[pooka]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.

Whatever, man. I think I still have a copy of the citation/fine I got for mouthing off to a prick-cop in the gas light district. Each time he barked an order I responded with "Fck yooooooou". He slapped the cuffs on me and I'm fairly certain that every sissy-ass frat dude around thought it was funny and deserved. I for one wasn't shocked but I also didn't cry about it afterwards. Maybe I should have written a book or gone on Oprah.

FWIW, the only charge that stuck was JAYWALKING. ****ing cops.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

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.

I don't equate yelling loudly in a residential area that someone is a racist in a threatening manner and refusing to stop as simply being "rude". I'm pretty sure there are not any laws which would allow a police officer to arrest someone for not being polite. For instance, Gates wouldn't have been arrested if it was just a situation where Gates refused to thank the officer for doing his job in trying to protect his home from burglars.

On the other hand, there are laws on the books which allow police officers to arrest people who refuse to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner in public that includes yelling and name calling. What exactly do you think "disturbing the peace" means? The officer warned Gates TWICE that he'd reached the limit where he was engaging in a disturbance of the peace, but Gates continued. That's not just rude, it's illegal. Gates could have stayed in his house and ranted all he wanted where his neighbors could not hear him. He chose to force everyone in the neighborhood to hear his irrational, slanderous outburst and refused to stop when asked.

Again, it goes beyond "rude". Gates could have said everything he did in a non-disturbing way and not have been arrested either. He chose to make a scene, chose to continue when asked to stop, chose to continue when warned that his behavior outside his home had reached the level of a "disturbance of the peace" and even when the officer took out his cuffs CONTINUED to loudly rant and rave.

No one's fault but Gates.

Gate's over-reacted at the beginning, middle and end. Gates needs to apologize and seek help for his anger management and bigotry issues.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Linkage?

Exactly. We've had several people make claims about witnesses and not a single link to a news report has been produced. We've had people claim that Prof. Gates' home had been broken into earlier that week and not a single link to a news report of that has been produced.

And the million dollar question still has not been answered.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. We've had several people make claims about witnesses and not a single link to a news report has been produced. We've had people claim that Prof. Gates' home had been broken into earlier that week and not a single link to a news report of that has been produced.

Well, how is that:

Cambridge police released a recording of the radio transmissions Monday after more than a week of controversy over Mr. Gates's July 16 arrest on a disorderly conduct charge.

Arresting officer Sgt. James Crowley spoke in calm, measured tones when talking to dispatchers. What seems to be the voice of Mr. Gates can be heard in the background on two occasions when Mr. Crowley was broadcasting over his police radio.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124870309847783787.html

-t

[OAW]

Well well well ..... the plot thickens!

It appears there is a bit of an uhhhh, how shall I put it .... "discrepancy" in the police report that many here consider to be so sacrosanct.

Originally Posted by 911 Caller

The woman who made the 911 call that led to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. never referred to black suspects when she called authorities for what she thought was a potential break-in.

Police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, released the 911 phone call Monday. In the call, Lucia Whalen reports seeing "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."

So in response to the 911 dispatcher asking the caller if the men were "white, black, or hispanic" she doesn't say "black" at all. Not one time. Yet the official police report says this ....

Originally Posted by Sgt. Crowley

"She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," the report says. "She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry."

Oh but wait it gets worse! LOL

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.

"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."

She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."

So not only did the 911 caller in her own words (and backed up up by the actual audio which I've heard BTW) categorically deny ever describing the two mean entering the house as being "black" .... she also categorically denies even talking to Sgt. Crowley or any other police officer at the scene. Yet his police report indicates that she told him about "two black males with backpacks". Hmmmmmmm ........

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!



OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well well well ..... the plot thickens!

Pfff, that's just a side show.

Important is this: according to the police dispatcher recordings:

a) Sgt. Crowley was calm
b) Professor Gates was so loud that he could be heard in the background

-t

[pooka]

Ha! Keep reaching, dude! Have you cross-referenced the police report with the time/date stamp on the transcripts yet! And how could the police have mistaken Gates for the suspect when the caller stated they were HISPANIC!

*dun dun dun*

Obviously he's being setup by the Latino officer who was on the scene!

[andi*pandi]

What's interesting also is that woman said she'd been pulled aside by an older woman who pointed out the breakin, and was making the call on that person's behalf. Maybe that's who Crowley talked to on the scene. Perhaps that old lady is the real racist!

[turtle777]

So, let me get this bullsh!t straight: some people here believe that old lady only reported the break in because she thought the intruders were minorities.

Had the intruders been white, she would have brought over cookies.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Pfff, that's just a side show.

So Sgt. Crowley apparently falsifies at least a portion of the official police report and that's just "a side show". The fact that he was "calm" on the radio after the everything that had just transpired inside the house overrules everything else huh? I think my earlier comment bears repeating ....

Originally Posted by OAW

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!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, let me get this bullsh!t straight: some people here believe that old lady only reported the break in because she thought the intruders were minorities.

Had the intruders been white, she would have brought over cookies.

-t

No. The only people talking that stupid sh*t are you and Captain Obvious.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So Sgt. Crowley apparently falsifies at least a portion of the official police report and that's just "a side show". The fact that he was "calm" on the radio after the everything that had just transpired inside the house overrules everything else huh? I think my earlier comment bears repeating

"apparently falsifies"

Dude WTF ?

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

"apparently falsifies"

Dude WTF ?

-t

Yes. "Apparently falsifies". Now perhaps Sgt. Crowley will come up with some plausible explanation for why his police report claims that he spoke with the 911 caller ... identified as Lucia Whalen .... at the scene and she is categorically denying that. I doubt it. But I thought I'd be charitable and say "apparently". Perhaps you have something to add?

OAW

[Snow-i]

What in the hell does it matter?

Gates was obviously over the line...his only defense is to point out clerical discrepencies that don't speak to the issue itself.

Why would that justify Gates acting like a bigoted madman? Why would that nullify the arrest? Why would your apparent clerical errors matter at all (they aren't even substantiated). Its gate's conduct that got him arrested, and apparently the release of the tapes make it OBVIOUS that the arrest was warranted, and perhaps the charges should have stuck.

[andi*pandi]

The old lady was on the grassy knoll and talked to Officer Crowley.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What in the hell does it matter?

So let me get this straight. Sgt. Crowley says Ms. Whalen called out to him at the scene and said "two black males with back packs" blah blah blah. Ms. Whalen, through her attorney, categorically denies ever speaking to Sgt. Crowly at the scene at all. But you choose dismiss such a diametrically opposed disparity as a "clerical error". Woooooooooooow!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Gates was obviously over the line...his only defense is to point out clerical discrepencies that don't speak to the issue itself.

Why would that justify Gates acting like a bigoted madman? Why would that nullify the arrest? Why would your apparent clerical errors matter at all (they aren't even substantiated). Its gate's conduct that got him arrested, and apparently the release of the tapes make it OBVIOUS that the arrest was warranted, and perhaps the charges should have stuck.

Really now? Well according to the radio transmissions that doesn't appear to be the case.

Sergeant James Crowley, the Cambridge police officer who ignited a national debate on racial profiling when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home, can be heard on a recording of radio transmissions to his dispatcher during the incident describing Gates as "uncooperative" and asking for more backup.

"I'm up with a gentleman says he resides here," Crowley said on the tape. After describing Gates as "uncooperative," he added, "keep the cars coming."

..........

The recordings appeared to reflect a relatively routine call, with officers and even the 911 caller mostly calm.

The recordings were released after a noon news conference held by City Manager Robert Healy, Mayor E. Denise Simmons, and Police Commissioner Robert Haas.

Asked what the tapes show, Haas said, "I think the tapes speak for themselves and I would ask you to form your own opinion."

One thing the tapes didn't show: any clear background sound that indicated Gates was shouting during the incident. Another voice can be heard in the background of at least three transmissions, but what the person is saying isn't intelligible.

Crowley said in the report he filed after the incident that Gates became disruptive during their encounter. Gates has denied that he was disorderly when Crowley came to the home to investigate the report of a possible break-in.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...e_polic_4.html

Sgt. Crowley in his official police report says that Prof. Gates was shouting so loudly he couldn't hear himself reading his name off the identification. Yet the audio tape of the police radio transmission does not support that. So where exactly is this "loud and tumultuous" yelling? Sgt. Crowley painted a picture of Prof. Gates in his report which has been seized upon and embellished by his supporters that basically portrays the professor as some sort of screaming lunatic hurling racial accusations. But apparently the tapes don't bear that out.

Let the twisting and contorting to justify these aspects of Sgt. Crowley's official police report begin. Because the evidence is showing that parts of it were exaggerated at best or downright false at worst .

OAW

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by pooka 

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?

He's tryin'. Problem, the media has a new chew-toy, and won't let go of it. Obviously Obama would prefer to talk about health care rather than this nonsense, but the situation wouldn't let him.

[ebuddy]

I still fail to see how any of this negates the rightful arrest of a grumpy old man guilty of race-baiting and disorderly conduct.

In the meantime, deaths at an all-time high in Afghanistan while we're creating terrorists and driving them into Pakistan.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The ultimate justice that would be such a perfect ending to this whole stupid chapter:

While Gates is away having a beer with Obama in the white house, some actual neighborhood burglars seize the opportunity to break in and clean out his house. When Gates gets back to a ransacked home:

"Holy s....! Didn't any of my neighbors see anything?"
"Sure. We saw the whole thing go down."
"WHAAT!? Then why the hell didn't any of you call the... uh... I mean... uh... Oh. Nevermind."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

He's tryin'. Problem, the media has a new chew-toy, and won't let go of it. Obviously Obama would prefer to talk about health care rather than this nonsense, but the situation wouldn't let him.

Is he going to talk about health care with Crowley and Gates over a beer next week?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The ultimate justice that would be such a perfect ending to this whole stupid chapter:

While Gates is away having a beer with Obama in the white house, some actual neighborhood burglars seize the opportunity to break in and clean out his house. When Gates gets back to a ransacked home:

"Holy s....! Didn't any of my neighbors see anything?"
"Sure. We saw the whole thing go down."
"WHAAT!? Then why the hell didn't any of you call the... uh... I mean... uh... Oh. Nevermind."

Yes, and once again, the neighbors will be accused of racism.

This time for *NOT* reporting the incident.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So Sgt. Crowley apparently falsifies at least a portion of the official police report and that's just "a side show".

Not at all:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ce_police_say/

That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

Sorry to bust your conspiracy theory.

As far as the tapes go, you can hear someone in the background saying something, but since the officer's voice is in the foreground and the channel isn't left open you can't really tell how loud they are or how obnoxious they are being. Seeing how the officer was quite calm and claimed that Gates was being uncooperative, and it's clear that Gates was talking at the officer even while he was on the radio talking to the 911 dispatcher, the officer's version of events given the evidence seems much more plausible than the original stories Gates forwarded which consisted of Gates being arrested via racial profiling for breaking into his own home - which he was going to create a documentary about.

Gates clearly owes the officer an apology. An apology for slandering him and verbally abusing him, an apology for being uncooperative when the officer was just doing his job, and an apology for lying about the whole thing before all the story was released. The man really needs some serious therapy.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is he going to talk about health care with Crowley and Gates over a beer next week?

Obama is quite capable of doing more than one thing in a week. Unless you think they'll be having a beer 5 days straight, for 9 hours each day.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still fail to see how any of this negates the rightful arrest of a grumpy old man guilty of race-baiting and disorderly conduct.

I didn't know that "race-baiting", whatever that is, is illegal.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, pissing off a cop is not a valid reason for being arrested if you haven't done anything wrong. It's rude, and probably not wise, but it's not illegal.

No matter how much badge-kissing you guys do in here, just remember that charges don't get dropped immediately when the cops actually have a "rightful arrest" on their hands.

In the meantime, deaths at an all-time high in Afghanistan while we're creating terrorists and driving them into Pakistan.

I'm not even gonna ask. Pass.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Obama is quite capable of doing more than one thing in a week. Unless you think they'll be having a beer 5 days straight, for 9 hours each day.

Well, if doing = talking, then yes.

Does Obama doe anything else than talking ?

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, and once again, the neighbors will be accused of racism.

This time for *NOT* reporting the incident.

-t

That's okay though, because who wants those "stupid cops" to show up anyway?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Gates clearly owes the officer an apology. An apology for slandering him and verbally abusing him, an apology for being uncooperative when the officer was just doing his job, and an apology for lying about the whole thing before all the story was released. The man really needs some serious therapy.

Gee, that's great and all. Will the officer apologize for pointlessly arresting Mr Gates? And so far, it's only Crowley who has been doing the lying.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gee, that's great and all. Will the officer apologize for pointlessly arresting Mr Gates.

Arresting someone for disorderly conduct isn't "pointless," even if charges are never filed or dropped. It removes those who are engaging in the disruptive and illegal behavior from the community long enough to diffuse the situation and ensure that no further disruptions occur. Had the officer allowed Gates to continue to be disruptive outside, it well could have caused additional problems.

It wouldn't have done the officer's career much good had Gates been able to convince his neighbors that his lies where true, gotten them riled up and a "Do The Right Thing" style riot had taken place after the officer decided to ignore the illegal behavior Gates was engaging in.

And so far, it's only Crowley who has been doing the lying.

Did you not see my citation above from the police commissioner explaining that there was likely no discrepancies in the police report.

Try again....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I didn't know that "race-baiting", whatever that is, is illegal.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, pissing off a cop is not a valid reason for being arrested if you haven't done anything wrong. It's rude, and probably not wise, but it's not illegal.

As it's been pointed out, Gates didn't simply "piss off" the cop. He decided to go the extra mile and cause a public disturbance and refused to stop doing so even after be warned that his slanderous and loud verbal abuse had reached the level of "disturbing the peace".

No matter how much badge-kissing you guys do in here, just remember that charges don't get dropped immediately when the cops actually have a "rightful arrest" on their hands.

Sure they do. First offenses from normally upstanding members of the community in situations where a police officer achieved the goal of diffusing a situation quite often see charges dropped or not filed at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I didn't know that "race-baiting", whatever that is, is illegal.

Reaching for the stick while quoting half the post? Nice. Disorderly conduct is illegal. The charges were dropped because throwing the loud-mouthed racist in prison isn't going to help matters for cop-haters and the cops that have to deal with them.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, pissing off a cop is not a valid reason for being arrested if you haven't done anything wrong. It's rude, and probably not wise, but it's not illegal.

It went way beyond simply "pissing the cop off" as has been explained ad nauseum.

No matter how much badge-kissing you guys do in here, just remember that charges don't get dropped immediately when the cops actually have a "rightful arrest" on their hands.

No matter how much cop-hating you do in here, just remember that continued disorderly conduct while in the presence of an officer may get your mug shots on TV. Sure the charges will be dropped if you're in certain high-profile positions and have simply reacted shamefully. Charges get dropped all the time. An "I'm sorry" and a "thank-you" was in order from this race-baiter.

I'm not even gonna ask. Pass.

It's probably best that you don't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did you not see my citation above from the police commissioner explaining that there was likely no discrepancies in the police report. Try again....

It won't matter.

Cops = authoritarian and bad
Totalitarianism = necessary and good.

With ideology this conflicted, it's no wonder some of these folks can't see the forest through the trees.

[Eriamjh]

Black man, white cop, caller reports a break-in. I don't think it really mattered.

I see this as the scenario for a lose-lose situation. The most likely response from many people in this situation is going to be pretty much what happened.

Caller reports a break in. That's what people do when they see something. Thanks for the info. Send the cops to check on it. In many cities, the cops may not show up at all (welcome to Detroit).

I have had to break into my own house before, so I know what the owner had to do. If a cop had showed up asking a bunch of questions, and I didn't realize what it looked like to my neighbors (or passersby), I might be a little upset about being questioned inside my own house.

A natural response is to tell the cops to **** off. I'm in my own home. I don't want to be questioned. I'm on my own property. I have done nothing wrong. If I'm coming home from a trip and I had to break my door which will cost me money to fix, I'm probably pretty tired and not in a good mood. Unless I can set aside a lot of emotion, my reaction to a cop on my property may not be executed in the most polite manner.

Now look at it from the cop's point of view: Break in reported. Men in the house. Men are uncooperative. Looks like a crime, right? Unless the cop puts aside all the obvious signs and assumes the best, his reaction is to continue questioning the suspicious activity. He's not too happy about being told to bug off by this man. The cop has to do his job.

Put these two together and 99% of the time, what you get will be what happened. The owner will get upset, the cop will get upset, the owner will be arrested.

The owner is arrested for his reactions, NOT his actions. It's not his fault. It's not the cop's fault. No crime was committed!

I think this would happen most of the time to anyone, no matter what color their skin.

If a cop comes to your property, do you have to be polite? If you raise your voice at him from inside your own home, are you upsetting the public? You are not in a public place.

You see, my friends, this situation could have ended with either side backing down, a polite exchange of words, a handshake and a thank you, but it didn't. Both had what was the most likely reaction and the situation went down the most likely path. Owner defends his right to privacy, cop investigates potential crime.

Take this one step further. What if today, both sides apologized, and the cops (any of them) stopped by every now and then just to say hello and see how he was doing, if he was having any problems with neighbors, unruly dogs, etc? The professor might welcome them with coffee, have a nice chat about how he's happy to have a prominent police presence, etc.

Or worse. A cop could stop by and he could be upset and accuse the cop of harassing him again for no reason. I would love it if the cops in my neighborhood stopped in, asked me about my classic cars, and then went on their way. But if I was just arrested for no reason, I wouldn't want to see a cop for no reason either. I might demand he get off my property before he even asks me how my 66 convertible is doing.

Both sides need to chill out and relax for a minute and just say they're sorry for what happened. Neither side needs to be sorry for how they reacted. I think it played out the most likely way it would have.

But they can both learn from it. We all can.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did you not see my citation above from the police commissioner explaining that there was likely no discrepancies in the police report.

I didn't see that. I saw this link, but that story does not explain away the apparent discrepancies. The main focus of that story is that Murphy isn't racist, which is fine, but nobody here has ever claimed she was.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, and once again, the neighbors will be accused of racism.

This time for *NOT* reporting the incident.

-t

Uhhhh Prof. Gates never accused the 911 caller of racism. In fact, he publicly thanked her. Try again.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

lots of others have though.

hate speech is hate speech, no matter who says it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I didn't see that. I saw this link,

Same story I linked to.

...but that story does not explain away the apparent discrepancies. The main focus of that story is that Murphy isn't racist, which is fine, but nobody here has ever claimed she was.

I'll quote from the police commissioner again, which explained why what the 911 caller wasn't really all that important in regards to the police report.

that reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

[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 ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not at all:

That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ce_police_say/

So the Cambridge Police Commissioner, one Mr. Haas, in a "CYA" move that is obvious to all but the most obtuse of individuals ... purports that Sgt. Crowley's police report is a "summary" of all the info collected during the inquiry ... not just the 911 call. Ok fine. Let's roll with that for a moment. Now this is what Sgt. Crowley said in the police report ....

Originally Posted by Sgt. Crowley

When I arrived at ** Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of ** Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on the location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.

Police Report

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. Just pay attention to the parts that I put in bold. Now let's juxtapose Sgt. Crowley's police report against this ...

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.

"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."

She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gat...f=mpstoryemail

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? Oh and since Sgt. Crowley also says in the police report that he was the only officer at the scene at the time then she couldn't have said that to another officer and it just got "mixed up" in the report. Furthermore, Ms. Whalen also denies saying to any police officer ... Sgt. Crowley or otherwise ... on the phone or at the scene .... anything about "two black men with backpacks". So where did all that BS come from? Hmmmm?

What she did say was this on the 911 call was this .....

Originally Posted by 911 Transcript

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: 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.

911 Transcript

Nothing about backpacks. She specifically said suitcases. Nothing about two black men. She said two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but she wasn't sure.

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. The 911 call is recorded so there's no disputing that. Now for me ... I'm inclined to believe Ms. Whalen because what she is saying is consistent with the 911 recording. She has no incentive to lie. She doesn't even live in the neighborhood. But what else do we have? Apparently the police report says that Prof. Gates showed Sgt. Crowley his Harvard ID. Prof. Gates has emphatically said that he showed him that and his Massachusetts drivers license. The latter which has his address. Perhaps the former didn't. Does the police report not mention the drivers license because then it gives the impression that Prof. Gates hadn't proved that it was his house? Thereby justifying Sgt. Crowley's continued presence?

Perhaps the police report was written in a manner designed to make the situation seem more "suspicious" than it really was to justify an arrest that should have never went down in the first place?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As far as the tapes go, you can hear someone in the background saying something, but since the officer's voice is in the foreground and the channel isn't left open you can't really tell how loud they are or how obnoxious they are being.

Dude. Seriously. If Prof. Gates was "screaming" and "yelling" as was Sgt. Crowley's claim that would be apparent on the tapes. "The channel isn't left open"? Oh please! Now I am aware that many police radios are half-duplex systems. That is they allow for two-way communication but not at the same time. This is why you often hear the officer and control speaking in sequence. Saying things like "over" and "copy" at the end of their sentence. 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. You might not be able to tell what someone is saying in the background if they are yelling and screaming ... but you can certainly tell if someone is yelling in the first place.

Unless, of course, you think Prof. Gates was only yelling and screaming at the exact moments Sgt. Crowley took his finger off the transmit button.

OAW

[OAW]

Let me put this more succinctly. The Police Commissioner said ...

That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

In the article Commissioner Haas is addressing the discrepancy between the 911 call and the police report. And the explanation he gave might suffice if that were the issue. What he does not address ... nor anyone in this thread thus far ... is the discrepancy between the police report and Ms. Whalen's emphatic denial of ever talking to Sgt. Crowley at the scene.

The bottom line is that it wasn't "collected during the inquiry" because she never spoke to him. Let the twisting and contorting to explain this away continue.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uhhhh Prof. Gates never accused the 911 caller of racism. In fact, he publicly thanked her. Try again.

I didn't say that Gates said that. You're obviously making sh!t up.
Or you can't read.

-t

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It won't matter.

Cops = authoritarian and bad
Totalitarianism = necessary and good.

With ideology this conflicted, it's no wonder some of these folks can't see the forest through the trees.

What in blazes are you talking about? Please show me where anybody in this thread mentioned or even implied this tortured equation you're pushing. "Totalitarianism = necessary and good"??!?

I've got no problem with cops in general. Cops do a difficult job, and when done right, are heroes for doing it. But I also recognize that they're human, which means they can and do make mistakes. While Prof. Gates isn't 100% blameless in this matter, this incident is clearly a mistake by the cop, and I will not let my general respect for the profession of police officer blind me to that, unlike you and many others in here who defer to the cops no matter what they do.

If your kind of blind deference to government officials isn't authoritarianism, then the term has no meaning any more.

[besson3c]

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

[ort888]

The only plausible "out" that officer Crowley has is that he talked to someone else outside the home who he confused for Mrs. Whalen.

Otherwise there seems to be evidence that the police report was knowingly falsified which really paints this story in a new light.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Reaching for the stick while quoting half the post? Nice. Disorderly conduct is illegal. The charges were dropped because throwing the loud-mouthed racist in prison isn't going to help matters for cop-haters and the cops that have to deal with them.

It was far more than just bad PR that made them drop the charges. There doesn't appear to be any meat to it, no court was going to take this specific "disorderly conduct" charge seriously. It would have been dismissed almost immediately if they had tried to take this to trial, and the DA knew this. That's why the charges were dropped.

As for your quote, you said, "I still fail to see how any of this negates the rightful arrest of a grumpy old man guilty of race-baiting and disorderly conduct." If you only meant to say "guilty of disorderly conduct", you should have said so. Your words, not mine.

It went way beyond simply "pissing the cop off" as has been explained ad nauseum.

You can believe what you want. The available evidence doesn't show anything "way beyond".

No matter how much cop-hating you do in here, just remember that continued disorderly conduct while in the presence of an officer may get your mug shots on TV. Sure the charges will be dropped if you're in certain high-profile positions and have simply reacted shamefully. Charges get dropped all the time. An "I'm sorry" and a "thank-you" was in order from this race-baiter.

Hm. It sure seems that our more conservative members regularly accuse public figures of being racists or race-baiters far more frequently than the supposed "race-sensitive" liberals do. Do a search, you'll discover this to be the case. I wonder why that is?

It's probably best that you don't.

It's best for the thread, not for me. You made the totally irrelevant connection to Afghanistan, which you seem to think was something relevant to the topic, and I think it's best to be ignored.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Turtle777

I didn't say that Gates said that. You're obviously making sh!t up.
Or you can't read.

Ok. Fine. Hang your hat on that. I'd like to see a link to a news source ... not some random blogger ... showing anyone accusing the 911 caller of racism. People have criticized the police for sure. But I've yet to see anyone of any note accuse the 911 caller of being racist. What I have seen is a plethora of news reports that parroted Sgt. Crowley's police report and made it out like Ms. Whalen said things that the 911 recordings prove that she never said. And I've seen a lot of people such as yourself make statements such as this ...

Originally Posted by Turtle777

So, let me get this bullsh!t straight: some people here believe that old lady only reported the break in because she thought the intruders were minorities.

... when you can't point to anyone in this thread who has accused the 911 caller of being racist. That's the problem with having a discussion that has anything to do with race. People too often start tossing around straw man arguments instead of actually addressing the issue at hand. But arguing a point that is not in dispute is an often used tactic when the facts don't support your position on the point that is in dispute.

OAW

[turtle777]

And that's all you got on me ?

-t

[OAW]

Do I really need anymore?

OAW

[besson3c]

I don't see why you guys are getting so huffy and self righteous about this. This comes down to a gut feeling over something which doesn't matter much anyway.

[SpaceMonkey]

Seriously.

[besson3c]

I never understood why people get so heated and passionate about cases like this, Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, etc. Arguing the superiority of your gut feeling is pointless, but on top of that these whole stories are more or less pointless. Who cares?

If you guys want to argue something, I think it should be about whether I'm Jesus.

[Gee-Man]

These kinds of cases are stand-ins for our general issues and feelings about much bigger issues, like race, class, and authority. In that respect, it's not really about Gates, or Michael Jackson, or OJ Simpson per-se. Which is why you see people argue their position so passionately.