What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Housing While Black (1 Viewer)

Someone's report is a bit lacking. Or perhaps one is a bit too robust. But things don't quite jibe.
we're on page 21 of this thread so there's been a lot of info shared in here. I don't remember if it was the official report or things he said in the interviews afterwards. But, I don't think the discrepancy you're looking at is worth getting too hung up on. :2cents:edit: Figueroa's report reads like he walks in when Crowley is asking for ID and Gates refused. Then he went outside to talk to the women who called the police. When he was done there, the two men had left the house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R 2 D 2 said:
HellToupee said:
8 break-ins in the neighborhood in the last month including at this address
Sounds like Harvard professors get ####ty accomodations.
It's a couple of blocks from Harvard Square which at least used to be a very expensive area.
Cambridge = expensive
Ware Street is right next to Harvard Yard. I used to walk by there everyday. Not a high crime area.
At least not until Gates moved in there. :2cents:
 
Okay, I've only read like half (?) of this, but it seems to me that everyone keeps saying, "would this have happened the same if Gates were white?" without noting a crucial issue- if Gates were a white, tired, annoyed 58 yo professor, he would have responded to the cops by saying, "Here is my id, now please leave me in peace, I'm tired and would like to get to sleep."
what?*********What what? I explained this in the next paragraph or line or whatever. If he was white, he wouldn't have screamed, "Race! Race! You're racial profiling! It's cause I'm black, isn't it, you cracker!!" He would have been annoyed, possibly a little blunt (okay, probably a lot blunt), but he wouldn't have called a veteran cop a bigot. If I was a veteran cop called a bigot for a situation out of my control (being called to a possible B & E that involved African americans), I'd be more than a little upset, especially if he kept up the name-calling and belligerence...
If I were a cop responding to a call which was my job and got called a racist, and had my top possible suspect being belligerent, I might arrest him too.
he figured out pretty quickly that the guy wasn't actually a suspect here. cops shouldn't be able to arrest people in their own homes if they aren't doing anything illegal.*********A few years ago, I had a couple cops pull up to my house and come up and start questioning my band (which included two black guys btw). We basically said, "Yeah, we know the garage is up, but we had it down while we were playing. I hope we didn't upset anybody." And they responded, "Nah, just somebody was a bit tired of the noise. If you could keep it down a bit, that'd be awesome." We said, cool, works for us, and one of em said, "I understand, I got a kid in a band, so just make sure you don't get too loud, okay?" We were fine with it, and the officers left with smiles on their faces. Seems simple to me. Don't be an ### to the cops, don't get in trouble... Doesn't matter if you're in your own home. What about civil disputes? Man and wife are arguing, maybe get obscenely loud... if the cop hauls one or both away, was he in the wrong, because it was their own home?
ETA stars between Aaron's and my posts cause I got quoned...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You really truly don't think it was a close judgment call? OK. Whatever.The point remains that we would have never heard of this case if it did not involve a high-profile black man accusing the police of racism. That's the issue here. The police arrest people all the time who are later found innocent or charges are dropped. So what. It happens. This one made the news because, and only because, a black man was arrested and claimed he was arrested and harassed by a racist cop because he was black.So to discuss this case and refuse to talk about whether or not race played a role is just a bit idiotic IMO.
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop." It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
 
Someone's report is a bit lacking. Or perhaps one is a bit too robust. But things don't quite jibe.
we're on page 21 of this thread so there's been a lot of info shared in here. I don't remember if it was the official report or things he said in the interviews afterwards. But, I don't think the discrepancy you're looking at is worth getting too hung up on. :confused:edit: Figueroa's report reads like he walks in when Crowley is asking for ID and Gates refused. Then he went outside to talk to the women who called the police. When he was done there, the two men had left the house.
Thank you for noticing that. I was hoping I wouldn't have to point out yet another discrepancy. The words are the same as far as what Gates was saying. The words that aren't matching up are when Crowley asked for ID and when and where he was when he requested Gates to step outside. Considering Figueroa responded to the original call at the same time as Crowley, he likely wasn't very far behind. It is interesting that Crowley's sequence of events just doesn't jibe with Figueroa's. In the end you're right; it's not worth getting hung up on at all. That the arrest should not have taken place is really the only point that I feel strongly about. But the more you read those reports the more questions arise.
 
You really truly don't think it was a close judgment call? OK. Whatever.The point remains that we would have never heard of this case if it did not involve a high-profile black man accusing the police of racism. That's the issue here. The police arrest people all the time who are later found innocent or charges are dropped. So what. It happens. This one made the news because, and only because, a black man was arrested and claimed he was arrested and harassed by a racist cop because he was black.So to discuss this case and refuse to talk about whether or not race played a role is just a bit idiotic IMO.
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop." It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
I agree with your entire post.
 
Obama showed his true colors. Middle America, and much of the rest of the country, can't be happy with it. He has officially lost the Independents. It's only a matter of time before his own party turns on him. I still hold out hope that he can do good things for our country but this is looking like a seriously disastrous presidency. The inexperience is glaring.
Obama lost the independents several weeks ago. The independents and republicans align on the issue of the national debt, but democrats make health care more important. Furthermore, Obama seems to have a tin ear when it comes to the debt. He doesn't even seem to address it, and people are growing more fearful of it as we move forward. I agree his own party is going to turn on him soon just to try to win the midterm elections.
 
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop."

It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.

This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
Wouldn't someone with that perspective also have a pretty keen awareness of the changes over the past 40 years? He's also a college professor - someone with advanced ability to analyze a situation. Your lead point is correct, but I wouldn't make an excuse for Dr. Gates. He knew what he was doing.
 
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop."

It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.

This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
Wouldn't someone with that perspective also have a pretty keen awareness of the changes over the past 40 years? He's also a college professor - someone with advanced ability to analyze a situation. Your lead point is correct, but I wouldn't make an excuse for Dr. Gates. He knew what he was doing.
Actually the world of academia can shield some pretty extreme views and attitudes from the outside world. And besides, don't you think a small business owner needs an advanced ability to analyze a situation?
 
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop."

It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.

This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
Wouldn't someone with that perspective also have a pretty keen awareness of the changes over the past 40 years? He's also a college professor - someone with advanced ability to analyze a situation. Your lead point is correct, but I wouldn't make an excuse for Dr. Gates. He knew what he was doing.
Actually the world of academia can shield some pretty extreme views and attitudes from the outside world. And besides, don't you think a small business owner needs an advanced ability to analyze a situation?
Absolutely correct. No offense intended. I should have put quotes around "advanced" as I intended sarcasm. Academics learn the scientific method, but the rest of us can anlayze the situation also. I would be really surprised if at some point early on he didn't make a conscious decision to escalate. If that happened this is not about race relations in this country; it's about two people that had a confrontation. One happened to be a cop and the other was a well-connected activist. Press play and here we are.

 
so really the only question left is whether Gates is dropping the lawsuit.

I was watching Anderson Cooper last night and he had a professor of African american studies from Syraucse University on last night who actually gave a well thought out response on this situation. (something Gates has yet to do)

He basically said that race should never have come in to play in this situation. The smart thing for Gates to do would have been to see if Officer Crowley followed protocal in his actions that day. If so, then his gripe is with Cambridge police department and not the officer. (It should be noted that several officers have claimed that Crowley did follow protocal)

Considering a majority of police departments operate under the same or very similar protocal, Gates needs to take this arrest up to the legislative branch instead of yelling rasicsm to the media.

 
I'm 48% convinced that Obama made a calculated decision to weigh in on this controversy and knew exactly the type of reaction he would get by saying the police acted stupidly. I believe the reporter who asked the question was from Chicago, not sure why a Chicago-based reporter would chime in and ask a question about a local MA issue unless fed to them. It served as a red herring to get the news cycle away from the downward spiraling his healthcare bill was on. He was able to stretch it out until the end of the week, gave a non-apology apology and reached out to both parties. Heck, people here are already giving him credit for his handling of the situation when he effectively threw gasoline on a fire just because a few days later he had the good sense to put it out.

It serves as a nice distraction and perhaps people will be asleep next week when the democratic leadership will bypass the normal committee process and bring this terrifying healthcare bill straight to a full chamber vote.

