User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 139 of 139

  1. #131
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    It's really two sides of the same coin. Skip Gates was incensed because he thought the police officer was being racist. It's such a deep self-esteem issue that he would likely have responded similarly to anything a police officer did, speeding ticket, etc. ...

    Now think of a Police officer who believes in equality and fairness. He might have been thinking, I'm going to treat this guy the same way I would treat any other guy. So when Skip Gates refused to comply the police officers instructions he puts on the handcuffs. Now the Police officer thinks the whole country thinks he is a racist. This might well be a self-esteem issue for him if he sees himself as a good and fair person.

  2. #132
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AllAboutSoul View Post
    It doesn't negate the fact in my mind that it was perfectly proper to ask the officer to show his I.D. I would've. I'm not just taking up for the Professor, either. Both were in the wrong in my mind. The officer perhaps being on a bit of a power trip...and the Professor for being a bit of an attention whore. Who knows? Just the vibe I get. *shrug*

    We don't really know what happened that day, which really renders the discussion moot until we do know the facts, if we ever will, which I doubt.
    You're right. Both were clearly in the wrong. It's still in the nature of the system to err on the side of the civilian.

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    Agreed.

    My ex was a cop and their job is not easy. I know that most people would agree with that statement but it's a hard job in ways I never thought of. Everyone should do a ride along. Your perspective changes - greatly! And you realize just how many idiots and assholes these people deal with daily.

    For example, during one ride along he pulled over/ticketed probably 15 people. 2 of them were black. One of them told my ex that "You only pulled me over because I was black." My ex ignored this. However, the man kept repeating it. Finally my ex responded: "Look at your tint. Do you think I can see through your vehicle?" The guy promptly shut up.

    Once my ex got back in the police car he said "I should've ticketed him for having illegal tint" then started laughing. I thought he should've! I was offended because I know how honest he is at his job and how seriously he takes his responsibility. He was like, "Whatever. We hear that everyday." I don't know but I couldn't take being accused of racism and being slandered everyday. Much respect to them.
    I agree - being a police officer is as hard and thankless of a job as there is. However, I think that's a good thing - when we begin to glorify and revere our authority figures, that's where the seeds of tyranny arise. While it's sad on a personal level that police officers are constantly disrespected, at the same time, considering they always have the situational advantage (when it comes to physical force), it's an important check on their power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    A power trip? Police officers are in a position of power. That's just the nature of the job, however that doesn't mean their intentions are set on entertaining that power... As long as the cop does his job lawfully, it's pointless to even assume he's on a "power trip", because every situation a cop handles, it calls for compliance in some form. Is that not power?

    At what stage did Sgt Crowley conduct himself in the wrong manner? I'm curious as to what you feel his error was. Reading over the article as well as other people's views and opinions, I don't see any misstep on his part and it appears he carried out his duty in correct fashion.
    I think that's just going to be a key point of disagreement that many will have on this subject. No one is disputing that Crowley went exactly according to procedure. The problem here is that this was one of those 5% of situations that procedure was completely inappropriate, and resulted in a much bigger hassle than was necessary. Procedures are written in order to remove the judgment call from the individual officer, but an effective officer knows there are points where the judgment call is nonetheless necessary. It's like the movie Do The Right Thing - while the police officers went according to procedure ("did the right thing") by placing Radio Raheem in a choke hold, by going too far and killing him, they sparked a riot.

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    It's really two sides of the same coin. Skip Gates was incensed because he thought the police officer was being racist. It's such a deep self-esteem issue that he would likely have responded similarly to anything a police officer did, speeding ticket, etc. ...

    Now think of a Police officer who believes in equality and fairness. He might have been thinking, I'm going to treat this guy the same way I would treat any other guy. So when Skip Gates refused to comply the police officers instructions he puts on the handcuffs. Now the Police officer thinks the whole country thinks he is a racist. This might well be a self-esteem issue for him if he sees himself as a good and fair person.
    Given your scenario, it's a clash of perspectives. From Professor Gates's perspective, he has very little reason to believe that race or ethnicity will not inform a police officer's actions when involved with someone of a minority ethnicity. Remember, he was brought up in a time where Bull Connor's men were on TV hosing down Civil Rights protesters, entered higher education at its most turbulent point in our country's history and the defining civil rights leaders had just been brutally assassinated, has had to deal with his academic work being deemed "too far out there" early on even though his credentials were impeccable, simply because the work didn't follow the Eurocentric norms of the day, has had to deal with the subtle marginalization of being an "Afro-American" scholar, while defending the newer expressions of black culture to the American mainstream from the constant claims of violence, lasciviousness, corruption and decay, and not to mention dealt with all the stupid BS from the police that comes with being a minority in the US. It would not surprise me if he's been pulled over more times than we can imagine coming from academic functions in tony neighborhoods, for no reason other than to be asked what he was doing in that part of town at that time of night.

    Meanwhile, Officer Crowley may have also been trying to be completely color-blind in the situation, and that is admirable for its commitment to equality. Unfortunately, this country is still unequal in its treatment of the various groups, and consequently, what is seen as equal and just to one is seen as condescending and willfully ignorant to another. This is why the power relationship is so important, and where his ultimate culpability comes into play. If/when Gates started becoming disrespectful and offensive, Crowley could have very well said "Sir, I will be returning at a time when you are more calm to discuss the issue further, and would like to collect some information from you. My reasons for discussing this were not based on your race whatsoever, but I understand your offense. Here is my card, and please call if you have any information for us. Thank you." and then left. He did not do this. My guess as to why? I could be wrong, but probably because of the high-masculinity culture of police - you do not take disrespect lying down, even if it is the appropriate move. Cambridge, because of Harvard, is a very class-stratified place, and I'm sure Crowley encounters a high level of disrespect on a consistent basis because of this. It could very well just have been a bad day for him, and Gates just happened at the wrong time. That still doesn't exculpate him.

    The reason his actions were wrong was due to the role of the police - investigating crime is a secondary concern. Maintaining the public order is the primary concern; investigation is simply a means of doing this (ensuring public trust and order by guaranteeing the pursuit of lawbreakers). By inciting Gates to further agitation without any probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime, he neglected his responsibility toward maintaining order. He could have placated the neighbor by returning to her house, informing her of the older black man who he saw there, and asking if she had any further concerns. Instead, he caused a national uproar.

  3. #133
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    ^+1

    MDP, do you know your ex's mbti type?
    I had him take the test. He's an ESTJ.

    I agree - being a police officer is as hard and thankless of a job as there is. However, I think that's a good thing - when we begin to glorify and revere our authority figures, that's where the seeds of tyranny arise. While it's sad on a personal level that police officers are constantly disrespected, at the same time, considering they always have the situational advantage (when it comes to physical force), it's an important check on their power.
    It is a hard job it should not be a thankless one. I agree with your statement above. My previous post was mainly to show another side of things and that is that these officers are human beings and have feelings too. Appreciation not glorification was what I was after.
    ~luck favors the ready~


    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  4. #134
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    It is a hard job it should not be a thankless one. I agree with your statement above. My previous post was mainly to show another side of things and that is that these officers are human beings and have feelings too. Appreciation not glorification was what I was after.
    You're right, it shouldn't be a thankless one. We should always be appreciative of what the police do. At the same time, we should be ever-vigilant, as it is the actions of bad cops that make the good ones have to operate more hostile environments than what comes with the job.

  5. #135
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You're right, it shouldn't be a thankless one. We should always be appreciative of what the police do. At the same time, we should be ever-vigilant, as it is the actions of bad cops that make the good ones have to operate more hostile environments than what comes with the job.
    Agreed. I especially like the first two words of your post.
    ~luck favors the ready~


    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  6. #136
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Black officer at scholar's home supports arrest - Yahoo! News

    This is the most important decider in most people's minds, it seems.

    The fact that the other officer was black is, sadly, significant to most people.

    I also find it sad that some people think assuming that a police officer is racist/power hungry/a bully, is anymore justified than assuming that a black man is a criminal.
    Yes.
    The wagon is not ahead of the horse.
    We only think it is.

  7. #137
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Regardless of any racial motive the officer should at the very minimum for violating a citizens rights. Cops have a difficult job, but they are not above the law.

    The Reality-Based Community: Nightmare on Ware Street

    Nightmare on Ware Street
    Posted by Mark Kleiman
    Lowry Heussler, who has worked on police-misconduct cases in Massachusetts, writes:

    ****************

    A couple of years ago, my neighbor locked herself out and figured she could save the locksmith charge if she could get to an unlocked door on her second floor porch. A Cambridge police officer happened by and helped us carry an extension ladder across the street from my garage. He even held the ladder steady while my nimble neighbor ascended to the porch. The police officer never asked two laughing Caucasian women to prove we were not burglars.

    We all know that race and sex explain the difference in the way Sgt. James Crowley treated Professor Gates, but I'd like to leave that to the side for now. The incendiary issue of race in policing diverts public attention from examining the foundation of Crowley's misconduct. When addressing basic errors in law and fact can solve a problem, we should start there before tackling the enormous and slippery issues of race and crime investigation. We're all talking about whether Lucia Whalen should have called the police and whether race was a factor in Sgt. Crowley's deplorable treatment of Gates, but so far, I have seen no straightforward analysis of Crowley's own account of his actions.

    Sgt. Crowley's report almost certainly contains intentional falsehoods, but even accepting his account at face value, the report tells us all we need to conclude that Crowley was in the wrong here, and by a large factor.

    The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

    The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
    The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

    Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.

    But for the sake of education, let's watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He's staying put in Gates' home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he'll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: "I'm sorry for disturbing you," and "I'm glad you're all right."

    Spoiling for a fight, Crowley refuses to repeat his name and badge number. Most of us would hand over a business card or write the information on a scrap of paper. No, Crowley is upset and he's mad at Gates. He's been accused of racism. Nobody likes that, but if a cop can't take an insult without retaliating, he's in the wrong job. When a person is given a gun and a badge, we better make sure he's got a firm grasp on his temper. If Crowley had called Gates a name, I'd be disappointed in him, but Crowley did something much worse. He set Gates up for a criminal charge to punish Gates for his own embarrassment.

    By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. The only plausible question for the chief to ask about that little detail is: "Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid?" Crowley produced those handcuffs to provoke Gates and then arrested him. The decision to arrest is telling. If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates.

    No one who is familiar with law enforcement can miss the significance of Crowley's report. As so often happens with documentary evidence, a person seeking to create a false impression spends lots of time nailing down the elements he thinks will establish his goal, but forgets about the larger picture. Under color of law, Crowley entered a residence to investigate a possible break-in, and after his probable cause had evaporated, he continued to act under color of law, but without any justifiable purpose. And he covered it up with false charges. Figuring that his best defense was a criminal charge, Crowley did what bad cops do. He decided he would look better if Gates looked worse. Perhaps one day cops will figure out that trumped-up charges worsen a case of investigating something that turns out not to have been a crime. It is horribly wrong when police officers falsely accuse an injured arrestee of A&B PO ("assault and battery on a police officer," a felony) but at least there is some logic to the lie. If a disorderly conduct charge follows an investigation of a non-crime, chances are pretty good that the cop handled himself badly. Pursuit of charges should be strongly disfavored.

    The lying matters. I'm afraid that part of the decision to nolle prosse the case stems from the CPD's reluctance to have Mr. Ogletree produce evidence contradicting Crowley's statements.

    I'm not surprised that the CPD backed away from this, but I take a hard line on completing an investigation, regardless of whether Gates pushes for one. I've detailed what I think are serious abuses of authority by Crowley, even if his report is taken as true, but I am also very concerned about "testilying" in police reports. Most of us would be fired for giving our employer a false report, even if it concerned relatively minor matters. Employers need to know they can trust us. When a person is prosecuted in the name of the Commonwealth, a testifying police officer is essentially the eyes and ears of the citizenry. Don't lie when you're my agent.

    If Crowley lied about Gates' statements, he should not be permitted to investigate crimes ever again. Investigation for the government is a sacred responsibility. Unless Cambridge investigates and acts properly, we're ratifying his actions. We're also putting the public at risk of false arrest and police persecution. Lying cops are like biting dogs. After the first bite we can't say we weren't warned. Conservatives love "zero tolerance" for crime. Could we have zero tolerance for testilying?

    People scoff at the idea of disciplining a cop for lying in a report, let alone firing a cop for a single episode of lying. Complete truthfulness in the police may be an impossible dream. But the goal of policing is a crime-free community, isn't it? The police have to keep working toward the unattainable goal of eliminating crime. The rest of us should be uncompromising in our efforts to eliminate police misconduct.

  8. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dga View Post
    Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave.
    A Harvard ID is not a universally recognizable means of identification. It is quite possible that a burglar could pull out a fake ID and throw a temper tantrum to weasel his way out.

    By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism.
    Untrue. Even if he wasn't arrogant and obnoxious, it might have been prudent to hold him until his identity could be ascertained. The fact that he acted like an arrogant jerk made the cop's decision easier. Getting him to continue his tantrum outside provided a technical justification to hold him.

  9. #139
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    A Harvard ID is not a universally recognizable means of identification. It is quite possible that a burglar could pull out a fake ID and throw a temper tantrum to weasel his way out.
    There is no requirement in the United States to have identification papers. Hell, usually an electrical bill is enough to establish residence. Our legal system is about protecting citizens' rights, not catching criminals.

    Untrue. Even if he wasn't arrogant and obnoxious, it might have been prudent to hold him until his identity could be ascertained. The fact that he acted like an arrogant jerk made the cop's decision easier. Getting him to continue his tantrum outside provided a technical justification to hold him.
    Nope. Without probable cause, a police officer cannot detain a citizen. Period. That's due process, and the precedent goes back to time immemorial. Hiibel v. Sixth (2004) established that all someone is required to do is give one's name to a police officer.

Similar Threads

  1. What type is Michio Kaku? (Professor of Theoretical Physics)
    By RaptorWizard in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 09:35 PM
  2. Venezuela government orders troops to streets, arrests + tortures 100s of opponents
    By Il Morto Che Parla in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2013, 02:40 PM
  3. Dept. Of Heath And Human Services Defends Child Abuse
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2012, 05:09 PM
  4. Long Island man arrested for defending his home with AK-47 rifle
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 09:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO