Maybe it is not about being Black but because you talk back

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christopher on July 26, 2009 at 6:59am

It does not matter who is talking to /reprimanding/admonishing you; you should always treat and talk to that person calmly. Yelling at them or talking back in a brash manner will get you no where. Granted I do not know the whole story nor was I there, BUT if Prof. Gates did yell at the officer as is reported by some, the officer reacted naturally. I bet that if Prof. Gates talked in a calm respectful voice, explaining the situation in a mild manner, the police officer would have reacted differently and the situation might have been resolved without all this publicity. However, if Prof. Gates did act calmly and respectfully, the police officer acted out of control.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jacqueline English on July 26, 2009 at 9:38am

I am not saying that the police officer wasn't acting unnaturally but the point is he is the one who we have vested all the power and disgression to handle siituations that are potentially volatile. We all should be civil to one another but a lot of times people involved are under stress. At no time was professor Gates a physical threat to anyone. He was in his own home and had supplied proof to that effect. Regardless of his (justifiable?) angry and uncivil behavior it seems to me the best course of action at that point was to leave the scene, but no the sargent reacted by arresting Mr Gates for shooting off his mouth. Someone here has to keep their cool. We use to call them "peace officers". Many peace officers withstand fits of temper from the public just fine and do an outstanding job but there are many others who could use some training to learn to govern their temper.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on July 26, 2009 at 10:59am

Police deserve our respect and they do a very difficult job and they take aload of crap for it and most of it rolls off their back. At some point it gets to a point where an arrest has to be made and it is apparent to me by pictures and witness accounts that time had come for Mr. Gates. Also not that his statements are inconsistent as in I wasn't yelling and yet we have pictures of him yelling. No I know it is not fun being stopped by the police, but a calm nonthreatening demeanor will go a long way than being an ass. Plus its the decent thing to do.
Jacqueline English said:

I am not saying that the police officer wasn't acting unnaturally but the point is he is the one who we have vested all the power and disgression to handle siituations that are potentially volatile. We all should be civil to one another but a lot of times people involved are under stress. At no time was professor Gates a physical threat to anyone. He was in his own home and had supplied proof to that effect. Regardless of his (justifiable?) angry and uncivil behavior it seems to me the best course of action at that point was to leave the scene, but no the sargent reacted by arresting Mr Gates for shooting off his mouth. Someone here has to keep their cool. We use to call them "peace officers". Many peace officers withstand fits of temper from the public just fine and do an outstanding job but there are many others who could use some training to learn to govern their temper.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christopher on July 26, 2009 at 11:57am

Well put John! The police are here to protect us and therefore deserve our respect.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jacqueline English on July 26, 2009 at 3:01pm

What we can't respect police and call them on their mistakes in judgement at the same time?
No one is saying we shouldn't try to be civil or to respect the police but they are not perfect in every way and when they overreact they need to be called on it boys

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on July 26, 2009 at 5:44pm

Time and place Jacqueline and that time is after the incident is over and you go to the police station to file a complaint.

Jacqueline English said:

What we can't respect police and call them on their mistakes in judgement at the same time?
No one is saying we shouldn't try to be civil or to respect the police but they are not perfect in every way and when they overreact they need to be called on it boys

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on July 27, 2009 at 12:06pm

The big problem is that many police in the US have a "military" attitude, rather than a public safety attitude. These leads to violent confrontation more often than is necessary. In England, you have most foot-patrol officers who are unarmed, and are trained to focus on the psychological aspects of policing. "Tactical" units are segregated, and aren't the first line of policing.

I'll reprint a comment from another forum here, as it sums up the dynamic quite well:

"Police work is not that dangerous compared to, say, driving a cab. Firefighters have a far more physically dangerous job. However, cops have a heroic job: much harder in so many ways than firefighting. Firefighters are almost never in a morally ambiguous zone and almost always are in the business of making people feel good. Cops handle humans at their worst.

This distinction matters. When cops stress the (low) physical danger of their job, they're setting themselves up to be military. That's no good for the country. Large cities probably need a SWAT team, but that is not the model for most police work. Collateral damage is simply not acceptable for police. It also leads to police cowardice. A lot of civilian damage is justified by the military concept: "force protection." Highly-armed and highly-trained cops use a lot more violence against citizens than a court would deem acceptable if one citizen used it against another.

Cops do not stress the (high) psychological danger of their job, because that makes them social workers with guns, able to handle difficult people with aplomb and an absolute minimum of violence, either threatened or applied. And that's what they should be.

Police work is hard, dirty, and noble. But it is not particularly dangerous. And it shouldn't be viewed that way."

Breaking down the numbers here.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on July 27, 2009 at 12:25pm

I think there is a wall in DC that would refute that and I visit it every May 15th in honor of my friend Hugh Thomas Jr.

Unarmed police would not work in the U.S.

Finally, no one disagrees that being stopped by the police is not fun, its not supposed to be, it is designed to get the truth as to what is going on so the officer can make a decision as to whether a crime as been committed and whether an arrest is warranted with all going home uninjured. If you are stopped, go along with the program, be polite and cooperate, or at least use your right to remain silent.

ibc said:

The big problem is that many police in the US have a "military" attitude, rather than a public safety attitude. These leads to violent confrontation more often than is necessary. In England, you have most foot-patrol officers who are unarmed, and are trained to focus on the psychological aspects of policing. "Tactical" units are segregated, and aren't the first line of policing.

