Comments on: Jane’s Blog: The Gates Arrest and Race http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/ WBUR’s Radio Boston with David Boeri and Jane Clayson: Stories and analysis about Boston and beyond. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:31:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Darren Blemin http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-1172 Darren Blemin Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:59:05 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-1172 Jean, please try to think. I know it's hard for you, but try. The REALITY is that talking about someone's mother shows some of the cantankerous and uncouth side that a lot of black people have. The statement is not a race thing (believe whatever you want) because we are all part of the human race. But when a person displays behavior such as this (whatever their skin tone) they are no longer acting as a good citizen but are epitomizing this barbaric mentality. Certain people cry racism when anything doesn't go their way or to gain an unfair advantage (i.e., special treatment by those trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety no matter how unfounded). Plus many white people are so pathetic that they feel driven to defend and advocate for black people as if they are the white person's personal project or pet. But saying "cracker" or "white boy" isn't racist. People today are fools. What is it that makes some people spiteful towards black people (which is automatically labeled as racism)? When black people come to a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and are loud and disruptive; when they work somewhere and get an attitude with a customer (which wouldn't be tolerated from anybody else); or when they try to cut down, cut in front of, beat up or intimidate other people. If a vast amount of people with blond hair acted uncivil like this then I guarantee you that others would feel spiteful towards blond haired people and many would not want to be around them UNLESS they could demonstrate the ability to respect their fellow human being, like most people do. This is obviously neither unreasonable nor racist; which also holds true whether you are red, yellow, white, black, or purple. It is the general attitude and behavior of any of the above groups of people that makes them undesirable, but ANYBODY has the right to demonstrate basic respect for other human beings and in doing so anybody has the right to be accepted. Unfortunately, a lot of black people are loud, disruptive, disrespectful and aggressive; more so than any other group. The officers acted appropriately in this case. The lesson here is this: Don't get an attitude with the cops. No matter who you are you risk consequences if you do. Beyond that, anybody that would became enraged over the notion that a 911 caller used the words "two black males" to describe two people they thought were behaving suspiciously probably need to have their head examined. This type of sentiment is a form of control, that we must watch so carefully how we refer to certain people. It seems that the Constitution and the laws (freedom of speech, for example, assault with a weapon, attempted murder, or on a another subject illegally entering the country) really do not mean much and can all be ignored when people see fit. Jean, please try to think. I know it’s hard for you, but try. The REALITY is that talking about someone’s mother shows some of the cantankerous and uncouth side that a lot of black people have. The statement is not a race thing (believe whatever you want) because we are all part of the human race. But when a person displays behavior such as this (whatever their skin tone) they are no longer acting as a good citizen but are epitomizing this barbaric mentality. Certain people cry racism when anything doesn’t go their way or to gain an unfair advantage (i.e., special treatment by those trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety no matter how unfounded). Plus many white people are so pathetic that they feel driven to defend and advocate for black people as if they are the white person’s personal project or pet. But saying “cracker” or “white boy” isn’t racist. People today are fools. What is it that makes some people spiteful towards black people (which is automatically labeled as racism)? When black people come to a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and are loud and disruptive; when they work somewhere and get an attitude with a customer (which wouldn’t be tolerated from anybody else); or when they try to cut down, cut in front of, beat up or intimidate other people. If a vast amount of people with blond hair acted uncivil like this then I guarantee you that others would feel spiteful towards blond haired people and many would not want to be around them UNLESS they could demonstrate the ability to respect their fellow human being, like most people do. This is obviously neither unreasonable nor racist; which also holds true whether you are red, yellow, white, black, or purple. It is the general attitude and behavior of any of the above groups of people that makes them undesirable, but ANYBODY has the right to demonstrate basic respect for other human beings and in doing so anybody has the right to be accepted. Unfortunately, a lot of black people are loud, disruptive, disrespectful and aggressive; more so than any other group. The officers acted appropriately in this case. The lesson here is this: Don’t get an attitude with the cops. No matter who you are you risk consequences if you do. Beyond that, anybody that would became enraged over the notion that a 911 caller used the words “two black males” to describe two people they thought were behaving suspiciously probably need to have their head examined. This type of sentiment is a form of control, that we must watch so carefully how we refer to certain people. It seems that the Constitution and the laws (freedom of speech, for example, assault with a weapon, attempted murder, or on a another subject illegally entering the country) really do not mean much and can all be ignored when people see fit.

]]> By: MJRauworth http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-910 MJRauworth Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:58:32 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-910 Race — and Prof. Gates’ high-profile public stature — obviously gave this story legs. But maybe race did NOT motivate what Officer Crowley did in arresting Prof. Gates — he might have treated a white man, or woman, the same way. And perhaps he was acting just as called for by the procedures of the Cambridge Police Department. In other words, this might be less a racial incident, at least as far as the police were concerned. But it wouldn’t be less wrong. At Prof. Gates’ house, there was no evidence that a crime of any kind had been committed — much less that Prof. Gates himself had committed any offense. Far less was there any notion that there was any weapon, threat, “tumult,” or violence in the picture — at worst, only an unhappy and maybe noisy homeowner. Should Prof. Gates have been grateful that the police showed up in response to a citizen alert that was seemingly designed to protect his home from a break-in? Of course. He would probably acknowledge that. Should Prof. Gates have used a more “conversational” tone of voice, and avoided saying things that might be viewed as offensive? Probably so — being uncooperative (as was reported on the tape), or unpleasant, or disrespectful to a police officer amounts to “borrowing trouble,” and it can be downright dangerous to “amp things up” with anyone with a gun or authority. But as unwise as they might be, none of those things is a crime — nor should they be. The fundamental problem is that SOMEBODY’S interpretation of the “disorderly conduct” offense allowed this arrest to happen. What is profoundly wrong is that anyone, white or black, famous or not, old or young, should be ARRESTED for being uncooperative, discourteous, or disrespectful to a police officer, especially at one’s own home — which is what happened. Even he had violated some decibel level in a noise ordinance, nothing more invasive than a citation should have been brought into the picture — such as for fare-evasion on the MBTA, or for a burnt-out turn signal while driving. No civilized society should allow the indignity of arrest to take place as a result of the facts that have emerged. No interest of a civilized society was threatened by Prof. Gates — at most only the dignity of Officer Crowley —and that simply cannot support use of a criminal arrest. The fundamental reason that racial profiling matters so much is that this country gives police officers far too much practical ability to “mess with people” — in other words, the practical power to abuse citizens, either to hurt or humiliate people who have done nothing wrong, or to do something that is not called for by some minor infraction. Racial profiling makes this worse, because the abuse of police power seems to happen more often to folks of some racial groups. But the fundamental problem is abuse of police power — and racial profiling is the “multiplier.” Many police officers do not stoop to this, but the news is full of reports that plenty of them do. The latter obviously give the former a bad name, and in fact, makes work much more dangerous for the honest officers. There is no question that America is well served by lots of hardworking and courageous police officers, who serve not only with their skills, their time, and their dedication, but also with the risks they run. But it doesn’t do those officers any good — and it doesn’t do society any good — to allow certain of their fellow officers to destroy trust with the public by abuse of their power. Archaic offenses such as disorderly conduct don’t really protect any interest of society. They are so vague as to be a magnet for abuse of police power, and for making vast parts of the population mistrust or hate police generally. We already have laws that prohibit resisting arrest, or interfering with a police officer in the course of his or her duty. Anybody who threatens or “gets physical” with a police officer will have no trouble being convicted under these laws. Protecting police in the course of their duty is not helped by vague offenses like disorderly conduct. In short, we should simply abolish the archaic offenses of “disorderly conduct” and “disturbing the peace,” and start over. In their place we should enact very clear prohibitions — noise level restrictions, for example — that do not give police officers the kind of discretion that leads to abuse of police power. And the new prohibitions should each have enforcement measures — such as civil citations — that do not allow a situation of hot-headed words to spiral into an injury, or an arrest, or an incident that stays in the headlines for weeks, like Gatesgate. Using the heavy hand of the criminal law is often not the best way to get to a civil society — in other words, a society we can feel comfortable to live in. Imagine how different everything would have been if Officer Crowley had just handed Prof. Gates a citation for allegedly being too loud. Eventually, somebody would have decided who was right and who was wrong. No major incident — and everyone would have been better off. Race — and Prof. Gates’ high-profile public stature — obviously gave this story legs.
But maybe race did NOT motivate what Officer Crowley did in arresting Prof. Gates — he might have treated a white man, or woman, the same way. And perhaps he was acting just as called for by the procedures of the Cambridge Police Department. In other words, this might be less a racial incident, at least as far as the police were concerned. But it wouldn’t be less wrong.
At Prof. Gates’ house, there was no evidence that a crime of any kind had been committed — much less that Prof. Gates himself had committed any offense. Far less was there any notion that there was any weapon, threat, “tumult,” or violence in the picture — at worst, only an unhappy and maybe noisy homeowner.
Should Prof. Gates have been grateful that the police showed up in response to a citizen alert that was seemingly designed to protect his home from a break-in? Of course. He would probably acknowledge that.
Should Prof. Gates have used a more “conversational” tone of voice, and avoided saying things that might be viewed as offensive? Probably so — being uncooperative (as was reported on the tape), or unpleasant, or disrespectful to a police officer amounts to “borrowing trouble,” and it can be downright dangerous to “amp things up” with anyone with a gun or authority.
But as unwise as they might be, none of those things is a crime — nor should they be. The fundamental problem is that SOMEBODY’S interpretation of the “disorderly conduct” offense allowed this arrest to happen. What is profoundly wrong is that anyone, white or black, famous or not, old or young, should be ARRESTED for being uncooperative, discourteous, or disrespectful to a police officer, especially at one’s own home — which is what happened.
Even he had violated some decibel level in a noise ordinance, nothing more invasive than a citation should have been brought into the picture — such as for fare-evasion on the MBTA, or for a burnt-out turn signal while driving. No civilized society should allow the indignity of arrest to take place as a result of the facts that have emerged. No interest of a civilized society was threatened by Prof. Gates — at most only the dignity of Officer Crowley —and that simply cannot support use of a criminal arrest.
The fundamental reason that racial profiling matters so much is that this country gives police officers far too much practical ability to “mess with people” — in other words, the practical power to abuse citizens, either to hurt or humiliate people who have done nothing wrong, or to do something that is not called for by some minor infraction. Racial profiling makes this worse, because the abuse of police power seems to happen more often to folks of some racial groups. But the fundamental problem is abuse of police power — and racial profiling is the “multiplier.”
Many police officers do not stoop to this, but the news is full of reports that plenty of them do. The latter obviously give the former a bad name, and in fact, makes work much more dangerous for the honest officers.
There is no question that America is well served by lots of hardworking and courageous police officers, who serve not only with their skills, their time, and their dedication, but also with the risks they run.
But it doesn’t do those officers any good — and it doesn’t do society any good — to allow certain of their fellow officers to destroy trust with the public by abuse of their power. Archaic offenses such as disorderly conduct don’t really protect any interest of society. They are so vague as to be a magnet for abuse of police power, and for making vast parts of the population mistrust or hate police generally.
We already have laws that prohibit resisting arrest, or interfering with a police officer in the course of his or her duty. Anybody who threatens or “gets physical” with a police officer will have no trouble being convicted under these laws. Protecting police in the course of their duty is not helped by vague offenses like disorderly conduct.
In short, we should simply abolish the archaic offenses of “disorderly conduct” and “disturbing the peace,” and start over. In their place we should enact very clear prohibitions — noise level restrictions, for example — that do not give police officers the kind of discretion that leads to abuse of police power. And the new prohibitions should each have enforcement measures — such as civil citations — that do not allow a situation of hot-headed words to spiral into an injury, or an arrest, or an incident that stays in the headlines for weeks, like Gatesgate.
Using the heavy hand of the criminal law is often not the best way to get to a civil society — in other words, a society we can feel comfortable to live in. Imagine how different everything would have been if Officer Crowley had just handed Prof. Gates a citation for allegedly being too loud. Eventually, somebody would have decided who was right and who was wrong. No major incident — and everyone would have been better off.

]]> By: RealisticsPM http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-898 RealisticsPM Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:28:20 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-898 "THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!!": Sorry, I hadn't read all that's out - however, I "allowed" - not "alleged" - for a range of unconfirmed possibilities. I also said that I and the public are not entitled to full facts of a report to enforcement. Caller isn't tested for truth or identity. My comment about a neighbor was concise and not "lengthy" - every word had purpose. My statements were careful - and yet concise - yes, I try to cover all the bases - possibilities - that seems "lengthy," sorry, just my style. I suggest more careful words rather than hasty mis-reading and retorts "from the hip." Why didn't you comment on Crowley's arrest of Gates. What was the "cause?" You know about "sticks and stones - and words not-hurting a professional with specific duty and responsibility." Crowley needs at least one word in his file. Now - he takes the training that he has been providing. We all have the opportunity to take someone's "stupid, thoughtless, insults" and respond in a careful legal manner. Two angers don't justify an arrest. Proper approach, post break-in: Calm explanation of appearance of entire situation, acting on behalf of owner and property safety - "oh, you're the owner." Let's check ID and confirm that all's ok. No sweat, someone saw this and was obligated to report, etc. Do nothing to ridicule, accuse, etc. You and I have likely been on either end of this scene - traffic, etc. Cop could properly instruct that an alert to police before "break-in" is required or helpful. Now Gates can react - calmly, understandingly, appreciatively - from point of being on the same side - or - stupidly, angrily, vindictively, insulting, accusingly - short of threatening physical harm. He's out of control but legal and no crime - but sad. I as cop or authority or friend just take it - file it. Now, however, falsely accuse Gates of a crime and illegally arrest and detain him - cuffs too - that is illegal - a crime[?]. What does - "aagghh!!! this is days later" - have to do with anything. Pardon me, if I'm a bit slow - facts don't change - discussion continues even today. I don't appreciate your anger and put down. Want to talk about the motivation of the "possible crime report" more? I don't say that the report should not have been made. Let's talk. “THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!!”: Sorry, I hadn’t read all that’s out – however, I “allowed” – not “alleged” – for a range of unconfirmed possibilities.

I also said that I and the public are not entitled to full facts of a report to enforcement. Caller isn’t tested for truth or identity. My comment about a neighbor was concise and not “lengthy” – every word had purpose.

My statements were careful – and yet concise – yes, I try to cover all the bases – possibilities – that seems “lengthy,” sorry, just my style.

I suggest more careful words rather than hasty mis-reading and retorts “from the hip.”

Why didn’t you comment on Crowley’s arrest of Gates. What was the “cause?” You know about “sticks and stones – and words not-hurting a professional with specific duty and responsibility.” Crowley needs at least one word in his file. Now – he takes the training that he has been providing.

We all have the opportunity to take someone’s “stupid, thoughtless, insults” and respond in a careful legal manner. Two angers don’t justify an arrest.

Proper approach, post break-in: Calm explanation of appearance of entire situation, acting on behalf of owner and property safety – “oh, you’re the owner.” Let’s check ID and confirm that all’s ok. No sweat, someone saw this and was obligated to report, etc.

Do nothing to ridicule, accuse, etc. You and I have likely been on either end of this scene – traffic, etc. Cop could properly instruct that an alert to police before “break-in” is required or helpful.

Now Gates can react – calmly, understandingly, appreciatively – from point of being on the same side – or – stupidly, angrily, vindictively, insulting, accusingly – short of threatening physical harm. He’s out of control but legal and no crime – but sad. I as cop or authority or friend just take it – file it.

Now, however, falsely accuse Gates of a crime and illegally arrest and detain him – cuffs too – that is illegal – a crime[?].

What does – “aagghh!!! this is days later” – have to do with anything. Pardon me, if I’m a bit slow – facts don’t change – discussion continues even today. I don’t appreciate your anger and put down.

Want to talk about the motivation of the “possible crime report” more? I don’t say that the report should not have been made. Let’s talk.

]]> By: gina http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-897 gina Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:32 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-897 aagghh!!! this is days later and the guest is still lamenting that if Gates' neighbors had known him they would have realized he lived there and wasn't a burglar ... THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!! and what is wrong w/ jane clayson that she either doesn't know this simple but important fact of the case OR won't take the step of curtailing the guest's lengthy comment about this non-fact (and the alleged unfriendliness of the neighbors)?! aagghh!!! this is days later and the guest is still lamenting that if Gates’ neighbors had known him they would have realized he lived there and wasn’t a burglar … THE CALL WAS MADE BY A PASSER-BY! NOT A NEIGHBOR!!

and what is wrong w/ jane clayson that she either doesn’t know this simple but important fact of the case OR won’t take the step of curtailing the guest’s lengthy comment about this non-fact (and the alleged unfriendliness
of the neighbors)?!

]]> By: RealisticsPM http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-893 RealisticsPM Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:30:22 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-893 Most interesting part of the Gates and Crowley drama is the "observer" report. No I'm not-definitely claiming a "gotcha" case from a neighbor - but, yes, I'll "allow" - not accuse - for any attitude from that to a real case of an observer - unfamiliar with Gates home - in "broad" daylight - walking, jogging, driving by and obligated to report a suspicion and preferring legal anonymity. Would be interesting to know - but, you and I have no legal right to know - the "reporting motive" - except when the reporting is itself a crime. No argument - this was a "break-in" - just not illegal. Professor Gates - maybe abusively, legally, "stupidly" - racially, I don't know for sure, but likely - verbally reacted to a legal and proper police action - that had to take a minimum security course once reported. Just noticed the irony - he didn't remind himself - with gratitude - that the police action was protective of Gates' property. I haven't heard of a Gates criminal action or threat of physical violence or threat to commit a crime to warrant restraint and arrest. Gates wasn't smart - started the racial anger mode, maybe - a better approach would've been along the lines of - between us gentlemen let's discuss this - understanding that the circumstances up to that point were unfortunate. I didn't hear of any illegal police conduct up to the time of the restraint of Gates. May be some contention about some one refusing or insisting on presence in or out of the house - not clear. Maybe[!] some stern orders about the above and some refusal to comply - no crimes here - maybe anger generation from both parties. Sgt. Crowley overly reacted to verbal abuse - possibly criminally - by false arrest. Without any indication of Gates having resisted arrest - there wasn't any attempted arrest for a "burglary" crime after the "resident" ID - or for threatening "physical" harm to anyone. "You'll hear from my lawyer" or insults - or claiming with foul language racial mistreatment - to a public official is not a crime. It's not nice and is "stupid." Verbal abuse of anyone - excluding illegal public slander - including me and you and any public official is not a crime. It's our job to take it and do what's legal and don't complicate by responding illegally. Now on to President Obama. I think that he inadvertently dropped his careful thinking first and then speaking on racial matters and got carried away with this police action. Actually, Gates was "stupid" and Crowley was illegal - in my opinion. I read that Crowley provided "instructing" on race relations in police work. In this case - I think - Crowley didn't have a race issue - but, maybe, an internal anger issue from Gates tirades, insults - resulting in poor judgment and outwardly, calmly performed an illegal arrest. Moral: Keep your cool. Ask. Check the "big picture" - that is if your camera hss "film" or disk-space. Stay in control. You'll feel better tomorrow. Gates communication lack in two instances initiated and further complicated this fiasco - and likely you or I will or have done the same. When's the last time that you called the police to "alert" that you have to break into your house. Mostly we don't call. Hah - my step-mother-in-law called the police to help her break in once. Most interesting part of the Gates and Crowley drama is the “observer” report.

No I’m not-definitely claiming a “gotcha” case from a neighbor – but, yes, I’ll “allow” – not accuse – for any attitude from that to a real case of an observer – unfamiliar with Gates home – in “broad” daylight – walking, jogging, driving by and obligated to report a suspicion and preferring legal anonymity.

Would be interesting to know – but, you and I have no legal right to know – the “reporting motive” – except when the reporting is itself a crime.

No argument – this was a “break-in” – just not illegal.

Professor Gates – maybe abusively, legally, “stupidly” – racially, I don’t know for sure, but likely – verbally reacted to a legal and proper police action – that had to take a minimum security course once reported.

Just noticed the irony – he didn’t remind himself – with gratitude – that the police action was protective of Gates’ property.

I haven’t heard of a Gates criminal action or threat of physical violence or threat to commit a crime to warrant restraint and arrest.

Gates wasn’t smart – started the racial anger mode, maybe – a better approach would’ve been along the lines of – between us gentlemen let’s discuss this – understanding that the circumstances up to that point were unfortunate.

I didn’t hear of any illegal police conduct up to the time of the restraint of Gates.

May be some contention about some one refusing or insisting on presence in or out of the house – not clear. Maybe[!] some stern orders about the above and some refusal to comply – no crimes here – maybe anger generation from both parties.

Sgt. Crowley overly reacted to verbal abuse – possibly criminally – by false arrest. Without any indication of Gates having resisted arrest – there wasn’t any attempted arrest for a “burglary” crime after the “resident” ID – or for threatening “physical” harm to anyone.

“You’ll hear from my lawyer” or insults – or claiming with foul language racial mistreatment – to a public official is not a crime. It’s not nice and is “stupid.”

Verbal abuse of anyone – excluding illegal public slander – including me and you and any public official is not a crime. It’s our job to take it and do what’s legal and don’t complicate by responding illegally.

Now on to President Obama. I think that he inadvertently dropped his careful thinking first and then speaking on racial matters and got carried away with this police action.

Actually, Gates was “stupid” and Crowley was illegal – in my opinion.

I read that Crowley provided “instructing” on race relations in police work. In this case – I think – Crowley didn’t have a race issue – but, maybe, an internal anger issue from Gates tirades, insults – resulting in poor judgment and outwardly, calmly performed an illegal arrest.

Moral: Keep your cool. Ask. Check the “big picture” – that is if your camera hss “film” or disk-space. Stay in control. You’ll feel better tomorrow.

Gates communication lack in two instances initiated and further complicated this fiasco – and likely you or I will or have done the same.

When’s the last time that you called the police to “alert” that you have to break into your house. Mostly we don’t call. Hah – my step-mother-in-law called the police to help her break in once.

]]> By: ValVV http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-890 ValVV Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:24:11 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-890 The prominent Harvard professor is looking at a police officer and his immediate reaction is not “he is a force of the law”, on the contrary, his reaction is “this is a white guy who wants to bust me”. If you are a black person and when you see any white policemen and you think “he is a racist who is after me” this is racists. The experienced police officer is looking at a black man and does not see an emotional intelligent man, but sees a black guy who does not want to do what he is told to do. This is racists. Two men, each is an example for the youth, each is a part of a middle class backbone of the society. And yet, when caught in a moment, they had gotten lead by emotions deeply hidden on the back of their consciousness. In Cambridge, Massachusetts! What do you want from other people? They both had not done anything illegal. But they both were wrong and behaved inappropriately. The prominent Harvard professor is looking at a police officer and his immediate reaction is not “he is a force of the law”, on the contrary, his reaction is “this is a white guy who wants to bust me”. If you are a black person and when you see any white policemen and you think “he is a racist who is after me” this is racists.
The experienced police officer is looking at a black man and does not see an emotional intelligent man, but sees a black guy who does not want to do what he is told to do. This is racists.
Two men, each is an example for the youth, each is a part of a middle class backbone of the society. And yet, when caught in a moment, they had gotten lead by emotions deeply hidden on the back of their consciousness. In Cambridge, Massachusetts! What do you want from other people?
They both had not done anything illegal. But they both were wrong and behaved inappropriately.

]]> By: Christopher http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-888 Christopher Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:53:03 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-888 I believe that many people who are comparing their experiences (such as tripping the alarm to their homes either in Brookline or Wellesley) are completely overlooking one important point which is this: Mr. Gates was interacting with police that were informed in a phone call that someone was breaking and entering to this household. They were not responding to an alarm, they were responding to an accusation to begin with, therefore arriving to the scene with a preconceived notion. This is completely different in intent and in construct. When thinking and acting about this very passionate and potentially flammable issue, I think that we must be as thoughtful and compassionate in our actions and words when addressing our very difficult and tumultuous history with racism. I believe that many people who are comparing their experiences (such as tripping the alarm to their homes either in Brookline or Wellesley) are completely overlooking one important point which is this: Mr. Gates was interacting with police that were informed in a phone call that someone was breaking and entering to this household. They were not responding to an alarm, they were responding to an accusation to begin with, therefore arriving to the scene with a preconceived notion. This is completely different in intent and in construct. When thinking and acting about this very passionate and potentially flammable issue, I think that we must be as thoughtful and compassionate in our actions and words when addressing our very difficult and tumultuous history with racism.

]]> By: nyc transplant http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-887 nyc transplant Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:49:07 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-887 You know ... I agree with the caller Micheal. I am also a NYC transplant (+15 years here) and have also noticed that the local Police are just bullies and that it is independent of race. That said, race is an added spice. True, we haven't had a Abner Louima incident up here. It is also true that I, as a black man, have felt safer up here than I have at home. Still, I have seen just how belligerent the local law enforcement can be and just how unprovoked that behavior often is. You know … I agree with the caller Micheal. I am also a NYC transplant (+15 years here) and have also noticed that the local Police are just bullies and that it is independent of race. That said, race is an added spice.

True, we haven’t had a Abner Louima incident up here. It is also true that I, as a black man, have felt safer up here than I have at home. Still, I have seen just how belligerent the local law enforcement can be and just how unprovoked that behavior often is.

]]> By: R http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-886 R Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:48:03 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-886 One of your callers said that police think they're above questioning, and that's been exactly my experience. They have a lot of support in that from the general public, too. Why can't we question the actions of police? If they want my respect, they'll have to give me reason to respect them, and that requires more than just putting themselves in harm's way. More to the point, I think the police had no call to arrest Professor Gates, but I don't see any evidence that race was a factor. Police have hassled me since I was 13, over 2 decades ago, and I'm a clean-cut white man. I haven't been in exactly the same situation as Professor Gates, but I've been in similar situations. I've been pulled over because an officer didn't like the way I looked at him (in his own words), questioned when I was just walking home from a restaurant, etc, etc... As far as I can tell, this isn't blacks versus whites, but police versus everyone else. I've been robbed and beaten up, but I've lost far more over the years to speeding tickets. I don't fear criminals on my daily commute, but rather speed traps. The police have never done more for me than file a report... You know what, ranting about the police isn't going to help anyone, but this situation really gets my hackles up. They should at least be patient when people question their motives or practices; we have good reasons to. One of your callers said that police think they’re above questioning, and that’s been exactly my experience. They have a lot of support in that from the general public, too. Why can’t we question the actions of police? If they want my respect, they’ll have to give me reason to respect them, and that requires more than just putting themselves in harm’s way.

More to the point, I think the police had no call to arrest Professor Gates, but I don’t see any evidence that race was a factor. Police have hassled me since I was 13, over 2 decades ago, and I’m a clean-cut white man. I haven’t been in exactly the same situation as Professor Gates, but I’ve been in similar situations. I’ve been pulled over because an officer didn’t like the way I looked at him (in his own words), questioned when I was just walking home from a restaurant, etc, etc…

As far as I can tell, this isn’t blacks versus whites, but police versus everyone else.

I’ve been robbed and beaten up, but I’ve lost far more over the years to speeding tickets. I don’t fear criminals on my daily commute, but rather speed traps. The police have never done more for me than file a report…

You know what, ranting about the police isn’t going to help anyone, but this situation really gets my hackles up. They should at least be patient when people question their motives or practices; we have good reasons to.

]]> By: Reggie Greene / The Logistician http://www.radioboston.org/stories/2009/07/23/the-gates-arrest-and-race/comment-page-1/#comment-881 Reggie Greene / The Logistician Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:55:49 +0000 http://www.radioboston.org/?p=1753#comment-881 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 <a href="http://www.tinyurl.com/nxtywv" rel="nofollow">some things which Professor Gates might have considered</a> upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been. 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.

]]>