ideal the police tape--assuming we can hear both Gates and Crowley right from the start to see what set it off) to form any kind of firm opinion. Especially with problems with the story like the contradictions between the police report and witness comments Myke noted above.[/QUOTE]

i think it would have played out with a white guy being arrested as well. i still think, as i said earlier, that gates was likely arrested because of the crowd of people watching and the other police officers watching. crowley probably just made an example of gates when arresting him, it may have been different if it was just gates and crowley with no crowd.
 
[quote name='camoor']

I'm glad fellow posters like Itachiitachi keep their eye on the ball - would Crowley have treated a white person better in a similar situation? To my mind you've never come close, never really even attempted, to put forward a reasonable case that he would have.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can. Hypothetically, if a white officer does treat a white person better in a similar situation than it stands to reason there wouldn't be a arrest. In which case whatever proof you need to say that white officers treats whites differently is gone. The white guy wouldn't file a complaint that says he was disrespecting the white officer enough to warrant getting arrested; yet he wasn't arrested. And the white officer wouldn't write in his report(assuming he writes a report) that while said white guy was acting up enough to get arrested, he ultimately decided not to because the guy was white.
 
The issue isn't whether or not a white man would have been arrested for the same thing.

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?

In my opinion it is because the first thing he thought of when he was told 2 men were breaking into a house was "2 black people".

This thought in his head was so clear and vivid that he could have sworn he was actually informed of it. And so he wrote it in the report that way.

It's a subconcious racism.

Has someone ever started a sentence to you something like "Oh, the cleaning crew at my work..." and immediately your brain pictures them as mexican? I'll admit it has happened to me. It's because everywhere I have worked the cleaning crew was mexican. Immediately I shamefully brush the thought off knowing it's stereotypical. But it is obvious it interfered with Crowley's job as it popped up in his report.

If this is, indeed, what happened.
 
I could see that type of subconscious racism. Though even that's more based on experience than hatred of blacks (which is the true definition of racism). A cop would think that if most people they have personally arrested for burglary/break in their areas have been black.

Not that that makes making such assumptions at all right, but there's more toward those kind of stereotypical assumptions than just sheer racial hatred or bias. Case in point--some studies have shown that black police officers hold similar stereotypes of expecting offenders to be black for certain crimes in certain areas etc. etc.

Same with your cleaning crew example. It's not that you (or I) am racist and think Hispanics can only do cleaning type jobs or any other negative connotation related to race. It's just years of experience of working in places, staying in hotels, etc. where the vast majority of the cleaning crew was Hispanic. So I'd say such things are subconscious stereotypes based on experience rather than subconscious racism--but that's really just semantics I suppose.

But then again it's really the direction of the image. If you meet a Hispanic person and assume they are a cleaning person, a busboy in a restaurant or work construction etc. that's pretty racist. But I don't see it as racist to expect the majority of people in those positions to be Hispanic when you eat out, or see your office cleaning crew etc. as that's just based on the actual demographic make up you've encountered in those occupations in your area rather than any racial beliefs--conscious or subconscious.

But, getting back on topic, even if that is the case, it doesn't mean there was racial profiling or that Crowley treated Gates a certain way on the scene because of his race, or that he would have acted differently if he showed up and found two white men instead of the black men he was expecting.

And that's assuming that he made that mistake and the woman isn't lying about talking to him after the 911 call and saying she saw two black males.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wannabe-Hero is walking down the street. He hears a scream behind him. He spins around to see it's an old woman screaming that someone snatched her satchel. She didn't see who. Wannabe-hero wants to help.

He sees one black male dressed in 'hip hop' clothes, and one white male dressed in a business suit both running in different directions from the old lady, both are carrying satchels.

If wannabe-hero chases the black male, is he being racist?
Is the answer to that question only yes if wannabe-hero is not black?

Is racial profiling always racism?
 
That's a bit racist---but you confounded the situation with class/dress style since the white is in business clothes.

If you said two sloppily dressed young males, one black and one white and he chased the black one then it would be racist for sure.

But kind of a silly scenario as the lady would likely be pointing at who took it, or the hero could yell "Which one?" etc. :D


But I get your point. Racial profiling isn't always based on racism--it's based often on the majority of offenders of certain crimes in a certain area being a certain race. But it leads to negative impacts on minorities in said areas who are viewed with more suspicion for no reason other than their race/class which i where the problems and racist treatments come in. Which is why it's unacceptable.
 
[quote name='HowStern']

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?

In my opinion it is because the first thing he thought of when he was told 2 men were breaking into a house was "2 black people".

[/QUOTE]

hes not writing the police report on his to the scene. he writes it after the fact, when he knows the two guys involved are black. just because the report isnt corroborated by the 911 caller doesnt mean crowley thinks (in this case or any case he works on) "two guys breakin in a house, must be some blacks".
 
[quote name='HowStern']The issue isn't whether or not a white man would have been arrested for the same thing.

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?[/QUOTE]

Really? That's the issue? Because this thread popped up before the report did, if I'm correct...

[quote name='dmaul1114'][...]hatred of blacks (which is the true definition of racism).[/QUOTE]

Ummm... no. Assuming that you know you can be racist against any race (not just "blacks"), you don't have to hate said race to be racist. Racism is simply believing that one race is superior to another based solely on the race. You don't have to hate someone to think you're better than them.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.[/QUOTE]

Actually, throw the race card back in there - say it was a black cop and a white citizen. That'd be interesting.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']hes not writing the police report on his to the scene. he writes it after the fact, when he knows the two guys involved are black. just because the report isnt corroborated by the 911 caller doesnt mean crowley thinks (in this case or any case he works on) "two guys breakin in a house, must be some blacks".[/QUOTE]

He never saw the other guy. The other guy drove off according to the caller while she was on the line with 911. So he only knew one guy was black.

Plus he wrote in the report, very specifically, "The witness told me she saw two black men breaking into the house."

I take this to mean that as soon as he heard about 2 robbers he immediately assumed 2 black men because race was never mentioned by anyone else.

He subconsciously assumed it on a level where he actually remembered it being told to him that way.

It happens all the time. Someone says one thing and you hear a slightly different thing because of your own thoughts changing it up.


@UncleBob, now that we know the facts, yes, that is the issue. Or we could continue to speculate pretending we haven't learned more about the case... :/
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Ummm... no. Assuming that you know you can be racist against any race (not just "blacks"), you don't have to hate said race to be racist. Racism is simply believing that one race is superior to another based solely on the race. You don't have to hate someone to think you're better than them.
[/quote]

Well, clearly I know it doesn't apply just to blacks. :D I didn't mean it the way it came out.

But fair point on that. I suppose one can think their own race superior to others without hating the other races. But I'm sure there's a damn high correlation between that belief and hatred toward the "inferior" races.

Actually, throw the race card back in there - say it was a black cop and a white citizen. That'd be interesting.
Click to expand...

Again, it probably wouldn't make much difference. Black cops tend to share the same assumptions about most criminals in the area being black (or hispanic depending on area) as there white colleagues working the same beats.

So if there was any racial profiling here, it likely would have happened with a black cop as well (or not happened if the suspects were white regardless of race of the officer).
 
[quote name='HowStern']He never saw the other guy. The other guy drove off according to the caller while she was on the line with 911. So he only knew one guy was black.

Plus he wrote in the report, very specifically, "The witness told me she saw two black men breaking into the house."

I take this to mean that as soon as he heard about 2 robbers he immediately assumed 2 black men because race was never mentioned by anyone else.

He subconsciously assumed it on a level where he actually remembered it being told to him that way.

It happens all the time. Someone says one thing and you hear a slightly different thing because of your own thoughts changing it up.
[/QUOTE]

There's just no way to know for sure. He could have just been mis-remebering what the witness said after he met and talked to Gates and found out the driver was also black. Easy to mis-remember an earlier conversation after you've gotten more details yourself.

So it really tells us nothing about whether or not he assumed the suspects were black from the call.

But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's just no way to know for sure. He could have just been mis-remebering what the witness said after he met and talked to Gates and found out the driver was also black. Easy to mis-remember and early conversation after you've gotten more details yourself.

So it really tells us nothing about whether or not he assumed the suspects were black from the call.

But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, we'll probably never know for sure about Crowley. But his colleagues sure are showing their true colors:

[quote name='Msut77']http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20215609/detail.html[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='HowStern']@UncleBob, now that we know the facts, yes, that is the issue. Or we could continue to speculate pretending we haven't learned more about the case... :/[/QUOTE]

Or, now that we're learning more about the case, we can twist the facts to fit what we already stated our decision on the case was, without taking the facts at face value.
 
When will people learn, you don't write anything in an email you wouldn't want the world to see. Though i'm actually glad this was caught.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

First: http://gis.ci.cambridge.ma.us/census2000/gif/fullsize/race_piecharts.gif

Second, presuming the race of the accused when it is not stated is, in fact, racist. It's even more racist when you are talking about a predominantly white area like Cambridge.

I don't know how it's ok to presume that alleged criminals must be minorities.
 
*IF* the statistics were to show that a particular group of people consisted of a large majority of one type of race, is it racists to assume that a person from that group might be a member of that race? Or is it just stats and probability?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']First: http://gis.ci.cambridge.ma.us/census2000/gif/fullsize/race_piecharts.gif

Second, presuming the race of the accused when it is not stated is, in fact, racist. It's even more racist when you are talking about a predominantly white area like Cambridge.

I don't know how it's ok to presume that alleged criminals must be minorities.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's ok as it is ignorant for sure, but I just don't call it racist personally. Just a stereotypical expectation based on the majority of street criminals committing robberies, burglaries etc. in most areas (and in pop culture--tv shows, movies) etc. being minority. Making that assumption based on that knowledge/experience doesn't imply viewing minorities as inferior in and off itself IMO--so I don't call it racist.

And sure Cambridge is majority white--but most criminals don't commit crimes in their home area--especially burglaries. They're going to go to a nicer neighborhood where the homes have more valuables. Hell take my new condo complex. I've seen probably 30-40 people so far, every single one has been white. The armed robbery suspects in the recent mini-crime wave are all black. Not to mention they want to work were people are less likely to recognize them, their cars etc.

So the demographics of the "target area" point doesn't stand too much IMO. Even in white areas most of the break ins, auto thefts etc. are going to be by minorities. At least white areas in metropolitan regions with large minority populations close by. Obviously not in a place like WV where it's like 96% white in the whole state. :D

But for racism vs. stereotyping, to me it's kind of like this:

Hearing about a crime and assuming the perpetrators are minorities as the majority of street criminals are minority= stereotyping.

Seeing minorities on the street or near your home and being scared as you think they're probably criminals= racist.

It's the old logical fallacy. Most street criminals committing burglaries, robberies etc. being minority doesn't mean that most minorities are criminals.

But it's really just semantics of what you want to call stereotyping and what you want to call racism. You're very interested and concerned with race issue. I'm conscious of racial issues, particularly with policing, but not to near the extent you are so I'm less free with throwing out the racism card. I'm more apt to say stereotyping and reserve the racism label for clear cases of profiling, racial slurs, and other things tied 100% to race rather than being ignorant assumption based on actual stats and experience/common knowledge of the majority racial make up of offenders for certain types of crimes in urban areas.

And again that's not saying that stereotyping is a good think or ok in anyway. It's 100% ignorant. I just don't label making that kind of assumption as racism, using the racial inferiority/hatred definition of racism. It's just a stereotypical belief based on the demographics of apprehended street criminals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.

also, I would argue it's far, far, far more than semantics. covert racism is the way things are done in this day and age, yet many people cling to a rubric of proving racism that rests of such a heavy burden of proof (one, ironically, that's about as stringent as the burden of proof required by hate crimes laws that the very same folks tend to hate so much ;)).

unintentionally racist behavior is still racist.

"Let's talk about middle eastern issues; muhammad, you probably have a good idea of what that's like. Why don't you start?" - as the basis of a hypothetical classroom discussion, this is indeed racist. Malicious? Certainly not. Racist? You betcha.

so calling out unintentionally racist behavior that still happens to be racist is great - without access to one's subconcious, which none of us have, it's impossible, mostly, to separate out racist behavior that is the result of goodwill, mere ignorance (in the naivete sense), or malicious hatred (among other types). None of them are desirable.

And making someone aware that they are behaving in a racist manner is important - particularly if they are unaware of it. Benevolent racism is still racism. Food Lion had a "black history month" sale a decade and a half ago (may have been one store, for all I know) where watermelon and fried chicken were the sale specials. Good intentioned? Well, they were on sale, so perhaps they were. Impossible to say if it's malicious of simply the result of an incredibly foolish plan. That doesn't change, however, that it's remarkably racist.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.[/QUOTE]

I said *IF* the stats showed... IF

For example, (although there probably isn't really a "stat" for this, per say) If there was a stat that said 99.9% of people that go into a women's restroom are female, would it be sexist to say "Well, I bet the person in this women's restroom is female!"?

Let's say I had a stat that said 85% of the Latin music (the real stuff, with Spanish packaging and everything) sold in my store was purchased by those of Mexican decent. Would it be racist to say "Hey, we sold this Latin CD yesterday! I bet it was a Mexican!"?

What if there were stats that showed black basketball players were overall better players, on average, than any other race. Would it be racist to look at a player's stats and say "Damn, he's good. Must be black."?

Say there's a stat that shows most individuals named Mohammad are of middle eastern decent. Would it be racist to read the name Mohammad and assume the individual is of middle eastern decent?
 
By the way, do you have any kind of source on that Food Lion claim? The only thing I could find via Google was this thread (damn, Google is quick!).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]
The cop was doing his job, if Gates thought it was racial profiling then there are much more professional and mature was to deal with it the yelling racist! racist! and saying "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside,"

Cops also have a historical and consistent pattern of being assholes, but if a cops pulls someone over and that person immediately starts calling the cop an asshole then they are going to get a similar treatment to Gates even if they had done nothing wrong.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']so calling out unintentionally racist behavior that still happens to be racist is great - without access to one's subconcious, which none of us have, it's impossible, mostly, to separate out racist behavior that is the result of goodwill, mere ignorance (in the naivete sense), or malicious hatred (among other types). None of them are desirable.[/QUOTE]

You almost get it here, but not quite.

Separating out neutral behavior from behavior motivated by racial factors is very difficult without access to the subconscious.

The problem with your mindset is that you can't imagine an action that was unmotivated by racial factors. You don't allow that possibility - it's either intentional racist behavior or unconscious racist behavior in Myke's book. Furthermore, right off the bat you dismiss Gates for demonstratibly classist and racist behavior (IE 'do you know who I am' Gates looking at a white cop, assuming that the cop is treating Gates differently then any other suspect, and calling Crowley a racist within 5 minutes of meeting him based on his appearance and job) whereas you take a cop to task for allegedly subconscious racist behavior with no evidence except for a minor police report detail that was found out days later and may not have any significance.
 
camoor, you can't be serious.

Your a black guy. You are trying to get into your house but the door is jammed. You are doing this in broad daylight. On the front porch. Not trying to be stealthy in any way shape or form. You finally get into your house. A white cop walks up and says "What are you robbing the house? Prove you live here."

How is your first thought not to scream at the guy about being racist.


Also, it doesn't matter when the detail of the false claim on the report was found out. It's significant. If anything can be proved from it I doubt.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I said *IF* the stats showed... IF

For example, (although there probably isn't really a "stat" for this, per say) If there was a stat that said 99.9% of people that go into a women's restroom are female, would it be sexist to say "Well, I bet the person in this women's restroom is female!"?

Let's say I had a stat that said 85% of the Latin music (the real stuff, with Spanish packaging and everything) sold in my store was purchased by those of Mexican decent. Would it be racist to say "Hey, we sold this Latin CD yesterday! I bet it was a Mexican!"?

What if there were stats that showed black basketball players were overall better players, on average, than any other race. Would it be racist to look at a player's stats and say "Damn, he's good. Must be black."?

Say there's a stat that shows most individuals named Mohammad are of middle eastern decent. Would it be racist to read the name Mohammad and assume the individual is of middle eastern decent?[/QUOTE]

Although my response was geared to dmaul's claim of blacks being the majority of criminals...

Finding the location of the target where we can say it's no longer racism but demographics is a difficult, difficult task. Your examples are not close to black involvement in crime in terms of relative share, so that doesn't suddenly make it ok to say "a burglary! I bet it was a black dude!" or some other equivalent. And in an area as predominantly white as Cambridge it certainly isn't okay to think that way.

Don't have a source on the Food Lion thing - that was something I recall from a decade and a half ago. Some quick googling shows that Rainbow (nice chain in the MSP area) did fried chicken and collard greens in their circulars. My point wasn't to say these companies were bad or racist or should be boycotted - but to point out how I understand racism in society. It's individual, it's structural, it's unintentional, it's vindictive, it's benevolent, and it's simple naive. But it is still racism. Nobody needs to boycott Rainbow - not every response to "hey, that's racist" should be to vilify and destroy everything about the person and their character. There are multiple appropriate responses.

But that so often becomes the case when identifying racism that we tend to get very, highly defensive of being called racist (e.g, the 911 caller's meandering, hyperdefensive, unrepentant press conference yesterday) that we ignore the racist potential our actions had - whether we meant them or not.

I do feel bad for Whalen, and would love to find out which of the two - her or Crowley - are lying. Either she's in full-on CYA/lie your ass off mode, or Crowley really screwed up and is doing something that can't be attributed to "misremembering" the order of events. Talking with Whalen is what is being disputed. His report says he did, she says they never did. So there's not really room for reasonable "mistakes" here by the lying party. One is engaging in the willful, deceitful act of full-on bullshittery.

By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/
 
[quote name='HowStern']camoor, you can't be serious.[/quote]

Camoor doesn't have much credibility on this subject. He can be reasonable at times but loses his damn mind when anything involving race pops up.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Why would we want to defend someone that's clearly being racist?[/QUOTE]

Because that is how cons roll?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.

also, I would argue it's far, far, far more than semantics. covert racism is the way things are done in this day and age, yet many people cling to a rubric of proving racism that rests of such a heavy burden of proof (one, ironically, that's about as stringent as the burden of proof required by hate crimes laws that the very same folks tend to hate so much ;)).

unintentionally racist behavior is still racist.

"Let's talk about middle eastern issues; muhammad, you probably have a good idea of what that's like. Why don't you start?" - as the basis of a hypothetical classroom discussion, this is indeed racist. Malicious? Certainly not. Racist? You betcha.
[/QUOTE]

Majority of all criminals in the entire country across all types of crime? Of course not, due to demographics nationwide and the offending break down no being so disproportionate when you factor in drug use, white collar crime etc.

Majority of street crimes (murders not involving family/lovers, street robberies, break ins) etc. in urban areas--then yes the offenders are majority minority simply because the majority of people of the lower social classes that commits such serious street crimes in an urban area are minority. And you just obviously don't have a lot of muggings, burglaries etc. being carried out by people outside of that social class as people have to be pretty desperate for cash to commit those crimes.

So with white flight most urban inner city areas don't have a lot (if any) of predominately white lower class neighborhoods anymore. You have poor minority neighborhoods and then upper middle class and beyond white and mixed race neighborhoods of professionals who have moved back through gentrification over the years.

So the pool of "motivated offenders" for robbery, burglary and other street crimes in most urban areas is going to be predominately young, poor male, minorities just due to demographics and inequalities that lead to concentrations of poor minorities in inner cities. But you know that.


As for racist or not, like I said, its semantics and I prefer to use stereotyping (or racial stereotyping) rather than racism as the label for that term. But if you want to call it go ahead. And again I'm not saying racial stereotyping is ok or any less severe than what you like to call subconscious racism.

Semantically I just prefer stereotyping as I prefer to save racism for it's more traditional meanings of implying racial inferiority personally.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']The cop was doing his job, if Gates thought it was racial profiling then there are much more professional and mature was to deal with it the yelling racist! racist! and saying "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside,"
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, that was my problem with Gates reaction.

Again, without knowing everything that was said, he was very immature and unprofessional in how he blew up--especially for a educated man. But again, maybe the cops said something equally bad or worse to him that set him off, which would make the reaction more understandable.

[quote name='HowStern']You are trying to get into your house but the door is jammed. You are doing this in broad daylight. On the front porch. Not trying to be stealthy in any way shape or form. You finally get into your house. A white cop walks up and says "What are you robbing the house? Prove you live here."
[/quote]

Again, it depends on what was said by the Crowley. If he just said, "Hello sir, the neighbor though she saw someone possibly forcing their way into the house? Is everything ok?"

And then asked to see ID explaining he had to make sure he did live there etc. etc. then the cop was just doing his job.

Like I said earlier, I'd be happy if it happened to me as it would show me that my neighbors are keeping an eye on things and the cops are quick to respond when called.

But if Crowley acted rudely and said something like what you suggested, then blowing up is more understandable.


[quote name='mykevermin']
By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?
[/QUOTE]

Come on now, no need for that kind of strawman hyperbole. No one has remotely defended racism.

Just not everyone is going to be as sensitive and get as pissed off about every stereotype that pops up as you are.

It bothers me, but professionally from my work with cops, all I really care about is that they aren't doing racial profiling or in anyway violating the rights of minorities.

I don't much care if they have a view of most hard criminals being black as that's who they arrest most of the time for robbery etc. as they work in bad inner city neighborhoods etc. as long as they are treating everyone of every race with respect and not doing racial profiling or otherwise violating people's rights.

I leave the issues of subconscious racism, stereotyping and other social phenomenon to you sociologists as it's outside of my area of interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']

By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Because that is how cons roll?[/QUOTE]

im so sad. today myke, you became msut.

you know that nobody here is going to defensd of that cop.
 
I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.[/QUOTE]

When you are a public servant, different rules should apply.
 
Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.

Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.

Anyway, yeah - racial profiling. It appears to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."
 
Yeah, even if he was off the clock he stated what he would have done on the clock. And that was to mace an innocent man for protesting because he was black.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.[/QUOTE]

I think it's fine for employers to fire people for things "off the clock" that are directly related to their ability to do their job and/or reflect negatively on the company. Especially when it's something public like police and being paid for by tax dollars.

If a cop is making racist statements, he's showing he's unfit to carry out his duties of enforcing the laws equally and not doing racial profiling.

If a cop is going out and getting drunk and causing problems in public, or is using illegal drugs (and thus breaking laws they are supposed to uphold) then similarly I have no problem with suspensions or firings.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.

Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.

Anyway, yeah - racial profiling. It appears to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."[/QUOTE]

What's more powerful, though? Racism or reverse racism? Honestly, I don't know what the difference is, but some people think the latter is okay.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.[/quote]

I care about racial profiling when police are targeting minorities for stops, searches etc. without any other reason than their race, dress style etc. Or if they treat minorities different than whites during legitimate stops and so forth.

I don't care so much if they go to a call with an idea in their head that the suspects are probably black as long as that notion doesn't affect their actual behavior. Sometimes beliefs do, sometimes it doesn't. If my car gets broken into in my complex, sure I'll think the perpetrator is probably black given the suspects in the recent robberies and some arrests in car break ins. But I won't go around being suspicious of every black person I see in or near my complex thinking they may be the perpetrator.

So again, I see a difference of an impression formed by demographics of offenders of certain types of crime, and racist beliefs and racial profiling. There's overlap, but it's not 100%. Thinking a suspect is probably black doesn't mean an officer stops blacks for no reason (i.e. when they don't have a suspect description yet) or treats blacks differently in citizen interactions. I don't get concerned with it until their actions start showing racial biases.


Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm mostly talking about urban areas. But it also applies to the nice, white and/or upper middle class areas near urban areas. Boston's a small city. I walked from Harvard to my hotel downtown the last time I was there. The people doing the burglaries, muggings etc. in Cambridge aren't going to be the well-off people who live in Cambridge. It's going to be the desperate, impoverished criminals from nearby areas. And I'd be shocked if data from the Cambridge PD didn't show the majority of arrests for robberies and burglaries etc. were committed by blacks.

And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."
Click to expand...

Like I said, you care more, and thus are more interested in fighting that battle. I'm not at all interested in race wars, the role of race in society etc. The role of stereotyping/subconcious racism in society is not something I think much about or really care much about professionally or personally.

I'm concerned with policing effectiveness in fighting crime, and my only interest in race is making sure there isn't blatant profiling and negative impacts on minorities and residents of the targeted areas as a whole.

I'm not saying your interest isn't important. We need people focusing on those kind of things. It's just not my area of interest or concern.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I care about racial profiling when police are targeting minorities for stops, searches etc. without any other reason than their race, dress style etc. Or if they treat minorities different than whites during legitimate stops and so forth.

I don't care so much if they go to a call with an idea in their head that the suspects are probably black as long as that notion doesn't affect their actual behavior. Sometimes beliefs do, sometimes it doesn't. If my car gets broken into in my complex, sure I'll think the perpetrator is probably black given the suspects in the recent robberies and some arrests in car break ins. But I won't go around being suspicious of every black person I see in or near my complex thinking they may be the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]

See, this is my point of concern. If this is the sort of thing you research, how do you determine (based on this standard) if someone is profiling? Report says busted taillight, report says speeding, report says swerving on the road - and that's just for those profiled for "DWB." If you hold that high a threshold for identifying racial profiling, then your standard will cause you to commit a remarkable degree of sampling bias by virtue of being willing to overlook racial profiling that's covered up pretty well.

As per the second sentence above, I'm not really arguing that one can't think. I'm arguing that differential treatment that doesn't meet a high standard of "obvious" racism can be shown, and that claiming those to not be profiling would net you a degree of false negatives that would ruin any data gathered. Just in the same way you'd get an inaccurate sample if you only looked at, say, complaints filed arguing racial profiling. Not complete data. Or even accurate.

Perhaps I'm trying to figure out how you identify profiling such that you believe it to be racist in action as opposed to good policing (for want of a better term).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top