Housing While Black (1 Viewer)

[The Big Guy]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Sounds like an Eagles game to me.

Might be the funniest line in this entire overblown thread.

 

[Nigel]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Wouldn't work. You'd just get claims of racial adjudicating to go along with profiling.

maybe all cops and judges should have to be mulatto?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Sounds like an Eagles game to me.

Precisely. Eagles fans are ahead of their time, that's all.

 

[TexanFan02]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Wouldn't work. You'd just get claims of racial adjudicating to go along with profiling.

maybe all cops and judges should have to be mulatto?

God no, then they'd get it from both sides.

 

[Parrothead]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Wouldn't work. You'd just get claims of racial adjudicating to go along with profiling.

maybe all cops and judges should have to be mulatto?

God no, then they'd get it from both sides.

Let's face it- we are heading for a black perp-black cop / jugde; white perp- white cop / judge system.. you call 911- "help, I'm being robbed!" "911- "ok, can you tell me if the suspect is black or white?""Black!!""I'm sorry, our black officers are all busy right now, could you hold?"

 

[Statorama]

30 pages, wow.

Anyone use the "Posting While Black" alias yet?

 

[Thorn]

30 pages, wow.Anyone use the "Posting While Black" alias yet?

Are you getting tumultuous?

 

[TexanFan02]

30 pages, wow.Anyone use the "Posting While Black" alias yet?

Are you getting tumultuous?

Them's fighting words.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Pretty comprehensive overview from Eric Posner at Volokh:

What is “disorderly conduct” anyway?

Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior.... ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:
(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.

And here are some squibs:
Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.

And –
Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.

And –
Defendant's conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant's protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant's flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant's behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.

Here is more from that case:
[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins's [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant's conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.

 

[Thorn]

MT>I see your point but I wonder - where would you draw the line on tumultuous behavior in front of bystanders, who may become more agitated the more police allow the rant to go on? I think cops are trained to control the scene; err on the side of taking someone in for an admittedly weak DC charge - isn't that better than waiting until you have 4 or 5 bystanders joining the fray and shouting about racist pig cops. Just seems like things can escalate quickly and dangerously.

 

[Dexter Manley]

My personal take on this general subject is that Citizens have the right to be critical of any of their government, and this most certainly includes the police. They have a nearly unlimited right to criticize the police generally and individual officers specifically. The right covers both critcism at a distance such as in editorials, on blogs, at public meetings and rallys, and up close and personal so long as they are not interfering with the officer in the performance of their lawful duty or inciting an immediate or immenent violent or disorderly reponse.

Unfortunately most do not exercise their rights with thought or restraint and when they are not subject of immediate scrutiney such as at a town meeting. They generally only choose to do so when they are about to be arrested or one of their friends or family members is. They are heated, less than thoughtful, and very prone to crossing important lines.

It is unfortunate that some believe their rights come with no responsibilities and they wish to play a game of gotcha with the cops. These people say they have a right to expect super human forebearance from humans. (I leave it to others to define how sensible that is) They then set out to prove that cops are only too human by acting inhuman themselves. When they eventually get the very reaction they are seeking they feel vindicated unless you call them on their actions, because they themselves do not welcome criticism, which is kind of interesting.

All of this is fun, but this unneccessary dance comes at the expense of rights of others. Do I and others not have a right to not see resources wasted by juvenile and repetitive expressions. The resources wasted in these matters are actually possibly needed elsewhere.

Please, I encourage the challenge of authority, but in an orderly fashion. Think before acting, do not challenge authority at the point of exercise of it by taunting or defying, rather ask clarifying questions seeking the limits of the authority and be prepared to sue after the immediate situation is resolved. You do indeed have rights, but you are not a judge ruling on your rights at the scene of an arrest and over riding the officer. Your interpretations of your rights or your own behavior will ultimately not be the question as tha tis necessarily subjective and self serving. Rather an objective standard applied after the fact is really the only way that we can balance your rights with society's.

So you don't think police should be held to "super human forebearance," but ordinary citizens should? This despite the fact that police have all sorts of training on how to handle such matters, while the vast majority of ordinary citizens have none?Look, Crowley had no right to arrest this Gates character for disorderly conduct under Mass. law as far as I can tell. He acted stupidly by doing such. If anyone should of been expected to be able to walk away in this situation it should of been Officer Crowley, who's supposed to be one of Cambridge's finest officers. If he just turns the other cheek, walks away and tells the other officers to leave the scene, then there's no issue. Problem avoided/solved.

If he doesn't have thick enough skin to handle a few insults and walk away, then quite frankly he has no business being a police officer. Generally speaking, the police in this country are underpaid, undertrained, and underappreciated. It's sad, but true. Everyone should know that going in when they apply to be a police officer.

Maybe this is one isolated incident by Crowley, but odds are it isn't. And if it isn't, that means Crowley, one of Cambridge's finest officers, has less self control and discipline than me, and I've had zero police training. I've heard a lot worse insults over the years at bars, parties, etc., with people trying to provoke me, and in almost every case I was legally intoxicated at the time (I'm assuming Crowley was sober during the incident), but I've always, in every situation, turned the other cheek and walked away. So I find it pretty pathetic Crowley couldn't do the same.

I personally treat everyone with respect, the way I want to be treated, but I am a rare bird compared to most others in our society. If you expect most other citizens to be like me, you're being completely unrealistic. I do have that expectation of the police, however, because that is part of what they are paid to do. If they don't like it, they should go find another line of work.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Cops should be held to a higher standard. They should not be held to inhuman standards. The arbitrar of those standards shoud be the courts not some drunk or indignant person about to be arrested.

