Racist Cop or Combative Professor?

[yorkshirelad]

He's just pulling out every 'Fox News Watching/France Hating' cliched 'conservative' stereotype he can fit in one post.......nothing new.

That's why I can't for the life of me treat the comments seriously Sgt.

 

[jks9199]

Or because he knew that he would have grounds to arrest if Gates was being "tumultuous" in public. You're just assuming good intentions. That's part of what bothers some people about the defense of Crowley. His word is taken as gospel; Gates' is discounted. Even though the competing words of these two individuals are all we have to go on.

Sgt. Crowley's word is in an official police report, and he is subject to multiple and serious sanctions for dishonesty. Dr. Gates only accounts are to the press, with few repercussions for him to be less honest.

Sgt. Crowley's accounts serve to document his actions. Dr. Gates accounts have served to gather press attention, and further his other actions.

Sgt. Crowley's report was written before any press attention on the incident. Dr. Gates took his story to the press.

I don't know, but I think the odds are that Sgt. Crowley's report (and that of the other officer who filed a report) is probably a bit closer to facts.

 

[Archangel M]

Iowahawk nails it:

Cambridge Police Profiling Still a Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty *******s.

That was too frickin funny!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sgt. Crowley's word is in an official police report, and he is subject to multiple and serious sanctions for dishonesty. Dr. Gates only accounts are to the press, with few repercussions for him to be less honest.

Sgt. Crowley's accounts serve to document his actions. Dr. Gates accounts have served to gather press attention, and further his other actions.

Sgt. Crowley's report was written before any press attention on the incident. Dr. Gates took his story to the press.

I don't know, but I think the odds are that Sgt. Crowley's report (and that of the other officer who filed a report) is probably a bit closer to facts.

Nobody would lie to the press just to paint themselves in a better light, would they?

 

[kaizasosei]

Alright, i just got back from walking the dog and getting into a slight argument and a slight confrontation. - made up at the end- reminds me again of how when we fight people or ideas with resentment, most of it is just fighting and hurting ourselves. Boy, i would feel even cooler would i not use such vulgar language sometimes....oh well, all's well that end's well


Anyhow, as i understand it this controversial story has become quite an heated discussion. White and black tensions...police and even the president himself has come into play.

Obviously any story can be spun in a certain direction to sway peoples minds towards a desired goal. Not being there in person, it is hard to say how aggressive the policeman was or how out of controll the professor was. These are key points and we can only go on the accounts of others.

Was Malcolm x a racist? Is there a time to stand up to authority or to defy oppression? Firstly, we are all packing plenty of stereotypes about people, race, gender and basically anything that distinguishes someone. It is through becoming mature enough to be altruistic, sensitive enough to be mindful and brave enough to challenge our own fears and misconceptions, that we rise above racial issues. Also, kind of a stretch, but we also must constantly aim to instill such good characteristics in others. One thing is that there is so much negativity around, and it is not easy dealing with hurt or hatred. Even jokes can do damage and cause problems if there is enough hurt or hatred around.

A person like MalcomX, one could definately consider to be highly intelligent. An intelligent person will be able to reflect on and transcend or even correct his own misconceptions or predjudice. Therefore, i believe MalcomX was definately not a racist as he was a person standing up against racism. He did not call for black people to be established as better or anything, he was demanding equality in an unequal and unfair world. I think that honesty and bravery are important too.

Surely all people share stereotype ideas and racial profiling. It's something natural to a cerain point.
So, seeing the whole escapade from this angle, one can see that neither side is really all that wrong. Some people are so racist or hateful of a particular group, that they will avoid any contact, especially physical, meaning they don't even want to touch with a pole. That would be pathetic racist behaviour. I think that the worst racism comes from people that hide it and pretend like it's the way. People who preach racism are very hurtful and must do plenty of damage, but i think a good person thats slightly clever would be able to see through the mess.

Saying white people are the devil..again, a different time different age. But i venture to say that maybe, maybe it was a way of bringing the communities together. Also, to make the government know that there is someone that has the power to move things and if the government doesn't make a constructive move, there would be more and more unrest. It is very important for all peoples to have such a leader that is able to unite and guide the collective-that is the essence of government, no?.
Another point, we have to hear or take a look at the whole speach. I'm gather it didn't start with white people are the devil but had a more meaningful message with a begining and ending.

Granted, as has been said, a suspicious mind sees only evil.


j


j

 

[sgtmac_46]

Alright, i just got back from walking the dog and getting into a slight argument and a slight confrontation. - made up at the end- reminds me again of how when we fight people or ideas with resentment, most of it is just fighting and hurting ourselves. Boy, i would feel even cooler would i not use such vulgar language sometimes....oh well, all's well that end's well


Anyhow, as i understand it this controversial story has become quite an heated discussion. White and black tensions...police and even the president himself has come into play.

Obviously any story can be spun in a certain direction to sway peoples minds towards a desired goal. Not being there in person, it is hard to say how aggressive the policeman was or how out of controll the professor was. These are key points and we can only go on the accounts of others.

Was Malcolm x a racist? Is there a time to stand up to authority or to defy oppression? Firstly, we are all packing plenty of stereotypes about people, race, gender and basically anything that distinguishes someone. It is through becoming mature enough to be altruistic, sensitive enough to be mindful and brave enough to challenge our own fears and misconceptions, that we rise above racial issues. Also, kind of a stretch, but we also must constantly aim to instill such good characteristics in others. One thing is that there is so much negativity around, and it is not easy dealing with hurt or hatred. Even jokes can do damage and cause problems if there is enough hurt or hatred around.

A person like MalcomX, one could definately consider to be highly intelligent. An intelligent person will be able to reflect on and transcend or even correct his own misconceptions or predjudice. Therefore, i believe MalcomX was definately not a racist as he was a person standing up against racism. He did not call for black people to be established as better or anything, he was demanding equality in an unequal and unfair world. I think that honesty and bravery are important too.

Surely all people share stereotype ideas and racial profiling. It's something natural to a cerain point.
So, seeing the whole escapade from this angle, one can see that neither side is really all that wrong. Some people are so racist or hateful of a particular group, that they will avoid any contact, especially physical, meaning they don't even want to touch with a pole. That would be pathetic racist behaviour. I think that the worst racism comes from people that hide it and pretend like it's the way. People who preach racism are very hurtful and must do plenty of damage, but i think a good person thats slightly clever would be able to see through the mess.

Saying white people are the devil..again, a different time different age. But i venture to say that maybe, maybe it was a way of bringing the communities together. Also, to make the government know that there is someone that has the power to move things and if the government doesn't make a constructive move, there would be more and more unrest. It is very important for all peoples to have such a leader that is able to unite and guide the collective-that is the essence of government, no?.
Another point, we have to hear or take a look at the whole speach. I'm gather it didn't start with white people are the devil but had a more meaningful message with a begining and ending.

Granted, as has been said, a suspicious mind sees only evil.


j


j

Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.

They went so far as to make ideological bedfellows with the KKK...No joke! Mohammad Ali actually APPEARED at a Klan rally and gave a SPEECH about their common goals of racial seperation....

Muhammad Ali's meetings with Ku Klux Klan leaders revealed by documentary

Shortly before he fought Joe Frazier in the Philippines in 1975, Muhammad Ali met with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...s-revealed-by-documentary-Boxing-and-MMA.html

Now if your GOALS are identical to an organization such as the KKK.......i.e. RACIAL SEPERATION........how can one argue that the Klan's goals are racist, but the Nation of Islams' isn't? That argument is fundamentally schizophrenic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Gates of Political Distraction

Conservatives won this round in the culture wars, not merely because most of the facts broke their way, but because their grievance is one that a certain species of liberal never seems to grasp. Whether the issue is abortion, evolution or recycling, these liberal patricians are forever astonished to discover that the professions and institutions and attitudes that they revere are seen by others as arrogance and affectation.

The “elitism” narrative routinely blind-sides them, takes them by surprise again and again. There they are, feeling good about their solidarity with the coffee-growers of Guatemala, and then they find themselves on the receiving end of criticism from, say, the plumbers of Ohio.

 

[kaizasosei]

It's a matter of strategy. You don't always move in straight lines. So why didn't the government go ahead and give everyone what they want. Hell, split the country into two, have schools, buses and townships completely segregated...it's an impossibility. When someone tells you quite clearly that they don't want you, what do you say?? The correct answer is(the most strategically neutral yet hurtful answer) is a clear and sharp ' i don't want you either'

doesn't mean it has to be that way, but the message is clear, and if heard can effect a complete reversal of the situation.








j

 

[Steve]

You guys just can't do it. When your own double standards are pointed out you can't admit it.

Okay, I'll try again. After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley? Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger? No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did. Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.

So, if we can all agree on this, the question is, why did Crowley stick around after having ID'd Gates? Why didn't he leave? So far, in this thread and everywhere else, the only reasons I've seen or heard about amount to these:
1: He was mean to me.
2: He was yelling mean things at me.
3: He said something about my mama.

Even if that's all true, why didn't he leave? I believe it's because he was irritated and felt disrespected, and that he had decided to arrest Gates but realized he couldn't do so until he was outside the house.

It's kind of like Yorkshirelad goading others in this thread... Crowley WAS the conflict, and yet he decided to stay. That just doesn't compute for me. It seems deliberate.

I don't think race was involved in Crowley's decision to stay. I believe that ego definitely played a large role. Uppity Harvard Academic saying something about my mama! "Ahem. Sir, if you'd like to step out here, we can discuss this in front of all of these witnes... er... I mean, in a neutral area."

Come on guys. Give me a break. Once again, I'm not saying Gates acted with dignity and honor. I think it's clear that he over reacted. I'm suggesting that Crowley, in spite of all of his training, made an egregious error in judgement at best or deliberately prodded an angry academic so that he could slap the cuffs on him at worst. I don't know where it falls on that spectrum, but I'm relatively confident it's in there somewhere.

That a few of you are so quick to hide behind technicalities in order to protect Crowley, presuming the best on his behalf and the worst on Gates' is alarmingly biased. It's like they're all sitting in a pile of cow crap but you guys refuse to admit that Crowley stinks too.

In the same way, your rationale for Crowley's behavior is that Gates and Obama behaved poorly. YOu can't accept the notion that Crowley might have crap on his uniform, too.

 

[jks9199]

Bottom line......Sgt. Crowley, motivated by his view of enforcing the law and maintaining order.......regardless of critique on his actions at the moment. I have zero reason to believe that race even factored in to his actions EXCEPT to perhaps to DELAY a more assertive response out of the notion that this would blow up in his face!

Y'know... There's actually some truth to this. Most cops have probably held off or delayed a little as someone starts to play the "you're only doing this 'cause I'm..." usually, but not exclusively, a race, often black. I know I can think of times when I put up with crap that I wouldn't have otherwise because the guy was black. I can't help but wonder if Sgt. Crowley wouldn't have simply told a white man to "shut up, hang up the phone and let me do my job!"

 

[sgtmac_46]

You guys just can't do it. When your own double standards are pointed out you can't admit it.

Okay, I'll try again. After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley? Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger? No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did. Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.

Why don't you ask that question to Sgt. Crowley and the other officers who were there? They obviously made a determination based on more than just something they read on the internet or saw some talking head say on TV......if only everyone could do the same.

See at the end of the day......your assumptions about the case are heavily biased by 3 things

1) The dubious statements of Skippy Gates
2) Your own beliefs about the situation based on what you THINK happened that are only supported by reason 1.
3) The desire to put the entire issue on the actions of Sgt. Crowley, and dismiss the REAL REASON this is a national issue.......which isn't whether some clown got himself arrested for created a peace disturbance.


Boiling this entire debate down to Sgt. Crowley is a tactic, pure and simple........a tactic that hopes folks are dumb enough to buy the notion that believing that Sgt. Crowley overreacted to a racist diatribe somehow shields the racist involved......and his acolyte's subsequent racist and ignorant remarks.

The rational perspective, however, is even if one acknowledges Sgt. Crowley's actions were a moment of bad judgment based on dealing with an emotionally hijacked racist........NONE OF THAT in any way shields Skippy Gates or Barry Obama from RIGHTFUL scrutiny of even WORSE BEHAVIOR!

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's a matter of strategy. You don't always move in straight lines. So why didn't the government go ahead and give everyone what they want. Hell, split the country into two, have schools, buses and townships completely segregated...it's an impossibility. When someone tells you quite clearly that they don't want you, what do you say?? The correct answer is(the most strategically neutral yet hurtful answer) is a clear and sharp ' i don't want you either'

doesn't mean it has to be that way, but the message is clear, and if heard can effect a complete reversal of the situation.








j

Oh no, it's not a matter of strategy........it's the poison of racism. Just as an abused child has a tendency to grow in to an abusing adult. The fact, however, that they were the victim of abuse as a child does not excuse the behavior in the adult. That is the teaching moment for racism........being the victim of earlier racism does not justify present and future racism. End the cycle.

As to the question of why they didn't give everyone wanted they wanted and split the country......i'm not sure what point you think you're making with that question, though I believe that was already tried.......in 1861.......the results were less than ideal.



Here's what it boils down to........the root of black racism is founded in earlier racial victimization. I understand that. However, the result of that racism is a kind of vicious desire for a pound of flesh on the part of some folks. Now here's the problem for them.......i'm willing to share the country with all races. I've never victimized anyone because of their race. I'm NOT GOING TO PLAY PUNCH DUMMY as some sort of penance for past racists who happen to share a similar skin tint as me....NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

So, in essence, those who harbor these racist delusions of racial vengance and comeuppance have really two choices.....GET OVER IT and lets build a better America together.......OR PREPARE FOR CONFLICT! Because i've seen the results of these kind of racial blood grudges.........Rwanda 1995 being a prime example of what happens with a perceived aggrieved group, i.e. the Hutus, gains the opportunity to take out their racial grievance on a previous population that has historically oppressed them, i.e. the Tutsi'.........they put nearly 1 Million Tutsi's and moderate Hutu's to the blade within a couple of days! Or how about the Balkan conflicts involving the Serbians gaining the power to take out those old animosities.

Bottom line.......aligning oneself along racial lines is FUNDAMENTALLY DANGEROUS!

 

[Archangel M]

Okay, I'll try again. After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley? Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger? No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did. Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.

You just dont get it. Making an arrest for disorderly conduct has NOTHING to do with a "physical threat" or feeling that you are in "physical danger". A guy in a wheelchair yelling and screaming at passersby is subject to a DC arrest.

It seems like every argument against the Sgt. boils down to "I don't think he should have..." NOT "he had to legal basis for"...

You know the old saying about opinions.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You just dont get it. Making an arrest for disorderly conduct has NOTHING to do with a "physical threat" or feeling that you are in "physical danger". A guy in a wheelchair yelling and screaming at passersby is subject to a DC arrest.

It seems like every argument against the Sgt. boils down to "I don't think he should have..." NOT "he had to legal basis for"...

You know the old saying about opinions.

Touche!

It's easier to make an argument when you can change the bar of right and wrong to fit your argument, not to stick with the 'Objectively Reasonable' standard provided by law!

 

[Archangel M]

I particularly enjoy the 'I was on a long flight excuse" Would Gates accept the "I just pulled a double shift" excuse from a cop who insulted his mother?

 

[yorkshirelad]

Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.

They went so far as to make ideological bedfellows with the KKK...No joke! Mohammad Ali actually APPEARED at a Klan rally and gave a SPEECH about their common goals of racial seperation....





Now if your GOALS are identical to an organization such as the KKK.......i.e. RACIAL SEPERATION........how can one argue that the Klan's goals are racist, but the Nation of Islams' isn't? That argument is fundamentally schizophrenic.

You beat me to it....Well, not really. I was going to compare the Nation of Islam with the purveyors of apartheid in South Africa, but the Klan comparison is more apt.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I particularly enjoy the 'I was on a long flight excuse" Would Gates accept the "I just pulled a double shift" excuse from a cop who insulted his mother?

Gonna bet he wouldn't.......but, then some folks believe that Police officers (because of the VAST power they wield) need to be held to a far higher standard.......which is to a great degree true, however, does a Police Officer wield more true power than a Harvard Professor? Possibly. Does he wield more TRUE power than the President of the United States of America? That's fundamentally ridiculous........but some examine Sgt. Crowley's behavior as if he is the ONLY one in this equation with an obligation, owing to his 'power' to behave in a rational manner........while Skippy Gates and, more frightening STILL, the POTUS, is given a pass utterly and completely!

The real issue here isn't Crowley OR Gates..........but President Obama and how he illustrated his personal biases in one of his disasterous 'Off the Prompter' moments......a rare moment when he showed us the REAL Barack Obama.......an acolyte of the kind of racial animosity demonstrated by Skippy Gates and Reverend Jeremiah 'USofKKKA' Wright!

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem with those who lean left, and we've seen good demonstration of this here......is that they critique those to their political right with microscopic attention.......BUT they are utterly unable to turn that microscope internally and view their own inconsistencies and absurdities.

They perceive inconsistency and absurdity on the part of those they disagree with, but have to create strawmen in order to illustrate that absurdity, because to fairly characterize their opponents points would be to concede them......the reverse, however, is not true.

One can fairly characterize the arguments of those who claim Skip Gates isn't a racist by using their own arguments, and allow the absurdity of their argument on the matter to illustrate itself.

Here's the problem, and root of their internal contradiction......No matter what they CLAIM, they are defending a political position built on GROUP IDENTITY POLITICS.........why that fails is because those of us who are attacking that position aren't defending a different group.......we are arguing from the perspective of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY........where groups don't even factor in. In my thinking Skip Gates is a man.........not a representative of some larger group.

Sgt. Crowley is a man......I don't even consider Sgt. Crowley a representative of a group, even though some wish to characterize him as some representative of some larger concept they have of 'Police'. In this situation I judge each of them based on their actions and their motives.......Skip Gates was driven by his own personal biases, based on race, to act in a manner that was reprehensible.

Sgt. Crowley acted in response in a fashion that he felt was called for by his training and experience, AND the obligations of his profession......whether he was off kilter on his judgment about whether Gates' arrest was the best course of action to uphold that obligation is open for discussion, but not his belief at the moment that it was the best course of action.

It seems pretty clear the root motive of Sgt. Crowley's actions AND the root motives of Skip Gates' actions.......

 

[yorkshirelad]

I don't think race was involved in Crowley's decision to stay. I believe that ego definitely played a large role. Uppity Harvard Academic saying something about my mama! "Ahem. Sir, if you'd like to step out here, we can discuss this in front of all of these witnes... er... I mean, in a neutral area."

.

But that's just it Steve, YOU may not think that race has anything to do with Crowley's decision to arrest Gates, but Gates and Obama do. Again, they injected race into this bollix.
There doesn't have to be a percieved thread to constitute a disturbance of the peace as you know, but it's still an offense.
We have established thus far that;

1) Sgt Crowley was dispatched to Gates' house for a legitimate reason.

2) Gates was in a combative mood.

3) There was no racial componant in this mess until Gates and Obama injected one into the situation.

4) The arrest was legal.

5) LEOs in general have a lot more to lose in creating a hostile situation than the average Joe blow.

I really don't understand what your beef is.

Oh and btw, yes Malcolm X, Elijah and Louis Farrakhan are all racists. It's a fact and their mouthpiece Malik Shabaz is a racist and a misogynist. Does anyoneone remember his sdebate with Michelle Malkin when he called her the white man's whore? If you want to point the finger at despicable specimens, look no further than these guys.

 

[crushing]

Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.

There are different Malcolm Xs depending on when you look at him and his life. Malcolm X underwent a transformation after his pilgrimage to Mecca after seeing people of all colors from all over the world also making the pilgrimage. Malcolm X also seperated himself from the Nation of Islam and its founder, Elijah Muhammad. The media often fails to portray complex characters and stages and instead offer an amalgam. Add to that the fact that Malcolm X detractors will often point to certain points in his life while ignoring other, especially post-Hajj.