<p>Frankly, I think OJ got off because a bad cop planted a glove that didn’t fit.</p>
<p>Sure people get arrested mistakenly on occasion, that wasn’t what happened here.</p>
<p>Look, many yrs ago(too many!) when i was young and single, near the end of the disco era, a buddy and I went to a bar that we hadn’t been to in a yr or more. As soon as I opened the door, I saw the bar had changed. It used to be a relatively even mix of customers in proportion to the mix of the population of the city. When I opened the door that was no longer true. It wasn’t a disproportionate # of blacks, it wasn’t predominantly blacks, it was nothing but black people in there. Customers and staff- no Asians, no Hispanics, no Caucasians, just Blacks. The doorman said “ain’t nobody gonna mess wit’cha”. So we went in, sat down, had some drinks and enjoyed the music. My friend and I saw a couple of young women we thought attractive, and did not appear to be with any fellows. We discussed asking them to dance, but decided not to. To our knowlege no one said a cross word or gave us a dirty look while we sat there. So,
did we fear all blacks in there were racist and might object? No. Most? No. Any? Possibly. We felt if only 1 or 2 of the 150 or so there objected to 2 white males flirting with 2 black females that we could be in for trouble. We stayed an hour or so then left.
That real life example is given to show that we knew we’d be at an extreme disadvantage if a racial incident did flare up. We chose behavior that was not likely to cause such a flare-up and none happened. We knew then and now, that in theory we would have had as much right to flirt with those 2 as any other young man in that bar would, but we understood the circumstances and possible consequences, and chose not to risk it. That was the right choice for us. Even if we had flirted with them or had danced/sat with them, we weren’t <em>asking</em> to get beat up, or we didn’t deserve it, but we understood that in that situation if only 1 fellow took offense we’d be in a big jam. Same for a girl in a mini- she should be able to go anywhere anytime, but we all know that just isn’t so.
And Dross continues to use “real America”, and I am still waiting for how he defines that? [my post 1828 last paragraph.]</p>
<p>Interesting anecdote, younghoss. But, what’s your point? Honest, I’m asking.</p>
<p>younghoss’s point is completely clear. It is the same point I’ve been trying to make all along. What he was saying is that there are any number of behaviors that we should be allowed to do without suffering any repercussions for them (theoretically), but in practice there are risks associated with them and one takes those risks in making the choice to behave that way.</p>
<p>So we should think of our Constitutional Rights as merely
“theoretical”…hummmmm…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think Dross may just be onto something, here…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Reminds me of that scene in Animal House in which the white college kids go into that all black bar to hear a musical group…</p>
<p>
“Do you mind if we dance with your dates?” :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but they need to be supplemented by common sense.</p>
<p>“No, but they need to be supplemented by common sense.”</p>
<p>^^What he said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is literally to say that in Real America it is common sense that one cannot exercise one’s right to protest without being arrested. And this means the Constitution of Real America is truly an unadulterated sham.</p>
<p>“So we should think of our Constitutional Rights as merely
“theoretical””</p>
<p>poetsheart:</p>
<p>This is such a deliberate twisting of my point that it’s hard to know where to begin.</p>
<p>If everyone’s interpretation of the Constitution and of the laws that have been created after were identical, we would have no need for the judicial system. As it is, courts are still involved in the interpretation of laws on a daily basis in this country, and the Supreme Court is still tackling constitutional issues which can be interpreted in various ways.</p>
<p>Law enforcement is given some discretion in how to deal with the public. It is the job of the courts to sort out whether or not those actions were justified. I would not expect a law enforcement officer who is in the midst of what might become (in his estimation) a volatile situation to break out a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and peruse it before every action he takes.</p>
<p>I have had my own negative experiences with law enforcement, as I mentioned, and in general I’m not a fan. However, to see you and Drosselmeier so intent on defending the rights of a man who acted imprudently, declaring the sky is falling and the constitution is a “sham” and that “Real America” detests blacks and that the majority of America is composed of racists who would as soon see blacks foisted back into slavery is utterly ludicrous. And, even more importantly, it is hurting your cause.</p>
<p>Instead of promoting understanding and cohesiveness, you two are so intent on being the ONLY right ones with the only proper interpretation of the events between Crowley and Gates that you are losing the support of those you ask for understanding.</p>