Actually the police officers themselves should know their limits and work within them or find other work. Also, no one is suggesting they be held to inhuman standards.

Actually many here are suggesting precisely that they be held to an inhuman standard, though they will not be so forthright and honest and they put it in other terms because they are dishonest with themselves as to what they are doing.

Well we disagree. There's the occassional joke but for the most part I see people discussing what they believe. You see people being dishonest and meaning something other than what they post. OK.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT>I see your point but I wonder - where would you draw the line on tumultuous behavior in front of bystanders, who may become more agitated the more police allow the rant to go on? I think cops are trained to control the scene; err on the side of taking someone in for an admittedly weak DC charge - isn't that better than waiting until you have 4 or 5 bystanders joining the fray and shouting about racist pig cops. Just seems like things can escalate quickly and dangerously.

I'm not the one drawing the line. That's up to the constitution, legislators, and judges.But if you make me Emperor, I would draw the line pretty much exactly where the constitution, legislators, and judges have. Speech that is protected under the first amendment cannot be the basis for an arrest. Threats (or, obviously, acts) of violence are not protected.People need to stay out of the police's way when they are conducting an investigation or otherwise doing something productive. But when the investigation is over and they are (or should be) headed back to their patrol car, go ahead and yell insults. It's rude, but not illegal.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Just to be clear where I stand on all 3 parties in this case:

- Gates is an idiot who needs to learn to respect others.

- Crowley acted stupidly by arresting Gates and exhibited extremely poor self control.

- Obama has a bajillion things more important to concern himself with than this case, and he was dumb for commenting on it.

All 3 guys are losers here.

 

[TexanFan02]

MT>I see your point but I wonder - where would you draw the line on tumultuous behavior in front of bystanders, who may become more agitated the more police allow the rant to go on? I think cops are trained to control the scene; err on the side of taking someone in for an admittedly weak DC charge - isn't that better than waiting until you have 4 or 5 bystanders joining the fray and shouting about racist pig cops. Just seems like things can escalate quickly and dangerously.

I'm not the one drawing the line. That's up to the constitution, legislators, and judges.But if you make me Emperor, I would draw the line pretty much exactly where the constitution, legislators, and judges have. Speech that is protected under the first amendment cannot be the basis for an arrest. Threats (or, obviously, acts) of violence are not protected.

People need to stay out of the police's way when they are conducting an investigation or otherwise doing something productive. But when the investigation is over and they are (or should be) headed back to their patrol car, go ahead and yell insults. It's rude, but not illegal.

It's not very bright. Or productive. If I were Emperor, I would make it a taserable offense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hey, man, some people like the Bill of Rights, some don't.

 

[TexanFan02]

Hey, man, some people like the Bill of Rights, some don't.

Sorry, thought we were being Emperors.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.Thanks for morning entertainment!!

make sure you stop being a girly-man and give the next cop you see the business!!!

I think you missed the point.Parrotheads calling others girly

says you through your nearly closed car window afraid big bad lowly public servant policeman is gonna beat you up?

Did you flunk out of cop school or something?

 

[Parrothead]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.Thanks for morning entertainment!!

make sure you stop being a girly-man and give the next cop you see the business!!!

I think you missed the point.Parrotheads calling others girly

says you through your nearly closed car window afraid big bad lowly public servant policeman is gonna beat you up?

Did you flunk out of cop school or something?

yeah, that's it..

 

[Gigantomachia]

Experience has proven my point numerous times.But believe whatever gets you through the night.

I'll trust friends & family members that are in law enforcement. They get extra $$$ to show up in court and to put a sad face on people like you

Would you like to see the dismissed case records?

 

[The Z Machine]

I've never once interacted with a city policeman, sherrif, or state trooper who ever gave me any crap. These guys are human beings just like me, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to go out of my way to make their jobs more difficult or stressful than they already are.

Something tells me that you're not black.I'm white and I've seen it happen to my black friends. For serious.

 

[timschochet]

At a time of economic distress, two wars, and a health care reform effort stalled by political friction, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, (R-Mich.) is set to introduce a bill calling on Barack Obama to formally apologize to the Cambridge Police.

The Michigan Republican announced on Friday that he would introduce the resolution unless Obama apologized to Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley for criticizing Crowley's handling of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest last week.

The resolution is, as McCotter's Democratic critics note, a political ploy and a waste of congressional time. The congressman undoubtedly has a full plate of issues with which he could concern himself, including his home state's porous job market.

"Times are tough, people need jobs here at home, but instead of offering solutions, obstructionist Republicans like Congressman McCotter continue to put politics first," said Ryan Rudominer, press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

McCotter isn't the only Republican official eagerly working to keep the Gates controversy alive. The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Thursday started distributing an online petition asking supporters to answer the question: "Do you think it's appropriate for our nation's Commander in Chief to stand before a national audience and criticize the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day, when by his own admission, he doesn't even know all the facts?"

Though falling short of a formal apology, Obama's comments on Friday were widely seen as conciliatory. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," Obama said, "and I could have calibrated those words differently."

But McCotter appears undeterred. "He has said he will introduce the legislation if the President does not retract and apologize for his comments," said Jameson Cunningham, press secretary for McCotter, when asked if Obama had already addressed his concerns. "As of now, no apology has been issued."

Here is the full text of his resolution:

Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion;

Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident";

Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;

Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;

Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; and

Whereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."

Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties;

Now therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.

 

[Christo]

At a time of economic distress, two wars, and a health care reform effort stalled by political friction, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, (R-Mich.) is set to introduce a bill calling on Barack Obama to formally apologize to the Cambridge Police. The Michigan Republican announced on Friday that he would introduce the resolution unless Obama apologized to Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley for criticizing Crowley's handling of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest last week. The resolution is, as McCotter's Democratic critics note, a political ploy and a waste of congressional time. The congressman undoubtedly has a full plate of issues with which he could concern himself, including his home state's porous job market. "Times are tough, people need jobs here at home, but instead of offering solutions, obstructionist Republicans like Congressman McCotter continue to put politics first," said Ryan Rudominer, press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. McCotter isn't the only Republican official eagerly working to keep the Gates controversy alive. The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Thursday started distributing an online petition asking supporters to answer the question: "Do you think it's appropriate for our nation's Commander in Chief to stand before a national audience and criticize the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day, when by his own admission, he doesn't even know all the facts?"Though falling short of a formal apology, Obama's comments on Friday were widely seen as conciliatory. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," Obama said, "and I could have calibrated those words differently."But McCotter appears undeterred. "He has said he will introduce the legislation if the President does not retract and apologize for his comments," said Jameson Cunningham, press secretary for McCotter, when asked if Obama had already addressed his concerns. "As of now, no apology has been issued."Here is the full text of his resolution:Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion; Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident"; Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; andWhereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties;Now therefore be itResolved, That the House of Representatives--Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.

This is dumb. But not for the reason initially given. It's dumb because it's dumb.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).It's hard to put it any better than that.

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

Maurile seems to think that because there is no statute that details what abuse a cop should put up with he assumes that all cops should put up with whatever abuse a citizen wants to dish out. Maurile refuses to admit that the statute for disorderly conduct is basically whatever the particular police officer you are dealing with says it is (at least as to whether you will be arrested or not, as I said the purpose of arresting someone for disorderly conduct is not to get a conviction).

 

[Pat Patriot]

Experience has proven my point numerous times.But believe whatever gets you through the night.

I'll trust friends & family members that are in law enforcement. They get extra $$$ to show up in court and to put a sad face on people like you

Actually back in the 80's and 90's it was a good tact to challenge every ticket because the police officer might not show. Actually worked for me a couple of times. Until the mid 90's when the Police started sending a police rep to handle all tickets for the police instead of requiring each individual officer to show up. That kind of closed that potential course of action for those trying to beat tickets (at least in Massachusetts).

 

[Pat Patriot]

Hey, man, some people like the Bill of Rights, some don't.

The Bill of Rights says you have the right to be an ##### without consequence. Good to know.

 

[Pat Patriot]

At a time of economic distress, two wars, and a health care reform effort stalled by political friction, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, (R-Mich.) is set to introduce a bill calling on Barack Obama to formally apologize to the Cambridge Police. The Michigan Republican announced on Friday that he would introduce the resolution unless Obama apologized to Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley for criticizing Crowley's handling of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest last week. The resolution is, as McCotter's Democratic critics note, a political ploy and a waste of congressional time. The congressman undoubtedly has a full plate of issues with which he could concern himself, including his home state's porous job market. "Times are tough, people need jobs here at home, but instead of offering solutions, obstructionist Republicans like Congressman McCotter continue to put politics first," said Ryan Rudominer, press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. McCotter isn't the only Republican official eagerly working to keep the Gates controversy alive. The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Thursday started distributing an online petition asking supporters to answer the question: "Do you think it's appropriate for our nation's Commander in Chief to stand before a national audience and criticize the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day, when by his own admission, he doesn't even know all the facts?"Though falling short of a formal apology, Obama's comments on Friday were widely seen as conciliatory. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," Obama said, "and I could have calibrated those words differently."But McCotter appears undeterred. "He has said he will introduce the legislation if the President does not retract and apologize for his comments," said Jameson Cunningham, press secretary for McCotter, when asked if Obama had already addressed his concerns. "As of now, no apology has been issued."Here is the full text of his resolution:Whereas on July 16, 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley responded to a 911 call from a neighbor of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis ("Skip") Gates, Jr. about a suspected break-in in progress at his residence, which had been broken into on a prior occasion; Whereas on July 22, 2009, in responding to a question during a White House press conference President Barack Obama stated: "Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all of the facts involved in this local police response incident"; Whereas President Obama proceeded to state Sergeant Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct;Whereas, as a former Constitutional Law Professor, President Obama well understands that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and their actions should not be prejudged prior to being fully and fairly judged by an appropriate and objective authority after due process;Whereas, President Obama's nationally televised remarks may likely detrimentally influence the full and fair judgment by an appropriate and objective authority after due process regarding this local police response incident and, thereby, impair Sergeant Crowley's legal and professional standing in relation to said incident; andWhereas, President Obama appeared at a daily White House Press briefing on July 24, 2009 to address his denouncement of Sergeant Crowley and stated: "I could have calibrated those words differently" but "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."Whereas, President Obama's refusal to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Sergeant Crowley and, instead, reiterate his accusation impugning Sergeant Crowley's professional conduct in the performance of his duties;Now therefore be itResolved, That the House of Representatives--Calls upon President Obama to retract his initial public remarks and apologize to Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Sergeant James M. Crowley for having unfairly impugned and prejudged his professional conduct in this local police response incident.

These idiot Congressman do this stuff all the time. Idiotic resolutions about sports teams from their home state.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile seems to think that because there is no statute that details what abuse a cop should put up with he assumes that all cops should put up with whatever abuse a citizen wants to dish out.

