Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 14, 2014

Doug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway

Its unthinkable that we still find instances of discrimination against former Phillies.

A police officer from West Hartford had pulled up across the street, exited his vehicle, and begun walking in my direction. I noted the strangeness of his being in Hartford—an entirely separate town with its own police force—so I thought he needed help. He approached me with purpose, and then, without any introduction or explanation he asked, “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

All of my homeowner confidence suddenly seemed like an illusion.

It would have been all too easy to play the “Do you know who I am?” game. My late father was an immigrant from Trinidad who enrolled at Howard University at age 31 and went on to become a psychiatrist. My mother was an important education reformer from the South. I graduated from an Ivy League school with an engineering degree, only to get selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft. I went on to play professionally for nearly 15 years, retiring into business then going on to write a book and a column for The New York Times. Today, I work at ESPN in another American dream job that lets me file my taxes under the description “baseball analyst.”

But I didn’t mention any of this to the officer. I tried to take his question at face value, explaining that the Old Tudor house behind me was my own. The more I talked, the more senseless it seemed that I was even answering the question. But I knew I wouldn’t be smiling anymore that day.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 14, 2014 at 08:08 PM | 576 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: connecticut, doug glanville, espn, phillies, racial profiling, racism

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   101. The Good Face Posted: April 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4686955)
it sounds like he just doesn't understand most cops assume everyone they meet is committing a crime.


Bolded the really important part. Unfortunately, it appears we need this sort of enforcement to keep crime rates nice and low, which benefits society as a whole. Perhaps in a smaller, more homogeneous society, it wouldn't be necessary, but that ain't America, so we get suspicious, brutal, militarized cops. Nobody's in a hurry to return to the crime rates of the 70s.
   102. bigglou115 Posted: April 16, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4686957)
@bbc, using the Tolan example is odd. The two officers stood trial, and their defense showed that while officer error was involved in that particular tragedy, it was simple incompetence (the officer mistyped the license plate when he was running it, returning a stolen vehicle). Of the police accidentally get my adress on their GPS and I get killed while they think they're raiding a meth factory then qualified immunity would cover that as well.

In short, they did run the plate, and it came back stolen. Doesn't lessen the tragedy, but it does change the narrative from "racist cop" to "incompetent cop"

I believe the other case you mentioned was Emma Hernandez. None of the officers involved were reinstated to field duty, all were severly reprimanded, and the ones that started the shooting were terminated.

I'm not trying to say your unjustified, you have a right to worry exactly as much as you want to. Just filling in some blanks.
   103. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4686960)
it sounds like he just doesn't understand most cops assume everyone they meet is committing a crime.


Bolded the really important part. Unfortunately, it appears we need this sort of enforcement to keep crime rates nice and low, which benefits society as a whole.

I suppose so, just as the only way we'll ever stop corporate crime is by sending a few hedge fund managers to the electric chair, and make their widows go on relief.
   104. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4686971)
Of the police accidentally get my adress on their GPS and I get killed while they think they're raiding a meth factory then qualified immunity would cover that as well.


Which is bullshit. Negligent homicide is still homicide. Where's the outrage over incentive driven behavior? If you tell the guys with the guns "don't worry, even if you screw up due to rank incompetence, no one will be able to hold you accountable for it" then you will get rankly incompetent guys with guns.
   105. AROM Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4686980)
you White guys don't really get this because you don't think for a minute that it would happen to you. but it does


I am well aware of circumstances like that. Hasn't happened to me yet, but I worry a lot more about cops executing a wrong address, no-knock raid than I do about break-ins from petty criminals. I've seen or heard about raids on people living nearby. One where they killed a dog on sight. I worry about being a clerical error away from their rifles being pointed at my babies.

And if they did, they'd just come up with some excuse about "Rainbow Dash", "Fluttershy", and "Rarity" being street names for drugs instead of little ponys.
   106. AROM Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4686985)
I suppose so, just as the only way we'll ever stop corporate crime is by sending a few hedge fund managers to the electric chair, and make their widows go on relief.


Sounds like a good plan to me.

Which is ########. Negligent homicide is still homicide. Where's the outrage over incentive driven behavior? If you tell the guys with the guns "don't worry, even if you screw up due to rank incompetence, no one will be able to hold you accountable for it" then you will get rankly incompetent guys with guns.


I'm a little worried about myself, once again I find myself in 100% agreement with Sam.

   107. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4686992)
Well, black people worry about white policeman, and white people worry about black criminals. Is one wiser than the other?
   108. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4686998)
I worry about black policemen and white criminals too. Does that make me wiser or dumber?
   109. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4686999)
Which is ########. Negligent homicide is still homicide. Where's the outrage over incentive driven behavior? If you tell the guys with the guns "don't worry, even if you screw up due to rank incompetence, no one will be able to hold you accountable for it" then you will get rankly incompetent guys with guns.

If you ask actual policemen, most will tell you that using your weapon brings you a load of grief, in the form of inner departmental investigation and kneejerk public outcry, grief that can seem neverending. For one thing, do you think that there are no black organizations acting as ombudsman?
   110. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4687000)
I worry about black policemen and white criminals too. Does that make me wiser or dumber?

Good for you. And they, too, worry about you. It goes beyond racial superficialities.
   111. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4687008)
I got economically profiled once, a cop pulled me over for absolutely no reason other than the fact I was driving a (fully inspected, registered and insured) rusty 18-year old pick up truck.
   112. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4687020)
In the Prof Gates brouhaha, who exactly was guilty of racism--the cop acting subject to a neighbor's report, or Gates going off half-cocked?
I'm not sure I even understand the question; what about what Gates did could plausibly be described as "racist"?¹ I don't know that the cop was racist, though it's possible. More importantly, he was definitely guilty of being an ####### cop (but I repeat myself).

Pretending that the cop in Gates's case was being criticized for investigating is a neat rhetorical trick. The brouhaha was not about the cop "acting subject to a neighbor's report," but rather about the cop (a) violating the law, and (b) making a false arrest for contempt of cop, after he had already confirmed that the "neighbor's report" was misplaced.


¹ Assuming that for whatever reason, one wants to describe Gates as acting racistly, the difference between them is that only one of them has an actual obligation not to act racistly.
   113. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4687024)
I got economically profiled once, a cop pulled me over for absolutely no reason other than the fact I was driving a (fully inspected, registered and insured) rusty 18-year old pick up truck.


My very white brother was forced out his car a couple of times at gun point because he happened to have olive skin and drove an '87 Cutlass Supreme when he was in his late teens/early 20s.
   114. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4687036)
112:

You might want to flush your tongue and start over. You're choking on your bile

Otherwise, as usual, intelligibility cannot be salvaged out of that thing you spewed forth:

Except for one thing maybe: We all have an obligation not to be racist, at least in our public life, anyway.
   115. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4687039)
Well, black people worry about white policeman, and white people worry about black criminals. Is one wiser than the other?


I'd say yes for the sheer fact that at least white people with black criminals have the right to protect yourself, you can punish black criminals (at a pretty hefty rate might I say), and the history of that worry is in part based upon propoganda that dates back hundreds of years ago when black people had a hell of lot more to worry about white people who would never be named criminals unless they did something to another white person. So yes, I'd say one is wiser than the other.
   116. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4687040)
Well, what's the rate of crime by blacks against whites, and vice versa?
   117. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4687053)
It is true that black vs white crime is ridiculously more frequent than white vs black crime, but it is also true that black vs black crime is almost exactly as common as black vs white crime. So a) blacks should fear blacks as much as whites fear blacks, and b) at least blacks are not racist in their criminal behavior.
   118. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4687070)
Okay, multiple people objected to the "red SUV" argument, but other than pointing out that bank robberies are more serious than illegal door-to-door solicitation -- and I don't see how that changes the principle of investigation -- none of them explained what the problem with the analogy was.

If the argument that questioning the lone (as viewed by Glanville's account) black person performing a normal function of someone living in a small snowy community, then requires, or makes logical sense, to question that person simply because he is A) black and B) shoveling snow, rather than attempting to get more facts before you uncomfortably confront a citizen
How would one "get more facts" other than questioning him?

This is the crux of the matter, no? Black person is questioned while doing something a home-owner would do, simply because he was black and might have been the only black home-owner on the block.

I love that 'black guy' is binary. Yes or no. We got a report of a black guy, you are a black guy, therefore you must be the guy. Somehow that doesn't fly with whitey. But if you say 'black guy' pretty much every black guy now 'fits the description'.
It certainly does happen with whites, when they're in the 'wrong neighborhoods.' We got a report of a red SUV, you are the one red SUV in the area, therefore we should investigate you. ("Must be the guy?" If I read this thread rather than Glanville's account, I'd think that the cop came up with guns pointed, threw him against the wall, handcuffed him, and hauled him down to the station.)

ETA: I don't mean to say that it happens to whites as often as it happens to blacks, or as seriously.
   119. The Good Face Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4687074)
It is true that black vs white crime is ridiculously more frequent than white vs black crime, ... at least blacks are not racist in their criminal behavior.


Wat?
   120. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4687078)
Of the police accidentally get my address on their GPS and I get killed while they think they're raiding a meth factory then qualified immunity would cover that as well.

Which is ########. Negligent homicide is still homicide.
"Qualified immunity" is a constitutional doctrine. It is a doctrine -- as questionable as it is -- that protects them from being sued for violating your constitutional rights. It does not protect them from (a) a lawsuit for negligence, or (b) criminal prosecution for negligent homicide.
   121. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4687084)
So to add, 2008 was the last time that Justice Department did an in-depth study on crime. White people are 6x more likely to be victimized by another white person than a black person (and pretty much visa versa for blacks). Of White Americans only .0002% will be murdered by a black person. Feel free to peruse this information yourself, but your "worry about black on white crime" is wholly irrationaly, though quite predictable. As I mentioned, the propoganda about black on white crime is a historic one and facts have nothing to do with it.
   122. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4687089)
You might want to flush your tongue and start over. You're choking on your bile

Otherwise, as usual, intelligibility cannot be salvaged out of that thing you spewed forth:
English isn't your native language is it? You don't know what "bile" or "intelligibility" means. Your inability to get your facts correct -- as always -- does not mean that everything I wrote wasn't 100% clear. Specifically:

(1) There's no reason to think Gates was racist, but if he was, it would be irrelevant in any case, simply an attempt to deflect attention.
(2) Your question presupposed that the cop was being criticized as racist for "acting subject to a neighbor's report," rather than the truth, which was that he was criticized for how he acted, which was illegally.

Except for one thing maybe: We all have an obligation not to be racist, at least in our public life, anyway.
(1) No, we don't.
(2) Assuming we do, a cop's obligation is a legal one, while Gates has no such obligation.
(3) This was Gates' private life, not his public life.
   123. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4687103)
   124. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4687104)
How would one "get more facts" other than questioning him?

This is the crux of the matter, no? Black person is questioned while doing something a home-owner would do, simply because he was black and might have been the only black home-owner on the block.


David, "the crux of the matter" is that the policeman didn't even bother to ask Glanville whether he lived there, before assuming that he was the person he was looking for.

And then once he'd realized his mistake, he didn't even deign to apologize. Whether that was out of rudeness or simply embarrassment, the effect of disrespect was the same.

And yes, this sort of thing sometimes happens to innocent whites. But when Glanville viewed the incident through a racial lens, history provided him with a lot of plausible reasons for doing so.
   125. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4687114)
I don't know what world you live in where police go around apologizing.
   126. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4687119)
I'm not sure I even understand the question; what about what Gates did could plausibly be described as "racist"?¹ I don't know that the cop was racist, though it's possible. More importantly, he was definitely guilty of being an ####### cop (but I repeat myself).

Pretending that the cop in Gates's case was being criticized for investigating is a neat rhetorical trick. The brouhaha was not about the cop "acting subject to a neighbor's report," but rather about the cop (a) violating the law, and (b) making a false arrest for contempt of cop, after he had already confirmed that the "neighbor's report" was misplaced.


¹ Assuming that for whatever reason, one wants to describe Gates as acting racistly, the difference between them is that only one of them has an actual obligation not to act racistly.


What have you done with David?
   127. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4687121)
White people are 6x more likely to be victimized by another white person than a black person (and pretty much visa versa for blacks). Of White Americans only .0002% will be murdered by a black person. Feel free to peruse this information yourself, but your "worry about black on white crime" is wholly irrationaly, though quite predictable. As I mentioned, the propoganda about black on white crime is a historic one and facts have nothing to do with it.


People are most likely to be the victims of crimes by people they know. Which means, generally speaking, people who look a lot like them. Most violence occurs within families.
   128. The Good Face Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4687124)
So to add, 2008 was the last time that Justice Department did an in-depth study on crime.


You do realize that document was merely a survey rather than actual, recorded DATA on crimes that were reported, right? And that it contained no information on homicides? If you want the most accurate measurements of crime, you need to look at the FBI data. A ton of the "information" in the document you linked was no more than guesstimates based on survey responses of less than 10 data points. You may want to look in the mirror before you rant at people about "facts".
   129. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4687128)
I don't know what world you live in where police go around apologizing.

I don't know what sort of world you'd want to live in, where police assume criminality and then depart with an unspoken "Sorry about that" when they discover that they've made a false assumption.

And of course it's hardly an automatic assumption that police aren't usually courteous when questioning middle class-looking whites in their 40's for trivial offenses like soliciting snow shoveling jobs. Quiet as it's kept, there are "good cops" and "bad cops", and one of the key distinctions is that the "good cops" treat citizens with respect.
   130. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4687133)
Where are you getting your assumptions?
   131. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4687136)
And if they did, they'd just come up with some excuse about "Rainbow Dash", "Fluttershy", and "Rarity" being street names for drugs instead of little ponys.


TIL AROM is a Brony.
   132. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4687145)
Wat?


First of all, joke. Second, did you really not read the part that you snipped out? 'Cuz it kind of sets up the part that you're acting incredulous about. But just in case, let me repeat: blacks are more likely to commit crimes against whites than whites are to commit crimes against blacks, but blacks are no more likely to commit crimes against whites than they are to commit crimes against other blacks.
   133. bigglou115 Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4687147)
@120. Quite correct, in the full context my point talked about a case were the police were tried criminally, but the civil suit was dismissed based on qualified immunity. The analogy was implied, but in getting quoted and requoted the context was lost. The short version is I can't sue the police unless they infringe on my constitutional rights, criminal law is another matter.

Edit: actually, not quite correct. Qualified immunity protects the officers when they are operating in the scope of their employment. By definition this includes not violating your rights. When they step outside the constitution you can sue. Qualified immunity protects them from "honest mistakes" of which both GPS misreads and incorrect data processing have both been found to be.

For example, cop shoots him in the air for fun and the bullet hits you: you can sue.

Cop plants evidence, you can sue.

Cop relays your drivers license wrong or makes a typo on a search warrant: you cannot sue.
   134. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4687149)
132:

Even if that's true (and there is much smoke and mirrors when it comes to represented the data), someone up thread said most crime is committed against those close to you, those in your social vicinity. So what does that tell you about the black on white disproportion?
   135. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4687150)
"Qualified immunity" is a constitutional doctrine. It is a doctrine -- as questionable as it is -- that protects them from being sued for violating your constitutional rights. It does not protect them from (a) a lawsuit for negligence, or (b) criminal prosecution for negligent homicide.


In theory, perhaps. In practice, the "brotherhood of blue" keeps them more or less immune from anything that doesn't bubble up to a political headache for the upper tier.
   136. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4687151)
Where are you getting your assumptions?

From the fact that the policeman didn't begin his encounter by asking "Have you seen any people going around the neighborhood soliciting snow shoveling work?", instead of rudely asking “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

And yes, I'm taking Glanville's account at face value. Is there any reason you think that we shouldn't?
   137. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4687161)
And yes, I'm taking Glanville's account at face value. Is there any reason you think that we shouldn't?

Really, of course not, for no one ever gives the best account of their actions and the worst of their opponents. Never.

   138. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4687166)
From the fact that the policeman didn't begin his encounter by asking "Have you seen any people going around the neighborhood soliciting snow shoveling work?", instead of rudely asking “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

What police school of investigation and questioning did you go to? It is often standard procedure to begin aggressively, even with an accusation. Jack Webb is turning over in his grave as we speak.
   139. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4687174)
It is often standard procedure to begin aggressively be an #######.
   140. madvillain Posted: April 16, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4687176)
After college I got a job canvassing in NYC. We were doing a campaign in Yonkers canvassing in some really, really, bad 'hoods. If anyone knows Saw Mill river area or Mulford Gardens, you know what I'm talking about.

We picked up some locals to help out on the crew, good people for the the most part but certainly poor and black. I met a guy named "Cardan" (his mom wanted Dan and he was born in a car on the way to the hospital so they went with "Cardan" who told me the following: "a white person is the safest person in the ghetto because no black guy in their right mind is going to mess with all the racist cops that will swarm the scene of black on white violence.

Well I'm not sure about his theory but I never had any problems. We did however have black canvassers constantly get the cops called on them in the suburbs of Buffalo, but that's another story.
   141. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4687178)
139:

If you prefer. That's still the way it goes. You can see for yourself--I heard there's something called TV now, and that's how they behave. It's called Jerry Orbach ploy.

   142. Greg K Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4687179)
"Cardan" who told me the following: "a white person is the safest person in the ghetto because no black guy in their right mind is going to mess with all the racist cops that will swarm the scene of black on white violence.

I believe that's the premise behind Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Willis teaming up in Die Hard 3.
   143. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4687184)
And yes, I'm taking Glanville's account at face value. Is there any reason you think that we shouldn't?

Really, of course not, for no one ever gives the best account of their actions and the worst of their opponents. Never.


And of course we should never take Glanville history into consideration, or the fact that the policeman hasn't denied it.

----------------------------------------

From the fact that the policeman didn't begin his encounter by asking "Have you seen any people going around the neighborhood soliciting snow shoveling work?", instead of rudely asking “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

What police school of investigation and questioning did you go to?


The same one that you did, Officer Causa.

It is often standard procedure to begin aggressively, even with an accusation.

And it's often standard procedure not to accuse first and question later.

Jack Webb is turning over in his grave as we speak.

Jack Webb made his mark in the sugarcoated TV version of one of the more racist police forces this side of Mississippi, headed by the notorious William Parker. I'm not sure he's the best witness I'd want to produce on behalf of police deportment in situations involving white policemen and non-white citizens.
   144. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4687187)
For anyone interested, here's a recitation. Where's the racism? Where's the illegality?
The illegality was when the cop, in violation of M.G.L. c. 41 s. 98D refused to show Gates his ID on request. Not to mention the false arrest for "disorderly conduct" without legal basis, as -- even if you believe every word of the cop's story -- Gates wasn't guilty of the offense.

I'm not sure why you're asking "where's the racism," given that I said, "I don't know that the cop was racist".
   145. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4687193)
139:

If you prefer. That's still the way it goes. You can see for yourself--I heard there's something called TV now, and that's how they behave. It's called Jerry Orbach ploy.


You've now cited two long-deceased TV cops in an attempt to prove some point about what real world police should or shouldn't do in confronting citizens. What next, a quotation from George Reeves to prove a point about aerodynamics, or are we going to return to the cozy confines of Chief Wiggum?
   146. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4687197)
And of course we should never take Glanville history into consideration, or the fact that the policeman hasn't denied it.

Get a hold of yourself. Curb those promiscuous assumptions--and presumptions of burdens. You don't know anything. And neither does Glanville. Yet, somehow you know the police have some explaining to do, even so far as to proving negatives.
   147. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4687199)
I'm not sure why you're asking "where's the racism," given that I said, "I don't know that the cop was racist".

Well, in line with my initial offer, I wasn't only asking it of you, as that would be less than useless.

Moreover, the racism obviously lies in Gates's assumptions.
   148. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4687200)
Get a hold of yourself. Curb those promiscuous assumptions--and presumptions of burdens. You don't know anything. And neither does Glanville. Yet, somehow you know the police have some explaining to do, even so far as to proving negatives.


A guy arguing to TV-cop doesn't really have the leverage to complain about other peoples' assumptions.
   149. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4687201)
Jack Webb made his mark in the sugarcoated TV version of one of the more racist police forces this side of Mississippi...


Don't you mean THAT side of the Mississippi?

Jerry Orbach's been dead for almost ten years... Jeebus!
   150. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4687203)
Jack Webb made his mark in the sugarcoated TV version of one of the more racist police forces this side of Mississippi...



Don't you mean THAT side of the Mississippi?


Miss the state, not the river.
   151. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4687207)
Moreover, the racism obviously lies in Gates's assumptions.
The only "assumption" that Gates made that you could be referring to was his allegation during the event that the cop wouldn't have acted as he did if Gates were white. That assumption may or may not be correct, but does not constitute "racism." (Indeed, the statement could easily be true even if the cop were black.)
   152. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4687210)
You may want to look in the mirror before you rant at people about "facts".

I love how you don't address any of the data from DOJ Survey but just talk about "facts." The "fact" is that the FBI data only looks at the arrest data by race, but doesn't look at perpetrator/victim. But ignore the survey which gives us the most comprehensive look at this issue because the Bush DOJ obviously cooked the books to fit their liberal agenda, or something. Again, keep talking up the scourage of black on white crime for your personal pleasure, as you don't sound any different than any other advocate of this issue since the 1800s.
   153. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4687222)
Jack Webb made his mark in the sugarcoated TV version of one of the more racist police forces this side of Mississippi...

Don't you mean THAT side of the Mississippi?


Not if you're using the expression idiomatically, and not if you're not including the "the".

--------------------------------------

A guy arguing to TV-cop doesn't really have the leverage to complain about other peoples' assumptions.

Especially when in this case the assumptions aren't even being challenged by the person whom they're directed against. Agnosticism is a healthy attitude, but it usually works better when one person is actually contesting the other's contention.

Here's a hot tip, Morty: TV characters are usually best cited in making a humorous point about a trivial topic, not a serious point about police behavior.
   154. Steve Treder Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4687224)
For his sake, I'm hoping Morty is very drunk.
   155. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4687229)
   156. GordonShumway Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4687230)
I suppose so, just as the only way we'll ever stop corporate crime is by sending a few hedge fund managers to the electric chair, and make their widows go on relief.


Tying in our earlier conversation in the OT thread, I would be perfectly fine sending more than a few tobacco industry execs to Ol' Sparky, given that there are far, far more smoking related deaths every year than there are homicides, and such deaths are usually far more painful and expensive than most homicides.
   157. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4687237)
I suppose so, just as the only way we'll ever stop corporate crime is by sending a few hedge fund managers to the electric chair, and make their widows go on relief.

Tying in our earlier conversation in the OT thread, I would be perfectly fine sending more than a few tobacco industry execs to Ol' Sparky, given that there are far, far more smoking related deaths every year than there are homicides, and such deaths are usually far more painful and expensive than most homicides.


Hard to dispute any of that, although in truth I'd settle for permanent impovershment and letting them see how the lowest 1% lives, with occasional YouTube updates as a deterrent to any would-be copycats.
   158. The Good Face Posted: April 16, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4687258)
I love how you don't address any of the data from DOJ Survey but just talk about "facts."


Why address garbage data? It's a SURVEY, and a ton of its conclusions are based on less than 10 data points. Do you really not see the difference between crime reports that are made to the police under the penalty of perjury (or worse) and a survey? If you want to have a serious conversation about crime, use the actual numbers. Otherwise, you're just attempting to obfuscate.

Again, keep talking up the scourage of black on white crime for your personal pleasure, as you don't sound any different than any other advocate of this issue since the 1800s.


Did you know that ~50% of ALL violent crimes that take place in America are committed by young black men? There's an actual fact for you to mull over.

On the reliability of FBI Crime Reporting Audits


Did you actually read that thing? It claimed that the FBI was underreporting crimes by not auditing frequently enough, and that audits were showing that local police were downgrading serious crimes into lesser offenses, presumably to make themselves look good. If anything, the FBI numbers are painting an overly rosy picture of crime in America.
   159. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4687274)
Not if you're using the expression idiomatically...


I was trying to make a wry observation about that particular idiom. Didn't work out.

Did you know that ~50% of ALL violent crimes that take place in America are committed by young black men?


I'm pretty sure that the demographic breakdown of the victims of those violent crimes committed by black men is ~43% white, ~42% black, ~10% Hispanic, and ~5% other. Shouldn't the fact that blacks are disproportionately the victims of violent crime matter just as much as the fact that they are disproportionately the perpetrators? Doesn't it sort of suggest something of a relationship, if not an underlying cause?
   160. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4687278)
Did you know that ~50% of ALL violent crimes that take place in America are committed by young black men? There's an actual fact for you to mull over.

If you don't include rape, but we wouldn't want to paint white people with a broad brush. That's for those blacks.

Why address garbage data? It's a SURVEY, and a ton of its conclusions are based on less than 10 data points. Do you really not see the difference between crime reports that are made to the police under the penalty of perjury (or worse) and a survey? If you want to have a serious conversation about crime, use the actual numbers. Otherwise, you're just attempting to obfuscate.

I'm hoping that you will spend some time unskewing data that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. Worked out real well for Romney. Also, its funny that you talk about underreporting of crimes but couldn't consider that a survey might actually be a better methodology, as often crimes aren't reported for various reasons that would include relationships.
   161. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4687313)
On the reliability of FBI Crime Reporting Audits

Did you actually read that thing?


I certainly did, and my point was the unreliability of crime reporting, not the direction of it.

It claimed that the FBI was underreporting crimes by not auditing frequently enough, and that audits were showing that local police were downgrading serious crimes into lesser offenses, presumably to make themselves look good. If anything, the FBI numbers are painting an overly rosy picture of crime in America.

The day that intrafamily violence and crooked business practices** get prosecuted with the same diligence and enthusiasm with which street crime and border crossings are gone after during election years, is the day that we'll begin to get a broader picture of the true extent of American (or I should just say human) lawlessness. Until that time, all kinds of political considerations are going to color those statistics.

**Technically legal or not
   162. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4687317)
Why address garbage data? It's a SURVEY


So is the FBI data.
   163. The Good Face Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4687319)
Shouldn't the fact that blacks are disproportionately the victims of violent crime matter just as much as the fact that they are disproportionately the perpetrators?


Matter how?

Doesn't it sort of suggest something of a relationship, if not an underlying cause


It suggests that since black people tend to live around other black people, the closest and most available targets for black criminals are other black people. Is your argument that living among black people drives one to violent crime?

If you don't include rape, but we wouldn't want to paint white people with a broad brush. That's for those blacks.


Sure, we can talk about rape. In some of the recent crime numbers from the FBI, one recent year resulted in over 1000 reported black on white rapes but not a single reported incident of white on black rape.

Look, I can do this all day long. The numbers (the actual, real numbers) are what they are and they're horrifyingly bad. Getting mad at people pointing out reality isn't going to change anything.
   164. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4687341)
Matter how?


The same way the other thing matters. Or do we care about crime only for some abstract reason that has nothing to do with its victims?

Is your argument that living among black people drives one to violent crime?


Although the appropriate response to this question would be something along the lines of "what a ...." I'll try this instead: my argument is that the conditions under which many young black men live in this country are unfortunately quite conducive to violent crime.
   165. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4687348)
Look, I can do this all day long. The numbers (the actual, real numbers) are what they are and they're horrifyingly bad. Getting mad at people pointing out reality isn't going to change anything.


Oh, I'm sure you can, but whose getting mad? I keeping using "funny" in my dialogue, because I'm actually kind of amused that some people are so invested (and angry) in proving out their stances on the "Criminality of Black People". It just seems such a wierd thing to be so invested in, but I'll say again, it isn't anything new. Obviously, I disagree with your reading of the "facts" as they relate to issues where even you've asserted that the "facts" are a bit slippery. I keep asking myself what car your chasing here, but obviously I just have no idea.
   166. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:53 PM (#4687361)

Come on, Good Face, stop posting all these hatefacts. Not only are you making the liberals uncomfortable, you're interrupting their self-righteous preening over a guy being asked a couple questions by the police in response to a neighbor's complaint.
   167. JuanGone..except1game Posted: April 16, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4687366)
Come on, Good Face, stop posting all these hatefacts. Not only are you making the liberals uncomfortable, you're interrupting their self-righteous preening over a guy being asked a couple questions by the police in response to a neighbor's complaint.


How precious. Aren't you the commentor whose always wrong?
   168. zenbitz Posted: April 16, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4687367)
Cops, many have noted, have pretty much the same mentality as the criminal element they are supposed to contain and suppress.


... And all the sinners, saints.
   169. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4687406)
Here's a hot tip, Morty: TV characters are usually best cited in making a humorous point about a trivial topic, not a serious point about police behavior.

A guy arguing to TV-cop doesn't really have the leverage to complain about other peoples' assumptions.

This was an attempt to argue on your level. I could have gone the crime book route, or the Warner Brothers gangster/detective movies--or even comic books--or "graphic novels". I mean, really, people, do you really doubt that the police don't bluff and buffalo as a matter of course? And I was being a little facetious--but there's truth in humor, too.

It shouldn't be odd or strange that black people commit crimes disproportionate to numbers. Crime is committed by young, poor, males. Especially those that are told they are justified in holding a grudge at large against the society.

For his sake, I'm hoping Morty is very drunk.

Why? Anyway, I don't drink or do "substances". Haven't for 20 years.

   170. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4687409)
That assumption may or may not be correct, but does not constitute "racism."

It is to laugh.

How easily is what actually transpired forgotten. For some reason. Gates immediately went ballistic, ranting and spewing accusations. But since that's usually how you operate, I can see why you would not think that out of the ordinary.
   171. Steve Treder Posted: April 16, 2014 at 08:36 PM (#4687415)
Why?

Oh, dear.
   172. Morty Causa Posted: April 16, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4687423)
[shrug] I tried.
   173. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 16, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4687427)
How precious. Aren't you the commentor whose always wrong?

Is this a trick question?
   174. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4687435)
How easily is what actually transpired forgotten. For some reason. Gates immediately went ballistic, ranting and spewing accusations. But since that's usually how you operate, I can see why you would not think that out of the ordinary.
For some reason, you seem content to make up facts. Other than the word of the cop, there's no evidence that Gates so much as raised his voice until after he was falsely arrested. (There was a widely circulated picture of him where he looks to be yelling, but that photo was taken after he was in handcuffs.) There is no evidence that Gates ever "went ballistic."¹

Gates did say that the cop wouldn't have been acting as he did if Gates were white; whether he said that before he was arrested or after, and how he said it, are disputed facts.

How any of that proves Gates racist is beyond me, but I guess it's kind of like thinking that Mel Hall and Roman Polanski didn't really do anything wrong: you have to have been there, in Morty Causa's head, to get it.

¹ I would likely go ballistic if I were falsely arrested for a crime after being harassed for feloniously being in my own living room.
   175. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4687438)
What have you done with David?
I have been consistent on this incident since it happened; you could check the BBTF archives.
   176. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 16, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4687449)
I have been consistent on this incident since it happened; you could check the BBTF archives.

I don't need to check on this one. My memory says that your memory here is accurate. Always give credit when it's due.
   177. base ball chick Posted: April 16, 2014 at 09:24 PM (#4687453)
sam

david said the exact same thing when this happened. i remember. and what he sez is what he believes. he's not a republican
   178. base ball chick Posted: April 16, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4687459)
bigglou

i appreciate your input very much. thank you.

i used the tolan example because of the fact that the cops ran the lisence plate in the first place BECAUSE the driver was a Black man. and that they would not let him get his registration, and because of their treatment of the family members. including deestroying of videos.

it does not surprise me that they are allowed to kill in the name of "incompetence" and this is not homicide. i wonder how it would go down if they busted in and machinegunned down some rich White man's pregnant wife and little kidz
   179. Select Storage Device Posted: April 16, 2014 at 11:54 PM (#4687530)
How would one "get more facts" other than questioning him?


It's obvious I have a problem that anyone would think it common sense to "confront" a black person doing something any other person might do simply because he may be the only black person around. You could ask the other people reportedly doing the same thing Glanville was doing if they had any information. You could ask Glanville himself without the confrontational attitude (as noted many times already).

This whole SUV thing that everyone has moved on from (and I am sorry for continuing it); You pinned the "severity" issue but glossed over that a red SUV is more descriptive than "black person performing routine behavior." A red SUV is a model, an actual description beyond just the color. You wouldn't pull over a Focus. You wouldn't pull over an R3. You wouldn't pull over a F150. You wouldn't pull over a Stratos. You wouldn't pull over an Evo. You wouldn't pull over an Impreza. You wouldn't pull over a Cooper S. You wouldn't pull over a Prius. You wouldn't pull over a Genesis. You wouldn't pull over a GTR. An FRS. A Probe. A Berreta. A Mustang. A Charger. A Rabbit. A 458 Italia. You wouldn't yadda yadda yadda yadda.
   180. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2014 at 02:12 AM (#4687552)
Actually, "SUV" isn't a model at all; it's a class of vehicles. A model would be a Santa Fe. Or a Tahoe. Or a Highlander. Or a Durango. Or a Murano. Or a Forester. Or a Navigator. Or a CR-V. Or yada yada yada. (Those are quite different; a Navigator is about five times the size of a CR-V. But all the cops know from the witness is "red SUV.") (I don't know why you keep saying "routine behavior." In my hypo, the SUV that the cops investigate is not speeding away from the scene of the accident with large canvas sacks labeled with $$ on the roof; it's simply driving down a nearby street -- routine behavior.)

It's obvious I have a problem that anyone would think it common sense to "confront" a black person doing something any other person might do simply because he may be the only black person around. You could ask the other people reportedly doing the same thing Glanville was doing if they had any information. You could ask Glanville himself without the confrontational attitude (as noted many times already).
If the only argument is that the cop could have, perhaps should have, phrased his inquiry more politely, I have no objection. But it appears that many people don't think he should have talked to Glanville at all. ("Confront," like "harass," is an awfully strong word for asking a question, even if it was phrased insultingly. Based on Glanville's own description of events, the cop walked up to him, asked him a question, and then left after Glanville answered.) (Seriously, why would anyone argue that the cop should ask other people on the block if they had information instead of just asking Glanville if he did? Assuming Glanville is guilty is bad, but ignoring him doesn't make any sense either.)


(Note that this is consistent with my Henry Louis Gates position; in that case, the cop didn't do anything wrong by questioning Gates to confirm that Gates lived in the house. His wrongdoing started when he decided that he was going to teach Gates a lesson for not being deferential enough.)
   181. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: April 17, 2014 at 02:16 AM (#4687554)
166. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 16, 2014 at 06:53 PM (#4687361)

Come on, Good Face, stop posting all these hatefacts. Not only are you making the liberals uncomfortable, you're interrupting their self-righteous preening over a guy being asked a couple questions by the police in response to a neighbor's complaint.


And by neighbor he means someone in the next town, not even the same friggin town that Glanville lived in!
   182. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 17, 2014 at 07:01 AM (#4687558)
If the only argument is that the cop could have, perhaps should have, phrased his inquiry more politely, I have no objection. But it appears that many people don't think he should have talked to Glanville at all.

That may be some people's objection, but it wasn't what most of us have said, and it wasn't Glanville's objection.

("Confront," like "harass," is an awfully strong word for asking a question, even if it was phrased insultingly. Based on Glanville's own description of events, the cop walked up to him, asked him a question, and then left after Glanville answered.) (Seriously, why would anyone argue that the cop should ask other people on the block if they had information instead of just asking Glanville if he did? Assuming Glanville is guilty is bad, but ignoring him doesn't make any sense either.)


David, don't you see the difference between what the policeman said to Glanville:

“So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

And something along the lines of:

"Sir, we've just had a report of a person going around to houses in the neighborhood soliciting work. Have you seen anyone like that around here?"

The question the policeman asked assumed that Glanville was the suspect. The second question doesn't.

I haven't seen any indication in this thread that you agree with Morty's assumption that aggressive confrontation should be the default position of a police department in the case of a violation as benign as this, which makes me a bit puzzled at your reaction.

EDIT: I see that you did use the word "insultingly" to describe the policeman's question. Which makes me wonder if your complaint is merely against the idea that Glanville shouldn't have been questioned at all, as opposed to a complaint against Glanville's own reaction, which IMO was wholly understandable, given the tone of the question and the assumption of guilt that it entailed.
   183. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 17, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4687561)
So things I have learned ...

* While there may be racism in abstract, according to some folks it never really happens or is reported, because ... well liberals.
* Good Face is still hung up on race being the ultimate answer to everything, and is ignoring alternate socio-political explanations and any data that does not agree with his predetermined narrative.
* JoeK thinks there is something called a "hatefact" and is sure it is devastating when used against liberals.

Something I already knew ...
* It is almost impossible to assign racism to any specific act, and in reality it is never just racism, racism is the extra ingredient. It always influences, but in 2014 does so subtly enough that it is usually deniable except in aggregate where it is obvious.
   184. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 08:45 AM (#4687569)
182:

I said nothing about "should be the default position". Your distortion and lack of good faith argument is becoming more pronounced with each post.

The police have a host of methods and approaches to questioning people and conducting investigations. A message was sent in this case, and was received, outraged candyass feelings notwithstanding, and if what transpired here with Glanville is the worse we have to fear from the police, we should kiss American soil.

(Note that this is consistent with my Henry Louis Gates position; in that case, the cop didn't do anything wrong by questioning Gates to confirm that Gates lived in the house. His wrongdoing started when he decided that he was going to teach Gates a lesson for not being deferential enough.)

What sort of wrongdoing? Criminal wrongdoing? The cop broke a law?

The response here wrt to how police should act is in the nature of a slight alteration to a Groucho Marx's song: whatever a cop does, I'm against it. It can't be too hot, it can't be too cold, it has to be just right. No matter what cops do, there will be complaints--nothing like 20/20 hindsight and the Monday Morning Quarterbacking of amateurs. If they are assertive, it's uncalled for, unless something untoward happens, then they should have been more aggressive to begin with. We see evidence all the time of this violent swing in what we expect from authority. But now matter what, some will think they didn't do it right. It's a silly childish standard of judging human and professional behavior.



   185. The Good Face Posted: April 17, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4687638)
The same way the other thing matters. Or do we care about crime only for some abstract reason that has nothing to do with its victims?


I really don't understand your point here. Are you claiming that "we" don't care about black victims of crimes? If society didn't believe black victims of crime mattered, why does it go to the trouble of arresting and convicting so many of the black criminals who victimized them? There's been considerable research that indicates white authorities frequently ignored black on black crime back in the days before the civil rights movement. One could argue that it's BECAUSE society started caring about black victims that the black crime/incarceration rates have skyrocketed.

I'll try this instead: my argument is that the conditions under which many young black men live in this country are unfortunately quite conducive to violent crime.


What conditions might those be? Please don't say poverty. Claiming that poverty causes crime is an insult directed against poor people, but it's also empirically incorrect. Black crime levels are still much higher than those of any other group even after accounting for SES.

but obviously I just have no idea.


Obviously.

* Good Face is still hung up on race being the ultimate answer to everything, and is ignoring alternate socio-political explanations and any data that does not agree with his predetermined narrative.


I haven't provided a narrative. Just facts and statistics on crime that interest me.
   186. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 17, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4687647)
Morty, what complete BS. Nobody's comparing Glanville's cop to Dirty Harry (just to keep it on the fictional level you seem to favor), but if he'd simply conducted himself with a bit more respect, nobody would have even heard of the incident. We're not against "cops", we're only against certain types of police behavior, in this case rudely posed "questions" that assume guilt on the part of a citizen for no more reason than the fact that he saw a man shoveling snow in a driveway, in a town that the policeman didn't even work in, and apparently decided that it would have been beneath him to simply ask before assuming.
   187. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4687676)
Jolly Old, your ignorance and distortions are only exceeded by your smarmy insolence. You don't know jack about how police operate and what the jurisdictional givens aren't. And you don't care. You've assumed a posture that goes back 50 and 60 years and you'll never revisit it. But all this faux outrage is a good idea for a Simpsons show along the lines of "Ooo, the Germans are mad at me...[Ooo, the police are so rude, they asked a question without prefacing it with 'Mother, may I'...]" Gather your skirts about you, hie thee off in a huff, and give your cheap righteousness a rest sometimes, why don't you?
   188. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 17, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4687684)
Pretty much every cop I've ever dealt with was a testosterone-fueled d-bag. From my vantage point, most current cops became cops so they could exercise authority over people, not because of a desire to serve and protect anyone. You don't need to invoke racism to explain d-bag behaviour on the part of the cop.
   189. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4687708)
Jolly Old, your ignorance and distortions are only exceeded by your smarmy insolence. You don't know jack about how police operate and what the jurisdictional givens aren't. And you don't care.

Considering that every citation you've made about police procedure has come from either a Marx Brothers movie, a TV cartoon show, or a TV cop show set in the 1950's and 60's, I'm not sure who's the one living in another world.

Other than the two nasty encounters I had with police that I described above, my own encounters with them since then have been uniformly civil. As I said, there are bad cops and there are good cops, but you seem to think that we should just ignore the bad ones and say nothing when they act like dicks. Jesus, if what Glanville did---in response to being accused of a crime he didn't commit---is your idea of "confrontational", I'd hate to see what other forms of response might fall into that category.

And I love that "smarmy insolence" line, though that's usually applied to "young whippersnappers" rather than geezers like myself. But I guess I should consider myself flattered by the implication.
   190. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4687709)
188:

Norman Mailer said it a long time ago. The same mentality that becomes a criminal becomes a cop. Or if Mailer isn't enough for you, you could ask Jolly Old to tell you about those Warner Brothers social/crime movies of the '30s he loves so much.
   191. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4687710)
Pretty much every cop I've ever dealt with was a testosterone-fueled d-bag.


I had a nice interaction just this weekend, actually. APD guy pulled me over for running a red light, which I did. He asked "you know why I pulled you over" and I said "because I ran that red light back there in order to not wait for the next turn signal" and he said, "yep." Then he ran my plates, came back, asked "when was your last moving violation?" and I said "uhh...2005?" And he said "thanks for your honesty, and wait for the signal next time." Then I went and drank beer in the sun.
   192. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4687712)
What sort of wrongdoing? Criminal wrongdoing? The cop broke a law? ]
i already answered that; you've apparently adopted Andy's approach of asking a question again and again until you get the answer you want. Yes, the cop broke a state law by refusing to show ID. He also falsely arrested Gates, which is pretty much the definition of "wrongdoing."

The response here wrt to how police should act is in the nature of a slight alteration to a Groucho Marx's song: whatever a cop does, I'm against it. It can't be too hot, it can't be too cold, it has to be just right.
Yup. Turns out that this is true of pretty much everyone. A chef can't overcook food; he can't undercook it. A lawyer can't be passive in representing his client, but can't be overzealous. A doctor can't overprescribe antibiotics and he can't underprescribe antibiotics. Funny how that works.
   193. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4687716)
189:

When you start the ugly personal language, you lose any right to complain, or to have any say about the tenor of a return response.
   194. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4687719)
And he said "thanks for your honesty, and wait for the signal next time." Then I went and drank beer in the sun.

Yeah, but you're something like White.
   195. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4687725)
Pretty much every cop I've ever dealt with was a testosterone-fueled d-bag.

This has not been my experience at all.

I've encountered far more d-baggery from the alleged thinking fans around here than from any cops.
   196. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4687726)

This kind of behavior is never tolerated in Baraqua. You shout like that they put you in jail. Right away. No trial, no nothing. Journalists, we have a special jail for journalists. You are stealing: right to jail. You are playing music too loud: right to jail, right away. Driving too fast: jail. Slow: jail. You are charging too high prices for sweaters, glasses: you right to jail. You undercook fish? Believe it or not, jail. You overcook chicken, also jail. Undercook, overcook. You make an appointment with the dentist and you don't show up, believe it or not, jail, right away.
   197. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4687733)
When you start the ugly personal language, you lose any right to complain, or to have any say about the tenor of a return response.
No, in fact, that is not the case. A cop is required to act professionally regardless of how you act towards him.
   198. The Good Face Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4687735)
This has not been my experience at all.

I've encountered far more d-baggery from the alleged thinking fans around here than from any cops.


I've encountered a few cops who were aggressive jerkasses, but most of them are OK as long as you're respectful and deferential. I suspect that's where a number of people here are getting hung up...
   199. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4687745)
You don't get familiar with your superiors, and you don't expect familiarity from them. And cops, when it comes to doing their job, considers themselves in an elite position. What did umpire Bill Klem once say: It ain't nothing 'til I call it. There's a reason for that point of view. Someone has to be in control--or you got nothing but cluster ####.
   200. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4687750)
197:

That remark concerned the exchanges between JOLLY and me.
Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(34 - 5:37pm, Oct 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(101 - 5:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(9 - 5:29pm, Oct 21)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(53 - 5:27pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(52 - 5:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(850 - 5:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2888 - 5:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(298 - 5:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: steagles

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(57 - 5:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(173 - 4:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(6 - 4:22pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(446 - 3:37pm, Oct 21)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 2:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: deputydrew

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(106 - 2:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(100 - 1:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Belfry Bob

Page rendered in 1.1741 seconds
52 querie(s) executed