 
I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.
The content of the speech doesn't matter. It's whether you're creating a disturbance. As I said in an earlier post, you can be arrested for disturbing the peace of you play your stereo too loud and refuse a cop's request to turn it down. MT's reliance on the purported lack of an intent to cause violence and the "political" nature of Gates' comments is misplaced.
 
You really truly don't think it was a close judgment call? OK. Whatever.The point remains that we would have never heard of this case if it did not involve a high-profile black man accusing the police of racism. That's the issue here. The police arrest people all the time who are later found innocent or charges are dropped. So what. It happens. This one made the news because, and only because, a black man was arrested and claimed he was arrested and harassed by a racist cop because he was black.So to discuss this case and refuse to talk about whether or not race played a role is just a bit idiotic IMO.
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop." It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
This is about as fine a summary post as any that have been written in this thread.
 
I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.
The content of the speech doesn't matter. It's whether you're creating a disturbance. As I said in an earlier post, you can be arrested for disturbing the peace of you play your stereo too loud and refuse a cop's request to turn it down. MT's reliance on the purported lack of an intent to cause violence and the "political" nature of Gates' comments is misplaced.
So what you're saying is that an elderly man leaning on a cane comes out to the front porch of his house and is yelling (according to police) and this is disorderly conduct worthy of arrest? Tell me, Christo, do you believe in the First Amendment? Also, by suggesting content doesn't matter, you're contradicting at least 75% of the conservatives who have contributed to this thread, all of whom who have defended Crowley's actions by suggesting that if you are disrespectful to police, you "get what you deserve."It strikes me that whenever Maurile comes up with an unanswerable argument, you simply change your reasoning. You feel compelled to defend the police action here from all criticism no matter what because it fits in with your worldview. That is perfectly fine, but you shouldn't try to pretend your arguments are based either on the law in this case or on any kind of logic. Clearly they're not.
 
I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.
The content of the speech doesn't matter. It's whether you're creating a disturbance. As I said in an earlier post, you can be arrested for disturbing the peace of you play your stereo too loud and refuse a cop's request to turn it down. MT's reliance on the purported lack of an intent to cause violence and the "political" nature of Gates' comments is misplaced.
So what you're saying is that an elderly man leaning on a cane comes out to the front porch of his house and is yelling (according to police) and this is disorderly conduct worthy of arrest? Tell me, Christo, do you believe in the First Amendment? Also, by suggesting content doesn't matter, you're contradicting at least 75% of the conservatives who have contributed to this thread, all of whom who have defended Crowley's actions by suggesting that if you are disrespectful to police, you "get what you deserve."It strikes me that whenever Maurile comes up with an unanswerable argument, you simply change your reasoning. You feel compelled to defend the police action here from all criticism no matter what because it fits in with your worldview. That is perfectly fine, but you shouldn't try to pretend your arguments are based either on the law in this case or on any kind of logic. Clearly they're not.
:lmao:Logic? Seriously?
 
So what you're saying is that an elderly man leaning on a cane comes out to the front porch of his house and is yelling (according to police) and this is disorderly conduct worthy of arrest? Tell me, Christo, do you believe in the First Amendment?
Possibly. And yes, I believe in the First Amendment. Given some of your recent opinions, I probably believe in it more strongly than you. So tell me timmy, how is the First Amendment relevant?
Also, by suggesting content doesn't matter, you're contradicting at least 75% of the conservatives who have contributed to this thread, all of whom who have defended Crowley's actions by suggesting that if you are disrespectful to police, you "get what you deserve."
I'm not allowed to contradict the people you identify as conservatives?
It strikes me that whenever Maurile comes up with an unanswerable argument, you simply change your reasoning.
MT hasn't come up with an unanswerable argument. I'm willing to bet he'd admit that. Curiously, he's never responded to the post where I talked about how the disorderly conduct statute applies here.
You feel compelled to defend the police action here from all criticism no matter what because it fits in with your worldview.
Please quit making stupid statements like this. You have no idea what worldview I have.
That is perfectly fine, but you shouldn't try to pretend your arguments are based either on the law in this case or on any kind of logic. Clearly they're not.
The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop." It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
Even though this post has been bumped before, it's so on point that it deserves another.Does anyone on either side of this "debate" disagree with any of this?
 
