Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Obama/Gates/Police Controversey

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:33:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here is the latest story from the AP if you don't know what I'm talking about:
http://hosted.ap.org...

I think this is a prime example of reverse racism:
1) The police were doing their job. They got a call of a burglarly. So they checked it out. Gates refused to show some ID, so he got arrested.
2) The (white) Sergeant who arrested Gates teaches racial profiling/sensitivity classes at the police academy.
3) The (white) Sergeant was appointed to his teaching position by the former deputy commisioner of police, who is Black.
4) The two other responding officers were Hispanic and Black.

Gates simply seized the oppurtunity for some spotlight. He never complied with officers, just repeadetly yelling that they are "Racist!" "Do you know who I am?" "Yo mama" etc etc. He really said "Yo mama" and things relating to the white sergeant's mother by the way. Now, the Harvard Black Affairs Professor can go spout off some more racism in his classes and he can now say that he is personally a victim of racial profiling. Then, Obama defends his "buddy" by saying that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" without knowing any of the facts. The police are outraged and now want an apology.

What do you say? I'm interested in a defense of Gates and Obama, especially Gates though.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:56:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 10:52:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You do mean interested in the sense that it will be amusing to see how they put up a defense?

Exactly.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 2:31:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nice job on the research, 90% of which was left out of the mainstream coverage thus far. This happens all the time, though. Liberal martyrdom at its finest.

(I think it's time we consulted Jeremiah Wright for his thoughts.)

All kidding aside, I'll be the bookie for which reverend will make a bigger deal of this first: Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Sharpton has the over, I believe, despite the recent Michael-Jackson-death spotlight. Somehow, he'll need to be the "voice of the people."

You already know exactly what type of attempted defenses you'll receive, Nags. You might hear "arguments" to the effect of:

* Even if it is reverse discrimination, it happens so much more often with whites against blacks;

* Everyone knows who Henry Gates is, and this officer certainly knew who he was, as well;

* If Gates was a white professor, the officer wouldn't have asked for credentials, let alone arrested the man;

* You're just racist, Nags, and cannot accept the fact that there IS a problem, and this just sheds light on it;

etc... etc... etc....

But have fun with this anyway! Kudos on the post. <=o)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 3:51:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
While I'm mostly neutral on this issue (I don't know enough to make an opinion on what Gates said and etc.), I will say that the officers that responded should have backed off when they found out Gates had lived there.

It really is just the smarter thing to do. If you show up there expecting a burglary, and find out it isn't, you don't push the matter farther - especially when you can see where it will be going, of which I'm fairly sure this sargeant did see. You don't call for more back-up and then arrest him for "disturbing the peace." We all know what would happen.

That was not smart policing on their part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 4:33:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
From the story, there was no "Find out it isn't."

You have a very irate person, yelling angrily at the policeman. A person who forced their way into the home. A person who matches the description of the ones forcing their way into the home. How exactly did they find out it isn't a burglary at the scene?

Finding out later doesn't count, since the action being criticized is the arrest.

That's what we have trials for ;).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 4:35:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 4:33:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From the story, there was no "Find out it isn't."

You have a very irate person, yelling angrily at the policeman. A person who forced their way into the home. A person who matches the description of the ones forcing their way into the home. How exactly did they find out it isn't a burglary at the scene?

Finding out later doesn't count, since the action being criticized is the arrest.

That's what we have trials for ;).

Wasn't he able to provide his identity with his address on it when the original officer showed up? That is what I heard anyways - I may have heard wrong.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 4:42:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
---From the AP article:
"Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling."

So, no he did not show his identity. Thus, he was treated as a burglar.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:32:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Want an example of why mainstream media is considered politically, left-wing-biased?

Here is a paragraph from the AP article Nags posted:

Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, said Obama's remarks were "misdirected" and the Cambridge police "deeply resent the implication" that race was a factor in the arrest.


What does this tell the reader? That whether or not racial profiling was even conducted, let alone whether it was handled properly, IS, in fact, in contention here. Here is another paragraph (four after the one above) in the AP story:

Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling.

What does this tell the reader? It reaffirms that racial profiling itself is being contested here; in other words, not just whether or not it was used properly, but whether it was used at all.

Yet HERE is an excerpt from the same page---in fact, the update section---about how the black officer at the scene defended his white partner's arrest of Gates:

WOW! Okay, just as I was going to copy/paste, the AP site updated/refreshed itself, and it changed the VERY sentence I was just going to point out!

Well, at any rate, if you read the article before 8:20 pm EST, you read the AP itself refer to Gates as "the victim of racial profiling" to end one of its earlier sentences. Now, after the update (in which someone apparently saw the same boo-boo that I'm pointing out here), it says: "Gates has said he was the victim of racial profiling."

So, as someone at AP also saw (grrr, at the timing!), they needed to change their presumptuous, and apparently faulty, assertion of fact in their article (which, conveniently enough, erred on the side of Gates/President Obama)---especially considering how the rest of the article pointed out that it was still a matter of conjecture between the involved parties.

This happens ALL THE TIME.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:39:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Where it mentions his publicly-made criticism of the Cambridge PD for "acting stupidly."

Actually, the president is mentioned/referred to several times throughout the article. You'll likely catch it upon re-reading.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 10:33:25 AM, Nags wrote:
Gates refused to show some ID, so he got arrested.

How do you know?

"Yo mama" etc etc. He really said "Yo mama" and things relating to the white sergeant's mother by the way.

How do you know?
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 5:46:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 4:33:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A person who matches the description of the ones forcing their way into the home.

Wasn't the description just that there were two black people?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 6:22:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 5:46:56 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/24/2009 4:33:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A person who matches the description of the ones forcing their way into the home.

Wasn't the description just that there were two black people?

That there were two black men with backpacks trying to force their way into the home.

The home was forced into, this fellow was a black man standing in it. There are only going to be so many people in a home immediately after it was forced. It's not like "I saw two black men with travelling bags at the airport steal something." The fellow was in fact the one being described, the identification was accurate, the forcing into home was accurate. The only inaccuracy was that it was a burglary. The professor was provided an opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding, he did not take advantage of it. I'm sure if it had been someone else forcing their way into his home, he'd be very pissed if the officers left the scene upon nothing more than being accused of racial profiling.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 6:35:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As to the "yo mama" references:

http://www.examiner.com...

An excerpt from the editorial, which alleges factual reporting therein:

Naturally, [Gates] demanded the investigating officer's name, and repeatedly called him a racist. When the policeman asked Gates to step out onto the porch to continue the discussion, the Harvard professor's reply was: "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside".
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 8:03:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 5:34:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Maybe I missed something. Where does Obama come in?

The last question of his Presidential News Conference on July 22 was in regards to the issue in this thread. And he answered not so well. The Police are demanding an apology.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 8:04:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 5:45:15 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/24/2009 10:33:25 AM, Nags wrote:
Gates refused to show some ID, so he got arrested.

How do you know?
-It was in the police reports. You can google for them if you'd like.
---From the AP article:
"Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling."

"Yo mama" etc etc. He really said "Yo mama" and things relating to the white sergeant's mother by the way.

How do you know?
-See USAPitball63's post.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 8:05:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 8:03:37 PM, Nags wrote:
At 7/24/2009 5:34:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Maybe I missed something. Where does Obama come in?

The last question of his Presidential News Conference on July 22 was in regards to the issue in this thread. And he answered not so well. The Police are demanding an apology.

He already did. Well, sort of. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:40:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Some observations in response to the BBC article posted by Volkov:

1 - It's amusing how the "recalibrat[ion]" comments haven't made much news, unlike the "stupid" comments. Granted, one was during a live national audience, and one was not; that said, where is the news coverage on this?

2 - Why is it that the BBC has to be the easiest source to find about this? Why not any American press? Hmmmm....

3 - Perhaps it's because the president didn't actually say anything of value here! Here's the direct quotation, as per the BBC News article:

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically," Mr Obama said.

"I could have calibrated those words differently," he added.


What does that first paragraph even mean? What was "ratchet[ed]" up? Doesn't that expression usually refer to something being FIXED, and not further complicated/damaged? Maybe he was regarding his phone call to the officer? I don't know.

4 - And really --- I could have calibrated those words differently ? Is the president a cyborg? Obama Five is alive! (Fellow children of the 1980s will likely get that movie reference.) Did reporters next ask the president if John Connors was safe from harm?

All kidding aside, is that really supposed to be an apology? If I shoot someone dead, then say the next day that I probably should have used a water gun instead of a semi-automatic firearm, should the victim's family accept that as compunction/recompense?

Sorry, Mr. President, but your "apology" DOES NOT COMPUTE.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:55:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Some final thoughts in regard to the BBC article:

5 - "...I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically."

Well, decide for yourself. These were Obama's exact words from Wednesday night:

"This still haunts us. Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home. What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
(source: http://news.yahoo.com...)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked if the president wished to revise those comments, said this on Thursday:

"Let me be clear. [President Obama] was not calling the officers stupid, okay? He was ensuring – I think, again, denoting that at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that."
(source: http://features.csmonitor.com...)

So he wasn't calling the officer stupid, just racist? Or, more like it, he wasn't apologizing at all.

Sure, the president allegedly had a conversation with the officer, and even said some kind things about the man, after the fact. But what's still missing is a public apology.

I understand it must be difficult for a president to do this publicly (when not for political gain/posturing/pandering; e.g., like "apologizing" for slavery through Congress, though not in the form of legislation). But what separates this incident is that Obama did indeed directly antagonize specific individuals (the Cambridge PD, particularly those involved with the Gates arrest) publicly—before the appropriate facts were even released.

He knowingly and willingly---and publicly---damaged the character of specific individuals without merit. This, I believe, merits a public apology.

If he felt it appropriate to slander them before the press, he should have the backbone to apologize in similar fashion. Even if he had said he "should have recalibrated" his words, instead of just that he "could have"—that would have been basic acknowledgment.

To me, this sounds like another classic case of "I'm not sorry, I'm just sorry I got caught."
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
[sic] correction:

"Even if he had said he 'should have calibrated' his words, instead of just that he 'could have'—that would have been basic acknowledgment."

(No "re" before "calibrated.")
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 10:57:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You guys haven't proven anything. How is a police report determined? From the police officer? Yeah... that doesn't constitute much here.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 11:01:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 10:57:45 PM, iamadragon wrote:
You guys haven't proven anything. How is a police report determined? From the police officer? Yeah... that doesn't constitute much here.

It is comprised of all the officers on the scene.

On the scene, there were three officers. One was white, one was black, one was hispanic.

"Yeah... that doesn't constitute much here."
-Police reports are taken as utter truth in court for the most part.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 11:29:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 11:06:04 PM, iamadragon wrote:
This isn't a court.

You're right. DDO has much more power over police events than courts, therefore much more evidence should be submitted to DDO members than judges.

iamadragon- Seriously... what do you want? I don't have a video or audio tape of the event, if that's what you're looking for. I and other members have presented as much evidence as possible in support of the police, while no members have presented any credible evidence in support of Gates at all. If I was a person hearing this case for the first time, in this thread, than I would think that the police are right, Gates is wrong, and this is a prime example of reverse racism.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2009 11:42:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is no definite evidence either way, and thus, I don't think anyone should be passing off statements as fact or definitively implicating one side or the other.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 10:36:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 11:42:58 PM, iamadragon wrote:
There is no definite evidence either way, and thus, I don't think anyone should be passing off statements as fact or definitively implicating one side or the other.

So pretty much, you can't trust anybody for anything, unless they give exact proof?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:20:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/24/2009 10:33:25 AM, Nags wrote:
Here is the latest story from the AP if you don't know what I'm talking about:
http://hosted.ap.org...

I think this is a prime example of reverse racism:
1) The police were doing their job. They got a call of a burglarly. So they checked it out. Gates refused to show some ID, so he got arrested.

According to the police report, he was arrested for "yelling", well after he'd shown his ID and the issue had been resolved. But Gates has proof of a severe bronchial infection which prevents him from yelling. The photography of his arrest, likewise, is much more consistent with Gates' recollection of being fearful than Crowley's of his being confidently enraged. Also, according to MA law, only "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" qualify as "disorderly conduct", the crime Gates is actually meant to have committed. Nowhere in the officer's lengthy description of the "yelling" (which we're apparently accepting on faith, without consultating non-PD witnesses) is a mention of language that could be intrepreted as "fighting words"--that is, unless the officer intended to fight Gates as a result of the words, which would of course be a far more serious crime than disorderly conduct. Breach of the peace, likewise, is a hard sell: such a volume of police officers in such a neighborhood would draw intrigue and even "alarm" no matter what the behavior of the suspect. As for the validity of Crowley's report, it's in conflict with the testimony of the original witness. As the tape shows, she described one of the men as possibly Hispanic (he wasn't) and couldn't discern the other's race. She denies later telling Crowley they were black. The officer might have lied, reasoning that his actions would be considered more justifiable directed at someone who matched the suspect's description. I can't think of an equally reasonable motive for the woman to have lied. In any case, he probably gave a biased account, just as Gates no doubt did, which is only natural: both of them had legal ramifications to consider. For these and other reasons, it would have been a waste of pubic money to try Gates.

2) The (white) Sergeant who arrested Gates teaches racial profiling/sensitivity classes at the police academy.

...which makes him incapable of unconscious racism? And don't you conservatives often like to point out a liberal variety of direct racism: a paternalistic view of blacks that requires the latter to show their appreciation by, for example, voting for the Democratic Party? It is such paternalistic racism, though not necessarily by liberals, by which one may pride himelf on treating black underclassmen equally, even more compassionately, to their white counterparts, though become mildly enraged to find that one such black outranks him socially, needs his "service and protection" not, and wants him to go away, all of which Gates was within his rights to do.

3) The (white) Sergeant was appointed to his teaching position by the former deputy commisioner of police, who is Black.
4) The two other responding officers were Hispanic and Black.

3 and 4 suggest an implied premise that the black population constitutes a single organism.

Gates simply seized the oppurtunity for some spotlight. He never complied with officers, just repeadetly yelling that they are "Racist!" "Do you know who I am?" "Yo mama" etc etc. He really said "Yo mama" and things relating to the white sergeant's mother by the way. Now, the Harvard Black Affairs Professor can go spout off some more racism in his classes and he can now say that he is personally a victim of racial profiling. Then, Obama defends his "buddy" by saying that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" without knowing any of the facts. The police are outraged and now want an apology.

Have you read Gates? He's opposed, for example, to much of his white and black colleagues' demonization of Abe Lincoln on the basis of outspoken racism (and Lincoln WAS an outspoken racist). Likewise, he appreciates the contribution of whites to the field of black studies, when he would not nearly be alone in discounting or even opposing it. And can't a black man call another black man his buddy without the alarm being sounded? It's not as if politicians of all colors don't routinely graduate aquaintances to friends in rhetoric. As for the "stupidly" comment, it apparently was apt even if Crowley's report can be taken at face value (i.e., regardless of "the facts").
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 1:55:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I wanna see some hot sauce on that right snappy tomb.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.