Actually, it would be by Paul Graham's logic, which I read and agreed with as having a valid point to consider. I would be interested to know what you thought of his essay, which I provided a link to for everyone to read and consider themselves. The one entitled "What You Can't Say, (http://paulgraham.com/say.html)". What he has said made perfect sense to me, as I've been on the recieving end of this tactic many times over the years and he offers a plausible explanation as to why it is often used. That being when the other side can't counter your arguements with facts and evidence of their own, they attempt to undermine your credibility, or the credibility of your sources instead. By raising the spector of doubt about someone's motivations, the debate shifts from the issue at hand to what the person's motivation is for argueing as they have. In this way, the primary relevant issue stops being discussed and things get "derailed, derailed, derailed", as you put it. That is why special attention needs to be paid whenever someone attempts to deflect an arguement from the issue at hand to their opponents motivation for even arguing the issue in the first place or for taking the actions they did. It's a subtle, but significant difference. Why they are arguing as they are really isn't what matters. What matter's is whether or not the evidence and fact's they present in support of their arguement can be considered valid or not.
Now there are many points in this particular incident where I would say the officer was in the wrong. Violation of the 4th Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should be considered as soon as Prof. Gates was requested to presetn I.D. You are not required, by law to present I.D. if you have not been formally charged with a crime. There is the entire issue of Qualified Immunity, which basicly means that while ignorance of the law is not a defense for civilians, it IS a defense for the police. I'll borrow a line from George Carlin here: I think I'll repeat that because it sounded vaguely important. The people our society charges with upholding the Law are not themselves required to know said laws they are suppose to be enforcing. (which is discussed in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oWJhrgGZI&NR=1) at 5:40.As well as many other apparent contradictions in the law that may, or may not have a bearing on Prof. Gate's treatment, but all of which I think people should be aware of.)According to case law Arizona v. Hicks and Beck v. Ohio, A) according to Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, search is a search, and to have a search an officer needs a warrant, consent, or "reasonable articulatable suspicion that a crime has been committed" and B)a police officers hunch of wrong doing does not constitute "reasonable articulatable suspicion" that a crime has been commited (same video at 3:20). Because the officer had a hunch that Prof. Gates did not live at the house, that in and of itself is not grounds for a search of his person or property. And yeah, I'd have been plenty annoyed myself in that situation. So Prof. Gates really had the officer dead to rights on a number of violations without having to even mention racism.
But, he accusses the officer of racism, and all the sudden people stop looking at the 4th and 5th Amendment violations, Arizona v. Hicks or Beck v. Ohio, or any other case law that might support or excuse Prof. Gates's chewing the officers out (Remember Miranda Rights, silence is Golden, don't give the police anything to use against you). Now all of that other stuff gets overshadowed by "Was the officer behaving in a racist manner?" and everyone forgets all the other violations the officers likely committed, and got away with, under Qualified Immunity.
And that is an issue that I really think the President should take on and revise policy about: That the police don't have to know the laws they are enforcing. That they can violate our rights and not even get a reprimand for it. That, in my opinion, is a big flashing red neon sign that says WTF!?
no subject
Now there are many points in this particular incident where I would say the officer was in the wrong. Violation of the 4th Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should be considered as soon as Prof. Gates was requested to presetn I.D. You are not required, by law to present I.D. if you have not been formally charged with a crime. There is the entire issue of Qualified Immunity, which basicly means that while ignorance of the law is not a defense for civilians, it IS a defense for the police. I'll borrow a line from George Carlin here: I think I'll repeat that because it sounded vaguely important. The people our society charges with upholding the Law are not themselves required to know said laws they are suppose to be enforcing. (which is discussed in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oWJhrgGZI&NR=1) at 5:40.As well as many other apparent contradictions in the law that may, or may not have a bearing on Prof. Gate's treatment, but all of which I think people should be aware of.)According to case law Arizona v. Hicks and Beck v. Ohio, A) according to Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, search is a search, and to have a search an officer needs a warrant, consent, or "reasonable articulatable suspicion that a crime has been committed" and B)a police officers hunch of wrong doing does not constitute "reasonable articulatable suspicion" that a crime has been commited (same video at 3:20). Because the officer had a hunch that Prof. Gates did not live at the house, that in and of itself is not grounds for a search of his person or property. And yeah, I'd have been plenty annoyed myself in that situation. So Prof. Gates really had the officer dead to rights on a number of violations without having to even mention racism.
But, he accusses the officer of racism, and all the sudden people stop looking at the 4th and 5th Amendment violations, Arizona v. Hicks or Beck v. Ohio, or any other case law that might support or excuse Prof. Gates's chewing the officers out (Remember Miranda Rights, silence is Golden, don't give the police anything to use against you). Now all of that other stuff gets overshadowed by "Was the officer behaving in a racist manner?" and everyone forgets all the other violations the officers likely committed, and got away with, under Qualified Immunity.
And that is an issue that I really think the President should take on and revise policy about: That the police don't have to know the laws they are enforcing. That they can violate our rights and not even get a reprimand for it. That, in my opinion, is a big flashing red neon sign that says WTF!?