Arrest of Harvard Professor and Racism/Racial Profiling

perfeksion said:
Hello Pinkerton!

Could you let me know where you found the article stating Mr. Gates showed his Massachusetts ID, please? There has been no previous mention of this that I have heard of, and it sounds almost like that is Gate's version of the story.

Here is the official police report filed by Sgt. Crowley with no mention of seeing any ID other than the Harvard ID, and going a little more in depth as to the actions of Mr. Gates.

__http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

Also, this report states a fellow officer who arrived on the scene (who happens to be black) agrees 100% with how Sgt. Crowley handled the situation. Obama also nearly apologizes for his remark (and mentions that Mr. Gates is a personal friend of the President):

__http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122967/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity

perfeksion:

You seem to be implying that given two contradictory reports -- one that representing the version reported by Mr. Gates and his companion, and the other a police report representing the version of the officers at the scene -- that we should automatically accept the latter as more accurate. Clearly, they are both likely to be distortions of what actually happened. Looking at the situation objectively (rather than through the prism of a subjective agenda), it also seems clear that we are not likely to ever know the "true" story. But, again, putting all of the available versions together, any reasonable person would consider the arrest of Mr. Gates to be unwarranted.
 
Pinkerton said:
perfeksion said:
Here is the official police report filed by Sgt. Crowley with no mention of seeing any ID other than the Harvard ID, and going a little more in depth as to the actions of Mr. Gates.

__http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

Also, this report states a fellow officer who arrived on the scene (who happens to be black) agrees with how Sgt. Crowley handled the situation. Obama also nearly apologizes for his remark:

__http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122967/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity

We shouldn't be surprised that the officer's and Mr. Gates' reports on the incident differ, as well as that another cop backs Sgt. Crowley's actions. Those are both common occurrences in situations like these.

True that officers will back each other up and it is no surprise to me that reports will differ. There are always two or more sides to every story.

However, if the officer was acting outside what most people consider to be normal, why have none of the witnesses (the witness who called in the break-in, or any of the bystanders who stopped and stared due to the scene Mr. Gates was making) to this event spoken up and agreed the officer acted outside of his legal right to peacefully subdue and detain a person who is threatening and assaulting him verbally? Of course, no one would speak up to condemn Mr. Gates' actions, they would also be called a racist.

While I spoke too hastily in saying Mr. Gates "deserved" to be arrested, I see nothing wrong with the way Sgt. Crowley handled the situation. Same as with the situation I spoke of earlier with being pulled over and acting disorderly, the same thing would occur in any number of situations where the person is acting belligerent and making threats.

My main objection to this situation is calling it "racism" or "racial profiling." If a black cop had arrested a white man for the same thing, there would most likely be no mention of racism whatsoever.
 
perfeksion said:
True that officers will back each other up and it is no surprise to me that reports will differ. There are always two or more sides to every story.

However, if the officer was acting outside what most people consider to be normal, why have none of the witnesses (the witness who called in the break-in, or any of the bystanders who stopped and stared due to the scene Mr. Gates was making) to this event spoken up and agreed the officer acted outside of his legal right to peacefully subdue and detain a person who is threatening and assaulting him verbally? Of course, no one would speak up to condemn Mr. Gates' actions, they would also be called a racist.

To me, it's not surprising to see no one speak up. That is a common occurrence. Does it surprise you? It shouldn't. People do it all the time, and under much worse conditions than a disagreement between civilian and law enforcement.

perfeksion said:
While I spoke too hastily in saying Mr. Gates "deserved" to be arrested, I see nothing wrong with the way Sgt. Crowley handled the situation. Same as with the situation I spoke of earlier with being pulled over and acting disorderly, the same thing would occur in any number of situations where the person is acting belligerent and making threats.

So basically what you're saying is that if people, who are emotional creatures, especially under stress, do not act according to how policeman think they should, then that gives them the right to arrest them in front of his entire neighborhood? Do you not see fallacy here? HE DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS!!!! Their is no law that says you have to polite and respectful to policeman, even if it is a social contract. You should not be arrested for getting upset because you are being accused of breaking into your own house. How would you feel? I'm not even sure I should ask that question since it seems you don't really feel anything with respect to Mr. Gates' plight.

perfeksion said:
My main objection to this situation is calling it "racism" or "racial profiling." If a black cop had arrested a white man for the same thing, there would most likely be no mention of racism whatsoever.

What that has to do with this particular situation escapes me. People are going to react to the unfair treatment of a black man by law enforcement. The reason their is such a strong reaction is because of the numerous instances of such treatment. You cannot knock down all those instances by flipping the scenario around to fit your logic.
 
perfeksion said:
... I could just as easily find any number of articles condemning the police officer as well (in fact, far more than ones supporting the officer in question).... That being said, everything I have read over the last several days points to Gates just acting ridiculous given the situation....

Interesting. On the one hand, you have either read, or know that there exist "any number of articles" that do not report a version of events in which Mr. Gates acted "ridiculous", yet "given everything [you] have read" on the situation you conclude that Gates acted "ridiculous". It would appear that given your own subjective feelings about the issues surrounding this event, you have chosen to either ignore and/or dismiss any article that does not support the version of events that reflects your pre-established "point of view". If you did not have an emotional investment in the issue, you might have been able to read and consider all of the articles and reports with a more objective sense of balance, and in the process come closer to establishing what is likely to have actually happened. It is an example of how we need to filter out the "noise" of our subjectivity in order to perceive an event more objectively, to get a better signal-to-noise ratio.

perfeksion said:
I was too quick to judge and say he deserved to be arrested, but on the other hand, neither does the officer deserve the condemnation he has received.

Well, given that there have been a very wide range of articles and versions about this event, it's hard to know exactly which critical comments about the officer that you are referring to. However, one unbalanced characterization of the event by someone in the media (e.g. "Gates was blameless and the officer an evil twit") should not cause someone seeking to be objective to automatically adopt the opposite unbalanced characterization of the event (e.g. "The officer was blameless and Gates was ridiculous"), in knee-jerk fashion.

Again, given the data available, it is reasonable to conclude that there are elements of truth in both versions; that neither participant was completely blameless nor completely unreasonable. What is interesting, from the point of view of the work we do here on the forum, is the degree to which the officer's actions may represent ponerization of his behaviour and perceptions within a a ponerized society; the degree to which an otherwise "decent" officer may unconsciously behave differently towards a black man within a racist society; and the degree to which the harsh realities of a lifetime of living within a racist society may cause an otherwise "reasonable" black man to respond "unreasonably" in a given situation. And, of course, the way in which various factions and individuals in our society choose to view, use, and manipulate the event and its attendant issues, depending on their own individual experiences, emotional investment, and agendas.
 
perfeksion said:
True that officers will back each other up and it is no surprise to me that reports will differ. There are always two or more sides to every story.

Perfeksion, you appear to be bending over backwards to explain away the unacceptable behavior of the police officers. Then, when you are proven incorrect about the reported facts on the ground, you switch stances to say it's just the racial profiling that bothers you. Are you a police officer, or is anyone in your family a police officer? Your identification is so strong that you are not viewing this situation objectively. The moment Mr. Gates showed the officer his ID, with his address, the officer should have apologized and left Mr. Gates property - no matter what Mr Gates was saying or doing. He was on his OWN property.

You, Perfeksion, have internalized the pathocracy - you take it as a given that the populace is, at all times and in all occasions, under the control of/rule of a minority of the population. You buy into it so completely that you're arguing very strongly - against the given facts - for your subjective and twisted point of view - that if a cop says it or does it, it must be right (in the majority of cases). This is simply not the reality of the situation, as evidenced in thousands of cases around the country every single year, increasingly so since 9/11.

In a free country, no person should be arrested for talking back to a police officer - ever, much less when they're standing on their own property. However, this is not a free country - yet you're writing as if that is how it should be!

In short, you obviously have a sacred cow here that you have no intention of putting out to pasture - your mind is closed on the matter, and, therefore you can't see the situation objectively. This is unfortunate.

What I find fascinating about this incident is that it is on all the major news stations - almost all the time. So, whose agenda is really being served here?
 
perfeksion said:
While I spoke too hastily in saying Mr. Gates "deserved" to be arrested, I see nothing wrong with the way Sgt. Crowley handled the situation.

So you see "nothing wrong" with police officers arresting people who do not deserve to be arrested.