I'll reprint a comment from another forum here, as it sums up the dynamic quite well:

"Police work is not that dangerous compared to, say, driving a cab. Firefighters have a far more physically dangerous job. However, cops have a heroic job: much harder in so many ways than firefighting. Firefighters are almost never in a morally ambiguous zone and almost always are in the business of making people feel good. Cops handle humans at their worst.

This distinction matters. When cops stress the (low) physical danger of their job, they're setting themselves up to be military. That's no good for the country. Large cities probably need a SWAT team, but that is not the model for most police work. Collateral damage is simply not acceptable for police. It also leads to police cowardice. A lot of civilian damage is justified by the military concept: "force protection." Highly-armed and highly-trained cops use a lot more violence against citizens than a court would deem acceptable if one citizen used it against another.

Cops do not stress the (high) psychological danger of their job, because that makes them social workers with guns, able to handle difficult people with aplomb and an absolute minimum of violence, either threatened or applied. And that's what they should be.

Police work is hard, dirty, and noble. But it is not particularly dangerous. And it shouldn't be viewed that way."

Breaking down the numbers here.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on July 27, 2009 at 2:14pm

John Antonelli said:

I think there is a wall in DC that would refute that and I visit it every May 15th in honor of my friend Hugh Thomas Jr.

Sorry for the loss of your friend, anytime someone falls in the line of duty, it's a tragedy, regardless of how rare.

But the numbers are quite clear. Again, from the study:

Generally, police are about three times as likely to be killed on the job as the average American. It isn’t among the top ten most dangerous professions, falling well behind logging, fishing, driving a cab, trash collecting, farming, and truck driving. Moreover, about half of police killed on the job are killed in traffic accidents, and most of those are not while in pursuit of a criminal or rushing to the scene of a crime. I don’t point this out to diminish the tragedy of those cops killed in routine traffic accidents. My point is that the number of annual on-the-job police fatalities doesn’t justify giving cops bigger guns, military equipment, and allowing them to use more aggressive and increasingly militaristic tactics. A military-issue weapon isn’t going to prevent traffic accidents. In this context, then, it makes sense to remove from consideration deaths not directly attributable to the bad guys. So take out traffic accidents and other non-violent deaths, and you’re left with 69 officers killed on the job by criminals last year. That’s out of about 850,000 officers nationwide. That breaks down to about 8 deaths per 100,000 officers, or less than twice the national average of on-the-job fatalities. shows.

We've been brought up on a few too many violent cop shows; and the siege mentality is making things more dangerous for police *and* for citizens.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on July 27, 2009 at 2:41pm

Well thank you but this is a red herring the fact is that people do kill police and in fact also try and hurt them. Crab fisherman getting injured is sad but they are not getting killed trying to keep us safe. Bottom line is they want to go home at the end of a shift and we have some very violent places in the US.

ibc said:

John Antonelli said:

I think there is a wall in DC that would refute that and I visit it every May 15th in honor of my friend Hugh Thomas Jr.

Sorry for the loss of your friend, anytime someone falls in the line of duty, it's a tragedy, regardless of how rare.

But the numbers are quite clear. Again, from the study:

Generally, police are about three times as likely to be killed on the job as the average American. It isn’t among the top ten most dangerous professions, falling well behind logging, fishing, driving a cab, trash collecting, farming, and truck driving. Moreover, about half of police killed on the job are killed in traffic accidents, and most of those are not while in pursuit of a criminal or rushing to the scene of a crime. I don’t point this out to diminish the tragedy of those cops killed in routine traffic accidents. My point is that the number of annual on-the-job police fatalities doesn’t justify giving cops bigger guns, military equipment, and allowing them to use more aggressive and increasingly militaristic tactics. A military-issue weapon isn’t going to prevent traffic accidents. In this context, then, it makes sense to remove from consideration deaths not directly attributable to the bad guys. So take out traffic accidents and other non-violent deaths, and you’re left with 69 officers killed on the job by criminals last year. That’s out of about 850,000 officers nationwide. That breaks down to about 8 deaths per 100,000 officers, or less than twice the national average of on-the-job fatalities. shows.

We've been brought up on a few too many violent cop shows; and the siege mentality is making things more dangerous for police *and* for citizens.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on July 28, 2009 at 10:56am

Bottom line is they want to go home at the end of a shift and we have some very violent places in the US.

Bottom line is that police work is *not* that dangerous. We could do more to save policemen's lives by making them wear helmets in their squad cars, or putting them on bicycles, than we do giving them guns.

I understand your emotional reaction--I have similar "gut feelings"--but the facts are facts. Exaggerating the dangers of policework does a disservice to everyone.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on July 28, 2009 at 11:00am

It is stil dangerous work and they deserve all the protection they can get. But if you want to advocate unarmed poolice in your neighborhood you are more than welcome to that but in my neighborhood, if some dude is breaking into my crib, I want a cop with a gun. to the good I live in Va andf can do the deed myself once the first foot hits the ground.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page