Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Professor Gates vs. Sgt. Crowley

View Poll Results: What do you thinks this situation was about?
Poll Options:
Cop straight up racial profiling 5 votes (10.42%)
Cop with an attitude about being questioned 21 votes (43.75%)
Professor with an attitude about being questioned 23 votes (47.92%)
Professor straight up playing the race card 27 votes (56.25%)
A "He Said/She Said" situation 12 votes (25.00%)
Race perhaps a component but not the dominant factor 10 votes (20.83%)
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll
Professor Gates vs. Sgt. Crowley (Page 2)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Third party witnesses not on the police force have corroborated what the police report states.
None of which matters. Regardless of whether or not the cop was being yelled at, the arrest shouldn't have happened. The cop simply should have left. The entire arrest was a pointless display of police arrogance.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The police officer could have stopped the situation just by walking away but chose to escalate it further, and the charges were dropped almost immediately. Yeah, this sounds real legit. Why are people still defending the cop?
Badge-kissers. "Cops can do no wrong. They have a hard job. No one should second-guess them. Blah, blah, blah."
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:59 AM
 
Honestly, I work at a cell phone shop, I deal with a lot worse than what the prof gave that guy, and I don't get to arrest people for being mean to me, and I'm not even in their house.
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Badge-kissers. "Cops can do no wrong. They have a hard job. No one should second-guess them. Blah, blah, blah."
HAhAHAHAH! WTFE, buddy. I HATE cops. After having my ass kicked and thrown over the trunk of a cruiser more than once in my life, hopefully you can forgive my bias. That said, I just assume that when a cop pulls out the handcuffs and asks you to stop screaming fascist pig* at him, well, chances are he's going to toss your ass in the backseat for a drive if you keep running your stupid mouth. For me, race isn't an issue. It's someone with money, clout, prestige and POWER that has a serious case of "don't you know who I am?"

People like that irritate me more than cops.

* And I'm not implying that Gates made these statements. I was just reminded of a stupid hippy who didn't understand why they police were "unjustly" taking him into custody.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
k2director
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 03:18 PM
 
I'd like to talk about the disturbing racism at the heart of this case: Dr. Gates' racism, that is.

Had the cop who showed up at Gates' door been black, would Gates have received him the same way? Would Gates have been as quickly put off by the cop's questions and representation of authority? I doubt it. But the poor cop was white, and so Gates quickly got agitated, and started crying foul about "Being Black in America." The cop being white factored into Gates' initial hostility, and that led to his eventual arrest.

Wake up, Gates. You're a wealthy Harvard professor and celebrity, who's had a career that 99% of academics (white, black, whatever) could only dream of. You live in a town with a black mayor. You live in a state with a black governor. You live in a country with a black president (even though blacks are a small minority of the population in all three of those spheres). The cop who arrested you reports to a black police commissioner. And yet, when you're personally arrested by a white cop, it becomes the symbol of everything that's wrong with race in America? Are you kidding me? Get over yourself!
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Sounds like a pretty accurate wrap-up to me.
me too
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 03:33 PM
 
Yep, ad k2director aid, all this race stuff is crap.

Originally Posted by WSJ
Mr. Obama has a point about history, but we’re not sure that an episode in an upscale neighborhood involving one of America’s most privileged individuals illustrates anything except a misunderstanding. Mr. Gates lives in a city with a black mayor, a state with a black governor and a country with a black President. The dispute was arguably about town-gown relations rather than race. If this is a teaching moment, one lesson is that it’s usually better to cooperate during encounters with law enforcement so that matters don’t escalate needlessly. And if a cop asks you to step out on the porch, or away from your car, it’s probably because he’s concerned for his own safety.
Obama on Gates Police Incident - WSJ.com
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The police officer could have stopped the situation just by walking away but chose to escalate it further, and the charges were dropped almost immediately. Yeah, this sounds real legit. Why are people still defending the cop?
There are those who will defend the police regardless of the circumstances. Especially when there is a minority involved. In the minds of such individuals the word of a police officer is sacrosanct ... despite decades of evidence that there are some police officers (definitely not all or probably even the majority) who will falsify a police report when it suits them. Despite decades of evidence that police will cover for each other. We have phrases like the "blue wall of silence" in the American lexicon for a reason ... but that just seems to escape such individuals. When a police officer is clearly abusing his authority such individuals have more excuses and justifications for it than a hooker in church! It's the same mentality that attempts to justify the Rodney King and Amadou Diallo and Greg Bell situations. When black undercover police officers get shot and killed by their white brethren on numerous occasions ... and the reverse has never happened ...... it's that very mentality that can't fathom why something might be wrong with that picture. Despite the statistical evidence that racial profiling is an undeniable reality .... even if they acknowledge that in the abstract (and many won't even do that) they still can never seem to acknowledge a concrete example of it. But I digress .....

For the sake of discussion and clarity let's just take race out of it. Because quite frankly, I agree with the President when he said that it's not clear to what degree, if any, race played in this particular situation. So let's just assume this was two white guys or two black guys. Remove it entirely from the equation. I said it earlier as have others and it bears repeating. This case is full of a lot of "he said/she said" stuff. The cop says Prof. Gates was belligerent from the very beginning. Prof. Gates says he was not. Sgt. Crowley says he gave Prof. Gates his name and badge number when asked. Prof. Gates said he never did. Sgt. Crowley says that Prof. Gates said something about being "a black man in America" when he first encountered him at the door. Prof. Gates said he said nothing along that line until later and after Sgt. Crowley refused to tell him his name and badge number. Blah blah blah. Whatever.

Again, take race out of the equation entirely. I reiterate the million dollar question. And I've yet to see any attempt at an answer to this from any of Sgt. Crowley's defenders in this thread.

What is known for sure is that Prof. Gates showed him his Harvard ID and his drivers license inside the house. Both of which were picture IDs with his address on it.

1. So why wasn't that the end of it? Right then and there?

2. Instead of "Sorry to bother you sir. Have a good evening." .... why does Sgt. Crowley continue to question Prof. Gates in a manner that led the professor to conclude that he simply didn't believe he was in his own house? Despite the proof that had already been shown.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 04:29 PM
 
Here's an excerpt from an article I found on this topic earlier. The author doesn't think this was a racial issue at all. Maybe. Maybe not. But again, the fundamental point remains ....

Has police procedure in this country become fundamentally unamerican in its outlook and application?

What happened to the American idea that a man's home is his castle? What happened to the American idea that we all live under the rule of law, including the police? What happened to the American ideal of Freedom of Speech?

My Philosophy's diary :: ::

Because when combined, all these ideals mean that Dr. Gates should be able to cuss that officer from here to nowhere while he was in his own home. So, I don't care what names Dr. Gates called the officer. I don't care whether Mr. Gates was disorderly: It's his house, not a public street, and he can be disorderly as he pleases so long as he isn't disturbing his neighbors. Obviously, I similarly don't care whether Gates called the officer a racist or anything else. That's beside the point.

The fact remains that Gates produced the ID required to prove his residence. After that point, the ONLY thing the officer should have been doing was to say, "Thank you, Mr. Gates. We apologize for the inconvenience."
So, what I really want to know is when we will start having a serious conversation about the rights we as a people, of all races, have in our own homes and the boundaries that we expect the police to observe.

I, for one, believe that if the police do not have a WARRANT (see Fourth Amendment) authorizing their presence on my property, then I have every right as a property owner to DEMAND that the police get off my property and expect them to comply with such an order, whether I phrase it as "Please leave" or "You Mother ****ers get the the Hell off my property!"

While I am perfectly willing to concede that a greater measure of deference might be due the police when you are on a public street where it is their duty to patrol (though, even there, I think true free speech means you should still be able to say to the officer whatever you want without fear of arrest for 'disorderly conduct'), I'm not willing to concede that remotely similar standards can ever apply when I am in my own private residence in a nation that is supposed to respect the rule of law.
Daily Kos: The (Non-Racist) Issue in Gates Case: UnAmerican Police Conduct

OAW
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
2. Instead of "Sorry to bother you sir. Have a good evening." .... why does Sgt. Crowley continue to question Prof. Gates in a manner that led the professor to conclude that he simply didn't believe he was in his own house? Despite the proof that had already been shown.
OAW
Maybe the dude just hates college professors. Can you blame him?

I'd say the real million dollar question is:

Do you consider telling a police office to go f*ck himself an arrestable offense?

And please refrain from lumping me into the cop loving authoritarian category. I'll compare arrest records with you any day.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
Do you consider telling a police office to go f*ck himself an arrestable offense?
It isn't in Canada.

Not very smart, mind you, and likely to get you in trouble. But not an arrestable offence. And apparently in the US it's not enough to make disorderly conduct charges stick either.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 05:19 PM
 
Looks like Obama has responded again:

Originally Posted by President Obama
I wanted to address you guys directly because over the last day and a half obviously there's been all sorts of controversy around the incident that happened in Cambridge with Professor Gates and the police department there.

I actually just had a conversation with Sergeant Jim Crowley, the officer involved. And I have to tell you that as I said yesterday, my impression of him was that he was a outstanding police officer and a good man, and that was confirmed in the phone conversation -- and I told him that.

And because this has been ratcheting up -- and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up -- I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically -- and I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sergeant Crowley.

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.

The fact that it has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America. So to the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate.

What I'd like to do then I make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts -- but as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.

My hope is, is that as a consequence of this event this ends up being what's called a "teachable moment," where all of us instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities, and that instead of flinging accusations we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity. Lord knows we need it right now -- because over the last two days as we've discussed this issue, I don't know if you've noticed, but nobody has been paying much attention to health care. (Laughter.)

I will not use this time to spend more words on health care, although I can't guarantee that that will be true next week. I just wanted to emphasize that -- one last point I guess I would make. There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive -- as opposed to negative -- understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio.

So at the end of the conversation there was a discussion about -- my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was discussion about he and I and Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that's scheduled yet -- (laughter) -- but we may put that together.

He also did say he wanted to find out if there was a way of getting the press off his lawn. (Laughter.) I informed him that I can't get the press off my lawn. (Laughter.) He pointed out that my lawn is bigger than his lawn. (Laughter.) But if anybody has any connections to the Boston press, as well as national press, Sergeant Crowley would be happy for you to stop trampling his grass.
I would have preferred Obama ducked the question at the press conference, but overall, I think this is a rather classy response. Instead of trying to avoid the situation, or buckle down and stay solely on the side of his friend, he calls both parties to discuss it, publicly praises the police officer, and is pretty even-handed in discussing both his friend and the police officer.

Cue the Obama haters in 3... 2... 1...
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
Maybe the dude just hates college professors. Can you blame him?

I'd say the real million dollar question is:

Do you consider telling a police office to go f*ck himself an arrestable offense?

And please refrain from lumping me into the cop loving authoritarian category. I'll compare arrest records with you any day.
Well by now we all know that you are Gangsta Pook and all that ... but the answer to your question is that it's not. Period. Dot. End of sentence. And that's not just my opinion .... that's the law.

Having said that, a police officer has a helluva lot of power and discretion on the street. I by no means believe Prof. Gates was being a "model citizen" in the situation. The man had just returned from a long flight from China. Front door was jammed. Had to go around back to get in. Had to break in the front door to get it unstuck. I can easily see him being tired and frustrated as hell. And I can totally understand him being pissed off when some cop follows him into his home uninvited and then continues to play twenty freaking questions with him after he'd shown him proof that he was in his own home. IMO, Sgt. Crowley used his power and didn't use proper discretion. Look at the picture. Prof. Gates was handcuffed and arrested on his front porch. He was on his own property ... he was by no stretch of the imagination out on the street causing a ruckus. The point is there was no crime that took place. At all. The cop arrested him simply because Prof. Gates popped off some attitude toward him and he could.

Now some people think it's alright when something like that happens to somebody else. But somehow I doubt anyone would think it's alright if it happened to them.

As I said earlier, "disorderly conduct" is one of the most vague and generally bogus charges a cop can charge you with. It's something they arrest you for when they want to take you to jail but they really don't have anything on you. And on that note .....

When Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, was asked at today’s press conference what the proper procedure is for arresting people for disorderly conduct, the question was thoroughly ducked by an association attorney who said, “Having spent 30 years in the business, any law professor will tell you that one of the most difficult crimes to define is disorderly [conduct], but when a police officer makes a decision on the street, he doesn’t have time to explore 20 years of precedent.” That’s not an answer that indicates they’re confident Gates had been disorderly, but to answer that wouldn’t have served their point.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thega...es-arrest.aspx

OAW
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 06:57 PM
 
Ugh? Gangsta? Jesus. I find that absolutely offensive and borderline slanderous. I'll have you know that I'm quite capable of shooting a firearm properly, balancing a checkbook and able to speak English slightly above a remedial level. I would expect someone with the level of book-smarts you possess to be more tactful in these types of discussions. I was simply putting it out there that since I'm a convicted felon and having been arrested on numerous occasions (including disorderly conduct) I might have a unique perspective on this situation. You know, not unlike asking an African American what their feelings were.

And dude, please. Don't "argue" with me. You can't win simply because I'm at least 3x dumber than you. It's futile. All I'm saying is that the LAW is hardly relevant to me. I was simply curious what you brain-trusts thought. I can't even vote to make a "difference", so call it curiosity from the peanut gallery. I personally think it's FUNNY. Not unlike when someone looks down the barrel of a gun while saying "What the heck does this do-hicky do?"

Gates was a dick, poked a snake with a stick and decided to cry like a bitch after it SHOCKINGLY bit him.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He can sue, apply pressure through his position, whatever. My commentary isn't on what things should be like. Or what sec. 471:14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states about disorderly conduct and that if you apply the "facts", it's hardly applicable....

All I'm saying is "Area man calls someone's mother a whore, gets punched in mouth - News at 11"

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
Looks like Obama has responded again:
I don't know. Kind of sounds like back-pedaling to me. Sorry. Clarification.

I thought he was supposed to be doing something about health care?

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
I don't know. Kind of sounds like back-pedaling to me. Sorry. Clarification.

I thought he was supposed to be doing something about health care?
Is he still the president ?

I mean, all he does is talking. Does he get anything done ?

-t
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:25 PM
 
oops. I better clarify myself. I wouldn't characterize myself as an Obama hater. I think he's not quite as stupid as Bush.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Hmmmmm … at no point did Prof. Gates not have the means to get into his home. Foolishly or otherwise. The door was jammed. If he didn't have the means to get inside the how did he go around back and use his key on that door?
Apologies on assuming he couldn't get into his home because he didn't have the key. In the interest of fairness, I shall edit my post;

Professor with an attitude about being questioned

Professor likely creating a ruckus trying to jar his jammed door loose calling it a racist and screaming about the door's mother has a loving neighbor who believes the house has been broken into. After all, per her the house had been broken into before. The neighbor did exactly what you'd want a neighbor to do. Police show up to the scene, but not just any cop; one who was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits on how to effectively avoid racial profiling. Crowley tells Gates who he is, why he's there, and asks him to step outside. There are several reasons for this including ensuring he is not being held or coaxed. A tirade of filth spews from Gates' mouth about Crowley, Crowley's mother, The Cambridge Police, racism... basically he becomes;

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
commits disorderly conduct. (thanks OAW)

Professor, tired from a long trip and pissed off that he can't get his door open, simply reacts in a way that while we might understand would expect better. A major attitude about being questioned.

Obama should've shown a little more of that tamed pragmatist and not kneejerk in defense of a man who acted, well... elitist, disorderly, and all-around foolishly. He spoke stupidly about it the first time, the second time, and finally third time decides to act like he's holding the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, three time's a charm is becoming his legacy. It'd be nice if the guy would be able to draw from something other than a teleprompter or a public opinion poll before acting.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
oops. I better clarify myself. I wouldn't characterize myself as an Obama hater. I think he's not quite as stupid as Bush.
I'm beginning to think woeful naiveté trumps moderate stupidity.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Does he get anything done ?
Thankfully, no.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 08:59 PM
 
Just thought I'd point out how the million dollar question still hasn't been answered. And I suspect it won't be.

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Thankfully, no.
hahaha,

I'm not sure why but that made me laugh.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The police officer could have stopped the situation just by walking away but chose to escalate it further, and the charges were dropped almost immediately. Yeah, this sounds real legit. Why are people still defending the cop?
It's the police's job to ensure that people aren't disturbing the peace. Gates was making a spectacle in public, was asked twice to calm down and refused to do so, making it difficult for an officer of the law to do his job.

Sure, the cop could have ignored him. He could have allowed him to rape his neighbors as well. The point is that Gates was disturbing the peace and making it hard for the police to do the job they are paid to do. It's well within the officer's right to arrest him when he refused to comply with the law.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
None of which matters. Regardless of whether or not the cop was being yelled at, the arrest shouldn't have happened. The cop simply should have left. The entire arrest was a pointless display of police arrogance.
The cop was leaving. Gates decided to disturb the peace and make a public spectacle and refused to return to his home and stop verbally assaulting others in public after being requested twice to do so, once with the officer brandishing cuffs. The police are under no obligation to allow people to act crazy and attack them verbally in public making a scene. None of this would have happened had Gates simply complied with the reasonable requests of the police. He choose not to. He got arrested. It's pretty cut and dried. It's no different that if myself, a white man, had done the same nor would I expect it to be.

I don't think that it's an unreasonable standard to ensure that when the police are doing their job, that they aren't being verbally attacked by citizens engaging in erratic disturbances of the peace by those who are trying to do everything they can to ensure that the police can not do their job properly.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jul 24, 2009 at 09:19 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 09:32 PM
 
Seems to me that the police were there to investigate a possible burglary. Once it was determined that a crime had NOT taken place they should have left instead of continuing to play 20 questions. And by law a police officer is supposed to provide his name and badge number when requested.

Disturbing the peace? Yeah right. Prof. Gates was arrested for mouthing off to a cop on his own front porch. Like I said before … more excuses than a hooker in church!

OAW
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's the police's job to ensure that people aren't disturbing the peace. Gates was making a spectacle in public, was asked twice to calm down and refused to do so, making it difficult for an officer of the law to do his job.
What part of "his job" was he kept from doing? Once the man identified himself, job over. Cop leave. Bye bye having nice ****ing day.

Sure, the cop could have ignored him. He could have allowed him to rape his neighbors as well. The point is that Gates was disturbing the peace and making it hard for the police to do the job they are paid to do. It's well within the officer's right to arrest him when he refused to comply with the law.
Rape? Really? Comply with WHAT law? The once the cop got his ID, bye bye. Thank you have a nice day. Ignore the tirade, walk away. It is not against the law to be an oversensitive prick, and in the very first place nothing AT ALL was done wrong by Gates or anyone who was with gates. This isn't a traffic stop gone wrong. It is a man in his own home being questioned beyond what he should be about nothing.

The cop was leaving. Gates decided to disturb the peace and make a public spectacle and refused to return to his home and stop verbally assaulting others in public after being requested twice to do so, once with the officer brandishing cuffs. The police are under no obligation to allow people to act crazy and attack them verbally in public making a scene. None of this would have happened had Gates simply complied with the reasonable requests of the police. He choose not to. He got arrested. It's pretty cut and dried. It's no different that if myself, a white man, had done the same nor would I expect it to be.
Everything that happened after Gates gave his ID should never have happened. The officer exhibited poor judgement AT BEST.

I don't think that it's an unreasonable standard to ensure that when the police are doing their job, that they aren't being verbally attacked by citizens engaging in erratic disturbances of the peace by those who are trying to do everything they can to ensure that the police can not do their job properly.
When it is obvious that nothing was done wrong in the first place, it IS unreasonable that we allow cops to arrest people for simply being over-sensitive pricks on their own property. Had he been doing his job properly, he would have been gone as soon as he got the guy's ID. Not continuing to ask him to come out and discuss it. There was nothing to discuss. It's my house, and I wasn't breaking in, Bye bye, see ya. Leave now.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The police are under no obligation to allow people to act crazy and attack them verbally in public making a scene.
What?!?

The police are under no obligation?!

WTF?!? Is everything still alright down in the land of the ****ing free? You guys okay? See, because I'm pretty sure I just heard a redneck American say that it was perfectly alright for a police officer to arrest people for using foul language on their own property.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
WTF?!? Is everything still alright down in the land of the ****ing free? You guys okay? See, because I'm pretty sure I just heard a redneck American say that it was perfectly alright for a police officer to arrest people for using foul language on their own property.
Wait a minute, so you're saying that in Canuckistan, the law ends at your property line, and you can suddenly do things that you'd get arrested for in the real world ?

-t
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What?!?

The police are under no obligation?!

WTF?!? Is everything still alright down in the land of the ****ing free? You guys okay? See, because I'm pretty sure I just heard a redneck American say that it was perfectly alright for a police officer to arrest people for using foul language on their own property.



greg
Not for using "foul language" on his own property. There are laws against disturbing the peace IN PUBLIC. Loudly using profanity in public OUTSIDE of your home is by definition a disturbance of the peace. Gates followed the officer OUTSIDE and continued to loudly berate him and use foul language. Not only did Gates engage in this behavior, but when asked TWICE nicely to stop, refused.

When you DISTURB THE PEACE, law enforcement is SUPPOSED to stop it. The officer first tried to stop it by asking nicely...twice. Gates refused. Gates had the opportunity to obey the law and refused, and was arrested. Again, pretty cut and dry.....
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What?!?

The police are under no obligation?!

WTF?!? Is everything still alright down in the land of the ****ing free? You guys okay? See, because I'm pretty sure I just heard a redneck American say that it was perfectly alright for a police officer to arrest people for using foul language on their own property.



greg
Your right. It is amazing how we can argue over freedom in regard to the 2nd amendment, government regulation and control in regard to climate change, and healthcare.

But when a cop oversteps his bounds and makes a situation worse, then arrests someone for it, THAT'S ok.

BTW Greg, the name-calling is unbecoming.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not for using "foul language" on his own property. There are laws against disturbing the peace IN PUBLIC. Loudly using profanity in public OUTSIDE of your home is by definition a disturbance of the peace. Gates followed the officer OUTSIDE and continued to loudly berate him and use foul language. Not only did Gates engage in this behavior, but when asked TWICE nicely to stop, refused.

When you DISTURB THE PEACE, law enforcement is SUPPOSED to stop it. The officer first tried to stop it by asking nicely...twice. Gates refused. Gates had the opportunity to obey the law and refused, and was arrested. Again, pretty cut and dry.....
Once he checked his ID, he should have said thank you and left. He continued to try to get him outside to "discuss" it. Why is that?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
He continued to try to get him outside to "discuss" it. Why is that?
So he could sodomize him with a plunger, duh!

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:35 PM
 
Its another case of the black community seeing a racist boogieman where there was none and crying foul so everyone is expected to throw their arms up in protest at the travesty.

The police didn't drive by and choose to question Gates because he was a black man on the steps of a nice house. They were responding to a call of a potential break-in reported by a third party. He was called out of the house because that is police training. It doesn't matter that it was Gates' home. The police are not going to walk into an unknown situation where a crime in progress has just been reported and not take some precautions. Asking the man to step out into the open is just prudent in the event that he is a criminal or a victim being held in the home against their will.

Being asked to provide identification and answer questions when the police were sent there to investigate the situation is a completely valid procedure. Producing a Harvard ID is not legitimate proof of identification and no one should expect it to be treated as such. If you want to shine light on the he said/she said aspect we have no idea how many questions or what Gates was asked inside his home. This 20 questions BS is something someone pulled out of their ass to bolster their nonsensical argument. We do know however that at some point Gates refused to answer questions and became combative. That was helpful in expediting the investigation. Maybe he was just locked out of his house, maybe someone broke in and was still there, or maybe he was a senile old man having an episode. The police were sent there to look into it and that's what they did.

And it should have ended there but it was Gates who followed the officer out and badgered him after the officer tried to walk away satisfied Gates belonged in the home and that there was no crime. Gates is the one who peppered the situation with racial undertones and escalated things into something else.

Did the police need to arrest him for loosing his cool with the cop? Probably not. Did Gates need to pursue and antagonize the officer by hurling racist accusations when there was not even the slightest hint of him being targeted because he was black? Nope.

This is a story because a high profile (sort of) black man cried racism and the media has to cover it as such so they aren't accused of covering up the story by people like Sharpton. Its hilarious to see someone argue that we should take racism out of this equation now and pretend the discussion should have other merits. The entire reason we're discussing this at all is because the same old race baiters flagged the situation as some sort of racial injustice to reinvigorate their agenda. The cold facts of what happened are the least of what concerned all these people who are supposedly outraged. It serves his defenders to keep the focus of the story on yet another racist cop who went out looking for a black man to persecute. So that's why the story is still in the headlines.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:38 PM
 
Have you guys ever noticed that everybody with the last name of Gates is important? You have this guy, Bill Gates, Robert Gates, and Nicholas Cage as Gates from National Treasure.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Jul 24, 2009, 11:45 PM
 
blah never mind

This story is stupid and needs to die

no need to fan the flames

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Once he checked his ID, he should have said thank you and left. He continued to try to get him outside to "discuss" it. Why is that?
He was going outside. He really didn't have any additional work that needed to be done inside and he said he was having a hard time hearing his radio inside.

All essentially irrelevant.

Gates could have chosen to stay inside his house and act like a raving loon. He chose instead to follow the cop outside and make a public nuisance of himself while engaging in slander and continued to do so in front of the neighborhood after being asked twice.

So to recap:

Cop:
A neighbor requested his presence.
Did his job by the book

Gates:
Trying to force his way into a house that had previously been burglarized.
When a police officer attempted to do his job to ensure a crime had not been committed, Gates did everything he could to try and stop him from doing his job.

Once it was clear no crime was committed, Gates continued his verbal assault and slander outside in front of his neighbors. When asked to stop TWICE by a police officer because he was disturbing the peace, GATES CHOSE not to follow the law.

At every step Gates was wrong, then ended up finding himself arrested but somehow the cop is at fault? I'll take a little of whatever you're having. It's obviously doing wonders!
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jul 25, 2009 at 02:35 AM. )
     
cooldude
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 02:26 AM
 
1) For one it was the District attorney who dropped the case not the Cambridge police.

2) People think just because he produced ID that is enough evidence to stop investigating. NOT!

Often it is standard police procedure to investigate further if the situation warrants it or until the officer is satisfied
that everything is safe. The break in could of been by an estranged husband into his wifes home possibly putting her in danger in a domestic violence situation. Could be a restraining order in effect...so often the officer calls in suspects name to see if he has any warrants out for his arrest. See if suspect has a police record and so on.

3) Just because it is an elderly man with a cane means...NOTHING! Policemen cannot assume nothing, doing so can put his life in danger. If suspect had a history of mental illness, he might shoot him in back of the head when his head is turned.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Its another case of the black community seeing a racist boogieman where there was none and crying foul so everyone is expected to throw their arms up in protest at the travesty.
Actually it's a case of a lot of people of all races who think the police officer overstepped his bounds. Some people of all races think race played a role to one degree or another. Some people of all races think race played no role whatsoever. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed that the articles I linked to were all written by white people.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
The police didn't drive by and choose to question Gates because he was a black man on the steps of a nice house. They were responding to a call of a potential break-in reported by a third party. He was called out of the house because that is police training. It doesn't matter that it was Gates' home. The police are not going to walk into an unknown situation where a crime in progress has just been reported and not take some precautions. Asking the man to step out into the open is just prudent in the event that he is a criminal or a victim being held in the home against their will.
True to form you are arguing a point that is NOT in dispute. You can't cite one person who has claimed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Being asked to provide identification and answer questions when the police were sent there to investigate the situation is a completely valid procedure. Producing a Harvard ID is not legitimate proof of identification and no one should expect it to be treated as such.
All the news reports have indicated that Prof. Gates provided his Harvard ID AND his Massachusetts drivers license. Both with picture ID and his current address. I even referenced that fact in one of my earlier posts. Highlighted in bold to emphasize the point. Yet you choose to conveniently overlook that to try to imply that Prof. Gates did not provide the appropriate ID that should have satisfied the officer and resolved the situation.

But I suppose you didn't think anyone would notice huh?

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
If you want to shine light on the he said/she said aspect we have no idea how many questions or what Gates was asked inside his home. This 20 questions BS is something someone pulled out of their ass to bolster their nonsensical argument.
Ok. This is my fault. There are times when I lose sight of the fact that certain uses of the vernacular aren't familiar to everyone. So to clarify ..... "playing 20 questions" is just a phrase that simply means someone is repeatedly questioning you. It is not meant to be taken literally. Moving on .....

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Did the police need to arrest him for loosing his cool with the cop? Probably not.
Wooooooooow! There's hope for you yet.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Did Gates need to pursue and antagonize the officer by hurling racist accusations when there was not even the slightest hint of him being targeted because he was black? Nope.
Again ... no one, including Prof. Gates, said that Sgt. Crowley "targeted" him or investigated the 911 call because he was black. The only people talking that BS are people like you. Prof. Gates' bone of contention with the officer was that 1) Sgt. Crowley continued to question him after he proved that he was the owner of the house and no crime had been committed, and 2) Sgt. Crowley, according to Prof. Gates, repeatedly refused to provide his name and badge number.

Now did Prof. Gates think that these actions were racially motivated? Clearly. But that is by no means saying that he thought he was "targeted" for the initial investigation because he was black.

Having said that, the reality is that some people are simply dense when it comes to racial issues. This is a country with a long, documented history of racial profiling .... where professional black men in suits have difficulty catching a cab ... where black men in tuxedos are often presumed to be valets and waiters .... where black men with a college degree are less likely to be hired than white men with a high school diploma and a criminal record .... where black men who are walking through their own neighborhood are often stopped and questioned by white police when said neighborhood is predominantly white. And that's just a sampling. So I can understand how Prof. Gates was offended by Sgt. Crowley's continued questioning after he had proved it was his house.

Had it been me and I was still being questioned by some white cop in a manner that suggests that he simply couldn't process the idea of me living in such a nice home after I had proved to him that I did? Yeah ... I'd be most offended at that too. Especially when I could probably buy & sell him 10 times over and he has the nerve to keep "playing 20 questions" with me like this couldn't possibly be my spot. Now as President Obama indicated the other day .... African Americans are sensitive to sh*t like that. And for good reason. To the contrary of what many white people would like to believe ... we are not suffering from sort of mass hallucination when it comes to the many subtle and not-so-subtle racial indignities that we have to deal with on the regular. Generally speaking, we brush the dust off our shoulder over foolishness like that and keep it moving. But every now and again someone might catch you on a bad day and they get on your last nerve with such BS and you let them have it. Sh*t happens. Having said that, it's altogether possible that Sgt. Crowley didn't mean it like that. I wasn't there and I don't know. Only Sgt. Crowley, Prof. Gates, and God know for sure because they were the only ones in the house.

So was this a situation where Prof. Gates was being over-sensitive and got the situation all twisted? Or was this a situation where Sgt. Crowley was continuing to question Prof. Gates after he had shown him his ID in a manner that he would not have done if Prof. Gates was white? I don't know. The truth probably lies somewhere in between if I had to put money on it.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
This is a story because a high profile (sort of) black man cried racism and the media has to cover it as such so they aren't accused of covering up the story by people like Sharpton. Its hilarious to see someone argue that we should take racism out of this equation now and pretend the discussion should have other merits. The entire reason we're discussing this at all is because the same old race baiters flagged the situation as some sort of racial injustice to reinvigorate their agenda. The cold facts of what happened are the least of what concerned all these people who are supposedly outraged. It serves his defenders to keep the focus of the story on yet another racist cop who went out looking for a black man to persecute. So that's why the story is still in the headlines.
It's so amusing to see how you contend that the high profile nature of this story is due to Sharpton and "the same old race baiters". It's just sooooooo easy to fall back onto the same old script. The fact of the matter is that this story hit the headlines long before Sharpton had anything to say about it. A mass media owned and controlled by white people for the most part that last time I checked. Sharpton has issued ONE statement regarding the situation. And the key part is this .....

Originally Posted by Rev. Al Sharpton
“I think it’s indicative at best of an overreaction by police,” Sharpton said. “At worst it could be profiling. Either way, it’s wrong.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1186039

I mean ... that's just so radical and outside the mainstream of what a lot of people of all races have been saying about this situation from the beginning. And clearly Sharpton has so much juice that he's the reason why the phones have been ringing off the hook on right-wing talk radio all week. It's not as if all the callers had anything else better to do right?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 25, 2009 at 12:23 PM. )
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 02:48 PM
 
The actual confrontation is almost an afterthought at this point. There's a teachable moment in this, but I think the lesson is for the President.

When he was a University lecturer, I'm sure he was asked often about his opinion on current events, and he gave his opinion based on the facts that he understood at the time. That's all well and good for an academic who has the latitude to change his view as new information comes in, but not good at all for the President of the United States, whose every word is recorded for posterity. I think the question caught him off guard and he answered it, forgetting momentarily that as President he is supposed to speak for all Americans, and not just offer his own opinions.

I know the President thought that he could offer some constructive context to the issue, but it was clear that he didn't consider his words carefully enough when he answered. Whatever point he was trying to make went out the window when he said the word "stupid". We know that he's good at the prepared speeches. But even though his off-the-cuff speaking is more eloquent than our last President, this time it got him in trouble. Lets hope he gets better -- after all, he's only been on the job six months now!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
The actual confrontation is almost an afterthought at this point. There's a teachable moment in this, but I think the lesson is for the President.

When he was a University lecturer, I'm sure he was asked often about his opinion on current events, and he gave his opinion based on the facts that he understood at the time. That's all well and good for an academic who has the latitude to change his view as new information comes in, but not good at all for the President of the United States, whose every word is recorded for posterity. I think the question caught him off guard and he answered it, forgetting momentarily that as President he is supposed to speak for all Americans, and not just offer his own opinions.

I know the President thought that he could offer some constructive context to the issue, but it was clear that he didn't consider his words carefully enough when he answered. Whatever point he was trying to make went out the window when he said the word "stupid". We know that he's good at the prepared speeches. But even though his off-the-cuff speaking is more eloquent than our last President, this time it got him in trouble. Lets hope he gets better -- after all, he's only been on the job six months now!

Yeah, but at some point our demand/need for such calculated remarks contributes to another problem - speech that is too guarded and politically correct. It is pretty hard to be "for the people" and to provide healthy debate when you are restricted to politician speak which is so unlike normal, more candid speak.

What he should have done is simply make it clear that he is simply stating his personal opinion, as opposed to speaking on behalf of a larger political body in the context of articulating policy. I'm totally fine with politicians offering their personal opinions on things when framed this way, so long as any policy they would enact takes into account more than just their personal opinion at the time. There was no policy involved here, so how is this much different than sharing your sporting team picks? Obviously the comparison is crude, but it isn't entirely out of place when you consider the fact that this was a local, contained issue outside of the sphere of federal politics. As long as the federal government doesn't meddle (and I have no reason to believe they will), Obama is pretty much a bystander.

The other option for him is not to say anything at all, but like I said, I tend to push a little more towards the less guarded, more candid direction with our relationships with politicians - particularly with politicians that have a good history of creating debate without using inflammatory language or other such political lounge style ****-on-the-subject-matter type tactics. To that end, I agree that the president shouldn't have used the word "stupid" either.

All of this being said, I don't think this is worth this amount of obsession, there are much more important things out there worthy of being put under the microscope.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 03:09 PM
 
I'm not calling for him to be overly PC, but I am saying that every word the President says is Important, so he should remember to make his point in a manner where an individual word casually thrown in doesn't derail the message. That is difficult when he's speaking off-the-cuff, but that's part of the President's job, after all.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 03:48 PM
 
Dork: agreed. I like how you put the emphasis on not derailing the message. It is very very annoying when a politician says something dumb that they would gladly take back, the media is stirred into a frenzy, and the partisan base is riled up and uses this to further their own agenda(s). This applies to "wise latina", "macacca", etc. and a large assortment of other things that have been said that I'm forgetting

In a way I kind of understand Bush's tactic of never, ever admitting to any fault since doing so just seems to fuel the usual partisan bots. I think that not admitting fault seemed to do worse, at least in my mind, but he was screwed either way, as is any politician.

The bottom line is that politicians are just human beings, not gods. Like everybody else, they will occasionally say and do stupid ****, some allowance for some stupid **** is necessary if one wishes to be pragmatic. At some point we will form our opinions based on the patterns that we see (e.g. Bush's montage of making up words and his physical gaffes and such), but we don't need to hyperanalyze each individual incident. We also have to not be zealous with trying to sell other people on the patterns that we perceive as being some sort of objective analysis, because they are subjective and fueled by our own bias. This is a very, very weak basis to state objectivity, and I hate it when people foist these sorts of opinions on others.

But then again, I would say that 98% of all political debate is not really about having good debate, it's about claiming territory and self-righteousness.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Jul 25, 2009, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The bottom line is that politicians are just human beings, not gods.
O'Rly ?

Wouldn't that count as back paddling, in Obama's case ?

-t
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Jul 26, 2009, 10:35 AM
 
Being human could not possibly be backpedaling since it is not a rhetorical position.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
MichaelNow
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Jul 26, 2009, 09:23 PM
 
It's not a race or an arrest issue but rather one of training and ego/attitude of the Sergent. At the moment the Sergent identified the professor and knew that there was no break-in his behavior, attitude and objective should turn by 180 degrees and unfortunately it didn't happen, and for this he needs to apologize. For not being professional in the second part of the encounter inside the house and thus contributing to the escalation of the situation and prolonging the very stressful and intimidating situation for the professor, who was the victim of the circumstances inside his own home. It's clear from the Sergent's and police chiefs' responses that a significant change in training is needed.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Jul 26, 2009, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by MichaelNow View Post
It's not a race or an arrest issue but rather one of training and ego/attitude of the Sergent. At the moment the Sergent identified the professor and knew that there was no break-in his behavior, attitude and objective should turn by 180 degrees and unfortunately it didn't happen, and for this he needs to apologize.
What "attitude" did he show? Are you serious?

He was responding to a call of potential crime being committed. From the time he got there, HE was the one having to deal with ego/attitude and a refusal to cooperate. When Gates finally did produce identification and after having the officer accuse him falsely of him being there because he was racist, he offered to have the University police come to take care of the situation and left the guy's house. Gates followed him out and CONTINUED to slander him and yell obnoxiously at him in public.

The neighbors who witnessed the situation all seem to say that Gates was out of line and I've yet to hear of a single witness who claims that the officer did ANYTHING wrong.


For not being professional in the second part of the encounter inside the house and thus contributing to the escalation of the situation and prolonging the very stressful and intimidating situation for the professor, who was the victim of the circumstances inside his own home. It's clear from the Sergent's and police chiefs' responses that a significant change in training is needed.
Their responses where made because the officer followed proper and proven procedure in handling..

A. A potential breaking and entering.
B. A person out of control making a scene in public and refusing to stop even when asked by a law enforcement officer.

It's not the police's job to allow people to disturb the peace caused by their irrational bigotry towards law enforcement officers. The one thing I hope would come of this would be for Gates to attend anger management and racial sensitivity training.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Jul 27, 2009, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The neighbors who witnessed the situation all seem to say that Gates was out of line...

Linkage?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Jul 27, 2009, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The neighbors who witnessed the situation all seem to say that Gates was out of line and I've yet to hear of a single witness who claims that the officer did ANYTHING wrong.
None of them noticed Gates get arrested? That's odd.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Jul 27, 2009, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Linkage?
First, have you read the police report? If you haven't, I can post a link. If you have, can you find any witness who has disputed it's claims? Surely if someone out there refutes the facts they've come out to the aid of a wealthy, influential member of the community who has gotten himself into some hot water? Surely this Harvard man and his high priced Harvard scholar attorney can turn up at least ONE of the handful of witnesses the police claim where outside Gate's home when this happened, and refute the content of the police report in order to save Gates the embarrassment of being branded a bigot himself?

I read an article where people that were there said Gates was acting irrational. I'm still looking for it.

I'm sure you've seen the articles quoting the other officers who where there, including apparently a "racist" black officer who totally supports Gate's arrest

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4731766.story

..yeah, I know, all police are racists (even the black ones) and will lie for each other regardless of the situation.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
None of them noticed Gates get arrested? That's odd.
I'm guessing since it happened outside, where Gates followed the officer after he left, everyone saw it. Could you tell me which of them claims Gates was acting rational and reasonable, not causing a commotion and refusing to stop loudly slandering the officer in public - disturbing the peace? Like I've said, I've seen witnesses claim that's what happened, but none that claim it didn't.

All evidence so far seems to corroborate what the police report has stated. I've seen none that refutes it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Jul 27, 2009, 08:59 AM
 
First, Gates goes on a rant that Police have on tape, and have eye witnesses too.
Then 0bama-without having a clue, ASSUMES this to be racial, and cops an attitude, saying the cops acted 'stupidly' toward his friend and fellow radical Lefty.
Then 0bama backpedals, but not really, so as to still appear stern for his black constituents.
Gates may try to sue the cops, but the audio and witnesses might make this hard.
Why doesn't GATES apologize to the cops and that would be the end of it. Then, neither 0bama or the arresting officer have to say anything more.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Jul 27, 2009, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm guessing since it happened outside, where Gates followed the officer after he left, everyone saw it. Could you tell me which of them claims Gates was acting rational and reasonable, not causing a commotion and refusing to stop loudly slandering the officer in public - disturbing the peace? Like I've said, I've seen witnesses claim that's what happened, but none that claim it didn't.
I never said anybody claimed Gates was rational and reasonable. You said that none of them saw Gates do anything wrong, so I was wondering how they missed the police officer locking a guy up just for being rude to him — something that would surely get me in a big heap of trouble and I think everybody would agree is wrong if I were to try it.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,