<p>From everything that has been reported about Crowley, even in the mainstream press, he is a competent, fair law enforcement officer. He has no history of being racist or of conducting himself inappropriately. I think that most people on this thread realize that Gates’s behavior was a contributing factor in his arrest. Why is that so hard to accept?</p>
<p>It does not mean that the arrest was fully justified or that charges would be filed (they weren’t) or that he would be placed in custody and the key thrown away. It just means that Crowley made a decision based on events at the time that was sorted out later.</p>
<p>There are many more blatant cases of police misconduct that are worth defending, many poor people of all races that have suffered true abuses of the criminal justice system. Like it or not, Gates’s uncooperative behavior did contribute to his arrest, and no amount of waving the constitution is going to change that. Justice was done in the end, unlike in so many other cases.</p>
<p>“Which is literally to say that in [Amerikka] it is common sense that one cannot exercise ones right to protest without being arrested. And this means the Constitution of Real America is truly an unadulterated sham.” </p>
<p>Actually, protesters of all races and ethnicities are arrested regularly if their behavior is disorderly. Don’t you watch the news?</p>
<p>Glad you found it interesting Poet(my post 1842), and my point was just as purpleflurp interpreted in 1844.
I can only barely imagine if we’s asked those young women to dance, and flirted with them, and a couple(of the 150 or so) had been offended. Imagine 3 or 4 guys offended coming over to our table angry and ready to fight. Am I supposed to say “You can’t hit me; the Constitution says so!” Then, am I to expect they will look at each other, say “he’s right”, then walk away? Really? When I was young and single, didn’t I have a legal right to flirt in a dance bar? I think yes. Do I think that legal right would protect me from harm that night? I think not. If I’d been beat up, would it not have hurt just the same, laws or not? There are state and local laws that prohibit those men from hitting me too, but I don’t think they’d have kept me safe that night. I think those Americans(I have no reason to believe they were foreigners) who happened to be black, prob would have beaten us pretty good if they had taken offense. So no, it isn’t just theoretical; but that night it would not have protected me from harm.</p>
<p>There are laws against theft, yet some steal. There are laws against speeding, yet some drive too fast. Having laws in place doesn’t always prevent the infraction. After the fact, there can be punishment for those who break laws; but I wasn’t confident in my safety that night just because the law was on my side.</p>
<p>Just as a guy flashing expensive jewelry, a girl in a mini, and me in that bar; an adult needs to be mindful if his words or behavior is likely(whether fairly or not) to get himself in jeopardy, then I submit that adult should apply his common sense in an effort to avoid trouble- even if he/she has a legal right to do that behavior. I’d add that that wouldn’t be true if a person were deliberately doing a risky behavior in a effort to raise awareness. A protestor comes to mind. He may do an action just to get in the news to make his point for the public.</p>
<p>My opinion based on what I’ve read is that Gates acted like an [donkey] that day. It appears he used the race card before even i.d. ing himself. That was premature. He kept arguing, on and on, after definitive id was shown, and the cop was trying to leave. I don’t believe tho, that he should have been arrested for that behavior. I think we’d all agree it was legal behavior, but that it was rude and not smart to do, particularly given his sensitivity(many here say) to generations of white cop black citizen abuse. To go on and on, just because he feels he is legally allowed to isn’t smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahhh. Consider what is happening here. The Real Americans are sooooo eager to deny Gates his rights, that they are actually agreeing that when the little man on his cane protested to the cop, he was in fact being disorderly. The Real Americans, quite contrary to their claims that Gates ought not have been arrested, are claiming that he was truly at fault. Dishonor is the blood and soul of Real Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Had AfAms operated “common sense”, there never would have been organized protests of The South’s oppressive Jim Crow laws, which had had black people locked in its iron fist for nearly 100 years. Neither would those protesters have been subject to vicious dog attacks and beatings by law enforcement, being knocked to the ground by fire hoses opened full force, and arrests for “disorderly conduct”. Following your chain of logic, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman were “partially responsible” for their own murders when they acted “without common sense” by daring to travel to The Deep South in order to aid in the fight for Civil Rights.</p>
<p>—Certainly, a ragtag group of colonists, exponentially outnumbered, and pitted against the most powerful army in the world, would never have done something so lacking in “common sense” as to demand their basic human rights, and taken up arms against that entity that regarded them as nothing more than a bountiful source of additional revenue. </p>
