Said Sgt. Dave Karsnia to Larry Craig -- yes, it's another Craig-tagged post -- and
Dale Carpenter, at Volokh Conspiracy, penned a crisp post accusing Karsnia of racism:
It seems to me that the phrase, “the guy that we get out of the hood,” is an implied racial reference. It refers specifically to blacks, though one could say the officer meant to refer only to young black men from the ghetto who, in the officer's view, are prone to commit crimes.
Either way, it’s still race-specific in a case that otherwise has no obvious racial dimension. To shame Craig into telling the truth, the officer could have used a different example, like, “I expect this from some punk we get off the street.” Or, “I expect this from some low-life, but not a Senator.” It’s also fairly clear from the context that the officer is not associating blacks with bathroom cruising, but with dishonesty and "disrespect" toward the police.
This leads to a fascinating comments thread about the word "hood," including this from "anonymous":
How many of you VC posters listen to rap? For nearly twenty years, most rap / hip-hop music has been sold to white males under the age of 25. In the same way that so many of them appropriated the baggy pants of "the hood" (without having any idea why baggy pants have an advantage in the hood but not in the suburbs), they also appropriated the language, and refer to their neighborhoods as "the hood" and their friends as "homies" or "homeboys".
Just because in your rarified [sic] pseudo academic imaginations the phrase "the hood" has racist connotations, it does not follow that most users of the phrase (who are white and use the phrase self-referentially) also use it with racist overtones. Get out of the ivory tower and talk to people who live real lives.
And Sarah says:
.. I think the cop meant "you're lying in the way that lower-class people -- the sort of people you probably think commit most crimes -- do." I'm sure he was trying to conjure generic, Jerry Springer-esque, "40 of our high schools now offer daycare to teen moms," bars-on-the-windows, stolen shopping carts, 'this is why we wrote that 3-strikes law,' high school dropout images. Whether they were black (or whatever) people in the Senator's mind wasn't as important as the social and economic trappings surrounding them -- and the cop got a "I'm not that kind of guy!!" response, just as he'd hoped. The message was "fine, upstanding, non-criminal citizens such as yourself would do themselves credit by Acting Like A Man and admitting to everything." It's another version of the "if you've got nothing to hide, you'll let us do X" tactic, which only works on people who think of themselves as decent.
Much more at the link, including some puzzling over whether the cop might deliberately use a racial term not because he is racist, but because he assumes the person he's talking to -- here, a white, conservative Idahoan -- is racist.
পোস্টগুলি
৫৮টি মন্তব্য:
Just because in your rarified [sic] pseudo academic imaginations the phrase "the hood" has racist connotations, it does not follow that most users of the phrase (who are white and use the phrase self-referentially) also use it with racist overtones.
I think this is an excellent point. Considering how much the whole 'hip hop' culture has been mainstreamed into society, its a bit rich when someone other than a black person uses the vernacular and then is accused of being racist.
Overreach. What kind of language and fashion do we expect of a generation not raised on the gentle talk and cardigans of Mr. Roger's Hood?
In the same way that so many of them appropriated the baggy pants of "the hood" (without having any idea why baggy pants have an advantage in the hood but not in the suburbs)
Lemme guess, lemme guess!! So one can can more easily stash weapons and/or drugs with a relative degree of aplomb. Hey, that can be advantageous no matter what the nature of the hood you be living in.
Also, why the (sic)? Rarified is an acceptable spelling of the term.
I wondered this too.
And in the "pot/kettle" category of criticism, was anyone else annoyed at hoosier daddy's transmogrification of the noun "mainstream" into a verb? "Mainstreamed" is as irritating to me as "tasked" in this regard.
I like however Hoosier Daddy says his thing- on point, well-stated, smart but not stuffy and never rude to the homies here :)
And in the "pot/kettle" category of criticism, was anyone else annoyed at hoosier daddy's transmogrification of the noun "mainstream" into a verb?
If there are any then my work here is done.
I only know two languages. English and bad English.
