Panel votes to suspend Ms. Lawson-Muhammad

@mayhewdrive

But we’re not talking about the vast majority of police interactions are we? We’re talking specifically about interactions between unarmed African Americans and law enforcement, interactions that far too often end in violence. 

Red_Barchetta said:

flimbro said:

If Ms. Lawson-Muhammad lived in a society where Black life wasn't automatically discounted she'd have less reason to be apprehensive about being stopped by law enforcement. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and as long as that is the reality, not a single one of you has the right to dismiss her claims of being in a heightened emotional state.

Understood, but are we allowed  to opine on whether her heightened emotional state justified her specific behavior in this case? 

LOL. Far be it from me to determine parameters that govern what the mainstream can opine about, but I will suggest that you expand your criteria when you engage in debate to determine what kind of behavior is or isn’t ‘justified’.  

I’d suggest an honest personal appraisal of what you really understand about her heightened emotional state and what it really involves. The reality is that for a good amount of the population the anxiety is real, it is ongoing, it is detrimental to one’s mental health and it is not getting any better. 

I’d also suggest that you remember the type of society we’ve crafted, specifically who gets to determine what ‘normal’ is and what is or isn’t ‘ethical’.  If you can actually do that, the post from @DaveSchmidt from light years ago about the make up of the ethics board won’t be lost on you. 

If you find it difficult to fathom Ms Lawson-Muhammad’s behavior through any filter other than what you would have done in all of your perfection, you may be missing a great deal of the story.

Pathetic

Should every single black person who gets pulled over for speeding, act the way she did? I just don't buy into the drama of this woman based solely on her race. I have seen white women pulled over speeding on centre Street by black cops. Some cry, some act up, some stay calm and take the ticket. Try speeding in East orange....and try to insult the chief of police. Tell the cop you are friends with the mayor, create some drama.... pull the race card.... embarrass yourself....you bet your *** is going to court. 

kmt said:
Pathetic

 I agree.  Maybe shoot higher next time. Form an opinion based on facts and express it.  You can do it- I believe in you!

There’s plenty of evidence here that your argument is pathetic in this instance.  This isn’t about race.

Jaytee said:
Should every single black person who gets pulled over for speeding, act the way she did? I just don't buy into the drama of this woman based solely on her race. I have seen white women pulled over speeding on centre Street by black cops. Some cry, some act up, some stay calm and take the ticket. Try speeding in East orange....and try to insult the chief of police. Tell the cop you are friends with the mayor, create some drama.... pull the race card.... embarrass yourself....you bet your *** is going to court. 

 Doesn’t really matter if you buy into it or not does it?  Her anxiety is real and you can choose to understand it or not. 

I don’t know what crying white women have to do with any of this but I’ll play along. Send me some links to stories where white women were killed at traffic stops by Black cops or mysteriously died in custody after being body slammed and arrested by Black cops. Once I get those we’ll reconvene and suss our whatever connection you’re trying to make. 

And to answer your question, no. Nobody should react that way when pulled over by law enforcement. And no society should condone and perpetuate a system that creates an environment of fear amongst a sizeable portion of its population. 

There’s a lot to be considered in the high anxiety argument, but it goes left with the “skinhead” comment. Who does that? Maybe someone with no street smarts. Or maybe someone who knows very well that a comment like that can get cover in good old SOMA, but certainly not anywhere else. I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing.

annielou said:

There’s a lot to be considered in the high anxiety argument, but it goes left with the “skinhead” comment. Who does that? Maybe someone with no street smarts. Or maybe someone who knows very well that a comment like that can get cover in good old SOMA, but certainly not anywhere else. 

So someone who was either very naive (at one extreme) or very calculating (at the other extreme). Because someone who was very upset is just too far-fetched.

flimbro said:

kmt said:

Pathetic

 I agree.  Maybe shoot higher next time. Form an opinion based on facts and express it.  You can do it- I believe in you!

Kmt got way ahead of me with that one. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the notion that Lawson-Muhammad isn’t Rosa Parks.

annielou said:
There’s a lot to be considered in the high anxiety argument, but it goes left with the “skinhead” comment. Who does that? 

For some context, this is Chief Kroll and his interesting choice of hairstyle:

Granted it’s a racist question, but have you got a picture to put the threat to call Sheena in context too?

sprout said:

annielou said:
There’s a lot to be considered in the high anxiety argument, but it goes left with the “skinhead” comment. Who does that? 

For some context, this is Chief Kroll and his interesting choice of hairstyle:

Judging someone by a hairstyle is similar to judging someone by their color, gender, weight, etc

Headline:  Chris Christie appointees on ethic board get to nullify voters in SOMA.

sprout said:

annielou said:
There’s a lot to be considered in the high anxiety argument, but it goes left with the “skinhead” comment. Who does that? 

For some context, this is Chief Kroll and his interesting choice of hairstyle:

 Shame on you.   He has nothing to do with this discussion.  The only reason to post his picture is to provide some justification for SLM's choice of insult.  

annielou said:
Judging someone by a hairstyle is similar to judging someone by their color, gender, weight, etc

Not really. One chooses their hairstyle. Your other examples, not so much. 

Sorry, but being very upset or fearful can certainly explain a lot of the interaction that occurred here, and I am not discounting that, but it just doesn’t match with the name calling. It’s just strange. “Your skinhead police chief”? Weird.

sprout said:
Not really. One chooses their hairstyle. Your other examples, not so much. 

I don't think we know that in this case.  Do you know that he has chosen to be mostly bald?  Perhaps the only thing he chose is to have the hair in the center.  Do you think that the presence of that hair had an effect one way or another on the epithet SLM directed at him? 

sprout said:

annielou said:
Judging someone by a hairstyle is similar to judging someone by their color, gender, weight, etc

Not really. One chooses their hairstyle. Your other examples, not so much. 

 You really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole.

Red_Barchetta said:
 Shame on you.   He has nothing to do with this discussion.  The only reason to post his picture is to provide some justification for SLM's choice of insult.  

Wow, I guess I should be ashamed. I thought annielou was actually curious why SLM may have picked that word about the Chief. But curiosity killed the cat. So, no curiosity here. My bad.

flimbro said:
@mayhewdrive


But we’re not talking about the vast majority of police interactions are we? We’re talking specifically about interactions between unarmed African Americans and law enforcement, interactions that far too often end in violence. 

These interactions, in many cases, never should have happened.  But the police initiate these interactions because of profiling.

kmt said:
There’s plenty of evidence here that your argument is pathetic in this instance.  This isn’t about race.

You’re just not doing your best work here my man.

You know what you should do?

Self-publish a quick hand out explaining what things have to do with race and what things don’t. 

That way we’d all save time and angst when discussing these issues. 

If that works out you could segue right into what is and what isn’t anti-Semitic. And then  tackle what is and what isn’t homophobic. 

Think of all the weighty questions you could finally put to rest based on all your strongly held beliefs based on knowledge you don’t actually have. 

You’d make millions. The time is right.

Red_Barchetta said:

sprout said:
Not really. One chooses their hairstyle. Your other examples, not so much. 

I don't think we know that in this case.  Do you know that he has chosen to be mostly bald?  Perhaps the only thing he chose is to have the hair in the center.  Do you think that the presence of that hair had an effect one way or another on the epithet SLM directed at him? 

I don't know anything about Chief Kroll's hairstyle other than what I see in this SOPD photo -- but assume its similarity in appearance to a mohawk led to the 'skinhead' reference. From the context that he is a police chief of SOPD, I assume it is not a skinhead signal. But if I saw his photo as chief of an all-White town from out West, I would probably assume it was a skinhead signal.

It appears to be reverse from the typical male-pattern baldness, which leads me to believe it's his choice to shave off the sides (as these are usually the last hairs to go). If there is a story to the Chief's interesting hairstyle, I'm now curious what it is. 

sprout said:
I don't know anything about Chief Kroll's hairstyle other than what I see in this SOPD photo -- but assume its similarity in appearance to a mohawk led to the 'skinhead' reference. From the context that he is a police chief of SOPD, I assume it is not a skinhead signal. But if I saw his photo as chief of an all-White town from out West, I would probably assume it was a skinhead signal.
It appears to be reverse from the typical male-pattern baldness, which leads me to believe it's his choice to shave off the sides (as these are usually the last hairs to go). If there is a story to the Chief's interesting hairstyle, I'm now curious what it is. 

 This is outrageous.    If someone here referred to someone else using the N-word, how would you feel if I posted a picture of him and said ‘well you know, he IS a black guy’?   

If I’m out in Ohio and see some black kids on a corner can I just go ahead and assume they are drug dealers and refer to them as such?   

I think it’s safe to say that everyone here unfamiliar with the chief’s appearance assumed he was a bald man.

Posts like this completely nullify any credibility you have on this subject.  De-escalation indeed.   

So close. You had me up until “This is outrageous.”

Lawson-Muhammad wasn’t out just driving around when she spotted South Orange’s police chief and said, “Skinhead!” Also, Skinhead and “the N-word” (see what you did there?) aren’t analogous. Lastly, I don’t think sprout, or anybody, is giving her a pass for saying it.

I worry, Mr. Barchetta, that one of these days you’re going to run out of your Whatever Credibility You Had Is Gone cards here on MOL.

DaveSchmidt said:
Also, Skinhead and “the N-word” (see what you did there?) aren’t analogous.

It's at the point that this has to be explained that I wonder if my belief in humans' capacity for logic is unrealistic.

Following Sprout’s logic, it’s understandable that one can fling a label at someone based on their choice of a haircut. My hope is that posters here are critical of SLM for her actions, and have not based their criticism on something about her appearance.

Please try again. If that's going to be your main take-away after all 13 pages, well, mostly I hope you're not a teacher.

Several of those 13 pages were filled with repetitive explanations of de-escalation theory and why it somehow applies to the event being discussed. Just the kind of teacher who puts their students to sleep. Goodnight.

annielou said:

... and why it somehow applies to the event being discussed.

All right. Despite the explanations, you didn’t grasp them. It happens.

At least we’ve apparently established that highly charged words may merely have whatever superficial context the speaker (or those otherwise divining intent) chooses to assign them, regardless of any generally accepted negative connotation or deeper meaning, particularly if those words pertain merely to one’s grooming or sartorial choices.  Sometimes a word really is just a word.  Who knew?