<p>Younghoss, what you are consistently ignoring is the basic fact that the Constitution is designed to keep government from violating our enumerated rights - not private citizens. If a private citizen chooses to snub you because he disapproves of your religious beliefs, he has every right to do that, even if it’s rude and hurts your feelings. But a government official who provides the benefits and protections of government only to members of the religion he prefers or supports is violating the Constitution. </p>
<p>So with your bar scenario vs. Prof. Gates’ involuntary meeting with a police officer - the prototypical agent of the government. It’s not even remotely comparable. We have a right - even a responsibility - to expect that government officers obey the law. Accepting that they sometimes don’t and treating it as a “Well, you should have expected that” situation is simply encouraging its violation.</p>
<p>“But the fact is that many people here failed to acknowledge Gates’ rights and even insisted that Gates was at fault for being arrested, though he was innocent of breaking the law. And this phenomenon was not limited only to this thread. When the Gates matter was fresh, poll after poll showed that whites, by far more than blacks, blamed Gates for the issue, and not Crowley. The people here insisted upon blaming Gates, repeatedly, even after the possibility of a Constitutional issue had been mentioned. What could explain this insistence? Let us remove race from the issue for a moment. What then can account for this sort of insistence against Gates in the face of the issue of American rights? And when you come to your answer, ask yourself if there was sufficient information for it, and why it affected so many whites than blacks.”</p>
<p>Thank you, Drosselmeir, for your courage and persistence in continuing to try to educate people here about racism and about constitutional rights.</p>
<p>Why is it that the issue of racism in the Gates incident keeps getting mixed up with the issue of rights in general (in that same incident)? These are two separate things.</p>
<p>It seems obvious to me that there is something very wrong with the police being allowed to arrest us for mouthing off, yet I accept that not as fair or good but as expected and typical. I have not read every post on this thread, but it general it appears that most people agree with this. Perhaps some feel that the police should be allowed to do their job without verbal abuse or overt challenge, and have the freedom to decide when a situation is escalating to the point where safety could be an issue (even if the bar is general in nature, and not specific to each incident). We could debate all of this (and have).</p>
<p>It is quite possible to think that the police activity in the Gates matter could be unconstitutional, yet still see no evidence of racism in the event. Just because there is racism in law enforcement and the judicial system does not prove that there was racism that night in Massachusetts. There is some logic missing in arguments from posters who are positive that Gates was a victim of racism. That so many of us, who are not African-American, could envision experiencing (or have experienced) a similar interaction with cops should at least be considered.</p>
<p>@spideygirl, A police officer’s arresting someone for “mouthing off” is neither expected nor typical.</p>
<p>There are at least three elements in this case that push it beyond a violation of the Constitutional rights of a member of the majority race:
The statement that two people apparently breaking and entering were black was added to the police report, and not based on the phone call from the 911 caller, nor on her statement on the scene.
The officer claimed that Professor Gates started shouting “Yo mama.” Assuming that this is not pure fabrication, perhaps Professor Gates was saying “Obama.”
After Officer Crowley left Professor Gates’ home, he announced, “I have the perp.” (Also, I’d like to amend my post #1893 to substitute “actually” for “honestly.”)</p>
<p>I completely disagree. You may get away with a bit of that, but if you push it (as Gates did), there is a good chance you will be arrested (no matter what your race is).</p>
<p>I really can’t know either way, for sure, can I? I wasn’t in the house with the two men. </p>
<p>Is there subliminal racism, against Caucasians, on the part of someone who has no doubt whatsoever that racism was involved in the Gates incident (and like me, was not in the house with the two men)? Or on the part of someone who has a reaction equivalent to an eye roll whenever anyone questions a quick jump to the “racism” conclusion?</p>
<p>One thing is for sure. Professor Gates had race on HIS mind, and was loud and clear on that (from the very first moments during which he was in contact with the police officer). There are certainly very good reasons (not in that immediate interaction, but from history and current events) why this would be so for him, but it is very possible that the police officer did not have the same fixation.</p>
<p>One thing that should come out of this incident is better education for all police officers about the perspectives of citizens. A little sensitivity on the part of officers could go a long way.</p>
<p>I think, BTW, that it is great that Dross is here writing what he really thinks. It is always good to push genuine opinions into the light of day. Once they are posted, there they sit for all to see. We can learn from some, and be shocked (disgusted, saddened - whatever) by others, but the best thing of all is the opportunity to better understand how others see the world (even if their perceptions are questionable to us).</p>
<p>Please be assured Kluge, I am aware the Constituition is outlining what protections a citizen has from government officials. I am not ignoring that.
I see a parallel(not identical) in that; compared to state/local laws that are intended to protect me from arson, theft, and in my example, a punch in the nose, among other infractions.
Both legal provisions may specify what is/isn’t permitted, and there are punishments for those who do not comply. Yet, though we use the word “protection” the Constitution doesn’t always prevent an illegal search, and state laws do not always prevent an assault &B. My buddy and I enjoyed the music, some drinks, but chose not to act or vocalize things we thought might inflame a situation.
Despite knowing the protections of state laws, I feel my choice of words/actions that night helped me to minimize the risk of getting beat up; even though I think it would be unfair to get beat up for flirting with a single girl. Looking back, for me, that was (and is now) what I believe was the smartest choice.
I would guess is that if Mr. Gates reflects on the incident now, he might wish he could make a few changes. Last I read, he initially declined to i.d. himself. Personally, I think had he promptly complied with that, none of this would have occurred. Yes, that is just my guess. {I also suspect Officer Crowley would like to make changes too, but he isn’t germain in this particular aspect}.
NOT to say he deserved to be arrested because he didn’t immediately show i.d. But just to say that I feel showing i.d. to a cop is a reasonable request. I had to show mine once when I was getting in my locked car with a coat hanger(idiot!). I think all would agree promptly showing i.d. would have been a far better step in the right direction.
So Kluge, if we disagree that words/behaviors can unfairly lead to trouble, then so be it. We shall politely disagree. If we disagree there is a parallel between Mr. Gates words/actions and my bar words/actions, then so be it. But I am not unaware, or ignoring the intent of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Crowley’s reports says, “She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males on the porch …” Crowley asked her what she observed. Asking Whalan what she observed is appropriate including a description of the race of the possible criminal.</p>
<p>Razorsharp - the caller has adamantly and consistently denied ever reporting the race of the two men she saw, and the 911 transcript bears that out - she simply didn’t know what race they were. And she denied having any conversation of any substance with officer Crowley before he went to the door. There’s very little wiggle room for anyone to contest that Crowley’s report that the 911 caller told him the two men were black was anything but a fabrication, plain and simple.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, my DW’s initial response to this event was to condemn Prof. Gates for “playing the race card” - and I had to remind her of the time a police officer, acting on a mistaken impression of what was going on, ran into our backyard and then into our house through a back door. (No crimes involved, just teenagers clowning around, quickly untangled.) My DW heard a commotion, walked to our back room, saw the police officer and immediately, and in no uncertain terms, told him to GET THE %%^(%$ OUT OF MY HOUSE! and proceeded to advance on him, continuing in that vein, and walked him backwards out the door and around to our front porch. He didn’t arrest her, he didn’t charge her with a crime. He got out of our house. And while he was clearly none too happy, he didn’t break any laws once advised to desist. It was a good day for the Constitution.</p>
<p>Of course, my DW is a middle-class white woman living in a privileged, middle-class community. She can get away with insisting that her rights be honored - and she knows it. Anyone who thinks Prof. Gates’ race had nothing to do with what happened that day is living in La-La land, and vacationing in Denial.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, I would have given Crowley the benefit of the doubt (ie he was just a jerk not a racist) if it weren’t for the fact that he put that in his report. I don’t believe for a moment that Whalen told him the men were black when she was so careful to say in her 911 call that she didn’t get a good look but that they might have been Hispanic. If he lied about one thing, who knows how much else he lied about?</p>
<p>A nice story, but also one that is completely irrelevant to the Skip Gates case, as the facts bear no parallels whatsoever. </p>
<p>No matter how many times one will repeat the alleged constitutional violations, it remains that none of the expressed **opinions **rises above idle speculation about what might have happened.</p>
<p>“My DW heard a commotion, walked to our back room, saw the police officer and immediately, and in no uncertain terms, told him to GET THE %%^(%$ OUT OF MY HOUSE!”</p>
<p>I suspect that this is serious hyperbole for the sake of trying to make a case of racism. And in many, many places, including where I live, one had best not address a cop like that or he WILL be arrested.</p>
<p>cartera45, I understand your point, but why do you believe Ms. Whalen over Sgt. Crowley? Ms. Whalen was undoubtedly upset when she spoke with Crowley, possibly she did not remember mentioning the burglar’s race. I have lost tack of the number of times I have read witness reports from people seeing the same incident, yet the reports vary dramatically. And then when they speak about what they observed, their oral accounts vary from their own written accounts. </p>
<p>If we assume Crowley inserted that language in his report, why would he do so? How did it help him? It seems irrelevant to me the race of the robber given that there was a report of a possible robbery and that justified Crowley to question Gates.</p>
<p>Couldn’t it be the case that Crowley made an error in his report that mean nothing other than that he made an error?</p>
<p>My opinion is that we cannot know for sure whether race had anything to do with the police officer’s behavior. We can know for sure it had a lot to do with the professor’s behavior. </p>
<p>A charge of racism against an individual is a really big deal. If it sticks it can ruin someone’s life (probably as it should be). What is the point in arguing about the Constitution, while at the same time being quick to throw out or discount other rights (like the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, or the right to sue if you are a victim of slander or libel)?</p>
<p>kluge
</p>
<p>Anyone who is positive that they know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that race had something to do with the officer’s behavior, is not from Vulcan, and has never even vacationed there.</p>