Did Gates use his race as an excuse ?

One of my readers must have really wanted to know how I felt about SGT Crowley and Professor Gates. I attempted to response in the comment section and my response was too long. So this is my comment to a reader's comment in an earlier post:

This is is high profile interaction between a police and a citizen. A police responded to a break in in progress. Upon arriving at the scene officer was told the person breaking in actually lived in the home.

Next, the police officer did not call back up. It was obvious that the officer did not feel threaten in the presence of Gates. It was reported in news acccounts that the suspect was a bespectacled old man who walked with a cane. The officer was packing a deadly weapon, for Pete's sake!!!!!

The police officer requested the suspect to prove he lived in the home. The suspect requested how and the officers requested driver license, or something to verify the address and the person. The suspect provided his work I.D. which the suspect worked for the University on the ground.

End of story.

except..suspect did not quietly work with officer. Suspect began to verbalize his discontent with the action of the police.

At one point the suspect requested the officer's identification. Officer requested suspect to exit his home. Suspect still expressing his discontent exited his home and was told to quiet down. Suspect still on his property expressing his discontent was arrested after failing to shut the F up.

Suspect could not be charged with breaking into his own home so the officer reached into his bag of tricks and decide to charge the suspect with disorderly conduct. But, he had to get tGates to come out of the house to get a public disturbance of loud mouth ranting.

Massachusetts bars disorderly conduct through Section 53 of Chapter 272 of its general laws, the chapter devoted to crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order. Specifically, it states that:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Now, Officer with a charge on suspect other than the breaking an entering, can freely deprive the suspect of his right to freely enjoy his own property.

In depriving the suspect of this right the police is authority to cuff the suspect and haul the bewildered suspect to the jail house.

Suspect can now challenge his arrest for disorderly conduct as being unlawful and charge as a pretense to arrest a loud mouth black man.

However, the alleged charge of disorderly conduct was dropped.


The charge was dropped, the probable cause did not rise to the level to convince the prosecutor to warrant going forward with the charges based on the information in the affidavit.


Now, I was not there, but I have read the affidavit. I am allowed to form an opinion and let me tell you that is what every person who was not there is doing. However, the legal person who made the decision to go forward dropped the charges.


Let me add this to my opinion, if you enter my house and I begin to scream yell and tell you to get the hell out of my house. I suggest you do so, especially if I did not invite you into my house in the first place.

TRESPASSING..and don't let me have a gun and tell you to get off my property. Oh boy.

The suspect did not have to be a warm and courteous guest just because the uninvited guest was a POLICE OFFICER.

A POLICE OFFICER once on your property by your personal invitation or because of alleged criminal activity is doing one thing..and it is not for hot tea and chit chat..it is to found evidence to support the reason why the call was made or to find other probable cause to justify arrest.

Crowley wanted to arrest Gates and guess what Crowley arrested Gates!!!


I have had good and bad interactions with police. I have a criminal justice degree. There is nothing that will convince me that the police officer did not entice Gates outside his home so that he could have a probable cause to arrest.

Nothing, except if Gates pull out a gun on the officer.

Arrest is not the same as being found guilty of a crime. Crowley was hoping the charge would stick and the charged was dismissed

And because the charge failed, Crowley will be either sued or lose his job allegedly using pretense of disorderly conduct to cuff and arrest Gates. Crowley is doing everything in his power to SAVE HIS JOB and not get sued.

Save job and not get sued.

Now that I have dealt with the facts of the case as I know them , let me move on to putting their (police) lives on the line everyday.

Get a hold of yourself. Police officers are allowed to carry a deadly weapon because of their job. It does not mean that they put their lives on the line everyday. Now, if you were talking about a soldier that goes off to war and at combat daily that's putting his or her life on the line. But back to the police officer.

Police officers are expected to response to situations different than ordinary citizens. Why, because it is in their job description, not because me as a African-American person does not want a police officer arbitrarily and capriciously messing with me !!! Nor do I want them talking to me like a criminal when I having committed a crime !!!

They (police) have a higher standard when interacting with the public.

Let me repeat a higher standard. Don't send me a Sgt Crowley when I am getting ready to jump off a tall building..send me someone that knows his or her job description and with that higher standard, okay.

Crowley did something wrong and I would fo further to suggest Crowley did several things wrong.

Finally, if Gates wants to use the black as excuse after Crowley enticed him outside to justify an arrest, go for it. I don't care if Gates acted like a 2 year old. As a taxpayer, I am not paying Gates to rise to a higher standard, on his own property. If it's black as an excuse to call out the behavior of the offense behavior, than use the black as excuse moment.

But..let me say.. but..I would expect Crowley to act better than a 9 year old because his manhood was challenged during the black as an excuse moment. And that is what the taxpayers are paying Crowley to do in his role as a POLICE OFFICER.

Never try to compare the action of a citizen to a police officer. It is never the same. The Even when an officer is out of uniform his conduct is to be without reproach, a higher standard than the fallen down drunk. The police officer is to never forget what he or she represents in the public sphere. Those who uphold the law at all cost.

Higher standards.

As you expressed yourself you have been harassed by the police. Gates decided to stand up for himself in his home.this is not the same right one has on the street. A man or woman is king or queen of their domain, barring all others including the police.

The police are agents of coercive force and if they are commanded to take you down, so be it. Does it mean you have to fear them? No, it just means know your rights and stand down and assess the situation.

Gates does not represent you or me. Gates represent himself and he is fighting for himself. Hopefully, you and every other person watching will learn something from the incident when a police shows up at your door.

Do you have to let them in? Do you have to say sir or no sir I beg your pardon?

Some folks are not willing to take the public scrutiny and settle behind closed doors. Gates is doing this in the public arena and for that I thank him.

Racial profiling is only about data collection. If you think it is about stopping bad cops from behaving badly you really don't understand the code of blue.

Thanks for your comment and keep on reading.

Racism is not about looks-its about discrimination

The journal-gazette runs an article about the incident at DePauw from the Associated Press. The article, Image discrimination: ‘The new racism’ discusses DePauw sorority evicting certain women from their sorority was simply about looks and had nothing to do with race. Even with the fact that one of the women was an African-American. This is a subtle way of making race irrelevant. The article suggest that folks are discriminated against based on their appearance and racial discrimination has ended!

But Rachel Pappas, a DePauw junior who was among several other members who left in protest, finds that hard to believe – and calls discrimination based on image “the new racism.”

“When you look at all these things and see that all of them have been eliminated, you wonder what it could be other than the image issue,” Pappas says.

.

Racial discrimination is placed in the background by society. Issues of racial discrimination are not discussed because it culturally acceptable in different circle. So silence protects the outing of these traditional practices that still exist today.

Indiana Law Blog posted about the law of Interracial dating. Interracial dating was forbidden in certain states including Indiana during the late 1960's. Now what does that mean? That means an African-American and a raced white were not permitted to date each other. This was the law. This law was enforced at home and in the social setting for young folks, school, churches. That means children were taught you can not date. I did not say anything about marriage. You could not like each other based on your race. This was the law of the land until 1965. This law was to maintain the southern way of life, Abraham lincoln's free, separate but not equal.

Loving

highlight the fact that laws were used to control how raced whites and African-Americans were limited in how they interacted with one another. Those who did decide to break the law would go to jail or have to flee those states that forbid miscegenation to prevent going to jail. To love and marriage in such union was criminal. Indiana Law blog used the article to highlight what is going on in the gay community. Not the same, same sex unions discrimination include African-Americans. The same sex battle is based on redefining who can marriage. That marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman.

In the court case Loving was between a man and woman. If man and woman could marriage, how could the law denied these two from marrying? It was race. From Loving,

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

But African-Americans are to be stupid enough to go to the back of the line and fight for same sex marriage, while so many are telling them, shut up about racial discrimination.

Now we know all about Lincoln freeing the slaves. We know all about blacks getting the right to sit at counters. But families a little over 40 years ago was telling their children they could not date outside their race. Yes African Americans could go to school with raced whites, but you better not think about liking one another. From Loving,

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The subtleties of racial discrimination. On the blog, one blogger explained that the children from marrying outside of the race would be problematic. No, it is continuation of the old law that is held in the hearts of many raced whites when it comes to African-Americans.

This one of the reason why many raced whites chose not to live among African-Americans. Many raced whites tolerate African-Americans but they do not wish to integrate totally with African-Americans. Many races whites can go to lunch with African-Americans but they will not cross into the homes of each other. Many raced white has friends who are African-Americans who serve as window dressing friends. Someone who they can take to event requiring a diversity discourse.


It is truly acceptable to discriminate against African-American. Yes, it is against the law. But look at the majority of those who are enforcing the laws.

Racial animosity is notable, as on Where the hell am I post, for those who are not trying to tell African-Americans they need to go to the back of the line. This post weighs in on a writer who feels free to express in a magazine why he hates blacks. Disagree is one thing, hate. Who hates? You probably won't be able to find the actual article on AsianWeek, but it's posted out there. Because you can easily find hate for African-Americans throughout the blogosphere.

Racial discriminate is so indoctrinated in the America culture that is has a special protection. that special protection seal has been penetrated by gender bias and is not is trying to be penetrated by same sex advocate. But nothing is like racial discrimination.

Southeast Development Strategy Forum

They told