Harvard Professor Arrested--Gates Black in America

[JBean]

But the Constitution of this great republic does NOT specify a "right time" to assert one's rights, nor does it put but a few restrictions on the "right way" to exercise one's right of free speech.

I have been thinking about a couple issues with regards to this whole thing.
One thought that came to my mind was an old ad campaign I think for defensive driving that said "You may be right, but don't be dead right"


I was watching a hostage situation on TV not too long ago. After the main suspect had been subdued, the police required everyone in the bank to be handcuffed as they were escorted out. They did this because they didn't really know who was who and the bad guys like to try and blend in with the good guys. They only uncuffed and released these people as they got ID and were reasonably certain they were true hostages. This is just a tactical move and is part of protocol when in this situation.
Imagine if one of those people refused to be cuffed and stood on his rights that he was an innocent bystander and the cops had no cause to search him or cuff him or take him into any kind of "custody"? I personally don't think this would be a good time to be loud or argumentative even if a persons' rights are being trampled for the greater good.
I am not drawing this case as a parallel to gate's situation because there are many differences; but i am just referring to the principal of being right but not dead right. I mean what good is it to go through the green light when you see someone is about to run the red? Sure you have the right of way, but sometimes you just have to yield anyway.

So, imo, even though gates may have been correct in terms of his rights or even racial bias, there are other more productive ways to elevate the situation. I don't mean that to sound pc but rather just practical and smart.
So while the constitution may not define when is the right or wrong time, I think sometimes you just have to yield.

My next post will most likely be in support of Gates, because I see both sides of this very clearly and find them both to blame.

 

[southcitymom]

I have been thinking about a couple issues with regards to this whole thing.
One thought that came to my mind was an old ad campaign I think for defensive driving that said "You may be right, but don't be dead right"


I was watching a hostage situation on TV not too long ago. After the main suspect had been subdued, the police required everyone in the bank to be handcuffed as they were escorted out. They did this because they didn't really know who was who and the bad guys like to try and blend in with the good guys. They only uncuffed and released these people as they got ID and were reasonably certain they were true hostages. This is just a tactical move and is part of protocol when in this situation.
Imagine if one of those people refused to be cuffed and stood on his rights that he was an innocent bystander and the cops had no cause to search him or cuff him or take him into any kind of "custody"? I personally don't think this would be a good time to be loud or argumentative even if a persons' rights are being trampled for the greater good.
I am not drawing this case as a parallel to gate's situation because there are many differences; but i am just referring to the principal of being right but not dead right. I mean what good is it to go through the green light when you see someone is about to run the red? Sure you have the right of way, but sometimes you just have to yield anyway.

So, imo, even though gates may have been correct in terms of his rights or even racial bias, there are other more productive ways to elevate the situation. I don't mean that to sound pc but rather just practical and smart.
So while the constitution may not define when is the right or wrong time, I think sometimes you just have to yield.

My next post will most likely be in support of Gates, because I see both sides of this very clearly and find them both to blame.

Me too sister!

 

[JBean]

Well, damn! I hadn't seen any of this JBean and it really makes me feel for the beleaguered police department who (along with the National Guard) responded swiftly and appropriately.

It's always a good idea to have someone read over an angry missive before you send it out into the public!

Barrett's attorney contends that when he compared Gates to a "banana eating jungle monkey" four times in the course of his letter, he was trying to get across the fact that Gates was acting like an impulsive wild animal and he didn't perceive racial connotations in the animal description he picked. My question is this? - are there really any 36-year-old people in this country who aren't aware that "jungle monkey" is considered a pejorative and racist term. I'm having a hard time buying that.

Oh yeah just like the guy that sent out the email depicting the watermelon hunt on the White House lawn didn't have any idea of the racial implications.

 

[southcitymom]

Oh yeah just like the guy that sent out the email depicting the watermelon hunt on the White House lawn didn't have any idea of the racial implications.

Hey - my DADDY sent me that email! Are you calling my Father a racist?! If you are, that's cool - he does have some of that going on. :blowkiss:

 

[daisy7]

I did a search for this and did not find it. but doesn't mean it hasn't been posted. Have you all read this email from the Boston officer Barrett? OUCH! It is so bad. he is on leave for it. he sent out a mass email in response to an editorial by yvonne Abraham.
if already posted let me know.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/justin_barrett_full_email_072909

Wow!! Glad they put him on leave!!

 

[JBean]

Hey - my DADDY sent me that email! Are you calling my Father a racist?! If you are, that's cool - he does have some of that going on. :blowkiss:

No I am talking about the California Mayor of Los Al

 

[southcitymom]

No I am talking about the California Mayor of Los Al

LMAO - where do these people come from?

 

[White Rain]

If this situation had been reversed and it were a white scholar and a black cop it would not have even been a blip in the media.
Enough said.

 

[Nova]

I don't quite understand what "asserting one's rights" has to do with the Gates incident. Gates was not asserting his rights, imo. He was screaming and yelling abusive verbal comments at a police officer. This is not a case where a citizen "asserts his rights" by denying an investigator access to his house because the investigator does not have a search warrant. This is not a case where a citizen "asserts his rights" by refusing to talk to police without an Attorney present. This is not a case where a citizen "asserts his rights" by filing a complaint against a police officer. Again, I don't believe Gates behavior is in the "asserting one's rights" category.

I'm glad you mentioned some of those standard challenges to police authority, because I was wondering how far you were willing to take "never argue with a police officer." I'm sure you also believe suspects have a right to refuse to confess even when a police officer insists they do so (a common interrogation tactic).

Identifying police conduct as unfair and racist is certainly an assertion of the speaker's right of free speech (even if you and I later decide the speaker was mistaken). I'd say it was also an assertion of other rights, such as the right to be free from illegal search and seizure and the right to equal treatment under the law on the basis of race; but we'll probably need a lawyer to say for sure.

 

[Nova]

I have been thinking about a couple issues with regards to this whole thing.
One thought that came to my mind was an old ad campaign I think for defensive driving that said "You may be right, but don't be dead right"....

I agree with you that a different course might have been wiser for Gates, for practical reasons. But doesn't he (like the rest of us) have the right to choose to be brave, rather than wise?

In the example you describe, I can understand a court ruling that public safety concerns overruled the individual's right to avoid brief detention. In other words, a court might decide that refusing to be handcuffed under those extreme and rare circumstances is equivalent to the proverbial "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" because it endangers public safety by preventing the apprehension of a dangerous individual.

I say a court might rule thusly because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know for sure.

I know you weren't saying your analogy was precisely equivalent to Gate's behavior, so let me try another: if the professor had stood on his front porch and yelled to passers-by, "This cop is racist! Somebody shoot him!," I doubt any of us would be defending him. As I understand it, calls to violence are not protected free speech.

 

[Nova]

If this situation had been reversed and it were a white scholar and a black cop it would not have even been a blip in the media.
Enough said.

It would not have been a "blip in the media" because, as somebody pointed out above, if the professor in question had been Henry Kissinger instead Gates, none of this would have happened. Because Kissinger wouldn't be treated the same in the first place, but if he were, he hasn't had the same experiences as Gates, so he wouldn't respond in the same way.

 

[nanny1]

It would not have been a "blip in the media" because, as somebody pointed out above, if the professor in question had been Henry Kissinger instead Gates, none of this would have happened. Because Kissinger wouldn't be treated the same in the first place, but if he were, he hasn't had the same experiences as Gates, so he wouldn't respond in the same way.

The person's responsible for making it a media circus was one Mr.Gates,two the President of the United States.

 

[Pandora]

Susan Estrich's take:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/an-educational-moment.html

 

[STEADFAST]

Hours after a "Beer Summit" meeting at the White House with the president and the police officer who arrested him, Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote that he emerged with more understanding about police officers' jobs and said he "learned that we can have our differences without demonizing one another."
"Let me say that I thank God that I live in a country in which police officers put their lives at risk to protect us every day, and, more than ever, I’ve come to understand and appreciate their daily sacrifices on our behalf. I’m also grateful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is a sacrosanct value and I hope that one day we can get to know each other better," Gates wrote on his Web site "The Root" after the meeting.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20235017/detail.html

 

[magnolia]

I'm glad you mentioned some of those standard challenges to police authority, because I was wondering how far you were willing to take "never argue with a police officer." I'm sure you also believe suspects have a right to refuse to confess even when a police officer insists they do so (a common interrogation tactic).

Identifying police conduct as unfair and racist is certainly an assertion of the speaker's right of free speech (even if you and I later decide the speaker was mistaken). I'd say it was also an assertion of other rights, such as the right to be free from illegal search and seizure and the right to equal treatment under the law on the basis of race; but we'll probably need a lawyer to say for sure.

Nova, no offense, and I hope this post doesn't come across as having a sacastic tone,but you and I are not on the same page in regards to "asserting one's rights".

It kinda amazes me that you obviously thought I didn't know my rights or how to "assert my rights" accordingly, because I would prefer not to get into a confrontational argument with a police officer.

I don't understand the logic behind yelling, screaming, kicking, and calling a member of law enforcement "a racist rogue" cop in order to "assert one's rights". lol, I am truly scratching my head here.

If I have an encounter with a police officer, unless I see a "clear" violation of my rights, if he says jump, I will ask how high. Note the word "clear". On the other hand, if I see a clear violation of my rights, I will assert my rights, but I will assert in a civil manner.

I belive Mr. Gates thought he had the ability to assert his rights with total disregard to the rights of others.

Again, hope this doesn't come across in a sarcastic tone, but I don't need an Attorney to tell me Professor Gates accusations are unfounded. We have no proof at all that Sgt. Crowley's actions were racially motivated.

IMO

 

[southcitymom]

Hours after a "Beer Summit" meeting at the White House with the president and the police officer who arrested him, Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote that he emerged with more understanding about police officers' jobs and said he "learned that we can have our differences without demonizing one another."
"Let me say that I thank God that I live in a country in which police officers put their lives at risk to protect us every day, and, more than ever, I’ve come to understand and appreciate their daily sacrifices on our behalf. I’m also grateful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is a sacrosanct value and I hope that one day we can get to know each other better," Gates wrote on his Web site "The Root" after the meeting.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20235017/detail.html

Very cool!

 

[angeleleven]

Nova, no offense, and I hope this post doesn't come across as having a sacastic tone,but you and I are not on the same page in regards to "asserting one's rights".

It kinda amazes me that you obviously thought I didn't know my rights or how to "assert my rights" accordingly, because I would prefer not to get into a confrontational argument with a police officer.

I don't understand the logic behind yelling, screaming, kicking, and calling a member of law enforcement "a racist rogue" cop in order to "assert one's rights". lol, I am truly scratching my head here.

If I have an encounter with a police officer, unless I see a "clear" violation of my rights, if he says jump, I will ask how high. Note the word "clear". On the other hand, if I see a clear violation of my rights, I will assert my rights, but I will assert in a civil manner.

I belive Mr. Gates thought he had the ability to assert his rights with total disregard to the rights of others.

Again, hope this doesn't come across in a sarcastic tone, but I don't need an Attorney to tell me Professor Gates accusations are unfounded. We have no proof at all that Sgt. Crowley's actions were racially motivated.

IMO

I have a lot of respect for your posts, Magnolia. You have a good 'head on your shoulders'. JMO

 

[STEADFAST]

Very cool!

Yes, it is. It doesn't surprise me that a man of such great intellect, who has dedicated his life to exploring the lessons we can learn from African American literature and narrative, would take this opportunity to expand his understanding of racial dialogue.
All in all, I think this incident was fortunate. Dr. Gates, Officer Crowley, and President Obama were all forced to confront their own assumptions, and all came out the wiser for it, as did the rest of us.

 

[mysterygirl]

I have a lot of respect for your posts, Magnolia. You have a good 'head on your shoulders'. JMO

She sure does, as do you!

I have done some reading on Professor Gates and his views that confirm what I thought initially. He has repeatedly demonstrated a huge chip on his shoulder even putting this on his Yale application:

"As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself."

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&pid=0&sid=1725138&page=2

ON AN APPLICATION! I have read several other offensive comments but I will not put them on here.

Having said that, I hope that everyone does move on and take something positive out of this. I read this posted on the web and thought it was fitting.



The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life.

Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home.

"The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it.

And so it is with you... we are in charge of our attitudes."

ATTITUDE by Charles Swindoll

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, it is. It doesn't surprise me that a man of such great intellect, who has dedicated his life to exploring the lessons we can learn from African American literature and narrative, would take this opportunity to expand his understanding of racial dialogue.
All in all, I think this incident was fortunate. Dr. Gates, Officer Crowley, and President Obama were all forced to confront their own assumptions, and all came out the wiser for it, as did the rest of us.

I couldn't agree with you more, Steadfast. I mean, I feel a little for Crowley and Gates - I am sure neither man expected this to swell into such a massive national storm and I don't suspect that's easy. However - as you point out - dialogue leads to sharper understanding as well as catharsis.

While I appreciate the "get over it already" stance some folks have about the "racism in America discussion" because I do believe that we are all best served by forgiving, healing and looking forward, the overall tone of that stance is often incredibly insensitive and given to brush off the very real after effects of institutionalized racism.

If a friend of mine was repeatedly raped as a child (and a few were) and then she continued to have issues surrounding that trauma for the rest of her life (to "see" a rapist in every man, perhaps), at what point in her adult life do I say to my friend, "Come on - that happened a long time ago - all your current problems have nothing to do with that - get over it already!" Personally, I think I'd be a better friend to just keep listening, keep talking and keep moving forward with her.