Down goes Timmy!Down goes Timmy!
Not quite Howard. The problem is I have to leave and won't be back until the late afternoon. Christo's assertions are merely a repetition of his previous absurd arguments. And yes, Christo, I think I do know what your worldview is, because in every one of these political arguments your response is extremely predictable.
 
Down goes Timmy!Down goes Timmy!
Not quite Howard. The problem is I have to leave and won't be back until the late afternoon. Christo's assertions are merely a repetition of his previous absurd arguments. And yes, Christo, I think I do know what your worldview is, because in every one of these political arguments your response is extremely predictable.
You going to Wiki headquarters?
 
Down goes Timmy!

Down goes Timmy!
Not quite Howard. The problem is I have to leave and won't be back until the late afternoon. Christo's assertions are merely a repetition of his previous absurd arguments. And yes, Christo, I think I do know what your worldview is, because in every one of these political arguments your response is extremely predictable.
I do believe that was the first time I responded to the issues you raised.But you keep thinking you know what I'm thinking, GB :homer:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
so really the only question left is whether Gates is dropping the lawsuit.
I don't think a lawsuit has been filed or had ever been promised. One had been threatened at one point but yesterday I heard that his lawyer was saying one was no longer even being considered.
 
You need to separate the case from the controversy. Race has played a role in the controversy. Certainly. And both sides are guilty of it. Look at the people slagging Obama. When Obama criticized the cops' actions, he made sure to note that he had no idea whether their actions were racially motivated. Yet plenty here are itching to argue that Obama was "racially profiling the cop." It seems to me that Maurile is making a simple argument. It was an unfortunate incident that neither side handled particularly well. Gates shouldn't have assumed racial animus (even if we can probably understand why someone who came up during the Civil Rights era might be inclined to conclude something like that). The cop, no matter how pissed off he was, shouldn't have arrested the guy for a charge that he clearly wasn't guilty of, even if we can sympathize with the cop.This controversy (not the case) does tell us something about race relations in this country. It tells us that both sides seem to have a victim's complex a mile wide, which is why liberals and conservatives alike are making it in to far too big a deal. To the point that they're so aggrieved that no matter how much actual legal research Maurile does, their own gut feelings about what is right must be more accurate than what Maurile is telling them.
Even though this post has been bumped before, it's so on point that it deserves another.Does anyone on either side of this "debate" disagree with any of this?
Civil rights leader is way off base so we decide "both sides" were off base. Cops can't get a win, just a tie at best.
 
Gotta love how the mainstream media are carefully crafting headlines to protect Obama. Let's look at Yahoo AP headlines:

Obama rushes to quell racial uproar, calls Crowley, Gates

Let's take that headline apart.

+ "Obama rushes" - here you present an image of Obama taking action, being decisive, moving in with a plan.

+ Nowhere does that headline note that Obama said something controversial. All that is said is that there is some mysterious "racial uproar" and Obama is rushing in to the rescue! I have this image of him in tights and a cape, flying in to save the day!

How would the headline read if Bush had said it?

Bush apologizes for calling respected police force 'stupid'

Let's look at the headline in the actual article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_...harvard_scholar

Obama rushes to quell racial uproar he helped fire

+ Again, the focus is not so much on the comment, but how Obama is coming to the rescue to fix things!

+ The headline notes that Obama only "helped" fire up the racial uproar. So who else was at fault for Obama's comments? The teleprompter?
The media continues to spin those headlines:link

Analysis: Race is daunting challenge for Obama

+ Again, no mention in the headline that Obama said anything controversial.

+ Portrays Obama as "challenging" something, like he's the underdog trying to beat the champ in some heavyweight fight.

