[ort888]

I'm always surprised to see just how bitter many white people are about any black person who complains about racism.

And I'm not just talking about this board, I'm talking in generalizations. People on message boards, people I know, talking heads, etc... It's just something I've noticed.

There is a lot of pent up hostility. The underlying attitude almost seems to be...

"I'm not a racist, so don't blame me and stop whining about it... as a middle class white person, with middle class white parents and living in my middle class white neighborhood I can tell you with some level of authority that racism isn't a big deal any more... talking about it only makes it worse so lets all just shut up and move on with our lives"

Anytime anyone brings up race in any capacity, they are automatically scorned and belittled for dragging it down to that level. As if race was simply off the table and the issue is simply not worth discussing and anyone who dares bring up race is an instant racist.

[MichaelNow]

Once the officer knew the facts he could turn page in his training book to address the new situation INSIDE the house. Yes, Gates was extremely upset and angry, probably offended and intimidated, shouting and blaming like hell. And to diffuse such a situation it requires a totally different professionalism of ego-control and very different attitude by the officer. It easily can be achieved, when dealing with non-violent, intelligent person, by recognizing the victim's (of circumstances) great distress, stopping any demand and instead showing understanding and sympathy and maybe even, God forbid, an apology. Such a different professionalism would lead to different outcome but unfortunately the Sergent's ego and training didn't allow him such an option and for that he needs to apologize. And this missing chapter needs to be added to police training books.

[MichaelNow]

Why the Sergent didn't wait for another officer to enter the house with him? It could lead to a different outcome. Did he knew ahead of time that it is safe to enter alone?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm always surprised to see just how bitter many white people are about any black person who complains about racism.

And I'm not just talking about this board, I'm talking in generalizations. People on message boards, people I know, talking heads, etc... It's just something I've noticed.

There is a lot of pent up hostility. The underlying attitude almost seems to be...

"I'm not a racist, so don't blame me and stop whining about it... as a middle class white person, with middle class white parents and living in my middle class white neighborhood I can tell you with some level of authority that racism isn't a big deal any more... talking about it only makes it worse so lets all just shut up and move on with our lives"

Anytime anyone brings up race in any capacity, they are automatically scorned and belittled for dragging it down to that level. As if race was simply off the table and the issue is simply not worth discussing and anyone who dares bring up race is an instant racist.

I think it's more that white people — especially white men, and even more likely if they're middle-class — are constantly accused of all kinds of bigotry. And there's really nothing they can do to prove that they aren't bigots — they'll just be told that what they think is irrelevant because of their race. So based on their experience with bullshit accusations and double standards, they develop the idea that these claims are usually crap.

[ort888]

No, I understand and empathize with that. As a middle class white person myself, I understand where they are coming from... but I also understand that I can't really understand where the black community is coming from.

Nothing I do will ever make me fully understand what it's like to be a black person living in this country. Because I'm not black, and I never will be.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think it's more that white people — especially white men, and even more likely if they're middle-class — are constantly accused of all kinds of bigotry. So based on their experience with bullshit accusations and double standards, they develop the idea that these accusations are usually crap.

Kinda like those imaginary accusations against the 911 caller that no one has yet to provide a link for let alone point out a post in this thread making such a claim? The ones that certain individuals felt the need to ridicule?

There's one thing that someone once said that hits the nail right on the head IMO ....

What I have found is that many people in America, particularly the white people, don’t really want peace, they want quiet. “Just shut up and don’t talk about it. Fine, there may be a problem, but let’s not talk about it.” That’s not peace, that’s quiet. You’ll never have peace until you have real dialogue and look at the difference between the life of a white and life of a non-white in this country, and how we close the gap. That’s how you get peace. So people don’t want racial justice; they want racial quiet. But racial quiet in the absence of racial justice is to allow for things to go forward unfairly. In the long run, that leads to explosions because people hold it in as long as they can and then they explode. The way to stop the explosions is to deal with the problem.

They don't want to talk about the long running history of racial profiling in this country on the part of police. They don't want to talk about how police reports don't always reflect the truth. They certainly don't want to address the glaring discrepancies in the police report in this particular case. And they will tap dance around the fundamental issue better than Fred Astaire, Sammy Davis Jr, and Michael Jackson combined rather than admit the patently obvious ....

When Prof. Gates showed him two forms of ID and proved he was in his own house then the next thing out of Sgt. Crowleys' mouth should have been "Sorry to have disturbed you sir. Have a nice evening." See ya bye! And if Prof. Gates were white (or perhaps I should say "all white") .... in all likelihood that's exactly what would have happened.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Kinda like those imaginary accusations against the 911 caller that no one has yet to provide a link for let alone point out a post in this thread making such a claim?

I don't know if anyone in any authority made such an accusation, but reading the comments posted on boston.com, wickedlocal.com, whdh.com, etc., she was getting some abuse, along with everyone else. I'm sure she was scared.

There are no winners here.

[ort888]

Yeah, I saw her get some abuse. Commenters were saying things like...

If anyone racially profiled it was her... She only called it in because they were black... etc...

I never saw it anywhere besides comments sections on articles and on message boards, but there was some. Not a lot, but some.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And if Prof. Gates were white (or perhaps I should say "all white") .... in all likelihood that's exactly what would have happened.

The What-If machine strikes again!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, I saw her get some abuse. Commenters were saying things like...

If anyone racially profiled it was her... She only called it in because they were black... etc...

I never saw it anywhere besides comments sections on articles and on message boards, but there was some. Not a lot, but some.

So we are talking about random idiots making posts in comments sections on articles? Where we really don't know who is making the comments? And where I'm sure there were just as many people making inane comments about Prof. Gates? I suppose in my mind I was focused on having an intelligent discourse on the subject based upon what was said in this particular thread along with actual news reports.

Originally Posted by Laminar

The What-If machine strikes again!

Perhaps. But there's a big difference between "what if" based upon just pulling something out of your a*s and "what if" based upon decades of previous experience. N'est-ce pas?

OAW

[ort888]

Well, I can't read everything and definitely don't... but she felt like she had to come forward with her side of the story because she thought she was getting undue criticism from somewhere... or maybe she just didn't like that the story seemed to be wrong and her name was attached. I don't know.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps. But there's a big difference between "what if" based upon just pulling something out of your a*s and "what if" based upon decades of previous experience. N'est-ce pas?

How does assuming that police officers are racist help progress us as a society?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps. But there's a big difference between "what if" based upon just pulling something out of your a*s and "what if" based upon decades of previous experience. N'est-ce pas?

OAW

I take it that you have years of experience pulling things out of your ass ?

-t

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Has anybody asked to see Gates and Crowley's birth certificates yet?

LOL!!! Welcome back, Besson!

[pooka]

The plot congeals...

I'd say the recently released 911 call demonstrates just how combative Gates was that day.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

The plot congeals...

I'd say the recently released 911 call demonstrates just how combative Gates was that day.

I can't get up from the floor. I'm dyin'.

[ebuddy]

I might have to part from my initial thought on this one. OAWs full account on page 3 shows there are a few problems with the "summary" offered by Crowley. It does appear the summary was trumped up a bit to make the situation appear more suspicious than it was in reality.

Still, had the officer been black would this be as big a story?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Stupendousman,

:::::::::sigh::::::::::

Allow me to slowly, and systematically demonstrate to you and everyone else in this thread just how you have taken badge kissing to an all new level. Ok? Pay attention now

....

Now let's set aside how silly it is to request that the caller meet you at the front door of a residence that you think may be in the process of being burglarized. I'm not going to even go there.

Probably because no matter how "silly" you think it is, that's exactly what happened. The 911 dispatcher told the woman to meet the police there, and Sgt. Crowley requested that the 911 dispatcher tell the woman to do that.

So the question now becomes .... how does Sgt. Crowley on 3 or 4 occasions in his official police report claim that Lucia Whalen "told him this" and "told him that" in a .... follow me now ok ..... "summary" of events that Ms. Whalen emphatically has denied ever took place?

As someone else mentioned, it's likely that Crowley talked to someone, possibly the original witness or witnesses (and not Whalen) since Whalen didn't actually see what happened.

Let me be blunt. Either Sgt. Crowley is lying in the official police report. Or Ms. Whalen is lying when she says that she never spoke to Sgt. Crowley at the scene.

You can be as blunt as you want. You can also be as "thick" as you want as well, given that there's a third option and that is that Crowley (or another officer) talked to someone outside Gates home who they assumed was Whalen since Whalen was told to meet and talk to the police there.

Given that there's really no motive on Crowley's part to lie about this detail (it doesn't help or hurt his case), and it would seem reasonable to expect that if he or other officers requested to talk to the witness and talked to someone at the scene, that they'd assume it was the person who actually called 911.

Dude. Seriously. If Prof. Gates was "screaming" and "yelling" as was Sgt. Crowley's claim that would be apparent on the tapes.

Most likely not. The switch was held down only long enough for the officer to make his statements and he was talking directly into the mike. You can hear that there is something being said in the background, but there simply isn't enough time to gauge what is being said or how loud it was.

The point though is that when Sgt. Crowley is speaking and has opened his channel ... the radio is going to transmit whatever sound it picks up. And it picked up someone in the background speaking as well. Likely Prof. Gates. Now per the recording Sgt. Crowley was speaking in a calm manner. Clearly he didn't have to raise his voice to be heard over the supposed yelling and screaming of Prof. Gates.

He's speaking right into the radio. Typically, even with loud background noises, you don't have to raise your voice to be heard on the other side. The microphone pick-up pattern is designed to pick-up input directly and shield the radio from quite a bit of outside interference. Usually, the "scene of a crime" or emergency is quite noisy. Police broadcast from noisy freeways and other loud environments. I don't think I've ever heard a police radio broadcast where the officer yelled into the radio. On the other hand, it can be quite hard to hear from the speaker itself if there is noise.

But to be honest, it's all pretty irrelevant since what happened INSIDE the house isn't what got Gates arrested. It's what happened outside that even minority law enforcement officers says was arrest worthy, that caused Gates to find himself behind bars. None of the witnesses outside Gates home seems to be coming to his defense claiming that he did what he needed to in order to avoid disturbing the peace.

[OAW]

Ok dude. Whatever. As a full-fledged member of the Badge-Kissers Club you are inclined to to believe that Sgt. Crowley simply made a "mistake" in his official police report. Never mind that earlier you were taking whatever he wrote as if it was the Gospel. Personally, I think that's a position that strains credulity. At best. From the very beginning I said there is a long history of some police who will skew if not outright falsify a police report when it suits them. Even before the revelation came out that Ms. Whalen never spoke to Sgt. Crowley at the scene. But you just can't seem to fathom the idea that .... GASP .... police officers are human and fall short of perfection. That they are subject to the same flaws and biases that "civilians" are.

You believe whatever you want. There's certainly no law that says your position on the issue has to make any sense or even pass the giggle test. Having said that, it seems to me that Sgt. Crowley decided he was going to show Prof. Gates who was boss. And then he had to uuhhhhh ... "embellish" the police report to make his actions seem more reasonable after the fact. That's not to say he isn't a good guy or is some kind of closet KKK member. The point here isn't to vilify the man as an individual. But at the end of the day you can't escape the fact that once Prof. Gates showed him his ID Sgt. Crowley should have said ....

"Sorry to disturb you sir. Have a good evening." And then left. Whether Prof. Gates was still mouthing off to him as he was walking away or not. Something tells me that even IF ... and that's a big if because the tapes certainly don't indicate it .... Prof. Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley on the porch (you know ... that little thing called private property) that would have immediately ceased when the target of the verbal castigation had left the premises. Now had the police left and the neighbors had to call them back because Prof. Gates was STILL outside causing a ruckus then you might have some semblance of a point on this whole "disturbing the peace" charge. But of course, sometimes common sense isn't all that common.

OAW

PS: Did you happen to notice that in the last week there has been no independent evidence revealed (911 tapes, police recordings, witness statements, etc.) that has contradicted Prof. Gates' version of events? Given the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the police report ... the same simply can't be said of Sgt. Crowley.

OAW

[OAW]

Now we have a direct statement from Lucia Whalen ... the 911 caller.

Originally Posted by Lucia Whalen

Lucia Whalen, whose 911 call led to the arrest of the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home, made her first public comments Wednesday, saying at no time did she ever mention race to the responding police officer.

Ms. Whalen’s statements contradict the police report filed by Sgt. James Crowley, who said Ms. Whalen told him outside Mr. Gates’s home that she had seen “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks” on the porch of the yellow single-family house.

Ms. Whalen said that the only words she exchanged with Sergeant Crowley in person were, “I was the 911 caller.” She said that he responded, “Stay right there.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us...ef=global-home

We'll see how much the media presses the Cambridge police department and Sgt. Crowley for an explanation.

OAW

[OAW]

A Boston police officer was placed on administrative leave after he allegedly used a racial slur when referring to Henry Louis Gates Jr. In a mass e-mail, Officer Justin Barrett, 36, called Gates a "jungle monkey," according to Elaine Driscoll, a spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department.
Gates, a black Harvard scholar, was arrested at his home earlier this month on a disorderly conduct charge after he tried to budge open the door of his Cambridge home.

Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis found out about the e-mail on Tuesday and immediately stripped Barrett of his gun and badge, Driscoll said. The e-mail was sent anonymously to his Barrett's fellow guard members and the Boston Globe. Boston Mayor Tom Menino called Barrett a "cancer in the department."

Police: Boston Cop Calls Gates 'Jungle Monkey' In E-Mail - Most Popular News Story - WCVB Boston



OAW

[turtle777]

How does this work ?

An anonymous mass e-mail sent from Officer Justin Barret ?

How did they track him down that fast ?

-t

[OAW]

Not sure. Dude is also a member of the National Guard. If this is true then he was stupid enough to distribute it to all his fellow guard members and the Boston Globe. He must've said something that allowed people to put two and two together to identify him ... or perhaps they traced his IP to the police department and went from there. Can't really say. He wouldn't be the first person to confuse "anonymous" with "untraceable".

OAW

[Chuckit]

Could have used his login credentials — could have been any number of things.

[vmarks]

OAW,

"Badge-kissers" ? Really?

The police have authority. Whether or not individual officers or departments as a whole earn your respect, or the respect of the communities they police, the authority commands respect.

I'm sure that if I wanted to, I could come up with some reductive oversimplification of a label for your position, or a strawman for it, as you have done for those you disagree with.

I do not think it's necessary to toss labels as strawmen around, and it certainly doesn't do much to advance your argument.

------------

Wading into the arguments:
I agree that a man's home is inviolate, under the constitution. I wish that OAW took as strong a line on constitutionality in other arguments as he has here.

As for the hypothetical OAW posed of the officer leaving the scene even if Gates allegedly continued to provoke/cause disturbance, I'm not sure this is necessary. Nothing seems to require the officer to leave, receive a second call and be re-dispatched if he can observe a situation that requires his presence or action. I'm basing this on the notion that I wouldn't want an officer to leave and be re-dispatched if he observed some other, more clearly observable violation taking place.

Honestly, these observations and points are moot, because they aren't reflective of what took place.

[OAW]

Vmarks,

No one ever said the police don't have authority and deserve respect. Least of all me. The term "badge kissers" was coined by someone in this thread to denote those who blindly take the word of a police officer regardless of the circumstances. Such as those who will continue to insist that Sgt. Crowley's police report is still ok despite the fact that Lucia Whalen has outright denied his claims. If you can't discern the difference between needling those for whom the shoe fits and a lack of respect for police in general then hey … whatever. Though we often disagree I've always found you to be an intelligent individual. Which is why I suspect you actually know better.

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The police have authority. Whether or not individual officers or departments as a whole earn your respect, or the respect of the communities they police, the authority commands respect.

I disagree. Their authority commands obedience as far as it goes, but my respect is mine to give. The idea that people deserve some special respect merely because they work for a government agency is something the founders of America rejected wholeheartedly. This is why we opted not to have silly honorifics like "Your Majesty" and "His Excellency" for any of our leaders, and instead merely refer to them as "Mister" or by their job titles. Extreme deference to the government is something they wanted to avoid.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The term "badge kissers" was coined by someone in this thread to denote those who blindly take the word of a police officer regardless of the circumstances.

Actually, I stole it from Fark.

/shame
//not really, fark is cool
///slashies!!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree. Their authority commands obedience as far as it goes, but my respect is mine to give. The idea that people deserve some special respect merely because they work for a government agency is something the founders of America rejected wholeheartedly. This is why we opted not to have silly honorifics like "Your Majesty" and "His Excellency" for any of our leaders, and instead merely refer to them as "Mister" or by their job titles. Extreme deference to the government is something they wanted to avoid.

Except that this historically isn't absolute either.
"your Honor" - judges
"The Honorable" - elected officials.

I did not suggest that all police officers deserved or earned respect. I suggested that the authority to enforce the law commands respect, just as one is respectful in court to a judge who adjudicates the law, one might be respectful to an officer who enforces the law.

You don't respect the officer, that's one thing - we are a nation of laws, not of men (or men's whims, if you prefer) and respect for those laws can extend beyond simple compliance. I have no love or great respect for officers like those who apprehended Dudley Hiibel or Deborah Davis, because those officers seem to think the law permits officers to compel people to produce ID on demand. I'm of the opinion that a free country doesn't require that of folks and doesn't give law enforcement the power to arrest folks who choose to not produce ID.

I must not have been clear earlier. Perhaps I'm still not making myself understood well.

In any event, 'badge-kissers' is a strawman that furthers no argument.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that this historically isn't absolute either.
"your Honor" - judges
"The Honorable" - elected officials.

"The Honorable" wasn't really an obligatory title for any particular office as far as I know. Nobody says "Honorable President" — that sounds like a samurai spoof movie or something. "Your Honor" is the only real exception I can think of. I wonder if that one isn't because the only occasion you'd generally want to use it is when you're in court and thus need a way to kiss up.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I must not have been clear earlier. Perhaps I'm still not making myself understood well.

In any event, 'badge-kissers' is a strawman that furthers no argument.

No, I understand what you're saying better now — and of course I agree that slapping labels on people who disagree with you is not productive. I hadn't meant to dispute that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok dude. Whatever. As a full-fledged member of the Badge-Kissers Club you are inclined to to believe that Sgt. Crowley simply made a "mistake" in his official police report.

Your personal attacks really don't do much to add credibility to your argument, as it betrays your own irrational bias in regards to the subject matter. It would be much better for you to cut out the name calling business and stick to the topic, IMO.

Even before the revelation came out that Ms. Whalen never spoke to Sgt. Crowley at the scene.

Quoted for later use.....

But you just can't seem to fathom the idea that .... GASP .... police officers are human and fall short of perfection. That they are subject to the same flaws and biases that "civilians" are.

I can fathom it quite well, which is why I explained how easy it could be to get details wrong on a report when there is a rational reason why that could happen and there was no real motive to simply make the information wrong on purpose.

But at the end of the day you can't escape the fact that once Prof. Gates showed him his ID Sgt. Crowley should have said ....

"Sorry to disturb you sir. Have a good evening." And then left. Whether Prof. Gates was still mouthing off to him as he was walking away or not.

He could have allowed Gates to punch his neighbors in the nose as well. The point is that there is nothing wrong with a police officer arresting someone who is making a public scene and disruption and refuses to stop. The more valid point is that after realizing that Crowley was answering a call regarding a break-in, that Gates stayed in his house, refrained from disturbing the peace, and went back into his house. Instead GATES CHOSE the wrong path and got arrested. It isn't Crowley's job to keep Gates from getting arrested by ignoring his illegal behavior.

Something tells me that even IF ... and that's a big if because the tapes certainly don't indicate it .... Prof. Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley on the porch (you know ... that little thing called private property) that would have immediately ceased when the target of the verbal castigation had left the premises. Now had the police left and the neighbors had to call them back because Prof. Gates was STILL outside causing a ruckus then you might have some semblance of a point on this whole "disturbing the peace" charge. But of course, sometimes common sense isn't all that common.

Crowley left the house. Gates followed him outside. Crowley warned him outside that twice that his behavior had crossed the line into "disturbing the peace" and several officers who were also at the scene witnessed this. After this happened, Gates was arrested outside his home where others could hear and see him. You are making excuses for Crowley's bigoted behavior, verbal abuse and public disruption, assuming that this should all be ignored as it is happening during a valid police investigation.

PS: Did you happen to notice that in the last week there has been no independent evidence revealed (911 tapes, police recordings, witness statements, etc.) that has contradicted Prof. Gates' version of events?

Several witnesses has stated that Gates was acting irrational and uncooperative and agreed that his behavior warranted the action taken. I believe at least 2 of the witnesses where minorities as well.

Given the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the police report ... the same simply can't be said of Sgt. Crowley.

This is the same Whalen who can't make up her mind whether she ever talked to Crowley, right?

Here's what was quoted the day before yesterday:

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

And now what was reported yesterday:

Ms. Whalen said that the only words she exchanged with Sergeant Crowley in person were, “I was the 911 caller.” She said that he responded, “Stay right there.”

Why did her attorney "lie", or is Ms. Whalen now lying since one day they claim she never talked to him, and the next day she claims she did?

I'm more than willing to accept that both Whalen and Crowley simply misspoke in regards to what they remember happening at the scene of a crime, and not that either are somehow trying to be devious or dishonest when submitting contradictory information.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Several witnesses has stated that Gates was acting irrational and uncooperative and agreed that his behavior warranted the action taken. I believe at least 2 of the witnesses where minorities as well.

Always claimed. Never a link to back it up. Let's see if you can produce one from an actual news report from an independent witness. That is ... not another cop on the scene.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm more than willing to accept that both Whalen and Crowley simply misspoke in regards to what they remember happening at the scene of a crime, and not that either are somehow trying to be devious or dishonest when submitting contradictory information.

:::::::::SIGH::::::::::::::

Are you really going to try to hang your hat on that?

Perhaps you aren't capable of appreciating the fact that a situation may be similar in kind ... but remarkably different in degree? Allow me to explain to you what I'm confident is patently obvious to most everyone else in this thread .......

The first statement was made by Ms. Whalen's attorney. She wasn't "remembering" what happened at the scene. She was speaking on behalf of her client. Did her characterization of the interaction between Ms. Whalen and Sgt. Crowley go further than Ms. Whalen's? Perhaps. Are these statements contradictory? Only in the narrowest and most technical sense ... depending on how you look at it.

The fundamental point that Ms. Whalen made .... directly out of her own mouth .... is that she never said anything to Sgt. Crowley besides identify herself as the 911 caller. She never told him anything about "two black men with backpacks on the porch". Nor did she tell any other officer that. And that is the issue here ... because somehow several statements, all attributed to Ms. Whalen, magically found their way into Sgt. Crowley's police report. Statements that she has categorically denied making.

So there's a BIG difference here. Ms. Whalen and her attorney both said that the former never told Sgt. Crowley what he claims she did about the suspects. So I can see the attorney statement .....

Originally Posted by Attorney Murphy

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

.... being a "mistake". Either on her part or on the part of CNN with how they wrote it up. Notice how there is no period after the word "scene"? Now I'm long out of school so I'm not going to debate whether adding a period there is grammatically correct or not. My point is that the way that is written gives the impression that it is a separate statement from what follows. Now imagine if the exact same words had been written like this .....

Originally Posted by Attorney Murhpy

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene and she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

The latter gives a different impression because what's italicized is one statement. Especially when it's quite reasonable to not consider just saying "I'm the 911 caller" from a considerable distance to someone walking away from you and up to the house as "having a conversation". Regardless, when you consider it in context you can see that the overall point was to deny that she had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley regarding "two black men with backpacks". And with regard to the overall point .... the statements of Ms. Whalen and her attorney are undeniably the same. Having said that, the way she phrased it (or the way it was written up by CNN) could be interpreted as a denial of any verbal communication whatsoever ... even though that may not have been what she intended to convey.

However, I'm less inclined to write certain aspects of Sgt. Crowley's police report off as a "mistake" because he is making claims about statements being made to him by Ms. Whalen that apparently never took place. I don't see how you can "summarize" a detail that never existed. And if one honestly believes that he heard statements about "two black men with backpacks on the porch" .... when no one ever told him that ... nor did the 911 call reflect that .... then I daresay that that is indicative of certain preconceived notions coming to light. And if one knows it isn't true but decides to write it up that way anyway ... then I daresay that there is some CYA action going on. Because the "blame a black guy" tactic works ... quite often. Fortunately not always, as the cases of a white woman drowning her own kids or scratching an "O" on her own cheek or claiming to be kidnapped when she was really going to Disney World with her daughter indicates. But the fact remains that a sizable portion of the US population implicitly took them at their word until situation was proven to be otherwise. And there is a reason why this playbook is so often used. But I digress ....

Again, the degree of the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and her attorney's statement is infinitesimal compared to the degree of the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and Sgt. Crowley's police report. Because of that it's more credible to conclude that Ms. Whalen's attorney simply "misspoke" or CNN had an accurate, yet flawed transcription of the phone conversation. Sgt. Crowley, OTOH, has a lot more explaining to do.

OAW

PS: I simply reject as nonsensical the notion that Sgt. Crowley simply "misspoke" in his police report about this issue. I'd be interested to hear what you would consider to be a "non-devious" and "honest" explanation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Always claimed. Never a link to back it up. Let's see if you can produce one from an actual news report from an independent witness. That is ... not another cop on the scene.

Oh..those LYING COPS! I forgot, you're a proponent of bigotry towards police as well.
:::::::::SIGH::::::::::::::

Did her characterization of the interaction between Ms. Whalen and Sgt. Crowley go further than Ms. Whalen's? Perhaps. Are these statements contradictory? Only in the narrowest and most technical sense ... depending on how you look at it.

Either they conversed, or they didn't. One day they did, the next they didn't.

As stated before, had Crowley simply (and likely) talked to the ACTUAL WITNESS of the "break-in" who Whalen called for, or someone else who saw what happened and then erroneously referred to that person as Whalen (after checking to see who called), that would make a whole heck of a lot more sense than making up details like "back packs" and race when it didn't really make a difference in determining whether or not Crowely followed proper procedure.

The fundamental point that Ms. Whalen made .... directly out of her own mouth .... is that she never said anything to Sgt. Crowley besides identify herself as the 911 caller. She never told him anything about "two black men with backpacks on the porch". Nor did she tell any other officer that. And that is the issue here ... because somehow several statements, all attributed to Ms. Whalen, magically found their way into Sgt. Crowley's police report. Statements that she has categorically denied making.

Again, since Whalen DID NOT WITNESS what happened, it's highly likely that she was not interviewed about WHAT SHE SAW. It would be odd for them to CORRECTLY quote someone who did not see what happen, concerning what they saw happen. It's a whole lot more likely that they interviewed people at the scene and they got names mixed up, given that Whalen simply was a third party forwarding information. It would seem nonsensical to quote a NON WITNESS about what they saw, since that would be irrelevant.

So there's a BIG difference here. Ms. Whalen and her attorney both said that the former never told Sgt. Crowley what he claims she did about the suspects. So I can see the attorney statement .....

Whalen's attorney was a third party forwarding information about what she thought someone else told her. Whalen was a third party forwarding information about what she thought someone else told her. It's likely that the cops went straight to the source when trying to find out what really happened.

.... being a "mistake". Either on her part or on the part of CNN with how they wrote it up. Notice how there is no period after the word "scene"?

You are REALLLLY STRETCHING. The cops lie. CNN gets it wrong, but the person who could make the cops look bad and appears to have contradicted themselves has the facts 100% correct! HA!

The scene is where the action took place. That was in the vicinity of Gate's home. Either they conversed there, or they didn't. I'm betting that Whalen's attorny just didn't remember all the facts that Whalen gave her and misreported. It's a very common thing to do. Sometimes even cops do it. Especially in regards to essentially unimportant matters.

However, I'm less inclined to write certain aspects of Sgt. Crowley's police report off as a "mistake" because he is making claims about statements being made to him by Ms. Whalen that apparently never took place. I don't see how you can "summarize" a detail that never existed.

I'm pretty sure that all of the police officers at the scene did more than just talk for a millisecond to someone who said "I'm the 911 caller", who didn't even witness what happened in the first place. It's much more reasonable to believe that they interviewed multiple people, and simply misattributed the information to the wrong person, the person they probably had thought was an actual witness they talked to. It's reasonable to assume that whoever actually talked to the police about what they saw, was the person who was the first to report to 911 what was actually happening. Given that fact, it's a stretch to claim without further proof that it was just a "lie".

If I'm helping interview witnesses and someone says, "I'm the person who saw the whole thing" and I get their statement...assuming that the same person who saw the whole thing was the person who called into 911, then I'm going to attribute the claims to the person in question. That's why the police commissioner was clear in explaining that the police report was more than just what happened per the 911 call and was more a summary of all the information accumulated at the scene.

PS: I simply reject as nonsensical the notion that Sgt. Crowley simply "misspoke" in his police report about this issue. I'd be interested to hear what you would consider to be a "non-devious" and "honest" explanation.

...the most reasonable explanation, which I've already provided. Crowley wasn't the only policeman at the scene, and Whalen wasn't the only person involved with the matter who could have provided information about what happened. In fact, it's nonsensical to think that the cops would interview Whalen about what she saw when she saw NOTHING. Whalen was the person whose name was listed as calling the incident in though, and that makes her the name most likely to be associated (right or wrong) with testimony as to what happened at the scene.

[BadKosh]

I wonder after several brewsky's whether the cop and the prof will arm wrestle?

[OAW]

Stupendousman,

You really should know by now that I don't post things on these forums that I can't backup. Yet you still try to verbally joust with me when you clearly aren't up to the task. How quaint!

Now I could go at your last post point by point but I'll make this brief. This is because you've exposed just how woefully uninformed you are about this topic. Did you even bother to read the 911 call transcript? Your entire last post is rooted in the contention that Ms. Whalen was not a witness! And that's apparently your explanation for the discrepancies in Sgt. Crowley's police report. So how do you explain this ....

DISPATCH: Ok what's the problem? Can you tell me exactly what happened?

CALLER: Uhm, I don't know what's happening. I just had a, uh, older woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number 17 Ware Street. And they kind of had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in and when I (inaudible) and looked, I went closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen were already in the house I noticed two suitcases. So I'm not sure if these are two individuals who actually work there or maybe live there.

DISPATCH: You think they may have been breaking in?

CALLER: Sir, I don't know. Because I have no idea. I just noticed --

DISPATCH: You think the possibility might have been there? What do you mean by barged in? Did they kick the door in?

CALLER: No they were pushing the door in, like uhm, uhm, like the screen part of the front door was, had like cuts --

DISPATCH: How did (inaudible) the door itself with the lock?

CALLER: They -- I didn't see a key or anything so -- I was a little bit away from the door, but I did notice that they pushed their --

DISPATCH: What did the suitcases have to do with anything?

CALLER: I don't know I'm just saying that's what I saw.

DISPATCH: (inaudible) that they broke into?

CALLER: No there's just a first floor, I don't even think that it's an apartment. It's 17 Ware Street. It's a house. It's just a yellow house. Number 17. I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key but I did notice that they had to use their shoulder to try and barge in. And they got in. I don't know if they had a key or not, because I couldn't see from my angle. But when I looked in closely that's what I saw.

DISPATCH: Was it a (inaudible) or Hispanic?

CALLER: Uhm...

DISPATCH: Are they still in the house?

CALLER: They're still in the house I believe, yeah.

DISPATCH: Were they white, black, or Hispanic?

CALLER: Uhm, well they were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw her from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking into someone's house. They've been barging in and she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all to be honest with you. So I was just calling because she was a concerned neighbor. I guess.

DISPATCH: OK, are you standing outside?

CALLER: I'm standing outside, yes.

DISPATCH: Alright police are on their way you can meet them when they get there. What's your last name?

CALLER: Yeah, my name is (censored)

DISPATCH: Ok they're on their way.

CALLER: OK. OK I guess I'll wait. Thanks.

Now in the areas above in bold Ms. Whalen repeatedly tells the dispatcher what she "noticed" and what she "saw". She describes the behavior of the men on the porch. She even goes closer after they were inside and sees the suitcases on the porch. She specifically said she could not "see" whether or not they had a key. The dispatcher asks if they are white, black, or hispanic and she says one looked kind of hispanic but she couldn't tell about the other one because his back was to her. She described them as "two larger men".

But you actually sit here and claim that Ms. Whalen was not a witness? I mean ... seriously dude. Really? Surely you jest!

OAW

PS: Oh and BTW ... regarding the first response by Ms. Whalen above, just because she didn't "notice" Prof. Gates and his driver on the porch before the old lady brought it to her attention doesn't mean that she didn't "see" everything that transpired after that. As is made totally obvious by her subsequent comments.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You really should know by now that I don't post things on these forums that I can't backup.

Originally Posted by OAW 

When Prof. Gates showed him two forms of ID and proved he was in his own house then the next thing out of Sgt. Crowleys' mouth should have been "Sorry to have disturbed you sir. Have a nice evening." See ya bye! And if Prof. Gates were white (or perhaps I should say "all white") .... in all likelihood that's exactly what would have happened.

[OAW]

"In all likelihood" over the next few years 60% of those exonerated and freed from prison based upon DNA testing for crimes they didn't commit will be African-American. "In all likelihood" over the next few years nearly all undercover police officers who get shot and killed by a fellow officer will be African-American. "In all likelihood" over the next few years the vast majority of unarmed suspects shot multiple times by police will be African-American. "In all likelihood" the next Racial Profiling Report for the state of Missouri will show that African-Americans are more likely to be stopped compared to their % of the driving population, more likely to be searched and less likely have any contraband found on them than their white counterparts. "In all likelihood" the person who brings a knife to a gunfight is going to lose. "In all likelihood" Apple will continue to make boatloads of money off the iPhone over the next year. Etc. etc.

Are these just random statements that have no basis in fact? Or statements of probability based upon past evidence? I stand by my comments. Because as much as you might not like to acknowledge it there are things that white males are far less likely to encounter when it comes to the police than their black male counterparts.

But, of course, there are some that even in the face of consistent evidence will still deny that racial profiling is a reality. They will agree with the Boston police officer's claims that he is not a racist even though he referred to Prof. Gates and/or an African-American Boston Globe columnist as a "jungle monkey" multiple times. They will deny that race has anything to do with it when many firehouses remain overwhelmingly white ... as they have been for decades ... even after the area they serve has become predominantly minority. I mean, of course there aren't any "qualified" minority candidates in the entire area right? They will support the claims of the plaintiff in the Univ. of Michigan affirmative action case who had a hissy fit because she was rejected when 85 minorities with lower scores were accepted .... even though 1400 whites with lower scores were also accepted over her. I mean, having a lower score is only a problem when it's a minority who gets the spot. Everybody knows that right?

"In all likelihood" the vast majority of African-Americans would agree with me when I said that Prof. Gates wouldn't have been arrested if he was a white man. Because among those of us still in the land of the living we have decades of collective experience with BS like this. Especially when it comes to the police. And that experience with the police cuts across class lines, educational levels, and criminal history. You can easily find college educated, upper middle-class black men who have never in their entire lives seen the inside of a jail cell who can tell the same kinds of stories as high-school dropout, drug selling, gang banging thugs can tell when it comes to the "Po Po". Maybe not as many or to the same level. But it is indeed a rarity to find a black male in this country over the age of puberty who has not experienced some kind of unwarranted, negative encounter with a white police officer.

But ... "in all likelihood" a significant percentage of our white brothers and sisters will remain in their nice, comfortable, cocoon of denial and convince themselves that it's just all in our heads.

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So I can see the attorney statement .....

Originally Posted by Attorney Murphy

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

.... being a "mistake". Either on her part or on the part of CNN with how they wrote it up. Notice how there is no period after the word "scene"?

There is — it's placed after the word "phone," as the writer is required to do by the rules of English grammar. You could not put a period inside the quotation marks and then follow it with attribution. From my experience as a news editor, I feel quite certain that the writer intended for us to read the comma at the end of the quote as though it were a period.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is — it's placed after the word "phone," as the writer is required to do by the rules of English grammar. You could not put a period inside the quotation marks and then follow it with attribution. From my experience as a news editor, I feel quite certain that the writer intended for us to read the comma at the end of the quote as though it were a period.

That's fine. Like I said I wasn't going to debate whether or not it was grammatically correct. All I was saying is that this was a written account of a phone conversation. Which may or may not have be spoken as two separate statements exactly as it was written. In any event, my point remains. The discrepancy between Ms. Whalen and her attorney's statement is miniscule compared to the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and Sgt. Crowley's police report.

Unless, of course, you've convinced yourself that Ms. Whalen wasn't even a witness to the events despite the 911 call transcript.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

"In all likelihood" the vast majority of African-Americans would agree with me when I said that Prof. Gates wouldn't have been arrested if he was a white man. Because among those of us still in the land of the living we have decades of collective experience with BS like this. Especially when it comes to the police. And that experience with the police cuts across class lines, educational levels, and criminal history. You can easily find college educated, upper middle-class black men who have never in their entire lives seen the inside of a jail cell who can tell the same kinds of stories as high-school dropout, drug selling, gang banging thugs can tell when it comes to the "Po Po". Maybe not as many or to the same level. But it is indeed a rarity to find a black male in this country over the age of puberty who has not experienced some kind of unwarranted, negative encounter with a white police officer.

What have you proved with all this OAW? That there are injustices in this world? Has the world been somehow unfair to Professor Gates? Really? Let me give you the white perspective here because it sounds like you need it;

- I'm not going to college through affirmative action as Professor Gates has publicly stated he has. I'm white.
- There's no such thing as a "white caucus".
- I don't have my own "white" home loans, scholarships, magazines, TV channels, and dating sites.
- I'm not regarded as a "necessary" contribution to "diversity" in my workplace.
- I did have long hair however and I assure you I was profiled for it.
- I get along alright in spite, but I still get a sinking feeling in my stomach if I'm driving and there's a cop behind me.

You say Professor Gates wouldn't have been arrested if he were a white man and you might be right. I guarantee if he were like you, me, and likely the overwhelming majority of us "down to earth" folk here @ MacNN; he wouldn't be yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?" because at the end of the day, we are all nobodies. What I can tell you with certainty however is that if Crowley had been black, your cries of racism would be falling on deaf ears. I've neither read nor heard any stats suggesting black cops are less capable of a "wrongful" arrest.

Profile;
- Blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder.
- Blacks are eight times more likely to commit robbery.
- When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

Profiling is wrong, but I'll tell ya something OAW; have you ever talked to a black cop? They profile too. It's called friggin' human nature. Your eyes are welcome to move to and fro looking for injustices and there's no doubt in my mind that you'll find a whole bunch of it.

If we can't rise above this tired, antiquated BS in this day and age in the US, we never will.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Crowley needs to apologize, as does Gates. They need to sit down and have a meal together and work this out.

PAGE 1.

Don't forget you heard it here first, suckas. Another nat'l crisis solved by Finboy, slayer of dragons.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So a cop, a professor, and a president walk into a bar...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"So a seal walks into a club..."

[turtle777]

"So a cop, a professor, and a president get clubbed in a bar..."

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So a cop, a professor, and a president walk into a bar...

And the cop and the professor say, "Seriously? Bud Light?"

[OAW]

I'm more of a Michelob Ultra man myself.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You really should know by now that I don't post things on these forums that I can't backup. Yet you still try to verbally joust with me when you clearly aren't up to the task. How quaint!

I'll give you the fact that you are the master of comically irrelevant facts. I'm not up to the task of topping that!

Now I could go at your last post point by point but I'll make this brief. This is because you've exposed just how woefully uninformed you are about this topic. Did you even bother to read the 911 call transcript? Your entire last post is rooted in the contention that Ms. Whalen was not a witness! And that's apparently your explanation for the discrepancies in Sgt. Crowley's police report. So how do you explain this ....

A. I've read just about every story on this.
B. I've read all the transcripts.
C. I really really read all the stories that point out that Whalen was calling on behalf of someone else.
D. The one thing I didn't do was read the transcript SO CLOSELY as to see that it appears that Whalen did witness the tail end of the "break in" by her claim to have seen shoulders used to get in.

You got me on D. I'm so ashamed.

Of course, it only helps you if you are playing "Skip Gates Arrest Trivia". The fact is that the person who saw THE WHOLE THING, was the first on the scene and had more information than anyone else WAS NOT WHALEN. It was a person who well could have been interviewed by the police since Whalen didn't (or did...she's kind of confused on that point) talk to the police at the scene.

Your argument relies on the notion that no one else was questioned at the scene in order to compile the police report, it's unlikely that they'd look at the 911 transcript when compiling their report and misattribute the person interviewed. Possible? Sure. Probable? Nope.

...and the entire point is essentially irrelevant in the first place. Who really cares if AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE POSSIBLE CRIMINALS is misattributed to the 911 caller, unless you are just looking for an issue to make hay about? It was not racist to say that the two people forcing themselves into the house where black WHEN THEY WERE. Nor was there anything wrong with describing the bags they were carrying as "backpacks" instead of suitcases.

Had the police went after someone who HAD NOT forced their way into the house (who was a profiled minority) after getting an accurate description, you'd have an issue. That didn't happen. Even as a "worse case" scenario, you have an inaccurate report without any real motive or evidence to support that it was done purposely. Especially since the most reasonable explanation is that someone along the way who was there said they saw two black guys with backpacks and the officer interviewing the person got the name wrong.

Gates screwed up. Due to his inherent bigotry he verbally attacked and slandered the police. When asked to stop continued to do out in public in a loud and obnoxious way causing a disturbance, and was arrested. None of the trivia you've given us "backs up" the idea that anyone but Gates had anything to apologize over. Sorry.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What have you proved with all this OAW? That there are injustices in this world? Has the world been somehow unfair to Professor Gates?

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.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Profiling is wrong, but I'll tell ya something OAW; have you ever talked to a black cop? They profile too. It's called friggin' human nature. Your eyes are welcome to move to and fro looking for injustices and there's no doubt in my mind that you'll find a whole bunch of it.

If we can't rise above this tired, antiquated BS in this day and age in the US, we never will.

Well my friend, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one. I was reading a quote from a column that was speaking on yesterday's beer get-together at the White House. This particular part resonated with me ....

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

......

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.

One thing is for sure. Prof. Gates is not the first nor will he be the last black man to be hassled or arrested for no reason. Sgt. Crowley is not the first nor will he be the last police officer to fudge a police report. Prof. Gates is not the first nor will he be the last person to mouth off to a cop. Sgt. Crowley is not the first nor will he be the last police officer to throw someone in jail because of it.

But it's heartening to see both Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley resist the temptation and pressure to cater to their own core constituencies. To accept the President's invitation to have a sit down at the White House and discuss the situation like men. For Prof. Gates to break the ice, extend his hand to Sgt. Crowley and joke “You looked bigger the last time I saw you.” For Sgt. Crowley to smile and accept his hand. To agree to disagree on certain things. And to agree to keep in touch and work together on the larger issues that this incident brought to the surface.

So perhaps our country isn't doomed to wallow in the "antiquated BS" after all.

OAW

[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.

[OAW]

Stupendousman,

1. Your contention that Ms. Whalen didn't see the "whole thing" is simply bogus. The 911 call transcript clearly shows that she saw the men on the porch. She saw them trying to get the door open. She saw them force their way in. She saw the suitcases on the porch after they were inside. She gave a description of them. Etc. I'm sorry .... but WTF else is there to see? The only thing she said is that she didn't initially notice the men trying to get in the door until the old lady brought it to her attention. But she did, in fact, see them trying to get in the door herself. Yet you sit here and try to argue that Ms. Whalen missed all the important stuff. What would that be exactly since she only saw the "tail end" as you claim?

2. I never said no one else was questioned at the scene. All I said was that Sgt. Crowley's attributed statements to Ms. Whalen that she denies making to him. And might I add that the police report makes no mention of any other people on the scene being interviewed. It made no mention of any other people beside himself and Ms. Whalen being at the scene when he arrived. It simply said that there were about 7 "passers by" that he saw after he left the residence. Which is understandable because by that time the place was swarming with additional Cambridge police and Harvard police. It doesn't say he talked with anyone outside at that time other than Prof. Gates. Yet you are soooooo convinced that someone else was questioned on the scene. And my question to you is .... based on what? Pure conjecture it seems. Certainly not the police report!

Also, the discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and Sgt. Crowley's police report was reported on Monday 7/27. It is now Friday 7/31. If your "explanation" had any merit whatsoever don't you think the Cambridge police department would have said something ... anything to that effect by now? Yet there has not been a single "we got the witnesses confused" type of statement from them even in light of the fact that Ms. Whalen's denials have been steadily gaining a lot more traction in the press. Imagine that.

3. The description wasn't that accurate. Prof. Gates is African-American. His driver is Moroccan. They had suitcases. Not backpacks. Why does the latter matter? Because two guys struggling to get in a door with a suitcase gives more of an impression that they live there. Which is why Ms. Whalen said repeatedly that she thought they might live there but wasn't sure. OTOH, saying "two black men with backpacks" struggling to get in a door makes it sound more suspicious. Which can be useful if you are trying to justify an arrest that shouldn't have went down after the fact. Especially when the person arrested is well-connected and accusing you of racial profiling.

OAW