139 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
A provocative article about Dr. Gates, that says that he sufferes from the Ivy League Effect: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/24/gates/ I think that the tide is turning nationally in favor of the police officer. |
Why does this appear in a site called “Mormon Mentality”? What does this have to do with the LDS church? |
@2 – It has nothing to do with it, as do most of the posts here. But the way I see it, most of the readers/commenters/posters are Mormon or have a Mormon Mentality. |
So, basically he got arrested for saying mean things to a cop? What’s happened to freedom of speech in our country? |
I was pretty disgusted by this whole incident. It sounds like the police officer was doing his job and Gates became belligerent. I was also a bit dismayed that Patrick and Obama even bothered to weigh in on it as the whole thing was pretty stupid. |
Come on–Skip Gates is your friend, too. Admit it. |
I’ve never been a huge fan of Gates, but unless he physically assaulted or threatened the arresting officer, I cannot accept his arrest. Race may not have been the primary issue or even any issue at all, but if Gates did indeed prove with his ID that he was in his own house, the arrest is inexcusable. So I may not find myself thinking that all cops are racists after this, but my already-existing conclusion that they’re stupid, unthinking thugs with badges hasn’t unchanged. |
What really surprised me about this was not Gates. Gates is a nut. I think that the Cambridge police department is going to release the 911 tapes and the radio calls and Gates is about to be embarrassed. Its Obama. He is normally so cool and controlled. I would have expected him to give a kind of neutral “I do not comment on local police cases type of response”. Instead he sounded a bit like Sharpton or Jackson. A response like what he gave plays really bad in the suburbs. Its almost like the mask slipped a bit and his old radical Rev Wright persona from his early days came out. |
When I heard this story I thought of that scene in “Holy Grail” where King Arthur is asking some peasants who lives in a nearby castle. The ‘enlightened’ peasants scoffs at their King’s questions (“King? I didn’t vote for you…”). When Arthur gets fed up and puts a hand on one peasant the peasant begins to yell, “Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help, I’m being repressed!” |
bbell, I agree, Obama did step out of his normal cool and collect persona. He shouldn’t have said what he said at all. I personally tend to side with Gates in the situation, but I can’t side with Obama. He should have responded with his normally diplomatic politics type answer. |
OK–I just went and read the police report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html)–I haven’t read any other commentary on the event but I did hear what Obama said at the news conference. 1–I can understand being frustrated to the point of saying stupid things to other people upon returning from a journey and having a hard time getting in my door. On the contrary, bbell, I think the comment on Gates played just fine in the suburbs–they were watching So You Think You Can Dance, not the press conference. I have heard other presidents make plenty of inappropriate personal comments (like Bush saying we should get Saddam because “He tried to kill my daddy”)–this one was only noteworthy for the subject matter, I think. I don’t think Obama ever had an “old radical Rev Wright persona,” at least, not that I have witnessed. Let’s face it–this incident is VERY important to some Americans, and not to others. You seem to fit with the others. Fine. But some Americans are deeply concerned–I think that is legitimate. |
@2: It’s relevant to the LDS Church because Gates is a Mormon. My second cousin’s brother-in-law had a friend who taught him the discussions. |
I heard that Snoop Dogg is a Mormon as well. ;) On a more serious note, I had a similar situation happen to me while moving out of my college apartment. I locked myself out, locked my keys in, and crawled through the window. A short time later a police officer showed up, I showed him some ID and a letter in the apartment addressed to me, and he went on his way. Not a big deal, aside from the embarrassment. I don’t understand why someone should want to make a big deal out of things. That said, I wasn’t there, so maybe … I dunno. What I am interested in, though, is why this has to be national news. I am not interested in most any other he-said-he-said in this world, and I am perfectly content to let the concerned parties work it out amongst themselves. |
This is only a big deal because Gates couldn’t pass up an opportunity to make himself out to be a victim. Any rational person would understand that the cops were there doing their job and wouldn’t make a big deal out of it. But when you have a chip on your shoulder and you make a career out of grievance-airing, you don’t behave rationally. From what I understand, the cop shouldn’t have arrested him, but it’s hard not to get upset when someone is shouting epithets at you. Calling someone a racist without good reason is as bad as using racial epithets in my book. |
ESO, Its the symbolism that matters. The whole election in 2008 changed in like 5 days. The election last fall turned on McCain panicking over the financial crisis and Obama acting presidential. That was powerful symbolism. Obama acted and sounded presidential. He was cool under fire. People expect the president to… 1. Be on the side of law and order Obama did all three in about 2 minutes. It was a very bad political moment for him. Last night I heard arch conservative Sen Tom Coburn on the radio talking about healthcare. At the end the interviewer was asking him about this case. Coburn refused to comment on the case since he did not have all the facts. Describing it as a local issue that should be resolved by local authorities. If I was Obama’s politcal advisor I would have advised him to follow this line of thought on this matter. Take a look at this rasmussen poll on Obama approval. He is under 50% for the first time with likely voters. The Gates situation does not help him. |
bbell–I can understand your feelings, I just don’t think it is that big a deal. YOU (and others) are disappointed he talked about it and plenty of others would have been disappointed if he had remained mum. I thought his caveat at the beginning of the comment that he didn’t know all the facts and that Gates was his friend was a good enough disclaimer (he is not a Supreme Court nominee, after all). I thought he could have made some funnier jokes about locking himself out of the WH. |
@2: Cambridge is kind of near Salem, where Joseph Smith once visited. Also, it’s next to Belmont, where Mitt Romney once resided. Also, I’m pretty sure there are Mormon police officers in America somewhere. Seriously, that’s not enough of a connection for you? |
I believe I would have used my drivers’ license to prove my residency rather than my work ID, but maybe if I worked at Harvard I would flaunt that, too. As I understand it, part of the reason Gates gave the officer some lip was because he was cranky after returning from a trip from China. After traveling across half the world, the only ID he could dig up was his university ID card? How does this man cross borders? Or do those laws not apply either? |
“was appointed by a black officer to teach a class to police cadets on racial profiling” It may not be obvious written this way, but the Sgt. taught how to AVOID racial profiling. And Obama might look worse than both Gates and Sgt. Crowley here. His comment about Hispanics and Blacks being pulled over for no reason at all was indefensible even if true. |
Harvard can cross any border. JK–I am quite certain that he used his Passport en route, which does not indicate an address. And since the other man helping him open his house was reportedly his driver, perhaps he does not drive? I still think he has SOME ID other than his work ID, I hope. |
Tim J–why was it indefensible even if true? In my experience, it is true. And troubling. |
It was my understanding that the house was owned by the University, which may explain why he provided University ID. After reading the report it seems that Gates was agitated and abrasive. But I still don’t get why he was arrested. Was it for yelling at the police? Was it for asking the same questions multiple times? Calling him a racist? While not the best way to handle things, I don’t see that any of these justified his arrest. The officer was done and was walking away. |
ESO, “disorderly conduct” actually is a crime. If the behavior of Henry Louis Gates, Jr did not qualify as “disorderly conduct,” then what does? Cops make arrests like this every day all over the country. Furthermore, the question of whether you can understand the arrest has nothing to do with whether the arrest was racist or stupid or irrational, as Henry Louis Gates, Jr and his good ol’ boy network claim. It’s telling that every cop, black or white, is backing Sgt. Crowley. All 3 police associations in Massachusetts have backed Crowley and say that it was a mistake to dismiss the charges against Henry Louis Gates, Jr. It’s disturbing to me is how many personal friends of the president are racist, and how willing the president has been to defend them, First, Jeremiah Wright and now Henry Louis Gates, Jr. If any other national leader defended this many racist friends, she’d be toast. Also, it’s disturbing to me that of all the people I’ve heard in the mainstream media defending Henry Louis Gates, Jr, not one has stated unequivocally, “Henry Louis Gates, Jr should have cooperated with the arresting officer” — not even as a throwaway line before proceeding on to other items. I think that, given his celebrity status, an example should have been made of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Rather than have his charges dismissed, this renowned Harvard professor should receive a suspended sentence, paid court costs, ordered to do community service, and have the charges dismissed after a period of time. |
ok so he uses his Harvard ID – that has no address, just a name and a picture. Clearly he did that on purpose. A passport has your address… |
DKL, this is how Slate’s Explainer answers the question, “What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?”: Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says “idle and disorderly persons,” a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both. So maybe a case could be made that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest, but the charge wouldn’t have stuck. |
Tom, in this case, the Explainer is just ignorant. If he knew anything at all, he’d know that the courts in Massachusetts effectively struck the word “idle” by saying that it didn’t refer to anything that differentiates the behavior for the purposes of enforcement — of course, this move itself violated the Massachusetts constitution, which allows for the courts to interpret meanings of words but not to render them meaningless. Aside from the fact that Slate’s Explainer is wrong on both the facts and on the law, he’s wrong to assert that the behavior Henry Louis Gates, Jr was tumultuous. He acted like a thug, and if everybody behaved that way towards police officers, none of them would be able to do their job. Look, Tom, I’ll grant the Slate’s Explainer is interesting from time to time when it comes to sorting out trivia, but you can’t seriously try to pit the expertise of Slate’s Explainer (and the pundits he consults) against my own vast knowledge. That’s just a joke. I’ll waste her every time. Seriously, are you, like, totally new to the Bloggernacle that you don’t already know this? Dude, next time you need something explained, just ask me. |
12: That should apply to both sides of the interaction, however. Suppose Gates really did react to the police visit with over-the-top verbal abuse, inside his own home. A skilled police officer is specifically trained to control his or her own emotional reactions in such a situation, and importantly, to avoid escalating situations unnecessarily. In this case, the officer made a poorly-considered arrest, apparently because he was personally insulted—something that police officers experience every day on the job. Perhaps the officer was motivated by some degree of racial bias. Perhaps the officer was motivated by some degree of envy toward Gates’ higher social status. We can’t read the officer’s mind to know for sure, but we can examine his reaction. From what I’ve seen, the officer did indeed “act stupidly.” |
“Tim J–why was it indefensible even if true? In my experience, it is true. And troubling.” Don’t get me wrong, I find it troubling as well. But the President (who is also now the defacto African-American leader) has just undermined Police/African-American relationships everywhere with that comment. It’s a relationship that is already strained enough. The comparison to Al Sharpton is apt as far as the President’s comment goes. |
Here’s another interesting take on it (from another black person): http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-303137 |
I want to be disappointed in Obama’s reaction, but I have to excuse him because he’s a White Sox fan. No one’s ever accused them of rationality. |
Nick, the person who acted like a thug was Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Massachusetts is going to stand behind its cops, because they acted correctly. People who are defending Henry Louis Gates, Jr are on the wrong side of history — just like those who defended Jeremiah Wright. The reason men like Jeremiah Wright and Henry Louis Gates, Jr are able to prosper is that they keep below the radar screen. The more they begin making headlines, the more obvious it becomes that they are ugly people advancing ugly ideas. The pattern is clear: early on, people defend them because it is the latest moral hula hoop (a la Radical Chic). As the positions of these types of people become more clear, the fact that their behaviors are deplorable becomes too obvious to deny. We saw this on a large scale when Obama defended Jeremiah Wright and had to recant. We’ll see it again with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The truth is that Henry Louis Gates, Jr picked a fight with the wrong cop. And every time Obama encounters working-class America — from Joe the Plumber to Sgt. Crowley to the angered and embittered rural residents who cling to their guns — Obama shows his contempt and disdain for them. |
“Massachussetts” has already chosen not to stand behind the arresting officer, in that the attorney representing the people of the Commonwealth has chosen not to pursue the charges. Your attempt to equate Gates with Jeremiah Wright seems strained at best, DKL. Throw in others’ comments equating President Obama with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the picture becomes even worse. I guess we’re supposed to just lump all those “angry black men” together, right? While the arresting officer may not be a racist, it’s beginning to sound like some of the commenters here are. |
the officer made a poorly-considered arrest, apparently because he was personally insulted [or] perhaps the officer was motivated by some degree of envy Or maybe he would have rather let the whole thing slide but for his conscience that kept telling him: “In the United State, no one is above the law….” |
Jay S–thanks for that addition, I had wondered why university police had been called. Devyn S–OK–I am too lazy to go dig out my Passport, but even if it lists an address at the time of procurement, the document is good for 10 years even if you move, which does not make it a valid proof of residency IMO. I think it entirely possible that he used his Harvard ID to intimidate the police officer, but maybe it just was because the residence was (apparently) owned by the university. DKL–maybe it is just me, but it is my impression that police officers and their unions almost universally defend the actions of other police officers. I have nothing against this particular officer except that I also thought the arrest was “stupid.” Had he and the other police simply left after verification of ID, there would have been no issue. But hey, we all do stupid stuff sometimes, and I can only be grateful my bad day on the job is not examined by the world. Also, I don’t really think we can count the number of racist friends a given person has, but I would be surprised if Obama had more than some past (and future) presidents. Probably not your cup of tea, but all the ladies on The View (even Whoopi Goldburg, self-professed friend of Gates) have stated that they thought Gates should have kept a cooler head and cooperated with the police. Tim J–I see what you are saying. I think Obamas’ comments were lawyerly enough not to apply to police in general, but certainly some will see them as dismissive of law enforcement anyway. Here is where I am coming from: racial prejudice by some police officers in applying the law is something that affects black and hispanic Americans to a sometimes lethal extent, yet it is something many white Americans refuse to acknowledge, which is extremely frustrating and has been for decades. To have someone of the stature of the President acknowledge the phenomenon is comforting. He did so in a Q and A, not a formal speech from the oval office–I thought it was an OK thing to do. |
While still a teenager, one evening I found myself locked out of my home. I went around to the back of the home, opened up an unlocked window, and slithered into my home. I then went upstairs and started listening to some really loud music. Shortly thereafter I was coming down the stairs and saw a flashlight and a face peering through the back window by the stairs. Scared the crap out of me! Turns out a neighbor called the cops on me. There were a number of officers there. They told me to open the door. I complied. The funny part was that I had a hard time demonstrating that I belonged there! Everything worked out. I can’t remember what evidence I provided that finally persuaded them that it was my house. I don’t think I ever did learn who called the police. |
I guess I should follow up my last comment by saying that it seems reasonable for police to show up in such an instance, to investigate what has happened. If everyone keeps their cool, there is no reason it can’t all end in a positive manner. From the story, it sounds like Gates has quite the chip on his shoulder. Then again, blacks have suffered a lot at the hands of police. I think everyone involved in this event should back down and chill out a bit. There’s no reason for it to be such a huge issue. |
So people should be arrested whenver they get upset in the presence of a police officer, despite having committed no crime? I hardly think that is a good use of police and government resources, and I can’t see how it makes the community any safer. |
CKB, the crime was “disorderly conduct.” |
Danithew: There’s no reason for it to be such a huge issue. Henry Louis Gates, Jr made this a racial issue when he tried to become the Rodney King for the 21st century. |
Despite having committed no other crime, I should say. I just don’t think society is better off having hauled someone off to jail who clearly posed no physical danger or threat to the community. |
This is bad for Obama. His political instincts are failing him. There is no political benefit to bashing local police officers. esp when they play well in interviews and are willing to defend themselves. He needs to stop digging himself into a hole but I think he might be addressing the issue right now in a press conference. |
DKL:you can’t seriously try to pit the expertise of Slate’s Explainer (and the pundits he consults) against my own vast knowledge. That’s just a joke. I’ll waste her every time. Seriously, are you, like, totally new to the Bloggernacle that you don’t already know this? No, I’m not new, just obscure. I do have enough bloggernacle experience to know that it’s not fun to go toe-to-toe with DKL, no matter how right or wrong you are. As for Explainer vs. DKL on disorderly conduct law, I’m leaning towards Explainer at this point, but I could be persuaded to come around to the DKL view with an additional source (which I am too lazy to seek out on my own). I love you, buddy, but I just can’t see you as the fount of all knowledge. Regardless, I’m with you on Gates and even if a disorderly conduct charge wouldn’t stick I don’t think the officer can be faulted much, if at all, for his behavior and decisions. |
“Massachussetts†has already chosen not to stand behind the arresting officer, in that the attorney representing the people of the Commonwealth has chosen not to pursue the charges. You’ve selected the wrong interpretation. Just because charges were dropped does not mean the officer was incorrect or that the state doesn’t stand behind him. |
I think it entirely possible that he used his Harvard ID to intimidate the police officer, but maybe it just was because the residence was (apparently) owned by the university. I will say that most of the Harvard graduates in my extended family would have used the ID in order to intimidate someone they thought was lower-class. I like the depiction of the “Ivy League Effect”. |
|
This is why he needs to stop digging. The witness statements are starting to come in and they favor so far Crowley |
Obama’s political instincts are now kicking in. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99L06280&show_article=1 This whole thing is a big unforced political error. |
Nick Literski: Your attempt to equate Gates with Jeremiah Wright seems strained at best, DKL. Throw in others’ comments equating President Obama with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the picture becomes even worse. I guess we’re supposed to just lump all those “angry black men†together, right? While the arresting officer may not be a racist, it’s beginning to sound like some of the commenters here are. So person A makes one comment, and person B makes another comment. And you think that, taken together, the two comments are racist. So you posit some uber person C, who holds the opinions of both person A and person B so that you can say than someone is racist? That’s what I call strained. Come on, Nick. You’re a lawyer, and I expect better arguments from you than that. Regarding the people in Massachusetts, the news coverage here and the opinions being expressed here are unequivocal: they back Sgt. Crowley. The governor and the attorney general are out of step with them — what else would you expect with a good ol’ boys network (that includes the governor) backing Henry Louis Gates, Jr? |
Police support police. Always have always will. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for Gates and the officer to apologize to each other. |
Tom: I love you, buddy, but I just can’t see you as the fount of all knowledge. Stick around. You’ll learn. |
ESO: Police support police. Always have always will. How would you feel if someone said, “Teachers support teachers. Always have always will,” and they used that as a way to blame our educational mess on teachers? You’re statement is just blind, anti-police prejudice. |
I’m on the cops side and I hope he doesn’t apologize. I’m kind of tired of apologies all the way around. #2. I don’t care what anybody says, I’m pretty sure I’m not mormon mentalitied just Mormon. I just work here. Excellent post DKL eso I love your conviction and courage but this time I disagree with you. |
It is true: teachers support teachers. Teacher unions support teachers. Women stick up for other women and Mormons support Mormons. Nothing blind about it–this is what really happens. Police forces (and teaching staffs) suffer from a bad case of “bad apples;”–we don’t like to admit that someone else might have been mistaken because their mistake makes all of us look bad. |
ESO, |
Annegb–I can take it. Love you too. |
I prefer apologies and attempts at understanding over what we have. I don’t think someone necessarily needs to be “owed” an apology to be offered one. I think they both behaved in a way they need not be proud of. |
ESO, seriously: The View said he kept a cooler head? Henry Louis Gates, Jr has been itching for a white police officer to arrive at his door, and likely rehearsed the exchange in his head for decades. He’s a Harvard Professor, for crying out loud. He was trying to make this about himself and his race from the time the cop knocked on his door. ESO: Police forces (and teaching staffs) suffer from a bad case of “bad apples;”–we don’t like to admit that someone else might have been mistaken because their mistake makes all of us look bad. There are many ways for police to support police. One way is to simply say nothing. Another is to issue a perfunctory comment in support of the officer. Police associations are political entities, and they don’t take stands this strong unless they really back the officer and believe that he’s right. This isn’t just another instance of the blue wall of silence. |
DKL–The View ladies said that Gates should have cooperated rather than becoming belligerent. That is what you wanted, right? For someone in the media to say that Gates should have cooperated (you said this in comment 23). |
In fact, it’s not a “blue wall of silence”. It’s a rather loud blue wall not backing down. And Crowley’s partner (the african-american cop) is coming out in defense of Crowley. |
I have not read the unions’ statements, so I am not making this comment regarding specific support. I am just saying that support from them for the arresting officer is not surprising, especially while Gates has been threatening law suits. |
ESO, If the arresting officer had been black, would this firestorm have occurred? The problem isn’t unions supporting their members based on their profession. The problem is a mayor, a governor, and a president supporting a man in spite of his deplorable behavior because of his race and the race of the arresting police officer. That’s racism, pure and simple. |
But the mayor, governor, and president have no power here; they are not the arresting officer or DA or judge. They were asked their opinions as people not as rulers. I find their support for their friend to be equivalent to the support offered by police unions to the police officer involved; I am not surprised by it, nor is it decisive. |
I imagine that Gates’ reaction would have been different had the officer who entered his house and asked for (is it too far-fetched to say demanded?) ID had been black. No telling what would have happened from there–I can imagine many possibilities. I am pretty sure a black officer would not have made this arrest (based on what I saw in the police report). |
ESO you must have missed the link that the black officer on the scene agreed with the arrest. So much for your stereotypes eh? |
I am pretty sure a black officer would not have made this arrest (based on what I saw in the police report). The other officer on the scene is black, by the way. From MSNBC: “Sgt. Leon Lashley said Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley said Gates’ reaction to Crowley was “a little bit stranger than it should have been.” Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said he supported Crowley “100 percent.” |
bbell–but he didn’t make the arrest; like I have said, I don’t find police supporting fellow police who are under criticism to be at all surprising. This is akin to a mom backing up her husband in a decision he has made regarding their kids: she may not have done it herself, but after the fact she supports it because they are a team. |
#43: You don’t get it, queuno. The prosecutor represents the people of Massachussetts. The prosecutor declined to proceed with charges. Ergo, the prosecutor, as the representative of the people of Massachussetts, chose not to “stand behind” the charges recommended (via arrest) by the arresting officer. |
Nick, deciding not to press charges has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the cop. |
(I mean, it could be a statement by the prosecutor that even though the cop was right but that the prosecutor won’t be able to convict anyone in this highly politicized case.) |
#47: Thus saith DKL, who in his infinite wisdom, threw out yet another stereotypical “angry black man” media image (i.e. Rodney King) in his comment #39. I’m just waiting now to see either Gates or President Obama compared to O.J. Simpson. Then perhaps someone else can claim that Hitler was actually of African descent, thus completing the chain of ugly race-based rhetoric (and, of course, putting an official end to any reasoned discussion via the “Hitler rule”). |
I wonder if Gates would hasve behaved differently if all black police officers showed up. I wonder if one of his rich white neighbors did the same thing Gates did and got arrested would claim racism. I think Gates looks like the racist. If I ever have Harvard I’d I will totally lord it over the whole world. But you know black or white you don’t mouth to cops. I did once and came so close to arrest. Bill came to calm me down. We were all white. I think the reason they didn’t arrest me immediately is there were two huge police and five other men and me. Basically they just ignored me. It was a bad rap accident situation and I rather lost my dignity. |
#67-68: |
I recently had a white brother in law get arrested here in TX for refusing to give an ID to an officer in a public park here in TX. After he was arrested he then lied to the cops about his name. Whammo two charges and because my in-laws refused to bail him out he spent 2 weeks in jail. When confronted by the police you need to be cooperative and not be a jerk like Gates. |
My experience over the years talking and living with family members who have been employed in the judicial system (a judge, clerks, and lawyers, at levels from State Court to State Supreme Court to the Fed System, although I stress that IANAL) is that sometimes, arrests are how situations get resolved and it should never be expected that formal charges will be filed later by prosecutors. Sometimes, arrests are just the way to defuse the situation. Family members and friends who work for the police department have talked about how there’s a disconnect between arrests and prosecution. I home taught a family who regularly had one of the spouses arrested for something or other. Formal charges were never actually filed in most cases — generally it was a situation where an officer needed to get one of the parties to calm down. Crowley may indeed feel that he’s being dissed by the prosecution, but most people I know who work in law enforcement or in the legal/court system wouldn’t automatically draw that conclusion. |
Nick, the attourney general of MA represents me and my opinions exactly the same amount as the president does (or did, in the case of the preceding president). Your guilty of the Fallacy of composition here. Further, since when was Rodney King an angry black man? He’s mostly known as a persecuted man who was beaten nearly sanseless by brutal cops. Henry Louis Gates, Jr was clearly provoking Sgt. Crowley, and his press appearances afterwards were clearly meant to capitalize on a situation of his own creation. He was clearly going for the most sensationalistic treatment possible, because he thought the backing of his powerful friends would shield him from careful scrutiny. That’s why I’ve stated that he picked a fight with the wrong white cop. Either way, you have yet to identify a single person who holds the opinions that you say, taken together, are racist. All you’ve done is imply that I’m capricious and autocratic for pointing out that nobody here answers the description that you say makes them racist. That’s just craziness, man. |
#73: |
DKL, my exact comment was: “While the arresting officer may not be a racist, it’s beginning to sound like some of the commenters here are.” When you (metaphorically) screech and wave your hands around in the air, screeching “You can’t prove anyone here is a racist!”, you are setting up an obvious strawman. BTW, if you think I’m going to fall for the little trap you just set regarding Rodney King, you dramatically underestimate me. I can just imagine you right now, prematurely glorying in your hoped-for “gotcha.” ;-) |
Anne (70). Another black officer did show up and he supports the arrest. See the Chicago Tribune article here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story |
(H/T Aubrey Thomas’ blog: http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/another_lesson/) A lesson we should all take from this is that we need to know our neighbors. |
Nick, you’re not going to win this argument. You said that a group of statements said by different people were racist taken together, and concluded that there were racist comments. That’s insanely poor reasoning no matter how you cut it. |
No, DKL, I didn’t say that. If you’re going to falsify someone’s statement, don’t do it where they can read the actual statement on the same page, eh? |
Both parties acted unreasonably. The professor shouldn’t have given the cop a bad time. And the cop shouldn’t have arrested a non-dangerous individual for a charge that would never stick, when the cop could have just as easily walked away. |
We have three observations about the Harvard professor incident: 1. We find it interesting that the fact that this was the professor’s home was evidently not established early on way before the dispute escalated; 2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view. 3. Finally, considering that the reading and viewing public were not present at the scene (and thus have no first hand knowledge), and that there is no video tape to our knowledge of the sequence of events and what was said, how so many have formed conclusions, and made assumptions, about who did what and who was wrong. There are some things which Professor Gates might have considered upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been. |
I agree DKL, that Gates has likely been waiting on this moment for years. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, in fact, over-react in this case. But if you’re actually comparing the black good ‘ole boys club (which seems quite powerful at the moment) to the centuries-old white good ‘ole boys club, then you’re clearly hittin the pipe. White club squashes Black club like a bug – any day of the week. This kind of overdramatization really hurts your argument and forces people to conclude that your just another Republican drone. |
CJ Douglass: This kind of overdramatization really hurts your argument and forces people to conclude that your just another Republican drone. Good. My work here is done. |
Tom: As for Explainer vs. DKL on disorderly conduct law, I’m leaning towards Explainer at this point, but I could be persuaded to come around to the DKL view with an additional source (which I am too lazy to seek out on my own). I love you, buddy, but I just can’t see you as the fount of all knowledge. Normally, I don’t indulge second guessing like this, but I’ve taken a liking to you, Tom. So, for you, I’ll provide this detailed rundown. “Disorderly person” arrests in Massachusetts are made under GL, chapter 272, section 53 (last revised in 1959):
The “idle and disorderly” language dates back to the 17th century, when it was taken to indicate a persistent condition — not a specific action or set of actions. So in the old days idle and disorderly persons were typically bums or pugilists, not people who simply flew off the handle and lost their temper. Thus we find in 1815: Inhabitants of Taunton v. Inhabitants of Westport (12 Mass. 355, 1) describes the idle and disorderly as “unable to support themselves, and having no kindred ability to support them, and no work having been assigned them”. Again in 1849: Opinion of Justices (1 Metcalf 572, 1-3) defines “idle and disorderly persons” as a class of people who are “idle and vicious paupers, who are to be brought into habits of regularity, sobriety, and industry.” And again in 1862: Commonwealth v. Sullivan (5 Allen 511, 1) holds that the defendant was idle and disorderly because he had often “neglected all lawful business, and habitually misspent his time by frequenting houses of ill-fame, gaming-houses and tippling shops”. Then, in 1924, in response to Commonwealth v. Diamond, the courts deemed the hitherto traditional definition to be problematic:
In 1943, the Massachusetts state legistlature revised GL chapter 272 section 53, and in doing so “accomplished a revision of the entire section, and that its purpose was to simplify, to clarify, to modernize, and to make more precise an ancient statute some of the terms of which were difficult to define and had come to have a flavor of obsolescence.” (Commonwealth v. Lombard, Mass. 284, 295 (1947)). Even so, legislative efforts to remove the phrase “idle and disorderly” were defeated, and the legislature retained the phrase “idle and disorderly” in the statute. The legislature amended the statute in 1956 and 1959, and both times they left the phrase “idle and disorderly” intact. (Commonwealth v. Alegata, 353 Mass. at 303 (1967)). Note that at this time, the phrase “idle and disorderly,” by virtue of Commonwealth v. Diamond must refer to overt acts, and not specific kinds of persons. In 1967, the phrase “idle and disorderly persons” was challenged as unconstitutionally vague. The court rejected this challenge, explaining, “‘Idleness’ alone is a neutral term today, implying no misconduct.” (Commonwealth v. Alegata, 353 Mass, 302-304 (1967)). They further defined “disorderly” according to the Model Penal Code:
Thus, as I claim in comment #26, in the 1960s: “the courts in Massachusetts effectively struck the word ‘idle’ by saying that it didn’t refer to anything that differentiates the behavior for the purposes of enforcement.” Thus, if the word “idle” does not describe misconduct, then it cannot possibly be unconstitutional, which the Slate’s idiot Explainer wrongly said it was. Of course, Massachusetts gives the right to amend statutes to the legislature alone, thus by eliminating criminal definition of the term “idle,” the court amended the law and thereby overstepped it’s constitutional authority (as I also noted). However, until the Massachusetts courts recognize their mistake (don’t hold your breath), the term idle in the law is inoperative, and therefore not unconstitutional. This is not simply a case of me being correct and Slate’s Explainer being wrong. Nor is this simply a case of Slate’s explainer being a half-wit with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. No, what we see here is that Slate’s Explainer is an enormous boob. Look, I haven’t attended a single day of law school, and even I know this crap. Is there any lawyer anywhere who has provided a rundown of the Massachusetts law on disorderly conduct in connection with this case that is as detailed and accurate as mine? Of course not. That’s why they call them lawyers. Like I said: You want the truth, you come to me: DKL. |
Nick Literski: No, DKL, I didn’t say that. If you’re going to falsify someone’s statement, don’t do it where they can read the actual statement on the same page, eh? The same page? I actually cited your words in my first comment, because I wanted them to be on the same screen. I really don’t want anyone to miss them, so I’ll cite them again here:
Look, I understand that it’s a neat rhetorical trick to try to recast past statements in verbal arguments to evade the otherwise inevitable conclusion that you’re wrong. But this is all in writing. The above citation clearly show that you want to talk about this lumping together of all those “angry black men” by using a list that combines names offered by different commenters, and then you want to draw conclusions as though the the list were drawn up by a single commenter. You’re just not going to win the argument. |
Finally an incident that hopefully will change the “guilty until proven innocent” claim of racism just because it’s lodged by a Black Man against a White Man. There is nothing uglier than racism than the abusive claims of racism where none exists. I.E. Al Sharpton when his lips are moving. |
What I read this morning is that the officer was leaving and Gates followed him, haranguing him and that’s when he got arrested. I totally want to see the video of this arrest and his behavior. Sometimes I think I’m being perfectly reasonable and then later realize I was all Charles Manson. |
Sometimes I think I’m being perfectly reasonable and then later realize I was all Charles Manson. Nice one. |
Both parties acted unreasonably. The professor shouldn’t have given the cop a bad time. And the cop shouldn’t have arrested a non-dangerous individual for a charge that would never stick, when the cop could have just as easily walked away. What’s the percentage of Americans who would have shown that restraint, and suddenly you expect a higher percentage of policemen to show it? The officer *works* in *Cambridge*, about as peaceful as you can get. He’s an expert on racial profiling. My thinking is that he’s not easily provoked to begin with… |
Well, the latest news is that Gates, Crowley, and Obama have agreed to have a beer together. Here’s hoping they drain a whole keg and get all drunk and disorderly. |
In Denver, for example, to be guilty of ‘disturbance,’ you have to engage in ‘loud and obstreperous’ behavior. This means that probably 20% of the City and County is guilty at any given moment, higher at night. Police have enormous leeway in charging these things. Sometimes it is a tactical decision to roll back a person’s behavior at that very moment, regardless of whether the case will stick or not. And the officer may not care. He’s mostly interested in the getting the situation at the moment back in control. |
Good one Brian J! But queuno, it IS the policeman’s JOB not to take it personally, not to be affected. I am quite sure that Gates was being very provocative, but, had the police removed themselves from the area, that would have diffused things. Your earlier point about diffusion through arrest is fine when feuding parties share a residence, but when one of those parties can just leave (and it is a reasonable party like a policeman), that seems an obviously better choice. Anyway, I am sure Gates can write another book out of this incident, so he should get over it and mind his manners next time. |
The belligerent behavior of Gates would have been a simple matter of disorderly conduct were it not for the fact that his belligerence was motivated by racial bias, thus elevating his disorderly conduct to a hate crime. |
Jim Donaldson, 92: in that case I can’t ever be arrested in Denver for disturbance, because I don’t know what “obstreperous” means. Jacob J, 94: hehehe |
Gates says it’s time to ‘move on’ from his arrest http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090726/D99LQDSG0.html |
#86: That’s a complete falsehood, DKL, and you know it. It’s truly amazing how hard you’re working at trying to convince people that my words said something they did NOT say. Of course, it’s all on your conscience for your next temple recommend interview, right? Not once did I claim that all the comments were made by a single person, but you already know that. Are you trying out for a show of your own on FOX? |
I’m calling them the way I see them, Nick. Honestly. I’ve explained my interpretation and where I got it — multiple times, because I’m working hard to make an honest point. If there’s a misunderstanding, then you’ll do well do to clarify and explain where I’m mistaken. Your simple denial and immediate resorting to blustery and accusatory bahavior speaks poorly of your argumentative skills. I’m not some polemicist from the FARMS Review. If you’re not willing to explain yourself, then you’re the one playing games here. |
There’s no “explaining” to do, DKL. I’m relying on the actual language I used. “Simple denial” is the only refutation, when someone repeatedly lies about what I’ve said or done. You’re relying on a bizarre misrepresentation of my language, which you evidently think will convince others if you repeat it often enough. You’re bearing false witness, and you’re doing so with full intent. If you were unintentionally bearing false witness, you would have immediately acknowledged your error. |
I’m relying on a quote, you nut. Not a reprentation or misrepresentation, but your actual words. Your claim to the contrary makes you a liar. Seriously, how stupid is this contention: I can site case law that trashes the work of lawyers cited in a major online publication, but in order to best you I have to lie and distort. I could say this: Get over it, Nick. You’re no match for me, and you can’t make up the difference by accusing me of lying. Instead, I’m saying that you should clarify what you mean when you call other people racists. That’s practically a gift, but all you can do is flip out. I love you, Nick. And I’m always glad to see your comments, but you’re way off base on this one. |
What exactly does this post have to do with Mormonism or religion? I personally suspect Gates was playing the black Harvard prima donna here, but I wonder if you actually know any black men, work with any black men, have any black men in your ward, know anything about black history in America? If not, I have some nice members of my ward I will be glad to send over to explain things to you. |
I’m relying on a quote, you nut. You don’t “rely on a quote” by listing it, and then imposing an entirely unwarranted interpretation on it, DKL. Even your sudden pretention to psychiatric diagnoses doesn’t change that. Seriously, how stupid is this contention: I can site [sic] case law that trashes the work of lawyers cited in a major online publication, but in order to best you I have to lie and distort. Evidently you feel such a compulsion, DKL, else why would you do it? I could say this: Get over Nick. You’re no match for me, and you can’t make up the difference by accusing me of lying. Yes, DKL, we all understand by now that you lack the basic integrity to admit that you made repeated false accusations, even when it is brought directly to your attention. Instead, I’m saying that you should clarify what you mean when you call other people racists. DKL, I invite you to tell us precisely who I called racists in this discussion. Perhaps when you’re unable to do so, you’ll be able to admit that you were wrong. The reality, DKL, is that I pointed out that several comments (including yours) were attempting to cast Gates and President Obama as the stereotypical “angy black man,” by comparing these men with the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I then said, based upon the impression given by those comments, “While the arresting officer may not be a racist, it’s beginning to sound like some of the commenters here are.” I merely pointed out that the comments referred to made their authors sound like racists. At most, my comment was a cautionary one, pointing out that the particular comments gave an impression that I highly doubt these authors intended. Now that I’ve painstakingly explained to you, DKL, what I’m sure was obvious to everyone else in this discussion, you’re left without excuse. If you’re not man enough to apologize for your falsehood, at least have the dignity to stop screeching it ad nauseum. |
Aaron: What exactly does this post have to do with Mormonism or religion? Nothing. Do you suppose that because I’m Mormon I should only discuss Mormon-oriented topics with other Mormons? Aaron: I wonder if you actually know any black men, work with any black men, have any black men in your ward, know anything about black history in America? Wonder not, kind Aaron. I live and work among many black people here in Boston. My children attend a school that is more than 40% black and my close friends in my community are mostly black. Aaron: If not, I have some nice members of my ward I will be glad to send over to explain things to you. I regret to hear you try to be helpful in a way that makes the racist implication that black people in America all think and feel the same way. |
Nick, first of all your assertion that I feel a compulsion to distort and lie to get the best of you because I’ve done it begs the question. Second, you’re right that I’ve failed to distinguish between commenters that “sound racist” and commenters that “are racist.” Third, your explanation fails. Specifically, your evidence that people are using angry black man stereotypes depends on an aggregate of comments. The fact that 3 separate people make 3 separate comparisons does not mean that any single one of them is stereotyping, even though if 1 person made all three comparisons it may well expose stereotyping of the worst sort. As I said, you’re not going to win this argument, because you’re reasoning is faulty. If the fact that your reasoning is faulty makes me a liar in your eyes, then so be it! |
DKL, Hmmmmm…
I think that a case could be made (it might not stick, but it would be good enough to have you arrested) that much of your bloggernacle participation qualifies as disorderly conduct. :) |
arj, you obviously didn’t read my response to Slate’s idiot Explainer in comment 85. Slate’s idiot Explainer (whom Tom quotes) is wrong on the facts and the law. In comment 85 I provide my sources, including an accurate citation of the behavior that runs afoul of disorderly conduct, not the nonsense propaganda fed to Slate’s idiot Explainer by the ACLU lawyers. The actual verbiage much broader than the morons at the ACLU let on, and it easily encompasses the behavior of Henry Louis Gates, Jr — not to mention my own. Perhaps I haven’t been arrested yet because I’m (allegedly) white. |
DKL, I had read it, but I felt that even the stricter verbiage applies very well to you. Since this comment seems rather short, I’ll add the following anecdote that applies to the general topic, but not the specific discussion: While in college I was asked by a friend to remove her bicycle from a bike rack. She asked me to do this because it was secured to a bike rack with a U-Lock and she had lost the key. So I inserted the jack from my truck into the lock and began to crank away. I’d never done this before so I was trying to be careful rather than fast. This was in the middle of the day on a street with an incredible amount of foot traffic. One person stopped to ask me what the hell I was doing, stealing a bicycle. I explained that it was a friend’s bike and that she had asked me to do this. The questioner immediately set down his backpack and volunteered to help. A few seconds later there was a pop and the lock was off. Had I walked by and seen someone doing something similar I’d have probably freaked out due to having been scarred by the experience of my bicycle being stolen earlier in my college career. |
In which Riverdale High Debate Club faculty advisor DKL offers the blogosphere a lesson in pedantics: 47: You’re a lawyer, and I expect better arguments from you than that. |
Aaron (101): I wonder if you actually … have any black men in your yard Does he ever. The kind that wear the baggy pants. |
Pete, it’s unfortunate that you wear your woundedness from our earlier exchanges so prominently. My heart goes out to you — but not enough that I still don’t laugh when I think of them. |
#104: Thank you, DKL, for acknowledging your mistake. As for the rest of your message, I’ll take it for the strained “saving face” tactic that it clearly is. I hope it truly helps you sleep better at night. |
David isn’t a lawyer. I think the flaw in Gates’ conclusion is that this is about race. I think it’s about class. To most of the world, he’s not an oppressed black man. He’s a rich educated guy. I think he’d like to make it about race. To the officer, it’s not either. I believe that when anybody makes it to the higher echelon of riches and society, they are no longer any color. They’re just rich. I believe that the problem is no longer the color line, but one of class. The haves and the have-nots. Then again, while many Americans are poor, not too many of them really go without much. It would be different if they held Gates down and while yelling the “n” word, beat the crap out of him, saying Die! Die! For heaven’s sake. It seemed rather civil and cordial to me. Except for Gates’ ranting about being an oppressed black man. What in the world is oppressed about him anyway? |
Nick: Thank you, DKL, for acknowledging your mistake. As for the rest of your message, I’ll take it for the strained “saving face” tactic that it clearly is. I hope it truly helps you sleep better at night.. First of all, this argument was always about your faulty reasoning, not about whether you called people racist. The fact that you said things “sound racist” rather than “are racist” doesn’t change the import of my argument one iota. For example, I said that if you’re going to say people are racist, you owe them an explanation. Just because you said they “sound racist” doesn’t mean that you owe them any less of an explanation. My main point is that your reasoning is awful, and you haven’t laid a finger on that, you’ve just offered a lot of empty bluster. Second, I don’t know what kind of saint you think I am that my conscience would bug me because of the way I treat you. Trust me, I’ve got a lot bigger fish to fry as far as that’s concerned. Third, I’m detecting two patterns here. The first is very, very poor reasoning. The second is a desire to lie about everything in order to get your way. Good luck in life, buddy. |
The great thing about this whole affair is that Sgt. Crowley held his ground, and President Obama had to back down. The take away from this incident is that if you look long enough and hard enough, you find that most charges of racism and sexism are opportunistic attempts to grab attention. President Obama should know this by now, and he should have known better than to come down on the side of the racial opportunist. |
Third, I’m detecting two patterns here. The first is very, very poor reasoning. The second is a desire to lie about everything in order to get your way. Then by all means, stop staring in your mirror, and do something about it! Save yourself while you can, DKL! The take away from this incident is that if you look long enough and hard enough, you find that most charges of racism and sexism are opportunistic attempts to grab attention. Mister “I’m the world’s expert on proper reasoning” strikes again. Based on one incident, DKL informs us that “most” allegations of racism and sexism are “opportunistic attempts to grab attention.” The humor here, of course, is that DKL is doing precisely what he falsely accused me of doing. DKL is taking a single incident, portraying it in a fashion that would make Rush Limbaugh blush, and using it as the sole support of a generalized allegation. I’m sure glad I’m not a female African American employee under DKL’s supervision. Simply amazing…. |
@115: As a female African American employee under DKL’s supervision, I can attest that he is not racist. |
You know what this discussion has become? http://www.marriedtothesea.com/072609/cluster-float.gif |
Nick Literski: The humor here, of course, is that DKL is doing precisely what he falsely accused me of doing. Honest people can disagree about whether this is a typical or atypical racial incident. There’s no mistaking the fact that your reasoning was fallacious quite apart from any particular point of view. Once again, very poor reasoning. I can understand why your so desperate to find something (anything!) to allow you create some kind of equivalency with me — everyone wants to be equivalent to me, and that’s just something I’ve had to deal with since I was very young. Look, the only racial profiling that was going on was by Henry Louis Gates, Jr, who saw a white cop at his door. |
Thank you, gst. Precisely. |
So, the 911 call never referred to race. I wonder how much that changes things. |
DKL, Following a link from NRO to Volokh I found some cases that suggest that Gates wasn’t engaging in disorderly conduct according to Mass law: Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person†statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion†or “public nuisance.†U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13. From all accounts it doesn’t seem like Gates’s behavior was any worse than the above, so I think Explainer is right that the charge wouldn’t have stuck. |
You racist son of a racist racist of a racist! Die! Die! Die! |
Tom: I don’t see anything in your rundown that refutes the idea that Gates wouldn’t be found guilty of disorderly conduct. So? My main argument wasn’t that Slate’s idiot explainer was wrong about the charge sticking. If you recall (which evidently you don’t), my comment claimed that Slate’s idiot explainer was ignorant because:
Seriously, you’re trying to turn an aside into the main argument. I don’t even mention whether the charge would have stuck in my refutation, so how could I have possibly been terribly concerned about refuting that? What’s happened is downright strange: You use Slate’s idiot Explainers propaganda that was fed to him by lawyers from the ACLU in order to undermine the “idle and disorderly” law as such. I refute their attempt to undermine it, and you come back with evidence that there’s nothing wrong with it and pretend that you’ve somehow justified Slate’s idiot Explainer. Look, you can try all you want to make it sound like Slate’s idiot Explainer knew what he was talking about, but you still can’t justify trusting his opinion over mine. That was just a bonehead move — as my rundown demonstrates. I bent over backwards to try to accommodate your doubt, but if you’re intent on living in a fantasy world where there’s some online source somewhere that trumps me, then far be it from me to burst your bubble. |
I wasn’t really interested in the “idle” question. I should have made this clear but I posted the Explainer excerpt in response to your rhetorical question to ESO: If the behavior of Henry Louis Gates, Jr did not qualify as “disorderly conduct,†then what does? As far as I’m concerned, the idleness stuff is totally academic and not relevant to what I saw as the main point of the Explainer exerpt: that Gates wasn’t guilty of disorderly conduct, the implication being that officer Crowley erred in making the arrest. I was more interested in that question. The bit about the constitutionality of the language of the statute was, after all, just a parenthetical in that excerpt. But hey, now I know the history of idleness jurisprudence in Massachusetts, which isn’t nothing. Also, I know that DeeKayEll (can we call you Deek for short?) knows more than the Explainer about idleness jurisprudence in Massachusetts, which is also not nothing. So overall, this was a very productive exchange, I’d say. |
Is Dee-Kay-El the Adamic language? Or is he (perish the thought) just a third cousin to Superman? |
Ray on Mormon matters “now I don’t mean to offend you but let’s let this be” Orwell on MM: “Die die!”. |
Come on, annegb, if DKL commented more at Mormon Matters these days, I’m sure the incidence of the word “die” would increase dramatically. |
:) |
Orwell, Dee-Kay-El is the current pronunciation of DKL. Earlier pronunciations treated it as a word rather than an acronym: DEE-kel. The history of the term “DKL” dates back when I was quite young and enrolled in prep school (starting in 7th grade), when I used to wear monogrammed dress shirts, which eventually prompted my friends to call me DKL, pronouncing it “DEE-kel.” Pronouncing DKL as an acronym (Dee-Kay-El) occurred spontaneously some time after that, and as I got older it gradually became the preferred pronunciation. Though for a time in college I was known simply as “King” (my fraternity name), once I became president of my fraternity, DKL (Dee-Kay-El) became the predominant way of referring to me, and of course, everybody always did. As it happens, best I know, I am not related to Superman. If I were, I would do his temple work. Futhermore, I have no source to confirm that Dee-Kay-El comes from the Adamic Language. It it, however, Hebrew for “I am God.” |
What’s stopping you now? Is Superman Jewish? I find it interesting that the term DKL only dates back to prep school. I would have expected it to have its origins in your birth, with some elements dating back even farther. Add this to the fact that you wore monogrammed dress shirts in prep school and I am starting to have a hard time believing in your humanity.
You know, you do kind of do your hair like a young Alec Baldwin. |
@117: The Nick-DKL discussion is also kind of like this: http://www.marriedtothesea.com/072209/the-new-reality-show-fish-of-love.gif |
Tom: I wasn’t really interested in the “idle†question. I should have made this clear but I posted the Explainer excerpt in response to your rhetorical question to ESO… The idiot that NPR links to omitted the fact that Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr said to the officer, “I’ll speak to your mama outside” (emphasis added). Within the black community, those are “fighting words,” and therefore they are disorderly conduct. Moreover, insults to mothers are not protected speech. Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr obviously understood this, because he denied saying “I’ll speak to your mama outside.” Others have rightly scoffed that it is beneath him to use such language, though there are documented instances of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr using of the phrase “You mamma [this]…” or “Your mamma [that]…” in other contexts, in spite of the fact that it is obviously beneath him. Bottom line: You insult the cops mother, you do the time. |
Besides, “Your Mama” is soooo 80s. |
LOL |
This just in from The National Review Online.
It’s a good thing that the police officer whom Henry Louis Gates, Jr attacked had a squeaky-clean record, or Henry Louis Gates, Jr would have succeeded in ruining the officer’s career. I’m sure that the left would have defended Bob Dylan, too, if he’d have flipped out in a rage against the officers who picked him up. Even so, it’s not to much to act that icons of the radical left treat cops with respect. And does anyone really think that Henry Louis Gates, Jr would have been arrested if he’d been as polite as Bob Dylan was? |
Bob will just write a song about it. Unfortunately, no one will understand it. |
DKL, I’m glad you shared that. Because somebody needs to make the point that Gates could have decided to act in a different way. I wonder if he would have interpreted that as being subservient, though. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t recognize Bob Dylan….I’m pretty sure I’d think he was one of the homeless people who hang out at the library. I’m pretty sure I’d feel the same way about Mary Kate & Ashley. Beside the point, of course. |
I’m struck by this image of racial violence in this video, where black children beat up a white kid, with the black children cheer it on and the white children sit helplessly by. Talk about living under a the shadow of racial fear. I hope that the young man being so brutally beaten in the video doesn’t generalize based on this experience, adopting a notion of black youths similar to feelings that many inner-city youth have toward cops. But let’s face it — if this were reversed, there’d be riots and enforced sensitivity training. I’m waiting for someone to say that pointing to the self-evidently racist behavior in this video exploits the racist stereotypes of blacks as bloodthirsty barbarians. |
I’m surprised you care, DKL. After all, it’s not like it happened on your front lawn or anything. |