Racial profiling - Page 2

Given the reason he was arrested was for disorderly conduct via yelling "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO A BLACK MAN IN AMERICA" and shouting at the cop that he is a racist... I 100% agree this wouldn't have happened if he wasn't black. I don't know many white people or hispanics that shout "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO A BLACK MAN IN AMERICA" at onlookers.

Well, OK I do... but they're just funny motherfuckers.

Or, things may not have escalated to that point in the first place.

Well, the description of the "suspects" given by the neighbor during the call in no way clearly identified the two men, so it seems reasonable to me that the officer should have considered that one or both of them could have been the residents of the house. This is far from the first time someone trying to get into their own home has been mistaken for a thief. This is why I believe that instead of approaching Gates with the attitude that he was going to treat him like a suspect from the get-go, he should have given him a little latitude until he could confirm, through ID, etc that Gates either was or wasn't the owner. If the officer felt endangered for some reason or other, then I could understand a little caution, but nothing in the report or from Gates' recollections indicates that the officer felt threatened.

There should be more white people and hispanics, or even funnier, Asians that shout "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS..." That shit is just funny.

Raaaaaaaandy!

Here's the thing that gets me.

The homeowner knows he just had a man who does not live in his house break his own front door down.

Cops show up and want to find out what's happening.

How is this a threat to the homeowner? How is this unexpected? How is this a problem?

Sure the neighbor might be racist...or she saw the driver bust open the door of the home of a neighbor, and since the driver is not her neighbor, thought something might be amiss. (Since the professor himself walks with a cane one presumes it was the driver or an associate who actually broke the door).

If I for any reason had to jump over my own fence, pick my own lock, or especially physically break down my own door - even if it was me and my neighbors could recognize me - I would expect them to call the cops.

I would expect that cops would show up, want to see the various door(s), the damage, who was there, and that everyone was ok.

Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous calls a cop can attend. Even if the home owner is home, if someone is there who has broken down the door it would make sense the cop wants to confirm not only the lack of a burglary but also that there isn't a problem between spouses, kidnapping, or other event happening which involves one party busting down the door to the house.

And as for my prior statements about the man being an accomplished gentleman having no bearing - I stand by that statement. When someone says "he's world reknown figure!" who cares? He's a man who broke down his front door. White, black, accomplished, ex-con, sane, crazy, whatever - anyone who is breaking down the front door to a house should expect the cops to show up.

Don't forget the police officer asked if there was anyone else in the house and Gates refused to answer that question.

I don't have a problem with the officer responding to the call. That's his job. But, how often does a robber stick around and answer the door to confront a cop (dressed as Gates was)? As soon as Gates opened the door, the officer's thinking should have gone from possible robbery to probable mix up. His treatment of Gates as a suspect and his refusal to provide his name and badge number reek of disrepect. And unless the officer saw something on scene to change his thinking, which doesn't seem to be the case, Gates has the presumption of innocence. He shouldn't have to leave his house because a cop just randomly shows up and says so without providing some sort of context. Just as he would need just cause or a warrant to enter, he would also need a good reason to demand that Gates step out of his house. Whatever questions he wanted to ask could have been done so through the open front door, as they often are.

You don't have to answer any questions if you don't so desire, but why be disagreeable at all? Even if the cop is an ass, a racist, whatever - why not get his name and his badge (or the plate on his car, they'll know who it is) and report the incident to the department? If you're a well-respected member of the community and the officer is being inappropriate, that's the correct and most effective way to handle it - not being an ass yourself.


I don't think the guy deserved to be arrested but I do think he made an ass of himself in a situation which was an opportunity to show his class.

See, this is inching towards racial profiling. If the neighbor claims 2 black men, and the cop shows up and lo and behold there's a black man, does that mean he's the guy? If the neighbor had said 2 white guys and the cop showed up and there was a white guy in the house, would the cop have been so quick to conclude he was the "robber?" I just don't see it happening that way. I just don't see any reason why he would have been safer, or how his "investigation" could have been any more efficient had Gates stepped out onto the porch rather than stayed in the doorway. It reeks of a power trip to me.

I don't condone Gates' attitude, but I can understand it. And he certainly shouldn't have been arrested for it. The point Gates was trying to make was that he should have been afforded some respect and the benefit of the doubt, but that for some reason the officer took the neighbor's complaint as irrefutable. I don't think Gates was refusing to answer ANY questions, but demanding to know what the situation was before being treated as a criminal while standing in his own home. And Gates claims that the officer refused to give his name and number, and that was why Gates followed him onto the porch, leading to his arrest.

Why would he be so definite one way and not the other? I'm asking why it had not entered his mind that in the midst of his investigation this could be the homeowner trying to get into his house. If he got to the residence and guys were rifling through the house or it was disorderly, I could understand. If this had happened at night, I could understand. In the middle of the day, though? Neighbors around. Gates not dressed in a manner typical of a home invader.

You have a guy in a blazer with a cane, and a guy in a suit. When's the last time you heard of robbers busting into someone's home in the middle of the day dressed like that?

Not unreasonable, but unecessary lest he felt Gates at the doorway was potentially dangerous. I don't see why he couldn't have asked Gates for ID, or anything else standing right at the door.

He WAS the guy breaking into the house.

Since you love make believe mythical what if questions...

If the officer was black.. would Gates have accused him of being a racist for asking him to step outside?

Can we retitle this thread to "When Keepin' It Real Goes Wrong"? Thanks.

Right, he's not profiling and I stated that. And the neighbor is another story. But, you stating that he was justified in being suspicious based solely on the neighbors' claim that the "suspects" were black is toeing the line. It's not like he's the only black person in the neighborhood, or couldn't have been the homeowner, snd it's not like she said he was carrying a crowbar or a gun, etc.

But, as for the conditions for profiling, it isn't dependent on whether a crime has or hasn't occured, but an officer's suspicion of whether someone may have been or will be involved in one based on their race/ethnicity. I imagine the cop would have rolled up to the house no matter what Gates' race was, but if he assumed he was a threat because he was black, that would have been a problem.

I've read the docs, and I'm not taking Gates' words as bible by no means. And I'm certainly not taking the officer at his word 100%. But there are facts that have been confirmed by both sides.

I'd forgotten how dense, literal, and obtuse Bethelwhatever could be.

You asked the first What if question. "What if she said the accused had a beard?"

And it seems you're claiming that I'm claiming profiling. I've said from the beginning that the cop was NOT racially profiling.

eta
nevermind, elcap answered.

My Bad. Trying to keep all these posts straight.

The people this story (and the connected story of Allen Counter, who has taught neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years, said he was stopped on campus by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect. They threatened to arrest him when he could not produce identification) makes me feel bad for the most aren't innocent black men, but black criminals. If famous, distinguished, renowned black men are being arrested for crimes that didn't even occur, then how fuckin' hard must it be to knock over a payroll van these days?

OK, now it seems this conversation is over.

I stood up for a buddy's wedding in Brooklyn a few years ago. The bride and groom stayed in a hotel that night and I crashed in their apartment. Their downstairs neighbors knew they had gotten married that day, knew they were going to be staying in a hotel, knew they were leaving for their honeymoon. They did not know that I was going to be staying in the apartment and so, justifiably, called the police when they heard me stumbling around.

So I pass out on the couch and about ten minutes later there's a knock on the door and more flashlights than the NBC Sunday Night Mystery Movie. I open the door in my boxers and there's six (6!) cops. They ask me if I lived there, I say no, my friend just got married, I'm in from out of town and staying at his place. They apologize for the confusion and leave.

They didn't ask me to step outside, they didn't ask me for ID, they didn't ask for proof of residence. My story fit with the neighbor's story so they let it go.

But the most salient fact is probably that I opened the door in my boxers having clearly been asleep which is remarkably atypical behavior for someone breaking and entering. Just like Gates. Guy goes to open his door with his cane and his pink shirt and his gray beard...



... in the middle of the day... common sense, which the police are supposed to have, dictates that maybe this guy is not an intruder. So, yeah, the cop behaved stupidly. Did Gates help ease the situation? No. Is that his responsibility? Hell no. He was on his property, in his house and had committed no crime.

For some helpful tips on Massachusetts laws, check out slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2223379/

Another article from Slate which pretty much sums up everything from this thread.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223472

Anything from Slate is going to have a liberal bias to it, which is going to lean towards Gates at this point. Yeah, just read that article and it seems to have taken the side of Gates completely. The police report says things differently.

I read the police report from both the white officer and the Hispanic officer who assisted him and it read as if Gates was a total aggressor. The report mentions that they were leaving the premises when Gates erupted on them in front of a large group of people standing outside. The report also says that he told Gates to quiet several times before he arrested him.

The cop maybe shouldn't have arrested him, but the police report looks as if he had a valid reason to show up to Gates's home.

I don't think you did read the article. Because to say that it took Gates' side completely is just ridiculous. To take Gates' side would be to say that the arresting officer was racist, something the author of the article does not do.

And the laws denoted in the Slate Explainer article are the law, regardless of Slate's liberal bias.

The cops had every reason to show up. They had no reason to arrest him.

P.E. I know you lean towards the conservative side of things and that you're a lawyer (law student? I forget). Isn't this a no brainer?

But it implies that Gates's incident is indicative of some sort of racial problem. I don't think it is. Everything I've read comes off as a typical police procedure that escalated because of Gates, not because Gates was somehow treated differently.

The only thing that even reeks of racism is the actions by the neighbor, which confuse me a great deal. Shouldn't you know who your neighbor is?

Also if it was an unbiased article, it wouldn't be titled as it is.

I do lean on the conservative side of things and I am a law student, but I don't let my political ideology pigeonhole how I feel about things. I've read several accounts from witnesses, Gates himself, and the police.

I just don't think it had to do with race at all. In fact, it sounds like to me that Gates misunderstood Crowley's intentions and blew the situation way out of proportion. If Crowley has completely lied in his statement, I'd be more than happy to change my opinion.

I find that hard to believe. Take a look at this. It sounds like Crowley has been a great police officer in the past.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1186708

http://www.slate.com/id/2223472/
The Depressing Cycle of Racial Accusation
The arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. is about neither racial profiling nor playing the race card.

How is that article title biased? The author presents both sides of the story and indicates quite clearly that it is impossible to determine from the facts as we know them that race is a factor here. There is one paragraph where he clearly sides with Gates:

And even in that graf, a full throated defense of Gates, he acknowledges that Gates may have been unfair. The point of the piece is that the accusations of racial profiling (from Gates) and the accusations of playing the race card (from Gates' detractors) do nothing but muddy the issue.

It most definitely says that the arrest was wrong. It also loosely implies that Crowley was most likely a bully. If a white man being a bully to a black man doesn't imply racism, then I don't know what does.

It's an article that says race probably isn't a factor in this case, but hints the facts should be in Gates' favor, which negates his argument. If race isn't a factor, then why support Gates?

This directly hints that Crowley was bullying Gates. This might be true and Crowley might be lying, but everything in Crowley's background has shown he has been a responsible and excellent policeman in Cambridge. Why doesn't the article talk about the fact that Crowley attempted to save the life of former Celtic Reggie Lewis? Why doesn't the article talk about the fact that Crowley has taught a racial profiling class for cadets?

I understand that the author thinks race muddies the issue, but I think his article fails to purge race from the issue because he still thinks Crowley bullied Gates. That's a tough image to shake from America's racist past.

I didn’t care for the article, but it sure seemed as if he was just laying out the possible causes for the arrest, rather than labeling Crowley the culprit:

My position is that the existence of black suspects alone, regardless of the race of the officer, changes the dynamic entirely from the get go. It may cause the neighbor to—perhaps—overreact (I imagine the neighborhood isn’t particularly diverse) in the first place, it creates a heightened sense of danger for the officers (disproportionate crime rates, neighborhood demographics, etc...), and then there’s the expectation of abuse from the suspect in question. All of these factors could have very easily lead to a situation that would not otherwise have existed.

As for the legitimacy of the arrest, I won’t pretend to know Massachusetts law, and seeing as how the details are disputed, and the charges were dropped, I doubt I’ll ever know for sure. In the end, what we do know hardly justifies the sort of scrutiny it’s received.

I'm pretty sure there are non racist bullies. Like Stephen Colbert. Stephen doesn't see race.

The arrest was stupid. Unless he is trying to assert that Gates was trying to incite violence, the arrest was frivolous. Hence, all charges being dropped.

What am I being obtuse about? Seriously?

As for the varying accounts - of course each party is going to write it to their own advantage.

As for being arrested - I've stated repeatedly that it was not necessarily deserved. My sole point has been that it appears the homeowner was being an ass. Maybe the cop was an ass, maybe the neighbor (and the cop) are racist, maybe the whole thing was extremely vexing but why does he need to shout "this is what happens to a black man in america" instead of writing an eloquent letter to the editor or taking advantage of the MANY opportunities this man has at his disposal to address the situation. No matter how much of an ass the other people are to you, you don't have to be an ass back.

As for the "during the day" argument - MANY home break-ins occur during the day. I don't have statistics at hand, but I was under the impression that MOST home break-ins occur during the day when occupants aren't there. (As opposed to robberies of people outside their homes, which happen most often at night.) So a report of a door being forced during the day would be quite consistent with a robbery. Still doesn't make the cop's decision to arrest the guy better, but it supports the idea that anyone forcing a door open to a house warrants a cop showing up asking questions.

Did you grow up in the South in the 1950s?

Maybe he could have invited the police gentelemen in for tea and cucumber sandwiches on the back lawn after they treated him like he'd broken into his own house?

Slate is slowly becoming the left wing's Human Events. It's like claiming an Obama hit piece from National Review is unbiased.

Then what the fuck is Mickey Kaus rambling on about over there?

Plus most of Slate's writers that appear on television are liberal, especially Joan Walsh.

They can be liberal all they want as National Review can be as conservative as they want, but I read my news from unbiased sources like NPR, BBC, and local newspapers. I pretty much stay away from MSNBC, Fox, CNN, and others unless I want to read commentary.

Christopher Hitchens is leftist on most issues except for the Middle East. It's like asking why Pat Buchanan works for MSNBC. Everyone's gotta have one guy to debate with.

Come on, they're partners with the Washington Post! NPR and BBC are favored bugaboos of the right as well, but just because some of what Slate puts out falls to the left of your personal politics, that makes them a leftist kangaroo court. They do good work, and make a more concerted effort to establish disparate viewpoints than FOX or MSNBC - lumping them together with those jackoffs is wrong.

You do know that makes you sound ridiculous, right? Dickerson, their main political reporter, is notoriously harsh on Obama. Joan Walsh, by the way, does not work for Slate. She works for Salon. Is it possible you're confusing the two?

The vast majority of Slate is nonpartisan because it's not political. When they do delve in to politics and policy, they are more likely to fall on the liberal side of things but nowhere near to the level of the National Review. And the Human Events comparison is just insulting.

Just as a point of reference, here's Human Events Top headlines:

If I kept on going, the next headline was from the always lucid Erick Erickson.

Here's Slate's

They are virtually identical. You're right.

Jeeezuss! Hasn't the "keep the change" joke worn out for these fools yet?

It's nice to see mAnn Coulter still kickin, though. Oh wait...Vultures are always the last creatures to wither.