[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

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

Why do they have to be right-wing wackos OAW? The largest source of increasing opposition to nationalized healthcare are among independents with now a substantial majority of Americans opposed 53% to 42%. What on earth do you suppose a townhall meeting is, a photo-op for support of nationalized healthcare?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Stupendousman,

You keep talking about how Ms. Whalen wasn't the "first on the scene" ... when you have no basis on which to say that. All she said was that the old lady noticed Prof. Gates and his driver first. She never said that she wasn't there "on the scene" with the old lady from the very beginning.

One woman was watching what was going on and saw something suspicious.

She alerted the other woman to what she had been watching.

One woman saw more than the other woman. There is really no rational basis to claim otherwise. All your arguments are pretty much semantical at this point.

"Nor does it say she was the only one they talked to...."? Really? And that's what you base this theory of yours on? The police report doesn't say that the cops talked to the Jedi Ambassador from the planet Coruscant either. The purpose of the police report is not to list what didn't happen. The purpose is to outline what did happen.

They said they talked to someone and they told them that the people breaking in where black and had backpacks.

You claim they lied about WHO they said they talked to despite the fact that there's really no motivation to do so. I claim that they got a name wrong, since the name on the 911 report was what was on record. Your explanation requires a conspiracy where there's no compelling reason to create one. My explanation provides a reasonable explanation when a conspiracy isn't likely.

You have no basis to claim that Prof. Gates' version of events is a lie ... other than the fact that you choose to believe Sgt. Crowley.

..and the witnesses who claim Crowley's version is true. And the fact that I've got photos showing Gates yelling at Crowley outside. And the fact that before there was any controversy, there is a phone record of claims that Gates was acting in a harassing manner. And the fact that none of the witnesses at the scene have come forward and said that Gates was being reasonable and not causing a scene refuting the police. And the fact that I KNOW Gates lied about being "racially profiled" and the reason he was arrested after the fact. And the fact that Crowley has a spotless record which shows the he set the standards and examples of how to deal with issues of race on the job. All that pretty much would lead a rational person to believe that Gates version of events wasn't entirely truthful. Especially after all this came out and Gates and President Obama started back-tracking after Crowley made it clear he wasn't going to crumble under pressure to apologize and witness testimony started to be publicized showing that Crowley hadn't acted "stupidly".

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

It's standard procedure at a potential crime scene to locate yourself where you'd be in less danger. If Gates choose to assault Crowley, he'd have an advantage inside his house that he wouldn't outside. Whether this happened or not is irrelevant.

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

The police report is only a summary to show approximately what happened. As I've explained before, there are likely to have been irrelevancies left out and mistakes can be made remembering after the fact that aren't essential to knowing exactly what happened.

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

I can't. Mr. Crowley's explanation though that Gates was too busy going off the deep end and wasn't actually paying attention to what Crowley said seems more reasonable, given the fact that Crowley had no reason not to tell him, and if Gates had bothered to stop ranting to hear an explanation of why Crowley was there, none of this would have escalated.

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

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

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

As I've explained before, there are witnesses. I witnessed the stories where Gates lied and said he was racially profiled and was going to sue. The only evidence you can find where Crowley may have possibly "lied" was where a description was attributed to someone who claims they never gave it. Of course, Whalen has incentive to lie as well, as she was being called a racist by some. I don't accuse her of lying though because as I've explained, since there is no real motive to create a conspiracy and lie about a description, there's a reasonable explanation for the essentially irrelevant potential "lie" you think (but can't prove) exists.

I can show where Gates did lie about what happened. I can point to witnesses who say that Crowely was disturbing the peace. I can show pictures that seem to show Gates engaging in tumultuous verbal attacks outside his home. All the evidence OTHER than the claims of a proven liar seem to point to Crowley's verson of events, other than who might have given a reasonable description of what someone saw from a distance. That pretty much gives me a good idea of who likely isn't telling the truth.

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

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

If they where being "loud and tumultuous", where asked to stop and did not they would be able to be legally arrested. I would not argue that they had been falsely imprisoned.

I may argue though that since they were invited to share their views, where doing so in a way that expressed their emotions and the people who where there knew that they would probably be hearing emotional responses to a controversial issue - it would be a good idea for the government to take that into account before acting against those in question. I wouldn't suggest that if they were being unruly that they were being arrested because of their race or just because someone in charge didn't like their attitude.

The big difference though is that it is the job of our elected officials to listen to our sometimes emotional responses in regards to legislation that has a huge impact on our lives - especially on an issue they are really screwing up. It's not the job of the Police on the other hand to be verbally assaulted and slandered when they are simply doing their job and doing it correctly.

Personally, I wouldn't go to a "Town Hall" and engage in "loud and tumultuous" behavior because I respect the rights of others not have to deal with that. If I made a big scene I'd expect maybe to run into some problems as well.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

One woman was watching what was going on and saw something suspicious.

She alerted the other woman to what she had been watching.

One woman saw more than the other woman. There is really no rational basis to claim otherwise. All your arguments are pretty much semantical at this point.

So the old lady sees two guys on the porch first. Tells Ms. Whalen. Ms. Whalen sees two guys on the porch doing the exact same thing as the old lady but because the old lady saw a few seconds more that makes Ms. Whalen a materially less valuable witness in your view huh? It would be one thing if the old lady had seen something that Ms. Whalen did not see. Then you might have some semblance of a point. But that's not what happened. They both saw the same events take place. As was indicated by the 911 call.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They said they talked to someone and they told them that the people breaking in where black and had backpacks.

You claim they lied about WHO they said they talked to despite the fact that there's really no motivation to do so. I claim that they got a name wrong, since the name on the 911 report was what was on record. Your explanation requires a conspiracy where there's no compelling reason to create one. My explanation provides a reasonable explanation when a conspiracy isn't likely.

I didn't claim they lied about WHO they said they talked to. I'm saying that the CONVERSATION ITSELF appears to be a fabrication given they discrepancy between Ms. Whalen's statement and the police report ... and the fact that neither the police report nor any subsequent statements by Sgt. Crowley or the Cambridge police dept. indicates the police talked to anyone other than Ms. Whalen at the scene.


And no ... fudging a police report doesn't require a "conspiracy". The issue here is the WHAT ... not the WHY. But since you insist on changing the subject to the WHY then fine. Whatever. You provided an "explanation" that presupposes events taking place (i.e. talking to other witnesses) that are not documented anywhere. I provided and "explanation" that relied solely on the facts at hand. I'm content to let the thread audience determine which they feel is more "compelling".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and the witnesses who claim Crowley's version is true.

Again. What witnesses? Ever heard of a link?

Perhaps you mean the other cops who can only testify to what transpired outside? The part the 5 - 6 minute encounter that only comprised the last few seconds? Even though you were responding to a post of mine which was clearly talking about Prof. Gates' version of ALL the events. The ENTIRE thing. Somehow I don't think you are really that dense. You are just subtly trying to avoid addressing the fundamental point which is that 98+% of the encounter took place when only Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates were in the room. IOW ... there were no other witnesses so you have no basis whatsoever to say Prof. Gates' version of events was a lie.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And the fact that I've got photos showing Gates yelling at Crowley outside.

You have a picture showing Gates with his mouth open. You don't know what he was doing. Prof. Gates also said he had contracted a severe bronchial infection in China ... even provided proof of his treatment at a Chinese hospital BTW ... and said that he was not physically capable of yelling at the time even if he wanted to. But let's say for the sake of argument that he was yelling in that photo. That part you are conveniently leaving out is that he was already in handcuffs when that picture was taken. A lot of people raise their voice in protest when they feel they are being unjustly arrested. That doesn't prove he was yelling at the cop PRIOR TO his arrest. It doesn't prove he was engaging in "disorderly conduct" PRIOR TO his arrest. And it certainly doesn't prove that Prof. Gates was lying when he said he was arrested and placed in handcuffs as soon as he stepped outside onto his porch and asked another officer for Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number ... which if that is the case, would make it next to impossible that he was being "loud and tumultuous" in public.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And the fact that before there was any controversy, there is a phone record of claims that Gates was acting in a harassing manner.

WTF are you talking about? Link please.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And the fact that none of the witnesses at the scene have come forward and said that Gates was being reasonable and not causing a scene refuting the police.

And the fact that none of the witnesses at the scene (other than other cops) have come forward and said that Gates was causing a scene. Again, the cops say there were 7 or so witnesses outside when Gates was arrested. You have yet to provide proof that any of them said that Gates as "making a scene", engaging in "disorderly conduct", or being "loud and tumultuous" in any way.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And the fact that I KNOW Gates lied about being "racially profiled" and the reason he was arrested after the fact.

Again. You "know" this how. Now you may "believe" this. But how do you "know"? Do you even know what Prof. Gates said? Have you actually read his entire statement or have you relied solely on snippets and other people's representations of what he said in the media? Prof. Gates never said he felt he was being "racially profiled" because the police were called. He specifically said he thought the 911 caller was doing the right thing and that the police should have responded. He did say that he felt he was being "racially profiled" because of the manner in which Sgt. Crowley continued questioning him ... even after he had given him his Harvard ID and his drivers license and proved that he lived there and that no crime was in progress. He did say that Sgt. Crowley refused to respond when he repeatedly asked him for his name and badge number. And he felt that Sgt. Crowley would not have behaved in that manner were he a white man. And he said that he was arrested on a trumped up charge because he refused to answer any further questions and continued to demand Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number. Charges which were promptly dropped BTW. Charges that nearly all legal experts who have commented on this case say would have been next to impossible to prove in court. A situation that seems to support his contention that the charges were in fact BS.

But you "know" better anyway huh?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Especially after all this came out and Gates and President Obama started back-tracking after Crowley made it clear he wasn't going to crumble under pressure to apologize and witness testimony started to be publicized showing that Crowley hadn't acted "stupidly".

And where exactly did you see Prof. Gates start "back-tracking" on his version of events? Link please.

Did President Obama "backtrack" on his "acted stupidly" comment? I suppose you can say that. However, he definitely did not "backtrack" on the fundamental point of his comment. Which was that Prof. Gates should not have been arrested after he had shown his ID and proven he was in his own house. In fact, he reiterated the point.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's standard procedure at a potential crime scene to locate yourself where you'd be in less danger. If Gates choose to assault Crowley, he'd have an advantage inside his house that he wouldn't outside. Whether this happened or not is irrelevant.

.

And again you try to avoid addressing the fundamental point. Again you resort to arguing a point that is not in dispute. The issue is that Sgt. Crowley did not inform Prof. Gates why he was there and why he wanted him to step outside until after Prof. Gates refused to do so. And there is no "whether this happened or not". Sgt. Crowley admits to that in his police report.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The police report is only a summary to show approximately what happened. As I've explained before, there are likely to have been irrelevancies left out and mistakes can be made remembering after the fact that aren't essential to knowing exactly what happened.

"Irrelevancies" huh? Perhaps only the Harvard ID is mentioned because, unlike the drivers license, it does not contain an address? And if you are looking to justify why you continued questioning Prof. Gates in his own home you skew the report in such a way that makes it seem like he hadn't provided sufficient proof that he did in fact live there.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can't. Mr. Crowley's explanation though that Gates was too busy going off the deep end and wasn't actually paying attention to what Crowley said seems more reasonable, given the fact that Crowley had no reason not to tell him, and if Gates had bothered to stop ranting to hear an explanation of why Crowley was there, none of this would have escalated.

Indeed you can't. But let's dig into this a little deeper shall we? Because it's germane to this notion of "fudging" or "skewing" a police report.

According to Sgt. Crowley's police report, Gates “demanded to know who I was.” He goes on to say that Prof. Gates repeatedly asked him for his "name". However, Prof. Gates said he asked for Sgt. Crowley’s “name and badge number.” Now as is your usual M.O. you will likely try to dismiss this as an "irrelevancy" or something that doesn't make any difference. However, the distinction is important. Sgt. Crowley in his police report claimed that he complied with the professor's request by identifying himself as “Sgt. Crowley". However, Prof. Gates said he did not tell him his name .... nor did he produce any identification. Prof. Gates said that he simply did not respond to his request for this information. Sgt. Crowley says that he gave him his name. Interestingly enough, both accounts say that in the kitchen Gates asked 3 times. In any event, we can see that from both accounts Sgt. Crowley did not provide Prof. Gates with a complete answer to his question. He doesn’t say that he told Prof. Gates his badge number or full name, nor did he produce the identification card bearing that information that police officers in Massachusetts are required to carry and, by law, “shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.”

Such laws exist for a reason. Badge numbers are assigned for a reason. As much as you may not like to admit it, police can and do lie at times about their names, which makes it difficult or impossible for citizens to file complaints about their behavior after an incident. If there weren't a history of such behavior among police officers and they were all assumed to be honest in all situations then such laws would never have been placed on the books. Even if Sgt. Crowley gave his name ... which Prof. Gates denies ... Crowley is a common name in Boston. There are even several police officers named Crowley.

Bottom line? Prof. Gates said he asked Sgt. Crowley several times for his name and badge number. As is his right under state law. But Sgt. Crowley writes the police report in a manner that only indicates that his identification was requested once ..... in response to his request that Prof. Gates show him his ID. But does Sgt. Crowley provide this information? No. Per the police report Prof. Gates complied and gave him his Harvard ID and he got on the phone and asked to speak to the chief of police. But Sgt. Crowley instead chose to "escalate" the situation further by radioing and requesting "the presence of the Harvard University Police". Now there were already other Cambridge police officers outside. By his own admission Gates had shown him his Harvard ID. By his own admission he "was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence." So WTF is he bringing in the Harvard Police for? What can they possibly do to contribute towards the resolution of the situation? Verify that the Harvard ID was in fact a Harvard ID? What it did do is result in even more police and flashing lights outside which, quite obviously, is what drew the crowd and caused waaaaaaay more "public alarm" than Prof. Gates ever did. But I digress. Per the police report, Sgt. Crowley then says to Prof. Gates "that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence". Doesn't provide the identification as requested. Instead, he lures him to step outside by implying that he would provide it once he did. Of course, he never did and per Prof. Gates ... he arrested him as soon as Gates stepped onto the porch and asked another officer for Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number. But Sgt. Crowley wrote it all up as if Prof. Gates was repeatedly asking for his "name" only and that he had given it to him. I wonder why?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I've explained before, there are witnesses. I witnessed the stories where Gates lied and said he was racially profiled and was going to sue. The only evidence you can find where Crowley may have possibly "lied" was where a description was attributed to someone who claims they never gave it. Of course, Whalen has incentive to lie as well, as she was being called a racist by some. I don't accuse her of lying though because as I've explained, since there is no real motive to create a conspiracy and lie about a description, there's a reasonable explanation for the essentially irrelevant potential "lie" you think (but can't prove) exists.

One of these days you might actually provide a link to one of these witness statements. You know, somebody other than other Cambridge police officers. Somebody that was actually "annoyed and alarmed" by Prof. Gate's actions. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can show where Gates did lie about what happened. I can point to witnesses who say that Crowely was disturbing the peace. I can show pictures that seem to show Gates engaging in tumultuous verbal attacks outside his home. All the evidence OTHER than the claims of a proven liar seem to point to Crowley's verson of events, other than who might have given a reasonable description of what someone saw from a distance. That pretty much gives me a good idea of who likely isn't telling the truth.

Well don't talk about it ... be about it. Show and prove. Because all you've done so far is make claims about what you can show. You've yet to actually do it.

This is what we know ... not based on the "he said/she said" stuff ... but based on Sgt. Crowley's own report.

1. Sgt. Crowley demanded that Prof. Gates step outside before he ever said why he was at Prof. Gates' home.

2. Sgt. Crowley entered Prof. Gates' home w/o permission. Even after Gates had told him that it was his house and there was no burglary in progress.

3. Sgt. Crowley never provided Prof. Gates with his identification as is required by Massachusetts state law.

4. Sgt. Crowley received Prof. Gates' Harvard ID as requested, but asked for the Harvard Police respond to the scene anyway.

5. Sgt. Crowley claims to have had a conversation about the description of the suspected "burglars" with Ms. Whalen that never took place. Nor has he stated that he spoke with any other witnesses at the scene. Nor has he subsequently stated that he "misattributed" his supposed conversation to Ms. Whalen by mistake.

6. After receiving proof that Prof. Gates was in his own home, Sgt. Crowley never said anything along the line of "Sorry to have disturbed you sir. Have a nice evening."

7. Given the 5-6 minute timeline between the initial 911 call and Gates being arrested, the entire encounter between Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates lasted minutes ... the vast majority of which was inside the house. The portion on the porch "in public" was mere seconds.

So let's say for the sake of argument that Prof. Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley on the porch. You still can't escape this simple fact. Prof. Gates had repeatedly asked Sgt. Crowley for his identification. And he never got it as was required by state law. So since you want to be such a stickler for the letter of the law .... fine. Two can play that game.

Prof. Gates was no more in violation of the law than was Sgt. Crowley.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why do they have to be right-wing wackos OAW? The largest source of increasing opposition to nationalized healthcare are among independents with now a substantial majority of Americans opposed 53% to 42%. What on earth do you suppose a townhall meeting is, a photo-op for support of nationalized healthcare?

See that's the problem right there. People who insist on saying "nationalized healthcare" .... when no one has even proposed that. Not President Obama. Not Congress. It is not even on the table in any sense of the term. No one is proposing a single-payer system ... where the government would provide public insurance and eliminate private insurers from the market of providing basic healthcare coverage. No one is proposing a single-provider system .... where all the doctors and hospitals would work for the government and no longer be privately owned entities. No one is proposing a combination of the two.

So are there polls showing that independents are increasing their opposition to "nationalized healthcare"? Indeed. The problem is that they are opposed to something that hasn't even been proposed.

In any event, the people who show "increased opposition to nationalized healthcare" in response to a poll and the people who are acting a complete fool in these townhall meetings are not cut from the same cloth. The news reports have nearly universally said that the latter are the right-wingers ... not the independents.

It was the "right wing wackos" holding those ridiculous "tea parties" b*tching about higher taxes when the Obama administration had just delivered payroll tax cut in the amount of 1/3 of the 787 billion dollar stimulus package.

It's the "right wing wackos" that constitute the "birther" movement. People who wouldn't believe that Obama was a citizen if they had video of him falling out of his mother's coochie on the White House steps.

And it's the "right wing wackos" that are disrupting the healthcare townhall meetings.

Same people. Different avenues to express their foolishness.

OAW

[Chuckit]

There's a different thread for the healthcare discussion, y'all.

[Gee-Man]

stupendousman,



Gotta call it. OAW has got your number. You barely put up more than a single link in this whole thread to support all the crazy speculation and "what if"-ing you've been engaging in.

You can stop embarrassing yourself. It's over.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Same people. Different avenues to express their foolishness.

I've addressed this redirect in the 'How health reform will help our economy' thread OAW.
How health reform will help our economy-midway up page 4

[lpkmckenna]

Yet another power-mad cop, this time tazering a mother in front of her 2 kids. Of course he lied about her being 5 MPH above the speed limit too.

Mom in minivan tasered twice in Salina traffic stop; camera captures deputy's rough roadside arrest (VIDEO) - syracuse.com

Time to take those tazers away. Too many rabid dogs off the leash.

[Chuckit]

I'm sure she would have been much happier if it were bullets or a metal stick he was attacking her with.

[BadKosh]

"And it's the "right wing wackos" that are disrupting the healthcare townhall meetings."

Except the Democrats PAID union thugs to show up, and fill seats so opponents of the scam won't be able to be in the room. This has been covered, including the same tag numbers showing up at several town hall meetings.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a different thread for the healthcare discussion, y'all.

… More than three characters

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Time to take those tazers away. Too many rapid dogs off the leash.

Yeah, they oughta slow down.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah, they oughta slow down.

Thank you. I was going to do that, but then I forgot. Your way was funnier, too.

[lpkmckenna]

Oh crap. Nice catch, diction nazis.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm sure she would have been much happier if it were bullets or a metal stick he was attacking her with.

That officer handled the situation appropriately.
When YOU get tasered by a uniformed thug, it WILL be brutality

[Chuckit]

I don't know what it is with people feeling the need to argue with posts they didn't even read properly.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know what it is with people feeling the need to argue with posts they didn't even read properly.

Correct me if I am wrong....You feel the officer handled the situation properly, and she's lucky she wasn't beaten or shot? She was lucky she got tazered twice? Is that what your post is saying????

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Correct me if I am wrong....You feel the officer handled the situation properly, and she's lucky she wasn't beaten or shot? She was lucky she got tazered twice? Is that what your post is saying????

He responded to a post claiming; "time to take the tazers away". Well... that leaves the cop with his gun and a baton. I think Chuckit is saying that the reason they carry tazers is because they are exponentially safer to the victim of a thug cop than a gun and baton.

[stumblinmike]

And I am saying the cop overreacted. No taser, gun or baton necessary. The video doesn't lie. Thank god for video, or you blind supporters of Johnny Law would never concede ANY wrongdoing. Not that you are now....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

And I am saying the cop overreacted. No taser, gun or baton necessary. The video doesn't lie. Thank god for video, or you blind supporters of Johnny Law would never concede ANY wrongdoing. Not that you are now....

... and I'm saying you can't read. Chuckit said it nicely, but that didn't work. You forced your rant in regardless of what people are saying............

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Correct me if I am wrong....You feel the officer handled the situation properly, and she's lucky she wasn't beaten or shot? She was lucky she got tazered twice? Is that what your post is saying????

No, that's not what I'm saying. You will not find anywhere that I said he handled it appropriately. My point is that taking away cops' Tasers leaves them with even worse weapons, and I would not have been happier if this woman had been shot.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, that's not what I'm saying. You will not find anywhere that I said he handled it appropriately. My point is that taking away cops' Tasers leaves them with even worse weapons, and I would not have been happier if this woman had been shot.

Apologies. But again, can we nip it in the bud and just get rid of bad cops? Let's keep the tazers for the good cops! And thanks for your two cents, buddy! you always add a little something to the discussion.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Apologies. But again, can we nip it in the bud and just get rid of bad cops? Let's keep the tazers for the good cops! And thanks for your two cents, buddy! you always add a little something to the discussion.

Sounds like a good idea...

how do we go about doing that?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sounds like a good idea...

how do we go about doing that?

Psych screen (real one!), raise education requirements, raise the pay, diversify the force (no affirmative action needed, plenty of qualified people), and most importantly, genuine leadership from the top down. This is where homeland security $ SHOULD be spent! Not at the airport on a rentacop! Anything else I can help you with today?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Psych screen (real one!), raise education requirements, raise the pay, diversify the force (no affirmative action needed, plenty of qualified people), and most importantly, genuine leadership from the top down. This is where homeland security $ SHOULD be spent! Not at the airport on a rentacop! Anything else I can help you with today?

I never thought I'd agree with you before...but I agree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Psych screen (real one!), raise education requirements, raise the pay, diversify the force (no affirmative action needed, plenty of qualified people), and most importantly, genuine leadership from the top down. This is where homeland security $ SHOULD be spent! Not at the airport on a rentacop! Anything else I can help you with today?

Wow. Chalk me up in agreement too.

The Gates/Crowley affair has brought unity to the PWL.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

diversify the force (no affirmative action needed, plenty of qualified people)

How do you plan to diversify the force without doing anything? If it's not already diverse and nothing changes, how will this come about?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you plan to diversify the force without doing anything? If it's not already diverse and nothing changes, how will this come about?

Wow, we are on opposite coasts AND wavelengths. I cannot communicate with you. Let me just call it magic, and be done with it.

[Chuckit]

First you make my position out to be the complete opposite of what it actually is, and now you refuse to answer a single question? You need to work on your communication skills, man.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm sure she would have been much happier if it were bullets or a metal stick he was attacking her with.

Explain this to me please...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

stupendousman,



Gotta call it. OAW has got your number. You barely put up more than a single link in this whole thread to support all the crazy speculation and "what if"-ing you've been engaging in.

You can stop embarrassing yourself. It's over.

Please, put down your pipe. Let the haze clear, then get back to us.

OAW has responded with another load of semantic arguments and double-talk designed to confuse the issues rather than just admit that Gates is the one who got "served" for his lying and disruptive behavior.

Someone sees what's going on and then alerts someone else who then calls 911 and they didn't witness more of what happened? He imagines that the "old lady" only saw a "couple of seconds" more of what was going on but has no evidence this. On top of the fact IT REALLY doesn't matter how many more seconds she saw - SHE WAS THE FIRST WITNESS ON THE SCENE. His "evidence" doesn't refute this.

So, yeah...sure - "served".

He claims that despite there being other witnesses, the only explanation for claiming to have talked to someone about the what the people in question looked like could be that they just invented it, despite the fact there is no real motive for doing so.

So, yeah...sure - "served".

I've explained time and again that people on the scene explained that they would have done the same thing as Crowley - people who are even pictured with Crowley at the scene. Of course, they are all lying because all police officers lie. Leon Laskey, a black man present at the arrest said he support Crowley's action "100%." Even according to Gates, a crowd had already gathered outside at the time of the arrest and yet not A SINGLE PERSON has come to Gate's defense. We know that Gates was yelling and being disorderly outside (what the picture shows), because even he himself claimed that he was yelling "Is this how you treat a black man in America?" He wasn't yawning, coughing or asking his neighbors if they thought he had a nice lawn.

So, yeah...sure - "served".

Gates was going to sue and Obama claimed "stupidity" on the part of the cops. When the WHOLE story came out the next day, Obama wasn't still saying the cops where stupid, his spokesman made it clear that Obama wished he hadn't said what he did and I've yet to see any kind of lawsuit on the part of Gates, but neither "backtracked".

So, yeah...sure - "served".

OAW can throw all the irrelevancies and conspiracy theories into one big pot, stir and stew and it still wouldn't lead to even one "serving" to anyone expecting to have their hunger quenched. All it would do is cause a little gas, and then some stink. That is what we have here. There's really no need to keep feeding the troll.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Explain this to me please...

OK. lpkmckenna said that we should take Tasers away from police. I feel that would only make the problem worse. If this officer had overreacted and the only weapons available to him were a club and a gun, the woman could have wound up with broken bones or worse. Tasers are not the problem — they are actually one of the safer weapons in the police arsenal — the problem is people with weapons acting irrationally. Pragmatically, I would rather they behave irrationally with low-powered stun guns than high-powered bullet guns.

[lpkmckenna]

The problem with tazers is that cops now have a "no-harm" weapon to use for intimidation. Hence they use it without any concern for causing injury. They won't break bones or fire bullets with the same level of ease that they tazer people. Cops would have to go back to the old method: grappling with people. Right now, cops are using tazers to force compliance without having to roll up their sleeves or bloody their own knuckles. In other words, lazy bullies.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you plan to diversify the force without doing anything? If it's not already diverse and nothing changes, how will this come about?

Now this is a heck of a way to encourage a guy who has finally posted something other than;

poopy-butt, stinky face

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK. lpkmckenna said that we should take Tasers away from police. I feel that would only make the problem worse. If this officer had overreacted and the only weapons available to him were a club and a gun, the woman could have wound up with broken bones or worse. Tasers are not the problem — they are actually one of the safer weapons in the police arsenal — the problem is people with weapons acting irrationally. Pragmatically, I would rather they behave irrationally with low-powered stun guns than high-powered bullet guns.

Thank you. I missed the subtlety in your post. Apologies AGAIN. When I said diversify the force... I meant there is a large enough pool of qualified candidates WITHOUT resorting to AA, the increased pay and raised intellect of the candidates would ensure that. But most importantly, I'm just happy to have made some new friends and patched things up with some others...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Thank you. I missed the subtlety in your post. Apologies AGAIN. When I said diversify the force... I meant there is a large enough pool of qualified candidates WITHOUT resorting to AA, the increased pay and raised intellect of the candidates would ensure that. But most importantly, I'm just happy to have made some new friends and patched things up with some others...

See what happens when you post for real instead of shitting out a stupid one-liner followed by an emoticon?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

stupendousman,



Gotta call it. OAW has got your number. You barely put up more than a single link in this whole thread to support all the crazy speculation and "what if"-ing you've been engaging in.

You can stop embarrassing yourself. It's over.

Please, put down your pipe. Let the haze clear, then get back to us.

blah blah blah .........

And after all that ... we still don't have a single link "to support all the crazy speculation and "what if"-ing you've been engaging in." Just as Gee-Man stated. Just as you've made stupendously obvious throughout this thread.

I must say that your insistence on defending the indefensible and continuing to argue in support of thoroughly debunked theories is somewhat "admirable". It's almost "Cheney-esque" in its execution and approach.

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The problem with tazers is that cops now have a "no-harm" weapon to use for intimidation. Hence they use it without any concern for causing injury. They won't break bones or fire bullets with the same level of ease that they tazer people. Cops would have to go back to the old method: grappling with people. Right now, cops are using tazers to force compliance without having to roll up their sleeves or bloody their own knuckles. In other words, lazy bullies.

It's pretty sad that you take the anti-police stance on every issue.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Shorter stupendousman 

Please, put down your pipe. Let the haze clear, then get back to us... I WAS RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT!

Hmm, I didn't notice any links in there to back up anything you said. Thanks for proving my point!

But this is pretty common. Often, the victim who's been "served" has no idea what just happened. Usually, they will thrash around futilely, not willing or able to accept the inevitable outcome.

I gotta say, every poster in here, myself included, suffers from "last-word-ism" to varying degrees, but you take it to near pathological levels, my friend. Is it gonna take a mod to step in and declare this one dead?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

See what happens when you post for real instead of shitting out a stupid one-liner followed by an emoticon?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...your getting pretty good at it yourself...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Psych screen (real one!), raise education requirements, raise the pay, diversify the force (no affirmative action needed, plenty of qualified people), and most importantly, genuine leadership from the top down. This is where homeland security $ SHOULD be spent! Not at the airport on a rentacop! Anything else I can help you with today?

Where is the button to report a hijacked user account ?

Edit: Oh, I see. Stumbler is back in control of his account. The stupid one-liners are back.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And after all that ... we still don't have a single link "to support all the crazy speculation and "what if"-ing you've been engaging in."

You mean like the link proving that Whalen missed just seconds, or even NOTHING of what the "old lady" saw?

Or the link that proves that despite the "old lady" being the first to see what was going on, that she really wasn't the first witness on the scene worthy of questioning?

Or, do you mean like the link provided showing that all cops lie?

OH - WAIT...that's all the "crazy speculation and "what if"-ing" you've been engaging in.

HAHAHA. The irony is TOO rich!

I provided a link to the police report. Provided quotes from people involved, and provided all the necessary non-rebutted facts needed to debunk your conspiracy theories which don't have a motive or rational reason for existing.

It's like we are back in the mid-nineties having a debate on was "is" means, just so someone doesn't have to admit one of their guys REALLY screwed up. I remember people had lots of "links" back then too, but it really wasn't convincing given that it was clear that a guy had motive and means to lie to save his @ss and the excuses really didn't cut it. They don't this time either.

The debate as to whether or not Gates was a bigot who got caught up in his anger, and got himself arrested was long over before it even started - before the first irrelevant round of excuse making started. No mod intervention is necessary. Maybe a whiff of fresh air every now and then though would do wonders for some.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or, do you mean like the link provided showing that all cops lie?

I'd accept a link to evidence suggesting black cops are less apt to wrongfully arrest someone. We have an officer with no history of racism standing accused of it by some here and a Professor with a history of racism being the sympathetic figure who was subjected to the old cultural ills that still bedevil America. All the while knowing that at the end of the day, Gates accused Crowley of racism because of his skin color.

It was a non-story when it came out and it's gotta be a non-story by now.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You mean like the link proving that Whalen missed just seconds, or even NOTHING of what the "old lady" saw?

We've already had this conversation. You know the one where I demolished your original contention that Ms. Whalen wasn't a witness. But since you choose to play dumb .... here you go:

Now let me break out the stick figures for you since reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit. Now again ... we are talking about what the available evidence indicates ... not speculation. Here you have Ms. Whalen saying that she saw two men trying to get into the house and they had to break in to do it. The exact same thing that the old lady saw! When you find something there that indicates that Ms. Whalen didn't see something that the old lady saw then you can speak. I'm not talking about what you think the old lady may have seen because that's what you want to think. I'm talking about something in the 911 call transcript ... the available evidence ... which would lead you to conclude that the lady saw something materially different than what Ms. Whalen saw. Add to that the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the police interviewed the old lady at the scene and well ... the smart play would be to concede the point and call it a day. But if that is just too much for you to handle then the next best thing to do would be to simply be quiet about it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or the link that proves that despite the "old lady" being the first to see what was going on, that she really wasn't the first witness on the scene worthy of questioning?

See above. But more importantly .... my point remains. Whether or not the old lady was "worthy of questioning" is beside the point. I haven't said anything about that one way or the other. What I have said is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the old lady was questioned. By Sgt. Crowley or anyone else. Again, if you have something ... a police report ... a public statement ... anything to support this theory of yours then we'd all be quite interested in seeing it. Until then .....

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or, do you mean like the link provided showing that all cops lie?

Well if I had actually said that "all cops lie" then perhaps it would have been incumbent upon me to prove that. However, I never said that. What I did say was this (key parts emphasized)....

Page 1

Originally Posted by OAW

Cops generally back other cops. Right or wrong.

Page 2 (repeated on Page 3)

Originally Posted by OAW

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.

Page 4

Originally Posted by OAW

They don't want to talk about the long running history of racial profiling in this country on the part of police. They don't want to talk about how police reports don't always reflect the truth. They certainly don't want to address the glaring discrepancies in the police report in this particular case.

So uhhhhh .... where exactly did I say anything about "all cops lie"? This, my friend, is a textbook strawman argument. Quite indicative of the relative strength of your position I might add. Perhaps you should do what what Sarah Palin said to the media and "stop making stuff up"? Then again, maybe you enjoy embarrassing yourself. Repeatedly.

But since you want a link ..... pick one. Blue Code of Silence.

The Blue Code of Silence (or Blue Wall of Silence) is an unwritten rule among many police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes. It is considered to be the worst kind of betrayal if this code is broken.

Ironically, it is similar to the code of silence in organized crime, like the Omertà.

Studies demonstrate that most police feel that the code is applicable in cases of "illegal brutality or bending of the rules in order to protect colleagues from criminal proceedings," but not to illegal actions with an "acquisitive motive."

Nevertheless, cases such as the Rampart Scandal demonstrate that blue code culture can sometimes extend to cover-ups of every level of crime, acquisitive or otherwise.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

OH - WAIT...that's all the "crazy speculation and "what if"-ing" you've been engaging in.

Anyone in here can see the various links I've provided to support my position. Anyone in here can see that my arguments regarding this case are based upon the available evidence ... which I've routinely cited. But if you have an actual example of where I've done otherwise with regard to this then feel free to "show and tell". Until then .....

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I provided a link to the police report. Provided quotes from people involved, and provided all the necessary non-rebutted facts needed to debunk your conspiracy theories which don't have a motive or rational reason for existing.

Like the quote from someone who indicated that the police interviewed other witnesses at the scene? Funny ... we all seem to have missed that one. Like the quote from Sgt. Crowley or the Cambridge police department that directly addressed the discrepancy between Ms.Whalen's statement (not the 911 call) and the police report? Funny ... we all seem to have missed that one too. Like the quote from one of the witnesses who disputed Prof. Gate's statement that he was arrested as soon as he stepped on his porch and asked another officer for Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number? Hmmmm .... we all seem to have missed that one as well.

How about the quote you cited that "debunked" this .....

Originally Posted by OAW

So let's say for the sake of argument that Prof. Gates was yelling at Sgt. Crowley on the porch. You still can't escape this simple fact. Prof. Gates had repeatedly asked Sgt. Crowley for his identification. And he never got it as was required by state law. So since you want to be such a stickler for the letter of the law .... fine. Two can play that game.

Prof. Gates was no more in violation of the law than was Sgt. Crowley.

Oh wait .... you never even attempted to address that one yourself! Let alone cite a source.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We have an officer with no history of racism standing accused of it by some here and a Professor with a history of racism being the sympathetic figure who was subjected to the old cultural ills that still bedevil America.

And just what is this "history of racism" on the part of Prof. Gates? A man who BTW is biracial (half-white) himself and was married to a white woman for over 20 years. Please ... do tell.

OAW

[turtle777]

OAW, I think you need to get a blog.

-t

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Where is the button to report a hijacked user account ?

Edit: Oh, I see. Stumbler is back in control of his account. The stupid one-liners are back.

-t

Glad to see you back, t. Get a new shell?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And just what is this "history of racism" on the part of Prof. Gates? A man who BTW is biracial (half-white) himself and was married to a white woman for over 20 years. Please ... do tell.

No problem.

Gates: My mother hated white people.
Q: All her life?
Gates: I didn't know until -- in 1959 we were watching Mike Wallace's documentary called "The Hate that Hate Produced." It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn't believe -- I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people's faces and telling them off. It was great.

You are not born racist OAW, it is taught to you. His career has been spent indicting "racist white institutions" and now police departments while acting like a complete ass because a white man arrested him. This without any proof that black officers are less apt to wrongfully arrest someone or that Crowley has a problem with racial temperance in spite of having been hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach it.

So... if Gates is 56% white as he claims or as you say-biracial (who has probably spent a portion of his life enduring insults from black people), what race was Crowley discriminating against?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

We've already had this conversation. You know the one where I demolished your original contention that Ms. Whalen wasn't a witness. But since you choose to play dumb .... here you go:

I explained that I did misread what Whalen said. I didn't see a small detail. I explained how that wasn't actually even relevant though as to whether or not the "old lady" on the scene had seen and a "witness" longer than Whalen. That's something that you tried to "demolish", but simply failed miserably. No matter how you try to duck, weave and dodge, there was someone on the scene who police could have, and should have talked to if they wanted to know what happened from the get go. No amount of links have been able to dispute that.

Now let me break out the stick figures for you since reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit. Now again ... we are talking about what the available evidence indicates ... not speculation. Here you have Ms. Whalen saying that she saw two men trying to get into the house and they had to break in to do it. The exact same thing that the old lady saw!

Here's where the comedy and irony comes in.... YOU ARE SPECULATING about what the "Old Lady" saw. You have no idea what she saw, unless you have a link to an interview of her. You are IMAGINING what you THINK she saw entirely based on what you've heard Whalen saw. Available evidence only provides us with the fact that she was viewing what was going on before Whalen knew there was a problem.

FAIL.

When you find something there that indicates that Ms. Whalen didn't see something that the old lady saw then you can speak.

I can speak, because the evidence shows that the old lady saw more. If you watch longer, you see more. You can't see the same amount of something as another person if you start watching it after they do. It's logically impossible, but that's the type of argument you forward time and time again, ad nasuem.

I'm not talking about what you think the old lady may have seen because that's what you want to think. I'm talking about something in the 911 call transcript ... the available evidence ... which would lead you to conclude that the lady saw something materially different than what Ms. Whalen saw.

Not my argument. My argument was simply that the "old lady" was watching longer, therefore would have been a primary witness who needed to be questioned. The first person at the scene of a potential crime, who is the first witness is always someone the police talks to.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the police interviewed the old lady at the scene and well ... the smart play would be to concede the point and call it a day.

There is no evidence that THEY DID NOT either, since all we have is the police report and it's just a general summary of what happened based on examination of the evidence and talking to the witnesses. Not being present in a police report does not make something not happen. This was already explained by spokesman for the Cambridge Police.

See above. But more importantly .... my point remains. Whether or not the old lady was "worthy of questioning" is beside the point. I haven't said anything about that one way or the other. What I have said is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the old lady was questioned.

There is evidence that someone was questioned, and that person gave the police a description. We know this because it's in the police report.

We know that the person they said made the description claims she did not make the description as described, after being harassed and ridiculed as a racist. You make the ASSUMPTION that it was all a fabrication despite there being no real motive for doing so. I make the assumption that since there were other witnesses on the scene, and in fact someone who watched what was going on longer, it's highly likely that someone was interviewed and they got the attribution wrong. Your theory requires assumptions based on an assumed conspiracy. Mine makes assumptions based on a possible reasonable explanation given the facts. This is the sort of argument your point of debate rests on, and it's a pretty shaky one.

Well if I had actually said that "all cops lie" then perhaps it would have been incumbent upon me to prove that. However, I never said that. What I did say was this (key parts emphasized)....

In order for your theory to be true, the cops who were all witnesses, even the minority ones would have to be liars. You have NO EVIDENCE that the police officers in question have EVER lied, no less lied about official business. You are basing your belief on a bigoted stereotype.

On the other hand, we know that Gates lied about being "racially profiled" and purposely distorted what happened. We don't just think that maybe if a set of weird conspiracy theories are true, or our bigoted assumptions based on stereotypes end up proving true that Gates didn't tell the truth - we know from the evidence that what Gates said was not true.

Cops who have never proven to have lied, one of which was a highly respected officer with a spotless record (especially in race issues) versus a bigot who has proven himself a liar and who no one disputes let his bigotry get the best of him and become verbally abusive: I think most rational people (and I think polls bear this out) can see who is likely the most trustworthy here.

So uhhhhh .... where exactly did I say anything about "all cops lie"? This, my friend, is a textbook strawman argument.

You claim apparently most or all cops will lie to "stick together" or for whatever reason you give. This is based on a stereotype. I'm pretty sure I can show you statistics that will provide evidence of the following:

Minorities are found guilty of more crimes.
African Americans buy a lot of fried chicken.
A greater percentage of African Americans have greater difficulty speaking proper English.

If then try to engage in any type of argument which requires the notion that an African American up for debate is liikely to be a friend chicken eating, slang spewing criminal, I would rightly be accused of arguing a point based on stereotypes and bigotry. It's exactly what you are doing in reqards to the police. Your "links" prove NOTHING about the cops in question. They simply provide the source for your stereotypes and continued irrational bigotry against police officers. Your arguments, links and "evidence" doesn't help your case - it hurts it. Every bigoted stereotype you rely on in order to support Gates simply shows that you are part of the problem, not part of any kind of solution.

You continue to rely on speculation, stereotypes, conspiracy theories and some truely gymnastic excuse making while at the same time attempting to criticize others for it. Pot....Kettle....Bigot.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's pretty sad that you take the anti-police stance on every issue.

I'm not anti-police. But I am pro-citizen, pro-freedom, pro-accountability, and anti-bullying.