QuoteScholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrested, alleges racism
Pre-eminent African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. is accusing Cambridge, Mass., police of racism after he was arrested while trying to force open the door of his home near Harvard University. Cambridge police were called to the home Thursday afternoon after a woman reported seeing a man "wedging his shoulder into the front door as to pry the door open," according to a police report. An officer ordered the man to identify himself, and Gates refused, according to the report. Gates began calling the officer a racist and said repeatedly, "This is what happens to black men in America." Gates is the director of Harvard University's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research.
QuoteRacial talk swirls with Gates arrest
Harvard scholar taken from home
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | July 21, 2009
His front door refused to budge, which is why Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., just home from a trip to China filming a PBS documentary, set his luggage down and beckoned his driver for help.
The scene - two black men on the porch of a stately home on a tree-lined Cambridge street in the middle of the day - triggered events that were at turns dramatic and bizarre, a confrontation between one of the nation's foremost African-American scholars and a police sergeant responding to a call that someone was breaking into the house.
It ended when Gates, 58, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct in allegedly shouting at the officer; he was eventually taken away in handcuffs.
But the encounter is anything but over. Some of Gates's outraged colleagues said the run-in proves that even in a liberal enclave like Harvard Square, even with someone of Gates's accomplishments, a black man is a suspect before he is a resident.
"It's unbelievable,'' said Lawrence Bobo, a Harvard sociologist who visited Gates at the police station last Thursday and drove him home after Gates posted the $40 bail. "I felt as if I were in some kind of surreal moment, like 'The Twilight Zone.' I was mortified. . . . This is a humiliating thing and a pretty profound violation of the kind of trust we all take for granted.''
Neither Gates - who was named one of Time magazine's most influential Americans in 1997 and now directs the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard - nor police would comment on the incident yesterday.
Gates's lawyer and Harvard colleague, Charles Ogletree, said what angered his client was that the police officer stepped inside Gates's Ware Street house, uninvited, to demand identification and question him.
Gates showed his Harvard identification and Massachusetts drivers license with his home address, Ogletree said, adding, "Even after presentation of ID, the officer was still questioning his presence.''
Said Bobo: "The whole interaction should have ended right there, but I guess that wasn't enough. The officer felt he hadn't been deferred to sufficiently.''
The Cambridge police report describes a chaotic scene in which the police sergeant stood at Gates's door, demanded identification, and radioed for assistance from Harvard University police when Gates presented him with a Harvard ID. A visibly upset Gates responded to the officer's assertion that he was responding to a report of a break-in with, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?''
"Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was 'messing' with and that I had not heard the last of it,'' the report said. "While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me.''
When the officer repeatedly told Gates he would speak with him outside, the normally mild-mannered professor shouted, "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside,'' according to the report.
Gates was arrested after "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior'' toward the officer who questioned him, the report said.
Gates, who came to Harvard in 1991, was "shocked and dismayed by what happened to him,'' Ogletree said.
"What we hope is the charges against Professor Gates will be dropped, because he certainly didn't break the law while entering his own home,'' Ogletree said yesterday by phone.
He would not say whether he thinks racial bias played a role in Gates's arrest.
Harvard president Drew G. Faust said yesterday that she was "obviously very concerned'' when she learned about the incident. "Professor Gates is not only a colleague but also a friend,'' she said in a statement. "He and I spoke directly, and I have asked him to keep me apprised.''
Harvard has grappled with the issue of racial bias in recent years, even appointing an independent commission last fall to look into how the university could create a more welcoming environment after some black students and faculty complained of unfair treatment by the university's predominantly white police force. Faust said in the spring that she hopes to implement some of the report's recommendations by September, but it is unclear what they would be.
The arrest of such a prominent scholar under what some described as dubious circumstances shook the campus.
"He and I both raised the question of if he had been a white professor, whether this kind of thing would have happened to him, that they arrested him without any corroborating evidence,'' said S. Allen Counter, a Harvard Medical School professor who spoke with Gates Friday. "I am deeply concerned about the way he was treated.''
Counter has faced a similar situation himself. The neuroscience professor, who is black, was stopped by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect as he crossed Harvard Yard.
"This is very disturbing that this could happen to anyone, and not just to a person of such distinction,'' Counter said. "It brings up the question of whether black males are being targeted by Cambridge police for harassment.''
Police say they were simply responding to a call from a woman who suspected a crime was taking place.
When the front door would not open, even with the driver's help, Ogletree said Gates walked around to the back door, unlocked it, shut off the alarm system, and tried to open the door from the inside. It still did not work, so he went back outside and, with the driver, pushed it in.
Gates immediately called Harvard's real estate office to report the broken door. While he was on the phone, police Sergeant James Crowley arrived and asked Gates to step outside, said Ogletree. Gates, indignant, refused, telling the officer that he lived there and that he works at Harvard.
When Crowley asked for proof, Gates initially refused, according to the police report. But Ogletree said Gates cooperated fully, walking into his kitchen for his wallet. The officer followed.
Gates "did ask him some pointed questions, like: 'Is this happening because you're a white cop and I'm a black man? Is this why this interaction is still taking place?' '' Bobo said. "Who's not going to feel upset and insulted when a police officer won't accept the fact that you're standing in your own living room?''
Gates asked the officer several times for his name and badge number to file a complaint as the officer left the house. The police report said that when Crowley walked out of the home, Gates followed and continued to accuse the officer of racism. Crowley then handcuffed him.
Gates initially resisted, according to police, asserting that he was disabled and would fall without a cane. The officer reentered the home to fetch a cane. Gates was then taken in a police cruiser to department headquarters, where he remained for four hours, Ogletree said.
Gates is scheduled to be arraigned on Aug. 26.
He got charged with disorderly conduct. That's just one step above malicious mischief.
I dare say there is a certain level of racism displayed in this story. The evidence seems to be that it was exhibited by the professor, though. Sounds like the professor wouldn't have reacted this way had the officer been "black." Whether the officer would have acted this way had the professor been "white" is much less clear.
Very messy, mostly by the professor it would seem. Seems the cop was doing the right thing; I just don't get it. Got a call of a break in, arrived and saw a man in the house. Asked for his ID and wound up getting accused of racism and what ever.
Is this a non-issue that would have ended quietly, but turned into a racial issue because someone was looking for it to be one?
If the professor had been white, the women hadn't called the police for possible burglary.
This story sounds like it belongs on Reno 911.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 21, 2009, 07:58:08 AM
If the professor had been white, the women hadn't called the police for possible burglary.
I think you overestimate the populace's love of seeing white guys rob houses.
We are the second most arrested demographic out there after all.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 21, 2009, 07:58:08 AM
If the professor had been white, the women hadn't called the police for possible burglary.
If someone who didn't recognize me saw me trying to force my into my house, I'd hope they would call the cops, too.
Of course, this being far north Dallas, they'd be here sometime the next day. :P
I never met this guy but I heard he's pretty cool. I did meet the other famous black professor (the guy who got mad at Larry Summers and went to Princeton) and he WAS pretty cool... but now I forget his name :ph34r:
First, it's good that someone 'phoned the police about a break in, but ...
'Harvard has grappled with the issue of racial bias in recent years, even appointing an independent commission last fall to look into how the university could create a more welcoming environment after some black students and faculty complained of unfair treatment by the university's predominantly white police force'
.. this makes it seem decidedly like sour grapes from the police force.
Racism has been an issue at Harvard for a while. That one guy who left (Cornel West... I'd forgotten his name earlier) accused Summers of being racist after Summers (privately) questioned him on what value he was actually adding to the university. This was right around the time people accused Summers of sexism in a much more famous incident that overshadowed the Cornel West debacle.
Quote from: swallow on July 21, 2009, 08:35:56 AM
First, it's good that someone 'phoned the police about a break in, but ...
'Harvard has grappled with the issue of racial bias in recent years, even appointing an independent commission last fall to look into how the university could create a more welcoming environment after some black students and faculty complained of unfair treatment by the university's predominantly white police force'
.. this makes it seem decidedly like sour grapes from the police force.
Read the story again. The police officer was not part of the university's police force. He was a city cop.
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 08:48:14 AM
Racism has been an issue at Harvard for a while.
Not just Harvard! :lol:
I daresay that Harvard has done more to address the issue, and thus made it seem worse there, but I cannot imagine any large US organization that doesn't have racism issues, even if just on the part of individuals.
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 08:48:14 AM
Racism has been an issue at Harvard for a while.
Which is rather ironic considering Harvard accepted its first black student way back in 1830.
@ grumbler
Obviously not :P
But what I mean is that it'd been grabbing headlines in the Crimson, etc. I dunno if the issue had died down since late 2006 when I left, but this will surely reignite it. By the time Summers left I was at one of the teaching hospitals so I didn't get as much news (both directly and as interdepartmental gossip), but I would guess replacing him with a woman killed the sexism debate.
But does Summers being a racist/sexist/nazi whatever mean the whole school is?
The issue was that the administration didn't do enough to promote black dudes and women into tenured positions. I don't know that you can pin that all on the President, but I suppose he could share the blame because if there are 'racist' deans he should be removing them.
Don't ask me to rationalize this... I never perceived any kind of bias, but then again I had a job and lacked the idle time to get paranoid and angry at people for no reason, unlike the folks who write for the Crimson. :P
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2009, 08:51:50 AM
Read the story again. The police officer was not part of the university's police force. He was a city cop.
But he 'phoned the university police
QuoteThe Cambridge police report describes a chaotic scene in which the police sergeant stood at Gates's door, demanded identification, and radioed for assistance from Harvard University police when Gates presented him with a Harvard ID'
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2009, 08:51:50 AM
Read the story again. The police officer was not part of the university's police force. He was a city cop.
This isn't NYPD, its the City of Cambridge police force. Henry Louis Gates is very well known in that community and a very recognizable figure. He showed two different forms of ID and still was harassed.
Boston and Cambridge cops have a rep for being gigantic assholes btw. :)
I'm just saying that is a pretty small town. You would think a police sergeant would probably be able to recognize him by appearance, or at the very least recognize the name on the two forms of ID he saw.
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 09:17:25 AM
Boston and Cambridge cops have a rep for being gigantic assholes btw. :)
Ah, but are they
equal opportunity assholes? ;)
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 09:17:25 AM
Boston and Cambridge cops have a rep for being gigantic assholes btw. :)
Well they are probably Irish and everybody knows all Irish people are incredibly racist.
er, I don't think of Cambridge as a small town but rather as a smallish city. ^_^
You're also assuming that public servants in Massachusetts aren't phenomenally ignorant. Bad assumption :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2009, 09:20:56 AMWell they are probably Irish and everybody knows all Irish people are incredibly racist.
Valmy comes right out and says what I was going to try to subtly hint at. :cool:
Surprised nobody's talking about the question of whether the cop went inside the house. If true, especially after being shown ID, the cop spectacularly mishandled the situation and deserves whatever disciplinary action Gates' attorney can get thrown at him.
Ok, I going to watch Andy Sipowicz and NYPD Blue now.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 21, 2009, 10:28:01 AM
Surprised nobody's talking about the question of whether the cop went inside the house. If true, especially after being shown ID, the cop spectacularly mishandled the situation and deserves whatever disciplinary action Gates' attorney can get thrown at him.
The cop may have mishandled things, and it will come out in investigation. But the professor being inside his home wouldn't necessarily mean that he isn't a burglar, given that the call came over a home break in. Cop may have entered the home and found the professor, and not know that he's the home owner. I get the impression that things got heated before and after the cop being shown ID.
Sounds like the officer got annoyed with him yelling about racism and the like, and used the excuse that the professor hadn't initially wanted to show ID. One would think after 58 years, said African-American professor would know how a black person is supposed to act around cops...kind and courteous.
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2009, 11:12:25 AM
Sounds like the officer got annoyed with him yelling about racism and the like, and used the excuse that the professor hadn't initially wanted to show ID. One would think after 58 years, said African-American professor would know how a black person is supposed to act around cops...kind and courteous.
That is generally a good policy for all ethnic groups. No matter how big a douche a cop is always kiss his/her ass. There will be time later in court if the asshole goes over the line.
Charges dropped. ^_^
He should have the book thrown at him just for trotting out the "You don't know who you're dealing with" line.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2009, 11:15:51 AM
That is generally a good policy for all ethnic groups. No matter how big a douche a cop is always kiss his/her ass. There will be time later in court if the asshole goes over the line.
Which I think is entirely fucked up.
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2009, 11:21:48 AM
He should have the book thrown at him just for trotting out the "You don't know who you're dealing with" line.
If arrogance was a crime, Harvard would have to relocate to the federal pen. ^_^
Quote from: KRonn on July 21, 2009, 07:57:36 AM
Very messy, mostly by the professor it would seem. Seems the cop was doing the right thing; I just don't get it. Got a call of a break in, arrived and saw a man in the house. Asked for his ID and wound up getting accused of racism and what ever.
Is this a non-issue that would have ended quietly, but turned into a racial issue because someone was looking for it to be one?
Only if you accept the police report as being the accurate version. Not that I would ever question these fine, upstanding members of society...
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:23:12 AM
If arrogance was a crime, Harvard would have to relocate to the federal pen. ^_^
Do you hear me arguing with that?
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 08:24:10 AM
I never met this guy but I heard he's pretty cool. I did meet the other famous black professor (the guy who got mad at Larry Summers and went to Princeton) and he WAS pretty cool... but now I forget his name :ph34r:
I saw a documentary he hosted on Lincoln, seemed like a nice guy.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 21, 2009, 11:28:24 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 21, 2009, 07:57:36 AM
Very messy, mostly by the professor it would seem. Seems the cop was doing the right thing; I just don't get it. Got a call of a break in, arrived and saw a man in the house. Asked for his ID and wound up getting accused of racism and what ever.
Is this a non-issue that would have ended quietly, but turned into a racial issue because someone was looking for it to be one?
Only if you accept the police report as being the accurate version. Not that I would ever question these fine, upstanding members of society...
Agreed, and that's why I mentioned previously waiting for the investigation into the matter. The initial police and news reports can be sketchy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 21, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I'm just saying that is a pretty small town. You would think a police sergeant would probably be able to recognize him by appearance, or at the very least recognize the name on the two forms of ID he saw.
So perhaps the problem isn't racism, so much as the prima donna prof who was pissed the lowly sergeant didn't kiss his ass sufficiently, and assumed it must be racism?
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
So perhaps the problem isn't racism, so much as the prima donna prof who was pissed the lowly sergeant didn't kiss his ass sufficiently, and assumed it must be racism?
Except your missing the part about the cop getting pissed that the prima donna prof didn't kiss the officer's ass sufficiently. ;)
Oh and I didn't add "prima donna" a descriptor for the cop as that'd be redundant.
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
So perhaps the problem isn't racism, so much as the prima donna prof who was pissed the lowly sergeant didn't kiss his ass sufficiently, and assumed it must be racism?
Except your missing the part about the cop getting pissed that the prima donna prof didn't kiss the officer's ass sufficiently. ;)
Oh and I didn't add "prima donna" a descriptor for the cop as that'd be redundant.
Your well known hatred and fear of the police might be relevant if in fact the professor in question has the same fear, but I haven't seen any evidence that that is actually the case.
