Believe me, I've worked in hotels, She really is. It's how they get through the day.
That could be another reason for a cop to have a bad attitude. I bet I'd be stressed out and disgruntled too if I was on the police force; it's their job to deal with stressful situations, not to mention the bullshit they get from people with anti-law enforcement confirmation biases. I'm sure it would be hard not to take that out on people you have power over.
That could be another reason for a cop to have a bad attitude. I bet I'd be stressed out and disgruntled too if I was on the police force; it's their job to deal with stressful situations, not to mention the bullshit they get from people with anti-law enforcement confirmation biases. I'm sure it would be hard not to take that out on people you have power over.
Yes, it is completely understandable that it would be difficult not to take out that stress on people in an inappropriate way. However, if someone is not capable of doing so, then they are not qualified to be a police officer. Then again, maybe so few people are capable of doing so, there won't be enough police officers. Then again, maybe if they paid more moneys, all kinds of awesome people, like me, would sign up.
I would totally be a computer cop under the right circumstances. Imagine, I would exercise all sorts of common sense. I wouldn't arrest the substitute teacher who accidentally had porn pop up in class. I would also go on IRC and arrest all the pedophiles who are hiding in plain sight.
However, if someone is not capable of doing so, then they are not qualified to be a police officerteacher. Then again, maybe so few people are capable of doing so, there won't be enough police officersteachers. Then again, maybe if they paid more moneys, all kinds of awesome people, like me, would sign up.
Hrmmm, wonder if this basic statement could be applied to all kinds of jobs that are paid for with tax revenue? With variation in what someone must be capable of, of course.
It would be great if we could pay enough to attract the people who would be great at the job. It would be great if we could pay enough that people would be willing to put up with bullshit. However, as long as we pay public servants with tax money and insist on keeping taxes as low as possible, that is never going to happen.
The only racism in this encounter was on the part of prof. Gates. (Obama comes close but his failure comes from giving an opinion without knowing all of the facts, something he supposedly does not do?)
Gates: He saw a white police officer and immediately profiled him as a "racist white cop". Obama: He saw a friend in trouble with the law and sided with the friend without knowing the facts of what happened. He then proceeded to malign the Cambridge PD and Sgt Crowley for doing their job and tried to turn it into an even bigger issue of racism.
What I find really amusing is the way Gates and Obama are talking about this being a teaching experience. They are correct in that it is a teaching experience however what they appear to be missing is that they are the ones in need of learning from this experience and not the other way around.
If Gates had not made all of the racial remarks he made during the encounter I might have discounted it as a classism issue (intellectual elite not wanting to have to deal with the commoners) but Gates clearly made this all about race.
Anyway, let's first get some facts straight here. It's not a crime to refuse to show ID, nor is it a crime to not have ID, nor to consent to a search or questions, nor to be a jerk to a cop, nor to be uncooperative, nor to be racist, nor to accuse someone of racism.
Steve, I despise the fact you assume (ironically enough, without knowing all the facts), that Obama did not know all the facts. What makes you think he didn't, and furthermore what makes you think you do?
Imagine the situation: You are a black man entering your own home, and are arrested for doing so. Who here can honestly say they wouldn't get mad in that situation? Given that Gates did not know why the cops were there, it's not out of the question for him to have thought the cops were profiling him ("Black man in a house? Get 'im!"). In that situation, it's completely understandable that Gates would be angry.
Gates overreacted, which prompted the cops to overreact, which created this incident. To place blame solely on one party, and to accuse only one party of wrongdoing, is ridiculous.
Steve, I despise the fact you assume (ironically enough, without knowing all the facts), that Obama did not know all the facts. What makes you think he didn't, and furthermore what makes you think you do?
Oh the ironing.
When Obama waded into the story by answering a question about it during his news conference Wednesday night, he admitted that he "may be a little biased" because Gates is a friend.
In some states, itisa crime to not show ID when required by police.
Which is something I feel needs to hit SCOTUS to be resolved. Short of actually being arrested/detained or engaging in an activity which requires a license, no one should ever be legally obligated to provide identification to the police.
Anyway, let's first get some facts straight here. It's not a crime to refuse to show ID
In some states, itisa crime to not show ID when required by police.
Yep, and they're usually pretty reasonable about letting you go get it if you left it inside or something.
Something few people know: The police rarely know the law. They have a vague idea, but they are not lawyers or judges and they haven't studied the law. They don't always know exactly what is legal. More importantly, it is not their job to judge what is legal. It's their job to keep the peace. A lot of people who are arrested are released without charges being brought against them. It happens. Being cooperative, even if you are pissed off, makes things go a lot more smoothly. The police aren't going to stop arresting people just because one black guy got upset and cried racist.
Also, it sounds to me like black people are not the only ones subject to this kind of mistake. Like I said, if they can prove that this never happens to white people, then they have a case for racism. I can see Gates being upset about it, but I doubt he had any legitimate reason to assume it was because of race other than his own racist tendencies, which are probably based on experience. If this is just typical shenanigans, then yes, be upset. However, don't blame it on racism just because you're pissed off that the cops were harsh with you. It's not like they threw him to the ground and kicked the shit out of him.
This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required when you're driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.
From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.
As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity.
When do I have to show ID? May not be definitive but it is a good start and no, MA is not on the "stop and identify" list. However, the police officer was there to investigate a possible crime, which makes asking for ID and proof of residency a reasonable request on the part of the officer.
People are sharing police stories, and all of this talk reminds me of when my dad got arrested years ago, so I'll tell the story.
He was taking care of my grandmother, who was on medication for something, which made her act like she was drunk all of the time. Her friends got worried and constantly called my dad demanding why she was acting this way. His explanation of "it's the medicine's fault" wasn't good enough for them. My dad is usually very nice with people, but one day he finally lost patience and told them off. Their response was to call the police, claiming that he was preventing my grandmother from getting proper health care, abusing her, etc. So they come pounding on the door, and my dad opens it and is completely confused. They demanded to see my grandmother, and he was like "Umm, ok, I'll show you to her room." As soon as he turns around, they tackle him (very roughly) and arrest him. After a day of being in jail, the charges were cleared (because I guess eventually someone smart realized my dad wasn't in the wrong here.)
Anyway, my dad was white, suspected of committing a crime, and was arrested in his own home, being entirely cooperative. Gates was black, also suspected of committing a crime (breaking and entering), and was arrested in his own home, NOT being cooperative. Do any of these facts mean anything? Not really. There are good ones and bad ones, so I guess we can never know what to expect when something like this happens to us.
Steve, I despise the fact you assume (ironically enough, without knowing all the facts), that Obama did not know all the facts. What makes you think he didn't, and furthermore what makes you think you do?
Oh the ironing.
When Obama waded into the story by answering a question about it during his news conference Wednesday night, he admitted that he "may be a little biased" because Gates is a friend.
"I don't know all the facts," he also conceded.
Pwned.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that he did not have to show his ID. How does that equate to a request to show ID and/or a subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct being motivated by a racial bias?
I can't say that I know the law very well, but I am under the impression that people are often brought in for disorderly conduct. After reading the police report it seems that mister Gates was brought in for being a loud-mouthed dick to the police officer. I don't know if bringing people in for disorderly conduct, as described in the link, is a good precedent, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't racially motivated.
The bigger issue I have with the whole situation is the level of personal involvement Obama is taking with the incident in the first place. While I don't really think it's a good idea, I'm okay with him wishing to comment on the incident, but now he is going to bring the two involved parties to the White House to discuss what happened. Just because the man who was arrested was a friend, doesn't mean that Obama should involve himself in a non-federal government matter. I believe he is partly to blame for the escalation of the incident.
@ Andrew: I completely agree. When I heard that Obama was inviting the Police Officer and Gates to the White House for a beer, I thought it was a joke. This seems inappropriate. Whether Gates was a personal friend or not, this sort of gesture gives far too much attention to the specific incident and not the greater racial and law enforcement issues. It also appears as if the President is giving special political attention to friends. If I was arrested on questionable charges and there was a possibility that sexism played a role, would the President even know of the problem? I doubt it.