 
The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.
1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. This is why I believed at the beginning, and still partially believe, that Professor Gates was arrested for committing the crime of being an Uppity Black Man.2. Of course you're allowed to contradict conservatives, or anyone. I just find it interesting that, though you chose to make comments in this thread nearly from its beginning, this is the first time you've made the "content doesn't matter" argument. When others wrote that Gates "got what he deserved" you did not choose to contradict them.3. In truth, I don't know whether MT's argument is unanswerable or not. What I know is that YOU failed to provide a reasonable argument against it. Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority. I'm going to paste an article on this.4. You're right I should not assume what your worldview is. I apologize for that. Your statements on this issue (and others) can each stand or fail on their own accord.5. Mea Culpa on the Ricci. Doesn't make me wrong here. Again, my statements on each issue can stand or fail on their own.
 
From today's Los Angeles Times, an article that sheds some light, IMO, on the African-American perspective regarding this arrest:

Black males' fear of racial profiling very real, regardless of class

Several African American professionals find professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s recent encounter with police all too easy to relate to. Their lingering question is when to speak up.

By Richard Fausset and P.J. Huffstutter

July 25, 2009

Like Henry Louis Gates Jr., they are professionals, men of status and achievement who have excelled in a nation that once shunned black men.

And for many of them, their only shock -- upon learning of the celebrated scholar's recent run-in with police -- was the moment of recognition.

They know too well the pivotal moment Gates faced at his Massachusetts home. It was that moment of suspicion when confronted by police, the moment one wonders, in a flash of panic, anger or confusion: Maybe I am being treated this way because I'm black.

Next comes the pivotal question: Do I protest or just take it?

Kwame Dunston says he has made the calculated choice to take it -- repeatedly. The public school administrator says he has been pulled over more than 20 times in the last decade, but has rarely been issued a ticket. What factor other than race, he wondered, would account for all of those stops?

"It's more important for me to make it home than to fight for a cause I'm not going to win," he said.

Dunston, 36, a New York resident who was in Atlanta this week, pointed to the interior of his 2006 Toyota Camry. It was showroom-clean. He doesn't want police to think he has something to hide.

"My job," Dunston said, "is to make sure they don't have any question about what's inside the car."

Such anxiety, deeply rooted in the African American experience, has endured into the era of the first black president.

For many black men, the feeling of remaining inherently suspect never goes away, no matter their wealth and status and the efforts by police forces to avoid abuses in profiling.

Lawrence Otis Graham, author of a book on affluent African Americans, said wealthy blacks may, in fact, be subjected to more racial profiling than others.

In upscale white neighborhoods, they sometimes stand out. In fancy restaurants, they're sometimes mistaken for help. "We become almost numbed by the constant presumptions," said Graham.

New attention

Those issues came crashing back into the spotlight with the arrest of Gates, a 58-year-old Harvard University professor, on July 16.

Early that afternoon, Cambridge police showed up at Gates' home, responding to a tip on a possible break-in. Gates was inside the house, after reportedly forcing open a stuck door.

According to his police report, Sgt. James Crowley asked Gates to step outside to talk, and Gates began screaming, accusing Crowley of being a "racist police officer."

Gates was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct, a charge later dropped. A number of people -- most prominently, President Obama -- rushed to his defense.

But Lorenzo Wyche, 32, is among those who wonder whether Gates picked the right time to take a stand. Wyche, a black restaurateur and Atlanta resident, said that his generation may not be as quick to ascribe nefarious motives to police as Gates' generation. "I didn't grow up with dogs chasing me down," he said.

And yet Wyche is also gripped at times by the gnawing suspicion that his black skin makes him a target. He was recently driving in midtown Atlanta. In front of him, an attractive white woman walked across the road, catching his eye. Behind him, a white policeman turned on his lights and pulled Wyche over.

But there would be no fireworks. The officer warned Wyche about an expired tag on his Porsche, and drove away.

"So that was my moment," Wyche said, with a laugh. "Did he run my tag just because I stared at this white girl?"

Wyche figures he will never know whether he was profiled. He prefers this mystery to the possible more serious outcomes. At the same time, the difficulty in proving profiling has created problems for police. Last year, members of the Los Angeles Police Department's civilian oversight panel were incredulous when department officials announced that not one of more than 300 racial profiling complaints was found to have merit.

A Times review of department documents later showed that no claims of profiling -- more than 1,200 -- had been upheld in at least six years. (Racial profiling isn't confined to black men; women and other groups can be targeted as well.)

But LAPD Chief William J. Bratton dismissed criticism, saying that profiling allegations hinge on what the officer was thinking, and therefore are nearly impossible to prove. "How," he said, "do you get inside someone's mind?"

For some black men, the solution is to try to avoid the possibility of confrontation altogether. Graham, the author, lives with his family on a large spread in the mostly white suburb of Westchester, N.Y. When the house alarm goes off, his wife goes to the front gate to meet police. He fears that if he goes instead, they will mistake him for an intruder.

Vibert White, a University of Central Florida history professor, recalled driving along an Indiana highway and spotting a line of cars pulled to the side of the road. All of the drivers were black men. So White, too, pulled over, figuring that was expected of black men.

An officer walked up and asked him why he had stopped.

"I told him that I'd seen the line of cars and just reacted," said White, 51. "He told me, 'Sir, you can go on with your business.' I realized how deeply ingrained this lesson had become -- of not causing a ruckus, of just playing the game, of doing what you needed to do in order to live your life."

Years earlier, he said, he had challenged a traffic stop and ended up in handcuffs.

In Detroit, Tony Spearman-Leach, 42, chief communications officer of the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, said he gets tailed by police three or four times a year. He gets pulled over, on average, once a year, but has never received a ticket.

He keeps his replies clear, respectful and short. Each time the officer walks up to his black 1991 Volvo S70 sedan, his mind weighs the same questions.

"I know it's because I'm black, and I'm driving the most conservative car you can get your hands on," Spearman-Leach said. "But you have to weigh what to do. If I fight, am I going to escalate the matter? Is this a battle worth fighting?"

Fighting it

Leach's answer has always been no. But before the Gates incident, other black voices had been encouraging people to say yes.

In January, Baratunde Thurston, a contributor to the influential blog Jack & Jill Politics (which bills itself as a voice of the "black bourgeoisie") argued that with a black president entering office, it was important to speak up about such issues, rather than bury the lingering problems of race.

In the past, speaking up has sometimes brought real change. In 1992, Robert L. Wilkins, a Washington attorney, refused a Maryland trooper's attempt to search his rental car with a drug dog. His federal lawsuit forced the state to enact a new training regimen for troopers, and to end race-based blanket drug sweeps.

But fighting back does not always yield such results.

In 1997, Aaron Campbell argued with sheriff's deputies in Orange County, Fla., after he was pulled over for a suspected lane-change violation. He was pepper-sprayed and thrown in a police car. Campbell happened to be a major in the Miami-Dade Police Department.

"I think that if I was a white major on the turnpike, and was stopped unlawfully, they would have said, 'Hey, major, go on about your business,' " Campbell said.

Campbell was found guilty of resisting arrest. The sheriff's deputies said race had nothing to do with it. Campbell's federal civil suit went nowhere.

 
(snip)This is why I believed at the beginning, and still partially believe, that Professor Gates was arrested for committing the crime of being an Uppity Black Man.(snip)Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority.
Why even make Gates's race an issue here? Even if you think he was arrested wrongfully, it doesn't follow that he was arrested wrongfully because of his race. It sounds to like he was arrested not for being an Uppity Black Man but instead for being a doosh. That doesn't make it right, but implying that Crowley was driven by racist motives makes this much more incindiary than it needs to be.
 
The above article demonstrates why Professor Gates' reaction, though probably excessive, is so understandable. It further explains why Gates and others remain concerned that, if there are no repercussions for the actions of Officer Crowley, Black people will continue to be scared to speak up when facing policemen.

 
From today's Los Angeles Times, an article that sheds some light, IMO, on the African-American perspective regarding this arrest:

Black males' fear of racial profiling very real, regardless of class

Several African American professionals find professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s recent encounter with police all too easy to relate to. Their lingering question is when to speak up.

By Richard Fausset and P.J. Huffstutter

July 25, 2009

Like Henry Louis Gates Jr., they are professionals, men of status and achievement who have excelled in a nation that once shunned black men.

And for many of them, their only shock -- upon learning of the celebrated scholar's recent run-in with police -- was the moment of recognition.

They know too well the pivotal moment Gates faced at his Massachusetts home. It was that moment of suspicion when confronted by police, the moment one wonders, in a flash of panic, anger or confusion: Maybe I am being treated this way because I'm black.
Maybe because his neighborhood had 8 recent break-ins (including Gates' home) and his neighbor reported suspicious activity? I know, I'm crazy. Obviously they were suspicious of him because he was black, not because of a reported B&E with physical evidence consistent with that report.

 
(snip)This is why I believed at the beginning, and still partially believe, that Professor Gates was arrested for committing the crime of being an Uppity Black Man.(snip)Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority.
Why even make Gates's race an issue here? Even if you think he was arrested wrongfully, it doesn't follow that he was arrested wrongfully because of his race. It sounds to like he was arrested not for being an Uppity Black Man but instead for being a doosh. That doesn't make it right, but implying that Crowley was driven by racist motives makes this much more incindiary than it needs to be.
As I wrote, when the story broke out, I believed this was the most likely reason. I believe that at this moment, a strong majority of African Americans believe it was the reason. And before you come out with the "How can YOU know what Black people believe?", it's just a personal opinion on my part; I have nothing to back it up. I STILL think this may be the reason, though I admit after listening to Officer Crowley, I am not so sure. As far as your question, race is an issue because Black people are treated differently by the police in this country. That is a historical fact, and I believe it continues to this day. Doesn't mean it is pertinent to the particulars of this situation, but it doesn't mean it is NOT pertinent, either.
 
From today's Los Angeles Times, an article that sheds some light, IMO, on the African-American perspective regarding this arrest:

Black males' fear of racial profiling very real, regardless of class

Several African American professionals find professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s recent encounter with police all too easy to relate to. Their lingering question is when to speak up.

By Richard Fausset and P.J. Huffstutter

July 25, 2009

Like Henry Louis Gates Jr., they are professionals, men of status and achievement who have excelled in a nation that once shunned black men.

And for many of them, their only shock -- upon learning of the celebrated scholar's recent run-in with police -- was the moment of recognition.

They know too well the pivotal moment Gates faced at his Massachusetts home. It was that moment of suspicion when confronted by police, the moment one wonders, in a flash of panic, anger or confusion: Maybe I am being treated this way because I'm black.
Maybe because his neighborhood had 8 recent break-ins (including Gates' home) and his neighbor reported suspicious activity? I know, I'm crazy. Obviously they were suspicious of him because he was black, not because of a reported B&E with physical evidence consistent with that report.
I think it turned out to be not a neighbor after all, but an employee in the area. And as far as your comment: this is the point of the article. Your interpretation of the events is far different from their interpretation, because they begin at a different starting point. If you had personally faced many examples of harassment by police, you would begin by being suspicious of police.

 
As I wrote, when the story broke out, I believed this was the most likely reason. I believe that at this moment, a strong majority of African Americans believe it was the reason.
So? They appear to be wrong.
As far as your question, race is an issue because Black people are treated differently by the police in this country. That is a historical fact, and I believe it continues to this day. Doesn't mean it is pertinent to the particulars of this situation, but it doesn't mean it is NOT pertinent, either.
I understand the history here, but it honestly doesn't seem pertinent to this particular case. We don't need to resort to broad social generalizations when we have most of the facts we need to judge this one particular case. We know with 100% certainty that Crowley had an excellent reason for investigating Gates's house, he had an excellent reason for asking him to step outside, he was polite in dealing with Gates, who in turn was belligerent from the get-go. Maybe Crowley shouldn't have arrested him, but Gates definitely shouldn't have been such a jackass, and many white people could and have found themselves in cuffs for the same type of behavior.
 
The above article demonstrates why Professor Gates' reaction, though probably excessive, is so understandable. It further explains why Gates and others remain concerned that, if there are no repercussions for the actions of Officer Crowley, Black people will continue to be scared to speak up when facing policemen.
Gates should not have spoken up.
 
As I wrote, when the story broke out, I believed this was the most likely reason. I believe that at this moment, a strong majority of African Americans believe it was the reason.
So? They appear to be wrong.
As far as your question, race is an issue because Black people are treated differently by the police in this country. That is a historical fact, and I believe it continues to this day. Doesn't mean it is pertinent to the particulars of this situation, but it doesn't mean it is NOT pertinent, either.
I understand the history here, but it honestly doesn't seem pertinent to this particular case. We don't need to resort to broad social generalizations when we have most of the facts we need to judge this one particular case. We know with 100% certainty that Crowley had an excellent reason for investigating Gates's house, he had an excellent reason for asking him to step outside, he was polite in dealing with Gates, who in turn was belligerent from the get-go. Maybe Crowley shouldn't have arrested him, but Gates definitely shouldn't have been such a jackass, and many white people could and have found themselves in cuffs for the same type of behavior.
I actually tend to agree with you here, yet I am not sure. When I listen to African-Americans talk about this issue I become convinced that they know what they're talking about based on their experiences. I tend to believe that racism was not an issue in this case, but I don't want to dismiss the possibility out of hand either.
 
The above article demonstrates why Professor Gates' reaction, though probably excessive, is so understandable. It further explains why Gates and others remain concerned that, if there are no repercussions for the actions of Officer Crowley, Black people will continue to be scared to speak up when facing policemen.
No, it doesn't. You think it's legit for a black man to think he's getting pulled over due to race when he has expired tags???? THAT'S the problem. He goes in to the situation BELIEVING it's racial instead of evaluating that aspect after the encounter is over. It doesn't justify Gates' response. It may explain it but if it does it explains yet again that Gates was WRONG. It doesn't make it understandable. It is NEVER understandable to me for an educated person to go in to such a situation with a preconceived notion. That's just not the intelligent thing to do, regardless of one's race.
 
The guy who thought Ricci overturned Title VII shouldn't be quite so bold in assessing my analysis of a statute.
1. The First Admendment is relevant because all this guy was doing was giving his opinion of the policeman's behavior. Even though, apparently, he was being rather loud, Gates was on his front porch. Up to this moment, I still have not heard from you or anyone else a reasonable explanation for his being arrested. I really don't care if he was screaming obscenties; I believe the First Amendment should give you the right to do so from your front porch. If a neighbor complains, that's a different story, but up to that point no neighbor had complained. This is why I believed at the beginning, and still partially believe, that Professor Gates was arrested for committing the crime of being an Uppity Black Man.
He wasn't arrested for what he said, but how he said it. He was yelling. That is disturbing the peace. The content of his speech doesn't matter. And what you believe about the First Amendment doesn't matter. There is a long line of cases allowing the state to regulate the time, place and manner of speech so long as it isn't based upon the content. The fact that he was commenting on what he believed the cop's motivations to be doesn't give him the right to disturb the peace.
2. Of course you're allowed to contradict conservatives, or anyone. I just find it interesting that, though you chose to make comments in this thread nearly from its beginning, this is the first time you've made the "content doesn't matter" argument. When others wrote that Gates "got what he deserved" you did not choose to contradict them.
You have got to be kidding me. Go back and read what I wrote. All of my reasoning has been based upon his yelling. Nothing else.Why should I have to specifically address those other posters to make my own point? It's clear they weren't making a legal argument. They were saying what we all know, you piss off a cop and you risk getting arrested whether it's justified or not.

3. In truth, I don't know whether MT's argument is unanswerable or not. What I know is that YOU failed to provide a reasonable argument against it. Disorderly conduct is a catchall which has been used, historically, against Black men who challenged authority. I'm going to paste an article on this.
You find my post where I linked to the Massachusetts criminal attorney and explain how my analysis is not reasonable. Like MT, YOU didn't try to refute my reasoning either.I don't care about how it's been used historically, I care about how it applies in this situation.

5. Mea Culpa on the Ricci. Doesn't make me wrong here.
The fact that you were so far off on that one brings your opinion on legal issues into question.
 
The above article demonstrates why Professor Gates' reaction, though probably excessive, is so understandable. It further explains why Gates and others remain concerned that, if there are no repercussions for the actions of Officer Crowley, Black people will continue to be scared to speak up when facing policemen.
:shrug: He did speak up. In fact, he yelled. And didn't stop yelling when asked to do so.If he'd spoken to the officer face to face in a reasonable tone, he wouldn't have been arrested.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top