Do you really not see how your own agenda and "Right Man" program is leading you to make completely contradictory statements? If you stop focusing on "winning" the "debate" you came here to conduct, you might actually learn something from the discussion that the rest of us are having. Assuming, of course, that you are actually interested in learning....
 
I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that police (at least in the US) tend to be a little "arrest happy" when they get dispatched to any 911 call. There are many documented cases involving wrongful arrests in domestic violence situations that involve all races and backgrounds. In some situations, the police will arrest both parents when they show up and can't determine who started the fight. Other times spouses will set up a plausible situation and call 911 just to get their husband/wife/child arrested and removed from the house. The police are politically mandated to arrest somebody, so sometimes they figure that they may as well arrest everybody and let the courts sort it out. Never mind the trauma and uprooting this can cause for children caught in the middle. This style of policing has been in effect for quite awhile and is generally dubbed the "mandatory arrest" laws, but this same style of "arrest at will" seems to be more endemic than just domestic violence situations.

Now, this situation didn't involved domestic violence, at least from what I've read so far. But the policing style is similar in that the police show up, see somebody acting belligerent and then subsequently arrest that person (despite the context they were even dispatched under). The police officers are acting "stupidly", but for many years now they have been trained that way. They are taught to ignore their own instincts and inclinations (that is if they have any) and make arrests based on political mandates.

I found this online essay on domestic violence awhile back when I was doing some research on the topic of domestic violence. I found the last paragraph may be somewhat applicable to this recent situation even though the context is somewhat different.

_http://www.essayforum.com/essay-writing-feedback-3/mandatory-arrest-laws-domestic-violence-1363/

Finally, mandatory arrest laws are somewhat ambivalent. Indeed, albeit the American authorities' intent was to improve the protection of people suffering from domestic violence, the enforcement of the legislation may turn out to enlarge the panel of weapons in the arsenal of perpetrators against their partners and, thus, intensify the misery and desperation of their victims. Admittedly, one may chastise the authorities, from the community level to the federal administration, and argue that nothing is really done to alter for the better the situation of victims of domestic violence. But, before castigating these imperfect efforts, I prefer to underline the conspicuous, actual endeavours of the American authorities to tackle this issue in spite of the flaws. This clearly denotes their willingness to change the situation and to continue in this way. Moreover, when fully beneficial policies are achieved it will reveal that the main underlying reasons at the origin of domestic violence will be found out, which will be useful for other uses. For instance, agencies operating covert operations would be able to generate or stop domestic violence at will in the couples of heads of state to destabilize foreign governments. Indeed, intelligence officers could develop tactics to initiate domestic violence between a head of state and his wife, and generate leaks in the national and international press. Accordingly, they could create a climate of suspicion about the reputation of this head of state on the international stage or at home and, thus, instigate political unrest against this politician during an election period. For example, what would Americans think if they knew that a presidential contender might be domestically violent?

Given the amount of coverage this story has received, one wonders if this may have been scripted to some degree. Perhaps the break-in was perpetrated by some alphabet agency and the professor was "beamed" by exotic weapons to create a situation that would result in his arrest by any police officer "doing his job". This may seem a bit far fetched, but with economic and racial tensions on the rise in most of the US, this might just be another way of fanning the flames - which it seems to have done based on some of the posts I've seen in this thread.

Just some thoughts...

Ryan
 
Dave Lindorff on the subject:

Living in a Police State: The Henry Gates Incident
Wed, 07/22/2009 - 15:27 — dlindorff

The point about the arrest Monday by a Cambridge Police sergeant of Harvard Distinguished Professor Henry “Skip” Gates is not that the police initially thought the celebrated public intellectual, PBS host and MacArthur Award winner might have been a crook who had broken into Gates’ rented home. Anyone capable of seeing a 58-year-old man with a cane accompanied by a man in a tux as a potential burglar might make the same mistake, given that a neighbor had allegedly called 911 to report seeing two black men she thought were breaking into the house.

But after Prof. Gates had shown the cops his faculty ID and his drivers’ license, and had thus verified his identity as well as the fact that he lived in the residence he was supposedly burglarizing, and after he had explained that he had just returned home on a flight from China and had been getting help from his limo driver in opening a stuck door, the cops should have been extremely polite and apologetic for having suspected him and for having insisted on checking him out.

After all, a man’s home is supposed to be his castle. When you violate that sanctity, you should, as a police officer, appreciate that the owner might be upset.

But where it really goes wrong is what happened next.

Prof. Gates, who was understandably outraged at the whole situation, properly told the sergeant that he wanted his name and his badge number, because he intended to file a complaint. Whether or not the officer had done anything wrong by that point is not the issue. It was Gates’ right as a citizen to file a complaint. The officer’s alleged refusal to provide his name and badge number was improper and, if Gates’ claim is correct, was a violation of the rules that are in force in every police department in the country.

But whatever the real story is regarding the showing of identification information by Gates and the officer, police misconduct in this incident went further. Gates reportedly got understandably angry and frustrated at the officer for refusing to provide him with this identifying information and/or for refusing to accept his own identification documents, and at that point the officer abused his power by arresting Gates and charging him with disorderly conduct.

There’s nothing unusual about this, sadly. It is common practice for police in America to abuse their authority and to arrest people on a charge of “disorderly conduct” when those people simply exercise their free speech rights and object strenuously to how they are being treated by an officer. Try it out sometime. If you are given a ticket for going five miles an hour over the posted speed limit, and you think you were not speeding, tell the traffic officer he or she is a stupid moron, and see if you are left alone. My bet is that you will find yourself either ticketed on another more serious charge, or even arrested for “disorderly conduct.” If you happen to be black or some other race than white, I’ll even put money on that bet. (If you’re stupid enough to go out and test this hypothesis, please don’t expect me to post your bail!)

There is no suggestion by police that Gates physically threatened the arresting officer. His “crime” at the time was simply speaking out. As the officer wrote in his report on the incident, by way of explaining his reason for arresting Gates: "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him."

What is unusual is not that the officer arrested Gates for exercising his rights. That kind of thing happens all the time. What’s unusual is that this time the police levied their false charge against a man who is among the best known academics in the country, who knows his rights, and who has access to the best legal talent in the nation to make his case (his colleagues at the Harvard Law School).

Very little of the mainstream reporting I’ve seen on this event makes the crucial point that it is not illegal to tell a police officer that he is a jerk or a racist, or that he has done something wrong, or that you are going to file charges against him. And yet too many commentators, journalists and ordinary people seem to accept that if a citizen “mouths off” to a cop, or criticizes a cop, or threatens legal action against a cop, it’s okay for that cop to cuff the person and charge him with “disorderly conduct.” Worse yet, if a cop makes such a bogus arrest, and the person gets upset, he’s liable to get an added charge of “resisting arrest” or worse.

We have, as a nation, sunk to the level of a police state, when we grant our police the unfettered power to arrest honest, law-abiding citizens for simply stating their minds. And it’s no consolation that someone like Gates can count on having such charges tossed out. It’s the arrest, the cuffing, and the humiliating ride in the back of a cop squad car to be booked and held until bailed out that is the outrage.

I’m sure police take a lot of verbal abuse on the job (I get a lot of that myself as a journalist), but given their inherent power—armed and with a license to arrest, to handcuff, and even to shoot and kill—they must be told by their superiors that they have no right to arrest people for simply expressing their views, even about those officers.

Insulting an officer of the law is not a crime. Telling an officer he or she is breaking the law is not a crime. Demanding that an officer identify him or herself is not a crime. And saying you are going to file a complaint against the officer is not a crime. That is what the First Amendment says, very clearly. Americans have freedom of speech. Period.

As someone who, while admittedly white, spent his youth in the 1960s and early 1970s with long hair and a scraggly beard--both red flags to police back in the day--and who had his share of run-ins with police for that reason alone, I can understand to some extent what African-Americans, and especially African-American men, go through in dealing with white police officers. I used to be “profiled” as a druggie/lefty/hippy and was stopped regularly for no reason when I lived in Los Angeles and drove an 20-year-old pick-up truck. I’d be pushed up against the vehicle, frisked, shouted at, talked to threateningly. I’d have my vehicle searched (without a warrant). And if I objected, I’d be threatened with arrest, though I had done nothing. Under those circumstances, you quickly learn to be very deferential around police.

Prof. Gates was simply experiencing the frustration that young black men feel routinely, and that I used to feel back when I had hair and chose to grow it long—the feeling of being at the mercy of lawless, power-tripping cops.

In a free country, we should not allow the police, who after all are supposed to be public servants, not centurions, to behave in this manner. When we do, we do not have a free society. We have a police state.


Dave Lindorff: Cops Gone Wild
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 3:15pm.

* Dave Lindorff

Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley has gone whining to his professional organization, the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, asking for support in calling for President Obama to apologize for saying he acted "stupidly" in arresting Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates after first suspecting the prominent African-American scholar of being a burglar caught breaking into Gates' own home.

Sgt. Crowley claims he was totally justified in making the arrest on a charge of "disorderly conduct" (later dropped by the police), because Gates, who actually had been forced to break into his own home during a return from a speaking tour in China when the front door was stuck, had allegedly become "enraged" when the officer confronted him and asked for identification. Crowley claims that Gates called him names, called him a racist, and threatened to file a complaint against him, and that as a result he arrested him.

President Obama said that this arrest, made after Gates had shown the officer both his Harvard faculty ID and also his drivers license, showing that he in fact lived in the residence in question, was stupid, but in truth it was much worse than that. It was a blatant abuse of power -- one that has become all too common, and accepted, in today's America, where every cop's a "hero."

Sgt. Crowley, a large man with the power of arrest, armed with a gun and the authority to use it, was never physically threatened by the 5'8" Gates, a 58-year old man who walks with the aid of a cane. He simply didn't like being called names and yelled at by an irate citizen, and so he slapped on the cuffs and dragged the offending perp downtown for booking.

Crowley's cop backers, and the predictable right-wing punditry, claim that he is owed an apology by President Obama, because the president directed his criticism "at the wrong person." They say it was Gates who behaved "stupidly."

That is to say, in their view if a police officer comes into your house and accuses you of being a burglar, you are "stupid" if you protest -- especially if you are a black man and you suspect that the officer in question made his assumption because you are black. In the view of these "superior" officers, and of Sgt. Crowley, the appropriate behavior for a citizen confronted by a police officer is abject submissiveness, a Buddha-like calmness, and, of course, deferential politeness.

Now I suppose it might be the better idea, if you don't want any trouble, to say "Sir" to a cop who stops you or who asks for ID, but what the hell kind of country is that? Where does it say that if you feel wronged by the police, you have no right to tell them what you think?

Things have gone seriously wrong when police feel justified in slapping cuffs on people who stand up for themselves and speak their minds.

I would agree that President Obama was wrong to say Sgt. Crowley had been stupid to arrest Gates. He should have said Sgt. Crowley had abused his power.

I know police have a tough and dangerous job. I have twice in my life called police when I thought there was an intruder in my house (once it was true), and I'm glad they are quick to show up when called. But American police are not Roman centurions, whatever they may think. They are public servants -- and indeed, because of their awesome power of arrest and their deadly sidearms, they are servants with a special duty to use their power responsibly and in the most measured of ways.

In response to my article yesterday, I received a lot of mail, most of it supportive, and much of it consisting of accounts by people, black and white, of occasions when they had been threatened or abused by out-of-control police. But one woman's letter stands out. The wife of a veteran police officer who died in 1984 in the line of duty, she offered the following:

"My first husband was a police officer for 9 years. He never arrested people in such a situation. He would have asked for I.D., then told the professor that he was simply answering a call. And furthermore, he would have offered to help the professor and his driver, and/or suggested a locksmith. My husband was very polite, college-educated and tried to simply diffuse every situation instead of escalating it. He said any police officer who makes a lot of arrests for disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest needs to be retrained. He said it's a red flag for a problem officer.

"In his 9 years on the P.D. (killed in the line of duty unfortunately), he made record number of arrests and never had a complaint, because he was respectful and fair in dealing with the public.

"He (Crowley) totally mishandled this call."

For another perspective, consider this note from Aleksandar Kostich, an attorney in the felony unit of the Albuquerque, NM public defender's office. Kostich writes:

"I believe that in the misdemeanor division they get a lot of that type of thing. What I see in my own practice with regularity is the cops using (public disorder charges) to detain, search, etc. -- basically what is referred to as a pretextual stop or detain. The Albuquerque Police are notorious for this, and for doing it more often to African American folks."

He adds, "The problem is really systemic in my opinion."

Sure Prof. Gates could have avoided the whole thing if he'd played nice, thanked the officer for suspecting him and demanding his ID, and sent him on his way with a friendly wave. But if the professor felt he was being racially profiled, and was pissed about it, then right or wrong, why should he have to shut up and take what he perceived as biased treatment from a cop? He had surrendered his documents. That was his only obligation (and even there, he could have, if he'd wanted, demanded that the officer return with a warrant first).

President Obama should not apologize to Crowley. Nor should Prof. Gates. Crowley, if he is as good as he says he is, and as sensitive to racial issues as he claims he is, should apologize to Gates, both for suspecting him, and for the wrongful arrest. If he does that, I suspect Gates will apologize too, for calling Crowley a racist.

The bottom line here is that a man was arrested in his home after falsely being suspected of being a burglar by a policeman who made the arrest solely out of pique at being disrespected by the man he was wrongly suspecting.

If we still live in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, it seems clear to me who should be apologizing in this case.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest work is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
 
Sgt. Crowley claims he was totally justified in making the arrest on a charge of "disorderly conduct" (later dropped by the police), because Gates, who actually had been forced to break into his own home during a return from a speaking tour in China when the front door was stuck, had allegedly become "enraged" when the officer confronted him and asked for identification. Crowley claims that Gates called him names, called him a racist, and threatened to file a complaint against him, and that as a result he arrested him.


Fascinating. Crowley's utter disbelief at being called to task for unlawfully arresting Gates is extremely revealing, not to mention deeply disturbing. It indicates that (1) arresting people for perfectly legal verbal acts is "business as usual" for him and his fellow officers; and (2) that such arrests are accepted and condoned at such a high level that he felt completely justified and confident in demanding an apology from the president -- and actually got one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168313.stm
 
According to this Yahoo article, it looks like Gates and Crowley may be meeting each other over a beer at the White House.

_http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly
 
anart said:
In a free country, no person should be arrested for talking back to a police officer - ever, much less when they're standing on their own property. However, this is not a free country - yet you're writing as if that is how it should be!

There is an article on Sott today that argues pretty much the same point: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/189909-On-the-authoritarian-mentality-towards-police-power-in-the-US-as-reflected-in-the-Gates-controversy
 
When policemen - and politicians - forget that they are servants of the public and act as though the public is guilty until proven innocent, freedom is long gone.

What was it they were saying after 9-11? "They hate us because of our freedoms." Well, that was just a paramoralistic slogan coming from a gang of psychopaths who DO hate us ... and intended to take what little freedom we had away, and did it. This incident is just an example of that fact.
 
Los

Jeremy, do you have any information on Gates that indicates he is a psychopath?

Pepperfritz

I do not understand what you were trying to express in the above post. You do seem to be suggesting that Gates is a psychopath, and I'm rather baffled by that. Can you please clarify?

No, I don't have and before posting did not thought about gathering data on defining whether Gates is or is not a psychopath. I jumped on the occasion and reacted emotionally to the post of Perfeksion. I thought that by writing something that 'fits' the 'ideology' of the forum I could please, belong, acclaim, excel and receive gratitude. These are programs I deal with and for sure they got me going on this occasion. I have done this once before on the forum: find a 'weak opponent and slash out on him/her'in order to gain acceptance to the group.

My premature conclusions where based on the fact that:
- he is a personal friend of the president: somebody with personal friends so high up must have some very dark sides. Do they (psychopaths) not recognize each other? In this I assumed that the president is also a psychopath.
- he is a professor at Harvard: again somebody so high up in the educational system, especially at Harvard, is to me very suspected.
- the way he reacted on the spot, or what was reported in the mainstream media: aggressive.

Anart:

You, Perfeksion, have internalized the pathocracy - you take it as a given that the populace is, at all times and in all occasions, under the control of/rule of a minority of the population. You buy into it so completely that you're arguing very strongly - against the given facts - for your subjective and twisted point of view - that if a cop says it or does it, it must be right (in the majority of cases). This is simply not the reality of the situation, as evidenced in thousands of cases around the country every single year, increasingly so since 9/11.

It seems that I have internalized the pathocracy and take it as a given that the populace is, at all times and in all occasions, under the control of/rule of a minority of the population. My subjective and twisted point of view is that the ALL the people at the top MUST be psychopaths. In this case I jumped to that conclusion without proper investigation. In the same way as the cop I reacted and abused my limited knowledge and abused that knowledge as a power, not as a protection against the abuse. (which after reading the thread might be what Gates did).


pepperfritz

If you did not have an emotional investment in the issue, you might have been able to read and consider all of the articles and reports with a more objective sense of balance, and in the process come closer to establishing what is likely to have actually happened. It is an example of how we need to filter out the "noise" of our subjectivity in order to perceive an event more objectively, to get a better signal-to-noise ratio.

indeed, that is what I should have done.

pepperfrtiz

What is interesting, from the point of view of the work we do here on the forum, is the degree to which the officer's actions may represent ponerization of his behaviour and perceptions within a a ponerized society; the degree to which an otherwise "decent" officer may unconsciously behave differently towards a black man within a racist society; and the degree to which the harsh realities of a lifetime of living within a racist society may cause an otherwise "reasonable" black man to respond "unreasonably" in a given situation. And, of course, the way in which various factions and individuals in our society choose to view, use, and manipulate the event and its attendant issues, depending on their own individual experiences, emotional investment, and agendas.

To which degree I am ponerized? These are my biggest fears: that I am ponerized too much and that I will not make it. Therefor I try hard to belong to this group in the hope I can hop a ride. This is of course not how it works. I am thankful that it does not work like this.
 
It appeared to me that the tone of the original post by Perfeksion was emotive to the extent that it was almost intended to invite confrontation, as opposed to reasoned debate. I could be completely wide of the mark, and apologise if I am, but I read it soon after it was posted and that was how it came across to me, perhaps as a relative newcomer to the forum.

I suppose I would like to think that the majority of observers would think it outrageous that Mr Gates should be arrested under the circumstances described whichever account of the story one believes. (Although that is probably just “wishful thinking” on my part)

The British Police, on occasion can seem to have a very different approach and recently went to the extreme opposite end of the scale of the “police training manual”.

My wife was recently the victim of a violent assault, (captured on CCTV) by a person described to the police as an “upper middle class white woman” When they discovered the assailants name and address, instead of dragging her from her doorstep, “Mr Gates Style” the suspect was written to, and was invited to attend the police station to be arrested. She then telephoned them back, admitted the charge and agreed to attend the police station to be arrested exactly a week later. When she failed to attend at the appointed time, (because she had a ‘bit of a cold’) it then took them 2 weeks to rearrange her arrest because she said she was very busy. Meanwhile, my wife was driven to distraction knowing this person was still not taken to task for her crime! Thankfully the arrest took place and the assault was dealt with.

Forgive the above digression, but I use it as an extreme example to demonstrate that the arresting officer had options, and could have handled the situation in a completely different way. The officer chose to behave the way he did, and I feel, that he and the police force he represents needed to be taken to task to explain that behaviour.
 
alphonse said:
It appeared to me that the tone of the original post by Perfeksion was emotive to the extent that it was almost intended to invite confrontation, as opposed to reasoned debate.

Yep, it's deliberate "trolling" at worst and an unconscious attempt to "feed" at best. Perfeksion's prompt disappearance from the forum after failing to achieve his desired effect is very telling.

alphonse said:
My wife was recently the victim of a violent assault, (captured on CCTV) by a person described to the police as an “upper middle class white woman” When they discovered the assailants name and address, instead of dragging her from her doorstep, “Mr Gates Style” the suspect was written to, and was invited to attend the police station to be arrested. She then telephoned them back, admitted the charge and agreed to attend the police station to be arrested exactly a week later. When she failed to attend at the appointed time, (because she had a ‘bit of a cold’) it then took them 2 weeks to rearrange her arrest because she said she was very busy. Meanwhile, my wife was driven to distraction knowing this person was still not taken to task for her crime! Thankfully the arrest took place and the assault was dealt with.

Wow, what a story. How differently that woman would have been treated if she'd been a different colour, age, and class.
 
Back
Top Bottom