Cops are no different from other citizens in that respect. If you insult me, I may not like it. But I don't have the legal right to physically restrain you in retaliation. Neither does a cop.If I'm bigger than you, I may have the physical ability to restrain you -- same as a cop does. But that would be unlawful. Might doesn't make right.

Maurile refuses to admit that the statute for disorderly conduct is basically whatever the particular police officer you are dealing with says it is (at least as to whether you will be arrested or not, as I said the purpose of arresting someone for disorderly conduct is not to get a conviction).

What leads you to think that I've refused to admit this? It's pretty much my whole point.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Maurile seems to think that because there is no statute that details what abuse a cop should put up with he assumes that all cops should put up with whatever abuse a citizen wants to dish out.

Cops are no different from other citizens in that respect. If you insult me, I may not like it. But I don't have the legal right to physically restrain you in retaliation. Neither does a cop.If I'm bigger than you, I may have the physical ability to restrain you -- same as a cop does. But that would be unlawful. Might doesn't make right.

Maurile refuses to admit that the statute for disorderly conduct is basically whatever the particular police officer you are dealing with says it is (at least as to whether you will be arrested or not, as I said the purpose of arresting someone for disorderly conduct is not to get a conviction).

What leads you to think that I've refused to admit this? It's pretty much my whole point.

You say it was an unlawful arrest. I say it was lawful based on de facto law which is the police officers interpretation of the law.I believe based on what you have said that you would believe Gates has the right to sue the Cambridge Police for wrongful arrest. I do not believe that to be true.

 

[The Z Machine]

You say it was an unlawful arrest. I say it was lawful based on de facto law which is the police officers interpretation of the law.

There's a reason that police officers are part of the executive branch and not the judiciary. They enforce the laws, not interpret them as they see fit.

 

[jonessed]

You say it was an unlawful arrest. I say it was lawful based on de facto law which is the police officers interpretation of the law.

There's a reason that police officers are part of the executive branch and not the judiciary. They enforce the laws, not interpret them as they see fit.

It's not like they carry around a pocket judge. At some point they have to make a judgement call. Sometimes that call will be right and sometimes it won't. Relegating all dropped charges to unlawful arrests is quite a reach though. There is a fair amount of discretion allowed.

 

[The Z Machine]

You say it was an unlawful arrest. I say it was lawful based on de facto law which is the police officers interpretation of the law.

There's a reason that police officers are part of the executive branch and not the judiciary. They enforce the laws, not interpret them as they see fit.

It's not like they carry around a pocket judge. At some point they have to make a judgement call. Sometimes that call will be right and sometimes it won't. Relegating all dropped charges to unlawful arrests is quite a reach though. There is a fair amount of discretion allowed.

No doubt they have to make judgment calls all the time. That doesn't mean they have the leeway to run roughshod over the laws and the judiciary's interpretation thereof. There isn't a bright line division here though, and I understand the point.However, if the police officer *knows* that the charges that he/she is arresting another person for are bogus and will be thrown out in a few hours, I would consider that an unlawful arrest. The question how do you prove what someone is thinking? Unless the officers came out and said, "We're taking you downtown, but we won't press charges and will release you in a few hours after you've calmed down." then ti becomes difficult. If the officers that arrested Gates truly thought that they were going to prosecute him for disturbing the peace, then I don't see too much of a problem with the arrest. In that case my issue is with the training of the officers on what constitutes a true DtP offense. Contempt of cop isn't enough as has been posted in this thread.

 

[Pat Patriot]

You say it was an unlawful arrest. I say it was lawful based on de facto law which is the police officers interpretation of the law.

There's a reason that police officers are part of the executive branch and not the judiciary. They enforce the laws, not interpret them as they see fit.

It's not like they carry around a pocket judge. At some point they have to make a judgement call. Sometimes that call will be right and sometimes it won't. Relegating all dropped charges to unlawful arrests is quite a reach though. There is a fair amount of discretion allowed.

No doubt they have to make judgment calls all the time. That doesn't mean they have the leeway to run roughshod over the laws and the judiciary's interpretation thereof. There isn't a bright line division here though, and I understand the point.However, if the police officer *knows* that the charges that he/she is arresting another person for are bogus and will be thrown out in a few hours, I would consider that an unlawful arrest. The question how do you prove what someone is thinking? Unless the officers came out and said, "We're taking you downtown, but we won't press charges and will release you in a few hours after you've calmed down." then ti becomes difficult. If the officers that arrested Gates truly thought that they were going to prosecute him for disturbing the peace, then I don't see too much of a problem with the arrest. In that case my issue is with the training of the officers on what constitutes a true DtP offense. Contempt of cop isn't enough as has been posted in this thread.

There really is no prosecution of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct in the truest sense of the word. It is a misdemeanor. You go before a judge and basically you get a fine of $150. The police enforce laws based on their judgement of a situation. They are given a lot of leeway in deciding what constitutes disorderly conduct.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My purely speculative take on the Gates case after prosecuting for over 20 years is as follows. Gates broke the law when he initially refused to identify himself. I presume here that the cop articulated a lawful order for him to do so, if not, then Gates did not break the law. But if The order issued, as I suspect it did, Gates initial refusal was a crime and it is just that it is in that by doing so for a few moments he actually delayed an investigation and kept the officer in a potential state of perile, remember had this been an actual break in by two men they where not then located and could have been a danger. Gates was subject to arrest for that.

Though subject to arrest for that refusal the officer saw it for what it was, a hypertechnical violation and one he was corret in not getting worked up over. Cops often do not cite every violation and as a prosecutor I appreciate that.

Then, once identity was established Gates ran his mouth. He is entitled to run his mouth so long as he is not threatening or creating an imminent danger of a real breach of the peace such as encouraging others to intercede on his behalf. The Cop then found him in contempt of Cop, a supposition I mentioned many pages ago. The cop thought he would both teach him a lesson and give him a bit of a break by not charging the more serious count which by that time he had more or less put it out of his mind. The cop wanted control of the situation. Unfortuantely by thinking, by determining his street justice here the cop got the charge wrong.

This wrong charge put the police and prosecutor in an awkward position. They could have amended the charge to fit the facts, but doing so would have been percieved, correctly I believe, as just what it was, covering a cop's dignity more than enforcing the law.

The damage from this cop trying to think has been immense. We have folks advocating not merely mouthing off to cops, which though obnoxious, foolish, and really to the deteriment of society, is their right, but we also have some encouraging others to challenge perhaps their lawful authority. This endangers us all. Far better to cooperate and to seek vindication of rights in court. An individual cannot vindicate their own rights on the street, not as a safe and practical matter.

Yes Gates had his dignity assailed. As a black man some say he had special dignity we cannot understand and maybe that is so. He did not want his neighbors and collegues to see him being questioned by the cops as they might presume he had done something. There would have been a stigma and that stigma would have been wrongful. He would have been a victim of circumstance. I ask this though, is his dignity really worth more than anyone elses? Any of us who have been questioned in our homes where our nieighbors can see the interaction, or who have been stopped on the street have the experience of wondering what people will think. We are embrassed, We temporarily lose dignity. Still, that does not give us the right to refuse to obey lawful orders. After we cooperate though we can then expect our dignity and our rights to be honored, even if we are pricks to the officer. It is more likely that the officer will cooperate in restoring this if we are cooperative, but we are not required to be so.

Imagine if Gates had cooperated. He could then have stood outside with the cops as they cleared his house for his safety. His neighbors would have seen him respecting the officers and vice versa. The cops would have chatted with him, shook his hand in front of his neighborhood, and even offered to keep an eye on his place. His dignity would have been restored. This is something he and the cops could have accomplished together wand which will never really be restored by a court of law. Gates in turn might have found in Sgt. Crowley a person with whom he could have done a few ride alongs and with whom he may have structured progams to the betterment of their community.

Real damage was done here. Damage by both Gates and the cop. One broke the law and the other broke public trust and by mischarging when no charge was really needed has abused his office some and the patience of his department and the prosecutor. GDB cops thinking. They need to serve.

 

[The Z Machine]

My purely speculative take on the Gates case after prosecuting for over 20 years is as follows. Gates broke the law when he initially refused to identify himself. I presume here that the cop articulated a lawful order for him to do so, if not, then Gates did not break the law. But if The order issued, as I suspect it did, Gates initial refusal was a crime and it is just that it is in that by doing so for a few moments he actually delayed an investigation and kept the officer in a potential state of perile, remember had this been an actual break in by two men they where not then located and could have been a danger. Gates was subject to arrest for that.Though subject to arrest for that refusal the officer saw it for what it was, a hypertechnical violation and one he was corret in not getting worked up over. Cops often do not cite every violation and as a prosecutor I appreciate that.Then, once identity was established Gates ran his mouth. He is entitled to run his mouth so long as he is not threatening or creating an imminent danger of a real breach of the peace such as encouraging others to intercede on his behalf. The Cop then found him in contempt of Cop, a supposition I mentioned many pages ago. The cop thought he would both teach him a lesson and give him a bit of a break by not charging the more serious count which by that time he had more or less put it out of his mind. The cop wanted control of the situation. Unfortuantely by thinking, by determining his street justice here the cop got the charge wrong.This wrong charge put the police and prosecutor in an awkward position. They could have amended the charge to fit the facts, but doing so would have been percieved, correctly I believe, as just what it was, covering a cop's dignity more than enforcing the law.The damage from this cop trying to think has been immense. We have folks advocating not merely mouthing off to cops, which though obnoxious, foolish, and really to the deteriment of society, is their right, but we also have some encouraging others to challenge perhaps their lawful authority. This endangers us all. Far better to cooperate and to seek vindication of rights in court. An individual cannot vindicate their own rights on the street, not as a safe and practical matter. Yes Gates had his dignity assailed. As a black man some say he had special dignity we cannot understand and maybe that is so. He did not want his neighbors and collegues to see him being questioned by the cops as they might presume he had done something. There would have been a stigma and that stigma would have been wrongful. He would have been a victim of circumstance. I ask this though, is his dignity really worth more than anyone elses? Any of us who have been questioned in our homes where our nieighbors can see the interaction, or who have been stopped on the street have the experience of wondering what people will think. We are embrassed, We temporarily lose dignity. Still, that does not give us the right to refuse to obey lawful orders. After we cooperate though we can then expect our dignity and our rights to be honored, even if we are pricks to the officer. It is more likely that the officer will cooperate in restoring this if we are cooperative, but we are not required to be so.Imagine if Gates had cooperated. He could then have stood outside with the cops as they cleared his house for his safety. His neighbors would have seen him respecting the officers and vice versa. The cops would have chatted with him, shook his hand in front of his neighborhood, and even offered to keep an eye on his place. His dignity would have been restored. This is something he and the cops could have accomplished together wand which will never really be restored by a court of law. Gates in turn might have found in Sgt. Crowley a person with whom he could have done a few ride alongs and with whom he may have structured progams to the betterment of their community.Real damage was done here. Damage by both Gates and the cop. One broke the law and the other broke public trust and by mischarging when no charge was really needed has abused his office some and the patience of his department and the prosecutor. GDB cops thinking. They need to serve.

This is a VERY good posting. Thank you for taking the time to give your insight into the matter as you see it. I agree with 99% of it, and gets to the heart of the debate which has been going on here for a while now. Thank you for acknowledging that the arrest was likely the wrong move both on legal as well as practical grounds (my interpretation of your words).Both parties were at fault for a stupid situation. Both could have prevented this from happening and neither took the steps necessary to do so. That's a real shame indeed.

 

[timschochet]

Ditkaless Wonders, I've given your post a lot of thought, in part because I always respect your posts, and also because as a prosecuter (former? current?) you carry an authority on this issue that is important. You raise several fascinating points, and even though we have all been over this issue ad nauseum, I think they're worth replying to:

1. You state that Gates broke the law when he refused to give the officer his ID. But to date, Gates has always denied this refusal. According to him, he gave the officer his ID, and then starting berating the officer AFTER the fact. This is a discrepency which has not been resolved, and it never can be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because there are no witnesses except Crowley and Gates (this occurred inside the house.)

2. But even if we accept Crowley's story as fact, and not Gates, we're still left with the fact that Gates did eventually give his ID to Crowley, and that Crowley chose not to arrest Gates for the delay. This being the case, I'm really not sure why you even bring this matter up. It seems that you want to assert that even though you acknowledge the actual arrest was wrong (which is something here that many people still won't acknowledge, probably ever) Gates did in fact break the law. I'm really not sure this is so.

3. You wrote: The damage from this cop trying to think has been immense. We have folks advocating not merely mouthing off to cops, which though obnoxious, foolish, and really to the deteriment of society, is their right, but we also have some encouraging others to challenge perhaps their lawful authority. This endangers us all. Far better to cooperate and to seek vindication of rights in court. An individual cannot vindicate their own rights on the street, not as a safe and practical matter.

There's been no one here who advocates challenging police as a rule except Gigantomachia, and from his posts it sounds like he was into that a long time before this incident. I don't think this incident is going to really cause a lot of people to challenge police authority. African-Americans already have in general an adversarial relationship with the police, but this incident only confirms their already held preconceptions; it does not change them. Many conservatives believe that African-Americans cry racism at the drop of a hat and that the charge is often bogus; again, this incident will only confirm their already held preconceptions.

My point is that this incident is neither damaging, as you claim, nor is it a "teaching moment" as Gates and Obama assert. Nobody's minds have been changed. Nobody's actions are going to be any different. We're exactly where we were before. There still may be political repercussions to Obama, that remains to be seen. But no societal repercussions, IMO.

4. Finally, I think you're correct that if Gates had simply cooperated, none of this would have been necessary. But I have to keep stressing that Gates and many other African-Americans view the police as the enemy who cannot be trusted. This does not excuse Gates' behavior, but it should clarify matters a little bit to white people who shake their heads in wonder as to why a Harvard professor would be so uncooperative.

 

[Leviathan]

Timmy, for the love of Christ, please ####### stop.

:backtolurking:

 

[spacevan]

30 Pages! WOW!

There are a lot of lonely, lonely guys around here.

 

[Gigantomachia]

30 Pages! WOW!There are a lot of lonely, lonely guys around here.

You are making this way too easy.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There really is no prosecution of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct in the truest sense of the word. It is a misdemeanor. You go before a judge and basically you get a fine of $150.

That's a prosecution.

 

[Senor Schmutzig]

I thought this was rather amusing...

Harvard Prof Gates Is Half-Irish, Related to Cop Who Arrested Him

Two Men at Center of Controversy Linked by Irish Heritage

By NIALL O'DOWD

IrishCentral.com Publisher

July 28, 2009—

Henry Louis Gates Jr., the black professor at the center of the racial story involving his arrest outside his Harvard University-owned house, has spoken proudly of his Irish roots.



Strangely enough, he and the Cambridge, Mass., police officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, both trace their ancestry back to the legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages.

In a PBS series on African-American ancestry that he hosted in 2008, Gates discovered his Irish roots when he found he was descended from an Irish immigrant and a slave girl.

He went to Trinity College in Dublin to have his DNA analyzed. There he found that he shared 10 of the 11 DNA matches with offspring of Niall of the Nine Hostages, the fourth century warlord who created one of the dominant strains of Irish genealogy because he had so many offspring.

Ironically, James Crowley, whose name in Gaelic means "hardy warrior," is also descended from the same line as Gates, having very close links to Niall of the Nine Hostages.

So the two men who took part in what is now an infamous confrontation outside the Gates home near Harvard this month are actually related through common Irish lineage -- one of the more extraordinary aspects of the incident that has sparked worldwide headlines.

Gates is one of many famous African-Americans with Irish heritage, including President Barack Obama and award-winning author Alice Walker.

On the PBS series, Gates visits Trinity College to find his roots, and says to the genealogist, "Do I look like an Irishman to you? I'm here to find my roots. I've been looking all over Africa and I couldn't find anybody, so I ended up here.

"I'm descended from a white man, he says. "A white man who slept with a black slave. And we know from the analysis of my DNA that ... goes back to Ireland. So maybe you can help me."

When the genealogist tells him he does indeed have Irish links, Gates says, "I find this oddly moving. It is astonishing," he says, "that I have a kinship with someone (Niall of the Nine Hostages) dating back to the fourth century A.D."

Millions of Irish Americans, especially those in New York, may be directly descended, like Gates, from Niall of the Nine Hostages, the most prolific warrior in Irish history.

A team of geneticists at Trinity College led by professor Dan Bradley have discovered that as many as 3 million men worldwide may be descendents of the Irish warlord, who was the Irish "High King" at Tara, the ancient center of Ireland from A.D. 379 to A.D. 405.

The story of Niall of the Nine Hostages is already the stuff of legend, which has been passed on to countless Irish schoolchildren over the years.

The supposedly fearless leader battled the English, the Scots, the French and even the Romans, and struck fear into the heart of his enemies. His dynasty lasted for centuries, continuing up until the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland at the end of the 16th century.

Legend has it that it was Niall of the Nine Hostages who, on a raid in Wales, captured a young slave and brought him to Ireland. That slave would later escape, and go to become Ireland's patron saint, St. Patrick.

But one story not told to most Irish elementary schoolchildren was of Niall's prolificacy.

When it came to the bedroom, it seems that Niall of the Nine Hostages was even more fearless and energetic than he was on the battlefield.

This warlord was responsible for the very common Irish surname "O'Neill" -- which means "descendant son of Niall." It is also the name of Irish pubs all over the world.

The researchers also found that as many as one in 12 men in Ireland have the same DNA as the Irish king -- and in Ireland's northwest, that figure rises to one in five.

 

[Parrothead]

I thought this was rather amusing...

Harvard Prof Gates Is Half-Irish, Related to Cop Who Arrested Him

Two Men at Center of Controversy Linked by Irish Heritage

By NIALL O'DOWD

IrishCentral.com Publisher

July 28, 2009—

Henry Louis Gates Jr., the black professor at the center of the racial story involving his arrest outside his Harvard University-owned house, has spoken proudly of his Irish roots.



Strangely enough, he and the Cambridge, Mass., police officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, both trace their ancestry back to the legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages.

In a PBS series on African-American ancestry that he hosted in 2008, Gates discovered his Irish roots when he found he was descended from an Irish immigrant and a slave girl.

He went to Trinity College in Dublin to have his DNA analyzed. There he found that he shared 10 of the 11 DNA matches with offspring of Niall of the Nine Hostages, the fourth century warlord who created one of the dominant strains of Irish genealogy because he had so many offspring.

Ironically, James Crowley, whose name in Gaelic means "hardy warrior," is also descended from the same line as Gates, having very close links to Niall of the Nine Hostages.

So the two men who took part in what is now an infamous confrontation outside the Gates home near Harvard this month are actually related through common Irish lineage -- one of the more extraordinary aspects of the incident that has sparked worldwide headlines.

Gates is one of many famous African-Americans with Irish heritage, including President Barack Obama and award-winning author Alice Walker.

On the PBS series, Gates visits Trinity College to find his roots, and says to the genealogist, "Do I look like an Irishman to you? I'm here to find my roots. I've been looking all over Africa and I couldn't find anybody, so I ended up here.

"I'm descended from a white man, he says. "A white man who slept with a black slave. And we know from the analysis of my DNA that ... goes back to Ireland. So maybe you can help me."

When the genealogist tells him he does indeed have Irish links, Gates says, "I find this oddly moving. It is astonishing," he says, "that I have a kinship with someone (Niall of the Nine Hostages) dating back to the fourth century A.D."

Millions of Irish Americans, especially those in New York, may be directly descended, like Gates, from Niall of the Nine Hostages, the most prolific warrior in Irish history.

A team of geneticists at Trinity College led by professor Dan Bradley have discovered that as many as 3 million men worldwide may be descendents of the Irish warlord, who was the Irish "High King" at Tara, the ancient center of Ireland from A.D. 379 to A.D. 405.

The story of Niall of the Nine Hostages is already the stuff of legend, which has been passed on to countless Irish schoolchildren over the years.

The supposedly fearless leader battled the English, the Scots, the French and even the Romans, and struck fear into the heart of his enemies. His dynasty lasted for centuries, continuing up until the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland at the end of the 16th century.

Legend has it that it was Niall of the Nine Hostages who, on a raid in Wales, captured a young slave and brought him to Ireland. That slave would later escape, and go to become Ireland's patron saint, St. Patrick.

But one story not told to most Irish elementary schoolchildren was of Niall's prolificacy.

When it came to the bedroom, it seems that Niall of the Nine Hostages was even more fearless and energetic than he was on the battlefield.

This warlord was responsible for the very common Irish surname "O'Neill" -- which means "descendant son of Niall." It is also the name of Irish pubs all over the world.

The researchers also found that as many as one in 12 men in Ireland have the same DNA as the Irish king -- and in Ireland's northwest, that figure rises to one in five.

Hence the BEER.. duh

 

[timschochet]

It's all a Fenian plot. I knew it!

Erin go Bragh.

 

[The Big Guy]

Does any of the racial furor die or does it get bigger when Colin Powell chimes in on the issue and says what many of us have been saying.

Calm talking gets you no arrest

Colin Powell: Skip Gates Could Have Avoided Arrest

Posted:

07/28/09

Gen. Colin Powell says that Harvard Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates could have avoided arrest and the ensuing controversy by just talking calmly to Cambridge, Mass., Police Sgt. James Crowley and coming outside his house.

"I'm saying Skip, perhaps in this instance, might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer and that might have been the end of it," Powell says in an interview with Larry King, airing Tuesday night on CNN.

Powell added that the whole incident "might have been resolved in a different manner if we didn't have this verbal altercation between the two of them."