Funny, but there's no clear delineation between the two in certain cases. Language is a living tool, as new words or usages become mainstreamed...
Sometimes even spellings change, despite our rarefied orthographical sensibilities.
No offense intended...just the expression of a pet-peeve regarding nouns turned into verbs.
My apologies if I offended hoosier daddy or anyone else.
My apologies if I offended hoosier daddy or anyone else.
No apologies ncessary. The only thing that offends me is an understocked liquor store.
For the sake of argument, suppose the use of the word "hood" by Sgt. Karsnia does in fact reveal a degree of racism. So what? Is there some sort of misdemeanor of politically incorrect conduct that an individual can be charged with for expressing any amount of the racism that continues to infect our culture? Do deep thinkers like Dale Carpenter have nothing more important to ponder?
The only thing that offends me is an understocked liquor store.
Boy ain't that the truth. Is there anything worse than going in for gin and only seeing Fleischman's, Gordon's amd Tanqueray?
suppose the use of the word "hood" by Sgt. Karsnia does in fact reveal a degree of racism. So what?
It certainly makes me question his credibility and the circumstances of the arrest. Racism is a form of bias and biased people are not credible.
The officer arrested a privileged white man making homosexual overtures to a white man-- how does his referencing "the hood" undercut the disorderly conduct charge in any way?
Anyway, are members of our police forces to be PC pure in every way, so as not to tarnish their credibility? Could an embittered divorced male officer who has unflattering things to say about women from time to time credibly arrest a woman?
the use of the term was probably purposeful but not racial. it was intended to get a response from the good senator and it did. the senator was clearly lying and it was a good way to get under his skin.
he did the "your not a bad person" thing very well as well as the lecture about lying. don't read anything more into it.
"...biased people are not credible."
How about biased people who have the integrity to acknowledge their biases? Can we believe them? For example, I was born into a Father-Knows-Best cultural milieu of male superiorty. By the time I was an adolescent, a cultural shift toward sexual equality had taken place. Now, as an old man, I still have a bias toward wearing the (long) pants in my own household even though I generally try to respect women's rights of equality and opportunity.
I'll defer to Jane, above, who I think has it about right. Am I not credible?
Oh, eminently so :)
"Oh, eminently so :)"
Come on now, Jane, believe me: I won't go so far as to call you a Donna Reed wannabe, but admit it... you ARE being just a little bit biased.
A reference to "hood" is not at all racist. Yes, it refers to a black male from a high crime area made up of predominately black people; so what? 100 years ago he might have said "mic" in reference to a poor Irish Catholic guy. Have fun impress your friends, go to Racial Slur database. Honky: Yet another theory has it originating from white men honking their horns to call on the lounge singer/prostitute types in 1920's Harlem. That would make sense; "There's that damn honky again!"
Yes, yes, Meade. I admit to all sorts of bias, such as preferring traditional mayo to soy spread, but I did use "homey" above to try to offset any Donna Reed syndrome. You should know I only wear the pearls when vacuuming twice a week.
Okay, okay. Will admit to bias toward any traditionalist male who'll defer to my opinion (which just happens to coincide with his.)
Is my cred now shot?
Once upon a time, making an accusation of racism against someone was a serious thing; to say that about a cop was more serious still, and conjured up images of Bull Connor and the lie. Hunting around for "implied racial references" in the interchange between the cop and the senator, and then accusing the cop of racism based on the "implied reference," reduces what once was serious to unfunny farce. It's progress of a sort, I suppose.
"Is my cred now shot?"
See? She's biased (incidentally, toward my opinion). She admits it. We can trust her.
Plus, she's incredibly funny.
She ain't no Country Crock-servin' dirt under the rug-sweepin' two-timin' tofu-slippin' faux ho.
Check it out, kids: Jane is what we old-timers call a Real Woman. With real pearls. So her dear hubby (lucky guy) vaccuums 5 days a week and she only 2. So? It's HIS stinking hunting dog that sheds all over the place. It's 2007. That's fair.
See:
http://greencycles.blogspot.com/
for the testimony of one of Karsnia's arrests - his crime was riding a bicycle out of the airport.
Could an embittered divorced male officer who has unflattering things to say about women from time to time credibly arrest a woman?
You seem not to understand the circumstances of the arrest.
The "lewd act" was some foot tapping and a hand signal, which Craig may or may not have made. In any event, Craig disputed the officer's account immediately during that interrogation. After that interrogation, the cop wrote a police report. The arrest report, which most people are using as their basis for understanding "what happened" is littered with "throw-ins" that look incredible in light of the contentious interrogation.
For example, the officer says there was no toilet paper on the floor. Except Craig said the toilet paper was in his stall and behind his leg. The officer could not see that far back into Craig's stall. Nor did the officer enter Craig's stall after he asked Craig to exit it. There was no point in time at which the officer saw whether toilet paper was on the floor in Craig's stall. Moreover, in the contentious interrogation, when Craig says, "I was bending back to get a piece of toilet paper," the officer does not say, "Sir, there was no toilet paper on the floor." Instead he argues about which of Craig's hands he saw come under the divider. The statement in the arrest report that "there was no toilet paper on the floor" was likely fabricated to bolster the report.
Another example is the statement that the officer saw Craig's blue eyes peering through the stall crack. I doubt that. Unless this airport bathroom was lit like the set of a movie, that is highly unlikely. But prior to the writing of the report, the officer heard Craig say in that interrogation, "No, I didn't look at you, I was just waiting for a stall to open up." How to "prove" Craig looked at him? Claim he saw the color of his eyes. The officer probably just got the color of Craig's eyes off Craig's driver's license, where it is helpfully listed.
So, no, I don't think someone who reveals bias during an interview is credible. A biased person massages facts to fit her viewpoint, even when her viewpoint is false. I don't trust the arrest report of a biased person. I don't care what kind of bias it is or toward whom it is directed.
So, no, this is not a "credible arrest" -- because the arresting officer's account of the arrest's circumstances is not credible. In a situation in which there are no independent witnesses, the circumstances of the arrest are not clear. If there had been three other dudes in the bathroom who saw the whole thing (or even bits and pieces that were consistent with each other), it'd be another story.
Racism is a form of bias and biased people are not credible.
ALL people . . . ALL . . . are biased on one way or the other. Recognizing that bias and ignoring it in making a decision or taking an action is what matters.
In the same way that so many of them appropriated the baggy pants of "the hood"
Here's an interesting test: how many of us have seen a "hip hop dude" wearing the baggy pants down at his hips, below his boxers shorts, cap on sideways, looking as ridiculous as a clown. And how many have witheld a sneer or laugh out of fear that the "civilized" black man would shoot them for disrespecting him?
because the arresting officer's account of the arrest's circumstances is not credible
I dunno. If the officer's account that Craig waited outside his stall for a minute and half [very long time] is credible, then I call bs on the rest of Craig's defense. "Normal" men won't even use a urinal next to another if another is available. I say Craig was trolling for sex.
/horrible writing Fen
"Normal" men won't even use a urinal next to each other if another urinal is available.
Recognizing that bias and ignoring it in making a decision
Except we have an interview tape that shows the cop is biased in the act of interviewing a person he has arrested. There is no proof this cop restrains himself properly.
I would also note that on tests for bias or various kinds, there are some people who get perfect scores.
And even if you dispute those tests' validity, there are some people who simply aren't sexist or racist or intolerant of other religious faiths. It is simply not true that everyone is racist, sexist, and bigoted.
Nor is it true that any kind of bias necessarily breaks down to for or against. Some people are pro-cop, some are anti-cop, and some people take cops on a case-by-case basis without having an all encompassing opinion on cops in general.
LOL, Meade! When I'm on my own soon and get a couple of dogs, it just might be smart to get hair-like rugs... Will still wear skirts and keep flies out of the kitchen, tho.
Mortimer, you misunderstand me. I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole sting, since it was mostly about signalling, but I guess the uncalled for peering and peeking may have been grounds enough.
Just don't think that an arrest should be invalidated in our eyes if an officer has fairly unrelated opinions or quirks. That this policeman invoked hood behavior is really rather beside the point of Senator's Craig arrest in an airport men's room, imo.
If the officer's account that Craig waited outside his stall for a minute and half [very long time] is credible, then I call bs
That's pretty weak reasoning. Craig's account is that all the stalls were full, and he was waiting for one to open up. Not to mention this was an airport (the bathrooms are near the departure gates) and Craig's flight was about to take off. Right before and after flights, an airport bathroom is rather like a movie theater bathroom when a movie lets out. Every guy I know waits in line. No one goes running to the cops because there's a line outside the stall.
Just don't think that an arrest should be invalidated in our eyes if an officer has fairly unrelated opinions or quirks.
But these aren't quirks or unrelated opinions. This was an interrogation technique that the cop used. And it failed. And then he likely put lies in his arrest report because he couldn't browbeat Craig into a confession.
Mortimer,
Don't you think we're going overboard in handcuffing the police? Even if were possible to get people, officials and friends to be more "perfect" in discharging their duties and interactions, who would agree as to what constitutes desirable, fair conduct? Currently, we're fighting a culture war between several gradations of leftist PC and rightist proscriptive-to-libertarian morality.
IOW, if we keep tightening the screw, going in one restrictive direction, things won't move and be done effectively, or even get done in the first place. Look how bias-conscious and PC uptight Europe's become, with its officials and law-abiding citizenry increasingly afraid to act and uphold just commonsensical standards that have given way to excessive "fairness" rules and sensitivities.
"If the officer's account that Craig waited outside his stall for a minute and half [very long time] is credible, then I call bs"
That's pretty weak reasoning. Craig's account is that all the stalls were full, and he was waiting for one to open up
Sorry, but men don't "wait" for a stall by standing just ouside the door and peering through the crackin for 90 seconds. Craig's account just doesn't wash.
"I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood."
Tap-dancing I assume he means. Sammy Davies Junior?
But hey, I thought Dean Martin also tapped, but maybe he wasn't really white. Ask the Sgt., he clearly knows his racial stereotypes.
But who cares, Deano has given the world the best line since Creation:
"You're not really drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on."
Happened to me once. Couldn't trust I wouldn't fall off the planet without digging my nails into the carpet.
Hot dang, as that actress of yours would say on those advertisements for broadband.
She may look white, but you gotta be so careful out there these days! Anyone checked her Pass Book?
"I expect [disrespect] from the guy that we get out of the hood"
It seems to me that the first question we should ask ourselves about that sentence is "is it true", not "is it racist".
What if the cop had given an even more transparent analogy?
Senator, you are lying as bad as the black thugs we haul out of the 'hood every night.
Mortimer thinks he has the answer:
Mortimer Brezny said...
suppose the use of the word "hood" by Sgt. Karsnia does in fact reveal a degree of racism. So what?
It certainly makes me question his credibility and the circumstances of the arrest. Racism is a form of bias and biased people are not credible.
The fact that the cop sees boatloads of lying black thugs and uses that experience to say Criag was as bad is bias? And the cop's experience not credible?
Let's just say that cops are far more honest than liberals are about who the bad guys are likely to be.
In the "Color of Crime", certain facts suppressed from the public by liberal media in the name of "avoiding the bias and prejudice that may come from stating the truth" are revealed:
1. A majority of cops killed in the line of duty are killed by blacks.
2. Targets of black thugs crimes break down to 45% white, 43% black, 10% Hispanic and other races.
3. Blacks are 7 times more likely to murder, 8 times more likely to do robbery, 3.5 times more likely to use a gun in a crime than members of all other races in America.
4. Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the opposite. (A fact brought up in criticism of the plausibility of the Lacrosse Team rape of a black prostitute). Black on Asian rape is not statistically quantifiable because a ratio cannot be obtained in the absence of Asian men raping blacks, though black rape of Asian immigrants is common.
5. All estimates of white lynching of blacks in America history number under 4 thousand, but have been given huge publicity and condemnation in the media for 100 years. But the media has not publicized that in the last 45 years, blacks have murdered more white Americans than the white Americans that died in combat in WWII.
6. Whites are 39 times less likely to murder a black person than the reverse. Whites are 136 times less likely to commit robbery on a black person than the reverse.
7. Two of three whites or hispanics killed in stranger on stranger crime will be killed by a black person. 3 of 4 Asians. 9 of 10 blacks murdered in stranger on stranger cases will be by blacks, with the remainder 7% hispanic and 3% "other races".
So it seems that a cop that has observed the differing behaviors of the worst of all races in his job, and knows full well the odds and disparities in the races involvement in crime & lies - is a far fitter judge than a Mortimer who is in willful denial of reality.
How can a Mortimer be credible? He shapes his facts to suit his ideology...
Cedarford said...
...So it seems that a cop that has observed the differing behaviors of the worst of all races in his job...
Before I draw the conclusion that you are unapologetically quintessentially racist, Cederford, I'm going to guess that you meant to use the preposition "in" instead of "of." If I'm guessing wrong, I will have to admit that I agree with the main point being made by a blatant racist. Ugh.
I think it's clear he means he's seen the worst from each of the different races.
I think you're right. Thank you.
I think it's clear he means he's seen the worst from each of the different races.
If that's what he means, why bring race into the issue at all? After all, the union of "the worst from each of the different races" turns out to be "the worst of humanity."
It seems to me that Cederford, despite his protestations to the contrary, can't help himself. Nearly every time he comments here he reveals his true racist nature...anti-Semitic, anti-black, and I'll bet anti-plenty-more as well.
Trust Cedarford to miss the point.
Actually, I’m surprised that he didn’t bring out a comparison of “hood” to “ghetto”!
Cedarford: Re your stats, let’s assume for the sake of argument that they are 100% correct. And let’s further stipulate that the PC Police are always finding anything said by real Police as racist.
Let’s further assume that if a woman is murdered in what looks like a love/hate crime, it’s more likely a Black man murdering a Black woman and cops are aware of this fact & can freely comment on it. Let’s say, however, that I, a privileged white man, am a suspect in the murder of a woman & I’m dancing around with the cop who’s questioning me. While he knows that our dialog is being recorded he says “we expect this jivin’ from the low-life Black man who we see all the time in such crimes, but not you.” Is this good police procedure?
With all due respect to your statistics, & I’m certainly not saying that you’re a racist or even a crypto-racist to bring these stats up, with all due respect to the reality of crime then, & even if that speech is no more than what cops say to each other over drinks at Joe’s Bar & Grille, some think the above would be bad police procedure because it may be perceived as racist by even non PC robots, an unnecessary sidebar.
OK?
To the point of this thread. I don’t know what to say to those who say the phrase “The Hood” no longer just refers to just a black area &, QED, is a race-neutral term, except I’m out of my, um, neighborhood of expertise. If “The Hood” doesn’t mean just a Black area, then this Minn Airport cop was OK; if it does, or if the common perception is that it does, then he was careless & a jury, if it heard this (don’t know what the procedure would be at trial or the strategy either) might be inclined to hold it against him, thinking that he was saying “Sir, we expect this jiving from a low-life Black boy from some Black ghetto, not a privileged White man like you from the right part of town.”
On the other hand, I would like to hear from a cop who's involved in the cat & mouse life of interrogations everyday in which he feel that he has a right to psych out perps.
Sorry, Gedaliya,
As Hoosier knows, there is no noun that cannot be verbed.
Gedaliya - You can't help yourself. You believe speech must not be delivered if factually accurate - if you consider the facts of the matter "racist". Your agenda triumphs the truth.
Only ideological fools would say that the astronomically high black male crime rate is only important as a falsity that "brings out white racists".
But professional victims like yourself, Gedaliya, seek to wall off criticism, just or not, for any group you believe should be immune by virtue of victimhood.
Gedaliya values:
1. Criticism of the clout of the Cuban exile lobby is OK. They are not registered victims.
2. Criticism of heavy Jewish involvement in Lefty groups or AIPAC is obscene and should be illegal. They are Victims!
3. Calling a national sub-population of white Meth-heads "scuzzy people" is OK in Gedaliya's PC world. Calling a pack of black thugs in the 'hood
"low-lifes" is racist, though.
For all the problems we have with crime and disparate racial impact, I blame the Gedaliyas of the mainstream media for strongly contributing to it by covering up the facts and keeping the public ignorant to serve politics and agenda.
Which prevents rational public policy formulations
*******************
From Inwood - he says “we expect this jivin’ from the low-life Black man who we see all the time in such crimes, but not you.” Is this good police procedure?
Yep, just like telling a black suspect showing "attitude and sneering dissing of cops" that only weak white punks demand lawyers..
Au contraire!
One of the most effective psychological tools is buttering up a person and appealing to their pride.
"Come on, you're smart! How can you not want a DiTech refinancing loan, like other smart people such as yourself??"
"How can you, a pillar of the community, need a lawyer to explain how you were playing footsie in the toilet stalls? Come on Senator! You're a better man than that, and here you are mumble-mouthing and disrespecting the heroic law enforcement officers? You DO support hero cops, don't you? SO why don't you prove you are the fine person you say you are and admit to this trivial little matter and accept responsibility?"
It works quite well.
How can a Mortimer be credible? He shapes his facts to suit his ideology...
First of all, I responded to the facts of the case. Not your analogy. Nothing I said applies to your analogy, which I have no opinion on. Second of all, I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Howard Dean in the 2004 primary. I don't see how that makes me ideologically biased toward an Idaho Republican. I suppose I am possessed by the wild and crazy belief that cops should not falsify arrest reports. Oh no. Call the exorcist.
“Sir, we expect this jiving from a low-life Black boy from some Black ghetto, not a privileged White man like you from the right part of town
That would be a much less sensitive way of saying what the cop said -- but what, exactly, is inaccurate about it?
Poor young black men from the inner cities are the most crime-prone demographic group in America. Elderly, college-educated white men of means are one of the LEAST crime-prone demographic groups in the country. Now add in the fact that popular culture aimed at young urban black men is almost universally anti-police, while popular culture aimed at elderly whites is almost universally pro-police.
So where's the factual inaccuracy in what the cop suggested? Are you disputing his expectation that members of the most criminally active demographic in America, steeped in a culture that celebrates hatred of police, will give him a bad attitude during interrogation? Or are you disputing his expectation that an elderly, educated member of a legal profession *would* show him respect?
If you dispute neither claim, then what's the problem?
Sorry, but men don't "wait" for a stall by standing just ouside the door and peering through the crackin for 90 seconds. Craig's account just doesn't wash.
That isn't Craig's account. Craig says he didn't peer through the stall, and I believe that charge was dropped by the prosecutor. The cop did, though, throw in the "fact" about seeing the color of Craig's eyes.
Elderly, college-educated white men of means are one of the LEAST crime-prone demographic groups in the country.
Well, no. You're probably talking about incarceration rates. Plenty of people who don't get arrested or charged commit crimes. I don't just mean white collar crimes instead of violent crime. I mean cocaine in your dorm room instead of crack in the park or fraudulently refilling a prescription instead of knocking off a pharmacy. You're right, though, that poorer people are likelier to commit crimes against property. But, then, that's not really a surprise, is it?
Don't you think we're going overboard in handcuffing the police?
I don't think a rule that police officers must file truthful arrest reports is too much to ask.
And the cop's experience not credible?
I didn't say this. I said his arrest report was not a credible account of the circumstances of Craig's arrest and the racially tinged interrogation technique played a part that. (Namely, after it failed and he didn't get a confession, the cop needed to bolster his report.)
Are you disputing his expectation that members of the most criminally active demographic in America, steeped in a culture that celebrates hatred of police, will give him a bad attitude during interrogation?
Eh. He's an airport cop in Minnesota. Come off it. He doesn't have the experience as a cop that you're attributing to him. Maybe if he worked as a copin LA or Chicago or DC or New York. But as an airport gay sex cop in Minnesota, please. How many gangbangers solicit him in that bathroom, do you think?
Rev & Cedarford
I think I was clear so I will not reargue my point.
I will address your changing the subject, however.
You seem to think that you’re members of an appellate court or that I’m talking about a calm review by a bunch of bloggers, whereas I’m talking about how this would appear to a jury.
Neither of you apparently give any credence to a defense attorney's ability to attack the credibility of a witness.
Does the name Mark Furman ring a bell?
And I do understand that criminal law is not beanbag & that all kinds of tricks can & should, nay make that must, be played on perps, including psych tricks.
You do understand that the cop could've made the same point by saying "punks from the street"?
Finally, you are mistaken in your belief that your stats (which sound about right to me) or your conclusions about Black crime (with which I agree) are the issue here.
Well, no. You're probably talking about incarceration rates.
Both crime rates and incarceration rates.
Plenty of people who don't get arrested or charged commit crimes.
Obviously -- and that goes for poor black men, too. But if you're trying to argue that rich old white men commit just as many crimes as young urban black poor men and just get away with it, I sneer in your general direction. There's exactly zero evidence for that claim, much as lefties may love to believe it.
whereas I’m talking about how this would appear to a jury.
A jury will never get to see it, since if anything it establishes that the cop was biased in FAVOR of people like Craig. So your question is meaningless.
Yes, juries are often comprised of the stupid and the ignorant, i.e. exactly the sorts of people who might hear the cop's remark and wrongly think "omg he is teh racizts". That is one reason why the courts don't let juries consider this sort of irrelevant information.
Does the name Mark Furman ring a bell?
Ito should never have allowed that material into the record, of course. But that aside, the reason Furman's apparent racism helped the defense is (a) it was much more blatant and (b) the DEFENDANT was black. What jury is going to give a rat's ass if a cop is racially biased against blacks when the perp is a rich old white man from the Senate?
Eh. He's an airport cop in Minnesota. He doesn't have the experience as a cop that you're attributing to him.
First of all, I didn't attribute any experience to him. You don't need personal experience to know that the urban black poor have a shittier attitude about police than wealthy white college graduates do. I'm not quite sure how you could *avoid* knowing that particular fact, actually, if you grew up in America. It doesn't take experience, it just takes a refusal to live in white-guilt-induced denial about the demographics of crime.
Secondly, if you'd used your brain before posting you might have realized that a cop in a busy airport -- a hub for, among other things, Northwest, United, and American Airlines -- encounters people from Chicago, LA, New York, et al, on a daily basis. So even if we assume that this cop has exclusively worked in the airport and never had any dealings with the sleazier parts of Minneapolis/St.Paul, he's still going to regularly encounter homeboys en route from Point A to Point B.
Rev
You say:
"What jury is going to give a rat's ass if a cop is racially biased against blacks when the perp is a rich old white man from the Senate?"
So you apparently give no credence to a defense attorney's ability to attack the credibility of a witness, here a cop.
This has gone on too long for a sidebar, methinks. You are convinced that you are 100% right. I, on the other hand feel, & I may be wrong, that this cop (& all cops) should avoid gratuitous racial references on the record since however counter intuitive you may find it, there's a chance that such references might prejudice a Black juror(s) against him as a witness, here the only witness, even if the alleged perp is an old White guy.
You prefer to gamble.
See you in court as no one but the faux lawyers on Law & Order say except in jest.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন