Originally Posted by
stupendousman
I explained that I did misread what Whalen said. I didn't see a small detail. I explained how that wasn't actually even relevant though as to whether or not the "old lady" on the scene had seen and a "witness" longer than Whalen. That's something that you tried to "demolish", but simply failed miserably. No matter how you try to duck, weave and dodge, there was someone on the scene who police could have, and should have talked to if they wanted to know what happened from the get go. No amount of links have been able to dispute that.
Dude. In your post above you tried to claim that I didn't provide any links showing that Ms. Whalen only missed seconds of what the old lady saw. I showed you where I did in fact do that. It's
blatantly obvious when she says out of her own mouth ....
A. The old lady saw the guys trying to break in the door.
B. Ms. Whalen didn't notice the guys trying to break in the door at first.
C. Then Ms. Whalen saw the guys trying to break in the door herself.
D. They both saw them actually get inside the house.
E. Ms. Whalen went closer and saw the suitcases on the porch.
But you don't address that part. You go back to some old point of contention several pages ago. Whatever. At best you can say that the old lady saw the
same event a little bit longer. And it's shoulda, woulda, coulda when it comes to the police talking to the old lady at the scene. I agree. They probably should have done that. But again, there's no evidence of that. The police report said Sgt. Crowley talked to Ms. Whalen. Period. Dot. End of sentence.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
Here's where the comedy and irony comes in.... YOU ARE SPECULATING about what the "Old Lady" saw. You have no idea what she saw, unless you have a link to an interview of her. You are IMAGINING what you THINK she saw entirely based on what you've heard Whalen saw. Available evidence only provides us with the fact that she was viewing what was going on before Whalen knew there was a problem.
No. We have the 911 call where Ms. Whalen initially told the dispatcher what the old lady pointed out to her
contemporaneously. Then after that Ms. Whalen goes on to indicate what she saw herself ... which was the same thing.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
I can speak, because the evidence shows that the old lady saw more. If you watch longer, you see more. You can't see the same amount of something as another person if you start watching it after they do. It's logically impossible, but that's the type of argument you forward time and time again, ad nasuem.
And now you reveal the level of foolishness you will stoop to in order to make a point.
Scenario 1
Person A sees the guy walk up to the door.
Person A sees the guy try to open the door.
Person A sees the guy break into the door.
Person A sees the guy go inside the house.
Person B sees the guy break into the door.
Person B sees the guy go inside the house.
Now on the planet we all live on Person A saw "more" than Person B in this scenario. However, on the planet you live on we have this ....
Scenario 2
Person A sees the guy try to open the door.
Person A sees the guy break into the door.
Person A sees the guy go inside the house.
Person B sees the guy try to open the door.
Person B sees the guy break into the door.
Person B sees the guy go inside the house.
But you say Person A saw "more" than Person B simply because she saw the guy try to open the door prior to Person B for a few seconds longer. Never mind that they both report the
exact same thing. The guy was trying to open the door. A few seconds longer of seeing the same event is what you try to hang your hat on.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
Not my argument. My argument was simply that the "old lady" was watching longer, therefore would have been a primary witness who needed to be questioned. The first person at the scene of a potential crime, who is the first witness is always someone the police talks to.
Oh now it's not your argument? Funny how it seems to have been your argument for quite some time now. But whatever ... let's go with that. The available evidence only indicates that the old lady and Ms. Whalen saw the guys on the porch and break in the house. The old lady saw the guys on the porch a bit longer than Ms. Whalen. Ok fine. But nothing in the 911 call transcript indicates that the old lady accompanied Ms. Whalen when she went closer and observed the
suitcases on the porch. So do you still want to claim that the old lady saw "more"?
And nowhere does the 911 call indicate that the old lady was there before Ms. Whalen. It just indicates that the old lady noticed the situation before Ms. Whalen. Furthermore, quite obviously the police don't always talk to the "first witness". As indicated by the police report which only mentions the 911 caller Ms. Whalen. Surely you weren't born this dense. So I must commend you on the level of practice you must engage in to achieve such a high level of obtuseness.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
There is no evidence that THEY DID NOT either, since all we have is the police report and it's just a general summary of what happened based on examination of the evidence and talking to the witnesses. Not being present in a police report does not make something not happen. This was already explained by spokesman for the Cambridge Police.
Again. The police report is to document what did happen. It's not there to document what did not happen. We already covered this. Weren't you paying attention? Furthermore, need I remind you the burden of proof is on proving the
positive? Since there is this little thing about never being able to prove the
negative.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
We know that the person they said made the description claims she did not make the description as described, after being harassed and ridiculed as a racist. You make the ASSUMPTION that it was all a fabrication despite there being no real motive for doing so. I make the assumption that since there were other witnesses on the scene, and in fact someone who watched what was going on longer, it's highly likely that someone was interviewed and they got the attribution wrong. Your theory requires assumptions based on an assumed conspiracy. Mine makes assumptions based on a possible reasonable explanation given the facts. This is the sort of argument your point of debate rests on, and it's a pretty shaky one.
No. We know she didn't say that ... not because she "changed her tune" after being harassed and ridiculed as a racist as you imply ... but because the
911 call transcript proves it. We also have her saying that the only conversation she had with Sgt. Crowley at the scene was to identify herself as the 911 caller and him saying to wait right there as he immediately went to the door to investigate. And we also know that only
5 - 6 minutes lapsed between the time the 911 call was placed to the the time that Prof. Gates was arrested. And during the overwhelming majority of that time Sgt. Crowley was inside the house with Prof. Gates. So when exactly did Sgt. Crowley have the opportunity to interview the "other witnesses" and then "misattribute" their statements to Ms. Whalen? Considering the extremely short timeline that is?
No ... these aren't "assumptions based on an assumed conspiracy". This is simple
logic and common sense. Areas in which you are sorely lacking.
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
In order for your theory to be true, the cops who were all witnesses, even the minority ones would have to be liars. You have NO EVIDENCE that the police officers in question have EVER lied, no less lied about official business. You are basing your belief on a bigoted stereotype.
Lied about what? When did I ever say that the
other officers at the scene lied about anything? The only thing I said was that it appears that Sgt. Crowley may have falsified certain aspects of
his police report. Now go ahead and produce a single statement in this thread of mine where I've said that any of the other officers lied about this situation.
Of course, you can't. So perhaps you could do us all a favor and debate me based on what I
actually said and not this BS that you are talking about?
Originally Posted by
stupendousman
On the other hand, we know that Gates lied about being "racially profiled" and purposely distorted what happened. We don't just think that maybe if a set of weird conspiracy theories are true, or our bigoted assumptions based on stereotypes end up proving true that Gates didn't tell the truth - we know from the evidence that what Gates said was not true.
Oh really? Well I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier when I asked you a series of questions about "You know Prof. Gates lied when he said blah blah blah how exactly?" I'll let your response to those speak for itself. Instead, let me come at this from a different angle. You contend that Prof. Gates purposely distorted what happened. You cite the statements from the other police, including the minority officers, as proof of this. Ok fine. What I'm saying is that everybody involved is looking at the situation
from their point of view. Everybody isn't privvy to everything that happened. In any event, you can see what Sgt. Lashley (the black officer at the scene) had to say about it
here. The key takeaways are ...
1. Sgt. Lashley didn't think racism was involved.
2. Sgt. Lashley heard conversation in the house. Then he says it got louder all of a sudden. He says he heard Prof. Gates say something to the effect of "This is how a black man in America is treated. And I'm being placed under arrest in my own home because a white woman called the police." Probably got louder because by then Prof. Gates had stepped out on the porch ... per Sgt. Crowley's request.
3. Sgt. Lashley then says that he had no qualms with Sgt. Crowley arresting Prof. Gates. But he also said that
had he arrived at the scene first, it probably would have been different.
So basically we have the black officer saying that he didn't believe racism was involved and that the white officer was within his rights to arrest Prof. Gates, but that he would have handled the situation differently. He's said nothing one way or the other about the other issues at play here. He said nothing about how Sgt. Crowley behaved when he first encountered Prof. Gates or regarding his refusal to provide his name and badge number when requested .... as is required by law. Nothing about how Prof. Gates had shown Sgt. Crowley his Harvard ID and his drivers license. Etc. Why? Because he arrived
after the fact and was outside the entire time. So again, nothing he said refutes or even disputes Prof. Gates' version of events of what happened
inside the house.
Last but not least .... you are 0 for 2 on this so I'll try it "one mo gin" and see if you duck it one final time.
Originally Posted by OAW
So let's say for the sake of argument that Prof. Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley on the porch. You still can't escape this simple fact. Prof. Gates had repeatedly asked Sgt. Crowley for his identification. And he never got it as was required by state law. So since you want to be such a stickler for the letter of the law .... fine. Two can play that game.
Prof. Gates was no more in violation of the law than was Sgt. Crowley.
OAW