Just because the man who was arrested was a friend, doesn't mean that Obama should involve himself in a non-federal government matter. I believe he is partly to blame for the escalation of the incident.
To be fair, the only substantial power of the president (outside of war, congressionally-checked appointments, and congressionally-checked vetos) is public opinion. He can do things like this not to effect direct change, but to shift the national dialogue.
Now, I normally wouldn't support using this power for such purposes, and this is clearly a matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government, but I've come to a saddening conclusion. I thus assert the following:
The primary reason that the Democratic party (and, in general, leftist/liberal politics) suffered so greatly from the first mid-term election of the Clinton era onward is that while the Republicans have successfully utilized the adversarial nature of the system and the breadth of the meta-system (media) to frame the national debate, the Democrats have primarily acted directly and through the system itself and shied from direct confrontation beyond it.
Or, to simplify, the Republicans play the game, and the Democrats, despite whining about it, never actually play it back.
It's possible that this is simply Obama using a non-issue to spur the national dialogue for his own purposes.
If Obama is going to take the bully pulpit route, he should at least do it with some tact. To say that the officers involved "acted stupidly" and then backtrack by using the excuse that he did not have all the facts and that he was personally biased, seems to be a bit off the mark of the intended message of a "teaching experience" on the matter.
I'm going to mark this one as a loss for Obama. He just did not handle the situation with the finesse that I've come to expect from him, so much so that the "national dialog" seems a bit of an after thought to cover up his hot headed remarks.
Okay. Two things, addressing the assertion that the incident in question "wasn't racist" because the actions of the officers in question were not "racially motivated."
1.) Just because you are not a racist (noun) does not make you incapable of actions that are racist (adjective), intentional or not.
2.) Just because you are not a racist does not mean that you cannot still be racially insensitive.
Maybe the officers involved weren't "racially motivated" *. Okay, sure. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done anything that might be seen as racist from someone else's perspective, or that the resulting response was somehow out of proportion.
Has anyone seen any information on this incident that didn't come from the police report, which would by definition be from the officer's side of things? Not to suggest they haven't represented things 100% accurately, just that it would seem...off to rely on only information from one party in something like this.
As an aside, why is it that so often when something like this hits the news, people are quick to reverse the accusation of racism onto the person claiming to have been wronged?
*Although one wonders what evidence would be acceptable to even determine this in the first place. Klan hoods in their closets, perhaps?
1.)Just because you are nota racist(noun) does not make you incapable of actions thatare racist(adjective),intentional or not.
You've confused me with this one. The adjective "Racist" refers to discrimination or prejudice based on race, or belief in such discrimination. I suppose one could be unintentionally racist thanks to the predisposition that we all have towards racism, but I don't see how handcuffing a black person for disorderly conduct is racist when it happens to white people just as often. Racially insensitive, perhaps, but police officers have to be insensitive so that everyone is treated the same under the law.
Correct me if I'm missing something, of course. I haven't learned enough about racial sensitivity and relations, which is one of the reasons I'm calling you out.
Has anyone seen any information on this incident that didn't come from the police report, which wouldby definitionbe from the officer's side of things? Not to suggest they haven't represented things100% accurately, just that it would seem...offto rely on only information from one party in something like this.
The report was a just a list of facts from the point of view of the police officer. If anything major is off on the police report everyone involved will come down on him like a fucking sledgehammer. With that in mind I think it's safe to assume that everything there is %100 accurate, and if it is then this is definitely a case of disorderly conduct.
If anything major is off on the police report everyone involved will come down on him like a fucking sledgehammer.
Name a case where ANYTHING has come down on a cop "like a fucking sledgehammer". Unless by "like a fucking sledgehammer" you mean "paid administrative leave". The only one I can recall that was even close is when there were at least three separate videos of a cop shooting a handcuffed man point blank in the back.
Name a case where ANYTHING has come down on a cop "like a fucking sledgehammer".
Name a case where the president has made a statement involving a police officer, and then called for a dialogue in the white house. I think media attention is serious enough that this guy needs to watch his step.
1.)Just because you are nota racist(noun) does not make you incapable of actions thatare racist(adjective),intentional or not.
You've confused me with this one. The adjective "Racist" refers to discrimination or prejudice based on race, or belief in such discrimination. I suppose one could be unintentionally racist thanks to the predisposition that we all have towards racism, but I don't see how handcuffing a black person for disorderly conduct is racist when it happens to white people just as often. Racially insensitive, perhaps, but police officers have to be insensitive so that everyone is treated the same under the law.
Correct me if I'm missing something, of course. I haven't learned enough about racial sensitivity and relations, which is one of the reasons I'm calling you out.
I'd submit that Caucasians probably aren't arrested in their own homes for disorderly conduct as often as People of Color. But aside from that, the fact that he was in his own home is something that shouldn't be divorced from discussing this incident. Perhaps in general there's nothing insensitive about this behavior (if it's actually applied equally to everyone), but, seriously: The man was accused of breaking into his own home, and was essentially given a hard time, then arrested, for showing anger about the accusation. Even after complying with the officer's request to show identification. How often do you honestly believe this combination of circumstances occurs when the homeowner is Caucasian?
Here's a question no one seems to be asking: What practical purpose was served by arresting him even for disorderly conduct? Again, angry about being falsely accused of breaking into his own home. This anger is, what, behavior we're trying to discourage?
It also bears mentioning that, while not necessarily unbiased themselves, Prof. Gates' lawyer presents a different view on how "disorderly" his conduct was to begin with.
How often do you honestly believe this combination of circumstances occurs when the homeowner is Caucasian?
I can say that it isn't hard for me to imagine a police officer arresting someone while being yelled at, insulted and accused of something that is clearly untrue (at first, anyway), no matter where they are or what race the offender belongs to. Honestly, though, I have not had much direct interaction with the law and I don't know how their officers are trained, or just how good at his job this particular officer is. It could have been racially motivated, but for all I know it could have been have been a misinterpretation of standard procedure or the officer getting pissed off. I think the dialogue, however unnecessarily grandiose, could certainly help shine some light on things.
Also, no offense, but your laying the italics on a bit thick there. I know you're impassioned but it comes off as a little... excessive.
Also, no offense, but your laying the italics on a bit thick there. I know you're impassioned but it comes off as a little...excessive.
No offense taken, although believe it or not it's unrelated to how involved I am in the debate; aside from when it's pointed out, I seem to naturally type in a manner Stan Lee could be proud of
I'd submit that Caucasians probablyaren'tarrested in their own homes for disorderly conduct as often as People of Color.
I think it probably depends on what metric you use. For instance, are the police called to minority homes more often than white homes? If so, then you'd need to use a ratio rather than #/time period metrics. It might happen to 3 black people a month and only 1 white person a month, but if there are 3 times as many calls to black households as there are to white households, then the frequency of arrest is the same.
People get brought in for being dicks to the cops pretty frequently. Maybe it's not a good thing, maybe it's not practical, and maybe we should change it, but it happens on a regular basis and it's not just black guys that it happens to. The fact that people think it's a poor reason for arrest doesn't change the fact that it is a standard reason for arrest.
Also, arrest is different than conviction. You don't have to be engaged in criminal activity to be arrested.
I'd submit that Caucasians probablyaren'tarrested in their own homes for disorderly conduct as often as People of Color.
I think it probably depends on what metric you use. For instance, are the police called to minority homes more often than white homes? If so, then you'd need to use a ratio rather than #/time period metrics. It might happen to 3 black people a month and only 1 white person a month, but if there are 3 times as many calls to black households as there are to white households, then the frequency of arrest is the same.
Granted. But (and I do realize that we're using hypothetical metrics right here), why would police be called to PoC homes three times more often than Caucasian homes? Let's use the "mistaken identity" example: Would this be because there are inherently more misunderstandings of this sort when a PoC is involved? Would it be because the police are more likely to respond to a call like this if a PoC is involved? Even if the ratio turns out the same, the raw numbers remain important.
People get brought in for being dicks to the cops pretty frequently. Maybe it's not a good thing, maybe it's not practical, and maybe we should change it, but it happens on a regular basis and it's not just black guys that it happens to. The fact that people think it's a poor reason for arrest doesn't change the fact that it is a standard reason for arrest.
Conversely, the fact that it is a standard reason for arrest doesn't mean it isn't a poor one. And again, just because it doesn't "just" happen to PoC doesn't mean it's applied equally (with a U.S. population of over 300 million, it'd be pretty darn amazing if every group wasn't eventually represented in some way), and it doesn't mean that it's never applied in a racist manner.
Comments
I would totally be a computer cop under the right circumstances. Imagine, I would exercise all sorts of common sense. I wouldn't arrest the substitute teacher who accidentally had porn pop up in class. I would also go on IRC and arrest all the pedophiles who are hiding in plain sight.
It would be great if we could pay enough to attract the people who would be great at the job. It would be great if we could pay enough that people would be willing to put up with bullshit. However, as long as we pay public servants with tax money and insist on keeping taxes as low as possible, that is never going to happen.
Gates: He saw a white police officer and immediately profiled him as a "racist white cop".
Obama: He saw a friend in trouble with the law and sided with the friend without knowing the facts of what happened. He then proceeded to malign the Cambridge PD and Sgt Crowley for doing their job and tried to turn it into an even bigger issue of racism.
What I find really amusing is the way Gates and Obama are talking about this being a teaching experience. They are correct in that it is a teaching experience however what they appear to be missing is that they are the ones in need of learning from this experience and not the other way around.
If Gates had not made all of the racial remarks he made during the encounter I might have discounted it as a classism issue (intellectual elite not wanting to have to deal with the commoners) but Gates clearly made this all about race.
Read the police report
Anyway, let's first get some facts straight here. It's not a crime to refuse to show ID, nor is it a crime to not have ID, nor to consent to a search or questions, nor to be a jerk to a cop, nor to be uncooperative, nor to be racist, nor to accuse someone of racism.
Steve, I despise the fact you assume (ironically enough, without knowing all the facts), that Obama did not know all the facts. What makes you think he didn't, and furthermore what makes you think you do?
Imagine the situation: You are a black man entering your own home, and are arrested for doing so. Who here can honestly say they wouldn't get mad in that situation? Given that Gates did not know why the cops were there, it's not out of the question for him to have thought the cops were profiling him ("Black man in a house? Get 'im!"). In that situation, it's completely understandable that Gates would be angry.
Gates overreacted, which prompted the cops to overreact, which created this incident. To place blame solely on one party, and to accuse only one party of wrongdoing, is ridiculous.
Something few people know: The police rarely know the law. They have a vague idea, but they are not lawyers or judges and they haven't studied the law. They don't always know exactly what is legal. More importantly, it is not their job to judge what is legal. It's their job to keep the peace. A lot of people who are arrested are released without charges being brought against them. It happens. Being cooperative, even if you are pissed off, makes things go a lot more smoothly. The police aren't going to stop arresting people just because one black guy got upset and cried racist.
Also, it sounds to me like black people are not the only ones subject to this kind of mistake. Like I said, if they can prove that this never happens to white people, then they have a case for racism. I can see Gates being upset about it, but I doubt he had any legitimate reason to assume it was because of race other than his own racist tendencies, which are probably based on experience. If this is just typical shenanigans, then yes, be upset. However, don't blame it on racism just because you're pissed off that the cops were harsh with you. It's not like they threw him to the ground and kicked the shit out of him.
He was taking care of my grandmother, who was on medication for something, which made her act like she was drunk all of the time. Her friends got worried and constantly called my dad demanding why she was acting this way. His explanation of "it's the medicine's fault" wasn't good enough for them. My dad is usually very nice with people, but one day he finally lost patience and told them off. Their response was to call the police, claiming that he was preventing my grandmother from getting proper health care, abusing her, etc.
So they come pounding on the door, and my dad opens it and is completely confused. They demanded to see my grandmother, and he was like "Umm, ok, I'll show you to her room." As soon as he turns around, they tackle him (very roughly) and arrest him. After a day of being in jail, the charges were cleared (because I guess eventually someone smart realized my dad wasn't in the wrong here.)
Anyway, my dad was white, suspected of committing a crime, and was arrested in his own home, being entirely cooperative.
Gates was black, also suspected of committing a crime (breaking and entering), and was arrested in his own home, NOT being cooperative.
Do any of these facts mean anything? Not really. There are good ones and bad ones, so I guess we can never know what to expect when something like this happens to us.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that he did not have to show his ID. How does that equate to a request to show ID and/or a subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct being motivated by a racial bias?
You haven't connected the dots.
Now, I normally wouldn't support using this power for such purposes, and this is clearly a matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government, but I've come to a saddening conclusion. I thus assert the following:
The primary reason that the Democratic party (and, in general, leftist/liberal politics) suffered so greatly from the first mid-term election of the Clinton era onward is that while the Republicans have successfully utilized the adversarial nature of the system and the breadth of the meta-system (media) to frame the national debate, the Democrats have primarily acted directly and through the system itself and shied from direct confrontation beyond it.
Or, to simplify, the Republicans play the game, and the Democrats, despite whining about it, never actually play it back.
It's possible that this is simply Obama using a non-issue to spur the national dialogue for his own purposes.
I'm going to mark this one as a loss for Obama. He just did not handle the situation with the finesse that I've come to expect from him, so much so that the "national dialog" seems a bit of an after thought to cover up his hot headed remarks.
Okay. Two things, addressing the assertion that the incident in question "wasn't racist" because the actions of the officers in question were not "racially motivated."
1.) Just because you are not a racist (noun) does not make you incapable of actions that are racist (adjective), intentional or not.
2.) Just because you are not a racist does not mean that you cannot still be racially insensitive.
Maybe the officers involved weren't "racially motivated" *. Okay, sure. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done anything that might be seen as racist from someone else's perspective, or that the resulting response was somehow out of proportion.
Has anyone seen any information on this incident that didn't come from the police report, which would by definition be from the officer's side of things? Not to suggest they haven't represented things 100% accurately, just that it would seem...off to rely on only information from one party in something like this.
As an aside, why is it that so often when something like this hits the news, people are quick to reverse the accusation of racism onto the person claiming to have been wronged?
*Although one wonders what evidence would be acceptable to even determine this in the first place. Klan hoods in their closets, perhaps?
Correct me if I'm missing something, of course. I haven't learned enough about racial sensitivity and relations, which is one of the reasons I'm calling you out. The report was a just a list of facts from the point of view of the police officer. If anything major is off on the police report everyone involved will come down on him like a fucking sledgehammer. With that in mind I think it's safe to assume that everything there is %100 accurate, and if it is then this is definitely a case of disorderly conduct.
Here's a question no one seems to be asking: What practical purpose was served by arresting him even for disorderly conduct? Again, angry about being falsely accused of breaking into his own home. This anger is, what, behavior we're trying to discourage?
It also bears mentioning that, while not necessarily unbiased themselves, Prof. Gates' lawyer presents a different view on how "disorderly" his conduct was to begin with.
Also, no offense, but your laying the italics on a bit thick there. I know you're impassioned but it comes off as a little... excessive.
People get brought in for being dicks to the cops pretty frequently. Maybe it's not a good thing, maybe it's not practical, and maybe we should change it, but it happens on a regular basis and it's not just black guys that it happens to. The fact that people think it's a poor reason for arrest doesn't change the fact that it is a standard reason for arrest.
Also, arrest is different than conviction. You don't have to be engaged in criminal activity to be arrested.
Link
I congratulate the2nd poster with the Chon Do joke. I laughed but I shouldn't have.