Black Reporter Frisked; Passer-by Reported He Held Gun

O

Oatka

New member
This is where the anti-gun hysteria leads.
From the land of the Salem Witch Hunts --
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXHT9OL8C.html

Black Reporter Frisked; Passer-by Reported He Held Gun
The Associated Press

EASTHAM, Mass. (AP) - A black newspaper reporter who was interviewing a traveling evangelist next to a highway was frisked twice by police officers after a passer-by apparently mistook his tape recorder for a gun.

A federal official said his office would be speaking with police and might try to get better training for officers on racial matters, but the chief defended the actions.

Two Eastham police officers responded to a 911 call Sunday claiming a black man at the side of Route 6 was holding a gun to a white man's head, Police Chief Donald Watson said.

Police detained and frisked Sean Gonsalves, a black reporter for the Cape Cod Times. He had been interviewing Arthur Blessitt, 59, a white Florida man marching along highways preaching the Gospel and hauling a 12-foot wooden cross.

Gonsalves, who has worked for the paper for six years, had held a small tape recorder near the man's mouth during the interview, according to the account in today's Cape Cod Times. The reporter said he was not roughed up but was frisked twice by officers even after he had identified himself and offered to show credentials.

The editor of the Cape Cod Times, Cliff Schectman, asked police for an apology, calling it a case of racial profililng. But Watson told The Boston Globe his police do not "apologize for doing our job."

Martin Walsh, regional director of the Community Relations Service of the U.S. Justice Department in Boston, said a conflict resolution team would speak with officers in Eastham and with local members of the NAACP, which filed a complaint.

Walsh's department does not prosecute, but seeks resolution through mediation. That could include additional training.

In Wellfleet, another Cape Cod community, a justice department team held training for police after they stopped a black man at gunpoint in February for acting suspiciously. He had been dancing to music on headphones and didn't hear police commands.

AP-ES-05-23-00 1113EDT

© Copyright 2000 Associated Press.
 
"But Watson told The Boston Globe his police do not "apologize for doing our job."
"

We were just following orders, honest.
 
Umm, what I don't get is what is racist about searching a guy who allegedly (according to what the police were told) was pointing a gun at another man? Is he implying that he was searched because he was black, or because he was a reporter? Or is it racist because they searched him twice? Either way, I don't see that it merits playing the old race card.

If I were accused of pointing a gun at someone, I would expect the police to search me, whatever ID I showed them. While I wouldn't be thrilled with the search, (I would probably ask them to get a warrant if I was unarmed, or ask to speak to a lawyer if I was armed at the time), the alternatives aren't too pleasant, either - the police could ignore the report of a crime in progress, or drive on by, ignoring the presence of someone who matched the description of the suspect because he happens to be a minority and might sue.

Are the police only allowed to search white male suspects now?
 
Well, duh! The "passer-by" who can't tell a tape recorder from a firearm owes the reporter an apology, NOT the police. I'd like to hear the 911 tapes; I'll bet he was just pissing himself over the evil Black gangsta threatening someone.
 
The issue would be whether folks are more prone to misidentify situations with a minority actor than a majority one.

Unfortunately, this has been studied and
in ambiguous situations or even unambiguous ones where scenarios are reported, minorities were seen to be threatening even when they weren't.

That's lab work and reliable.

It also works in real life. There are police incidents were minority members were either the good samaritan or victim and arriving LEOs took them down.

So it's more complex than just implying the police are only allowed to search white suspects.
 
The police responded to a report of a man holding another at gunpoint. There should be no controversy, regardless of anyone's racial makeup.
 
The police did exactly what they should have done. Of course, this being the People's Republic of MA, they will be crucified.

Jared
 
I think the question here is why did the police search the reporter when he identified himself, offered to show credentials and it was obvious that the evangelist was not being robbed (i.e. he wasn't screaming for help when the police arrived on the scene)? Would they have done the same to a white reporter?

If department policy is to always conduct such a search no matter the circumstances, then the officers did in fact do their duty and shouldn't be criticized. The policy should be criticized, however, because it amounts to a fishing expedition rather than reacting to reasonable cause.


[This message has been edited by proximo (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
I live on Cape Cod, this morning on WXTK FM-95.1 I heard the entire 911 phone call.

In my opinion, the woman who called 911 had no idea what she was talking about. She actually said, "This is going to sound stupid but, i think i might have seen a man pointing a gun at a man carrying a cross." She did not sound like she had even seen a gun before in her life. Even when the 911 operator asked her to repeat it, she mentioned again that she wasn't sure what she saw.

In my opinion the 911 caller saw a black man, with an unknown object, in a very rural town ("you aint from around here are you?") and instantly thought gun. Exactly as the news media would have intended. You see, non-white & gun equals crime here.

Everything is a gun now-a-days. Every time someone sees someone else with an "unknown object" the object automatically and instantly "becomes" a gun. People who carry concealed aught to be concerned about this and keep this in mind when you run to the grocery store.

More importantly, why didn't the first set of Officers who frisked the Reporter inform the Second set of Officers that they had the situation under control?

~USP
 
I've frisked suspects after someone else and found weapons. So have many other officers, and especially deputies, over the years.
 
Didn't the Supreme Court recently decide something about police not having probable cause to arrest someone based only on an eyewitness report that someone has a gun? I realize that a Terry-stop frisk requires a lower level of articulable suspician, but if I were the reporter I'd be arguing "Well the Supreme Court just ruled that you can't do what you did, etc..." Anyway, I support the police on this one (as I usually do, absent evidence to the contrary).
 
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with the dept. policy. If he wasn't under arrest, the search was voluntary - he could have refused to be searched, and they would have had to arrest him in order to search him. Instead, he cooperated, probably because it was the fastest way to clear up the issue - since he wasn't carrying a gun, he obviously wasn't pointing a gun at anyone. Following up with a second search, I don't have a problem with either - all my work is subject to review because the consequences of a mistake can be very high (as in the case of the first officer missing something). As far as him identifying himself & showing his ID as a reporter, so what? Does being a reporter mean that he couldn't have robbed or threatened someone? No profession is
free of criminals.

If the police detained him, ran him out of town, assaulted him, or would have treated a white man who reportedly pointed a gun at a black man any differently, I wouldn't be defending them, but I think they did their job given the information they were given.
 
I'm with Danger Dan on this. Yes, the reporter showed them his credentials. So what? All that means is that he is a reporter. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have a gun.

Jared
 
Would they have treated a white reporter the same way?

That is an empirical question. As I said before studies indicate that in such situations blacks are viewed more negatively and weapons misperceived more.

You can't avoid the implication of such.
If all reporters are treated the same manner if we think it is overdoing it - that is one issue.

If race is differential - that is another.
 
I think it is pretty humorous for an itinerent evangelist to be named Arthur Blessit ... ;)

But, that little trivia aside, let me ask a dumb question ... wouldn't it have been logical as well to pull Mr. Blessit aside and simply ask him if the guy had pulled a gun on him? Seems like common sense to me, and wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble for everyone?

Thanks. Regards from AZ
 
Jeff,

In a radio interview on WXTK yesterday Mr. Blessit said that his opinion was that Mr. Gonsalves was treated poorly by the police. This is a big reason that the story has gotten this far.

I don't think that the police were going to take Mr. Blessit's word for it anyway.

~USP
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erik:
I've frisked suspects after someone else and found weapons. So have many other officers, and especially deputies, over the years. [/quote]

So can suspects be expected to be frisked by every new police officer they meet?

~USP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top