[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The first draft of that article has been found, before the author had a few too many Buds:

From the beginning, this event was a symbol of a well-known and explosive fissure in American society: the place where a slow news cycle meets a fairly insignificant local incident with a possible Race Card® angle to it.

The issue struck a cord precisely because it reaches a deep place in American identity. Sadly, it reveals something about who we are. The American people and, therefore, the media remain fascinated with hearing about other people's screwups and goofball run ins with police, whether it's someone named Gibson, Simpson, Spector, Spears, Cent, Blake, Kelley, Lohan, Gates, Crowley or some meth head you never heard of being busted on "Cops".

That the incident also simultaneously involved social class divisions -middle class white cop, upper class black professor- and claims of police misconduct only added more tabloid stupidity to the incident. Healing these wounds cannot possibly be accomplished in an evening of beer drinking. It'll take at least two or three more slow news cycles, a few more evenings of beer drinking, and some garden level celebrity debauchery and goofy police run in shown either on YouTube or TMZ.

President Obama gambled much on bringing together a liberal black college professor and a cop who teaches a course on racial profiling. Either man could have scuttled this event and given up a free beer, a boring lecture, and 15 more minutes of tabloid fame. But both decided to be open to the possibility of something greater and more important- like invites to be guests on Oprah, a book deal, cameos in Bad Boys III, or the president's autograph on the back of a Bud label. Obama is a leader who saw the possibility in this moment and made the gestures necessary to keep the media further distracted from actual issues. Thank you, Mr. President, for helping elevate a minor local dispute to national freakshow status, so society could collectively rubberneck for a few minutes, before moving on to more titillating water cooler chatter.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ort888 

If Obama had called Gates stupid Stupendousman would be writing walls of text defending him.

It would be... Obama Police State! Personal Liberties Removed! Freedom of Speech being curtailed!

This is really all just a game.

And that really is just a strawman.

Another non-point....move along..

[besson3c]

It's probably correct though. Stupendousman, like others on both sides of the political spectrum, has shown no indication that he is interested in genuine debate. Rather, he is more interested in convincing us all of his self-righteousness and superior judgment. It's all just a game. Hence, why discussion with people like him, turtle, stumblinmike, et all is pretty much pointless.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The comment you quoted was directed at Laminar's last post. He seemed to take issue when I said that I backup what I say. So I simply outlined other scenarios in which one could make an educated analysis of a previous event or prediction of a future event based upon existing, long-standing, and well-documented patterns of behavior. They weren't directly related to the Gates-Crowley controversy but most had their foundations in the same "phenomenon". I wouldn't read any more or less into it than that.

There are a wealth of behaviors I brought up in the last post; issues that are also existing, long-standing, and well-documented patterns of behavior. Human nature will continue to react to these issues as it always has. The problem IMO is almost always reading more into it than is necessary.

I'd like to respond to the article you posted because I think this rhetoric is actually part of the problem;

From the beginning, this event was a symbol of a well-known and explosive fissure in American society: the place where the frontline of government authority—the police—face what has long been the leading edge of social division in America—race. But this type of encounter is just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger problem is the noxious combination of persistent black poverty and segregation on the one hand, and a persistent culture of anti-black prejudice that still bedevils America, though less potent and pervasive today than it was in the past, on the other.

This issue did not illustrate any of the societal ills above. This is about a black college Professor (antithesis of poverty), living in a racially integrated neighborhood (nothing to do with segregation), arrested by a young cop chosen by a black police commissioner to train other officers on racial temperance. (nothing to do with some pervasive, deep-seeded, anti-black culture that still bedevils America)

It is this kind of rhetoric that perpetuates the problem. The societal ill is assumed and any event involving a white person and a black person is then retrofitted to the assumption.

Happy hour is over. It’s closing time on the Gates-Crowley media scrum. My hope is that now the time has arrived to focus on the real problem and get beneath and beyond all the spin and symbolism.

This issue does not relate to any "real problem". It is a perceived problem exacerbated by the kind of discourse you produced above. If we're to get beyond spin; why would this article invoke slavery and Jim Crow for crying out loud? If the officer had been black, there may have been more compliance and empathy for the methods and procedures of investigating an alleged "break-in". There certainly wouldn't have been the cries of "RACISM" lodged against him and yet I've been given no evidence that a black cop is less apt to wrongfully arrest someone.

The issue struck a cord precisely because it reaches a deep place in American identity. Sadly, it reveals something about who we are. The American people and, therefore, the media remain engaged with this issue precisely because it cuts so close to the heart of the enduring legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racial division in American society.

This is preposterous. This issue in no way, shape, or form harkens back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. I'll go so far as to say that the author of this piece illustrates a culture that is apparently so far removed from those tragic times that they would marginalize it for "the choir". This is a story about a white-skinned, blue-collar cop, a black college Professor, and a black President of the US accusing the cop of something because of his skin color. There is nothing traditionally or culturally anti-black about it. It is something quite different.

This should indicate to anyone paying attention how far we've actually come from slavery and Jim Crow, but was there any mention of this? Of course not. That would not perpetuate the notion that white cops still have problems with black people and yet, I've still not seen any proof that black cops don't have the same problem; human nature.

That the incident also simultaneously involved social class divisions and claims of police misconduct only added even more layers of complexity to the incident. Healing these wounds cannot possibly be accomplished in an evening of beer drinking. But the intensity of the focus on the moment is certainly understandable.

There is absolutely nothing complex about it.

President Obama gambled much on bringing together Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley.

... after throwing craps in the press conference when asked about the incident. He didn't gamble a thing. The gamble would've been to ignore Crowley's request to bring the three of them together. This was no gamble, it was a no-brainer.

Either man could have scuttled this event and played strictly to their core supporters. But both decided to be open to the possibility of something greater and more important. Obama is a leader who saw the possibility in this moment and made the gestures necessary to keep things moving forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you Mr. President?!? Obama sticks his foot in his mouth, Crowley initiates the idea to meet up over a beer, and the President is to be thanked and commended for what again? For seizing an attempt to save face by not declining the offer of this citizen; an offer for Obama to host a dog and pony show? Yeah, thanks Mr. President for blowing this thing out of proportion to begin with, then hosting a dog and pony show to save your own face. Good thing Crowley came up with the idea. It might've taken 6 weeks of polling to determine if such a move would've mattered. It may have never happened at all.

And I want to applaud both my friend, Skip Gates, and James Crowley. Both men needed to swallow a little pride on this day and both found a way do so. And most importantly, both decided to stay focused on the future and the larger issues. Unlike the tiresome cast of pundits, they did not make this about re-interpreting the past or playing to their own choirs.

Uh... Gates did. He continued well after the incident playing to the choir, indicting Crowley of racism. Crowley was the only one to keep his mouth shut.

I hope Gates drops these lines of accusation. Gates grew up in a racist household and reacted exactly as you'd expect from one who has learned racism early on. While I respect the fact that those were different times, someone needs to remind Gates and the author of the article you posted.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The first draft of that article has been found, before the author had a few too many Buds:

*wipes tear*
Jesus... That was beautiful.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's probably correct though. Stupendousman, like others on both sides of the political spectrum, has shown no indication that he is interested in genuine debate. Rather, he is more interested in convincing us all of his self-righteousness and superior judgment. It's all just a game. Hence, why discussion with people like him, turtle, stumblinmike, et all is pretty much pointless.

Besson, at his ironic best. God love him, because probably no one else can stomach him long enough not to have their eyes roll right out the back of their heads.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Rather, he is more interested in convincing us all of his self-righteousness and superior judgment.

*chuckle*

[besson3c]

Crash: weren't you the one who labeled me a Net Nanny (or something like this) for trying to steer debates into more civil and productive territory? Which is it, am I a Net Nanny or an ideological blowhard? I can't be both, as you can't have good debate without representation from both sides.

[turtle777]

Why couldn't you be both ? An ideological blowhard Nanny ?

-t

[Chuckit]

Y'all are going a bit off the rails. I do not believe this thread is about stupendousman's argumentation habits or even the color of cookware.

[besson3c]

I do not believe creating a new thread about stupendousman's argumentation habits is legal either.

No matter, I'm done here.

[lpkmckenna]

This fellow is exactly right: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/op...t.html?_r=1&em

You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.

Exactly. If it were against the law, he would have been charged instead of released without charge.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This fellow is exactly right: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/op...t.html?_r=1&em


Exactly. If it were against the law, he would have been charged instead of released without charge.

It's a giant strawman, and a funny one at that. He wasn't arrested simply because he yelled at a police officer. He did that in his home and faced no further action. As Gates yelled at the policeman, called him names and falsely accused him of terrible behavior, Crowley left without doing anything to Gates.

It's when Gates WENT OUTSIDE where his loud, obnoxious slander was making a scene for the whole neighborhood to have to endure, that he was asked to stop because he was disturbing the peace. He was asked/warned at least twice to refrain from the inappropriate behavior. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST THAT, regardless of whatever the kook from the NYT would lead you to believe.

People are arrested and released with a warning or without charges all the time. It diffuses ugly situations and gives everyone time to solve whatever problems have happened without giving someone a criminal record for the rest of their lives. Really, there's no conspiracy there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Exactly. If it were against the law, he would have been charged instead of released without charge.

This is dumb.

It's like saying "Gates obviously did something wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested."

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's when Gates WENT OUTSIDE where his loud, obnoxious slander was making a scene for the whole neighborhood to have to endure, that he was asked to stop because he was disturbing the peace. He was asked/warned at least twice to refrain from the inappropriate behavior. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST THAT, regardless of whatever the kook from the NYT would lead you to believe.

Well you refer to him as a "kook" but the fact of the matter is that from a legal standpoint he's correct. Which is why most legal experts have declared that the decision to drop the charges was the correct legal decision. You keep going on about how there are "laws against that" but you fail to recognize that it's not that simple. There's this little thing called Massachusetts case law that has to be considered.

Originally Posted by David Frank, former Massachusetts prosecutor

Assuming the prosecution could establish that those factual allegations are true – which Gates vehemently says it could not – it does not appear the government would have any realistic chance of proving its case in a courtroom.

In order to secure a disorderly conduct conviction, the prosecution would have to show three things:

1. That Gates engaged in fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior or created a hazardous condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose;
2. That Gates’ actions were reasonably likely to affect the public; and
3. That the defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, alarm or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

In 1976, the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Richards held that the law cannot be applied to a defendant’s language, even if it is offensive and abusive, unless it constitutes “fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

While the report refers to Gates’ conduct as “loud and tumultuous,” there does not appear to be anything there that would allow for a conclusion that they were “fighting words.”

The SJC has also said that for a defendant in Gates’ situation to be found guilty, his actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public in a place to which the public had access. Where much, if not all, of the alleged conduct occurred on Gates’ property, it appears that legal requirement would prove fatal to the DA’s case.

So, at the end of the day, the decision not to prosecute certainly seems to be the correct one.

I found this part of Bob Herbert's piece interesting as well ....

Originally Posted by Bob Herbert

If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.

So based upon this timing the encounter between Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates lasted a minute or two at most because you have to factor in the time it took Sgt. Crowley to arrive at the scene. And only a fraction of that was outside on the porch. So IMO this makes Prof. Gates' arrest even more suspect.

Bottom line? Was this a case of straight up racial profiling? I think not. Was race perhaps a contributing factor but not the main issue? Perhaps. Was this a classic case of someone being arrested for contempt of cop? Oh most definitely.

Some interesting tidbits ......

"Contempt of cop" is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by citizens towards law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority. The phrase is used in connection with arrests or use of force where there is no underlying crime, and is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality as a reaction to such disrespect, rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Arrests for "contempt of cop" may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks he or she should not be challenged or questioned. From such officers' perspective, "contempt of cop" may involve perceived and actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference, such as by asserting ones constitutional rights., disobeying instructions, or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer. Flight from the police is sometimes considered a variant of "contempt of cop". "Contempt of cop" situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.

Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons for a "contempt of cop" arrest.

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so non-threatening verbal "abuse" of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior, though some courts have disagreed on the limits of speech protected in this regard.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer conducted a study in 2008 that found that in the city of Seattle, "African-Americans were arrested for the sole crime of obstructing eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account." The New Jersey Attorney General also found a significant number of "contempt of cop" cases while investigating racial profiling by the New Jersey State Police, and concluded that "improper attitude and demeanor" of officers toward the public was a nationwide problem.

And last but not least .....

At a person's home, by asking a citizen to "step outside" the doorway, that person can be considered as "being in public" and then could be arrested, after making defiant remarks, for "disorderly conduct" in public.

OAW

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So based upon this timing the encounter between Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates lasted a minute or two at most because you have to factor in the time it took Sgt. Crowley to arrive at the scene. And only a fraction of that was outside on the porch. So IMO this makes Prof. Gates' arrest even more suspect.

That part of Bob Herbert's article stuck out to me too. Only 5 or 6 minutes passed between the 911 call and Gates' arrest? Wow.

It's certainly not impossible, but it just seems incredibly unlikely that in that time, we could have had: 1) a 911 call, 2) Crowley arrive on the scene, 3) Crowley interview the neighbor, 4) Crowley interview Gates and investigate the situation, 4) Gates cause as much public commotion as he was claimed to cause, and finally, 5) Crowley handcuff and arrest Gates - all in less time than it takes to cook a microwave lasagna dinner.

Bottom line? Was this a case of straight up racial profiling? I think not. Was race perhaps a contributing factor but not the main issue? Perhaps. Was this a classic case of someone being arrested for contempt of cop? Oh most definitely.

QFT.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It's certainly not impossible, but it just seems incredibly unlikely that in that time, we could have had: 1) a 911 call, 2) Crowley arrive on the scene, 3) Crowley interview the neighbor, 4) Crowley interview Gates and investigate the situation, 4) Gates cause as much public commotion as he was claimed to cause, and finally, 5) Crowley handcuff and arrest Gates - all in less time than it takes to cook a microwave lasagna dinner.

I take this as a complaint about the high level of police efficiency in MA.

-t

[Chuckit]

Well, yes, when what they're doing efficiently is coming into your house and arresting you without legal cause, you'd probably prefer that they take your time.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, yes, when what they're doing efficiently is coming into your house and arresting you without legal cause, you'd probably prefer that they take your time.

You are right. But I also don't break into my own home. I guess I'm "different".

-t

[Gee-Man]

I got your teachable moment for ya - Prof. Gates should have done everything exactly the same, except he should have had a huge stockpile of guns in his house. That way, this whole thing would have become a conservative cause célèbre for being about the 2nd Amendment. And we'd be having an entirely different conversation right now.

I'm sure some of you would have found it a lot easier to defend a guy being arrested in his own home for owning a sh!tload of guns, as opposed to defending a guy arrested in his own home for yelling at a cop in his front yard.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well you refer to him as a "kook" but the fact of the matter is that from a legal standpoint he's correct.

He's not "correct". Especially since he applies his knowledge of the law in a way that pretty much ignores what actually happened.

In order to secure a disorderly conduct conviction, the prosecution would have to show three things:

1. That Gates engaged in fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior or created a hazardous condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose;
2. That Gates’ actions were reasonably likely to affect the public; and
3. That the defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, alarm or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

1. Gates threatened Crowley in a way that caused a commotion; disorderly or noisy (tumultuous). He made it known that because Crowley did his job as he's required to do, Gates was going to use his power to bring harm upon him. He did this in a manner which was not calm, orderly or quiet.

2. Gates choose to threaten, engage in slanderous name-calling, and invoke Crowley's "momma" outside for Gate's neighbors (the public) to witness.

3. Crowley left Gates home and Gates chose to follow him outside and continue with the nasty, slander of Crowley which most assuredly would be considered "fighting words" to a person who'd spent a good deal of their career studying and training others how to be sensitive to race issues and who likely loved their momma. This couldn't be seen as anything less than an inconvenience to his neighbors who had to listen to the bilge he was spilling and refused to stop spilling.

Now, you can argue that despite Gate's behavior qualifying for a "disturbance of the peace" arrest that he might not have gotten a conviction if the case went to court, but knowing for 100% you'd get a conviction is not the standards law enforcement uses when arresting at the scene of the crime, and it never has been. You could also argue that Crowley should have just ignored Gates violation of the law and gave him the "benefit of the doubt".

Often times (as in this case), what is labeled as "contempt of cop" is simply the cop not giving someone engaging in a violation of the law more leeway than necessary due to the person in question not showing any respect for the law (and not necessarily the one enforcing the law). When that happens, too bad. It can be avoided by the "bad guy" not violating the law in the first place.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I got your teachable moment for ya - Prof. Gates should have done everything exactly the same, except he should have had a huge stockpile of guns in his house. That way, this whole thing would have become a conservative cause célèbre for being about the 2nd Amendment. And we'd be having an entirely different conversation right now.

Uhhh, huh? An African American male with a large cache of weapons.... When do 2nd Amendment retards ever come to the defense of rappers? You fail with stereotypes.

[turtle777]

Maybe Gates was the racist here.

Nah, can't be. We all know that only non-blacks can be racists

-t

[ort888]

When will we finally be free from this awful black oppression.

Rise up my white brothers. We shall overcome.

[andi*pandi]

Gates is over it and joking with Crowley. "I'll get your kids into Harvard if you stop arresting me."

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Gates is over it and joking with Crowley. "I'll get your kids into Harvard if you stop arresting me."

Its good to see cooler heads prevail.

Has he dropped his plans for a lawsuit?

[Chongo]

man do the poltooners move fast

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I got your teachable moment for ya - Prof. Gates should have done everything exactly the same, except he should have had a huge stockpile of guns in his house. That way, this whole thing would have become a conservative cause célèbre for being about the 2nd Amendment. And we'd be having an entirely different conversation right now.

I'm sure some of you would have found it a lot easier to defend a guy being arrested in his own home for owning a sh!tload of guns, as opposed to defending a guy arrested in his own home for yelling at a cop in his front yard.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Stretch Armstrong 

1. Gates threatened Crowley in a way that caused a commotion; disorderly or noisy (tumultuous). He made it known that because Crowley did his job as he's required to do, Gates was going to use his power to bring harm upon him. He did this in a manner which was not calm, orderly or quiet.

2. Gates choose to threaten, engage in slanderous name-calling, and invoke Crowley's "momma" outside for Gate's neighbors (the public) to witness.

3. Crowley left Gates home and Gates chose to follow him outside and continue with the nasty, slander of Crowley which most assuredly would be considered "fighting words" to a person who'd spent a good deal of their career studying and training others how to be sensitive to race issues and who likely loved their momma. This couldn't be seen as anything less than an inconvenience to his neighbors who had to listen to the bilge he was spilling and refused to stop spilling.

Whatever ....



OAW

[andi*pandi]

A somewhat silly side effect of this case is that cambridge police are no longer releasing descriptions of suspects. This seems a really bad idea.

In accordance with their new policy, police officials refused to release a description of the suspects.

Teens attack Cambridge man for his backpack - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle & Cambridge TAB

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

A somewhat silly side effect of this case is that cambridge police are no longer releasing descriptions of suspects. This seems a really bad idea.



Teens attack Cambridge man for his backpack - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle & Cambridge TAB

Not releasing suspect's descriptions is the new black.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Whatever ....

Wow. Impressive rebuttal!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow. Impressive rebuttal!

Indeed. I think it rather succinctly demonstrates how your entire approach to the topic is rooted in hyperbole and a complete lack of common sense. Even if you take Sgt. Crowley's police report at face value (which we have reason not to) there is certainly no mention of any physically threatening behavior which is the intent of the statute. Nor is there any mention of any blackmail or threats to Sgt. Crowley's career. Even if Prof. Gates said "You don't know who you are messing with." or "You haven't heard the last of this." it's a a big stretch to conclude that was a "threat" in the sense meant by the statute. If that were the case every time a dissatisfied customer in a store said "You haven't heard the last of this." to some retail drone and said they would be taking it up with their manager that would constitute that person "using their power to bring harm upon them". I mean come on dude. Stop the madness.

Furthermore, per the police report everything you mentioned in #1 and #2 of your post occurred inside the house. Therefore it wasn't "public". If it occurred at all. And again, that's a big "If" given the discrepancies in the police report that we already know about. Additionally, given Prof. Gates' background and general demeanor it doesn't seem likely that he would make a "your momma" crack to a cop with a gun. Perhaps Sgt. Crowley has been watching too may re-runs of Good Times?

In any event, #3 is totally at odd with the police report because the supposed "momma" cracks which you deem to be "fighting words" occurred in the house. Furthermore, given the timeline noted by Bob Herbert above Prof. Gates couldn't have been on the porch more than a minute before he got arrested. Which, interestingly enough, coincides with Prof. Gates' version of events when he said that he arrested as soon as he stepped onto his porch.

Bottom line? Prof. Gates wasn't outside long enough to cause any sort of "public disturbance".

Try again.

OAW

PS: Don't think we didn't notice how you totally dropped out of that "Ms. Whalen didn't witness the entire incident" argument you were making. One would think you would have learned after getting trounced on that one. Apparently hope springs eternal for you. How cute.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I take this as a complaint about the high level of police efficiency in MA.

-t

I take it as an indicator that Gee-Man needs a new microwave.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even if you take Sgt. Crowley's police report at face value (which we have reason not to) there is certainly no mention of any physically threatening behavior which is the intent of the statute.

Nowhere does the law state that it has to be "physically" threatening and in fact it doesn't even have to be "threatening", only "tumultuous". Besides, I'm pretty sure that if someone is swearing at the top of their lungs in a public place, is not "physically" threatening and refuses to stop when asked, that they are going to be protected from arrest because they didn't physically threaten anyone (hence, the "tumultuous" requirement). You are the one really stretching here.

Nor is there any mention of any blackmail or threats to Sgt. Crowley's career. Even if Prof. Gates said "You don't know who you are messing with." or "You haven't heard the last of this." it's a a big stretch to conclude that was a "threat" in the sense meant by the statute.

A threat is a threat. You want to pick nits in regards to how the law has to be enforced, but want to stop following the letter of the law when it's clear that it allows for what happened. You live by the sword....

If that were the case every time a dissatisfied customer in a store said "You haven't heard the last of this." to some retail drone and said they would be taking it up with their manager that would constitute that person "using their power to bring harm upon them". I mean come on dude. Stop the madness.

If a customer continued making those threats publicly, did so in a loud and interfering manner and refused to stop when requested, then YES - they would be setting themselves up for a possible disturbing the peace arrest if law enforcement authorities show up.

Furthermore, per the police report everything you mentioned in #1 and #2 of your post occurred inside the house. Therefore it wasn't "public". If it occurred at all.

It's not clear from the report what things Gates said outside specifically, other than he was disturbing the peace. It's highly unlikely that Gates would go from slanderous, loud threats inside, to reasonable and calm disagreement outside. This really doesn't look like a guy not making a big ugly scene in front of his neighbors...



I'm sure the photographer was in on the conspiracy as well, and told Gates to open his mouth really wide and yell before snapping the picture taken on the scene. Maybe he was saying "HEY, I REALLY like your camera!"

And again, that's a big "If" given the discrepancies in the police report that we already know about. Additionally, given Prof. Gates' background and general demeanor it doesn't seem likely that he would make a "your momma" crack to a cop with a gun. Perhaps Sgt. Crowley has been watching too may re-runs of Good Times?

I don't know Prof. Gates. Neither do you. I do know that he publicly lied about a police officer and suffers from irrational bigotry. I don't really buy that as part of his non-cooperation and generally ignorant behavior that it's impossible to believe that he wouldn't stoop to a low-rent crack as described.

In any event, #3 is totally at odd with the police report because the supposed "momma" cracks which you deem to be "fighting words" occurred in the house.

It doesn't state that it stopped when he left the house. It really doesn't seem rational that Gates would all of a sudden stop the behavior he'd been engaging inside the house and all of a sudden become rational outside. All of the officers on the scene, including black and hispanic officers support Crowley's actions (cue bigoted claims that all police lie in order to support each other).

Furthermore, given the timeline noted by Bob Herbert above Prof. Gates couldn't have been on the porch more than a minute before he got arrested.

I don't think there is a time requirement for disturbing the peace. You don't get X minutes of freedom to make an ass of yourself while annoying and disturbing the rest of your neighbors when the police request you stop.

Bottom line? Prof. Gates wasn't outside long enough to cause any sort of "public disturbance".

Again, a public disturbance can occur in seconds. There is no time requirement. If I loudly yell FXXX ME in public over and over for ten seconds with the cops in front of me, they ask me to stop and I don't, then I'm probably going to jail.

PS: Don't think we didn't notice how you totally dropped out of that "Ms. Whalen didn't witness the entire incident" argument you were making.

I already acknowledged your superiority in catching non-relevant details. Ms. Whalen didn't talk to the police. She said so herself. The person the police quoted likely was another witness who was misattributed. We've went over all of this already, but I guess you've got to cling to whatever small shreds you can find....

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't know Prof. Gates. Neither do you. I do know that he publicly lied about a police officer and suffers from irrational bigotry.

Your powers of omniscience seem to vary to support your claims. You don't know him but you know that he "suffers from irrational bigotry"? And you jump to Crowley's defense when people who similarly know nothing about him think he's the bigot? Maybe you should step back and think about your words.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nowhere does the law state that it has to be "physically" threatening and in fact it doesn't even have to be "threatening", only "tumultuous". Besides, I'm pretty sure that if someone is swearing at the top of their lungs in a public place, is not "physically" threatening and refuses to stop when asked, that they are going to be protected from arrest because they didn't physically threaten anyone (hence, the "tumultuous" requirement). You are the one really stretching here.

Again you have this scenario in your head that is based upon pure conjecture. At no point did Sgt. Crowley say that Prof. Gates was swearing at him. Either in the house or on the porch. It simply is not in the police report.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A threat is a threat. You want to pick nits in regards to how the law has to be enforced, but want to stop following the letter of the law when it's clear that it allows for what happened. You live by the sword....

So Prof. Gates calls the Cambridge police department and asks to talk to the Chief of Police to speak with him about one of his officers that was in his home ... and then he tells Sgt. Crowley that he had not heard the last of this while he was on the phone ... and that constitutes a "threat" on the planet you live on? Uh huh.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not clear from the report what things Gates said outside specifically, other than he was disturbing the peace. .............

I don't know Prof. Gates. Neither do you.

Yet you continue to make a bogus argument that is not supported by the available evidence. Only your own conjecture.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I do know that he publicly lied about a police officer and suffers from irrational bigotry. I don't really buy that as part of his non-cooperation and generally ignorant behavior that it's impossible to believe that he wouldn't stoop to a low-rent crack as described.

Case in point.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't state that it stopped when he left the house. It really doesn't seem rational that Gates would all of a sudden stop the behavior he'd been engaging inside the house and all of a sudden become rational outside. All of the officers on the scene, including black and hispanic officers support Crowley's actions (cue bigoted claims that all police lie in order to support each other).

Ummmm .... excuse me? But where exactly does it state in the police report that Prof. Gates was acting "irrationally"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think there is a time requirement for disturbing the peace. You don't get X minutes of freedom to make an ass of yourself while annoying and disturbing the rest of your neighbors when the police request you stop.

And where are these neighbors who were annoyed and disturbed? Funny how none of them filed a complaint. Funny how none of them were even interviewed per the police report.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, a public disturbance can occur in seconds. There is no time requirement. If I loudly yell FXXX ME in public over and over for ten seconds with the cops in front of me, they ask me to stop and I don't, then I'm probably going to jail.

Yeah dude. Whatever. The problem with your analogy is that nothing even remotely like that occurred. So save the stupid strawmans. Prof. Gates has said from the beginning that he was arrested as soon as he stepped out of his house onto his porch. And the evidence of the timeline (from the 911 call to his arrest) being only 5 - 6 minutes the vast majority of it being inside his home supports that way more than anything you are saying.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I already acknowledged your superiority in catching non-relevant details. Ms. Whalen didn't talk to the police. She said so herself. The person the police quoted likely was another witness who was misattributed. We've went over all of this already, but I guess you've got to cling to whatever small shreds you can find....

A. First you said Ms. Whalen didn't see anything.
B. So I checked you on that .... backed up with facts.
C. Then you say something about me and "comically irrelevant details". That's cool. I mean what else could you do other than try to dismiss the fact that you were dead wrong?
D. Then you go on to say that she didn't see the "whole thing". Talking about she didn't witness the "entire incident". On and on about this "mystery witness" who the police must have interviewed and got confused with Ms. Whalen.
E. So I checked you on that too ... backed up with facts. To which you had no response.
F. Then when I mention you didn't respond to E ... you refer to C? Totally overlooking the fact that it was a different statement of yours that I was addressing ... one made after your statement in C. Woooooooowwwww!

But let's put all that aside. Again ..... you keep harping on this "the person the police quoted likely was another witness who was misattributed" ..... you keep hanging your hat on that. When the fact of the matter is that the police report does not mention any witnesses being interviewed after Sgt. Crowley left the house. Now he supposedly had this conversation with Ms. Whalen before he went in the house ... a conversation that she has emphatically denied. But the police report also does not mention any other witnesses on the scene before he went in the house besides Ms. Whalen.

So when exactly did this supposed interview with the other witness(es) take place?

I mean if the police report made some mention ... any kind of statement about multiple people being interviewed at the scene you might have some semblance of a point. But it simply does not contain such a statement. None whatsoever. Nada. Even after the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the official police report was made public ... the Cambridge police department has only issued a statement saying that everything in the police report isn't based on the 911 call. To date they have not addressed this larger issue. They've provided no clarification, explanation, elucidation, interpretation, justification or any other kind of "ation" at all about this discrepancy in the police report and Ms. Whalen's statement ... let alone one that involves "other witnesses". Yet still you persist in this notion that to date the Cambridge police department itself has not given one iota of support.

OAW

[Big Mac]

My natural reaction to this story was to think that Professor Gates was acting out, expecting deference from the cop because of his status and a professor, and that he was playing the race card. Then I had an experience last week that made me think twice.

I was in my home town, 50 feet from my home, and then I see a cop following me. I'm about to be pulled over, I realize, so I pull over, he turns on his lights and then I think about why could be pulling me over. He claims I didn't come to a full stop or yield the right of way at a four way stop sign. I say that I'm a very careful driver and that I don't remember failing to do that. (I don't really understand why he let me go a few blocks past where he claimed I failed to yield.) He takes my license, registration and insurance and goes back to his car. When he comes back he's somewhat rude to me, and he even tells me that I had a passenger stop light out when I did not. (I verified it myself and with my mechanic afterward.) Now he let me out of the ticket because I was courteous; he said he let me go because I was honest with him and was just feet from my home, but he wasn't very courteous to me aside from letting me out of the ticket. Oh, and he told me he could have written me a $750 ticket because I had forgotten to put my updated insurance card in my car.

I'm thankful he let me out of the ticket, and I was respectful in dealing with him, but I don't think I did anything wrong and do think he could have been a little nicer. He seemed to have been looking for an excuse to say something because he claimed my light was out when it wasn't. This was the third or fourth time in my life being pulled over, and I've gotten out of tickets all those times. I'm never going to get profiled on the basis of my skin color. This experience made me think twice, though, about my view of this controversy.

[Chuckit]

Yep. I once had a cop try to get me for DUI because I started to seem a little stressed (not rude, just nervous) after she'd been grilling me for like 15 minutes about something completely unrelated. I don't know whether it happened to Gates, but it's always seemed pretty believable to me.

[OAW]

Big Mac,

Let me say first off that I'm speculating here. Definitely not from a completely uninformed basis ... but speculating nonetheless. Given your description of your experience it sounds like he was tailing you for several blocks while he was running your plates. Not sure where your hometown is or what kind of car you were driving. I just know that certain rides in certain areas being driven by certain people seem to attract additional police attention at times. But then you go and pull over yourself before he even turns the lights on you (WTF did you do that for? ) .... so now perhaps he had to come up with some excuse since there was nothing on your plates and you had no warrants?

That's the problem with situations like these. It's rarely very cut and dry. Many cops are the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. Some are a*sholes with a gun and a badge. Most are probably somewhere in between. And where they fall on that scale at any given moment or in any particular situation can be influenced by race, class, whether they've had a good or a bad day, your reaction to the situation, etc.. One thing is for sure. A lot of times cops do things because they can. A police officer has a tremendous amount of power and discretion on the streets. And some handle it better than others.

No one likes to be hassled by the police for no reason. So I'm glad you got out of what would have been a big headache if he had ticketed you on some BS. But what struck me the most about your story was when you said it would have been $750 for not having an updated insurance card in the car! I was like .... you've got to be freaking kidding me!!!!! That kind of money not for failing to have insurance ... but for failing to have an updated insurance card in the car. Wooooooooooowwwwwww!!!!!!!!

OAW

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I take it as an indicator that Gee-Man needs a new microwave.

Try Amy's Vegetable Lasagna!



Cooks in about 7 minutes on a brand-new stainless steel microwave. You could get arrested in less time - but you can't beat the taste!

[Chuckit]

Amy's veggie lasagna isn't that good, but their no-cheese pizza is possibly better than normal cheeseful pizza.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again you have this scenario in your head that is based upon pure conjecture. At no point did Sgt. Crowley say that Prof. Gates was swearing at him. Either in the house or on the porch. It simply is not in the police report.

I was giving an example to show how the standard you are trying to apply simply isn't valid. I wasn't saying that Gates was swearing.

So Prof. Gates calls the Cambridge police departmet and asks to talk to the Chief of Police to speak with him about one of his officers that was in his home ... and then he tells Sgt. Crowley that he had not heard the last of this while he was on the phone ... and that constitutes a "threat" on the planet you live on? Uh huh.

Yeah. If someone is telling me that I don't know who they are dealing with and them they call my boss, the only thing I can think that they are doing is threatening me with my job. Silly me.

Ummmm .... excuse me? But where exactly does it state in the police report that Prof. Gates was acting "irrationally"?

I believe that one of the officers who was a witness stated this. I'm also pretty sure that verbally attacking an officer with a spotless record, who was responding to a call, and despite what actually happen continue to falsely claim to be the victim of "racial profiling" is pretty irrational.

And where are these neighbors who were annoyed and disturbed? Funny how none of them filed a complaint. Funny how none of them were even interviewed per the police report.

Funny how there is no requirement for a neighbor to file a complaint in order for someone to be arrested for disturbing the peace. There was someone at the scene who believed that Gates was causing a disturbance with his tumultuous public outbursts and verbal attacks however . They asked him to stop. He refused. It doesn't take much more than that really.

Yeah dude. Whatever. The problem with your analogy is that nothing even remotely like that occurred. So save the stupid strawmans.

I'm simply pointing out that the standard you are using isn't valid. I've given examples where none of the criteria you seem to claim is necessary is evident, where the person engaging in the behavior likely would be arrested for disturbing the peace. You have no argument. People can and do get arrested for doing exactly what Gates was claimed to have done, which was supported by other witnesses. You are grasping at STRAWS.

Again ..... you keep harping on this "the person the police quoted likely was another witness who was misattributed" ..... you keep hanging your hat on that. When the fact of the matter is that the police report does not mention any witnesses being interviewed after Sgt. Crowley left the house.

In order for them to have gotten a description from a witness, they would have had to talk to them. They did not talk to Whalen. Whalen says that's the case. There is no motive for them to have invented the description in question since it is essentially a fairly accurate one. The logical explanation is that there was a misattribution.

[OAW]

Stupendousman,

Talking to you about this is like talking to a brick wall. You are going to see what you want to see regardless of the facts or the circumstances. I'll conclude with this ....

Your "logical explanation" is BS. Why?

1) The description wasn't accurate. It wasn't two big black guys with backpacks. It was a big Moroccan guy and a small black guy with suitcases.

2) When you get done talking nowhere in the police report does it say that anyone other than Whalen was spoken to by the police. Whalen on the 911 call doesn't say that anyone else was seeing what was going on other than the old lady. And somehow I doubt that Sgt. Crowley got Ms. Whalen confused with an old lady. Furthermore, at no point has the Cambridge police department addressed the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the police report. Not the 911 call mind you. Her statement in which she said that she never spoke to Sgt. Crowley at the scene other than to identify herself as the caller.

3) The police report is written after the fact. After the encounter with Prof. Gates he knew he was dealing with someone black. To then fudge the police report and claim that the witness said "the black guys did it" is not a stretch. What's the motivation? You arrest a guy on his own porch not because he was black ... but essentially because he dissed you in front of other cops. It's a BS charge. Everybody knows that. But the guy was in his own home and your reason for being there had evaporated. Plus the guy's connected. So now you have to make the situation seem more "suspicious" than it really was. And everybody knows that "the black guys did it" line tends to be effective in that regard. Add in a blurb about "backpacks" and it really sounds like a burglary in progress. Which can be useful if you ever have to explain why you continued to play "20 questions" with the man in his own home after he had shown you his ID.

Bottom line? Funny how the Cambridge police department has never offered up the Sgt. Crowley must have spoken with someone else at the scene and "misattributed" it to Ms. Whalen explanation for this glaring discrepancy. And neither has Sgt. Crowley. Yet you insist despite no evidence of it whatsoever. You defend them more than they defend themselves! If one is going to appeal to "logical explanations" ... then the logical thing to do would have been to offer this explanation when the controversy about it first erupted. But they didn't. And they still haven't. Now why is that? Perhaps because it has no basis in fact? And if that's the case then the most "logical" thing to do would be to say nothing and wait for the whole thing to blow over rather than put the officer and the department at legal risk by knowingly issuing a false statement. Especially when there is grumbling about a potential lawsuit by Prof. Gates. And the mass media is known for its relatively short attention span.

And as Steve Jobs would say ..... "One more thing ...."

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Yeah. If someone is telling me that I don't know who they are dealing with and them they call my boss, the only thing I can think that they are doing is threatening me with my job.

I recently made a large purchase. Some items were delivered to my home damaged. Others were items that the sales rep never disclosed were "as is" off the floor instead of fresh from the factory. So I called the manager about the situation and expressed my displeasure in no uncertain terms. Given this stupendously ridiculous statement of yours I suppose I should have been arrested for "threatening" them with their jobs since I dared to call their "boss" and tell him how they had f*cked up.

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Silly me.

Indeed.

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But what struck me the most about your story was when you said it would have been $750 for not having an updated insurance card in the car! I was like .... you've got to be freaking kidding me!!!!! That kind of money not for failing to have insurance ... but for failing to have an updated insurance card in the car. Wooooooooooowwwwwww!!!!!!!!

I don't know that police have any way of knowing whether or not you're insured other than the card you're supposed to carry with you. I have a bad habit of getting pulled over a week or two after my current card expires - I can think of at least four times this has happened. Once, the officer forgot about it because he was so excited to write me a ticket for my illegal tint, but during the other times, I let the officers know that I renewed my policy and just hadn't yet put the new card in my car. I believe in Iowa it's something like a $350 fine for not having insurance. You can go to court and show that you had insurance coverage when you were pulled over, but you still have to pay something like a $50 fine for not having proof of insurance.

So the $750 fine wasn't specifically for not having proof of insurance; it's because as far as the officer knows, the driver let the policy expire and is driving without coverage.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Stupendousman,

Talking to you about this is like talking to a brick wall.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I've outlined how your standards don't apply, shown how your "evidence" that the police got the entire case wrong was irrelevant and grasping at straws, and provided you with examples to show how your arguments make no sense yet you persist. I feel your pain.

Your "logical explanation" is BS. Why?

1) The description wasn't accurate. It wasn't two big black guys with backpacks. It was a big Moroccan guy and a small black guy with suitcases.

From the street, that was a fairly accurate description if given by a witness. You likely couldn't clearly tell a suit case from a backpack and since neither men where white and one was clearly black, it's reasonable to think maybe they were both black.

Most descriptions given to police from a distance aren't totally accurate. The point is that the description in question doesn't help or harm Crowley's case in any way, is close enough to have come from someone witnessing events from the street (Whalen's description was even less accurate) so there's really no motive in making up the reported description.

2) When you get done talking nowhere in the police report does it say that anyone other than Whalen was spoken to by the police.

Nor does it say she was the only one they talked to. Given the fact that there was more than just one witness to what went on, and in fact there was someone on the scene who had seen more than Whalen, it seems unlikely that they would have simply asked Whalen to describe what the men looked like, then asked no other questions and gotten no other answers.

Whalen on the 911 call doesn't say that anyone else was seeing what was going on other than the old lady. And somehow I doubt that Sgt. Crowley got Ms. Whalen confused with an old lady.

It's quite possible he did talk to the "old lady", thinking that she too had called into 911 since she was the first on the scene. When they went back to check the records, Whalen's name was listed and that's the name that was used. It doesn't state anywhere in the police report that they got the name of the witness from the witness herself either. If you want to play that silly game, two can play.

Furthermore, at no point has the Cambridge police department addressed the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the police report.

BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT to all but people trying to grasp at straws to figure that the police had to have done SOMETHING wrong, since most all cops are bad and racist. I know... I know....

3) The police report is written after the fact. After the encounter with Prof. Gates he knew he was dealing with someone black. To then fudge the police report and claim that the witness said "the black guys did it" is not a stretch. What's the motivation? You arrest a guy on his own porch not because he was black ... but essentially because he dissed you in front of other cops.

There was no need for that motivation, since they arrested the man for disturbance of the peace, and not because of the break-in. It didn't matter if the guy was green - they arrested him for what he did AFTER they determined there was no break-in, therefore race was not a factor. Given the fact that the cop in question really doesn't even fit the profile of a racist cop with a grudge, and it's clear that Gates was likely doing everything they said (mulitiple witnesses, a record showing Gates being uncooperative, photos showing Gates yelling outside, lying about everything afterwords) your claims of some kind of racist conspiracy falls flat.

It's a BS charge. Everybody knows that.

You and the mouse in your pocket must be very proud.

But the guy was in his own home and your reason for being there had evaporated. Plus the guy's connected. So now you have to make the situation seem more "suspicious" than it really was.

There was no need. The cops where called. They answered the call. They investigated. During the investigation the police were verbally attacked and slandered. When they went to leave Gates followed outside and continued to yell and refused to stop making a tumultuous scene when asked twice to do so, despite having had nothing untoward done to him by the police. He got arrested. There was no need to make up a description. No need to make something more "suspicious" since the people in the neighborhood where the ones who where alarmed and Gates was breaking into his home forcibly. You motive is severely lacking giving the facts, but it does make for some great fiction!

Bottom line? Funny how the Cambridge police department has never offered up the Sgt. Crowley must have spoken with someone else at the scene and "misattributed" it to Ms. Whalen explanation for this glaring discrepancy. And neither has Sgt. Crowley. Yet you insist despite no evidence of it whatsoever.

Because as I explained, it's wholly irrelevant. They've not make any further statements about the case at all. Funny how no one else is prodding the police department to come up with an explanation either, huh? It's because most everyone understands how these things happens, and knows that getting a description wrong given the facts really doesn't effect the case and since there's nothing the officer could really have gained, that you aren't going to be able to find any real "wrong doing" in the matter.

Especially when there is grumbling about a potential lawsuit by Prof. Gates. And the mass media is known for its relatively short attention span.

Let him sue. Let him explain to a jury how this guy with a spotless record and a history of being an example of how to deal with race didn't give him the benefit of the doubt when he yelled at him, called him names, made a public scene, got himself arrested, and then lied about what happened in public in a way that dishonestly portrayed Crowley as a racist (slander). Seriously, Gates should compound his "teachable moment" by having to pay Crowley's legal fees when he's laughed out of court. Maybe then he'll figure out that his bigotry isn't going to get him anywhere.

I recently made a large purchase. Some items were delivered to my home damaged. Others were items that the sales rep never disclosed were "as is" off the floor instead of fresh from the factory. So I called the manager about the situation and expressed my displeasure in no uncertain terms. Given this stupendously ridiculous statement of yours I suppose I should have been arrested for "threatening" them with their jobs since I dared to call their "boss" and tell him how they had f*cked up.

Had you done so in a manner that was loud and tumultuous, and when asked to stop you did not (showing you where aware that your behavior was disturbing the public), then yes you could have been arrested not for "threatening" him, but rather for disturbing the peace. Especially if this all happened in front of a law enforcement officer. Not because I say so, but because that's the law. The laws don't change just because you are black, or just really, really unhappy with something.

[ort888]

Hey I have an idea. Let's have a huge argument over crap know one actually knows all the details about. That should be fun. We can just fill in the blanks to fit whatever best reenforces any pre-existing political views we have.

[Chongo]

hmm, 201x50

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

hmm 201x50

...and?

[OAW]

Stupendousman,

You keep talking about how Ms. Whalen wasn't the "first on the scene" ... when you have no basis on which to say that. All she said was that the old lady noticed Prof. Gates and his driver first. She never said that she wasn't there "on the scene" with the old lady from the very beginning. "Nor does it say she was the only one they talked to...."? Really? And that's what you base this theory of yours on? The police report doesn't say that the cops talked to the Jedi Ambassador from the planet Coruscant either. The purpose of the police report is not to list what didn't happen. The purpose is to outline what did happen. "Lied about what happened in public...."? And you base this on what evidence? Certainly you weren't in the room during the 95+% of the encounter between Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley that was not public. You have no basis to claim that Prof. Gates' version of events is a lie ... other than the fact that you choose to believe Sgt. Crowley.

When Prof. Gates said Sgt. Crowley demanded that he step outside before he even identified himself or why he was there you can show that was a lie how?

When Prof. Gates said he showed him his Harvard ID and his Ma. drivers license ... yet Sgt. Crowley only mentioned the former in his police report you can show that was a lie how?

When Prof. Gates said he asked Sgt. Crowley for his name and badge number but never got it ... you can show that was a lie how?

When Prof. Gates denied making some silly "your momma" crack to Sgt. Crowley you can show that was a lie how?

When Prof. Gates said that Sgt. Crowley continued to question him even after he had shown him his ID you can show that was a lie how?

When Prof. Gates said Sgt. Crowley told him "I'll speak with you outside." when he demanded his name and badge number ... and then as soon as he stepped out onto the porch Sgt. Crowley said "Thank you for accommodating my earlier request." and immediately placed him under arrest you can show that was a lie how?

We could go around and around about this. But I do believe that our particular discussion has run its course. I will say this though ....

Something tells me that if some of those right-wing wackos who are clearly being "loud and tumultuous" in these public healthcare townhall meetings were arrested for "disturbing the peace" you would be one of the main ones up in arms about it. I daresay that your position would be dramatically different if this had happened to someone you considered more "like minded".

OAW