Monday, September 15, 2014

Pride and Prejudice

Our feelings we with difficulty smother
When constabulary duty's to be done:
Ah, take one consideration with another,
A policeman's lot is not a happy one!

-W.H. Gilbert-

You can't prove a negative, at least that's what the old saw says. I've never wasted  much thought on it but maybe it's time, because we're often required to "prove" to authorities that the cash in our pockets isn't the wages of sin, that we're not trying to break into our own homes, that we aren't inebriated behind the wheel and many other variations on the "who are you?" theme.  How does a woman, for instance, prove to a L.A.P.D. officer that she's not expecting payment for "making out" with her "boyfriend" in his expensive car?  Not by refusing to produce some kind of ID and claiming it's a constitutional offense to ask for it, I would suggest. How many teenagers have been asked for ID by the constabulary in those secluded parking places we used to frequent?   How many times was I stopped either driving or walking, way back in my long hair days?  Sure that's profiling, but is profiling based on behavior forgivable, even necessary?  Isn't it understandable prejudice to suspect the man in the ski mask entering the bank?

It's hard to fault anyone for suspecting that any particular Los Angeles  police officer might be someone prone to prejudice. It's well within the range of possibility, and like many people I tend toward that human proclivity toward prejudice against authority even while I recognize the need for it.  But I do see that sometimes it's impossible to prove one is not prejudiced because in a sense, prejudice is another word for learning from experience. I try not to overuse the accusation. I wonder too if  the policeman's problem of determining who is who and up to what by looking  can be a problem in our brave new world  where everyone tries to dress down as much as possible. At the risk of  hearing the "blame the victim" argument I'll suggest that when everyone looks like a bum, a policeman's lot is not a happy one.

So did the officer suspect the woman sitting in a Mercedes wearing a worn, faded and flimsy tee shirt and trashy shorts of being a prostitute because she was black,  or because she fit the legitimate profile which includes abusively refusing to give a name and address upon official request?  Does it matter?  It does if  you're trying to fit the "incident" into that well worn Procrustean bed of  racism and police conduct. It matters if you're to be accused of  "blaming the victim" which one must never do even if the victim's behavior was part, or even the origin of the problem. 

Interracial couples may no longer be illegal, but they still aren't terribly common. My wife and I still get looks and especially in the South but what seems like racism may only be curiosity.  I grant the benefit of the doubt.   But  one really doesn't see people making out in cars during the day and with a door open. Questions are raised because things do exhibit patterns even if all that quacks is not a duck, all that glisters is not gold and all passionate intimacy is not commercial but sometimes a duck really is a duck. If ducks are illegal, the cop has to ask.

Policemen after all,  are paid to be suspicious and face it, to refuse to identify oneself  upon request is in itself a suspicious act.  My point is that it's common for a cop to ask you who you are and what you're doing and it falls far short of  search and seizure.  "My name is Danielle Watts and I work here at CBS"  may well have been enough to have produced a " thank you miss, sorry to bother you, have a good day" than handcuffs.   Do we have the right to assume the cop was out of  line and is acting so any different than prejudice on our part? 

Yes, that old bill of rights (remember that?) used to require probable cause for a search, and asking for identification may not really be covered by the fourth amendment but even so, the question is moot because in recent years, it doesn't apply within 100 miles of  a border.  Even without the Border Search exemption which allows search without cause for the majority of Americans a policeman asking for identification is hardly a violation of our civil rights even if  he's making a presumption  based on ethnicity or color or hair length or facial tattoos, a ski mask in August or questionable attire, it's not necessarily evidence of some official misconduct or private malice.  Any policeman would probably take my false assertion that I don't need to show identification as a good reason to suspect I had outstanding warrants or was up to no good.  It's like saying "don't look in the trunk - there's nothing in the trunk" at a traffic stop.  It's looking for trouble and being offended when you get it.  Is a deliberate victim really a victim at all?

16 comments:

  1. I watched the video and the "reenactment" of what they were doing in the car and if I was the cop I would also have asked for ID and what they were doing. Really? You want to climb all over each other? GET A ROOM!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It happened such a long time ago, it's not googolable. But in the late 1970s or maybe 1980, there was a long-haired, dreadlocks dewd by the name of Edmund Lawson that the local constabulary used to constantly ask for i.d. even when he was just walking around innocently, causing no problems, in the vicinity of world famous Windansea surfing beach in La Jolla. He got kind of tired of it and got himself a lawyer. The circuit judges ruled in his favor. They said that there was no legitimate reason for a person to carry their i.d. at all times and at all times be ready to show it to law enforcement. Particularly if the person was not operating a motor vehicle or in any way commiting a crime or misdemeanor. He was completely vindicated. I believe that particular case resonated so much in California police and community relations that the LAPD guy that we hear was at the very least, peripherally aware of that ruling insomuch as he only defined his right to ask for i.d. as being contingent upon a citizen police call.

    I thought that he was being rather patient on the TMZ audio. Other than that, I can't comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Understandably, you can save yourself a pack of pickled problems by cooperating with police – but not necessarily. Common sense versus excessive force are in the mind of the beholder. Since the Rodney King incident, plus numerous reports of police violence, plus too many examples of racial profiling that have resulted in unnecessary injury and death, plus over-militarized SWAT teams dispatched to the wrong house, I have little sympathy for the LAPD.

    Suspicions of prostitution? Who cares! These days, any politician can prostitute himself in public, weave lies and mendacities, and win votes. I could care less what goes on in the front seat of a car when there is CORRUPTION EVERYWHERE!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I carry my is on my person at all times, except when I don't. Which is when I'm at home sitting in my recliner watching TV, reading a book, on my computer, or sleeping.

    You just never know when you might be legitimately asked for and need to produce your identification. Guess I'm old schoo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course I wasn't there, but as I said, sometimes people are looking for a fight and if we're constantly being reminded of all the racism everywhere, perhaps we sometimes overreact. There's big ratings and big money in pushing public buttons and I'm beginning to suspect that the biggest difference between news networks is the buttons they're pushing. CNN is working the "racism is everywhere and everyone is a racist" angle a bit overmuch to suit me. My point here is that it's inconsistent to maintain that no one should have to prove his identity but everyone has to prove he's not a racist, all the time.

    Regardless of the poor public image of the LAPD and regardless of whether they deserve it and whether every single cop must be presumed racist until proven and proven and proven otherwise I do hate stereotypes and the practice of judging individuals with reference to stereotypes and I don't think it's OK when we do it but not when they do it.

    Why is it that we Liberals so often assert that you can't blame a Muslim for what other Muslims do, but we can blame anyone else - like a cop - for what someone we identify him with has done? There are many ways to ask politely for an ID and many ways to react to the request. A polite request isn't persecution. An emotional and abusive tirade isn't a good one -- yet we presume. Regardless of what one feels about prostitution, it remains illegal in Los Angeles and a cop is sworn to enforce the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends upon how you define the word "prostitute."

      Delete
    2. It depends on how the law defines it and how it defines public indecency. If a cop gets a complaint he has to investigate and part of that is asking people to identify themselves. If a person gets aggressive, a person has to expect to be restrained until one calms down. That is what happened.

      I don't think it's fair to presume racism in the presence of so may other possibilities especially when none of us were there and the media is making a bundle framing everything as racism. I try hard not to make assumptions based on prejudice or on the assumption of prejudice in others.

      I heard someone pontification about the Ferguson affair the other day, saying that the courts are too slow and can't be trusted and so "the people" have to decide who is guilty. Makes my hair stand on end -- and I think the media is promoting mob rule. The courts are sometimes slow, sometimes wrong, but the mob is wrong even when it's right.

      Delete
  6. While I am no proponent of heavy handed police tactics I think in this case they were most likely justified in wanting to question this couple further. I am no prude and really don't care what other people do but if I had young kids and looked out the window to see hot and heavy delights going on in an open car, I would probably call the cops too. Some things should be left to the privacy of your own home or other people's bushes. If they were standing outside the car saying goodbye or walking up the street I don't think it would have been as much of an issue. If you want to be an exhibitionist go to a nude beach or something. I thought it was kind of arrogant for this couple to presume everyone would enjoy their show.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Um - Hollywood and arrogance - who would make the connection? Who would stage a publicity stunt? Would the media ever cash in on the public outrage they stimulate by framing everything in terms of police brutality? This was hardly Rodney King being bludgeoned by a dozen goons. The only thing wounded was someone's ego.

    As long as we're presuming police racism, why not presume other possibilities? Or are we just establishing our Liberal credentials as well as showing our selective credulity? Is it impossible to believe she wouldn't have been temporarily cuffed if she didn't act aggressive? It happens all the time to all sorts of people. Do we assume police brutality in ambiguous circumstances because we're open-minded or because we're prejudiced?

    Most of all -- do we do anything about systemic wrongs by framing minor or irrelevant issues as major calamities? Or do we serve the people who are part of the problem and want to dismiss legitimate concerns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Most of all -- do we do anything about systemic wrongs by framing minor or irrelevant issues as major calamities?"

      The reason why I pick my issues, my battles, and my arguments with discretion. All too often, I have seen liberals bashing each brains out and calling one's so-called "liberal credentials into question" over trifling matters that leave behind hard feelings. The landscape is littered with old dinosaur bones of small arguments turned into epic "fights to the finish" when the argument wasn't even worth having from the beginning.

      Meanwhile, we live in a world of Ebola, the Ukraine, ISIS, and Cold War Redux with no bipartisanship or statesmanship in sight to resolve these matters. I could care less about a biracial couple making out in car.

      Delete
    2. My sentiments exactly. Some report came out last week saying the the biggest danger at the moment is the "sovereign citizen" movement. We hear precious little about it even while the hot and cold running outrage goes on and on.

      Delete
    3. Never mind ISIS, ISIL, or whatever the name de jour. There are dangers within borders: Sovereign Citizens and Survivalists who shoot law enforcement offers in Pennsylvania and plan mass murder; free range militias; anarchists; and …

      … this man, former State Senator Russell Pearce of the lunatic state of Arizona, who said: “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get [female recipients] Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations.”

      So which is worse: A barbaric and savage terrorist group such as ISIS that enslaves women, or the outrageous words of a deranged politician such as Russell Pearce who advocates forced sterilization!

      ISIS is far, far away; but here are cranks and crazies WITHIN our borders who pose an imminent threat … as dangerous as any terrorist group … and they populate the far right wing of American politics.

      Do you care to share any thoughts regarding Governor ‘rich’ Scott of the Orange Concentrate State, and the ear-encrusted electorate that votes for escaped felons?

      Delete
    4. Governor Ricky, or Ol' Snake Eyes, as I call him, just ran an ad saying a vote for his opponent is a vote for Obama because Crist won't agree that "obamacare" is the worst thing since crab lice.

      Share my thoughts? They could get me arrested!

      By the way, CNN just played the audio of the exchange between Ms. Watts and the LAPD which more than confirms my observation that she was totally out of line, looking for a fight and also shows that the officer was patient, polite, respectful and well within his rights to ask for identification since there had been a complaint.

      Delete
    5. Where I come from, there is no opportunity for privacy. Even if you hide behind a coral reef for a moment of conjugal bliss, there is always a clownfish or a school of mullet passing by. No one gawks, asks for your ID, or rates your performance. Not even in Grand Central Submarine do commuters stare; not Jon Bon Anchovy, not Twyla Carp, nor Moliere buggering Voltaire under a stair.

      Delete
    6. Can't you duck into Davy Jones' Locker for a quickie?

      "O Octopus," said the Carpenter,
      "You've had a pleasant run!
      Shall we be trotting home again?'
      But answer came there none--
      And this was scarcely odd, because
      They'd eaten every one.

      Delete
    7. "Can't you duck into Davy Jones' Locker for a quickie?"

      Of course you can, but no one notices or pays attention as everyone goes blithely on their way. And that's why birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. I've heard that lizards and frogs do it layin' on a rock. They say that roosters do it with a doodle and cock. The most refined lady bugs do it when a gentleman calls. Moths in your rugs do it. What's the use of moth balls!

      Delete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.