Forbes Avenue » police

Good Morning Forbes

negrostotle — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:00:53 +0000

Putting signs to good use.

The audio from Miguel Cabrera’s wife’s 911 call. Kinda scary.

15 TV characters that never came out of the closet…but should have.

What Shyne’s first day out of jail might go like…

NASA is planning to bomb the moon in search of water. Click here for awesome video of the mission.

Scenes from a crackdown: How the Pittsburgh Police– some dressed in camouflage for some reason– crushed free speech at the G20 summit.

The National Republican Congressional Committee hopes Nancy Pelosi gets “put in her place.” Democrats fire back: “…not surprising, coming from a party that’s 80 percent male and 100 percent white.”

Tom DeLay performs his greatest act of public service to America ever by quitting Dancing With the Stars.

The brilliant Matt Taibbi explains why Michael Moore’s problems are all our fault.

Good Morning Forbes

Officer Barrett apologizes while lawyer defends racist e-mail

griffn — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:48:18 +0000

Apology accepted, Officer Barrett. Now, turn in your resignation.

A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a “banana-eating jungle monkey” — has apologized, saying he’s not a racist.

Officer Justin Barrett told a local television station on Wednesday night that he was sorry for the e-mail.

“I regret that I used such words,” Barrett told CNN affiliate WCVB. “I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist.

I missed the memo. Since when is referring to a black man as a “banana-eating jungle monkey” not good enough to qualify you as a racist? Who do you have to lynch around here?

And for the millionth time, having black friends is not a defense against charges of racism. Many whites in the Pre-Civil War South had black friends, some even had black lovers. *pause* Who they owned as slaves. So, no, the fact that some of your best friends are black does not automatically exclude you from being a racist. I wonder how many of Officer Barrett’s black friends he forwarded that e-mail to.

But as weak as Barrett’s defense is, somehow his lawyer manages to top him. Keep in mind, this is someone who presumably went through years of schooling to learn how to defend people:

Barrett’s comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.

*record scratches, music stops*

I’m sorry, what?

Barrett’s comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.
[Here are Barrett's comments in full, rambling context. Decide for yourself.]

“Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially,” Marano said. “He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man.”

I’m not saying you’re a jungle monkey. I’m saying you’re acting like a jungle monkey. I’m not maligning you racially, I’m simply characterizing your actions. So please stop taking my words out of context to make me look like a racist. That’s something a jungle monkey would do.

Wow, typing that out, I just realized that my parody of his defense is his actual defense. Please find a new lawyer, Officer Barrett. This one is too ridiculous for satire.

Boston police officer’s “jungle monkey” e-mail on Gates speaks volumes

griffn — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:15:52 +0000

[The full text of the e-mail is below.]

Yesterday, the Boston Police Department suspended Officer Justin Barrett for a racist e-mail he sent to colleagues regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates– an arrest Officer Barrett was not involved in. In the e-mail, which appears to be a response to this editorial in The Boston Globe, Barrett writes that Gates should not assume “he has rights when considered a suspect. He is a suspect and will always be a suspect.” Barrett then says, “If I was the officer [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.”

Amazingly, Barrett qualifies his e-mail with this: “I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom…” I’d venture to guess there are more than a few “not racists” serving in police departments across America.

Though it’s true that Barrett’s views do not represent the Boston Police Department or law enforcement in general, it has to be acknowledged that there are indeed people like him walking our streets, carrying weapons, determining and arresting suspects. There are indeed people like Officer Justin Barrett who are, as we speak, writing the very police reports and testimonies that will be used to put people in jail or to death. The very police reports that will overwhelmingly be given the benefit of the doubt in a court of law.

Police officers are not superheroes. They are human beings who, in the line of duty, are occasionally heroic. But they can also in the line of duty be occasionally wrong, or occasionally prejudiced, or occasionally corrupt, or occasionally all those things or none of them on any given day. The only thing separating Justin Barrett and many officers around the nation is that he decided, foolishly, to type his views and send them out into cyberspace. Others are no doubt smart enough to keep their views to themselves.

I don’t know if Sergeant James Crowley, the officer who arrested Professor Gates, holds any of these types of views, or a milder version of them, privately. No one knows. But the possibility does exist, which is why we shouldn’t take his word, or the word of any police officer, as unadulterated truth for no reason other than a badge. Especially in light of the strange discrepancies between his police report, witness Lucia Whalen’s account, and the inarguable facts recorded on the 911 call.

Which brings us back to Officer Barrett, who believed that Professor Gates, in his own home, had no rights “when considered a suspect.” Had Officer Barrett been the responding officer, he would not only have arrested Gates but “would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.” I hope that most police officers see themselves as public servants, but it’s clear that far too many see themselves as our masters.

Earlier this week, at a popular right-leaning blog called The Corner, a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department who blogs there anonymously under the pseudonym Jack Dunphy had this advice for every law-abiding citizen in dealing with the police:

You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.

That last sentence bears repeating. If you assert your constitutional rights to a police officer and fail to do as instructed, you run the risk of being shot. If there’s still anyone who thinks that Professor Gates overreacted, if there’s still anyone who can’t understand the dysfunctional relationship between black men and the police, consider this fact: Yesterday, Officer Justin Barrett had a badge and a gun. Today, “Jack Dunphy” still does.

Here, courtesy of My Fox Boston , is the full verbatim text of Barrett’s e-mail– spelling errors, lack of paragraph breaks and all. Read it and think about the fact that if it was ever your word versus Officer Barrett’s in a court of law, this is who would get the benefit of the doubt:

Article writer, That was, by far, the worst article I’ve ever read. I am a former English teacher, writer, current police officer, father, husband and military veteran. You need to be corrected and I certainly hope others have attempted, for your written messages and material is so 4th grade level, I am embarrassed I paid the 1.50 for the paper [rest assured, it is my aim to tell as many readers The Boston Globe and your biased reporting is both sub standard and strictly one sided]. For you are not professional and basically, your writing is ridiculous. A reader may assume, per your article, that criminals are never well-dressed with a tucked in polo [2nd paragraph]. Your defense [4th paragraph] of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted [INDEED] with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect. He is a suspect and will always be a suspect. His first priority of effort should be to get off the phone and comply with police, for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance. Further [5th paragraph], a reader may assume that crimes only happen in back alleys at 0300?! You’re kidding me, right? Are you still in the 5th grade, Catholic School? That paragraph was as pathetic as jungle monkey gibberish – I might as well ax you the question, “Is this your first test at reporting?” You do not understand roles, tactics and dangers police officers face, as apparently you think no one wearing a polo might possess a firearm or knife on his/her person. Might you fathom a woman could be a criminal? Or are criminals all hairy, dirty, stinky, mean looking ugly men? You are a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a harsh field. You are a fool. An infidel. You have no business writing for a US newspaper nevermind detailing and analyzing half truths. You should serve me coffee and donuts on Sunday morning. My last point counters your final 2 paragraphs, in which you state Gates is “this immensely famous expert on race” – you really have to be kidding me? Famous for what? Expert why and says who? What has he done for me and my family? What has he done for the law enforcement community or military veterans or to secure freedoms and our borders in this country? What has he done to help limit and reduce my income tax? He has proven to work to get himself attention and become a wealthy lecturer. He lectures students on the subject of racial ethics and profiling. Jee whiz. I must attend that lecture lest I lose my identity and right to free speech and the right to celebrate God and beliefs as I see fit. I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom when it is merely attention because you do not receive enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers. You mention Gates’ charges were dropped but that it was too late to stop the damage? Damage? Still kidding? You need to serve a day with the infantry and get swarmed by black gnats while manning your sector. Or you just need to get slapped, look in the mirror and admit, “Wow, I am a failure. I am a follower. Who am I kidding?” Again, I like a warm cruller and hot Panamanian, black. No sugar. Your final statement reads, “Gates, whose great success has allowed him to transcend the racial divide-“ to which I ask, when did he transcend? He indeed has transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey, thus he forever tremains amid this nation’s great social/racial divide that makes it a free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences. Go ahead, ax me what I think? Gates is a goddamned fool and you the article writer simply a poor follower and maybe worse, a poor writer. Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE’S ROOTS. JB

Good Morning Forbes

negrostotle — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:00:05 +0000

The Erin Andrews saga continues (although technically it will never stop as long as the media keeps reporting stuff…right?). Andrews made a call to Georgia police last week because the paparazzi were hanging outside her home. Audio below (via New York Post)

Paparazzi hounding seems a lot worse than usual when its for someone who’s just a sideline reporter and not a big movie/music star…or isn’t purposely getting paparazzi pictures for attention (*cough* paris hilton *cough*)

Obama’s conclusion on Gates arrest: Can’t we all just have a beer?

griffn — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:29:12 +0000

At the White House press briefing this morning, Obama made a surprise appearance to tamp down the controversy regarding the arrest of Professor Gates and to announce that he had invited both Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer. So apparently the lesson is: arrest a hobbled elderly man in his own home on trumped up charges of disorderly conduct and get invited to the White House for a beer with the president. Awesome.

A few days ago, I wrote that if you have a serious conversation about race and you walk away feeling good about it, something got sugarcoated. Beers at the White House is presumably Obama’s way of getting everyone– the police, the media, the African-American community, the talk radio circuit– to walk away feeling good about this situation.

From a political standpoint, it’s a brilliant move. Obama needs us all to shift our attention away from the firestorm he went out of his way to throw gasoline on and back to health care reform. What better way to do that than a photo-op at the White House showing a power-abusing white cop and an angry black man drinking out of the same pitcher of beer with our biracial, post-racial president?

I don’t know, maybe I’m being too cynical. Maybe Obama, Crowley, and Gates will sit down not for a photo-op but for a serious discussion about what occurred and what next steps we can take to curb police abuse of power, whether race is a factor or not. But my sense is that the deference and benefit of the doubt that Obama is giving to Sgt. Crowley shows that he either doesn’t get it or is choosing not to get it for political reasons.

I don’t know whether Sgt. Crowley is “racist” or not. Honestly, I don’t care. I do care that he believes it’s okay to arrest anyone at any time for any reason. I do care that the police report– the one Crowley himself wrote– reads as though Crowley baited Gates into stepping outside his home so that he could be arrested for causing a public disturbance. I do care that the Cambridge Police Department and the local police union are vigorously defending Crowley’s right to detain, fingerprint, mug shot, and humiliate someone for the charge of hurting a police officer’s feelings. I do care that so many people believe that because the job of a police officer is hard and dangerous and heroic (and it is all those things), that we should look the other way– or worse, invite them to the White House for beers– when they occasionally abuse their power.

I didn’t see Obama’s press conference today, but I did read the transcript. Without getting too deep in the weeds, let me take issue with one thing Obama said:

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you’ve got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.

The problem with this statement is that it puts the two people involved on equal footing. They are not. One of the people in that situation has a badge and a gun and the power to detain and kill you with minimal or no legal consequence. The other has the power to raise his voice and hurt your feelings. I think it’s safe to say the guy with the gun has significantly more power and should be held to a significantly higher standard of not overreacting. This isn’t about two good people who weren’t able to resolve the incident. This is about a police officer who is trained and paid to resolve incidents not resolving the incident (i.e. apologizing and walking away the minute it was clear that no burglary was in progress and Gates was the homeowner).

The fact that Obama thinks this situation is about two people with a misunderstanding rather than one person with vastly more power than the other using that power to shut the other guy up and teach him a lesson about sassing the police gives me little hope for what will be accomplished at that White House beer.

Collective v. Individual; Where Does Racism Lie

tigger500 — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:47:37 +0000

I work for a progressive organization in Washington, D.C., with a wonderful group of human beings. We work side by side on any issue you can think of and, mostly, we get along while we do it.

Two days ago, four colleagues and I were talking about the degree to which race played in the Skip Gates arrest controversy. I and a fellow Black colleague were pretty confident, given what we know from news reports about how the incident went down, that race played a role.

My other colleagues, you can imagine, were skeptical. They argued, rightfully, that someone made a call and the cop had an obligation to follow through and secure the home. They asked “what are the standard procedures” in situations like this? Also, not surprisingly, they wanted to make it about the cop’s ego, an idea that is picking up traction online, as if it couldn’t then be about race as well.

Later that night, two other Black friends told me similar stories that they had with White colleagues. Everything they told me was the same as what went down in the conversation I had with my colleagues, almost down to the language.

White folks are quite comfortable with this notion that there is a pattern of racist behavior in America. They are reluctant, however, to say that any individual instance is about race. So what happened to Skip Gates wasn’t racist. Neither was what happened to Shem Walker. Or Sean Bell. Or Oscar Grant. Or Officer Omar Edwards.

Every individual instance must be rationalized, but then at the end of the year when the stats are compiled we rant and rave against a pattern of behavior, against institutional racism.

Institutional racism is nothing more than a pattern of individual behavior that has become institutionalized. Redlining is just a lot of White folks deciding where non-whites can live. Poll taxes were nothing but a lot of White folks making it really hard for Black folks to vote.

They say the personal is political. Well the individual is the collective.

The goal here isn’t to call the cop a “dirty racist” and write him off. What I said to my colleagues was that acknowledging that what the cop did to Skip Gates was racist, doesn’t make him a bad person. This isn’t “i hate niggers” racism, but it is still racism.

The goal is to let him (and other non-Black cops) know that this kind of behavior is a problem. We need to have processes for training police for how to deal with different types of people. And we need processes to handle situations after they happen. We simply do not have this anywhere to the degree we should.

Behavior like this can be involuntary; a lot of White folks have tremendous guilt that they lock their car doors when they drive through a “bad neighborhood” and clutch their purses when they find themselves alone in an elevator with a Black man. But rather than live in the guilt, we gotta acknowledge it and then do something about it.

Until we do, we are going to keep seeing these individual instances and keep being surprised that the year-end statistics haven’t changed.