That woman of mine she ain't happy, 'till she finds something wrong and there's someone to blame... (Waylon Jennings, Rainy Day Woman)It's almost as if some people enjoy getting all stirred up...
Bob Sommer writes:
Gates failed to cooperate as a black man should, as Sidney Poitier’s character did when he was arrested in The Heat of the Night, showing respect and deference. If this hadn’t been the most pre-eminent scholar of African-American Studies in the country, we never would have known about this incident—but that was partly Gates’s point.
To which a reader named Clement Knorr riposted:
To describe Henry Gates as "the most pre-eminent scholar of African American Studies in the country" should carry less prestige than being "the third most successful used car salesman in Reno". There is no recorded instance of any minority "studies" program, be it lesbian, Irish, left-handed or one-eyed, contributing in any way to our economy or national well-being.
John Edwards is right. There really are two Americas.
Ta-Nehisi Coats, in a semi-coherent snit, writes
The rest of us are left with a country where, by all appearances, officers are well within their rights to arrest you for sassing them. Which is where we started. I can't explain why, but this is the sort of thing that makes you reflect on your own precarious citizenship. I mean, the end of all of this scares the hell out of me.
When we think about the cops, it's scary, on one level, to conclude that a cop can basically arrest you on a whim. It's scarier still to think that this is what Americans want, that this country is as we've made it. And then finally it's even scarier to understand that no president can change that.
At least she warned us at the beginning of her post that she's not using logic, just feelings.
A policeman is the frontline of justice. You can't sass a judge in her courtroom, and no, Ms. Coats, you can't sass a police officer either. In fact, even sassing a fellow citizen could land you in jail if your actions fit the category of disorderly conduct. And you can even get arrested for doing this in your own home.
What's wrong with showing a cop respect and deference?
I understand the black-white history here, and it's not pretty. But what it the conclusion? Since blacks at one time were forced to be respectful and deferential to ugly white people who despised them, they should now legally be allowed to treat everyone, including law enforcement, with contempt?
Precarious Citizenship?
Police don't "disappear" people in this country, dissidents don't molder away in hidden dungeons. Such verbal histrionics make a mockery the truth that there are countries where this really does happen. Homosexuals have no rights in any Middle Eastern country and therefor don't exist, Castro has reporters locked away for telling the truth about him, and in some African countries, people really are killed for the shade of their skin.
Police don't "disappear" people in this country, dissidents don't molder away in hidden dungeons. Such verbal histrionics make a mockery the truth that there are countries where this really does happen. Homosexuals have no rights in any Middle Eastern country and therefor don't exist, Castro has reporters locked away for telling the truth about him, and in some African countries, people really are killed for the shade of their skin.
Law enforcement is called the Thin Blue Line because it "prevents society from descending into chaos." Where would we end up if we enfeebled this line?
That scares the hell out of me.
That scares the hell out of me.
Atlantic - Coates
KC Star - Voices
28 comments:
Since he was arrested for disorderly conduct which is basically a law that warrants cops to arrest anyone who annoy them, although this is better than it is in Iran and Africa, it is still injustice.
You seem to rejoice in the fact that it isn't horribly injust. Injustice is still injustice.
There are two Americas, a progressive intellectual one and a redneck racisr one, as identified by your post.
Just saying "it's injustice" doesn't make it so. Proof?
Someone innocent was arrested. That's not proof?
No matter how much he huffed and puffed that shouldn't be a crime and if it's considered disorderly conduct than that should no longer be a law and if it remains a law it is injust.
A friend of mine got pulled over after he had just been smoking weed at a mutal friends house and the cop said he smelled like marijuana and he repled "yah, well, you smell like Tim Hortons" (a franchise coffee house in Canada).
He was arrested for driving while high, but imagine if he hadn't been high but the cops still took him in. He was white, but that would still be unjust.
I can make fun of cops all I want. Not a crime is it?
You may have a point about it "shouldn't be a crime," but right now it is. So de facto, the arrest was not unjust.
The worse you can say about Officer Crowley is he was overzealous in exercising his discretion. To go from there to racism is quite a leap.
"He was overzealous in exercising his discretion." It probably wasn't cause Gates was black, I doubt Crowley is actually a racist. A bad cop though... maybe.
Look I wanted to be a cop for a long time. I just never wanted t obe a bad one, so I'll never defend them especially when there are so many millions of great police officers in Canada and less, but still probably some in the States as well.
You will also have to bring more than on instance, where he did nothing wrong, to prove the assertion that he is a bad cop. His record just doesn't reflect that.
Professor Gates, on the other hand, looks at everything through the prism of race. We have a history, and it's his right to do that, but if you see a racist behind every tree, everything that happens to you will be because of racism.
This wasn't an instance where Crowley did something wrong. You admitted he did! Being overzealous in enforcing a bad law is wrong!
He might be someone who sees everything as racism, but this one may actually be racism.
By your premises, even if they beat him, etc... he'd still be "interpreting" that as racism.
He might interpret everything as racism, but this time he might actually be right.
He was arrested for next to nothing!
Are you asking for proof that Crowley is aracist in his mind? His action was racist.
I admitted nothing. I allowed that:
"The worse you can say about Officer Crowley is he was overzealous in exercising his discretion.:
I don't believe it, but I can see how a reasonable could. Not the same as admitting the officer was wrong.
Gates made the assertion that this is racism, now let him prove it. He hasn't so far and neither have you.
This is the problem with thought crimes.
That can't be proven and I just think it's more than possible.
What is for sure is that he conducted himself (Crowley) in an unprofessional manner. It is a true shame that some police officers think they can arrest people for not kissing their asses, but it seems clear that Crowley thinks he can and for this he was wrong and should apologize and he hasn't.
If you can't prove it then stop accusing him of it.
It's "sure" that he conducted himself in an unprofessional manner?
Once again, a CP assertion with no facts to back it...
Give me a break. The guy arrested a man breaking into his own house. I have to defend the citizen against the police!
The police have to defend each and every one of their actions against the citizenry.
Tell me how what they did was right. He pressed a bad law to an unreasonable extent (arresting him).
People have swore at police officers and they have been the bigger man and brushed it off. That's what police are, they have to be the standard.
This is at best a poor showing by the police. An apology is deserved.
You sound like Derek from American History X, defending the police no matter how stupid their actions are.
Tell me how what they did was right.
You're the one hurling accusations. The burden in on you to prove it. You haven't.
No, it's not, that's what I explained.
An innocent person is arrested for breaking into their own home. Who should have to explain themselves? The innocent person or the cop?
Gates hurled the accusation of racism, not me. I hurled the accusation of bad judgment and abuse of power.
Evidence for my accusation:
An innocent man was arrested for doing next to nothing on a law (disorderly conduct) that depends entirely on police discretion which was not exercised well in this case because a non-threatening man ended up in the back of a squad car.
I know how cops are supposed to handle situations like these and I've seen them handled well. This was an uncharacteristicly poor showing.
Tell me why or how it wasn't?
N.B.
You need to stop hiding behind logic. Logic is a human invention. It hasn't found much truth and logical positivists (philosophers who believe it actually helps decipher capital "T" Truth from falsity) are scarce.
Stop hiding behind logic? Yeah, that's what's wrong with so much liberalism, all emotion, no logic. I Got Id!
He was not arrested for breaking into his own home. Get your facts straight.
The closest point to agreement is that perhaps the officer exercised hs discretion too harshly, but we don't know that for sure.
What he did was certainly not illegal nor was it unprecedented.
I'm tired of going in circles with you. As Bill O'Reilly would say, I'll give you the last word
You don't understand logic. You're proving it to me.
Who has the burden of proof in this case?
The police officer who arrested an innocent man or the innocent man who was arrested?
Neither of us can prove shit because we weren't there, and even if we were we couldn't prove shit.
So, who needs to defend themselves, the police officer who "may" have used too much discretion or the man who "may" have gotten too rowdy.
What does your magical logic ball say about that one?
Once again, you don't understand logic.
Explain to me if it is not a made up tool, what is it? Forget about Gates and Crowley.
We're not going in circles, we're speaking entirely different languages. The difference is that I understnd yours and given enough time could allow you to see it is not superior to mine, but you don't even understand the language I'm speaking. I may as well be a lion that speaks english.
...Or you could be a touchy-feely liberal who throws unfounded charges around because it feels good...
Yah, it's probably because I am a characature of something you don't understand and have to reduce to bumper sticker slogans. That could be true.
Great logic!
Racist cop is the biggest bumper sticker of all.
When I was a kid a persian cop pulled my dad over after a stop sign which he stopped for at least 3 seconds for, and gave him a ticket. He disputed it and won in court.
I was in the car. If my dad has ever stopped a stop sign it was that time. Was the cop racist? He may have been trying show that he wouldn't go easy on people with the same ethnic persuasion as him, but who am I to say?
His actions appeared racist, or at least it seemed like he unfairly targetted people for their ethnic background. That's all that can be said.
His actions were racist. I don't know if Crowley is racists, but I believe his actions were.
I think that it is easier to believe a white guy is stuck outside his house and easier to believe a black guy was trying to rob a house. It's true, but doesn't give Crowley the right to arrest the innocent black guy who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Disorderly conduct is a subjective law. It can be applied whenever the police officer wants. That he had only that law on his side shows that his actions were "stupid" as Obama said.
If he had arrested him for possession of marijuana I would say he was a bad cop and possibly a racist. Unjust law is unjust law. Disorderly conduct is hardly a law at all. It's only applied when the cop can't find another means of cooling the situation.
What sort of cops can't cool the situation? Bad cops.
There are racist cops. I know of cops who are card carrying white supremacists. That's in Canada!
Why do you defned bad cops? I know good cops who are just as pissed off as me when bad cops do bad things. Why do you insist on defending the bad apples. You're doing it at the expense of the good ones.
If good cops defend bad cops they're doing it at their own expense. It's just senseless. Why don't you expect more from law enforcement? They can offer and do offer more, just not in this particular case.
You still haven't proven, or even provided data to support your assertion that Sgt Crowley is a bad cop or a racist cop.
You're just blathering.
His action of arresting a man for doing nothing under the cover of a law which could potentially arrest anyone who ever screams while all he was trying to do was go into his own house is bad cop action.
That he was black and lived in a nice neighbourhood doesn' prove he was racist, but certainly suggests it.
That's blathering. Maybe read it first, refute it than say it's blathering.
But your problem is he wasn't doing nothing, he was shouting down a cop who was trying to establish the facts on the scene.
The men have had beers together at the White House (See what happens when you elect an Irishman) and are moving on. So am I.
Keep posting on this if you want, I'm done.
You are done. You're wrong and yet you won't admit it. Good on you.
Shouting down a cop is not a crime except in Iran and the USSR.
You haven't proven one assertion. But if you're happy with yourself I won't harsh your buzz
I am not trying to prove my assertions all I can do is give evidence for them. I have done that. I am happy with myself.
You on the other hand have given no evidence for your assertions against mine.
Is shouting at cops a crime? Prove it. It's a ridiculous assertion as most of yours are. It's basically impossible to prove and there is on evidence for it.
I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying that your assertions are baseless.
Yes, shouting at cops is a crime. It can fall under various local statutes, including disorderly conduct, threatening or menacing, and interfering with law enforcement in the course of their duties.
Your problem is with the legal system, not Sgt Crowley.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.