[If you are under attack, you pray that a type-3 answers the call. rs.
And if you are a black man you often pray that he doesnt for reasons indicated by anonymous.
I once had an ID fraud problem. One of the type 3s showed up at my door rude as ever and I didnt even request their help either. NYC's 311 call center without my consent called the cops thinking that he cops would help. They didnt. Only a few minutes of rudeness interrupting my call to some one who did help. This is why a specifically told that call centre that I didnt wnat the police involved.Its really sad that so many black men who pay taxes do not feel comfortable involving the police when they have a problem out of fear of the type 3 cop.
Audio recording of the incident.
Obviously, the facts are not going to change the minds of those who have been swept up in the race-hate fomented by Gates and Obama. Nevertheless, when the woman who called in the break-in is asked by the 911 dispatcher the "race" of the perps, she says "I don't know, but one of them looked kind of Hispanic." When the dispatcher sends out the call, he says "race unknown." The only person who even suspected that Gates self-identified as Black was Gates himself.
....swept up in the race-hate fomented by Gates and Obama
This seems like an extreme characterization of the dialogue that is going on about racial profiling and police behavior. What race-hatred is being formented among people who didn't already have it to begin with?
The mere act of talking about a contentious issue isn't likely to usher in a race war. It's not like anyone has called for the execution of Crowley or Gates. Then again, I don't watch Fox so maybe Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly have put the word out to their extremist rabid dogs to attack.
Also, why is Obama responsible for the behavior of White cops who "mistrust" their AA colleagues after this incident? I mean if that's the case, they probably harbored those feelings already. I suspect these AA cops know that, deep down and are having a visceral reaction to the incident not unlike that of Crowley and Gates in its emotional intensity. They are always on the outside, an incident away from being cast out in suspicion (when they are not being shot by their colleagues while off duty and Existing While Black).
Black Officer At Gates' Home Supports ArrestCAMBRIDGE (WBZ) ―
A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard professor was arrested says he supports "100 percent" how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as Cambridge officers investigated a report of a burglary July 16.
"I support what Sgt Crowley did. I support what he did. It's as simple as I can say it."
Lashley said Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little stranger than it normally would have been, it shouldn't have been like that."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said he supported Crowley "100 percent."
Gates claimed he was the victim of racial profiling.
President Barack Obama says the officers "acted stupidly."
"I think it's unfortunate what he (Obama) said," said Lashley.
"I would probably give it a mulligan, let him take it back. Everyone makes mistakes, let him take it back."
If the AA officer involved isn't blaming Obama then what should we think about AA officers who were not present piling on?
What race-hatred is being formented among people who didn't already have it to begin with?
I am talkng about the Black-on-White race hatred expressed right here in this forum by people who continue to characterize the incident as "racial" profiling, when the uncontrovertible facts (the audio tapes) show that no one but Gates had any inkling that Gates self-identified as Black.
Some insist that the woman was guilty of "racial" profiling, even though she told the dispatcher she could not see the "race" of the perps. Others insist that Crowley was "racial" profiling by asking for ID that showed the perp's address. One (a moderator even!) drags in anti-Obama sentiment by Palin supporters. Another moderator continues to say this dialog is about "racial" profiling even though there is not one shred of evidence for this other than Gates's ranting, and in the face of incontrovertible evidence (the audio tape) to the contrary. The same moderator interprets a Black police officer's statement, ""I think it's unfortunate what he (Obama) said ... Everyone makes mistakes," as meaning that the officer does not blame Obama!
This thread is going nowhere. No evidence will ever convince Gates's supporters that he is a racist bigot who feeds off hatred. No evidence will ever convince those who hate all police, Black or White. I hereby suggest to Dean, the moderator of this forum, that no further opinion, advocacy, or value-judgment messages be allowed in this thread. I suggest that, from now on, only messages that provide previously unposted evidence be allowed. If such a policy cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the thread against all new messages. If that cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the entire site against all new messages.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:56; edited 2 times in total
Another moderator continues to say this dialog is about "racial" profiling even though there is not one shred of evidence for this other than Gates's ranting, and in the face of incontrovertible evidence (the audio tape) to the contrary. The same moderator interprets a Black police officer's statement, ""I think it's unfortunate what he (Obama) said ... Everyone makes mistakes," as meaning that the officer does not blame Obama!
Yes, and this moderator offers as evidence this very discussion, plus the various discussion occurring in the media, at watercoolers and among families and friends. People are talking about racial profiling, speculating as to whether it occurred. That's a fact.
Please do not mischaracterize my statement:
What evidence is there that this officer blames Obama for inciting racial hatred, as you do and AA police officers do?
