Cheers
Recently a story lit up the news wires that not only caught my attention but the attention of President Obama as well. About a weeks ago the the Cambridge police received a call from a concerned neighbor that she might have witnessed a burglary in progress by two men. With this information officers were dispatched.
Upon entering the house the police discovered the man, who had been seen forcing the door open by the neighbor, was the resident of the house. The man, who was black, was asked to step outside. He was very irritated that the police had entered his house without authorization and refused to step outside claiming the officer, a white man, was a racist. After finally following the officer out of the house, the officer warned him twice to calm down. When Mr. Gates refused, he was handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail. The charges later dropped.
After hearing about the arrest President Obama, a friend of Mr. Gates, said in an interview that the police had acted "stupidly". He went on further to suggest that Mr. Gates was profiled because of his race. This was only hours after the arrest and before many facts were known about the case.
After the president realized he had said too much with too little information he called the officer involved in the arrest. The officer suggested the three of them have a beer and smooth things out. All accepted.
Now this beer event is being touted as a "Teaching Moment" to highlight the racial profiling of the professor, Mr Gates. WTF??!!!! SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME ON WHAT PLANET THIS MAN WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE OF HIS RACE??PLEASE... SOMEONE... ANYONE?
The definition of racial profiling according to the ACLU is as follows:
Racial Profiling:"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
The officer was dispatched to the scene, so no individual was targeted. The neighbor who made the call never mentioned the color of the people she saw. The officer had no idea what type of person he would find in the house, so no perceived notions. After arriving at the house the officer followed standard protocol. Other than Mr. Gates calling the officer a racist where was race a factor in the arrest?
So my only assumption here is that the lesson of this "Teaching Moment" is that EVERYONE can be guilty of racial profiling because that is exactly what Mr. Gates and the President did. THEY saw a white police officer, attached all the history and stereo types they've been taught and experiences and played the race card before they knew the facts. The very definition of "racial profiling" if you ask me. If that's the message that's going to be delivered after a few rounds of beer then I say, "cheers!"
But for some reason, I just don't see that in the cards.
4 comments:
Spot on again, David. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
The police acted correctly, a fact that isn't being covered by the media at all. And another thing that isn't getting out in the news is the fact that the police don't file charges, the District Attorney does. Police make arrests based on a person being suspected of breaking one or more laws. The District Attorney (or his/her Deputies) review the case and decide if there is enough evidence to PROVE that the person did, in fact, commit that crime. In this case, the District Attorney's office chose not to file again Professor Gates, which is not surprising given the circumstances. Somehow, this very effective process has been touted to a naive and locked-and-loaded public as a situation in which the POLICE "knew they were wrong and dropped the charges."
Grrrrr.
On a side and more philosophical note: If the ACLU (and anyone else) really wants "racial equality," there's only ONE way to do it. In order for race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. to NOT be an issue, it has to NOT be an issue. Defining "racial profiling" makes it an issue, where in REALITY there is none. Facing off with the officers who came to your home to PROTECT you makes it an issue, when in REALITY there is none. Forcing employers to fulfill "diversity" requirements rather than hiring the most qualified persons makes it an issue, when in REALITY there is none.
The point? As long as it's an ISSUE, it will continue to be an ISSUE. Hey, ACLU, the only way for you to get the "equality" you want is for you to shut the f**k up.
True, true... all true. *sigh*
Lets face it, there are bad apples in every profession. Groups like the ACLU exploit the relatively few incidents, compared to the millions that are handled right, to bring attention to their cause Because, as you stated, if there was no ISSUE there would be no reason for these organizations to exist. And many times, like with this case, they manufacture an ISSUE that isn't there.
I've been wanting to blog about the current state of race relations but have that nagging voice in my head that says, "don't go there because if anyone misinterprets it you will be labeled a racist." I still might though.
No bad apple in this case. Except that professor.
And if I were his Dean, he'd be fired. If I were Queen, his citizenship would be pulled. You don't get to be a member of my Club (citizen of my country, professor in my institution of higher learning) if you can't submit to the law that PROTECTS ALL OF US.
No bad apple in this case. Except that professor.
and the president of course. ;)
Post a Comment