Friday, July 24, 2009

A Different, but Wrong, Perspective

I posted my thoughts on the situation about Gates being arrested for "breaking into his own house". I find it outrageous that the police can respond to a 911 call and end up arresting the homeowner. Other people think it okey-dokey for police to arrest you in your own home for "break-and-entry". Bizarre.

Let's explore this idea. Here is a posting by a Czech physicist, Luboš Motl. Motl takes the opposite side of the debate, so I've inserted brackets with my comments in bold directly into Motl's original post to show where and how we disagree:
I am pleased that at least the Massachusetts Police are not cowards scared by the reverse racism that has overrun much of contemporary America [absurd, there is no "rampant" reverse racism in America, there is long abiding racism that is slowly ebbing but not yet gone].

Let me recall the storyline.

Prof Skip Gates returned from a shooting session in China. He was tired and stupid enough to lock himself out [my understanding is the front door tended to be sticky and had jammed before, he didn't "lock himself out", but this fact is immaterial but it bothers me that Motl is loose with facts] of his house at 17 Ware St, Cambridge. He decided to solve the situation in a way that arguably no white professor at the same university would choose [this statement is ridiculous, Motl has no way of knowing "what no white professor would do", he hasn't polled the faculty, this is pure speculation, and it is meant to frame Gates as an oddball or nut, in short Motl is smearing Gates to help make a case against him]. He simply asked the black yellow cab driver and they instantly shoved the door, while paying no attention whatsoever whether people on the street see this exercise [again, Motl is using charged words to frame Gates, in my experience when I fiddle around my house banging on stuff or pushing doors open I don't first look around to make sure no neighbor is "watching"].

A young woman called police. It was a very sensible thing to do - and the woman should be thanked for her active help [according to this report she, Lucia Walen, lived near Gates, so it isn't "normal" to report your neighbor breaking into his own home, at a minimum it shows that this "neighbor" didn't know her neighbor which is a bit strange]. After all, she was seeing two gangsters [how do you see "a gangster", do they wear signs saying "I am a gangster, please call the police!"... no! Motl is again framing the situation to prejudice people against Gates] breaking into a house. Police arrived. Sgt Jim Crowley had to protect the law [what? "protect the law"? what does that mean? again it seems to me that Motl is framing the situation to prejudice us to see things as unlawful and the poor policeman was obliged to uphold the law, that is false, the job of the police on a call of "suspected burglary is to arrive at the scene and ascertain facts, you don't go in guns blazing, you announce yourself as the police and you have people "freeze" until you can ascertain whether they are in fact "burglers"]. Mr Gates got into a very peculiar situation [again Motl uses charged language to prejudice Gates] and every sane person would realize that and acted accordingly [what does this mean? I know I would be pissed off if cops showed up at my house wanting to arrest me, I have a right to be pissed off if it is my house and they are barging in on me trying to arrest me, I have no obligation to be polite, now most people would hold their anger and try to satisfy the police to make the go away, I don't know and Motl doesn't know whether Gates did this, the only "facts" from reports is that Gates was vocal and pestered the cop by asking for "name and ID" but that is a right and no cop should get mad -- or refuse to give it like Crowley -- because the police are obliged to identify themselves! At best we have two people who are a bit out of control, but one is within his rights to be a little crazy -- that's Gates -- and the other is obliged by professionalism to not let himself go crazy -- that's Crowley -- but it is obvious that Crowley did go a little crazy].

Instead, Mr Gates acted aggressively [Motl has no basis for that claim, what Gates did was to insist on name and ID which is a citizen's right, if a cop refused to give me his name and ID then I too would get "aggressive" because you have a right to this information and the cop has no right to withhold it]. It took some time for Sgt Crowley to find out that Mr Gates was the owner of the house [what does "some time" mean? the implication is that Gates was refusing to give the information or hide it, but that is a colouring by Motl to prejudice us against Gates, there is nothing in the reports about the incident that permits Motl to make this claim]. But even with this information, he had to investigate possible criminals inside the house because there existed a lot of evidence that criminals broke into the house [I'm not sure about this "had to investigate". If I'm the property owner, the police show up saying the suspect a burglary, under the 4th amendment I have no obligation to open my house up to them, I have an obligation to prove that I'm the owner, but I don't have to let them inside my house without a search warrant. Motl doesn't understand American law]. At the end, Sgt Crowley knew everything about the situation he needed. But Mr Gates had already screamed so many bad things [what "bad things"? and even so, if the cop can ascertain that no crime has occurred, you can't arrest somebody for a "bad attitude"!!! Motl is just plain nuts. He may want to live in a police state where the police can arrest you under trumped up charges, but in a free state, the police are not allowed to decide they don't like your attitude, your appearance, your smell, your race, your hairstyle, or anything else and then arrest you for that!] - including blackmailing [what? "blackmailing"? yet again Motl shows himself to be prejudiced against Gates, there was no "blackmail"] and comments about Crowley's mother [Motl has this bungled. What Gates said was "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside." I'm not a slang expert, but I would interpret this as saying "I'm not going to do it". Motl doesn't get it, this is slang and has nothing to do with anybody's "mother".] - that he had to be arrested for disorderly conduct. The charge was later dropped for reasons that look murky to me [yeah, because Motl is not an American and doesn't understand the culture, doesn't understand the Constitution, and doesn't understand the long history of racism].

Now, as far as I can say, there doesn't exist a single piece of evidence of any imperfection in Sgt Crowley's behavior [this claim on "no imperfection in Crowley's behaviour" simply shows that the "physicst" Motl is out of his area of expertise when he offers his opinions on American culture]. The only person whose behavior was demonstrably both stupid and obnoxious was Mr Gates' [wrong]. But such a conclusion is not sufficiently politically correct, is it? [wrong again, this has nothing to do with PC, it has to do with deep-seated racism as well as arrogance on the part of cops who feel "privileged" and can't be bothered by citizens who insist on their rights]

So many dishonest people [where did "dishonest" come from, again Motl prejudices the situation with his own bizarre interpretation!] start to parrot the line that both sides had to err, and so on. Surely [again, an emotive word meant to bludgeon others into accepting Motl's viewpoint. Bottom line: Motl does not understand debate, argument, or seeking to understand, he simply wants to dictate, I guess that is why he likes cops so much, if only he too could carry a gun and a billy club to enforce his opinions!], any witness of any event that is inconvenient to any black professor must have erred [whoa!, is this how Motl does physics? he makes one observation and then generalizes and generalizes? ridiculous!], mustn't he? But what the objective people [again Motl tries to intimidate others into accepting his viewpoint, why is it not "objective" to offer up another interpretation? how can Motl be a scientists if he is not open to looking at alternative interpretations of data? Oh wait a second, Motl is not an experimental physicst, he is a theorist! He doesn't bother with facts or interpretations, he simply gets to come down from the theoretical mountaintop and tell everybody else they are stupid for not seeing what he has seen!] see is something entirely different: a nervous, stupid black guy [Motl now insults Harvard by telling them they hire "stupid" people as professors at this institute, what a lot of idiocy! how can Motl think anybody would take anything he says seriously if he is this fast-and-loose with facts?] breaking into his house on one side and a perfectionist cop [I guess Motl is in the camp that "beauty" (and "perfection") are in the eye of the beholder, and Motl is claiming to have the best eye in the business, so he can assure us that Crowley was a "perfectionist". What a load of crap!] doing a pretty dangerous but important work according to the best recipes on the other side.

Now, Mr Barack Obama, an employee of an office [this is just a snide way of demoting Obama, it is like addressing Motl in a scientific meeting not as "Doctor" or "Professor" but as "you there, Mr. Pencil Pusher!,this is simply disgusting. Motl is using emotive language to try to recruit others to his viewpoint] in Washington D.C., was asked what he thought about it. He admitted he didn't know any details but because he's Mr Gates' friend [Obama did not say "because he is my friend", he said something to the effect that responding to a possible burglary call by arresting the person who owns a house strikes Obama as stupid... well, it sure strikes me stupid as well. A person that owns a house can't burgler it. Crowley couldn't arrest Gates for burglary, but because he didn't like Gates pushy demands for name and ID, Crowley "got back at him" by arresting him for "disorderly conduct". This is a trumped up charge. There is nothing "disorderly" about requesting a name and ID. The police are obliged by law to give that to a citizen so that a citizen can file a complaint and identify the specific officer at which the complaint is directed. Crowley failed to obey the law. If anybody should have been arrested, it was Crowley], Sgt Crowley surely had to act "stupidly" when he investigated the situation - and when he charged Mr Gates with disorderly conduct at the end.

Mr Barack Obama can think whatever he wants - and he can say stupid things about issues that he doesn't understand [Obama does not "fail to understand". As Obama said, he didn't know all the facts. There is an important distinction between "not understanding" which implies stupidity and "not having all the facts" which means you are open to discussion and are willing to change your mind. I think Motl falls in the category of "not understanding" because he has put his opinions out on the web and shown his ignorance but, unlike Obama, he was not willing to preface his comments with a qualification that he may not have all the facts. Instead Motl presents himself as a definitive expert. To me, this classifies Motl as a fool.] and that he's not in charge of. But I understand the Massachusetts policemen that they want to make it clear that it is them, and not an uninformed bureaucrat somewhere in Washington D.C., who is expected to decide who should be arrested in crime-like situations in Cambridge and who should not. [Yeah, and in this case, the precinct dropped the charges which should have raised some questions in Motl's mind about how "perfect" Crowley was as a cop!]

It's very natural that they expect Mr Obama to apologize for his ill-conceived words, undermining the rule of law [no! not standing up for your rights undermines the rule of law. Letting cops bully you undermines the rule of law. Patriots have always put themselves in danger to go up against the tyrant. In this case, the cop is a petty tyrant infected with racism and -- it appears to me -- couldn't contain his rage when Gates didn't simply roll over and act deferentially to a cop illegally entering his home!] in the United States. But whether or not Mr Obama will apologize, it is very important for the Massachusetts police to appreciate Mr Obama as a biased but irrelevant external kibitzer who wanted to introduce a great dose of nepotism [nepotism? where did that come from? Motl makes himself look a fool by throwing in wild accusations not based on any facts] and reverse racism into their work - that he has no business to deal with - and to skew the law in Cambridge, MA, but who has failed to do so and who will fail in all similar attempts in the future.

In other words, it's their task to guarantee that the U.S. law will still matter, even in the leftist town [ah... Motl shows his true colours... he is a right wing nut who worships at the alter of "authority" and feels obliged to defend cops because authority figures can never be wrong if you are a right wing ideologue], and its champions won't be intimidated by someone who wants to put something completely different above the law. And if the law will require to arrest Mr Obama, they will do so, too.
Now... rational people try to get at facts and don't just yell "opinions" at each other. I've stated my interpretation of the facts. You can form your own interpretation. Here is a starting point, look at the police report.

It also helps to have some historical context:

No comments: