Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

am not knocking you, I just want to know why you think it was an important omission.

If it is significant that his son is Black--isn't it also significant that the cop was Black?

I am not sure - that is why I am asking.

I am the PP who is asking. Let me clarify. We assume the author's son is AA because the author is. But the author does not explicity bring up race in the column at all. He never says that "the only reason my son went through this is because he is AA." In fact, he talks about the way they approached him with guns drawn, etc. I know the title of this thread says Walking while Black - I just did not read the piece that way. So that is why I am asking why the race of the cop is important when IMO, the authorcould have ht the race issue head on but did not. I am White BTW.

I am not sure - that is why I am asking.

The story was about RACE. If it is significant that his son was Black, it is also significant that the cop was Black.

Anonymous wrote:

am not knocking you, I just want to know why you think it was an important omission.

If it is significant that his son is Black--isn't it also significant that the cop was Black?

I am not sure - that is why I am asking.

Anonymous wrote:

Why? I can't speak for everyone, but when someone talks about racial profiling by cops, I have always taken that to mean by cops of any race. The racial profiling of it goes to the person profiled - not the one doing the profiling.

It sounds like it was an active situation and the kid fit the description. Please tell me how that is "profiling".

LOL That was not the point of my question. I wanted to know why the omission that the cop was AA was important. So for the sake of getting my question answered, I will agree that it was not profiling.

am not knocking you, I just want to know why you think it was an important omission.

If it is significant that his son is Black--isn't it also significant that the cop was Black?

Anonymous wrote:This happened to my son (white) this weekend. 3 cop cars, don't think guns were drawn though. Asked to get on the ground. He was playing hide and seek with his friends on the West side of Montgomery County. Somebody called the police. A parent was close by and intervened on his behalf.

This happened to his 2 friend last year, white and Hispanic (white). They had airsoft guns, so the cops drew their guns, they were put on the ground and the face on the pavement, with a knee in their back and handcuffed, parents were called. Also on the West side of MoCo.

And if they had been black, they might well have been shot.

Why? I can't speak for everyone, but when someone talks about racial profiling by cops, I have always taken that to mean by cops of any race. The racial profiling of it goes to the person profiled - not the one doing the profiling.

It sounds like it was an active situation and the kid fit the description. Please tell me how that is "profiling".

I am not knocking you, I just want to know why you think it was an important omission.

If you cannot figure that out, I cannot help you. The kid obviously walked into a situation that was out of the ordinary and Blow turned it into an "event" to suit his own storyboard.

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else notice in the article that Blow's son mentioned that the policeman was "jogging" ? Sounds like it was some kind of active search or pursuit. The fact that Blow didn't mention that the cop was black tells legions.

Why? I can't speak for everyone, but when someone talks about racial profiling by cops, I have always taken that to mean by cops of any race. The racial profiling of it goes to the person profiled - not the one doing the profiling.

I am not knocking you, I just want to know why you think it was an important omission.

Did anyone else notice in the article that Blow's son mentioned that the policeman was "jogging" ? Sounds like it was some kind of active search or pursuit. The fact that Blow didn't mention that the cop was black tells legions.

Anonymous wrote:Do you people ever find that chip-on-shoulder thing exhausting?

Actually, I find dealing with racism and people who refuse to acknowledge it more exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story about the black Yale student is a simple case of mistaken identity. This is not "walking while black". Please don't even try to say that it is, because the "walking while black" is a real problem for other non-Yale students. Trying to equate this lame story with "walking while black" trivializes the entire issue, and creates a strawman that deniers can easily knock over.

To the PP who said his white son was stopped similarly for playing "hide and seek", I have a question. Was your son on someone else's property?

Walking while black is a problem. My son has been profiled twice in the last 3 months. He was "profiled". All 125 pounds of him.

Yea, I am not sure why people argue like this is not a thing. Happens to my 16YO son in our desirable MoCo neighborhood fairly frequently - walking to the store, walking the dog, etc. Police pull up and ask him where he lives and where he is going. He has a state ID with his address and he shows it and they let him go. He has gotten to the point where he wears his school sweatshirt so that people at least think he belongs there. It irks him but I would not say that he is traumatized generally. Although he did have some concerning things to say about the Trayvon Martin case.

I understand fully what you're saying. I was and am an adult black female who 10 years ago was profiled as a 'mule' after getting off an 18-hour first-class sleeper train ride dressed in jeans, a baggy sweatshirt and an apple cap to cover my messed up hair. I was pulled over by two white plain clothes police and made to sit on the floor in front of hundreds of people with my hands handcuffed behind me at Union Station Chicago as they rifled through my suitcase. I was in town for a funeral and thought taking the train might give me time to rest and reflect on my personal loss. I was told I fit the description of a 'mule.' After an hour, I was let go and also given a card that if I had any complaints, I could take it up with 'management' so to speak and an apology of 'sorry, doctor.'

Though not traumatized, I still remain angry because I did absolutely nothing wrong nor was I in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no reason why your child should have to wear a school sweatshirt to appear he belongs in his own neighborhood. It is not your son who has the problem. It is the people in your neighborhood. I would register a complaint with the police department that patrols your neighborhood and tell them it's time to back off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story about the black Yale student is a simple case of mistaken identity. This is not "walking while black". Please don't even try to say that it is, because the "walking while black" is a real problem for other non-Yale students. Trying to equate this lame story with "walking while black" trivializes the entire issue, and creates a strawman that deniers can easily knock over.

To the PP who said his white son was stopped similarly for playing "hide and seek", I have a question. Was your son on someone else's property?

Walking while black is a problem. My son has been profiled twice in the last 3 months. He was "profiled". All 125 pounds of him.

Yea, I am not sure why people argue like this is not a thing. Happens to my 16YO son in our desirable MoCo neighborhood fairly frequently - walking to the store, walking the dog, etc. Police pull up and ask him where he lives and where he is going. He has a state ID with his address and he shows it and they let him go. He has gotten to the point where he wears his school sweatshirt so that people at least think he belongs there. It irks him but I would not say that he is traumatized generally. Although he did have some concerning things to say about the Trayvon Martin case.

Will you please share the MoCo neighborhood you're in so the rest of us can avoid it? It's county police who do this?!

Well, if I identify the specific neighborhood, some of my neighbors on DCUM will immediately be able to ID us. But my son goes to one of the W's. Yea, it is the County police.

I was the PP who's son was approached for playing "hide and seek" and it was not county police... it was one of the city police officers. But somebody called. A little different than just being stopped for walking down the street.

Anonymous wrote:Do you people ever find that chip-on-shoulder thing exhausting?

"You people?"


Well, you tell me what you think. TBH, in my everyday life, it is the Conservative WM that I work with who are always waving the race flag and crying that society is against them.

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this happening to my child (I am white); this one hit closest to home about how we do treat different races differently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/opinion/charles-blow-at-yale-the-police-detained-my-son.html?_r=0

While it's tempting upon reading this piece to wander once again into the realm of race and perception in America and engage in discussion about all the intricacies involved, I think a far more critical facet of this article is the underlying statement about the startling evolution of law enforcement in this country and how it is steadily becoming more and more aggressive and more and more adversarial.

I don't know if it's violent video games that are to blame or if it's the fault of movies and television that repeatedly depict and project images of cops drawing their service weapons and screaming at potential suspects on first sight without a hint of hesitation or any attempt at negotiation, but something has changed dramatically in the culture of law enforcement to the extent that the meaning of the phrase "protect and serve" has been skewed somewhat and officers now interpret it not as an oath of obligation to the community itself but instead they regard it as a manifesto of justification to draw their weapons immediately in order to protect themselves and serve their own brand of justice on the spot by pulling the trigger as opposed to promoting the judicial process.

Walking while black is not a crime nor is walking while white nor walking while Asian nor walking while Hispanic nor Indian nor African nor male nor female nor gay nor transgender nor short nor tall nor skinny nor fat but even still, based on the steady developing trend of officers being more and more overzealous in their encounters with the public and often times using force or firearms when it isn't even necessary there's a steady growing chance that anybody and everybody is in danger of having a gun pointed at them no matter who they are or what they are. This is something that needs to be addressed. Nearly every employer in the country whether in the private or public sector makes it mandatory for their employees to go through some type of human resource training where they receive information and instruction regarding the rights and responsibilities of workers and a particular point of emphasis is respect for others. It helps prevent workplace issues and conflicts such as sexual harassment and race/color discrimination and age discrimination, etc. Well nowhere is this type of training and reinforcement regarding respect for others more critical than in law enforcement, an occupation where a everyday an employee holds a gun in one hand and people's lives in the other.