127 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » In Praise of Racial Profiling:

[...] Read the entire article here. [...]

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:25 am 2. Blarty Blarckleblart:

I thought conservatives didn’t see race.

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:33 am 3. Войска ПВО:

“And by the way, in the recent case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., race doesn’t even come into it. The guy’s a Harvard professor. He should’ve been arrested long ago on those grounds alone.”

Too funny for words!

..also, did either of these geniuses (The Boy King from Harvard and the Race Pimp Prof from Harvard) ever stop and ask themselves how they got to where they were.

I mean, how does one become Prez after only a few years as a Chicago ward-heeler, do-nothing state senator, 20 minutes as a U.S. senator, and then being butt-smooched into office by the adoring media and brain-dead public. Indeed, how does one become a Harvard prof of Black Studies with little more to show for his CV than English Lit degrees?

(I will concede being unfair and un-PC in the latter case, but these are the times that try men’s souls and I’m a little edgy.)

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:35 am 4. Calvin Ball:

Which has got absolutely nothing to do with Gatesgate.

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:42 am 5. "progressive"watch:

Andrew,you are right and courageous to says so which is what has to be said in order for us to get this mess going in right way for us all in the long run. It is the same thing terrorist can’t be called Muslims terrorists nad now they can’t be called terrorists either; they must be called enemy combantants. It is a type of lying,self-deceit and dishonesty; and every bit of it furthers the goals and world-view of progressives-leftist.

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:45 am 6. Delia:

TROOF! -But…

You’re just BEGGIN’ for trolls today, aren’t you, Andrew? lol

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:55 am 7. Paul from Hamburg:

“He should’ve been arrested long ago on those grounds alone.”

Excellent point. On a related note, I would propose that the Henry Louis Gates Uncertain Identity Law be enacted immediately. Under this law, anyone, and I do mean anyone, who publicly says “Do you know who I am?” will be subject to a punch in the face. If “Do you know who I am?” is uttered as a response to a question, any question, from anyone, the face punch will be preceded by a head slap. Note that the punishment is immediate and the punishment may be inflicted by anyone who happened to hear the utterance.

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:58 am 8. Blarty Blarckleblart:

So conservatives AREN’T in favor of a color-blind society? I could swear I’ve heard them say they are when they’re talking about affirmative action.

Jul 28, 2009 - 11:59 am 9. Gary Ogletree:

Paul, we should made that punch eligible for a $50 reward. John Lennon once asked that question of a California waitress, to his regret, since her verbal punch was better than a bloody nose, “jerk,” was in there somewhere. Imagine.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:05 pm 10. Tertium Quid:

Did Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. say that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty at Harvard?

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm 11. bill:

Blarty,

What we mean is, that race will not trump logic. Get it?

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm 12. prospero:

The obvious point (so obvious that for Leftists it is a sure sign of evil) is that you take into account all of the factors that, according to your experience and established procedures, might be relevant. A white kid in a black neighborhood might be there to buy drugs–you don’t arrest yet, but you keep your eyes open, see if he shows up every week, etc., at some point maybe ask him what he’s doing. Let him know he’s got your attention. The same would be true of blacks in a mostly white neighborhood if there have been, say, a string of burglaries committed by blacks over the past few months. Being in the neighborhood is no crime; neither is a more precisely defined focus on the part of the cops. It’s simply a logical extension of looking for a 6′2″ black male because that’s the description the victim just gave–or is that also a violation of color-blindness?

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:12 pm 13. uburoisc:

Look at almost any city in the country, and I’ve lived in most of the large ones at one time or another, and tell me where the bad neighborhoods are? Now, I will tell you who probably lives there. I’m not right in all cases, but I’m right in most cases, right enough that I could make a comfortable living if I could wager on it. I can look at racial/cultural groups and correlate crime rates without even knowing what city I’m looking at.

And people do this all the time, white, black, and otherwise, when they move into a new city; they may pretend they are not, but, in fact, they do. That’s why real estate in one part of town may be so much higher than in another area only a short distance away, even thought the actual quality and sizes of the property may be the same. People pay a lot of money, perhaps the largest part of their income, to live away from some groups of people. And the next largest part of their income is spent making sure their children don’t go to school with certain groups of people. What do I care what people claim or what they pretend to believe, the economic facts speak for themselves, just like the statistics on crime. But you don’t need to know that a particular place has a crime problem by checking the police dept files, I can tell in two trips of less than 15 minutes, one during the day, one at night, if a place is safe enough to stop in and have a beer.

BTW, Los Angeles is filled to the brim with rich, white-guilt, leftist twits who all pay more than they need to to live away from the groups they claim to care the most about. When Santa Monica/Brentwood/Pasadena/Palisades/Malibu/Manhattan Beach/etc start building large projects for poor blacks and Mexicans to live among them, I’ll start believing their chatter about race.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:12 pm 14. Professor Guvinoff:

Back in the old days most boys were hoping to marry a girl, but at that time nobody had ever heard a peep about profiling. Today it’s acceptable, and soon it will be recommended, for a boy to take another boy for a wife, because otherwise he might have been guilty of some kind of profiling in the selection process.

There is no stopping the progressives!

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:18 pm 15. DavidN:

Blarty makes a superficially interesting, if ultimately stupid (and typical of him) comment. There is, however, a difference between judging someone on their race, and paying attention to what color they are. Most conservatives are opposed to judging people based on the color of their skin (“We’d hire you, except that you’re ____ and we don’t hire people who look like you here”). Paying attention to what color someone is differs from this. A decade and a half ago, a liquor store was robbed up the street from where I lived at the time, and the owner was shot and killed. The local paper reported this, and gave a description of the perpetrators so vague (“two muscular men in a pickup truck”) as to be useless. When the Sheriff put up posters locally, they described the two perpetrators as black, which of course made the description a bit more specific.

Liberals like Blarty, however, wish to impose quotas on hiring practices. They insist that they don’t discriminate against anyone, just in favor of minorities. Of course, when you discriminate in favor of one person, you pretty much have to discriminate against someone else. On the other hand, they’re opposed to the idea of identifying the perpetrators of such crimes as the killing of my neighbor the liquor store owner, because that could lead to random black people being pulled over by the cops, and also is offensive to black people in general.

So in sum, Blarty, there’s a difference between color-blind and stupid. Try choosing the one that isn’t stupid, next time.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:25 pm 16. David:

Unfortunately, Obama has made it more difficult for law enforcement to do its job. Saying it another way, more dangerous. Another way, people may die. We had a national “teaching moment” and. I believe, the wrong lessons were taught.

In his “I have a dream” speech, Martin Luther King, Jr said he looked forward to a time when people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It seems that all we’ve talked about is looking back and seeing color and making judgments based on color. A white officer could not have executed his job correctly when a black man is involved because we all know that white police officers are “out to get” black people. The support of fellow officers is being dismissed because we all know “how they are.” The judgments are flying based on stereotypes and caricatures. Where is the respect for people and respect for authority? I’m afraid that the lesson being taught is to disrespect white people and more specifically, and dangerously, disrespect the police.

A police officer’s job is to enter difficult situations and sort out the “good guys” from the “bad guys.” Cool heads and respect for authority is what makes that process less dangerous for everyone involved. It helps when the “good guys” act like “good guys.” When the “good guys” act like “bad guys”, for whatever reason, it makes the officer’s job more difficult. “Good guys” somewhere at some time have learned to show disrespect to the officer and act like a “bad guy.” This makes the officer’s job more difficult. But, understand that they still have a job to do. They can not walk away. As a citizen in a situation involving an office you have a decision to make; do I help or do I hinder. The officer also has a choice to make; what tools do I use (talking and reason all the way to force and weapons) to get the job done. These officers are usually some of our finest citizens (regardless of color). They deserve our respect and cooperation. They are charged with the responsibility of upholding the law and preserving our well being. They can NOT do their job well without our respect and help.

I believe that the country heard the lesson loud and clear, from the president, from the media and it seems everyone else. The lesson is simple, be disrespectful because the white cop is just out to give you a hard time.

Professor Gates was lucky, he was only embarrassed. At some point someone emulating professor Gates’ behavior is going to escalate a situation beyond control and an innocent person is going to die. The policeman will be blamed. But lack of self control and respect for authority will have made a dangerous situation explode. The honorable professor from Harvard and the president of the United States just taught the American people that getting in the face of a policeman, especially a white policeman, is the “right” thing to do. Someone is going to die.

Where are the Martin Luther King, Jr.s talking about character? I am so tired of the Sharptons and Jacksons and now Gates and Obamas talking about color. They need to listen to King’s speech over and over again and be inspired and maybe just maybe become leaders with character able to teach our children lessons that build up rather than lessons that kill.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:26 pm 17. Calvin Ball:

You’re just BEGGIN’ for trolls today, aren’t you, Andrew? lol

I noticed one got stuck at the referrer page. Trollpaper. What a concept.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:33 pm 18. Blarty Blarckleblart:

15 DavidN

When you’re describing people who have already committed a crime, it isn’t racial profiling.

I may be stupid and all, but I know that.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:40 pm 19. Paul from Hamburg:

#9 Gary: I thought about proposing a $50 reward, but I think that punching a person who so desperately needs it is actually a form of civic duty and therefore should require financial incentive. On the other hand, a would be nice. To fund it, maybe we could add box to the tax returns:”Check here to contribute $10 to the federal “Punch an A**hole Fund”.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:46 pm 20. Paul from Hamburg:

#18 Sorry, I meant to say “should NOT require financial incentive”

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:47 pm 21. Blarty Blarckleblart:

11 bill

What we mean is, that race will not trump logic. Get it?

Perfectly. By your logic, the brown person must be a criminal. Got it.

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:48 pm 22. Frank:

hey #2, Stephen Colbert isn’t a real conservative

Jul 28, 2009 - 12:56 pm 23. elvis:

Isn’t nice how Kelly King understands what you are talking about, and actually gives the ONE a real lesson!

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:01 pm 24. macko:

if that brown person is in a strictly white neighborhood asking him a few questions would be a good idea. Not asking him any questions because he is brown would be stupid.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:02 pm 25. Blarty Blarckleblart:

23 macko

So it is your opinion that a cop is obligated to detain and question any brown person seen in a “strictly white” neighborhood, simply because that person is brown?

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:04 pm 26. Dr. Mark:

The REAL ISSUE here is Obama’s reaction. We are often taught by the learned-left social sciences that in times of stress,intoxication,drug use,etc. or maybe in this case simply having no teleprompter, that an individual’s deepest held attitudes/beliefs slip to the surface (remember Mell Gibson?). Obama was obviously incensed by the incident and his allegiance to both his race and his leftist “in-group” combined in his verbalized utter dislike for the police dept’s actions. His unconscious snapped to action and his ego could not stem his Id in time. This is why it is more relevant that any other “sideshow” issues. This man holds authority, law enforcement, faith and American tradition in utter (though carefully glossed over) disdain. His record of associating in college with only leftists, Black Panthers as well as other malcontents is a clear window into his attitude structure. Obama’s default position will always be to defend blacks, latinos (I am one),the professionally oppressed and any other group that is in not in sync with middle-class white America.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:10 pm 27. Roland:

Political Correctness is the death of freedom.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:19 pm 28. "progressive"watch:

Blarty ,do you have to keep proving your stupidity by sounding stupid. You have already proved it. Do yourself a bigger favor than us,and start thinking instead of spouting off. You might like it if you tried it. I certainly would like to hear have you have to say.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:38 pm 29. uburoisc:

Dr. Mark, yes I think you are spot on. It was only recently that activist/bigmouth/community leader/politician/hustler Obama would make his hay on just these kinds of issues by making a public stink and pointing fingers and playing the race card for a living. Now, he is atop the greasy pole, but the man that climbed up it is still in there, alive and well. Same goes for Gates.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:50 pm 30. wildman:

Whats the issue here? Everyone knows that the planes that took down the towers were flown by Trappist monks. The international drug cartel is controlled by Hindu sahdu’s.

Jul 28, 2009 - 1:58 pm 31. 11B40:

Greetings:

It seems many people are using police “racial profiling” as their obsession of the day/week/year/lifetime. Well, here’s mine:

Several years ago, on one of my internet safaris, I came across the US Department of Justice’s web site. In looking over the murder statistics, I discovered that a white person had a 3-4 times the probability of being murdered by a black person than a black person had of being murdered by a white person. This was a straight murder to murder comparison, unadjusted for the disparity in the size of the groups in the overall population.

Since that time, I have seen this observation mentioned just one time in the mainstream media and that was by Michael Barone in US News & World Report.

“Racial profiling” has been proven by President Obama to be a terrible thing. But, murder, we’ll get to that some other time.

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:04 pm 32. anon:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/i/archive/features/3731248/to-become-an-extremist-hang-around-with-people-you-agree-with.thtml?SelectedIssueDate=4%20July%202009

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:15 pm 33. tommyd:

Let’s continue to show our intelligence and keep searching 75 year old grandmothers getting on airplanes. That’s very productive.
People who are against any profiling in any shape or form haven’t the faintest idea about real investigative police work.

The thing to remember here though is that the current dustup has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with racial profiling on the part of the police.
If anyone could be called on the carpet for “Profiling” anyone it is none other than Obama and Gates.
After all Obama stated plainly he did not have the facts of the event then went on to state a conclusion to the very event he had just said he knew very little about…

So with none to little actual facts of the incident Obama states the police acted stupidly, why is that?

Gates injected racial overtones from the get go. He apparently had in his mind that the white cop was a racist. Why? What was Gates basis for reacting like he did. I guess he was just doing a little “profiling ” of his own there…not unlike what Obama did.

They both made assumptions, however their assumptions were not based on fact, but on their emotional response. They did exactly what they are trying to protest against. They however did it in an emotional state.
And they were both wrong.

When an investigative agency uses profiling in their work it is not an emotional response, it is a thought out process with literally volumes of input and thought process applied to each different situation on an case by case basis.

There is not a police agency in the world that does not use profiling as a tool.
However even the best of tools can cause damage when in the hands of amateurs.

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:20 pm 34. David Thomson:

“Perfectly. By your logic, the brown person must be a criminal. Got it.”

One logically has the right to point out that brown and especially black men have a much higher violent criminal conviction rate than white males. There is literally no comparison. Don’t believe me? Well, how about Jesse Jackson?:

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. — the Reverend Jesse Jackson, as quoted in US News, 3/10/96″

(Thanks to the NewsBusters blog)

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:21 pm 35. LeighB:

Wow, wildman, and I thought everything was Sarah Palin’s fault. Good to know the monks and Hindus are to blame too.

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:23 pm 36. john from cinncinatti:

Gates: do you know who i am?
Crowley: do you know who i am?
yes they pull you over for whatever reason they can think of. yes its a tough job, the excuse for pulling you over is you fit the description of someone who _________ so now who are you? they will pull you over for being black in a white neighborhood. there has been an assualt on the American male for so long now, that even our white guys are feeling it. welcome to the new America fellas.

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:57 pm 37. Calvin Ball:

The Israelis have perfected profiling. They have to. There hasn’t been an El Al airplane hijacked since 1968. They do pay attention to ethnicity as one (minor) factor. But the big factor that they pay attention to is behavior.

Which brings us to Gates. I don’t think he was profiled by race, but he was most certainly profiled. By behavior. Here’s the key question: If Dr. Gates walked on an airplane, would you be concerned? Now, after boarding the airplane, if he threw a big tantrum like that, and started accusing the crew and their mammas of racism, would you still be comfortable on that plane?

Jul 28, 2009 - 2:59 pm 38. Andrew Lale:

Andrew Klavan for President

Jul 28, 2009 - 3:11 pm 39. JackT:

So, whenever there’s a murder we should immediately look for white males between 30 and 45, right. Since that group comprises about 98% of the serial killers in this country.

Jul 28, 2009 - 3:36 pm 40. David Thomson:

“So, whenever there’s a murder we should immediately look for white males between 30 and 45, right. Since that group comprises about 98% of the serial killers in this country.”

You have inadvertently made a valid point. If the police are indeed seeking a serial killer—then focusing on white males might be very sensible. Nothing wrong with that.

Jul 28, 2009 - 3:46 pm 41. Moogie:

The rule of three, which establishes a pattern, is applicable to this discussion:

1. If it walks like a duck…
2. And talks like a duck…
3. And looks like a duck…
Chances are.

Here’s an interesting little something that was taking place while our adorable and ever so compassionate president was slamming Officer Crowley:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/baracks_teachable_moment.html

Oh, and here’s an interesting little tidbit about the less-than-honorable Prof. Gates: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/skip_gates_corrects_his_founda.html

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:03 pm 42. Moogie:

Crap. The friggin’ link didn’t work.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/baracks_teachable_moment.html

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:03 pm 43. dmitry:

“Perfectly. By your logic, the brown person must be a criminal. Got it”

This reminds me of a joke: a blond was asked what are the chances she might see an elephant walking down the street. She said: “Well, it’s 50/50 – either you see it or you don’t.”

If my logic were like this blonde’s, I’d also think that profiling is ineffective and unnecessary.

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:06 pm 44. Blackwater:

I’d rather be stopped by police more than have my neighborhood infested with retarded low lifes but that’s just me. I have nothing to hide. I also wouldn’t get too offended if say when I traveled to Saudi Arabia I was forced to go through extra security checks because a week ago 19 white male Christians from America blew up 3,000+ of their civilians in a terrorist attack and declared a Crusade on their nation as pagans. Common sense died a long time ago.

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:47 pm 45. Peter the Bubblehead:

36. john from cinncinatti wrote:
yes they pull you over for whatever reason they can think of. yes its a tough job, the excuse for pulling you over is you fit the description of someone who _________ so now who are you? they will pull you over for being black in a white neighborhood.

Peter writes: So by your logic, if the police receive a report of a black man driving a red pickup truck being involved in a shooting, and the police see a red pickup truck being driven by a black man, they can’t pull him over to check who he is (and if he may be involved in the crime) simply because he is black and to do such would be racist?

Or if the police receive a report of a black man, 5 foot 11 inches, selling drugs near a school in a (mostly) white neighborhood, and the police see a black man nearly six feet tall in that neighborhood, it would be racist to stop him and question him?

Sure, let’s just pull over the 5 foot 3 inch Asian woman when reports of crimes being committed by 6 foot five inch black men have been reported. By libtard standards, that makes PERFECT sense!

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:48 pm 46. Peter the Bubblehead:

39. JackT wrote:
So, whenever there’s a murder we should immediately look for white males between 30 and 45, right. Since that group comprises about 98% of the serial killers in this country.

Peter writes: If you have a witness or evidence showing the crime in question was committed by a white male between 30 and 45, then yes, all white males between 30 and 45 should be questioned, if for no other reason than to remove them from the list of suspects.

I’ve heard of plenty of crimes where whole communities were asked to donate DNA samples to determine who might be a serial rapist. Something close to 98% of the community volunteered their DNA because they knew they were not guilty, it would remove them as suspects, and it would help increase the possibilty of finding the actual rapist.

Jul 28, 2009 - 4:54 pm 47. uburoisc:

JackT, I have no idea whether serial killers really are disproportionately white, and, I doubt you do either. There are so many utterly BS canards floating around in public discourse that I can’t keep up with them all. But let’s say you are right, then, yes, a good cop would definitely look for white men when building a profile. Now, will you concede the same about black men when a black teenager is dying in the street from gunshot wounds? What about a liquor store robbery? Shots fired at a club? After a Laker game? The crime rate among black men is astronomical; same goes for Latinos. Take away the crime by Black and Latino thugs and you have a very different society overnight.

Jul 28, 2009 - 5:20 pm 48. Moho:

Hmmm. I put a comment here earlier denigrating this idiot’s level of experience in such matters earlier. Look’s like he’s too much of a thin-skinned baby to put it on. In praise of racial profiling! Certainly, as long as its not my race. Bravo!

Jul 28, 2009 - 5:30 pm 49. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Of course, cereal killers are white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffD1RlO87O4

Jul 28, 2009 - 5:32 pm 50. HalifaxCB:

David @16 – thanks for bringing up the quote by MLK; I think he and Crowley would get along fine. If anything Crowley was looking beyond the colour of Gates’ skin, and the position Gates holds at Harvard, and all the powerful friends Gates could call, and judging directly on Gates’ character as observable from his behaviour. So maybe despite Gates and Wright and Holdren and Obama and all the syncophantic rest, MLK’s dream – which really stood out in the interviews with Crowley’s fellow police – is closer to reality than we think….

Jul 28, 2009 - 5:34 pm 51. Delia:

The police usually *do* profile white men when there is a serial killer type of crime. Why do you think the police were so shocked to find out the ‘D.C. SNIPER’ was a black man?

I didn’t see a bunch of angry white men bitchin’ up a storm about being profiled about that particular story though.

Jul 28, 2009 - 5:39 pm 52. ked5:

26. Dr. Mark:

The REAL ISSUE here is Obama’s reaction. We are often taught by the learned-left social sciences that in times of stress,intoxication,drug use,etc. or maybe in this case simply having no teleprompter, that an individual’s deepest held attitudes/beliefs slip to the surface (remember Mell Gibson?). Obama was obviously incensed by the incident and his allegiance to both his race and his leftist “in-group” combined in his verbalized utter dislike for the police dept’s actions. His unconscious snapped to action and his ego could not stem his Id in time. This is why it is more relevant that any other “sideshow” issues. This man holds authority, law enforcement, faith and American tradition in utter (though carefully glossed over) disdain. His record of associating in college with only leftists, Black Panthers as well as other malcontents is a clear window into his attitude structure. Obama’s default position will always be to defend blacks, latinos (I am one),the professionally oppressed and any other group that is in not in sync with middle-class white America.

~~~

Obummer’s contempt for law enforcement was made clearly manifest last summer – before he was even officially nominated – when local police details assigned to work alongside the SS to PROTECT him were to be kept out of his sight at ALL times. It *is* all about him.

Jul 28, 2009 - 6:56 pm 53. Darren:

Delia, I’m glad you brought that case up. Statistically, I thought they would be looking for a white dude with a grudge as well. With the exception of the LIRR shooter and the WVU guy, pretty much all mass public shooters are white males all the way back to Charles Whitman. For that matter, pretty much all Presidential assassins or attempted assassins are white males, with the exception of the two women who tried to hit Gerald Ford and the Puerto Ricans who tried to kill Truman.

Blarty is not arguing for thinking, he’s arguing for NOT thinking, for not taking into account received knowledge in the form of statistics or personal knowledge in terms of what seems out of place. Overreliance on received knowledge can make you blind to situations like missing Adam Gahan and John Walker Lindh, white Muslim extremists getting on a commercial airliner with malice aforethought. But knowing statistics and inferring patterns from them does not and should not wholly replace common sense, no conservative would suggest that it does. Sgt. Crowley responded to a reported break-in not with a drawn firearm but with questions, because he used common sense.

Jul 28, 2009 - 6:58 pm 54. Moogie:

Racial profiling may not be fair, but it’s a necessary evil. Is it fair that I have to remove my shoes and walk on the dirty airport floor? Is it fair when the police department runs a DUI enforcement night and everyone driving through the checkpoint is stopped and questioned?

Anyone who says they don’t profile is a liar. We all profile – based on race, gender, weight, hair color, age. Those who seem to think they are above all of that are fooling themselves with their baloney sanctimonious attitude.

If you don’t like profiling, go find some place to live where everyone is exactly the same: same age, same sex, identical in every way. Until such a place exists, we are stuck with our individual foibles.

Deal with it and stop being cry babies.

Oh, and here’s a huge P.S.: Stop second guessing the work of law enforcement officers. Be glad we have the kind of police departments that we do have. Things could be worse. A lot worse.

Jul 28, 2009 - 7:03 pm 55. david levavi:

Four or five separate posts on the same subject making many of the same points and taking essentially the same position–Gates and Harvard stink and cops are heroes–is piling on a bit. Does Roger Simon have no sense of proportion?

Harvard professors deserve to be jailed? What’s next on PJM? Book burning?

I had a friend years ago, a very bright labor relation lawyer with a searing sense of humor who represented large corporations against unions, whose cynicism used to leave me breathless.

Hitler’s error, my labor-lawyer friend blithely informed me, was selling short by exploiting anti-Semitism to win the hearts of the German masses. Had Hitler instead taken the long view and sought the support of the Jews, we would all be living under Nazism today, my friend asserted.

My wife turned me on to PJM several years ago and I have since posted some half-baked, over-the-top and borderline racist comments on PJM for which I am hardily ashamed. The Gates affair has brought me to my senses and jolted me into recognition of the moral depths to which I have sunk.

I am in the company of Jewish Hollywood hacks belatedly stumbled on conservatism. Their anti-Gates, pro-police posts are merely ignorant and repetitive. Many of the comments they elicit by the hundreds, however, are virulently racist. The inescapable impression left is that Roger Simon and PJM are engaged in deliberate race-baiting.

I have always been opposed to censorship. Hate speech legislation reeks of government intrusion into free speech. Nonetheless, vulgar hacks like Klavan need to be brought up short. Roger Simon needs to reflect on just exactly what he’s about.

Jul 28, 2009 - 7:17 pm 56. Calvin Ball:

Harvard professors deserve to be jailed?

Did I miss the Harvard immunity clause in the constitution? Show me where it says Harvard professors are immune.

Jul 28, 2009 - 7:28 pm 57. Anon:

The Gates situtation nolonger exist as a RACIAL thing. It must had just been a family argument.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8195564&page=1

Jul 28, 2009 - 7:29 pm 58. Calvin Ball:

Many of the comments they elicit by the hundreds, however, are virulently racist. The inescapable impression left is that Roger Simon and PJM are engaged in deliberate race-baiting.

Reverend Roger? Is this your Tawana Brawley moment?

Jul 28, 2009 - 7:56 pm 59. Godwin's lil helper:

Hitler’s error, my labor-lawyer friend blithely informed me, was selling short by exploiting anti-Semitism to win the hearts of the German masses. Had Hitler instead taken the long view and sought the support of the Jews, we would all be living under Nazism today, my friend asserted.

How in the world did you manage to Godwinize without making any kind of relevant point whatsoever? Please, don’t use the name of der Fuhrer in vain.

Jul 28, 2009 - 8:05 pm 60. Marc Malone:

The Gates affair was never about race. Gates and Obama made it about race.

The proper response of Gates should have been concern that there might be someone in the house with him all unknown, or a simple explanation that it was he and his driver who had been seen. Appreciation follows for the officer looking out for his well-being and responding so promptly and courteously (i.e., without gun drawn). Instead, he chose to act like a punk… and so did the President. Shameful.

As for racial profiling, one ignores statistical trends at one’s peril, but at the same time, one must not focus specifically on such stats.

Police, sadly, are trained to be authoritative at all times. If the conversation started out with, “I’m sorry to disturb you, sir…”, things would go so much better. They are supposed to be public servants. They should always keep that in mind.

Jul 28, 2009 - 9:55 pm 61. Peter the Bubblehead:

60. Marc Malone wrote:
Police, sadly, are trained to be authoritative at all times. If the conversation started out with, “I’m sorry to disturb you, sir…”, things would go so much better. They are supposed to be public servants. They should always keep that in mind.

Peter writes: And how do you know Crowley did not start the conversation that way? If he did or didn’t, either way it would not have shown up in the report. Unless you have a dictaphone recording your every word, the reports are never going to be word for word.

Jul 29, 2009 - 3:10 am 62. Tony R:

As an Irishman who was living in London at the height of the IRA bombing campaign on mainland Britain I was stopped every time I went through airport customs due to profiling (i.e. white male – Irish – mid-twenties).

It didn’t bother me one tiny bit because a) I had nothing to hide and b) airport security were just doing their jobs protecting citizens.

If the same security officers had then stopped the little old ladies queueing behind me and posed the same questions (for politically correct purposes) it would not have made me feel better about my being stopped…….in fact I would most likely have thought it a total waste of time and resources not to mention an unnecessary inconvenience to the little old ladies.

Profiling makes sense. Far too much weight is being put into people’s feelings…most of the so-called “hurt” being caused is usually made up for personal gain anyway. Gates, Sharpton, et al being perfect examples of this.

Jul 29, 2009 - 4:32 am 63. firefirefire:

When Skippy Gates asked Sgt.Crowley; “Do you know who I am?”
Sgt. Crowleys response should have been: “No Sir,Who do you THINK you are?”
I’ve found that response brings the windbags of the world down to earth every time.

Jul 29, 2009 - 4:47 am 64. c:

Profiling is all well and good until you are the repeated victim in your own neighborhood. I’m not making a judgement on Gates here because the guy was an idiot who brought his woe on himself. I am speaking to situations like the brown skinned business man who was stopped once a week while driving his Lexus to the home he purchased with his money while wearing a 3 piece suit. Or the brown skinned young man who pulled up to his parents home in a car that was mistaken for a stolen car, who when being questioned, the parents and owners of the home try to clear up the misunderstanding and the police officers still do not back down and cuff the parents as well. These situation are not as common as they used to be, but they happen. Looking for out of the ordinary situations is good police work. When profiling makes you blind, that bad polcie work. Case in point, I used to get followed everytime I went into my wifes neighborhood. I obeyed traffic laws acted like I belonged and was approached once when I wass heading for th house. I was polite, showed my idea, explained my business and that was it. The officers knew I belonged and that was it. I even got waves from said officer the on subsequent visits.

Jul 29, 2009 - 5:48 am 65. Middleman:

I can only imagine what might be said on here if it was a militiaman as oppose to a black Harvard professor.
You guys are still missing the point. Gates was arrested on HIS property.
If you want to go beyond race, then lets talk about whether or not Gates 4th Amendment rights were violated.

Jul 29, 2009 - 5:52 am 66. Blarty Blarckleblart:

This is great stuff. I think PJM should add a link to this post from the “How Can the GOP Attract Minorities” post.

Jul 29, 2009 - 5:57 am 67. urbanleftbehind:

If I am an Far Eastern Asian or East Indian kleptomaniac or hard criminal, these are my salad days. Notice how the Cambridge dispatcher failed to prompt for “Asian” when receiving the call for Gates.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:07 am 68. blotto:

levavi: Oh, please, give it a rest. LOL Your postings are tired and relentlessly boring; and usually not on point but rather reflecting on your past or friends that had trouble here in the US.

Look, your drivel and constant complaining about the US is nauseating. Get over yourself.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:24 am 69. C:

Middleman I see your point, but I would say that Gates should know to treat an officer of the law with respect. I get the impression that he was looking for a confrontation. When he got the Crowley’s Badge number, he should have filed his complaint and let it go. A black man of his age should know better.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:31 am 70. Gerald:

There is no way to get around the fact that a person cannot oppose affirmative action and support racial profiling while claiming to be color blind. As a matter of fact, affirmative action is “profiling” white companies by presuming them to be racist. Conservatives merely oppose profiling and other forms of racism that harms whites. They could care less about forms of racism that harms blacks. That reminds me of the “conservatives” who fought tooth and nail to defend employment discrimination, de jure segregation and other forms of racism (freedom of contract! freedom of association! tradition! culture!), redlining and other things that harmed blacks all of a sudden became principled bold opponents of affirmative action programs.

Funny that you guys mention Martin Luther King. When King ran “Operation Breadbasket” and other movements to force white owned companies to hire blacks, conservatives hated him. They stated that he was trying to infringe upon the freedom of private business to hire whomever they choose (and refuse to hire whomever they choose). Some explicitly stated that economically empowering the black race would ruin the country, which was great because it was founded by and for white people and would only remain so if everyone else knew their place. The very idea that America should be a colorblind meritocracy that gave equal opportunity to all was regarded as a plot by communists to weaken America culturally and economically and make it ripe for Soviet takeover. (To be fair, most black leaders and other integrationists were communists, socialists, and other far leftists, but only because at the time the far left was the only ones who thought it was a good idea. Everyone else was appalled by the very notion of it, which was why Booker T. Washington and the other leading black conservatives of the era never advocated integration or equality of opportunity, but instead blacks bettering their lot as second class citizens. THAT’S why nearly all the prominent civil rights leaders were far leftists … there was no conservative alternative. You can come up with all the talking points about how more Republicans voted for the civil rights act than Democrats – knowing full well that the Republicans who did so would be called RINOs if they were serving today – but that doesn’t change history).

By the way, talking about how Israel does it is irrelevant. Israel does not have the Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment, or the civil rights act. That is why Israel is able to favor its Jewish citizens over non – Jewish ones in many areas of Israeli life, including the government. (I should point out that Israel is in no way unique, many other countries are far more chauvinistic than Israel is. Quite the contrary, America’s body of laws that attempt to achieve equality under the law is what is unique, so judging Israel by America’s standard is unfair to Israel.)

But in America, the same body of laws that makes affirmative action illegal also makes racial profiling illegal. Liberals want to ignore those laws when it comes to affirmative action and assert them when it comes to racial profiling. Conservatives want to assert those laws when it comes to affirmative action but ignore them when it comes to racial profiling. That makes both groups hypocrites. Libertarians, who tend to oppose both affirmative action and racial profiling (on the grounds that both are illegal and both increase the power of the state over individuals and private property) are the most consistent. Which is, of course why no one supports libertarians. It is easier to be a lefist and support anti-white discrimination or a conservative and support discrimination against everybody but white people.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:43 am 71. blotto:

Middleman: This is getting boring. So what is your point?? What are you trying to argue because you are not disposed to debate-wo what are you trying to say?

Come on, come right out and say it. Let us all know where you are coming from.

What does being arrested on his property have to do with anything??? Duh.

What’s this canard about Fourth Amendment? He was not violated by the PO. The PO was acting in his duly assigned job; he was investigating an alleged crime. Now what?

He was arrested for DC. If I came up to you and rattled you cage, I bet you would be screaming for the police to stop me–and as a Marine, I bet I could really get you hopping….

Look it is okay for you and blarty to come here and incite, but it really is getting tedious to always know your take on any topic. And that your attempts at debate are nothing more than twists of what is actually said, written or done.

I know I am breaking my own rule about feeding a troll, but I just couldn’t help myself this time. Hey blarty, feel marginalized???

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:51 am 72. Bob:

Middleman:You guys are still missing the point. Gates was arrested on HIS property.
If you want to go beyond race, then lets talk about whether or not Gates 4th Amendment rights were violated.

Before you go spouting about search and siezure, you must take into account that there was a report of a break in, a warant is not needed if there is the possibility of a crime being committed at that time.
The problem, as I have seen a few times, was the actions of Gates in regard to someone of his ’stature’ as a Prominent Harvard Professor.
I’ve seen this happen before, as the police arrive on the scene after ebing called about a domestic disturbance, when a couple was arguing, the man’s brother started berating the officer because it was the female that threw objects (such as dishes, cd’s and I believe a chair)at the male. Because the police were trying to defuse the situation, instead of just making arrests, the brother was outraged that ’she can get away with this, she should be arrested!’ The second officer tried to calm down the brother and after 15 minutes or so, finally stated that if he continued with these actions, he would be arrested. He conitued on his tirade and summarily was arrested for disorderly conduct. He was arrested at the residence that he, his brother, and his brothers girldfriend occupied. And, more to the point, he was white and the officer involved in the arrest happensned to be black, but there was no mention at any time of the officer being a racist, he was just doing his job trying to maintain order.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:59 am 73. EnemyoftheState:

7. Paul from Hamburg – I nominate you for the next opening on the Supreme Court.

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:05 am 74. Middleman:

#71,
You’re a Marine eh? How cute. Why don’t you go do your job and rattle some Al Qaeda cage instead of mine, if you are really a Marine.

What am I getting at? I’m getting at the idea that it’s not against the law to be mouthy with a police officer, particularly on your own property. Gates was arrested for hurting the cop’s ego, nothing else.

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:07 am 75. Abu Infidel:

It’s profiling, but it’s not racial. How many black woman or elderly black men complain about being excessively stopped?

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:19 am 76. twolaneflash:

Profiling is looking for the presence of a feature among a group of people. SGT Crowley didn’t just drive down the street and “profile” Dr. Gates’ residence because a “black” man lived there. Police responded to a 911 call: 2 suspects, unknown race (one maybe Hispanic), intentions and bona fides unknown. When the elitist Harvard card didn’t work on the police, Dr. Gates went to the tried and true race card. Gates and President Obama both have made their fame and fortunes on promoting racialism, so no surprise that President Obama slandered the Cambridge police and branded SGT Crowley a racist for all time. Obama’s history with the Cambridge Police Dept. includes a bunch of unpaid parking tickets (17?) from his student days that were paid just before the election. There is also the paranoia about the local police we can assume Barack experienced when he was snorting coke and hanging around users and dealers. And then there is the inherent paranoia and hatred of police/authority that permeates the radicals and leftists that Obama sought out while in Cambridge. Obama’s response to the media about GatesGate wasn’t an excited utterance. The question was planted, and the answer was scripted, rehearsed, and delivered to the American public. Obama doubled down on the race card and sent a message to America he won and it’s payback time. This is only the beginning of the racial crisis that Obama and his minions are building in America. Violent crime is increasing across the nation, and you can’t blame it on poverty.

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:29 am 77. Peter the Bubblehead:

64. c wrote:
Or the brown skinned young man who pulled up to his parents home in a car that was mistaken for a stolen car, who when being questioned, the parents and owners of the home try to clear up the misunderstanding and the police officers still do not back down and cuff the parents as well.

Peter writes: Standard police procedure across the entire country. When an officer is trying to ascertain the identity of a potential suspect, anyone else trying to involve themselves in the conversation (which can admittedly get quite heated) are only a distraction and potential other danger to the police. They only want to, and are only required to, speak and listen to the suspect they are trying to ID. If others get in the way, they can and shold be cuffed and removed to eliminate the distraction.

Anyone watching any episode of COPS on TV will see this happen every single day.

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:35 am 78. Peter the Bubblehead:

65. Middleman wrote:
You guys are still missing the point. Gates was arrested on HIS property.

Peter writes: Muddleman, please show me where it is written that it is impossible to commit a crime in your own home!

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:39 am 79. Peter the Bubblehead:

73. Middleman wrote:
What am I getting at? I’m getting at the idea that it’s not against the law to be mouthy with a police officer, particularly on your own property.

Peter writes: WRONG!
The charge is called DISORDERLY CONDUCT. And if anyone’s conduct was disorderly in this incident, it was most certainly Gates’!

Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Please take note of the line “…persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy…” No one is disputing that Gates did most certainly use offensive language and language to accost the police officers. I also note there is NO provision in the law saying “This law is not in effect on private property.” Do you?

Jul 29, 2009 - 7:46 am 80. Middleman:

Peter,
I never said you couldn’t commit a crime on your own property. The thing here is that Gates committed no crime.
If he did, why was the Disorderly Conduct charge immediately dropped? Instead of trying to diffuse the situation once the officer confirmed Gates was the homeowner, he used the vagueness of Disorderly Conduct to enforce his authority on Gates and basically arrested him for being uppity.
You all want to get past race, so lets get past race. You talk a big game about limited government and this and that, but then here you have a case where authorities overstepped the line and you’re giving them the green light. I respect the police, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be put in check from time to time.

Jul 29, 2009 - 8:02 am 81. Blarty Blarckleblart:

Among all his gibberish, twolaneflash at 76 is right about one thing: the Gates affair didn’t involve racial profiling.

Of course, PJM likes to hustle race for blog hits so it uses Gates as an excuse to publish a weak-tea “defense” of racial profiling so the trogs can reassure themselves that yes, black people commit all the crimes.

Nice!

Jul 29, 2009 - 8:58 am 82. Delia:

I wonder what ethnicity the person/persons were who broke into Mr. Gates home in the first place?
-Or did the perps ever get caught?

If Gates hates the Police so much and thinks they are all a bunch of racists then maybe he can sign something to the effect that he wishes to refuse any/all police protection for him and his home and can’t sue if his home is broken into again or he is harmed in any way because the police have his home down as a ‘no go’. Voila! ;p

Jul 29, 2009 - 9:09 am 83. blotto:

Okay, let’s not profile for the sake of our sensitive progressives. Let’s let all the black drug importers, sellers, and producers take over the inner cities. Let’s let the black gangs take over the inner cities. Let’s let all the criminals take over the inner cities. The heck with the innocent blacks in these communities.

Heck, from now on blacks will not be held responsible for committing a crime. They will be allowed a get-out-of-jail free card because they are an aggrieved minority.

The hyper-sensitive guilt ridden self loating white progressives know what is best for their black slaves. Right middleman?? Right Blarty??

Jul 29, 2009 - 10:35 am 84. Blarty Blarckleblart:

83 blotto

Where did I say criminals shouldn’t be arrested, tried, and convicted?

Maybe you need to look up “racial profiling.”

Jul 29, 2009 - 10:41 am 85. Peter the Bubblehead:

80. Middleman wrote:
I never said you couldn’t commit a crime on your own property.

Peter writes: Yes, you did.
“I’m getting at the idea that it’s not against the law to be mouthy with a police officer, particularly on your own property.”

You cause a public disturbance, even on your own property, it is against the law and the police will arrest you. Or have you not watched a single episode of COPS?

Jul 29, 2009 - 10:47 am 86. Darren:

“When he got the Crowley’s Badge number, he should have filed his complaint and let it go. A man of his age should know better.”

FIFY.

Anyone should be smart enough not to verbally explode at police officers. Without raising his voice Dr. Gates could have called a lawyer friend, given the badge number and had a lawsuit filed within the week. Nobody goes to jail, honor is maintained on all sides and the issue goes to the courts, where with some luck Dr. Gates wins a green poultice to place on his wounded pride.

One has to learn, at some point, to use the leverage one has. At a traffic stop, at a reported break-in, you have no leverage with the police officer. When you say, “Do you know who I am?” you’ve already lost.

Jul 29, 2009 - 10:54 am 87. Moho:

Peter the bubblehead. You’re a lying coward. I’ll note that I posted this in another conversation you were privvy too. You already know that there is established precedent on what constitutes disorderly conduct and it is assuredly not just yelling or even flailing one’s arms…

What is “disorderly conduct” anyway?

Here is the Massachusetts statute under which Gates was arrested, Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53:

Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Here is a recent gloss by a Massachusetts court (adopting Model Penal Code s. 250.2(a)):

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior…. ‘Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Massachusetts courts have rejected MPC s. 250.2(b) as a violation of free speech rights. So this provision is not part of Massachusetts law:

(b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.

And here are some squibs:

Arrest under Massachusetts “idle and disorderly person” statute was unlawful under Massachusetts law, where defendant was arrested for yelling, screaming, swearing and generally causing a disturbance but, though the yelling was undoubtedly loud enough to attract the attention of other guests in hotel, it did not rise to level of “riotous commotion” or “public nuisance.” U.S. v. Pasqualino, D.Mass.1991, 768 F.Supp. 13.

And –

Defendant who did not physically resist his arrest arising out of a domestic violence incident could not be convicted of disorderly conduct based solely on his loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant; defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan (2008) 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77, 2008 WL 2404550.

And –

Defendant’s conduct, namely, flailing his arms and shouting at police, victim of recent assault, or both, after being told to leave area by police, did not amount to “violent or tumultuous behavior” within scope of disorderly conduct statute, absent any claim that defendant’s protestations constituted threat of violence, or any evidence that defendant’s flailing arms were anything but physical manifestation of his agitation or that noise and commotion caused by defendant’s behavior was extreme. Com. v. Lopiano (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723.

Here is more from that case:

[Officer] Garrett asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. As the defendant was getting out of the car, he “kept saying no problem here, no problem here, everything is all set, no problem.” The police advised the defendant that he would be summonsed to court for assault and battery, that he was not to be arrested at Carins’s [the alleged victim] request, and that he had to leave the motel parking lot. He began to walk away. [Officer] O’Connor testified: “He took a few steps from me, ten steps, turned around, began flailing his arms, yelling that I was violating his civil rights.” He was advised a second time to leave, and the defendant was “yelling at me, you’re violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you’ll never go through with this.” At that time, he was placed under arrest. It is not disputed that only the defendant’s conduct after he left the car forms the basis of the disorderly conduct charge.

This is all a matter of settled legal interpretation, you idiot.

Jul 29, 2009 - 10:56 am 88. C:

Bubblehead,

So it is okay to cuff a person who leaves his own home to watch for the welfare of his own child. It might be standard police procedure in your view, cuffing and arresting a middle aged middle class couple who have obviously left their own home to calmly speak individuals who are supposed to be their protectors does cross the line. Police work should be about common sense as much as about procedure. I know and respect a number of police officers and the ones who get the most done seem to be the ones with cool heads.

There is a difference between observing suspisious behavior and investigating to be safe and targeting a person for being of color. It is something else entirely to harass a person who is breaking no laws for simply being the wrong color in the wrong place. By all means, if you a black wondering around the cars in my neighborhood in a suspicious way, callthe cops. Also call them if you a suspicious looking white guy doing the same.

Jul 29, 2009 - 11:02 am 89. Peter the Bubblehead:

87. Moho wrote:
Peter the bubblehead. You’re a lying coward.

Peter writes: See? Another PERFECT example of a Libtard unable to refute facts, so he/she/it turns to childish insults.

I’m going to stop feeding the trolls and just ignore mobo from here on.

Jul 29, 2009 - 2:10 pm 90. Peter the Bubblehead:

Another perfect example…

[G]iven black crime rates, proactive urban policing will inevitably produce disparate stop and arrest rates. In New York, for example, blacks commit about 82 percent of all shootings, though they are 24 percent of the population; whites commit less than 1 percent of shootings, though they are 35 percent of the population.

Such disparities — which are typical of violent crime across the country — mean that when the police are searching for a gun suspect, they will almost never be stopping whites based on a victim identification, but will disproportionately be questioning blacks. As long as crime rates remain as unevenly distributed racially as they are, police activity will be as well.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Obamas-ignorant-attack-on-cops-51957457.html

Jul 29, 2009 - 2:22 pm 91. » Daily Links - 07/29/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…:

[...] In Praise of Racial Profiling [...]

Jul 29, 2009 - 2:34 pm 92. Randy:

Gerald 70.
Democrats? Republicans? Libertarians? sounds like you are profiling people into classes by their general voting habits. I’ve seen racist in all walks of life. and vice versa. The way you are grouping people by their political beliefs sounds kinda racist?

Jul 29, 2009 - 3:28 pm 93. Randy:

Middleman
It is aganst the law to disturb the peace.

Jul 29, 2009 - 3:31 pm 94. steveg:

#90 Peter…..Did you check out the video on your url? I wonder what the stats are on raping horses?

Jul 29, 2009 - 3:56 pm 95. c:

Bublehead,

Where do most of those shooting you refer to take place? When law abiding middle class people of color are targeted in their own suburban neighborhoods is unfair.

Jul 29, 2009 - 4:00 pm 96. Moho:

In praise of racial profiling? Yes, what a great idea Kliff Klaven, because it seems that most of the anti-black racism in the police department comes from white cops, its probably a good idea to assume that whenever something like the Gates thing happens, the cop is probably a racist. Just one that hasn’t been caught yet. See the article below. FYI, this was my favorite part:

The mayor told WCVB-TV that Barrett was trained in racial profiling prevention and had shown no signs of racial discrimination in the past.

I wonder if Crowley was the one who trained him.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gp4uPuzLuooqpvDagi4_RloFRs0gD99ODLNG0

Boston cop, NYC aide in trouble over Gates remarks

By JEANNIE NUSS (AP) – 42 minutes ago

BOSTON — A Boston police officer was suspended Wednesday for allegedly using a racial slur to describe black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and a New York City government aide resigned after posting Facebook comments about the scholar’s controversial arrest.

Boston police put two-year officer Justin Barrett on administrative leave pending a termination hearing. Barrett, 36, did not immediately return calls for comment.

Barrett’s union, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, said they condemn and “strongly denounce these statements as being offensive and hurtful.”

But the union added that investigators should consider all the facts and not rush to a conclusion.

Police said Barrett does not have previous violations with the department.

A person with knowledge of the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about it, said Barrett, a member of the National Guard, used the racial slur in messages to guardsmen and to The Boston Globe.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told WCVB-TV the city needs “to rid the department of that cancer.”

Jul 29, 2009 - 4:15 pm 97. deguello:

ISN’T AFFIRMATIVE ACTION(REVERSE RACISM) RACIAL PROFILING DIRECTED AGAINST WHITES AND ASIANS? JUST ASK FRANK RICCI.

Jul 29, 2009 - 4:37 pm 98. Bill Perron:

FACT: There are more black and brown people in prison per capita than white or Asian for one reason, and one reason only; BECAUSE THEY COMMIT MORE CRIMES !!!

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:04 pm 99. Moho:

Bill–there are more white’s disciplined for racism in police departments for one reason and one reason only–THEY ARE MORE RACIST!

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:20 pm 100. Moho:

Justin Barrett, Hero of Pajamas Media:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20219730/detail.html

“Justin Barrett, 36, admitted using the term “jungle monkey” in writing about the arrest of the Harvard professor by a Cambridge police sergeant.

“It was a poor choice of words. I did not mean to offend anyone,” Barrett told NewsCenter 5’s Cheryl Fiandaca.”

I think this dichotomy perfectly reflects the comments I’ve been reading here: why am I being persecuted for making racist statements? I’m not racist!

It goes on:

In the e-mail, Barrett writes, “(Gates’) first priority should be to get off the phone and comply with police, for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a … jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance….”The words were being used to characterize behavior not describe anyone,” said Barrett. “It was a poor choice of words. I didn’t mean it in a racist way. I treat everyone with dignity and respect.”

And this last part should be the headline for whatever story you idiots end up writing about this:

Barrett has been a Boston police officer for two years and received extensive training in racial profiling prevention while in the academy.

“People go through these courses and they pass them and you don’t know what they are going to do in a situation,” said Menino.

Barrett and his attorney said they will fight the charges brought both by the police department and the National Guard.

“People are making it about race. It is not about race,” Barrett claimed.

Of course its not! Because its only about race when white people want it to be. Otherwise, its just letting off a little steam, or just getting your due respect. Again, just because every once in a while situations like this are inevitably made public, it doesn’t indicate in any way that they are occuring with any kind of frequency. Obviously, Barrett’s just a bad apple, and all of the people he sent the email too, probably deleted it and reported it to their supervisors.

Idiots.

Jul 29, 2009 - 6:45 pm 101. College Know-It-All Hippy:

Idiot…wingnut…idiot…wingnut…idiot…wingnut…idiot…wingnut…

Idiot.

Gee, I’m smart.

CKIAH

Jul 29, 2009 - 8:20 pm 102. Bill Perron:

MOHO, so because there are some white racists in the world of law enforcement it is O.K. for blacks and Latinos to commit crimes??? You gotta be a liberal.

Jul 29, 2009 - 9:26 pm 103. Moho:

Hmmm, Bill, you completely misunderstood. I was praising Klaven’s praise of racial profiling. By this same rubric, almost 100% of the police officers who get caught spewing racism are white. Thus, almost any officer–Crowley included–who has an interaction with a black civilian should be suspected of being a racist. Or did I get it wrong? I mean, that’s what Klaven said; if you have a problem with it, take it up with him. He’s probably shaving his head, but he’ll get back to you.

Jul 29, 2009 - 11:30 pm 104. Middleman:

#93,
Randy,
How could he disturb the peace arguing with police inside his own home? Police enforced the disorderly conduct charge on him to basically neutralize a smarta*s instead of having to work a bit harder in diffusing the situation.

Jul 30, 2009 - 6:48 am 105. Middleman:

#85,
Yes, Peter, I’ve watched COPS. It would be one thing if the Professor was on his property hurling insults at passersby. It’s another thing when police are investigating a crime, one they verified the professor did not commit, and they arrest him for being mouthy.

When I was younger, my crew and I would be harassed by the police all the time, and some of my friends would be very mouthy, but the cops wouldn’t even give us a ticket. Maybe it was because most my friends were white.

Jul 30, 2009 - 6:58 am 106. Peter the Bubblehead:

105. Middleman wrote:
Yes, Peter, I’ve watched COPS. It would be one thing if the Professor was on his property hurling insults at passersby. It’s another thing when police are investigating a crime, one they verified the professor did not commit, and they arrest him for being mouthy.

Peter writes: Please, please, please, using your libtard logic, explain how it is any differant for Gates to be arrested for disorderly conduct because he is yelling, screaming, ranting, and insulting the police officers (who were theyre doing their job and trying to protect the so-called professor’s property) and for some nameless non-professor to be arrested on an episode of COPS because they are yelling, screaming, ranting, and insulting the police officers and committing disorderly conduct?

I REALLY want to hear you try and talk your way out of this one!

Jul 30, 2009 - 7:45 am 107. Moho:

I REALLY want to hear you try and talk your way out of this one!

Out of which one? Was there an argument in there somewhere? We know that two civilians have now disputed many parts of Crowley’s police report and that the CPD does not portray the police report as an accurate account of the events, but rather a summary based on god-knows-what. Its clear from the language of the police report that there was more than a little CYA going on, that Crowley seems to have actually looked up the statute afterward and copied parts of it verbatim as a description of Gates’ actions.

What’s not in dispute is the fact that the charges were dropped. There is no official version of what happened that day because the very police department responsible for providing that version won’t stand behind its version in a legal setting. Thus, it really is Gates’ word against that of a police officer. And we do know that this police officer committed an arrest that almost anyone could have told him would never stand up in court. I’d say he’s the suspect on this issue, not a person who is currently not charged with a crime.

Oh and by the way, you’re a little authority worshiping dumb-ass.

Jul 30, 2009 - 7:57 am 108. Federale:

Profiling certainly is the best way to reduce crime.

Jul 30, 2009 - 8:31 am 109. Middleman:

#108,
Well Fascism is the tried and true way to bring about law and order. Why not give it a try, eh? Oh, wait, that’s right, it’s a ‘left-wing’ thing now.

#106
Peter, I stand by my viewpoint. Most of those incidents in Cops involve a loud mouth interrupting an investigation of an incident.90% of the time the officer threatens jail in order to shut them up and does nothing more.
We don’t know what completely happened, but from what is understood Gates complied and confirmed that he was the resident of that house. After that, anything else he said, the officer should have let roll off his back. If you listen to any veteran police officer, not tied into Cambridge’s thin blue line, basically states the same thing

Jul 30, 2009 - 10:59 am 110. JMH:

Someone pointed out Gates was looking to provoke a confrontation. Yep, and one of the sad things about the current state of race relations is that bogus charges of racism allows clowns like Gates to engage in this sort of obnoxious behavior with limited consequences. We do desperately need to get over our current guilt-ridden acceptence of race hustlers like Gates.

Let’s turn our attention to Sgt. Crowley for a moment. Gates was looking for a confrontation and Crowley, one way or another, gave it to him. Was Crowley at fault? It sure seems like he behaved reasonably, but survey says:

A majority of Americans on first hearing the story either agreed that Crowley was wrong for arresting Gates or said that they didn’t know enough about the case to make a decision about the officer’s conduct.

Now, the interesting thing to me was the “don’t know enough” seqment. It was the largest group in the poll (which I wish I could find again, so apologies in advance to those wanting a link). And I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the “cops are racist pigs” grievance segment, since they surely voted the “Crowly was definitely wrong” answer. The biggest segment of the poll were people who weren’t going to condem the cop out of hand, but weren’t going to give him the benefit of the doubt either.

Isn’t that last part a bit worrying? Doesn’t it make you wonder why?

60. Marc Malone wrote:
Police, sadly, are trained to be authoritative at all times. If the conversation started out with, “I’m sorry to disturb you, sir…”, things would go so much better. They are supposed to be public servants. They should always keep that in mind.

Peter writes: And how do you know Crowley did not start the conversation that way?

Obviously Marc Malone is doing a little profiling of his own here and assuming that a Law Enforcement Officer began his interaction with a citizen in an overly officious, condescending, imperious tone, which exacerbated the situation and contributed to things spiriling out of control.

Like the profiling Klavan supports, it’s not a bad assumption. Even if Sgt. Crowley didn’t have a chip on his shoulder, enough of his fellow officers do to make a sizable percentage of the population suspicious.

The reality is that Law Enforcement has been eroding it’s support among the general populace for quite a few years now, making it that much easier for idiots like Gates to get away with his schtick. The trained-arrogance that Marc wrote about is real. I’ve been on the receiving end of it when reporting a crime, where the officer treated me like an annoyance for bothering him with the burglary. I’ve witnessed it when a friend was ticketed for Jaywalking. I saw it as a member of a jury when an officer was testifying. I’m not some anti-fuzz whackjob. I’m a law-and-order middle-class, nearly middle-aged white guy. I want a strong, reliable police force that serves and protects.

We used to have that, but we’re losing it to no-knock raids, an explosion of SWAT team mania, click-it-or-ticket nannystatism, revenue enhancement operations, and training that emphasizes an imperious “in-command” attitude that is infuriating to law-abiding tax payers.

Gates is a clown with an act that needs to be canned. Crowely seems like a good man with a hard job made harder by his fellow officers who are slowly but surely adopting the Blade Runner attitude of “cops and little people”. The Little People are getting fed up with the Cops. The tired old story in this indicent is the race angle, which will be beaten to death and means nothing. The new story, the relevant story, the story that could mean something and could move us towards fixing problems but is getting ignored, is the erosion of public support for law enforcement.

Jul 30, 2009 - 11:30 am 111. Scott:

39. JackT:

“So, whenever there’s a murder we should immediately look for white males between 30 and 45, right. Since that group comprises about 98% of the serial killers in this country.”

You see that is quite interesting…

Legal definition of Serial Killer – Serial killer is a term describing a type of killer who kills a number of people over a long period of time.

Now when we think of “Serial Killer” we think Jeffry Dahmer, Hannibal Lecter, etc. However many Black, Hispanic, and Asian gang members murder “a number of people over a period of time” yet we don’t call them “Serial Killers”. They may torture their victims as well, just do a search for kidnap, murder, rape and you’ll see what I mean. However these aren’t “Serial Killers” as portrayed by Hollywood even though they do pretty much same thing. White guy does it he’s a serial killer, if it isn’t a white guy its chalked up to “normal crime”. Why do you think that is?

Jul 30, 2009 - 11:54 am 112. Middleman:

A serial killer is methodical in the type of person they kill (race, profession, age, gender) and they also keep a personal item of the victim.

Your other type of murderer is just a run-of-the-mill sociopath.

Jul 30, 2009 - 12:09 pm 113. Blarty Blarckleblart:

111. Scott:

White guy does it he’s a serial killer, if it isn’t a white guy its chalked up to “normal crime”.

Mafia hitmen: black, Hispanic, or Asian?

Jul 30, 2009 - 12:14 pm 114. Peter the Bubblehead:

109. Middleman wrote:
Most of those incidents in Cops involve a loud mouth interrupting an investigation of an incident.

Peter writes: See, Muddleman can be agreeable, and finally agrees with what I have been saying all along.

Gates, by yelling and screaming his racist fool head off, was disrupting a legitimate police investigation. He was warned three… count ‘em, THREE! times to quiet down, the third time with a pair of cuffs being shown to him and he CONTINUED to be disruptibe and therefore, like all the loudmouthed idiots you see every night on COPS, was legally arrested for Disorderly Conduct.

Glad to see you’re finally growing a real brain and starting to agree, Muddleman.

Jul 30, 2009 - 12:20 pm 115. Peter the Bubblehead:

Personally, what I hope happens tonight is something like the following;

BHO: Welcome to the White House, Sgt Crowley, Skippy. Here, have a beer.

(The Won hands out a few bottles)

BHO: Now that we’re all here together, let’s discuss how this can be a ‘teaching moment.’

Crowley: You mean like, teaching loudmouthed idiots that they should respect police officers, especially when the officer is trying to help them?

BHO: Uh… um… uh… No, I mean a teachable moment on race relations.

Crowley: With all due respect, this incident had nothing to do with race. The only thing this can teach is that the public needs to be more resectful of police officers and the job they perform.

BHO: Uh… um… uh… (Where’s my teleprompter?) Um… But this meeting was supposed to be so you could finally apologize to Professor Gates for being a racist rogue cop!

Crowley: No, this was supposed to be a teaching moment so the public would learn how they should properly act around police officers so they don’t get themselves arrested like idiots. (Looks at the beer The Won handed him.) Bud Light? (Turns to closest Secret Service agent.) Know any good bars nearby where I can get a real beer?

SSA: Sure, Sgt Crowley. Please follow me.

BHO: Uh… um… uh…

Gates: Where’s that racist a$$ rogue honkey cop going? I didn’t hear my apology!

Jul 30, 2009 - 12:28 pm 116. Paul Gross:

What nobody ever seems to want to talk about (except Bill Cosby) is that the crime rate for blacks is considerably higher than for whites. Blacks account for nearly the murders in this country while only comprising about 15% of the population. So why are more blacks arrested than whites? quite simply they commit more crimes. One the things that Obama and sycophant Holder wanted to have is a open conversation about race. They could start by telling real racists like Gates to shut the hell up and listen to those who want to solve the problem and not shoot the messenger like Cosby.

Jul 30, 2009 - 12:45 pm 117. david levavi:

“…It’s dangerous and it doesn’t pay all that well and it keeps the rest of us safe…”

Most police work is not dangerous at all. Here in New York, at least fifty percent of a policeman’s job is revenue collection through summonses for overwhelmingly minor vehicular infractions by ordinary taxpayers.

I don’t believe a single NYC police officer was killed in the line of duty in 2008. Nor has one been killed in 2009.

Policemen are unskilled labor who would be loading trucks or doing construction work if they weren’t on the force. I don’t know what a cop earns in Cambridge, but here in NYC he earns more than he could at any other employment for which his education and skills might suit him. His benefits far exceed the benefits that would be available to him in the private sector.

A NYC police officer retires after twenty years on half the pay he earns in his last year. The standard practice is for his superiors to ensure enough overtime in his last year so that he retires in his early forties on full pay for the rest of his life. The NYPD is a hog-wallow for uneducated, unskilled labor.

The notion that policemen keep the citizenry safe is wildly overstated. I have been the victim of crimes including violent crimes at gun and knifepoint more than a dozen times. At none of those times were cops helpful or even useful before during or after the event. The main impact on crime of the NYPD is the deterrent effect of high visibility. The NYPD is essentially a very expensive scarecrow.

All things considered, anyone who, like Klavan, conflates police-work with military service grossly insults the brave men an women in our armed forces who defend the nation against heavily armed and dangerous foes in miserable places far from home for a pittance of what cops earn.

Racial profiling would not be an issue if policemen were not of so low an order of intelligence, common sense and discernment that they rely on skin color to differentiate between probable criminals and probable law abiders. Racial profiling exists because the cops our politicians hire aren’t worth a fraction of the money we pay them.

On the issue of the Gates arrest, PJM has descended to fascistic race-baiting and anti-intellectualism. What educated, well-paid Hollywood writers like Klavan and Simon gain from throwing out red meat to the mob is difficult to comprehend. Do they get a thrill out of watching the cockroaches crawl out of the woodwork with their antennae quivering?

Disclaimer: I have a daughter and a son-in-law studying and teaching at Harvard. One is a Bible scholar the other is a biophysicist. I don’t believe either deserves arrest.

Blotto: Stop drinking and take your meds.

Jul 30, 2009 - 2:07 pm 118. C:

david,

While I do not agree with every thing you have to say, you make a good point about common sense police work and idiot race baiting of people like Gates. It make it more difficult when legitimate cases of improper police conduct occur because too many people have cried wolf in the past.

Jul 30, 2009 - 2:46 pm 119. James:

Blackwater@44- You are a liberal.

Who do you think you are volunteering for “extra security checks”, especially when the same BS would be foisted upon the rest of us. The government is intrusive enough.

Jul 30, 2009 - 3:55 pm 120. Marc Malone:

#110 JMH – I was speaking in a general policy way. (If in general), the conversation…. I was not speaking of this particular incident, since they have not yet released the tapes. But thank you for recognizing my point as valid. Police ARE trained to be imperious.

Jul 31, 2009 - 3:15 am 121. WhyamInotsurprised?:

#100 Moco – I think Justin Barrett should have, to use Barry’s word, calibrated his speech a little more carefully.

A Question: When do the police determine that they have a serial killer on their hands? How many bodies?

A few years ago, GQ had an article about faces you would just love to punch. The example given was Bobby Valentine, then manager of the NY Yankees. I wholeheartedly agreed. Gates has that kind of face. Seeing his mug makes me feel like just smacking him a good one right in the nose! What a twerp.

Jul 31, 2009 - 4:11 am 122. blotto:

levavi: Okay, so we should dispense of our police force. Is that your solution?

If racial profiling is not needed,then how would we stop drug trafficing in inner cities? Stop gang violence in inner cities?

Your disclaimer is especially humorous. Man you have got a problem with being an American? And of authority? Do they not deserve arrest ever-even if they commit a crime? That is how loony your posting is becoming.

But you are fun for me! I get a kick out of watching you squirm to make sense out of senseless and defend the indefensible. Later.

Jul 31, 2009 - 7:22 am 123. Scott:

117. david levavi:
“The notion that policemen keep the citizenry safe is wildly overstated. I have been the victim of crimes including violent crimes at gun and knifepoint more than a dozen times. At none of those times were cops helpful or even useful before during or after the event. The main impact on crime of the NYPD is the deterrent effect of high visibility. The NYPD is essentially a very expensive scarecrow.”

Get rid of them and see how safe your neighborhood is.

You live in a city of about 8.3 million people all crammed into an area of 305 sq. miles. That is 3 million more than my entire state population with a area of 12,407 sq. miles. The fact is that the likelihood of you being a victim of a crime is significantly greater due to those statistics. How close is the nearest neighborhood where you’d be afraid to walk through in the day time? Probably not more than a mile or two, easy walking distance.

It is this way in any urban center, the “haves” live in close proximity to the “have nots” and thus are prey (especially the effete liberals who would never own a gun) for those who want what they have. The police cannot be everywhere all the time. It would be a terribly stupid criminal to rob you when the police are right there to stop them. Also are you taking proper measures to protect yourself, be alert, conscious of your surroundings, the people around you, and avoiding poorly lit and secluded areas?

If you don’t want to get robbed so frequently do like many people have done and move out of the city.

Jul 31, 2009 - 8:51 am 124. Meryl:

I’m totally in favor of racial profiling.

Why? Because I really hate it when the cops are wasting time chasing the black dude down the street because somebody forgot to tell them it was a white guy who killed the baby.

I think if the black gangs are the ones doing 90% of the drug sales, then the black gangs should be focused on. The only reason that gets complicated is because stupid people with liberal arts degrees want to equalize the punishment over all races even when all races are not equally represented in committing the crimes.

In another community, it might 75% Russian gangs providing drugs….so shift the focus.

Isn’t it interesting there’s no problem in understanding the math until a black neighborhood is involved?

Jul 31, 2009 - 4:38 pm 125. The President is starting to drive people crazy « Jim Blazsik:

[...] In Praise of Racial Profiling – Andrew Klavin [...]

Jul 31, 2009 - 6:59 pm 126. Sharpshiny:

“He should’ve been arrested long ago on those grounds alone.”

I laughed for like a solid minute after reading this.

You know, what strikes me is the irony. Crying racism is precisely what has made Gates rich and famous. The very house at the center of this “controversy” was built on crying racism. Yet there he goes, posing as a victim again.

I’ll bet that even as we white male heterosexuals are being herded off to the death camps, they’ll still be calling us evil oppressors…

Jul 31, 2009 - 7:02 pm 127. Terrorism? What Terrorism? – How academic elites downplay the threat of jihadist terror. | eChurchWebsites Christian Blog covering the news, politics, media, law, religion, science, medical, education, internet, technology, Israel and more for the C:

[...] organization and supported terrorist operations, he had not yet committed an act of terrorism. Andrew Klavan wisely reminds us that “police work — like soldier work — doesn’t take place in the mind of [...]

Oct 21, 2009 - 1:34 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: