This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think this article (and the discussion of this incident in the Christine Todd Whitman article) misses the point. The big issue at the time, as discussed at length in the newspapers, was really not whether the young man's civil rights were violated. The courts determined that they were not. The issue was that the then-governor was depicted smiling while frisking this suspected criminal, as part of a ride-along with the police. You cannot see the smile in the photo as it appears in the article, but you can see it (barely) in the slightly larger version that you get when you click on the photo. The smile was much more clearly visible in the versions printed in the newspapers at the time. That was the problem. It was not a legal problem, it was a p.r. problem, and an issue of inappropriate behavior. The governor was involved in a law enforcement operation, and leaving aside whether that was appropriate in the first place, the issue was that she was not taking what she was doing seriously. It was a joke to her. Let's have some fun frisking this guy on the streets of Camden at night. Unless my memory deceives me, that is what caused the furor.
I have therefore added in that she was smiling at the appropriate place in both articles, and have posted this note in the Talk page for both articles. Neutron 03:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Had Mr. Rolax never had another run-in with the law, I think that this article would not be appearing on Wikipedia. The man has done nothing deserving inclusion on this site. In fact, almost all the details included in this article are to be found in the article on Whitman. The only new details are those about his later convictions, which seem to be in place simply to justify Whitman's original actions. The ethics of this article therefore seem to me questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvebelow ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think this article (and the discussion of this incident in the Christine Todd Whitman article) misses the point. The big issue at the time, as discussed at length in the newspapers, was really not whether the young man's civil rights were violated. The courts determined that they were not. The issue was that the then-governor was depicted smiling while frisking this suspected criminal, as part of a ride-along with the police. You cannot see the smile in the photo as it appears in the article, but you can see it (barely) in the slightly larger version that you get when you click on the photo. The smile was much more clearly visible in the versions printed in the newspapers at the time. That was the problem. It was not a legal problem, it was a p.r. problem, and an issue of inappropriate behavior. The governor was involved in a law enforcement operation, and leaving aside whether that was appropriate in the first place, the issue was that she was not taking what she was doing seriously. It was a joke to her. Let's have some fun frisking this guy on the streets of Camden at night. Unless my memory deceives me, that is what caused the furor.
I have therefore added in that she was smiling at the appropriate place in both articles, and have posted this note in the Talk page for both articles. Neutron 03:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Had Mr. Rolax never had another run-in with the law, I think that this article would not be appearing on Wikipedia. The man has done nothing deserving inclusion on this site. In fact, almost all the details included in this article are to be found in the article on Whitman. The only new details are those about his later convictions, which seem to be in place simply to justify Whitman's original actions. The ethics of this article therefore seem to me questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvebelow ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)