oD forums to restructure and move
Please read and comment on this thread if you want to influence the future of the forums
 IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTEmail & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi Our Authors around the Web
|
 |
Salting the Race Issue and defending Professor GatesSalting the Race Issue and
Obama should have kept his mouth shut. Reading about this case the Sgt seems to me to have acted more or less correctly. By his previous actions he is no 'racist' and Obama was a knave to insinuate he was, which is what he has done. Well, well. Let's see... A
Well, well. Let's see... A Police Officer investigating a call that two men (black or white, it does not matter) were seen breaking into a house. He goes to investigate and finds two men inside. His job is to investigate the report, he has a reasonable suspicion, the Supreme Court and the US Constitution gives the officer the right to ask for identification and ask questions, so he asks for ID and asks a few questions to determine whether a crime was, or was not, being committed, and he has to deal with a screamer. Guess what? You don't want to get arrested? Do what the nice officer says. Don't be an ass munch. If you have not done anything wrong, and you cooperate in the investigation, the nice officer will not pull out his shiny bracelets. (During law enforcement training this year, I told all my officers, "If someone complains about the handcuffs being too tight, just say, "Don't worry. They're new. They'll stretch out in a little bit.'") Well, well. Let's see... A
So do Obama's ill informed comments mean he is a racist ?? Would he have said the same thing had the Police Sergeant been black and the Professor white, or even had they both been black ? One wonders. 
Owly,
Obama's response shows
Owly, Obama's response shows that Obama is a "racist." He didn't have his promter on that issue and the real Obama came through. He made his snap judgment based on color. By Obama's standard, the black man is always the victim and the police just pick on people because they are black. His racism could not be more clear. He used it all through his presidential campaign to further his identy politics. No one said anything. 
 I don't think it means he is
I don't think it means he is a racist. But it confirms he views life through racial lenses. O's remarks were a knee-jerk reaction and like many people of color, came from a cultural lens common among many black Americans since the early 60's. As the result of legitimate discrimination in the past, there is a prevelant culture of victimization in the present among many Black Americans where ALL actions and speech by ANY person outside their race is assumed to be coming from racist motives until proven otherwise. That sensitivity was particularly acute in the professor as his field of expertise was in the area of "African American Studies". I suggest this racial lens is magnified by Liberal ideology which deliberately feeds the perception of victimization and entitlement, then offers big government nanny state as the cure. I think it's interesting to note that the white police sergeant in question is a diversity instructor that teaches police how to avoid racial profiling. When he called for back-up, the responding officer was a black sergeant who corroborated the white officer's version of events and unequivocally supported his actions. The white officer is also supported by the black police chief who said no procedures were violated. I remember a few years back,
I remember a few years back, a woman my wife teaches with asked me for some advice. She asked because she knew I was in law enforcement. The teacher is black, and her son had been pulled over by the police. The son was the quarterback on the High School football team, and since I live in a small town, and everybody knows everybody. The kid thought the police officer should know him and shouldn't be pulling him over. He jumped out of his car and started yelling at the police, and was surprised when they didn't treat him gently. The teacher (my wife's co-worker) asked, "Can the police do that?" This is what I told her: The police, while on the scene, can do whatever they want. On the scene, they can shoot you in both kneecaps if they want to. Why? Because there is no judge standing next to them saying, "Tut, tut. You can't do that!" There may be a judge, at some later date, but not on the scene. Even if the officer's actions are unconstitutional, there is no on-scene authority to make that ruling. There is no "higher authority" there to say, "NO." Besides that, you do not have a clue what information the police officer is acting on. (As it turns out, the teachers son was pulled over because someone matching his description, in the same make, model, and color car, had just robbed a bank at gunpoint. Not a good time to jump out and start yelling at the police.) You want to argue with the actions of the cop? Do it in court in front of a judge. Don't do it in a dark alley. Do what the nice officer says and let the nice officer do his job. Police officers are trained to keep three things in mind. 1. Their own safety. 2. The safety of the public. 3. The safety of those they arrest. They don't put cuffs on people because they match the suspect's eye color. They put cuffs on to remove any chance that a suspect can shoot, stab, or hit anyone, resulting in justified deadly force. Police officers are trained to keep everyone safe WHILE they investigate the situation. They walk into the middle of a situation with limited information, and they have to sort out the truth, while keeping everyone safe. As Cleavon Little said in Blazing Sadles, "Do what he say!! Do what he say!!" Salting the Race Issue and
Alan's quite right about the way in which police approach a situation which is potentially dangerous for themselves, the subject and bystanders. I notice when an arrest is imminent around here (often) there are usually up to a dozen officers: four to make the arrest and the remainder to prevent anyone coming to their aid (which also happens often). This application of overwhelming force means that everyone can be relatively gentle and there are very rarely injuries. All well and good. It is clear that this officer is not a racist in the usual sense. However, he does seem to have made a classic institutional racist mistake. He is called to a suspected burglary and he finds a black man inside so he assumes him to be a burglar. Ok, possibly not. I have no way of knowing if he would have acted the same way had Professor Gates been an elderly white man with a walking stick (though I doubt it) . Professor Gates had no way of knowing either. I share Alan's opinion that he was wrong to act in the way he did but I suspect that many black people would react in the same to such a presumptive intrusion in their own home and the officer as (apparently) a race relations expert should have realised this. In the aftermath I think he could be far more diplomatic. He could stop short of apology but make an equivocal statement along the lines that he regrets any distress caused but did his duty as he saw fit. The pig headed intransigence he has shown is extremely unhelpful and not befitting someone whose job is to keep the peace. It's amusing to see the extreme right jump up and down with glee at Obama's reaction. As far as I can see his comments seemed to be fairly apposite. Perhaps "stupid" is a bit strong but I think the officer could have acted more diplomatically and sensitively than he did. And the comments about the experience of black people from law enforcement are bang on the button. Where's the beef here? He did not insinuate that the officer was a racist Owly. But then you've never let the facts get in the way of an inaccurate accusation. 'So do Obama's ill informed
'So do Obama's ill informed comments mean he is a racist ?? Would he have said the same thing had the Police Sergeant been black and the Professor white, or even had they both been black ? One wonders.' That is an entirely proper question to pose. The Police found an individual in a property where they had a report of a burglar. Obama insinuated the officer acted in a racist way, just as you are doing. This crap about 'a classic institutional racist mistake' is bull shit. It is also worth noting that the other Sergeant (who is black) said the other officer acted correctly. It is Obama who has not acted correctly. For a start he ran off at the mouth without all the facts, and secondly he forgot his office. As President he should have said nothing. It is a matter for the State. BigC,
The mistake made by
BigC, The mistake made by Obama was in pronouncing an opinion on the validity of the officer's actions. He does not understand. He's young. Maybe he will learn. Everyone arrested complains about the validity/correctness of the arrest. Nobody thinks police officers have the "right to do what they did." I have to deal with complaints against my officers at times. I do not, and I will not, criticize an officer's actions, based on hearing one side of the story. That is a judge's job. I will listen to the complaint, and I will talk to the officer to get the other side. But, you never, never, ever listen to one side and say, "Well, that officer should never have done that." There are thousands of circumstances that come into play when an officer takes action. Only a judge, or jury, who has listened to both sides, can make a proper determination. I remember a guy I arrested once, stood up in front of the judge and he said I had done "such and such, and blah, blah, blah." And he asked, "Your Honor, did he have the right to do that?" The judge asked, "Officer Peterson, is that what you did?" I said, "Yes Sir, your Honor." The judge turned and looked at the guy and said, "Well, I guess Officer Peterson had the right to do that then." Here's another little piece of advice... Do not refuse to show some sort of identification when asked by a police officer. Standard procedure (at least for my officers) is to haul you to jail if you refuse to produce ID, even if they are just giving someone a ticket for fishing without a license. Nobody wants to turn someone loose without some way of finding them again if they turn out to be an ax murderer. If there is reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime, officers can require you to produce identification. If you refuse, you go to jail until they figure out who you are.
Salting the Race Issue and
"He is called to a suspected burglary and he finds a black man inside so he assumes him to be a burglar." Bravo Sierra!!! The call to which the officer was dispatched was a neighbor reporting two black men attempting entry to a residence. He assumed nothing. He found exactly what was reported--that's not institutional racism. He had a responsibility to identify ANY person found on scene. He had a responsibility to inquire if there was anyone else in the house since the report was TWO black men attempting entry and the situation was not safe until ALL persons were identified. He had a responsibility to ask the identified owner outside the house for his own safety to ascertain if the two reported burglers may have made entry prior to the owner coming home and may still be in the house. Having worked the streets of San Diego as a Deputy Sheriff in the early 90's and having been an Field Training Officer, I would have done nothing different...except to argue strenously against my misdemeanor case against the defendant from being dropped by the Prosecutor's office. Salting the Race Issue and
BigC, One of your statements is very true, in regards to urban police forces. However, I find it amusing when I think about my officers, or back when I was an officer. I notice when an arrest is imminent around here (often) there are usually up to a dozen officers: four to make the arrest and the remainder to prevent anyone coming to their aid (which also happens often). I find it amusing because Wildlife Officers operate, in most instances, without back-up, a long way from assistance, and totally on their own. Most situations are: One officer and four or five armed hunters. The officer has a handgun, and the hunters have rifles. And the officer has to disarm the hunters, question everyone, and make arrests without help. They walk into a hunting camp, in the dark, by themselves, and question several armed men, then arrest them. Learn to do that while maintaining a calm, safe environment. In most of the arrests I ever made, I was by myself. I have a lot of respect for my officers and the work they do.
"Learn to do that while
"Learn to do that while maintaining a calm, safe environment. In most of the arrests I ever made, I was by myself. I have a lot of respect for my officers and the work they do." Agreed! In San Diego, urban patrol back-up was usually 5 minutes away. In the county where I worked, it was 20 minutes or more. In the mountain and desert patrol zones (with resident deputies) it could be an hour or more. There was a great emphasis during training in "verbal judo" to de-escalate explosive situations. Still, it's a tough job to do well and requires far more intelligence and skill than most people give credit. Salting the Race Issue and
Police officers tend to be extra nervous in a country with many guns, it seems. They are usually (but not always) a bit more relaxed over here. I must find out if I would have to show an ID when I am in my own house. It sounds odd. Gates was very unwise, but I think I would have protested too, but more diplomatically. Salting the Race Issue and
I must find out if I would have to show an ID when I am in my own house. It sounds odd. Given that there was at least a reasonable suspicion the home contained a couple burglars, I would think, even in a European country, an investigating officer would ask the people inside for some sort of proof of identity. To me, it would seem "odd" if the conversation went: "Are you a burglar?" Salting the Race Issue and
Yes I think it's a cultural divide here. We had identity cards from 1939 to 1952. The Blair government tried to revive them to mollify anti-immigrant/asylum seeker hysteria. The idea that a police officer be given the right to demand proof of identity was one step too many towards a police state for Fascist Left Britain. I admire all police officers Alan. I'm perhaps a little bit more in awe of those who do their job without guns though... Especially in Wester Hailes (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wester_Hailes) Salting the Race Issue and
As long as the police can t show a search warrant, I don t think I would have to show an ID, Alan. Unlike Brits we must own ID s here, we even must tell our authorities where we live, but at least we needn t carry the thing around. If a policeman wants to see my ID, he must tell me a reason. In Gates s case there was one, in the case of illegal fishing I don t see a reason to suspect the fisherman of anything else and demand an ID. Salting the Race Issue and
Let me try to explain. If someone is fishing illegally, they get a "citation to court" which is, essentially, a summons to appear before a judge at some future date. If found guilty, they pay a fine. If an officer did not get proof of who the who the person was, before sending him on his merry way, what chance do you think he would ever show up in court? If the officer just asked, "Who are you, so I can fill in your name on this here ticket?" How much you wanna bet he's not gonna get the truth, unless he requires proof? What's yer name, boy? Salting the Race Issue and
Even in the UK I suspect that the police would ask for some ID if someone had reported a possible break-in - how else would they know whether you're the homeowner or not? It's just the trade-off you have to make. If you want the police to help keep you and your property safe then you have to put up with the possibility that you'll be inconvenienced from time to time while they're trying to do their job. Salting the Race Issue and
Matt Murrell, Where you been hidin'? Salting the Race Issue and
Some place far away from the madness of oD. It was nice. Peaceful. Salting the Race Issue and
This place is worst than peaceful. It's dead. |
|
openUSA Latest |
Salting the Race Issue and defending Professor Gates
By D. Lindley Young
The Modern Tribune
Barack Obama doesn’t miss an opportunity to make race an issue.
Lynn Sweet, a Sun-Times columnist, ask about Obama about the arrest of noted Harvard African-American studies Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home during a press conference on health care.
Sweet asked, "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?"
Obama responded. "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that," Obama went on. "But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
“any of us would be pretty angry”
Number one, the statement “any of us would be pretty angry” is Obama’s first judgment that the police did something to make someone angry. Right off the bat, according to Obama’s snap judgment, the police did something wrong and it was so wrong anyone would have been angry.
It looks like a case of the Cynthia McKinney syndrome. He is important. He should be known. As he said to the investigating office, “you don’t know who you are messing with.”
Obstructing the investigation
Gates starts out hostile and obstructs the efforts of Sgt. Crowley to investigate the call about a brakein.
When Sergeant James Crowley first arrived at Gates home, Gates came to the door. Crowley asked Gates to come outside on the porch for his safety. Gates responded “absolutely not.”
When the officer repeatedly asked Professor Gates to speak with him outside, Gates responded, "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside," Sgt. Crowley wrote in a police report.
Since two people were reportedly seen braking in the house and for officer safety, Sergeant Crowley asked is there anyone else in the house. Gates told Crowley that it was none of his business and asserted that he would not have asked the question if Gates had had not been black.
Abusive conduct by Gates – he was warned.
According to Sergeant Crowley told Professor Gates Jr, referred to the sergeant's mother in an insulting manner. As the incident esculated with Gates yelling and a crowd gathering, Crowley warned Gates he risked arrest.
"The second warning was with me holding a set of handcuffs in my hands -- something I really didn't want to do," Sgt Crowley said in a radio interview. "The professor at any time could have resolved the issue by quieting down and/or going back inside his house."
The Obama spin
Obama left out a whole lot of facts when he determined that the the police had “acted stupidly.” When Obama is so eager to pounce on a racial issue of his and Gates’ creation, that he chooses to omit facts he had to have heard, his integrity must be question and when he spins the issue and racism, he is the racist.
It is not racism to arreest a loud motuh, arrogant, beligient, insulting individaul who obstructs and investigation in order to play the poor abused black man with high level contacts. It is not profiling to respoded to a call and a black man is present. Profiling is when the police select the target because of race. This was the case here.
It is a big mistake for Obama to play the race card at this time on this issue. He must feel very desparate as he is falling in the polls and his helath care plan isn’t going so well. He has angered many people and is ascerbating the racial divide, not moving towards a post-racil period.
See: http://www.themoderntribune.com
D. Lindley Young