<p>If the litmus for the support of an individual’s (or a people’s) exercising of his/their human rights had to be predicated upon whether or not they were operating “common sense” at the time of their protest, I scarcely say there would even be an America today.</p>
<p>Now let me place these next words in bold print so that I might not be accused of of speaking in hyperbolic absurdities (simba, not withstanding:rolleyes:):</p>
<p>I am NOT saying that the Gates case and The March on Selma are equivalent in either scope or historical importance. I am NOT saying that The Founding Father’s fight for liberty is equivalent to the Gates case in either scope or historical importance. I am saying that demanding that someone act with what a majority deems to be “common sense” before their civil rights can be supported as sacrosanct, is a frankly ridiculous criterion.** In the Gates case, we literally have a majority that believes the person whose rights were violated is so reprehensible (though some would merely say, “lacking in common sense”) as to be deserving of the dismissal of his rights, and that the arm of government that stripped him of them is to be lauded and thoroughly excused of the breach. (For the record, I do not place either you, purpleflurp, nor you, younghoss, among that majority who believes law enforcement is to be lauded for their actions that day. I am trying here to be quite clear.) </p>
<p>Yes, I believe it would have been better for Henry Louis Gates to have acted more calmly in the face of what he believed to be racial discrimination that day. I also believe it would have been better for Sgt. Crowley to have simply left the property once he’d ascertained that there had been no burglary and that the homeowner was in residence. I believe he should not have let himself into the man’s home uninvited, for without probable cause to believe a crime was in progress, that is against the law. I also believe that, despite the fact that he was mightily offended by Gate’s suggestion that he (Crowley) was acting out of racial prejudice, he should have relinquished the information that the law requires him to submit, and which Gates demanded over and over again. Though this old man hobbling on his cane was seen as being loud and obnoxious, there was no reason for a dozen or more police officers to be called to the scene. And certainly, there was no reason for Crowley to lie on his official police report about what the neighbor is said to have witnessed. There was no need for him to embellish that report with fictitious “yo mamma” narrative or wording that attempted to fulfill the criteria for a disorderly conduct charge, even as the man remained inside his own home. I’m saying that only one man actually broke the law that day, and it was not the man who ended up being arrested.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I saw this clearly, a thousand posts ago. We are now at the point where even Real Americans can see it. Here is an example:</p>
<p>In [this</a> post](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124184-post1842.html]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124184-post1842.html) we see an anecdote where a so-called American was afraid to ask black girls to dance, for fear that they would be attacked by black guys; and this so-called American actually thinks his decision not to exercise his rights here is the same as deciding not to exercise his rights before a representative of the government! True Americans know that if there is anywhere at all where we should be bold in exercising our rights, it should be before the people responsible for securing those rights, else the rights simply do not exist.</p>
<p>BUT nooooooooo! Real Americans think being afraid of general peers who may or may not know their rights, is the same as being afraid of government agents who are paid to know and protect them. Here is how Real Americans reduce their Constitution to an utter sham.</p>
<p>Next, you ask [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124345-post1843.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124345-post1843.html]here[/url</a>] for a clarification from the so-called American.</p>
<p>Then another so-called American came along [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124608-post1844.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063124608-post1844.html]here[/url</a>] to claim that the anecdote meant that we have the theoretical right to do some things, but common sense tells us not to do them because the risks are too high. Think on this. What good is a Constitutional right to protest against the government without fear of arrest, if one must apply commonsensical fear of being arrested for protesting to government? The Constitutional protection here simply does not exist, which is why I say the Constitution in Real America is an utter sham. These people actually accept this and they do not know they accept it.</p>
<p>Next, you correctly point out [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125694-post1845.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125694-post1845.html]here[/url</a>] that the so-called Americans are in fact claiming that their rights under the Constitution are merely theoretical (I already see the exchange has gone far above their heads, but that you see it clearly. And so this post is only to you and others capable of following along. I am showing you, friend, that I am indeed onto something). The rights are merely theoretical, which means as they exist in the Constitution, they are pure shams.</p>
<p>That is when another so-called American came along [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125912-post1847.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125912-post1847.html]here[/url</a>] to claim that rather than meaning Constitutional rights are merely theoretical, the anecdote meant one must use common sense in enjoying those rights. And it sounds so sensible, until we see the implications of it.</p>
<p>I point out those implications [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125977-post1849.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063125977-post1849.html]here[/url</a>]. Gates is just a small man, who hobbles around on a cane. He used mere words to show his contempt for cops who had imposed on his life and who continued to impose on him for no valid reason. Those words are absolutely protected speech. Indeed, Americans shout in neighborhoods against abortion doctors, they burn the American flag, and shout at politicians because it is their right to do so. Gates did nothing more than this. But these so-called Americans here are actually claiming that he was wrong to do so, and that rather than act as he did, he should have instead used common sense. Which is literally to say that in Real America it is common sense that one cannot exercise one’s right to protest without being arrested. And this means the Constitution of Real America is truly an unadulterated sham.</p>
<p>THEN a so-called American countered me [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063126010-post1851.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063126010-post1851.html]here[/url</a>] by claiming that in actuality, contrary to my claims, cops commonly arrest people of all races for disorderly conduct, implying that Gates was indeed being disorderly. Well if the so-called American thinks Gates was in truth being disorderly as the cop claims, then the so-called American is in fact agreeing that Gates should have been arrested and that his Constitutional rights were not infringed.</p>
<p>This is why I have long said here, and continue to say, that the Constitution affords us no protection and that it is a sham. These people simply refuse to defend it. And the reason they are refusing to defend it is because they must in defending it also defend Gates, a thing that Real Americans simply cannot possibly ever do. They hate Gates with such passion that it blinds them even from their rights under the law. It is a most wretched sham we see here. And the horror of it is that these people are in the majority in this country, and they all think themselves Americans.</p>
<p>^^^
[Great</a> post!!](<a href=“http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broken%20record]Great”>Urban Dictionary: broken record)</p>
<p>Courts provide the protection. Please learn that fact. The Constitution is piece of parchment that guides the courts and lawmaking but the courts decide what is allowed speech and what is not–and there are many examples of speech that has not been allowed and the rules change with every new court case.
Most Americans–real or otherwise-never heard of Gates and really don’t care. He’s just another mouthy guy who had a run-in with the cops. The same thing happens to mouthy white and Hispanic people every day. When they take it too far in the eyes of the cops they get arrested. Then the court decides who was right.</p>
<p>Courts only provide an opportunity for recourse. It is police who are paid to enforce the law, of which the Constitution reigns supreme (or should).</p>
<p>“THEN a so-called American countered me here by claiming that in actuality, contrary to my claims, cops commonly arrest people of all races for disorderly conduct, implying that Gates was indeed being disorderly. Well if the so-called American thinks Gates was in truth being disorderly as the cop claims, then the so-called American is in fact agreeing that Gates should have been arrested and that his Constitutional rights were not infringed.”</p>
<p>I am not a “so-called American.” I am a proud and rational American who does believe that Gates engaged in conduct that was “disorderly,” as in “unruly; turbulent; tumultuous.”</p>
<p>I do not, however, believe that Gates posed any threat and thus, I do not support his arrest, even though I can see that he put himself at risk for being arrested because it is sort of a catch-all term with which the police can use their discretion.</p>
<p>The incident did not have to play out as it did. It would have played out differently if Gates had been, if not polite, at least cooperative and nonconfrontational. No one was making him sit on the back of a bus. In fact, someone was trying to protect his property. A little cooperation might have been in order.</p>
<p>The Constitution is merely “a piece of parchment”? Really barrons? It’s not the Nation Defining Document which sets our country apart from that of every other in the history of the planet? I wonder…</p>
<p>Is the sense of righteous one derives from the vilifying of Henry Gates and the trivializing of his rights, ultimately worth the negation of one’s own rights under that same “piece of parchment”?:rolleyes"</p>