Please, let's kill the hyperbole. What statement has this officer made about Obama inciting racial hatred? THAT is what I am referring to.
In terms of what evidence contradicts Crowley's statement, please see the 911 tape and the statement by the woman who made the call.
Such behavior creates resentment and mistrust, and hampers law enforcement by discouraging people from cooperating with the police.
So does the race card. Particularly when it is pulled by a Harvard professor and given a stamp of agreement by a self-identified "black" president. Without righteousness on our side we are dead meat.
Beginning from common sense, public opinion amongst self-identifying "whites" on the political right and center has now shifted toward the emotional. And I think that we should care how these people feel.
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites. In fact, I haven't seem any evidence that either of these men pulled a card of any kind. Gates reacted with apparently justified anger to the possibly racist disrespect of a police officer who refused to accept that an eminent 58-year-old professor lived in his own home, despite having been shown at minimum a Harvard ID. Obama accurately described as stupid the police officer's actions, and rightly and in mild terms noted the existence of racial profiling without which this incident cannot be interpreted. I see no evidence that the actions of either man had anything to do with pulling a card of any kind.
While I've never believed that Gates "played the race card," in fact, find the claim offensive in the absence of evidence, I had initially believed that he handled himself poorly, that he should have exercised more self control. I no longer believe that. As the case unfolds, I find myself increasingly glad that he stood up for his rights, because his prominence allowed him to speak for the millions of police victims who cannot.
And I think Obama spoke honestly and judiciously. He shouldn't have been frank about his opinion of the officer because of his influence, but that's very far from "playing the race card." Obama has in fact routlinely done the opposite, downplayed racial issues so as not to threaten Simi Valley whites with such unpleasantries as the truth. His mistake lies I think in not having framed the issue in more neutral terms, in accordance with the special requirements and influence of his office.
BTW, I read an interesting old op ed by Gates the other day:
Quote:
"Go into any inner-city neighborhood," Barack Obama said in his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, "and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." In a speech filled with rousing applause lines, it was a line that many black Democratic delegates found especially galvanizing. Not just because they agreed, but because it was a home truth they'd seldom heard a politician say out loud.
Why has it been so difficult for black leaders to say such things in public, without being pilloried for "blaming the victim"? Why the huge flap over Bill Cosby's insistence that black teenagers do their homework, stay in school, master standard English and stop having babies?
Hardly the words of a Sharpton. And yet, in the absence of evidence, Prof. Gates's actions are being portrayed by some in that light. It reminds me of the way right wing propagandists attempted to portray Obama as a terrorist because his father was a Muslim, and as a black radical because of Rev. Wright.
I think people, at least I, have definitely expressed animosity towards cops who operate on a hair-trigger. The site administrator and others have expressed animosity towards Gates and perhaps Obama because of their behavior and presumed intentions to "incite racial hatred." Some posters have expressed animosity towards the White perpetrators of racial profiling or towards White racists. Another dislikes Ivy League elitists who verbally abuse working class civil servants. And I think there's a fair amount of animosity in a couple of the exchanges, though the tone remains civil.
Where, I ask, has anyone participating in this thread expressed hatred toward anyone because of their "race?" That portrayal seems unfair to me on all sides.
In terms of what evidence contradicts Crowley's statement, please see the 911 tape and the statement by the woman who made the call.
1. The audio tape, which I posted a link to, fully supports Crowley's account. Listen to it for Pete's sake!
2. The audio tape, which I posted a link to, demolishes the claims made in this thread that the woman engaged in racial profiling. Again, listen to it.
3. The woman's lawyer's recent verbal statement (immune to perjury and obstruction) to a newspaper reporter, after the woman was falsely villified and accused on this very forum and after having been threatened on other forums, is less persuasive than the sound of the woman's voice on tape during the incident.
In terms of what evidence contradicts Crowley's statement, please see the 911 tape and the statement by the woman who made the call.
1. The audio tape, which I posted a link to, fully supports Crowley's account. Listen to it for Pete's sake!
2. The audio tape, which I posted a link to, demolishes the claims made in this thread that the woman engaged in racial profiling. Again, listen to it.
3. The woman's verbal statement to a newspaper reporter made recently, after having been falsely villified and accused on this very forum and after having been threatened on other forums, is less persuasive than the sound of her voice on tape during the incident.
Right...I have. I also posted a link as well as the woman's statement in a new thread, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
If I was being maligned and wanted to clear my name I'd lawyer up and talk to the press too. I'm persuaded by the fact that she did not say "two Black guys were breaking in" on tape and am less persuaded by a police report that says otherwise at this point, based on what I know and have interpreted.
Frank, if this response is coming up because of the erroneous belief that I've said racial profiling occurred (as opposed saying that to people here and in the media are discussing racial profiling due to this incident) then I'd hope that a quick review of my posts would clear that up. I understand that you might not share the perceptions of people who are suspicious of the police or who focus on different issues, relevant or not, but it's entirely possible that two people can review the same evidence and walk away with different perceptions of the incident. Until more facts come out I personally see no reason to perceive that Officer Crowley was justified in arresting Gates. It was an ego trip, IMO, rather than an arrest made in the public interest or for safety reasons. I believe that police officers, like parents or teachers, have a public and moral responsibility to behave themselves even when faced with juvenile behavior. I also believe that there are too many cops on the streets whose sociopathic tendencies are overlooked and covered up, including any racists among them. This gives good cops who get the job done without breaking the law a bad name.
What race-hatred is being formented among people who didn't already have it to begin with?
I am talkng about the Black-on-White race hatred expressed right here in this forum by people who continue to characterize the incident as "racial" profiling, when the uncontrovertible facts (the audio tapes) show that no one but Gates had any inkling that Gates self-identified as Black.
Some insist that the woman was guilty of "racial" profiling, even though she told the dispatcher she could not the "race" of the perps. Others insist that Crowley was "racial" profiling by asking for ID that showed the perp's address. One (a moderator even!) drags in anti-Obama sentiment by Palin supporters. Another moderator continues to say this dialog is about "racial" profiling even though there is not one shred of evidence for this other than Gates's ranting, and in the face of incontrovertible evidence (the audio tape) to the contrary. The same moderator interprets a Black police officer's statement, ""I think it's unfortunate what he (Obama) said ... Everyone makes mistakes," as meaning that the officer does not blame Obama!
This thread is going nowhere. No evidence will ever convince Gates's supporters that he is a racist bigot who feeds off hatred. No evidence will ever convince those who hate all police, Black or White. I hereby suggest to Dean, the moderator of this forum, that no further opinion, advocacy, or value-judgment messages be allowed in this thread.. I suggest that, from now on, only messages that provide previously unposted evidence be allowed. If such a policy cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the thread against all new messages. If that cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the entire site against all new messages.
A few purely factual points:
The dispatcher's tape was released only yesterday, at least, I read the article with an account of it yesterday afternoon. Before that, the main source of information was the police report, which appears to state that Gates was identified to the police officer as a black man, a statement that I believe has been contradicted by the caller's attorney. Also, the person who called 911 was apparently not the person who actually witnessed the forced entry.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:30 Post subject:
Quote:
Also, the person who called 911 was apparently not the person who actually witnessed the forced entry.
Quote:
2. The audio tape, which I posted a link to, demolishes the claims made in this thread that the woman engaged in racial profiling. Again, listen to it.
3. The woman's verbal statement to a newspaper reporter made recently, after having been falsely villified and accused on this very forum and after having been threatened on other forums, is less persuasive than the sound of her voice on tape during the incident.
I also read that Whalen was not the one originally upset by what she witnessed and that she had called at the behest of an older lady. I imagine this is the woman who Crowley spoke to when he arrived, because that would explain the discrepancy between his and Whalen's account of whether he spoke to anyone when he arrived who referred to "two black males." I think this is a reasonable explanation of the discrepancy between her statement and Crowley's.
I suggest that, from now on, only messages that provide previously unposted evidence be allowed. If such a policy cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the thread against all new messages. If that cannot be enforced, the alternative is to lock the entire site against all new messages.
I just wanted to add that while it appears below this post of yours, I started writing my last opinion post before yours was posted and didn't see it until I'd posted it. While I don't agree with all the characterizations of what I and others have said here, I agree that the discussion was becoming emotional and, therefore, barren. Had I seen this post of yours first I wouldn't have posted mine.
And then there have been the death threats. And Sarah Palin saying nothing as the crowd chanted, with reference to Obama, "Kill him! Kill him!"
This did not happen.
You appear to be correct. A search led me to this account of the incident:
Quote:
Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.
"Boooo!" said the crowd.
"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.
"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.
"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago." Here, Palin began to connect the dots. "These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes -- remember that's what Joe Biden had said. "And" -- she paused and sighed -- "I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites.
Wikipedia terms the race card as an "idomatic phrase." That is the matter in which I used the term. It is a straw man argument to criticize my usage of the term "race card" as a means of avoiding the discussion that we are having.
JoshH wrote:
In fact, I haven't seem any evidence that either of these men pulled a card of any kind.
That the officer who arrested Gates was not acting in any way in relation to race, and that Gates went after him and the entire Cambridge police department (with the force of the White House) with acussations of racial mistreatment make it an instance of the race card.