Crowley had gone to Gates' home to investigate a possible break-in, and the two engaged in a heated exchange. A disorderly conduct charge against Gates was dropped.

When asked if he has ever been racially profiled, Powell furrowed his brow and said, "Yes, many times." He said it makes him angry, but that "anger is best controlled."

As an example of racial profiling in his own life, he refers to an incident at National Airport when he was President Reagan's national security adviser, which he wrote about in his autobiography, "My American Journey."

Powell recalled driving up in a limo, wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, for a planned meeting. The private plane terminal staff had been alerted to meet with Reagan's NSA.

After walking around the terminal for a long time, Powell finally approached the counter and asked about the meeting, to which the airport official responded, "Oh, YOU'RE General Powell." Powell recounts to King that "it was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser."

Powell believes "there is no African-American in this country who has not been exposed to this situation," but that "a better course of action is to take it easy and don't let your anger make the current situation worse."

Powell's full interview will air Tuesday on CNN's "Larry King Live" at 9 p.m. EDT.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Anecdote time.

In the City in which I work we had a detractor of the police department. His spare time was spent standing in a public place near one of our police substations. Daily he would flip off officers as they came and went from the substation. Often he would hurl invective at them as well. One day, after enduring this hundreds of times one officer reacted. I guess the citizen finally found the button to push on that officer. The officer grabbed the guy by his extended finger. He broke it, probably not purposefully but certainly recklessly and therefore unlawfully. He did so in public and in full sight of the citizen's children, who, inexplicably he would bring with him to teach them how to hurl invective at the cops.

We never let the civil case see the inside of a court. We paid the guy, as we had to. The officer suffered rather severe discipline and his career was ended effectively that moment, though the process took rather longer.

Sometimes, when money gets tight, I am tempted to go to other jurisdictions and to bait officers similarly.

 

[Parrothead]

Anecdote time.In the City in which I work we had a detractor of the police department. His spare time was spent standing in a public place near one of our police substations. Daily he would flip off officers as they came and went from the substation. Often he would hurl invective at them as well. One day, after enduring this hundreds of times one officer reacted. I guess the citizen finally found the button to push on that officer. The officer grabbed the guy by his extended finger. He broke it, probably not purposefully but certainly recklessly and therefore unlawfully. He did so in public and in full sight of the citizen's children, who, inexplicably he would bring with him to teach them how to hurl invective at the cops.We never let the civil case see the inside of a court. We paid the guy, as we had to. The officer suffered rather severe discipline and his career was ended effectively that moment, though the process took rather longer.Sometimes, when money gets tight, I am tempted to go to other jurisdictions and to bait officers similarly.

Hope Gig's finger is feeling better

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I thought this was rather amusing...

Harvard Prof Gates Is Half-Irish, Related to Cop Who Arrested Him

We're all related. HTH

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Anecdote time.In the City in which I work we had a detractor of the police department. His spare time was spent standing in a public place near one of our police substations. Daily he would flip off officers as they came and went from the substation. Often he would hurl invective at them as well. One day, after enduring this hundreds of times one officer reacted. I guess the citizen finally found the button to push on that officer. The officer grabbed the guy by his extended finger. He broke it, probably not purposefully but certainly recklessly and therefore unlawfully. He did so in public and in full sight of the citizen's children, who, inexplicably he would bring with him to teach them how to hurl invective at the cops.We never let the civil case see the inside of a court. We paid the guy, as we had to. The officer suffered rather severe discipline and his career was ended effectively that moment, though the process took rather longer.Sometimes, when money gets tight, I am tempted to go to other jurisdictions and to bait officers similarly.

Hope Gig's finger is feeling better

Those philosophy students never saw it coming.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Anecdote time.In the City in which I work we had a detractor of the police department. His spare time was spent standing in a public place near one of our police substations. Daily he would flip off officers as they came and went from the substation. Often he would hurl invective at them as well. One day, after enduring this hundreds of times one officer reacted. I guess the citizen finally found the button to push on that officer. The officer grabbed the guy by his extended finger. He broke it, probably not purposefully but certainly recklessly and therefore unlawfully. He did so in public and in full sight of the citizen's children, who, inexplicably he would bring with him to teach them how to hurl invective at the cops.We never let the civil case see the inside of a court. We paid the guy, as we had to. The officer suffered rather severe discipline and his career was ended effectively that moment, though the process took rather longer.Sometimes, when money gets tight, I am tempted to go to other jurisdictions and to bait officers similarly.

That's a very interesting anecdote about someone enduring repeated indiginities and eventually not handling it as well as he could have. Thank you.

 

[Christo]

Anecdote time.In the City in which I work we had a detractor of the police department. His spare time was spent standing in a public place near one of our police substations. Daily he would flip off officers as they came and went from the substation. Often he would hurl invective at them as well. One day, after enduring this hundreds of times one officer reacted. I guess the citizen finally found the button to push on that officer. The officer grabbed the guy by his extended finger. He broke it, probably not purposefully but certainly recklessly and therefore unlawfully. He did so in public and in full sight of the citizen's children, who, inexplicably he would bring with him to teach them how to hurl invective at the cops.We never let the civil case see the inside of a court. We paid the guy, as we had to. The officer suffered rather severe discipline and his career was ended effectively that moment, though the process took rather longer.Sometimes, when money gets tight, I am tempted to go to other jurisdictions and to bait officers similarly.

That's a very interesting anecdote about someone enduring repeated indiginities and eventually not handling it as well as he could have. Thank you.

He should have done it when he was off duty.