JoshH wrote:
Gates reacted with apparently justified anger to the possibly racist disrespect of a police officer who refused to accept that an eminent 58-year-old professor lived in his own home, despite having been shown at minimum a Harvard ID.
Gates reacted by explicitly stating that something that did not in any way have to do with race was a case of racism. He used this as a political tactic against a police officer as a means of threatening him.
JoshH wrote:
Obama accurately described as stupid the police officer's actions, and rightly and in mild terms noted the existence of racial profiling without which this incident cannot be interpreted.
Obama initially supported Gates false allegations of racial treatment with stories about the historical oppression of "blacks." The historical oppression of "blacks" has nothing to do with the thuggish manner in which Henry Gates behaved, unless it has something to do with the chip on his shoulder. His solution of getting together for a beer is a feeble. He should apologize by stating specifically that both he and Henry Gates were wrong.
I voted for Obama in the first election for many reasons. For one, I thought that he stood in some way for the bridging of racial divisions. As things currently stand, I believe that I was wrong about that.
JoshH wrote:
in fact, find the claim offensive in the absence of evidence
I find it offensive that Gates accused the cop of racism. In any case, one ought to present evidence that this was a case of racism if one is to make such an accusation. It is a demonstration of bias to place the burden of proof upon the defendant of such an accusation.
JoshH wrote:
BTW, I read an interesting old op ed by Gates the other day:
JoshH wrote:
Hardly the words of a Sharpton. And yet, in the absence of evidence, Prof. Gates's actions are being portrayed by some in that light.
I don't think that my opinion about Henry Gates character, outside of this issue, ought to have bearing on my take on this particular incident. I also wouldn't like to attempt to compare Gates' overall character, back to back, with the likes of Al Sharpton. If it matters to you, I believe that both Henry Gates and Al Sharpton have both done some positive things via their work, and also some negative things.
I will also be more then interested in watching Henry Gates' to-be-released documentary about the selective mistreatment of "black" Americans by police officers in America when it comes out. No doubt, this is a serious issue. I would simply rather that it stem from an instance in which such mistreatment actually occurs. It is unfortunate that the public spectacle of Skip Gates (carrying a chip on his shoulder and yelling downward at a cop) will no doubt detract significantly from the potential of such a documentary to reach the hearts and minds of most Americans. I expect that it will only appeal to persons who already agree with him, as a vehicle for rabble rousing.
Audio recording of the incident.
Obviously, the facts are not going to change the minds of those who have been swept up in the race-hate fomented by Gates and Obama. Nevertheless, when the woman who called in the break-in is asked by the 911 dispatcher the "race" of the perps, she says "I don't know, but one of them looked kind of Hispanic." When the dispatcher sends out the call, he says "race unknown." The only person who even suspected that Gates self-identified as Black was Gates himself.
When Crowley saw Gates did he not see what race Gates was?
I dont think that people are debating why the police were sent to investigate. Its their behavior once they got there.
[. No evidence will ever convince Gates's supporters that he is a racist bigot .
Funny John McWhorter clearly a Black Conservative does NOT share your view of Gates. In fcat ythere are those who have said the opposite, calling him an accommodationist.
It is a straw man argument to criticize my usage of the term "race card" as a means of avoiding the discussion that we are having.
That is inaccurate. Please refrain in the future from imputing motive. Imputation is often a form of ad hominem argument, it is almost inevitably wrong, and in my experience, it is more often a tool of confirmation bias than of rational thought.
By the way, I thought that opinions were no longer allowed in this thread, so I haven't responded to your other points. Though I seem to be the only person who is refraining . . .
It is a straw man argument to criticize my usage of the term "race card" as a means of avoiding the discussion that we are having.
That is inaccurate. Please refrain in the future from imputing motive. Imputation is often a form of ad hominem argument
Our discussion was about whether or not the cop had a racial motive. From Wikipedia HERE-
Quote:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y.
Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
-1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
-2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
-3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
-4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
-5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
1. My position was that Gates was pulling the race card, by unjustly citing that his race was the cause of the disagreement between himself and the cop. It was quite clear that this was my position. 2. You disregarded that point, and presented the position that-
Quote:
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites.
This is a direct illustration of examples 2-1, 2-4 and 2-5 from the wikipedia quote above. You were refuting a "a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument" (from the forum rules HERE).
3. In that same quote of yours, you attacked a position that I did not hold.
Whatever our motive, you were committing a straw man fallacy against my argument. Were you meaning to impute that my motive in illustrating your straw man fallacy was an ad hominem attack on your intentions?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