I haven't seen anything from the reports that anything that happened had anything to do with anyone other than the professor being an asshole.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2009, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2009, 12:53:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2009, 12:49:05 PM
So perhaps the problem isn't racism, so much as the prima donna prof who was pissed the lowly sergeant didn't kiss his ass sufficiently, and assumed it must be racism?
Except your missing the part about the cop getting pissed that the prima donna prof didn't kiss the officer's ass sufficiently. ;)
Oh and I didn't add "prima donna" a descriptor for the cop as that'd be redundant.
Your well known hatred and fear of the police might be relevant if in fact the professor in question has the same fear, but I haven't seen any evidence that that is actually the case.
I haven't seen anything from the reports that anything that happened had anything to do with anyone other than the professor being an asshole.
Apparently the prof issued a statement where he claimed he did, in fact, show his ID to the officers. That would seem to be the sticking point. As far as I can tell under our law police would have been justified in detaining the prof as part of a B&E investigation. If he did not wish to provide any ID they would be justified in continuing to detain him until they could determine whether or not a crima had occurred.
Most sources are now reporting that he did identify himself, although not before he flipped out.
According to this account:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/21gates.html
Quote"While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence," Sergeant Crowley wrote in the report, "I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me."
The Prof identified himself and the cop believed him. He was arrested for following the cop out of the house yelling abuse - according to the cop, and not really denied by his lawyer.
QuoteProfessor Ogletree said that Professor Gates had "never touched" Sergeant Crowley, but did "express his frustration at being subjected to the threat of arrest in his own home."
I suspect that the appropriateness or otherwise of the cop's arrest will hinge on exactly what form his "expression of frustration" took.
Thing is - is mouthing off at the cops an arrestable offence? I know that it isn't a smart thing to do because cops may well harrass you for it, but how legally legitimate is that harassment?
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Thing is - is mouthing off at the cops an arrestable offence? I know that it isn't a smart thing to do because cops may well harrass you for it, but how legally legitimate is that harassment?
Disorderly conduct.
Interference with an officer's duty (I don't know the formal way it is put)
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 21, 2009, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Thing is - is mouthing off at the cops an arrestable offence? I know that it isn't a smart thing to do because cops may well harrass you for it, but how legally legitimate is that harassment?
Disorderly conduct.
Interference with an officer's duty (I don't know the formal way it is put)
Well, clearly they *can* arrest you for this, but if they laid charges, would they stick?
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Thing is - is mouthing off at the cops an arrestable offence? I know that it isn't a smart thing to do because cops may well harrass you for it, but how legally legitimate is that harassment?
It is potentially s. 175 Cause Disturbance by Yelling, or s. 129(a) Obstruct Peace Officer. It depends on the exact circumstances at that point. Cause disturbance requires a public place (outside the front door would work), obstruction requires the activity to somehow hinder the officers.
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
I suspect that the appropriateness or otherwise of the cop's arrest will hinge on exactly what form his "expression of frustration" took.
Thing is - is mouthing off at the cops an arrestable offence? I know that it isn't a smart thing to do because cops may well harrass you for it, but how legally legitimate is that harassment?
Mouthing off at the cops is not an arrestable offense (not smart, but not arrestable); however, mouthing off in public,
where passersby may witness it (using the objective person standard), is disturbance of the public peace/disorderly conduct/what have you. That's what got him arrested.
Indeed, he might have caused a riot! :o
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2009, 04:17:36 PM
Indeed, he might have caused a riot! :o
Don't make me break out my Nigger Be Cool stick on you, boy. Keep walking.
Don't worry, I'm not into that.
I'd say tonight is the ideal night on which to break into the professor's house. The cops ain't gonna bust a gut getting there on time! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2009, 04:31:23 PM
I'd say tonight is the ideal night on which to break into the professor's house. The cops ain't gonna bust a gut getting there on time! :lol:
911 is a joke.
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Charges dropped. ^_^
Now see, that was a mistake.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Charges dropped. ^_^
Now see, that was a mistake.
The alternative is finding a Assistant DA who would prosecute and a judge who would convict. None of whom can be found withing the boundaries of Middlesex County.
Middlesex County...tee-hee.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 21, 2009, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Charges dropped. ^_^
Now see, that was a mistake.
The alternative is finding a Assistant DA who would prosecute and a judge who would convict. None of whom can be found withing the boundaries of Middlesex County.
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest. Of course, there's a difference between what's proper and what's necessary. But we're not talking about a necessary arrest now.
By dropping the charges, they are not only invalidating their own department and saying they don't trust the judgment of a sergeant, they now open up the department for a much bigger lawsuit than what they were going to get anyway.
Dumb move to drop the charges. You simply can't un-arrest somebody, which is exactly what they did.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 21, 2009, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Charges dropped. ^_^
Now see, that was a mistake.
The alternative is finding a Assistant DA who would prosecute and a judge who would convict. None of whom can be found withing the boundaries of Middlesex County.
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest. Of course, there's a difference between what's proper and what's necessary. But we're not talking about a necessary arrest now.
By dropping the charges, they are not only invalidating their own department and saying they don't trust the judgment of a sergeant, they now open up the department for a much bigger lawsuit than what they were going to get anyway.
Dumb move to drop the charges. You simply can't un-arrest somebody, which is exactly what they did.
No, but you can choose not to proceed with charges. It happens all the time. It doesn't take away from their own existence of reasonable & probably grounds to arrest in the first place (or whatever the US terminology is).
Quote from: Barrister on July 21, 2009, 06:08:58 PMIt doesn't take away from their own existence of reasonable & probably grounds to arrest in the first place (or whatever the US terminology is).
It will with the civil jury that will be hearing the lawsuit over it.
"Wrongfully arrested" looks more wrongful when there's no adjudication.
CdM had to deal with this all the time when he was living on The Wire.
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 08:39:30 PM
CdM had to deal with this all the time when he was living on The Wire.
Funny, black people avoided me for some reason. Usually, they'd turn away in my presence, and quickly start walking the other way, acting like they were doing something else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 08:39:30 PM
CdM had to deal with this all the time when he was living on The Wire.
Funny, black people avoided me for some reason. Usually, they'd turn away in my presence, and quickly start walking the other way, acting like they were doing something else.
I guess you earned your rep as a killing machine when you joined the force.
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:04:33 PMI guess you earned your rep as a killing machine when you joined the force.
They just found out they were allergic to me, since they always broke out in handcuffs. Worse than the sickle cell.
Ah, the heady days of me youth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 09:12:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:04:33 PMI guess you earned your rep as a killing machine when you joined the force.
They just found out they were allergic to me, since they always broke out in handcuffs. Worse than the sickle cell.
Ah, the heady days of me youth.
You and your racial profiling. Just because all blacks do crimes doesn't mean it's alright to arrest them.
You'd probably arrest Obama, if you met him.
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:24:49 PMYou'd probably arrest Obama, if you met him.
Nah, I can tell the good ones from the silly ones.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 09:31:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:24:49 PMYou'd probably arrest Obama, if you met him.
Nah, I can tell the good ones from the silly ones.
Well keep that info to yourself then. No snitchin'.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 09:31:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:24:49 PMYou'd probably arrest Obama, if you met him.
Nah, I can tell the good ones from the silly ones.
Just wait until he gets caught with a bag of coke and that Brazillian girl whose ass he was scoping out.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 21, 2009, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 09:31:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2009, 09:24:49 PMYou'd probably arrest Obama, if you met him.
Nah, I can tell the good ones from the silly ones.
Well keep that info to yourself then. No snitchin'.
That only applies to blacks. CdM is forever excluded.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 09:12:47 PM
They just found out they were allergic to me, since they always broke out in handcuffs. Worse than the sickle cell.
Ah, the heady days of me youth.
You know, the Irish are not noted for their fondness for the colored. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmdope.com%2FGallery%2FActorsF%2F5709-7349.gif&hash=c48e338e5594fbc2c3e7a970e9f8b8f32b2b1515)
Aye, there ya go, boyo.
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2009, 11:19:29 PM
You know, the Irish are not noted for their fondness for the colored.
:yes:
"THEY'LL TAKE OUR JERBS!!!!!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 21, 2009, 05:39:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Charges dropped. ^_^
Now see, that was a mistake.
The alternative is finding a Assistant DA who would prosecute and a judge who would convict. None of whom can be found withing the boundaries of Middlesex County.
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest. Of course, there's a difference between what's proper and what's necessary. But we're not talking about a necessary arrest now.
By dropping the charges, they are not only invalidating their own department and saying they don't trust the judgment of a sergeant, they now open up the department for a much bigger lawsuit than what they were going to get anyway.
Dumb move to drop the charges. You simply can't un-arrest somebody, which is exactly what they did.
Yeah, I read that and it seemed odd to me also that the cops just dropped the charges like that. Seemed like they did so under pressure, as this is all over the news, nationwide and especially here in the Boston area. Mayor of Cambridge was outraged and disappointed it happened, seeming to take the Professor's side immediately. This will become a huge cause celeb, and I wouldn't think it had to be that. It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest.
It was a silly arrest and an embarassing incident for someone so senior in the department who should know better. And the local DA's office is never going to prosecute this. Time to cut losses.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:14:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest.
It was a silly arrest and an embarassing incident for someone so senior in the department who should know better. And the local DA's office is never going to prosecute this. Time to cut losses.
Indeed. A sergeant should know that in Cambridge the race card trumps everything, and should have accepted the professors verbal assault with humility and deference.
No way any DA is going to let this proceed.
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2009, 07:47:07 AM
It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.
Let's put it this way - if the suspect in question had been Justice Breyer (who resides in Cambridge and used to teach at Harvard), would he have been charged and arrested? What about Larry Summers?
I'd like to think race didn't play a role here, but it doesn't seem all that likely.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2009, 07:47:07 AM
It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.
Let's put it this way - if the suspect in question had been Justice Breyer (who resides in Cambridge and used to teach at Harvard), would he have been charged and arrested? What about Larry Summers?
Would either of them had accused the officer of being a racist and acted like an asshole for having the audacity of responding to a call reporting a possible break-in?
If yes, then I bet they would have been arrested.
QuoteI'd like to think race didn't play a role here, but it doesn't seem all that likely.
There is no question it played a role here - played by the professor it seems like. Stupid cracker cop.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:17:04 AM
Indeed. A sergeant should know that in Cambridge the race card trumps everything, and should have accepted the professors verbal assault with humility and deference.
"Verbal assault" - what an interesting phrase. I have another term for the same concept: "talking"
I guess an eminent professor with long ties to the community should have known that the First Amendment does not apply with Cambridge City limits, and "being uppity to a police sergeant" is a criminal offense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:27:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:17:04 AM
Indeed. A sergeant should know that in Cambridge the race card trumps everything, and should have accepted the professors verbal assault with humility and deference.
"Verbal assault" - what an interesting phrase. I have another term for the same concept: "talking"
Kind of like asking someone for ID is "talking" unless you are a "eminent" black professor, in which case it is racial harassment and a violation of his First Amendment Rights ZOMG!
Quote
I guess an eminent professor with long ties to the community should have known that the First Amendment does not apply with Cambridge City limits, and "being uppity to a police sergeant" is a criminal offense.
I guess the fact that nobody can talk about this guy without mentioning how important and eminent he is says everything about how this went down.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:24:53 AM
Would either of them had accused the officer of being a racist and acted like an asshole for having the audacity of responding to a call reporting a possible break-in?
Either might have been angry depending on the circumstances and threatened consequences. No way they get arrested. Of course, if it had been one of those guys, the officer probably would have conducted himself very differently in the first place.
If your point is that the accusation of racism caused the arrest, I think that proves my point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:30:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:24:53 AM
Would either of them had accused the officer of being a racist and acted like an asshole for having the audacity of responding to a call reporting a possible break-in?
Either might have been angry depending on the circumstances and threatened consequences. No way they get arrested.
I think you must be able to read minds or something then. I think it is very possible that a white guy who gets verbally abusive with a police officer and calls him a racist could be arreseted. What reason do you have to believe that this is simply not possible?
If a black officer had responded, and the white professor accused him of racism for no particular reason beyond the fact that he was black, it would not surprise me if it ended with the professor in cuffs.
Quote
Of course, if it had been one of those guys, the officer probably would have conducted himself very differently in the first place.
How do you know that? Are you suggesting the officer would not have asked for ID? What would he have done differently exactly?
Quote
If your point is that the accusation of racism caused the arrest, I think that proves my point.
My point is that if you act like a douchebag to the guy whose job it is to protect your property, and start making a scene over what is a rather routine interaction, and start ranting about racism, then in fact the person being racist is yourself, not the cop who is trying to do his job.
And if in fact the professor accused the cop of racism, then it proves MY point - that if there is any racism involved, it is on the part of the professor for whipping out the race card the moment a cop asked him for some ID.[/quote]
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2009, 07:47:07 AM
It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.
Let's put it this way - if the suspect in question had been Justice Breyer (who resides in Cambridge and used to teach at Harvard), would he have been charged and arrested? What about Larry Summers?
I'd like to think race didn't play a role here, but it doesn't seem all that likely.
It would look a little odd if one of them had said "why, is it because I'm a Black man?"
Cop's reaction = :huh:
That being said, I personally don't think being mouthy with a cop ought to be an arrestable offence. That said, a longhaired teen being cuffed for it would make exactly zero waves (I used to be a longhaired teen and I knew that very well - I was always polite to cops) - this is a
class thing as much as it is a race thing; upper middle class types expect service with deference from the cops.
Whether that expectation is reasonable or not is the issue. Ideally, in law the cops should give the same amount service with deference to everyone, and treat all alike; but it is well known they do not. The concern here is that the cop did not extend the deference to which this man was "entitled" by virtue of his position, and the suspicion is that he didn't extend the proper deference because the guy was Black; what people on the other side are objecting to is the notion that a cop should meekly offer that level of deference to
anyone, Black or White; in law probably they are supposed to (i.e., not arrest someone for being mouthy) no matter what race or class they are.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:33:54 AM
I think you must be able to read minds or something then. I think it is very possible that a white guy who gets verbally abusive with a police officer and calls him a racist could be arreseted.
On what grounds?
QuoteIf a black officer had responded, and the white professor accused him of racism for no particular reason beyond the fact that he was black, it would not surprise me if it ended with the professor in cuffs.
I guess we will have to agree to differ on that. I think that if a police sergeant entered Justice Breyer's home without his consent, asked for his ID and if Justice Breyer had then said - "Do you have any idea who I am? You don't know who you are messing with" - there is zero chance that interaction results in Justice Breyer being arrested, handcuffed, booked and held in custody for 5 hours. No I can't prove it, but I am pretty confident nonetheless.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
I guess we will have to agree to differ on that. I think that if a police sergeant entered Justice Breyer's home without his consent, asked for his ID and if Justice Breyer had then said - "Do you have any idea who I am? You don't know who you are messing with" - there is zero chance that interaction results in Justice Breyer being arrested and handcuffed. No I can't prove it, but I am pretty confident nonetheless.
As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 10:57:07 AM
As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.
No question you are correct. In either case, its still an improper arrest. But the real question is why Gates didn't get the kind of relative deference that ordinarily is given to a more mature, upper middle class, property-owner who is well-known in the community- which is the point you just made above.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:33:54 AM
I think you must be able to read minds or something then. I think it is very possible that a white guy who gets verbally abusive with a police officer and calls him a racist could be arreseted.
On what grounds?
Depending on the circumstances, causing a disturbance or obstructing a peace officer could apply.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 10:33:54 AM
I think you must be able to read minds or something then. I think it is very possible that a white guy who gets verbally abusive with a police officer and calls him a racist could be arreseted.
On what grounds?
Where I live he could be arrested for obstructing governmental administration. It's a very vague statute used when people interfere or are uncooperative. They also use a hindering prosecution statute for those that lie.
Hm, are you guys aware of the fact that Gates has disputed that he ever made any of those statements about racism? The only thing he agrees that he said was that he wanted to know the officer's name and badge number, and he agreed that he got angry when the officer refused to provide that info.
Looks like another cop is moving to Idaho.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 11:15:59 AM
Looks like another cop is moving to Idaho.
Luck guy. :)
Quote from: Barrister on July 22, 2009, 11:02:21 AM
[Depending on the circumstances, causing a disturbance or obstructing a peace officer could apply.
Disturbing the peace is a public offense, it requires intent to cause disturbance to the public at large, not to a police officer. And I hardly think shouting: "Don't you who you are messing with?" constitutes creating a criminal disturbance.
There was no obstruction because at the time the alleged statements were made, the officer had completed his investigation and was walking out the door. Saying mean words doesn't obstruct anything.
I'd like to be on the cops side, but it is hard to figure out how. Even the best case senario for the cop seems like there shouldn't have been an arrest.
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 11:12:36 AM
Hm, are you guys aware of the fact that Gates has disputed that he ever made any of those statements about racism? The only thing he agrees that he said was that he wanted to know the officer's name and badge number, and he agreed that he got angry when the officer refused to provide that info.
Yeah, but Gates is a liar.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 10:57:07 AM
As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.
No question you are correct. In either case, its still an improper arrest. But the real question is why Gates didn't get the kind of relative deference that ordinarily is given to a more mature, upper middle class, property-owner who is well-known in the community- which is the point you just made above.
What I see is a sort of collision between the unwritten and written rules.
I assume that, strictly speaking, the cops have no right to arrest someone for simply being mouthy. The fact is that they probably do that all the time - to certain people.
Thing is, they don't usually do it to eminent upper middle class or upper class types. They are "supposed", under the unwritten rules, to defer.
OTOH, under the written rules, cops should not be making those kinds of distinctions - they ought to treat everyone the same. Reality is of course that they don't.
The two opposite points of view are easy to see from this perspective.
On the one hand, the natural conclusion is that the cop wasn't treating this fellow with the deference he "deserved" under the unwritten rules because he was Black. Thus, under this POV, it seems likely the cop was racist.
On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of
demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.
The cop's problem is that, unlike those cases, he doesn't have a really valid reason for arrest - disturbing the peace sounds thin. So, not 'racism' necessarily but more like a nuisance or grudge arrest.
Yeah, from what I've read it seems "grudge arrest" is a good way to describe it, again, assuming that Gates said all the things the officer claimed he did.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 11:00:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 10:57:07 AM
As I said, a class entitlement thing. Picture the same scene in a crappy apartment with a half-naked tatooed twentysomething guy with long stringy hair. Suddenly an arrest doesn't seem so improbable.
No question you are correct. In either case, its still an improper arrest. But the real question is why Gates didn't get the kind of relative deference that ordinarily is given to a more mature, upper middle class, property-owner who is well-known in the community- which is the point you just made above.
What I see is a sort of collision between the unwritten and written rules.
I assume that, strictly speaking, the cops have no right to arrest someone for simply being mouthy. The fact is that they probably do that all the time - to certain people.
Thing is, they don't usually do it to eminent upper middle class or upper class types. They are "supposed", under the unwritten rules, to defer.
OTOH, under the written rules, cops should not be making those kinds of distinctions - they ought to treat everyone the same. Reality is of course that they don't.
The two opposite points of view are easy to see from this perspective.
On the one hand, the natural conclusion is that the cop wasn't treating this fellow with the deference he "deserved" under the unwritten rules because he was Black. Thus, under this POV, it seems likely the cop was racist.
On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.
The cop's problem is that, unlike those cases, he doesn't have a really valid reason for arrest - disturbing the peace sounds thin. So, not 'racism' necessarily but more like a nuisance or grudge arrest.
I think you have it pretty much.
Which goes back to my original point - if there is any racism involved, it is on the part of the guy who decided to bring up his race as the supposed reason his ass was not being kissed sufficiently to his taste. IE, the racist here is him.
Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.
It isn't infinite but it is a lot more than zero. If this the Mayor of Cambridge's house and similar words are spoken, this arrest doesn't happen.
Even under the officer's account, Gates did not swear or use profanity, he did not threaten any violence or make any inappropriate or threatening gestures, he did not brandish or throw any objects. The actual words quoted in the police report are actually kind of remarkable if anything for their tameness. This isn't a case of some sports star getting caught DUI or an famous actor shoving a cop. It is very difficult to come up with some kind of sensible explanation that does not involve race that would explain why an officer of this level of seniority and experience would make an arrest like this under such weak circumstances.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 22, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
I'd like to be on the cops side, but it is hard to figure out how. Even the best case senario for the cop seems like there shouldn't have been an arrest.
Dead to me. :angry:
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 11:45:59 AM
Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.
If this is the case in a place like Cambridge, you'd think the cop would know better than to make the arrest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 11:52:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.
It isn't infinite but it is a lot more than zero. If this the Mayor of Cambridge's house and similar words are spoken, this arrest doesn't happen.
Even under the officer's account, Gates did not swear or use profanity, he did not threaten any violence or make any inappropriate or threatening gestures, he did not brandish or throw any objects. The actual words quoted in the police report are actually kind of remarkable if anything for their tameness. This isn't a case of some sports star getting caught DUI or an famous actor shoving a cop. It is very difficult to come up with some kind of sensible explanation that does not involve race that would explain why an officer of this level of seniority and experience would make an arrest like this under such weak circumstances.
Well, that's veering into some very subjective territory - many people could reasonably be more offended by being called a "racist" than being sworn at, for example. The fact that such an accusation was made clearly makes it an "explaination that involves race", but on which side of the dispute?
Clearly, unlike the DUI, there wasn't any laws being broken here. The cop was I think making a grudge arrest, which is a no-no. He did have a genuine grudge though, assuming his account was correct; though I agree that the proper and professional thing to do would have been to clench his teeth and take it out on video games later. ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2009, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 11:45:59 AM
Which, it turns out, works wonderfully in a place like Cambridge. Which of course he perfectly well knows. The cop pissed him off, and now he is going to make the cop pay for his "crime". The accusation of racism works every time.
If this is the case in a place like Cambridge, you'd think the cop would know better than to make the arrest.
I think I already said that. He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Which is good. Be willing to get what you give. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2009, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Which is good. Be willing to get what you give. :)
OK, Marty.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:57:49 PM
OK, Marty.
Unlikely, I'm not calling for anyone's death and recognize that police are a necessity.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:57:49 PM
OK, Marty.
Unlikely, I'm not calling for anyone's death and recognize that police are a necessity.
You are doing the "oh, some people somewhere are mean to some other people somewhere, so it is ok for some other people to treat yet other people like shit!" thing though.
Yipee for racism, as long as it can be justified by other racism!
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
You are doing the "oh, some people somewhere are mean to some other people somewhere, so it is ok for some other people to treat yet other people like shit!" thing though.
Yipee for racism, as long as it can be justified by other racism!
That's not really a Marty stance. He wants his target groups killed not treated meanly.
Besides, I'm not cheering that the professor was so quick to cry racism (I find that deplorable) but rather a cop being forced to take shit.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
I think I already said that. He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Not sure how refraining from arresting someone counts as ass-kissing.
Way I see it, the officer may not have been a racist. But he acted like an asshole and took advantage of his authority. So if Gates takes advantage of his clout to get the guy shitcanned it's karma.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 22, 2009, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
I think I already said that. He clearly made a professional error which will cost him dearly. When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Not sure how refraining from arresting someone counts as ass-kissing.
The Prof started bleating about racism and asking for badge numbers before he was arrested, so it seems unlikely that is what precipitated his little tantrum.
I was reading an article earlier that quoted The Root (some webzine or something Gates is involved in) as saying that Gates did indeed bring up the racism issue early in the "discussion", to the effect that when the officer asked him to step outside Gates responded with "oh, that's how it is because I'm a black man in America" or something.
So it sounds to me like both men were being assholes, but Gates can do whatever the fuck he wants in terms of behaving like an asshole when he's not at work. Since the officer was actually working, I'm less inclined to excuse his response. I certainly don't think the officer ought to be fired or even reprimanded, but we all know he's about to be railroaded out of town for being a "racist".
edit: It's amusing to me that the comments on the most recent Globe article about this are overwhelmingly against Gates and in favor of the Cambridge PD. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/gates_considers.html (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/gates_considers.html)
QuoteGates said he has gone out of his way in the past to avoid run-ins with police. When he first arrived at Harvard in 1991, he moved into a large house in the mostly white suburb of Lexington and promptly visited the police station to introduce himself.
"I wanted them to see my black face,'' Gates said. "I would be driving home late from Harvard. I had a Mercedes. I didn't want to be stopped for 'driving while black.' . . . I should have done that with the Cambridge Police Department.''
What a complete asshole.
Quote"I'm outraged. I shouldn't have been treated this way, but it makes me so keenly aware of how many people every day experience abuses in the criminal justice system. This is really about justice for the least amongst us.''
:lmfao:
How very white of him.
You seem surprised... this is a big part of what the guy does for a living. :)
Hell, he could have intentionally escalated the issue hoping the cop would fall into his trap... knowing full well the kind of firestorm he could generate.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 02:14:41 PM
What a complete asshole.
Yes, although if it'd said he was living in Wellesley, that'd probably be a smart move on his part. I saw a non-white person there once, he was taking a trash bag out of a trash can.
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 11:12:36 AM
Hm, are you guys aware of the fact that Gates has disputed that he ever made any of those statements about racism? The only thing he agrees that he said was that he wanted to know the officer's name and badge number, and he agreed that he got angry when the officer refused to provide that info.
Was that part mentioned in the OP? That paints an even worse picture on the part of the cop. Now, there's possibilities of the cop refusing to give badge number
and entering Gates' home without permission after Gates was IDed as a resident.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 02:21:34 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 11:12:36 AM
Hm, are you guys aware of the fact that Gates has disputed that he ever made any of those statements about racism? The only thing he agrees that he said was that he wanted to know the officer's name and badge number, and he agreed that he got angry when the officer refused to provide that info.
Was that part mentioned in the OP? That paints an even worse picture on the part of the cop. Now, there's possibilities of the cop refusing to give badge number and entering Gates' home without permission after Gates was IDed as a resident.
I am curious what people think the cops reason was for fucking with Gates after Gates made it clear he was the owner and was polite and reasonable at all times. You think the cop just decided to mess with him for shits and giggles?
The racism charge makes no sense - if the cop is a racist, why would he evidence that by such things as entering his home, and refusing to give his name? Is that some kind of code for calling eminent and important black people the n-word or something?
Of course, Gates is later quoted saying he did mention racism. Seems like his story changes quite a bit.
Is it fair to say that someone assuming a white officer questioning a black man is being racist "racial profiling"?
If the officer had been black, would Gates have been so offended at being asked to prove he owned the house?
What is the normal SOP for responding to a break in report and arriving to find a potential suspect and a broken down door? If he flashes some ID, is that adequate to assume that everything is ok and you should just leave? Is it typical to want to check out the house anyway? Where exactly did the officer violate SOP because the homeowner was a black man? What exactly would the officer had done differently if Gates was white?
Gates makes his living as a prestigious history professor specialing in race relations, specifically racism. Is his claim that his treatment some kind of microcosm of the problems of racism in general fair, even if we assume his changing story is not a bald faced lie? What is the terrible injustice that was done to him, exactly, that warranted his verbal abuse and accusations of racism? The cop entered his house? Really? Is that it?
Gates does have Al Sharpton going to bat for him though. Anyone remember those Duke students who raped that black girl?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Your hypothetical may be correct, but as yet we have no data to verify it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 02:42:54 PMYour hypothetical may be correct, but as yet we have no data to verify it.
We will soon. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 02:42:54 PMYour hypothetical may be correct, but as yet we have no data to verify it.
We will soon. :)
No kidding.
Although, I would argue that no matter how this ends up, it is clear that the officer has come out on the short end of it - even if nothing comes of it, the officer has been labeled a racist for asking for ID, and Gates gets his 15 minutes of additional fame.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 02:42:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 12:24:16 PM
When a black Harvard professor demands that you kiss his ass or he will level a racism charge at you, you better pucker on up if you like your career.
Your hypothetical may be correct, but as yet we have no data to verify it.
What we have no data to verify is Gates claim that the officer is a racist and was unreasonable in his request for ID or entering his home.
I am still wondering about that part of the story - what exactly was it that the officer did that was so clearly racist that justified Gates bitching at him that led to Gates being arrested?
Even if we accept that the arrest was not warranted and an over-reaction, what was it that Crowley did that was so terrible otherwise?
Every account I've seen of this so far has been different in terms of chronology and what was said. Here's another one with conflicting information:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-22/my-daddy-the-jailbird/full/ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-22/my-daddy-the-jailbird/full/)
The above is however clearly a case of a biased interviewer. :P
Anyway, unless a recording of the incident emerges, we will never know for sure what truly happened. Berkut is right though that the officer is pretty much fucked no matter what.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
I am curious what people think the cops reason was for fucking with Gates after Gates made it clear he was the owner and was polite and reasonable at all times. You think the cop just decided to mess with him for shits and giggles?
The racism charge makes no sense - if the cop is a racist, why would he evidence that by such things as entering his home, and refusing to give his name? Is that some kind of code for calling eminent and important black people the n-word or something?
Of course, Gates is later quoted saying he did mention racism. Seems like his story changes quite a bit.
I agree the "racism issue" seems to be a smokescreen for a less sensational improper response issue. If there's any "racism" here, I'd level it at the neighbor, who should be able to recognize the person living alongside them.
What I'm curious about is why the
officer seems to think Gates was fucking with
him? If the guy was locked out of his house long enough to still be outside when the cop got there, I would think a certain level of agitation would be reasonable. Wonderful conflict resolution displayed by the cop here.
As to things you do and don't do as a cop, one of the biggies is you don't go into a home uninvited without a warrant. If you weren't called by a resident, you have to knock on the door and get... surprise,
Gates' permission to enter. Refusing to provide badge number also seems to be a no-no, but more because of precinct policy than law.
I think when someone says something like "This is because I am black man in America" to you while you are doing your job, it is fair to say that person is fucking with you and being an asshole.
Maybe the cop could have dealt with that better - maybe Gates didn't let him. I think Gates as a supposedly mature and intellectual scholar has some responsibility for his own actions. As a black activist concerned with issues of race and racism, it is rather pathetic that he immediately turned this into an issue about race, and really seems to have driven the entire racial aspect of this for his own gain.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2009, 02:19:52 PM
Yes, although if it'd said he was living in Wellesley, that'd probably be a smart move on his part. I saw a non-white person there once, he was taking a trash bag out of a trash can.
No reflective surfaces? Maybe they're all vampires! :o
QuoteI think Sgt. Crowley was angry that I didn't follow his initial orders—his demand—his order—to step outside my house because I was protected as long as I was in the house because he didn't have a warrant. I think what he really wanted to do was throw me down and put handcuffs on me because he was terrified that I could be dangerous to him and that I was causing violence in my own home—though obviously he didn't know it was my home.
So now the story is that the officer
before his identity was determined asked him to step outside the home, and he refused to do so?
Interesting. Is this the racist move from Crowley, asking someone who for all he knows is breaking into a home where there could very well be victims inside to step outside the house while his identity is determined?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 02:59:53 PM
Maybe the cop could have dealt with that better - maybe Gates didn't let him.
Why is it that you always* take the cop's side?
I mean, just this week, there was the Gates thing, a lawsuit over 12-year olds being tazed and threatened with sodomy - http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/20/illinois-officers-sued-for-unprovoked-tasering/ - and a cop who was caught on video attacking a woman in a gas station unprovoked (the cop lied about the attack and said the woman attacked him, was confronted by the video, and then returned to duty eight days later) - http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/1857461-Store-video-catches-Philly-cop-confronting-woman/ - why give the cop the benefit of the doubt over the professor, again?
*Unless they praise their union.
I didn't take the cops side in any of those other examples you mentioned, so clearly your assertion is flawed on the face of it.
And I am not taking the cops side in this case so much as I am against the professor who, IMO, is clearly some kind of dickhead racist. So far nobody has provided a single concrete example of something the cop did (other than arresing Gates) that is clearly out of line or racist - and the arrest came about as a result of the conflict, so clearly cannot be the cause of the conflict.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 02:59:53 PM
I think when someone says something like "This is because I am black man in America" to you while you are doing your job, it is fair to say that person is fucking with you and being an asshole.
Maybe the cop could have dealt with that better - maybe Gates didn't let him. I think Gates as a supposedly mature and intellectual scholar has some responsibility for his own actions. As a black activist concerned with issues of race and racism, it is rather pathetic that he immediately turned this into an issue about race, and really seems to have driven the entire racial aspect of this for his own gain.
And that's why I want to get Gates and his "racism" comments out of the question. Gates verbally agitated the police officer. There were no threats, nothing to warrant an escalation of conflict; the officer allowed his buttons to be pushed and reportedly broke policy and possibly law in his handling of the conflict. No insult Gates threw at him would excuse that.
I missed the new quote about how he was inside the house and asked to step outside, and that does change things substantially. The new chronology makes it sound like the officer was trying to assess the situation and Gates interfered with that phase of the response. In that case, I'm with Seedy on "justified arrest" versus "necessary arrest," and also agree with you that Gates expected an amount of deference that is really only given by some officers to some civilians as a courtesy, and that this is more of a status issue than anything else.
I think it is hard for a white person to understand what it is like to be a person of color in America. Even if the person in question is "just doing their job" on the surface, one cannot help but wonder what the motivation is beneath that. White people don't really have to worry about that because its all on level playing field. But for minorities, the ever present threat of racism, be it overt or covert, always looms over our head.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:13:14 PM
I didn't take the cops side in any of those other examples you mentioned, so clearly your assertion is flawed on the face of it.
Did we have threads on the others and I missed it - I picked them as examples of sub-par police behavior in the news recently?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:13:14 PMSo far nobody has provided a single concrete example of something the cop did (other than arresing Gates) that is clearly out of line or racist
Right. Because it's been a question of which account to believe to determine whether the cop acted reasonably or not...and you've assumed the cop is right.
Quote from: Jaron on July 22, 2009, 03:17:16 PM
I think it is hard for a white person to understand what it is like to be a person of color in America. Even if the person in question is "just doing their job" on the surface, one cannot help but wonder what the motivation is beneath that. White people don't really have to worry about that because its all on level playing field. But for minorities, the ever present threat of racism, be it overt or covert, always looms over our head.
No doubt about that, but one of the biggest problems with integration is those to whom race takes on the nature of a magical "jinx" and attribute everything negative to race (the "because I'm black" crew in addition to the normal "don't trust those..." raciss idiots). Cases where the law was bent or broken because of race are one thing, but there are also those who feel they're
owed preferential treatment to compensate for what happened in previous generations.
Some of these whackos go so far as to segregate themselves and create race issues where there are none, hurting their cause more than helping it.
Quote from: ulmont on July 22, 2009, 03:19:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:13:14 PM
I didn't take the cops side in any of those other examples you mentioned, so clearly your assertion is flawed on the face of it.
Did we have threads on the others and I missed it - I picked them as examples of sub-par police behavior in the news recently?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:13:14 PMSo far nobody has provided a single concrete example of something the cop did (other than arresing Gates) that is clearly out of line or racist
Right. Because it's been a question of which account to believe to determine whether the cop acted reasonably or not...and you've assumed the cop is right.
Not at all - even if you look at Gates story and take one of them at face value, I still do not see what the police officer did that was racist prior to the arrest.
Asked him who he was and what he was doing? Asked him to step outside? Asked for ID? How is that racist?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 03:31:41 PM
one of the biggest problems with integration
I don't think that it is one of the
biggest problems with integration. :huh:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 03:31:41 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 22, 2009, 03:17:16 PM
I think it is hard for a white person to understand what it is like to be a person of color in America. Even if the person in question is "just doing their job" on the surface, one cannot help but wonder what the motivation is beneath that. White people don't really have to worry about that because its all on level playing field. But for minorities, the ever present threat of racism, be it overt or covert, always looms over our head.
... Cases where the law was bent or broken because of race are one thing, but there are also those who feel they're owed preferential treatment to compensate for what happened in previous generations.
Some of these whackos go so far as to segregate themselves and create race issues where there are none, hurting their cause more than helping it.
To be honest, the people who like to use the compensatory 'owed' approach tend, I think to be those who haven't been successful in their own eyes and need an excuse. Other people will become bigots of various sorts for the same reason. I don't think this would be the issue here, even assuming the reports are accurate. Jaron makes a good point too - it's difficult to decide when someone is being unpleasant to you, or just lacking tact when you've been subjected frequently to unpleasantness. Actually, I don't think that can be used as an excuse for the policeman here either. Any professional is expected to be able to respond appropriately to a range of different situations - or not be good enough for their job
How was he not good enough for his job?
Even if he was an asshole, and didn't kiss Gates ass as much as his "eminent" position demanded, that says nothing about his ability to do his job.
The worst case scenario, as far as I can tell, is that the sergeant in question could be a bit more tactful and considerate. But shit, there are a lot of cops out there, and we aren't willing to pay to train them all that much, so what do you expect? They aren't all going to be super polite guys.
His job was to respond to a call, make sure a crime was not being committed, and secure the area. He did that. All the other bullshit that went down was completely secondary to his job.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:55:01 PM
His job was to respond to a call, make sure a crime was not being committed, and secure the area. He did that. All the other bullshit that went down was completely secondary to his job.
He arrested a person who said they lived at the house and provided ID to that effect, for no better reason than being yelled at (even from his own police report).
Quote from: swallow on July 22, 2009, 03:50:32 PM
To be honest, the people who like to use the compensatory 'owed' approach tend, I think to be those who haven't been successful in their own eyes and need an excuse. Other people will become bigots of various sorts for the same reason. I don't think this would be the issue here, even assuming the reports are accurate. Jaron makes a good point too - it's difficult to decide when someone is being unpleasant to you, or just lacking tact when you've been subjected frequently to unpleasantness. Actually, I don't think that can be used as an excuse for the policeman here either. Any professional is expected to be able to respond appropriately to a range of different situations - or not be good enough for their job
Noted and mostly agreed, but the standards for "successful in their own eyes" is in their own heads. Maybe it's that extra 5K to make a round $300K a year, maybe that patent they feel should have been under their name instead of a group, but lack of confidence in one's success isn't solely reserved for the poor and underprivileged.
Questioning motive for actions is simple cynicism and totally understandable, but it's not helpful beyond righting material wrongs.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:55:01 PM
How was he not good enough for his job?
Even if he was an asshole, and didn't kiss Gates ass as much as his "eminent" position demanded, that says nothing about his ability to do his job.
The worst case scenario, as far as I can tell, is that the sergeant in question could be a bit more tactful and considerate. But shit, there are a lot of cops out there, and we aren't willing to pay to train them all that much, so what do you expect? They aren't all going to be super polite guys.
His job was to respond to a call, make sure a crime was not being committed, and secure the area. He did that. All the other bullshit that went down was completely secondary to his job.
At best, he over reacted. That's a pretty bad failing in that job. They do without doubt deserve more pay and training than they get.
For the cop, it had to be a bit unnerving to respond to a call to a break in and have to confront a person who for all you knew was a criminal. If Gates acted belligerently and refused to leave the house at the first request (a reasonable request to reduce your chance of getting shot), I can see why the cop would be pissed off.
I still don't see a good reason to arrest the guy though.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 22, 2009, 04:13:30 PM
For the cop, it had to be a bit unnerving to respond to a call to a break in and have to confront a person who for all you knew was a criminal. If Gates acted belligerently and refused to leave the house at the first request (a reasonable request to reduce your chance of getting shot), I can see why the cop would be pissed off.
I still don't see a good reason to arrest the guy though.
It depends at what point he started cooperating with the officer. This is starting to sound like a less violent version of the Granny Tasing (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1164.0) incident.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 04:18:48 PM
It depends at what point he started cooperating with the officer. This is starting to sound like a less violent version of the Granny Tasing (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1164.0) incident.
Yeah, but. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, which requires more than yelling at a cop from your house or the porch:
QuoteThe resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
Not disagreeing. I'm kinda starting to lose interest in this, as it's quickly dumbing down to a "he said, she said" debate. There's no doubt that the cop mishandled the situation, and there's no doubt that Gates mishandled the situation. The question now is which had less reasonable justification for escalating the conflict, and to be honest, they're both pretty far out there.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 04:29:10 PM
Not disagreeing. I'm kinda starting to lose interest in this, as it's quickly dumbing down to a "he said, she said" debate. There's no doubt that the cop mishandled the situation, and there's no doubt that Gates mishandled the situation.
Yes, I agree.
Quote from: ulmont on July 22, 2009, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 04:18:48 PM
It depends at what point he started cooperating with the officer. This is starting to sound like a less violent version of the Granny Tasing (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=1164.0) incident.
Yeah, but. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, which requires more than yelling at a cop from your house or the porch:
QuoteThe resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
That seems fairly broad--if the text represents the statute. Under the language, that covers someone "recklessly creating a risk" of public annoyance through "tumultuous behavior."
I think shouting at a cop from your porch could qualify--the public place under risk of annoyance being the road.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:30:09 AM
Either might have been angry depending on the circumstances and threatened consequences. No way they get arrested. Of course, if it had been one of those guys, the officer probably would have conducted himself very differently in the first place.
If your point is that the accusation of racism caused the arrest, I think that proves my point.
I find it interesting that you would take one side so vociferously based on the data at hand. Do you have more information here that indicates the professor is much more innocent than the publicly-available data I have seen?
It sounds to me like both sides went overboard, but that the professor did it first. The cop was out the door, no arrest, no foul, but the professor couldn't leave it at that. He had to chase the "racist" cop down outside the house and pretty much dare him to arrest.
As you note, the professor got want he wanted; he is now a "hero" to the "anti-racist" crowd, though ironically he became that hero by playing the race card.
I would agree that the cop should have ignored such pathetic whining, but cops aren't noted for their strategic thinking. The latter is probably a good thing.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2009, 04:58:46 PM
. He had to chase the "racist" cop down outside the house and pretty much dare him to arrest.
When did that happen?
My background assumption is that the City of Cambridge has minimum professional requirements for its police officers, provides basic training in dealing with civilians, and requires some level of experience and skill before promoting officers. Based on those reasonable assumptions, I therefore presume that a police sergeant would ordinarily be capable of handling garden variety situation like this involving a 60 year old man using pretty tame language by say network television standards (not Fox), without completely losing it and making an obviously improper and baseless arrest, and then compounding that error by cuffing him and subjecting him to hours of detention.
On that reasoning, the only way something like this could happen, barring some kind of mental breakdown by the officer, or glitch in the Cambridge personnel system that allowed a complete incompetent to be promoted to sergeant, is that something else is going on here. And the only something else that comes to mind is race.
ABC News is reporting that he initially refused to hand over an ID.
Maybe no move to Idaho.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 22, 2009, 04:53:24 PM
That seems fairly broad
Criminal statutes are supposed to be read narrowly.
QuoteI think shouting at a cop from your porch could qualify--the public place under risk of annoyance being the road.
Under the statute, the identity of the person being shouted at is irrelevant. So the question then becomes whether shouting two sentences from one's porch constitutes a criminal offense, in the absence of any evidence that anyone was bothered by it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwimage.cbsnews.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F07%2F21%2Fimage5178575.jpg&hash=a8c41f08a961444c4fcacf3800431c53e8138ad6)
See Professor Gates.
See Professor Gates still yelling and acting like a fool in handcuffs.
See white officer motioning to Professor Gates to keep it down.
See Sergeant stripes on the black officer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2009, 06:01:07 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwimage.cbsnews.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F07%2F21%2Fimage5178575.jpg&hash=a8c41f08a961444c4fcacf3800431c53e8138ad6)
See Sergeant stripes on the black officer.
He was airbrushed in. If they can do it for the moon landing then the white man can do it to keep the brothers down.
Good use of public resources by Cambridge P.D. there. I think they need a few more officers to take an aging professor into custody. He might try to deconstruct the squad car and make a getaway.
Boston talk radio is interesting. On one hand are the wingnuts who say silly ass crap like, "well I'm just going to be a racist because black people are all whiners" and the other are stellar tools who call up saying 'it has to be racist because cops are all racist' or the best one who said the cops must have known who he was and where he lived because he is an important scholar and went out of their way to fuck with him. Because they couldn't handle a black professor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 06:04:27 PM
Good use of public resources by Cambridge P.D. there. I think they need a few more officers to take an aging professor into custody. He might try to deconstruct the squad car and make a getaway.
If they didn't have so many cops then some lowlife might claim something as absurd and cliche as police racism... oh wait :p
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
What I see is a sort of collision between the unwritten and written rules.
I assume that, strictly speaking, the cops have no right to arrest someone for simply being mouthy. The fact is that they probably do that all the time - to certain people.
Thing is, they don't usually do it to eminent upper middle class or upper class types. They are "supposed", under the unwritten rules, to defer.
OTOH, under the written rules, cops should not be making those kinds of distinctions - they ought to treat everyone the same. Reality is of course that they don't.
The two opposite points of view are easy to see from this perspective.
On the one hand, the natural conclusion is that the cop wasn't treating this fellow with the deference he "deserved" under the unwritten rules because he was Black. Thus, under this POV, it seems likely the cop was racist.
On the other hand, the Prof was (allegedly) making a big production out of demanding deference. One can see how this would be annoying. The "deference" owed for being prominent isn't infinite, as (for example) many a drunken celebrity driver or molesting politician has discovered.
The cop's problem is that, unlike those cases, he doesn't have a really valid reason for arrest - disturbing the peace sounds thin. So, not 'racism' necessarily but more like a nuisance or grudge arrest.
Malthus, what part of this discussion did you miss?
Mouthy to a cop is not an offense. Disturbing the public peace is; which is what happened once Gates took his tirade outside the house, following the officer towards the car.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 06:04:27 PM
Good use of public resources by Cambridge P.D. there. I think they need a few more officers to take an aging professor into custody. He might try to deconstruct the squad car and make a getaway.
They needed the muscle in case Gate's posse showed up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:14:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Oh, bullshit. It was a proper charge, and a proper arrest.
It was a silly arrest and an embarassing incident for someone so senior in the department who should know better. And the local DA's office is never going to prosecute this. Time to cut losses.
Silly maybe, but proper within the definition of the charge.
He was disturbing the public peace, and charged as such. Still don't see what the big deal is.
That picture must be doctored, because the eminent professor, who we know would never ever lie, said he was sick and could not possibly yell at anyone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 06:04:27 PM
He might try to deconstruct the squad car and make a getaway.
Nice :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 05:51:44 PM
On that reasoning, the only way something like this could happen, barring some kind of mental breakdown by the officer, or glitch in the Cambridge personnel system that allowed a complete incompetent to be promoted to sergeant, is that something else is going on here. And the only something else that comes to mind is race.
Right. Lord knows the only way a police officer could arrest someone for acting like an asshole is if he is a racist.
The asshole CALLING him a racist, of course, could not possibly have anything to do with it. I guess now it is a racist conspiracy, seeing as there where multiple officers involved.
You act like a douchebag to cops and refuse to cooperate, you get arrested. This probably happens all the time, except that it isn't typically ultra liberal black "eminent" professors, so nobody cares.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 06:14:38 PM
That picture must be doctored, because the eminent professor, who we know would never ever lie, said he was sick and could not possibly yell at anyone.
I wonder if his illness presented him from opening his mouth.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2009, 06:23:35 PM
I wonder if his illness presented him from opening his mouth.
That would have been helpful, if not to the sensationalist news community.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 05:51:44 PM
When did that happen?
Just before the arrest, from what I have read.
QuoteMy background assumption is that the City of Cambridge has minimum professional requirements for its police officers, provides basic training in dealing with civilians, and requires some level of experience and skill before promoting officers. Based on those reasonable assumptions, I therefore presume that a police sergeant would ordinarily be capable of handling garden variety situation like this involving a 60 year old man using pretty tame language by say network television standards (not Fox), without completely losing it and making an obviously improper and baseless arrest, and then compounding that error by cuffing him and subjecting him to hours of detention.
Can you link me to a transcript of what the professor said. Obviously, you must have read it to judge the language used, and I'd like to do the same.
QuoteOn that reasoning, the only way something like this could happen, barring some kind of mental breakdown by the officer, or glitch in the Cambridge personnel system that allowed a complete incompetent to be promoted to sergeant, is that something else is going on here. And the only something else that comes to mind is race.
Oh, I agree that the professor had a racist agenda. Even his own testemony acknowledges that. Whether the cop had one as well depends on what the transcript you are going to link us to shows.
One time when it's fun to see Berkut and Grumbler in action. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
Hell, he could have intentionally escalated the issue hoping the cop would fall into his trap... knowing full well the kind of firestorm he could generate.
Sounds like that to me, as well (as I noted above).
How many signatures do you need to get on the Detroit ballot, 2?
Talk about a tempest in a crock pot.
Once upon a time a racist cop would break a black man's face and get off scot free. Today a police officer arresting someone for being an asshole and they make it outlike Rodney King and the Amistad trial combined.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 22, 2009, 07:51:57 PM
One time when it's fun to see Berkut and Grumbler in action. :lol:
We play for the peanut gallery. :bows:
:face:
Now Obama has jumped into the fray, taking Gates's side (of course).
Hey dude, less grandstanding and photo opping and more fixing the country, PLZ. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 09:04:39 PM
:face:
Now Obama has jumped into the fray, taking Gates's side (of course).
Hey dude, less grandstanding and photo opping and more fixing the country, PLZ. :mad:
*facepalm* I've been willing to cut the dude some major slack up to this point, but I think that's the last straw. He should know better than this. I can't believe the White House's PR guys would let him take on such a flimsy cause.
Well, to be fair, he didn't call a press conference or anything about this... a question was asked of him about it at some other press conference but he did choose to give a fairly lengthy answer. Here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/22/sot.obama.gates.police.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/22/sot.obama.gates.police.cnn)
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 09:15:55 PM
Well, to be fair, he didn't call a press conference or anything about this... a question was asked of him about it at some other press conference but he did choose to give a fairly lengthy answer. Here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/22/sot.obama.gates.police.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/07/22/sot.obama.gates.police.cnn)
And he should have known better than to answer.
That's why I emphasized that he "did choose" to answer. The smart thing to say would have been "I know the professor personally so I should probably just refrain from answering."
That picture = :lmfao:
I had a few college profs I would've like to have seen in a similar situation.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 22, 2009, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 09:04:39 PM
:face:
Now Obama has jumped into the fray, taking Gates's side (of course).
Hey dude, less grandstanding and photo opping and more fixing the country, PLZ. :mad:
*facepalm* I've been willing to cut the dude some major slack up to this point, but I think that's the last straw. He should know better than this. I can't believe the White House's PR guys would let him take on such a flimsy cause.
Pres Obama started off by saying that he didn't have all the facts of the case, and should have stopped there. Instead he went off on telling about the entire story, almost like he was there at the time! :huh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 22, 2009, 06:05:34 PM
Boston talk radio is interesting. On one hand are the wingnuts who say silly ass crap like, "well I'm just going to be a racist because black people are all whiners" and the other are stellar tools who call up saying 'it has to be racist because cops are all racist' or the best one who said the cops must have known who he was and where he lived because he is an important scholar and went out of their way to fuck with him. Because they couldn't handle a black professor.
Pretty much spot on. I've been listening to local talk and it gets "interesting".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2009, 06:06:14 PM
Malthus, what part of this discussion did you miss?
Mouthy to a cop is not an offense. Disturbing the public peace is; which is what happened once Gates took his tirade outside the house, following the officer towards the car.
Well, obviously they charged him with an offence that exists rather than one that does not. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2009, 06:08:18 PM
Silly maybe, but proper within the definition of the charge.
He was disturbing the public peace
It has been established by now that both those statements are wrong.
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 09:04:39 PM
:face:
Now Obama has jumped into the fray, taking Gates's side (of course).
Hey dude, less grandstanding and photo opping and more fixing the country, PLZ. :mad:
Why dear god why? One arrest with dropped charges hardly seems worthy of a Presidential statement.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 09:08:42 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2009, 09:04:39 PM
:face:
Now Obama has jumped into the fray, taking Gates's side (of course).
Hey dude, less grandstanding and photo opping and more fixing the country, PLZ. :mad:
Why dear god why? One arrest with dropped charges hardly seems worthy of a Presidential statement.
Well, like JR said, this isn't just any arrest. This man is an "eminent" and important black person who deserves special consideration, which he was not adequately given. Clearly this incompetent sergeant needs some Presidential attention.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2009, 07:49:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 05:51:44 PM
When did that happen?
Just before the arrest, from what I have read.
Could you provide a quotation and a source? According to the police report, the officer invited to come outside to speak with him further. It is also clear from the report that while the officer walked out of the house down the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates never left the porch of the house.
So any source you have read that indicates Gates "chased" after the officer is mistaken.
QuoteCan you link me to a transcript of what the professor said. Obviously, you must have read it to judge the language used, and I'd like to do the same.
Well the police report contains various verbatim statements he is alleged to have made. These consist of the following:
"Why, because I am a black man in America?"
"I'll speak with your mama outside"
"You don't know who you are messing with"
"I am disabled" [and cannot walk without my cane]
"This is what happens to Black men in America"
The report also indicates that Gates accused the officer of being racist but does not recount any other specific words used.
While the statements made by Gates according to the police are not of the sort typically expected in refined discourse, they hardly rise to the level of "verbal assault" - whatever the hell that is supposed to be. I hear a lot worse by people trying to get on and off the subway just about every day.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Well, like JR said, this isn't just any arrest. This man is an "eminent" and important person who deserves special consideration, which he was not adequately given.
Fixed. Now who is throwing around race?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Well, like JR said, this isn't just any arrest. This man is an "eminent" and important person who deserves special consideration, which he was not adequately given.
Fixed. Now who is throwing around race?
Gates - he is the only person who brought it up at all.
Right, because as long as you don't say the word, it doesn't exist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:34:21 AM
Right, because as long as you don't say the word, it doesn't exist.
First of all, you know full well that your response is a fallacy - I never claimed it did not exist, I claimed that the accusation from Gates was the first thing in the entire mess that clearlly involved race. It is falalcious to say that since there is racism, it MUST have been racism despite no evidence that the officer did anything that had anything to do with Gates race before Gates started bleating and threatening.
So you think that in fact he was treated poorly because of racism - why?
What did the officer do prior to the arrest that was so clearly out of line and justified his being accused of being a racist by Gates?
You've never answered this question.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:34:21 AM
Right, because as long as you don't say the word, it doesn't exist.
So you think that in fact he was treated poorly because of racism - why?
I suspect that race may have played a role in the officer's actions. That suspicion is based on the difficulty I have imagining that in situation involving white persons of similar prominence in that community - such as the Mayor of the city or Justice Breyer - that the officer would have arrested that individual, cuffed him on the porch of his house, and then detained him in custody for 4-5 hours. And so far, no one in this thread has suggested that the latter is a realistically imaginable scenario.
I recognize that this is not proof - I have no window into men's souls and can't read minds. I am not conducting a prosecution here or demanding any particular disciplinary action. No one other than Officer Crowley himself knows for sure what his true motivations were. But the circumstantial evidence of the event itself is troubling and suggestive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:34:21 AM
Right, because as long as you don't say the word, it doesn't exist.
So you think that in fact he was treated poorly because of racism - why?
I suspect that race may have played a role in the officer's actions. That suspicion is based on the difficulty I have imagining that in situation involving white persons of similar prominence in that community - such as the Mayor of the city or Justice Breyer - that the officer would have arrested that individual, cuffed him on the porch of his house, and then detained him in custody for 4-5 hours. And so far, no one in this thread has suggested that the latter is a realistically imaginable scenario.
You know, I VERY specifically asked what this officer did
prior to the arrest to justify Gates calling him a racist. You carefully editted that our of my response prior to answering my question.
So I will ask it again - what did the officer do to bring on this tirade and yelling/screaming/threats from Gates?
Gates was arrested because he spazzed out and threatened the officer. You may think that the arrest was unwarranted, but it came as a result of Gates actions, so you cannot argue that his arrest is what precipitated Gates actions. Gates did not know he was going to be arrested when he started tossing around the race card, so how can that be your reason to justify his claim that this is about racism?
Quote
I recognize that this is not proof - I have no window into men's souls and can't read minds. I am not conducting a prosecution here or demanding any particular disciplinary action. No one other than Officer Crowley himself knows for sure what his true motivations were. But the circumstantial evidence of the event itself is troubling and suggestive.
The circumstantial evidence is that Gates brought up race before there was any reason whatsoever to believe that his race had any bearing on Crowleys actions. If that is not the case, please cite *something* to justify your attempt to refute my observation that Gates is the one who made this about race.
Here is another (almost certainly) racially motivated police action. Defend this one, Berkie. ^_^
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/23/oklahoma.trooper.suspended/index.html
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 10:09:08 AM
You know, I VERY specifically asked what this officer did prior to the arrest to justify Gates calling him a racist. You carefully editted that our of my response prior to answering my question.
So I will ask it again - what did the officer do to bring on this tirade and yelling/screaming/threats from Gates?
Gates was arrested because he spazzed out and threatened the officer. You may think that the arrest was unwarranted, but it came as a result of Gates actions, so you cannot argue that his arrest is what precipitated Gates actions. Gates did not know he was going to be arrested when he started tossing around the race card, so how can that be your reason to justify his claim that this is about racism?
You asked more than one question and I answered what I thought was the most pertinent one. I am not here to argue that Gates behaved appropriately or even rationally, although I can understand why someone suddenly confronted by a police officer in one's own house just after getting back from a long trip might get flustered, angry, or even spazzy.
I agree that the mere fact that the cop went to the door is in no way indicative of racial bias. IF the police report is entirely complete and accurate, I also would agree that his conduct prior to the arrest does not appear unusual. [However, if *Gates'* version of the story is correct, it may be a different story] What is suspicious and hard to explain is the decision to actually make the arrest and bring formal charges. Whether Gates had a basis for his verbal invective at the time he made his statements seems to me besides the point.
It is certainly not beside MY point which you have been trying to refute, which is that Gates is the one who made this all about race.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 10:58:50 AM
Here is another (almost certainly) racially motivated police action. Defend this one, Berkie. ^_^
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/23/oklahoma.trooper.suspended/index.html
Why would I do that?
I am not the one defending racism, you will have to ask JR for that - he is the one who is cheerleading for Mr. Race Card.
QuoteThe police report said that when Crowley walked out of the home, Gates followed and continued to accuse the officer of racism. Crowley then handcuffed him.
The photo of him handcuffed shows him standing on his porch. It doesn't seem that he actually followed the policeman off his property. Also there are three policeman and the report says he followed one out of his house. It intimated that only one policeman was here at this point. And in any case, the 'offence' would therefore have been committed after reinforcements had arrived, suggesting he was already accused of causing trouble. The police report doesn't match the sequence of events
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 09:08:42 AM
Why dear god why? One arrest with dropped charges hardly seems worthy of a Presidential statement.
Sure, it's not necessary, but we should hardly fault a politician for actually saying what's on his mind.
The police report is quite clear that Gates never left his porch. The arresting officer states he had to climb back up the stairs and up onto the porch in order to arrest Gates. The second officer who filed a report also stated that Gates remained on his porch while making the alleged statements.
Gates uses a cane to walk around - the idea of him chasing a police officer down stairs and onto the street would be amusing if not for the circumstances.
Quote from: swallow on July 23, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
QuoteThe police report said that when Crowley walked out of the home, Gates followed and continued to accuse the officer of racism. Crowley then handcuffed him.
The photo of him handcuffed shows him standing on his porch. It doesn't seem that he actually followed the policeman off his property. Also there are three policeman and the report says he followed one out of his house. It intimated that only one policeman was here at this point. And in any case, the 'offence' would therefore have been committed after reinforcements had arrived, suggesting he was already accused of causing trouble. The police report doesn't match the sequence of events
I don't think that follows we don't know why reinforcements arrived - could be they were just responding to the original call.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
The police report is quite clear that Gates never left his porch. The arresting officer states he had to climb back up the stairs and up onto the porch in order to arrest Gates. The second officer who filed a report also stated that Gates remained on his porch while making the alleged statements.
Gates uses a cane to walk around - the idea of him chasing a police officer down stairs and onto the street would be amusing if not for the circumstances.
How is this relevant? Is it ok for him to play the race card and accuse officers who are there trying to help him of being racists and threaten them as long as he doesn't step off of his porch to do so?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2009, 06:08:18 PM
Silly maybe, but proper within the definition of the charge.
He was disturbing the public peace
It has been established by now that both those statements are wrong.
How so? Dropping charges doesn't qualify.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:25:31 AM
It is also clear from the report that while the officer walked out of the house down the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates never left the porch of the house.
It's still outside.
I love the argument that there was no reason to suspect Crowley is a racist when Gates went on his tirade and called him a racist, but it turns out he was lucky and Crowley actually was a racist after all, because he arrested Gates for going on a tirade, which he would only do if in fact he was really a racist!
It is like in Naked Gun when he is getting the award for killing his 200th drug dealer, and he mentions that that last two were just luck - he accidentally backed over them with his car, and they just happened to be drug dealers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
I suspect that race may have played a role in the officer's actions. That suspicion is based on the difficulty I have imagining that in situation involving white persons of similar prominence in that community - such as the Mayor of the city or Justice Breyer - that the officer would have arrested that individual, cuffed him on the porch of his house, and then detained him in custody for 4-5 hours. And so far, no one in this thread has suggested that the latter is a realistically imaginable scenario.
That's not really a good analogy. Even the densest cop would know he should treat the mayor with kid gloves. An academic, otoh, would be considered just another random civilian, albeit one who lived in a nice neighborhood.
Some local links from the Boston media.
First link is from a blog but it has the police report; can't verify if it's valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/23/boston-globe-scrubs-henry-louis-gates-arrest-report-website
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/officer_in_gate.html
Officer in Gates case says he won't apologize
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/birth_of_a_flashpoint_gatess_neighbor_captured_the_moment/
Gates's neighbor captured the moment
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/friends_say_skip_gates_rides_no_high_horse/
Professor is down-to-earth, friends say
Interesting. FYI, Reggie Lewis was a basketball player who collapsed and died on the court (forget whether it was an actual game or what). He also happened to be black. :cool:
QuoteOfficer in Henry Gates flap tried to save Reggie Lewis
Denies he's a racist, won't apologize
Thursday, July 23, 2009 - Updated 0m ago
The Cambridge cop prominent Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. claims is a racist gave a dying Reggie Lewis mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in a desperate bid to save the Celtics [team stats] superstar's life 16 years ago Monday.
"I wasn't working on Reggie Lewis the basketball star. I wasn't working on a black man. I was working on another human being," Sgt. James Crowley, in an exclusive interview with the Herald, said of the forward's fatal heart attack July 27, 1993, at age 27 during an off-season practice at Brandeis University, where Crowley was a campus police officer.
It's a date Crowley still can recite by rote - and he still recalls the pain he suffered when people back then questioned whether he had done enough to save the black athlete.
"Some people were saying 'There's the guy who killed Reggie Lewis' afterward. I was broken-hearted. I cried for many nights," he said.
Crowley, 42, said he's not a racist, despite how some have cast his actions in the Gates case. "Those who know me know I'm not," he said.
Yesterday, Lewis' widow, Donna Lewis, was floored to learn the embattled father of three on the thin blue line of a national debate on racism in America was the same man so determined to rescue her husband.
"That's incredible," Lewis, 44, exclaimed. "It's an unfortunate situation. Hopefully, it can resolve itself. The most important thing is peace."
Gates, 58, an acclaimed scholar on black history and a PBS documentarian, went on the attack against Crowley on Tuesday, demanding he apologize for arresting him for disorderly conduct last Thursday while investigating a reported break-in at his home. Gates, returning from a trip, was seen by a Malden woman trying to force his front door open. Police alleged he initially refused to identify himself.
Though he harbors no "ill feelings toward the professor," a calm, resolute Crowley said no mea culpa will be forthcoming.
"I just have nothing to apologize for," he said. "It will never happen."
Attorney Charles Ogletree, Gates' close friend and fellow Harvard savant, told the Herald, "It's regrettable and unfortunate that the officer feels that way, and I do hope that some progress will be made in healing this wound."
Gates, who upon his arrest allegedly bellowed to a gathering crowd on Ware Street, "This is what happens to black men in America!" believes he was targeted by Crowley - whom he called a "rogue" cop - because of his race.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas, with Gates attorney Walter Prince's consent, agreed Tuesday to drop the charge of disorderly conduct, calling the incident "an unfortunate set of circumstances."
Crowley, an 11-year veteran of the force, oversees the evidence room, paid details and records unit. He also coaches youth basketball, baseball and softball.
Joseph McDonald, a former director of public safety at Brandeis, said Crowley was "a real pro," calling Gates' racial profiling charge "strange."
"You just do the job as a cop. You don't look at the color of skin. You're just trying to help people," said McDonald, 57.
So you are saying this officer, who is a known racist, was present at the death of Reggie Lewis?
Interesting...
Also in the local news is info that Prof Gate's neighborhood has had a number of recent burglaries, 8 or 9 in the area. Those burglaries were in the daytime, with doors forced open, according to one article I read in the paper. And that Gate's house was hit also. He supposedly even mentioned that to the cop, saying that was why he couldn't lock his door. So the professor maybe should instead have been happy, and understood quite well, why a cop responded to a burglary call and started asking questions.
Quote from: KRonn on July 23, 2009, 12:26:39 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/friends_say_skip_gates_rides_no_high_horse/
Professor is down-to-earth, friends say
Yeah, I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread that I'd only heard really good things about Gates. One of my workstudy students either had him for a class or had friends that had, and after we had a forum with Cornel West (who was awesome, BTW) we somehow got to talking about Gates, who she said was 'really cool' and 'really funny'... stuff like that.
It seems like a misunderstanding between two well meaning people.
Pity it got this negative national press.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 12:53:43 PM
It seems like a misunderstanding between two well meaning people.
Pity it got this negative national press.
International, even, this is a lead story on the BBC and Le Monde's on line sites.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 12:53:43 PM
It seems like a misunderstanding between two well meaning people.
Pity it got this negative national press.
Wouldn't it be awesome if Gates apologized for being a douchebag?
Not likely, seems like no matter how nice a guy he is, he has a double helping of pride.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 23, 2009, 12:55:19 PM
International, even, this is a lead story on the BBC and Le Monde's on line sites.
*sigh*
Could this nothing story be more overblown?
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2009, 12:50:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 23, 2009, 12:26:39 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/friends_say_skip_gates_rides_no_high_horse/
Professor is down-to-earth, friends say
Yeah, I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread that I'd only heard really good things about Gates. One of my workstudy students either had him for a class or had friends that had, and after we had a forum with Cornel West (who was awesome, BTW) we somehow got to talking about Gates, who she said was 'really cool' and 'really funny'... stuff like that.
Yeah, but hearing him speak on the local news, and then demanding that the officer BEG forgiveness, has left me feeling a bit otherwise about the illustrious professor.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 12:53:43 PM
It seems like a misunderstanding between two well meaning people.
Pity it got this negative national press.
Agreed. Talk about blowing something out of proportion.
But hey at least being in the local area, I might get to see Al Sharpton, Rev Jackson or others marching and demonstrating. :cool:
Just hope they don't snarl up traffic too much. :mad:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32092715/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
White House qualifies Obama 'stupidly' remark
White officer who arrested Harvard professor won't apologize over incident
My God, the racism of the Cambridge PD knows no bounds: now they're gunning for the President!
QuoteCrowley's union predicts Obama will regret remarks
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff
The lawyer for the police union that represents Cambridge Sergeant James M. Crowley today predicted that President Obama will regret that he accused department officers of "acting stupidly" when they handcuffed Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. even after he showed proof that he lived in his house.
"He conceded that he didn't have all the facts, and indeed he didn't," Alan J. McDonald, the lawyer for the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, said of the president. "I suspect that when the full picture comes out, he will regret the remarks he made."
Obama, speaking at a nationally televised press conference Wednesday night, said he didn't "know all the facts" about the case and didn't know whether race played a role in the arrest of Gates, who is black, by Crowley, a white officer investigating a burglary report.
But the president added that it is "just a fact" that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police -- evidence "that race remains a factor in our society."
McDonald, the lawyer for the 50-member police union, says he knows Crowley personally and considers him a topnotch officer who behaved appropriately in the Gates arrest.
He said he and members of the union "were disappointed" in Obama's remarks. "I think perhaps the president might have second thoughts about shooting from the hip."
The White House today, meanwhile, backed away slightly from President Obama's remark.
Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling on Air Force One that Obama did not regret the remark during his primetime news conference Wednesday night, but wanted to clarify that he was not calling the arresting officer stupid.
Obama felt "cooler heads on all sides should have prevailed" once the officer realized Gates was in his own home, Gibbs said, according to the Associated Press.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
I suspect that race may have played a role in the officer's actions. That suspicion is based on the difficulty I have imagining that in situation involving white persons of similar prominence in that community - such as the Mayor of the city or Justice Breyer - that the officer would have arrested that individual, cuffed him on the porch of his house, and then detained him in custody for 4-5 hours. And so far, no one in this thread has suggested that the latter is a realistically imaginable scenario.
I'd say neither the Mayor or Justice Breyer, if they are both white as you suggest, would throw the race card around, so therefore it would be nigh impossible for them to have the same incident occur as it did. This whole exercise in alternate history is therefore rendered moot and no more useful than an unexplained Tim map.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 23, 2009, 02:14:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
I suspect that race may have played a role in the officer's actions. That suspicion is based on the difficulty I have imagining that in situation involving white persons of similar prominence in that community - such as the Mayor of the city or Justice Breyer - that the officer would have arrested that individual, cuffed him on the porch of his house, and then detained him in custody for 4-5 hours. And so far, no one in this thread has suggested that the latter is a realistically imaginable scenario.
I'd say neither the Mayor or Justice Breyer, if they are both white as you suggest, would throw the race card around, so therefore it would be nigh impossible for them to have the same incident occur as it did. This whole exercise in alternate history is therefore rendered moot and no more useful than an unexplained Tim map.
Well ... I suppose they could still have said "you don't know who you are dealing with". But I doubt many would express much sympathy for that particular comment. :lol:
If someone who was not black, but a prominent member of society had a temper tantrum and tried to use their position to intimidate a cop, and the cop slapped cuffs on him, everyone would be cheering the cop on.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 02:26:06 PM
If someone who was not black, but a prominent member of society had a temper tantrum and tried to use their position to intimidate a cop, and the cop slapped cuffs on him, everyone would be cheering the cop on.
Lies. ;)
Btw, I think we can all agree that our commander in chief acted deplorably and should have stayed out of this minor squabble. :swiss:
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2009, 02:33:51 PM
Btw, I think we can all agree that our commander in chief acted deplorably and should have stayed out of this minor squabble. :swiss:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: KRonn on July 23, 2009, 12:56:54 PM
Yeah, but hearing him speak on the local news, and then demanding that the officer BEG forgiveness, has left me feeling a bit otherwise about the illustrious professor.
Well it seems likely that his students didn't have a tendency to question his OSSUMness to his face. ;)
Is there anybody here that seriously think the cop was the one on the wrong?
Also, I like that the cop is a "racial profiling expert." Next we'll be hearing from his black friends. ^_^
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 02:44:37 PM
Is there anybody here that seriously think the cop was the one on the wrong?
Yes. :hug:
Although just one of two, as they both played it wrong.
Quote from: garbon
Yes. :hug:
Although just one of two, as they both played it wrong.
You are only saying that because you are black.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 02:44:37 PM
Is there anybody here that seriously think the cop was the one on the wrong?
It's always a bad move to arrest the friend of the President.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2009, 02:45:03 PM
Also, I like that the cop is a "racial profiling expert." Next we'll be hearing from his black friends. ^_^
Since agencies have to go through so much mandatory racial profiling training, all officers are racial profiling experts.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 02:44:37 PM
Is there anybody here that seriously think the cop was the one on the wrong?
Just the gay black guy and his Jewish overlord.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 02:48:51 PM
You are only saying that because you are black.
That's racist, Mr. One Drop Rule. :angry:
I'm simply flabbergasted at what a debacle this whole thing has become. :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2009, 03:02:51 PM
I'm simply flabbergasted at what a debacle this whole thing has become. :blink:
Hope & Change, Motherf***er
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
And CdM well. . . talk about a bad case of racial crisis identity. The dude doesn't know if hes a white man whos black, a black man who is white, or what.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
And CdM well. . . talk about a bad case of racial crisis identity. The dude doesn't know if hes a white man whos black, a black man who is white, or what.
I am all colors to all people. That's what makes me an expert on race.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 11:59:29 AM
How is this relevant? Is it ok for him to play the race card and accuse officers who are there trying to help him of being racists and threaten them as long as he doesn't step off of his porch to do so?
Its relevant to showing that the arrest is totally unjustified.
We seem to be talking past each other. You are focused on Gates' initial response and arguing that he was the "first" to inject race into the equation. I don't dispute that (again under the questinable assumption that the police report is the entire truth), but I don't think its relevant because "you did it first" isn't really a defense to someone's professional conduct. I am focused on the fact of the actual arrest itself.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
But I am not coming to the white cops aid so much as I am attacking Gates for being a dick.
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
But I am not coming to the white cops aid so much as I am attacking Gates for being a dick.
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
He probably felt intimidated and struck out like a cornered asp. I think you see the situation and go "another black man crying racist!" and attack from that angle. Have you even bothered to try to look at the situation from Gates side and thought perhaps he felt threatened by this white police officer (given where he lives, I think it is an understandable fear).
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 02:16:09 PM
Well ... I suppose they could still have said "you don't know who you are dealing with". But I doubt many would express much sympathy for that particular comment. :lol:
they certainly could have and once the officer realized who the person was, he wouldn't have arrested them. period.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
he didn't have to kiss any ass. He just had to get into his squad car and drive off without arresting the man on a trumped-up charge. Incident over, and at worst it makes the police blotter and page 7 of the campus newspaper.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
But I am not coming to the white cops aid so much as I am attacking Gates for being a dick.
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
Why is he "eminent"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:37:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
he didn't have to kiss any ass. He just had to get into his squad car and drive off without arresting the man on a trumped-up charge. Incident over, and at worst it makes the police blotter and page 7 of the campus newspaper.
Letting some douchebag treat you like shit when you are there to help him and running away when he threatens you might have been the smart move, but I don't fault him for not taking it.
Of course, Gates didn't have to be a race-baiting dickhead, but he went ahead with it anyway, and is now playing it for every instant of media attention he can get. The sad thing is that people are actually defending him.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
But I am not coming to the white cops aid so much as I am attacking Gates for being a dick.
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
He probably felt intimidated and struck out like a cornered asp.
He was intimidated that a police officer would ask him for ID?
I think he was just cranky and pissed off, and decided he would take it out on the cracker who had the audacity to ask him who he was and what he was doing.
He is a Grade A asshole. The kind of guy who is probably a great friend to those he considers his peers, but treats anyone he thinks of as lower in the social structure like shit. The best way to treat this white officer like shit was to whip out the race card the instant he asked for ID, so that is what he did.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
Letting some douchebag treat you like shit when you are there to help him and running away when he threatens you might have been the smart move, but I don't fault him for not taking it.
While Gates did need help into his house, the police arrived too late to be of assistance. :(
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:33:52 PM
Have you even bothered to try to look at the situation from Gates side and thought perhaps he felt threatened by this white police officer (given where he lives, I think it is an understandable fear).
It is easy to imagine myself in his shoes. What isn't easy is imagining myself throwing a tempter tantrum because someone asks me for ID - that I cannot understand. In fact, I think in his shoes I would thank the officer for responding, especially since my house had been burglarized in the past.
I certainly would not start right in with "I am being oppressed!"
At least we have moved from "OMG THE COP IS TEH RACIST!!!!" to just bitching that he over-reacted to Gates being a complete dickwad.
That is progress.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
He is a Grade A asshole. The kind of guy who is probably a great friend to those he considers his peers, but treats anyone he thinks of as lower in the social structure like shit.
You know all that from this one incident?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
He is a Grade A asshole. The kind of guy who is probably a great friend to those he considers his peers, but treats anyone he thinks of as lower in the social structure like shit.
You know all that from this one incident?
I said probably!
But it does seem likely - of course, you were able to determine that the cop was a racist from a lot less information. Probably.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:47:24 PM
At least we have moved from "OMG THE COP IS TEH RACIST!!!!" to just bitching that he over-reacted to Gates being a complete dickwad.
That is progress.
No we haven't. SuperJew and some of the others just haven't chimed in recently.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
Letting some douchebag treat you like shit when you are there to help him and running away when he threatens you might have been the smart move
it's not the "smart move," it is the only move for a public officer of the law in the line of duty. The badge doesn't empower you to make arrests because your sense of dignity has been affronted.
That's the key difference here - Gates is just an ordinary, and rather citizen, trying to relax in his own house. The officer is a professional law enforcement officer on the clock in the line of duty. A citizen has a constitutional right to be a dick and say mean things. An officer does not have the right to deprive citizens of their liberty -- even temporarily - without sufficient lawful cause.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
He is a Grade A asshole. The kind of guy who is probably a great friend to those he considers his peers, but treats anyone he thinks of as lower in the social structure like shit.
You know all that from this one incident?
Berkut also concluded he was "ultra liberal". He seems to be operating from stereotypes again.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
I said probably!
But it does seem likely - of course, you were able to determine that the cop was a racist from a lot less information. Probably.
We both used the same hedges and we both extrapolated underlying behavior from a single incident. I make no greater claim to accuracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
A citizen has a constitutional right to be a dick and say mean things.
Not out in public within earshot of passersby. Then that is a misdemeanor, and he was charged accordingly.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2009, 03:40:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
This has been overdone yes, but I think Berkut tries too hard to come to the white cops aid. Do you have a white persecution complex or something?
But I am not coming to the white cops aid so much as I am attacking Gates for being a dick.
The cop did his job, and probably should have been a little more kiss ass to the "eminent" scholar. But Gates precipitated the entire confrontation.
Why is he "eminent"
Why, he's director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, that's how.
Now Du Bois, that guy was a dirtbag.
How so?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
A citizen has a constitutional right to be a dick and say mean things.
Not out in public within earshot of passersby. Then that is a misdemeanor, and he was charged accordingly.
Not under Mass law. I don't know how they handle this in Maryland, but if shouting rudely in the earshot of others was sufficient to create criminal liability for disorderly conduct, the cops would have to arrest half the spectators at Camden Yards every game day. And even more when the Yankees come to town.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:55:32 PM
How so?
His admiration for Stalin, communism (IIRC he officially joined up), imperial Japan whilst it was raping China, not to mention his hatred for just about everything white and/or American.
The fact that he happened to be on the right side of some civil rights issues doesn't negate all this, either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:34:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 02:16:09 PM
Well ... I suppose they could still have said "you don't know who you are dealing with". But I doubt many would express much sympathy for that particular comment. :lol:
they certainly could have and once the officer realized who the person was, he wouldn't have arrested them. period.
However, if they did slap the cuffs on him after such a statement, most people would applaud, or even laugh Nelson Muntz style.
"Do you know who I am?!"
"Yeah, you are the guy I'm putting under arrest [snap!]"
Even though, strictly speaking, the arrest would be no more valid than that of the Prof (whom I agree was not "making a public disturbance" according to the accounts).
I think given the time and circumstance he grew up in, you could hardly blame him for these things. Today we would condemn someone with such views, but back then people of color had to look for strength in colored nations just to provide the downtrodden with examples that greatness and power was not exclusively reserved for white nations of the world.
His views are controversial but I hardly think it qualifies him as a dirtbag.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:57:47 PMI don't know how they handle this in Maryland, but if shouting rudely in the earshot of others was sufficient to create criminal liability for disorderly conduct, the cops would have to arrest half the spectators at Camden Yards every game day. And even more when the Yankees come to town.
And well they should, because it does.
Maryland
Quote(c)(1) A person may not willfully and without lawful purpose obstruct or hinder the free passage of another in a public place or on a public conveyance.
(2) A person may not willfully act in a disorderly manner that disturbs the public peace.
(3) A person may not willfully fail to obey a reasonable and lawful order that a law enforcement officer makes to prevent a disturbance to the public peace.
(4) A person who enters the land or premises of another, whether an owner or lessee, or a beach adjacent to residential riparian property, may not willfully:
(i) disturb the peace of persons on the land, premises, or beach by making an unreasonably loud noise; or
(ii) act in a disorderly manner.
(5) A person from any location may not, by making an unreasonably loud noise, willfully disturb the peace of another:
(i) on the other's land or premises;
(ii) in a public place; or
(iii) on a public conveyance.
(6) In Worcester County, a person may not build a bonfire or allow a bonfire to burn on a beach or other property between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.
(d) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 60 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:52:46 PM
I make no greater claim to accuracy.
No, just to moral superiority.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
I think given the time and circumstance he grew up in, you could hardly blame him for these things.
Oh, yes I can. There's no excuse for some of the sympathies he had.
I would love to see a Rashomon type treatment of this.
POLICE VERSION: An unshaven, simian looking Gates shambles to the door smoking a huge joint; in the background a posse of pipe-hitting negros lurk menacingly. Gates, politely, says "sorry to disturb you, Sir, but we had a report of a break in ... ". He gets no further before Gates, in an explosion of profanity and abuse, screams "RASSIS BASTARD!" and threatens to have Obama castrate his first born.
GATES VERSION: He answers the door calmly and politely and the policeman says "Hit the floor Kunta Kinte! Anybody moves in here you're dead!" while an angry white mob outside screams "Lynch him! Hang him high!"
IN BETWEEN VERSION: Two men meet, one is officious the other one a jerk, things get completely out of hand, Gates says things he shouldn't, the officer arrests him when he shouldn't have. It is less about race than personalities, the officer is severely reprimanded and sent to anger management training and Gates is forced to write "I am not Rosa Parks" one hundred times on Twitter.
*adapted from stuff I read on another board
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
I think given the time and circumstance he grew up in, you could hardly blame him for these things.
Oh, yes I can. There's no excuse for some of the sympathies he had.
You can if you put it in the viewpoint of 21st or even late 20th century thought. But a black man growing up in a white world where all the time they hear colored people are a lesser race, not as intelligent as white people, not as good..
First of all, he would look at Japan winning great victories in Asia and say "Look! Here is a perfect example of a non white people establishing a powerful nation" - especially in a time when just about colored nation outside Latin America was owned by European Imperialist powers.
Secondly, Hitler and the whole German Nazi thing might be a black mark to you, or maybe in some ways a source of pride since so many of you seem to not have a Nazi, but a German/Prussian fetish, but to someone who is a minority and a target of what Hitler was preaching against, Stalin being the destroyer of Hitler would make him a hero to some.
I don't buy into the whole communist craze that some people here (you, Berkut to name a couple) seem to froth up about, so I won't go there, but I'm sure you can see how given the circumstances his viewpoints made sense. You don't have to approve of them, but at least don't conden him.
In your eyes, do you think it would be best for blacks to wave American flags and eat apple pie and wait patiently for freedoms? Of course, even given the freedoms gained in the civil rights era there would be some scorn reserved for the system that oppressed blacks for so long.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:23:38 PMYou can if you put it in the viewpoint of 21st or even late 20th century thought. But a black man growing up in a white world where all the time they hear colored people are a lesser race, not as intelligent as white people, not as good..
First of all, he would look at Japan winning great victories in Asia and say "Look! Here is a perfect example of a non white people establishing a powerful nation" - especially in a time when just about colored nation outside Latin America was owned by European Imperialist powers.
Secondly, Hitler and the whole German Nazi thing might be a black mark to you, or maybe in some ways a source of pride since so many of you seem to not have a Nazi, but a German/Prussian fetish, but to someone who is a minority and a target of what Hitler was preaching against, Stalin being the destroyer of Hitler would make him a hero to some.
I don't buy into the whole communist craze that some people here (you, Berkut to name a couple) seem to froth up about, so I won't go there, but I'm sure you can see how given the circumstances his viewpoints made sense. You don't have to approve of them, but at least don't conden him.
In your eyes, do you think it would be best for blacks to wave American flags and eat apple pie and wait patiently for freedoms? Of course, even given the freedoms gained in the civil rights era there would be some scorn reserved for the system that oppressed blacks for so long.
Best troll of the day.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 04:34:08 PM
Best troll of the day.
You think so? I'm kind of bored with Jaron's racial studies professor schtick. :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:52:46 PM
I make no greater claim to accuracy.
No, just to moral superiority.
I try to play to my strengths. :goodboy:
If the subject involved the merits of various rope tensile strengths for achieving the best bondage experiences, I would defer to you.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
I don't buy into the whole communist craze that some people here (you, Berkut to name a couple) seem to froth up about,
I'm shocked.
Quoteso I won't go there, but I'm sure you can see how given the circumstances his viewpoints made sense.
No.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:52:46 PM
I make no greater claim to accuracy.
No, just to moral superiority.
I try to play to my strengths. :goodboy:
If the subject involved the merits of various rope tensile strengths for achieving the best bondage experiences, I would defer to you.
Now you're just patronizing.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
His admiration for Stalin, communism (IIRC he officially joined up), imperial Japan whilst it was raping China, not to mention his hatred for just about everything white and/or American.
The fact that he happened to be on the right side of some civil rights issues doesn't negate all this, either.
I do agree that towards the end of his life he went a little nuts.
However the really messed up thing he did was convince Black America to support Woodrow Wilson...whoops.
re: DuBois' Bolshevism: not that big of a deal.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
I think given the time and circumstance he grew up in, you could hardly blame him for these things.
Oh, yes I can. There's no excuse for some of the sympathies he had.
There's no excuse for lots of sympathies people have. For instance you and G. Gordon Liddy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 09:25:31 AM
Could you provide a quotation and a source? According to the police report, the officer invited to come outside to speak with him further. It is also clear from the report that while the officer walked out of the house down the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates never left the porch of the house.
Sure, right after you post the transcript I asked for.
QuoteSo any source you have read that indicates Gates "chased" after the officer is mistaken.
Perhaps. But your say-so doesn't make it so.
QuoteWell the police report contains various verbatim statements he is alleged to have made. These consist of the following:
"Why, because I am a black man in America?"
"I'll speak with your mama outside"
"You don't know who you are messing with"
"I am disabled" [and cannot walk without my cane]
"This is what happens to Black men in America"
The report also indicates that Gates accused the officer of being racist but does not recount any other specific words used.
While the statements made by Gates according to the police are not of the sort typically expected in refined discourse, they hardly rise to the level of "verbal assault" - whatever the hell that is supposed to be. I hear a lot worse by people trying to get on and off the subway just about every day.
Not sure what "verbal assault" has to do with anything. You have left out, BTW, some of the verbatim words of Gates and added some that were not in the police report http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF)
The police officer claims (and this is, insofar as I know, uncontested, that he twice warned Gates that he was engaged in disorderly conduct, but Gates ignored him. While one might argue that even warning Gates was unwise, as the grounds for arrest were two flimsy, it says a lot about Gates's state of mind that he continued his harangue even after the warnings.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 05:53:32 PMThe police officer claims (and this is, insofar as I know, uncontested, that he twice warned Gates that he was engaged in disorderly conduct, but Gates ignored him. While one might argue that even warning Gates was unwise, as the grounds for arrest were two flimsy, it says a lot about Gates's state of mind that he continued his harangue even after the warnings.
We always let them know where they were headed if they kept it up.
I used to count to 5 with them. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it aggravated them even more. In which case, I counted faster. To 3.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
Not out in public within earshot of passersby. Then that is a misdemeanor, and he was charged accordingly.
What JR is saying is that it is unprofessional to enforce some particular laws. Some cops would agree.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 06:07:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
Not out in public within earshot of passersby. Then that is a misdemeanor, and he was charged accordingly.
What JR is saying is that it is unprofessional to enforce some particular laws. Some cops would agree.
I said there was a difference between a proper arrest and a necessary one. Proper, but may not have been necessary--that is, until he wouldn't shut the fuck up and kept making an assclown of himself on the front porch.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2009, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
He is a Grade A asshole. The kind of guy who is probably a great friend to those he considers his peers, but treats anyone he thinks of as lower in the social structure like shit.
You know all that from this one incident?
I agree with Berkut.
That's the way Gates come across.
1) Gates was inmidiately hostile to the cop, that's there to protect society, which to me means that Gates doesn't see himself as part of this society, since the US is "white dominated".
2) Gates reaction was that of the aristocrat asked for ID by a lowly peasant. He clearly sees himself as part of the intellectual aristocracy. The intellectual liberal elite that knows best.
Jewfight?
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:55:32 PM
How so?
His admiration for Stalin, communism (IIRC he officially joined up), imperial Japan whilst it was raping China, not to mention his hatred for just about everything white and/or American.
The fact that he happened to be on the right side of some civil rights issues doesn't negate all this, either.
Whoa, are you serious?
Gates is a commie??
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 06:13:28 PM
I said there was a difference between a proper arrest and a necessary one. Proper, but may not have been necessary--that is, until he wouldn't shut the fuck up and kept making an assclown of himself on the front porch.
I was talking with the ex-head of the local sheriff's department (he wasn't the sheriff, he was the head professional deputy) and he said he would never make a DC arrest - if he didn't have anything better, he would let it go.
You don't have to make an arrest just because you can. Gates was in the wrong, according to even his side of the story, but not so far in the wrong as to need the force of the justice machinery to be brought to bear. Once the cop threatened arrest, though, he probably thought he needed to follow through (especially with the other cops there).
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
I think given the time and circumstance he grew up in, you could hardly blame him for these things.
Can I use this argument to defend myself when you accusse me of things I haven't done?
Or is it only reserved for blacks?
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:55:32 PM
How so?
His admiration for Stalin, communism (IIRC he officially joined up), imperial Japan whilst it was raping China, not to mention his hatred for just about everything white and/or American.
The fact that he happened to be on the right side of some civil rights issues doesn't negate all this, either.
Whoa, are you serious?
Gates is a commie??
Damn you are stupid.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 06:58:41 PM
Whoa, are you serious?
Gates is a commie??
:picard:
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 04:17:27 PM
I would love to see a Rashomon type treatment of this.
I loved that movie. Haven't seen it in many years.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2009, 07:08:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 03:55:32 PM
How so?
His admiration for Stalin, communism (IIRC he officially joined up), imperial Japan whilst it was raping China, not to mention his hatred for just about everything white and/or American.
The fact that he happened to be on the right side of some civil rights issues doesn't negate all this, either.
Whoa, are you serious?
Gates is a commie??
Damn you are stupid.
But you'll never dare tell me that to my face.
Can somebody please, in 100 words or less, explain to me why I should get my panties in a bunch about some Harvard professor that makes six figures a year goading some cop that, at best, has a bachelor's in Criminal Justice & makes $40K or $50K a year into getting pissed off & arresting him?
Hell, I flunked out of college after my second freshman year and I could walk out my front door right now & piss off a cop to the point of arresting me within ten minutes. I'm not sure how successful I would be with subsequently getting the charges dropped, though...
:(
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 07:16:09 PM
Why?
They were talking about W.E.B. DuBois, not Gates.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
I was talking with the ex-head of the local sheriff's department (he wasn't the sheriff, he was the head professional deputy) and he said he would never make a DC arrest - if he didn't have anything better, he would let it go.
He lied to you. Every cop needs a "mopery" charge they can break the glass for in the event of an asshole emergency.
QuoteYou don't have to make an arrest just because you can. Gates was in the wrong, according to even his side of the story, but not so far in the wrong as to need the force of the justice machinery to be brought to bear. Once the cop threatened arrest, though, he probably thought he needed to follow through (especially with the other cops there).
Bah, he's a sergeant and supervisor, he doesn't have to do anything to look cool for the cool kids. When the sergeant shows up, he's usually the one to decide who goes to jail anyway.
[/quote]
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 23, 2009, 04:38:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 04:34:08 PM
Best troll of the day.
You think so? I'm kind of bored with Jaron's racial studies professor schtick. :mellow:
I've been over the top before, yes, but I think judging minorities of the past who had to deal with situations like this through the lens of the modern world is silly. Of course, coming from derspiess I probably shouldn't be surprised. He has admitted on more than one occasion to being a racist and not at all ashamed of it.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 07:15:52 PM
But you'll never dare tell me that to my face.
No shit. I don't go outside. Idiot.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
He has admitted on more than one occasion to being a racist and not at all ashamed of it.
:lol: When was that?
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
He has admitted on more than one occasion to being a racist and not at all ashamed of it.
:lol: When was that?
Maybe he's confusing you with Slargos.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
He has admitted on more than one occasion to being a racist and not at all ashamed of it.
:lol: When was that?
Several times in our past exchanges. I'd link you to it, but unfortunately all those threads are now lost. Unless vm can restore them in the future, in which case I'll gladly pull your skeletons out of the closet.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 11:45:48 PM
Several times in our past exchanges. I'd link you to it, but unfortunately all those threads are now lost. Unless vm can restore them in the future, in which case I'll gladly pull your skeletons out of the closet.
Dang. Evidence of my racism: lost to the ages :(
Feel free to paraphrase, though. I'm sure you can think of something.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 01:10:01 AM
Feel free to paraphrase, though. I'm sure you can think of something.
" I hate black people."--derspiess, 2006
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 06:46:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 01:10:01 AM
Feel free to paraphrase, though. I'm sure you can think of something.
" I hate black people."--derspiess, 2006
Also, "Hispanic wimmin are CRAZEEEEEEE" -- derspiess, pretty much daily for the past several years :D
It's kind of hard to level anti-Hispanic claims against spiess. :lol:
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 11:45:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
He has admitted on more than one occasion to being a racist and not at all ashamed of it.
:lol: When was that?
Several times in our past exchanges. I'd link you to it, but unfortunately all those threads are now lost. Unless vm can restore them in the future, in which case I'll gladly pull your skeletons out of the closet.
Jaron, you could have quoted 'Blade Runner' and missed the opportunity? Shame on you, man...
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 06:55:09 AM
Jaron, you could have quoted 'Blade Runner' and missed the opportunity? Shame on you, man...
:unsure: spiess is like tears in rain? Time to die?
I agree Berkut. We can't maintain a civilized society if men like Gates are allowed to behave so inappropriately. The negro needs to be kept in his place. Bravo, sergeant.
The one upside to this whole debacle is that Obama will remain distracted for the next week and won't be capable of ramming his health care scam down our throats.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 07:14:24 AM
I agree Berkut. We can't maintain a civilized society if men like Gates are allowed to behave so inappropriately. The negro needs to be kept in his place.
Fate, I just want to let you know that I ever had a chance to lock you up, I would've treated your worse than any black man. Egalitarian enough for you?
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 07:14:24 AM
The one upside to this whole debacle is that Obama will remain distracted for the next week and won't be capable of ramming his health care scam down our throats.
Yep, this did a number on Pres Obama's speech on health care, took the wind right out of it. Instead his comments on this Cambridge issue are what's being talked about.
Today in the news the Cambridge police are asking city officials for permission to release the tapes of the incident.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
Fate, I just want to let you know that I ever had a chance to lock you up, I would've treated your worse than any black man. Egalitarian enough for you?
Please don't feed the troll. If he gets hungry, he will leave to find another bridge.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 07:14:24 AM
I agree Berkut. We can't maintain a civilized society if men like Gates are allowed to behave so inappropriately. The negro needs to be kept in his place.
Fate, I just want to let you know that I ever had a chance to lock you up, I would've treated your worse than any black man. Egalitarian enough for you?
The doormen wouldn't allow a person of your standing into the building.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 07:23:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
Fate, I just want to let you know that I ever had a chance to lock you up, I would've treated your worse than any black man. Egalitarian enough for you?
Please don't feed the troll. If he gets hungry, he will leave to find another bridge.
What other bridge has angry, white, middle-aged men at 7:28 AM? I guess there's always redstate.com, but they tend to instantly ban anyone who breaks the GOPtard meme. Plus you have to wait a few days before you get posting privileges. :(
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 07:22:58 AM
Today in the news the Cambridge police are asking city officials for permission to release the tapes of the incident.
Permission won't be granted, as the mayor sided with Gates (and probably not coincidentally, is African-American) and she won't want to end up looking stupid.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 07:31:18 AM
Permission won't be granted, as the mayor sided with Gates (and probably not coincidentally, is African-American) and she won't want to end up looking stupid.
Doesn't matter; vids are released all the time, and regardless of the actions of the suspect, the general population and its ignorance of police procedure, law and overall assmonkeyness will always side with the suspect.
EVEN DOH HE STABBED DAT PO-LICE DEY DINT HAFFTA SHOOT DAT BOY
:lmfao: Something like that happened in Louisville a year or so ago. Some dude from da hood was high and pulled a gun on cops, who promptly filled him with lead, and his family was all IT BE RACIDISS that he was killed. I guess the cops should have allowed themselves to be killed. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 07:37:50 AMI guess the cops should have allowed themselves to be killed. :(
The Fates, Martinuses and Joan Robinsons of the world would prefer it. Law enforcement and its premium placed on tactical control and authority affects their sense of fair play.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 07:41:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 07:37:50 AMI guess the cops should have allowed themselves to be killed. :(
The Fates, Martinuses and Joan Robinsons of the world would prefer it. Law enforcement and its premium placed on tactical control and authority affects their sense of fair play.
In the Famartinsky world, the negro wouldn't have had a firearm in the first place. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 06:51:28 AM
It's kind of hard to level anti-Hispanic claims against spiess. :lol:
Inmunidad :contract:
The article does give Gate's account of things also.
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. Also, Gates refuses to say if anyone else is inside; again, the cop is newly arrived and trying to get a handle on who might be around, and any danger. Gates just screwed up so bad in his handling of things, his mind so fixated on racism that the cop couldn't even do his job of protecting Gates if there was a burglar inside, who may have gotten there prior to Gates.
Gates complains the cop followed him when he went to get his ID. Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice? Even if the cop figures that Gates is not a problem, the cop still has to make sure there's not a problem there, that maybe even Gates isn't aware of as yet.
That's my take, just hearing some cops on the news talk about these things. It remains to be seen if Officer Crowley was abusive or out of line in his dealings. But I feel Prof Gates at least erred in what could have been a dangerous situation that he should have let the cop get a handle on for all of their safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122233/ns/today-today_people/
Officer rebuts Gates' account of arrest incident
Cop says he didn't want to take 'such drastic action,' but Gates 'provoked'
Still waiting to hear from the "Crowley is TEH RACIST!" club what he did that provoked Gates into refusing to cooperate.
I hope they release the video.
In that case it still wouldn't have been 'released'. ^_^
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 06:07:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
Not out in public within earshot of passersby. Then that is a misdemeanor, and he was charged accordingly.
What JR is saying is that it is unprofessional to enforce some particular laws. Some cops would agree.
Not exactly - I am saying that some laws would be unconstitutional if they were enforced in the way CDM suggests they be enforced, which is why every state has case law with respect to these kinds of statutes that strictly limit their application.
Of course, unprofessional officers can still use them as convenient excuses to harass or temporarily jail people they don't like.
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. . . .Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice?
How many B&Es are committed by 60 year men who need a cane to walk? This is kind of hard to swallow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2009, 07:27:45 PM
He lied to you. Every cop needs a "mopery" charge they can break the glass for in the event of an asshole emergency.
There is something to that. But the key word here is "emergency". Not "asshole"
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
The article does give Gate's account of things also.
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. Also, Gates refuses to say if anyone else is inside; again, the cop is newly arrived and trying to get a handle on who might be around, and any danger. Gates just screwed up so bad in his handling of things, his mind so fixated on racism that the cop couldn't even do his job of protecting Gates if there was a burglar inside, who may have gotten there prior to Gates.
Gates complains the cop followed him when he went to get his ID. Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice? Even if the cop figures that Gates is not a problem, the cop still has to make sure there's not a problem there, that maybe even Gates isn't aware of as yet.
That's my take, just hearing some cops on the news talk about these things. It remains to be seen if Officer Crowley was abusive or out of line in his dealings. But I feel Prof Gates at least erred in what could have been a dangerous situation that he should have let the cop get a handle on for all of their safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122233/ns/today-today_people/
Officer rebuts Gates' account of arrest incident
Cop says he didn't want to take 'such drastic action,' but Gates 'provoked'
Only question is
did Gates let him in? If he didn't, then he's absolutely right that the cop shouldn't have been in there without a warrant.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 07:14:24 AM
I agree Berkut. We can't maintain a civilized society if men like Gates are allowed to behave so inappropriately. The negro needs to be kept in his place. Bravo, sergeant.
Oh. Hooray. reinforcements.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. . . .Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice?
How many B&Es are committed by 60 year men who need a cane to walk? This is kind of hard to swallow.
I don't know - do you?
Did Crowley know what was going on? For all he knows the guy has an ccomplice inside - there were two suspects reported on the call. For all he knows there is someone else in the house, and the old crazy guy going off about racism has no idea.
Crowley doesn't know what is going on. What he does know is that Gates is uncooperative, and acting erratically. He isn't going to let him go wandering off out of site.
Crowley repeatedly tried to calm the situation down and restore some measure of control. Gates resisted that, and instead went off on his "black man in america/racism" tirade.
What I find hard to swallow is the idea that simply asking a black guy for ID is inherently racist.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2009, 09:55:10 AM
Only question is did Gates let him in? If he didn't, then he's absolutely right that the cop shouldn't have been in there without a warrant.
Are you sure about that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. . . .Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice?
How many B&Es are committed by 60 year men who need a cane to walk? This is kind of hard to swallow.
As I said, regardless who the cop thinks Gates is, the cop doesn't know who else is inside, or if Gates or the cops may be in danger from those possibly inside. Cop is trying to get control of the situation, as makes sense, after receiving a burglary call.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2009, 09:55:10 AM
Only question is did Gates let him in? If he didn't, then he's absolutely right that the cop shouldn't have been in there without a warrant.
Wait a second--if a neighbor reports people breaking into my house, a cop shows up and sees someone who might be a burglar there, I don't want the cop going to get a warrant because the potential burglar wouldn't let him in.
This story really should just go away. It is minor in the grand scheme of things and is now overshadowing health care reform.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2009, 09:55:10 AM
Only question is did Gates let him in? If he didn't, then he's absolutely right that the cop shouldn't have been in there without a warrant.
"exigent circumstances" - he has reason to believe a burglary may be in process.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2009, 09:55:10 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
The article does give Gate's account of things also.
The cop first asked him to come outside, which would be to get Gates out of danger from anyone else inside. That makes sense given the cop is responding to a burglary call. Also, Gates refuses to say if anyone else is inside; again, the cop is newly arrived and trying to get a handle on who might be around, and any danger. Gates just screwed up so bad in his handling of things, his mind so fixated on racism that the cop couldn't even do his job of protecting Gates if there was a burglar inside, who may have gotten there prior to Gates.
Gates complains the cop followed him when he went to get his ID. Well, would a cop let an unknown person in what could be a dangerous situation, go into another room alone? To get a weapon or an accomplice? Even if the cop figures that Gates is not a problem, the cop still has to make sure there's not a problem there, that maybe even Gates isn't aware of as yet.
That's my take, just hearing some cops on the news talk about these things. It remains to be seen if Officer Crowley was abusive or out of line in his dealings. But I feel Prof Gates at least erred in what could have been a dangerous situation that he should have let the cop get a handle on for all of their safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122233/ns/today-today_people/
Officer rebuts Gates' account of arrest incident
Cop says he didn't want to take 'such drastic action,' but Gates 'provoked'
Only question is did Gates let him in? If he didn't, then he's absolutely right that the cop shouldn't have been in there without a warrant.
Why would the cop need a warrant, responding to a burglary call and trying to assess the situation, and see to the safety of civilians and cops in the area?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2009, 10:00:58 AM
This story really should just go away. It is minor in the grand scheme of things and is now overshadowing health care reform.
It's been badly played by the President. He should never have publicly weighed in on a matter involving a personal friend of his. Doing that - and immediately backpedeling - has had the worst possible effect.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 09:59:01 AM
Did Crowley know what was going on? For all he knows the guy has an ccomplice inside - there were two suspects reported on the call. For all he knows there is someone else in the house, and the old crazy guy going off about racism has no idea.
That an interesting theory -- except that the officer never bothered to look around to see if anyone else was present. If there was sufficient exigent circumstances to enter in the first place, it would also be sufficient to do that.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 10:03:56 AM
It's been badly played by the President. He should never have publicly weighed in on a matter involving a personal friend of his. Doing that - and immediately backpedeling - has had the worst possible effect.
Yep Obama has been pretty good at being careful with his public pronouncements. Even if Gate's situation is exactly as he portrays it I think Obama's speaking out publicly was a mistake.
That's what happens when your teleprompter dies before its time. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 10:05:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 09:59:01 AM
Did Crowley know what was going on? For all he knows the guy has an ccomplice inside - there were two suspects reported on the call. For all he knows there is someone else in the house, and the old crazy guy going off about racism has no idea.
That an interesting theory -- except that the officer never bothered to look around to see if anyone else was present. If there was sufficient exigent circumstances to enter in the first place, it would also be sufficient to do that.
You sure like second guessing what the police officer did - are you an expert on police procedure when responding to reported burglaries or something?
The officer didn't "Look around" because by the time he could have "looked around" Professor Race-Baiting had already established that he was the home owner and rather clearly wanted him to leave. At that point, is this exigent circumstance still warranting the officer to go stomping through his house while he screams about being oppressed?
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 10:13:28 AM
You sure like second guessing what the police officer did
No on the contrary I am simply pointing out that this ex post explanation of his conduct is inconsistent with what he actually did.
QuoteThe officer didn't "Look around" because by the time he could have "looked around" Professor Race-Baiting had already established that he was the home owner and rather clearly wanted him to leave.
Except that the police report claims otherwise - it claims that Gates initially refused to provide ID and that the officer couldn't verify he was the homeowner. But he made no attempt to determine whether they was someone else dangerous in the house at that time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 10:13:28 AM
You sure like second guessing what the police officer did
No on the contrary I am simply pointing out that this ex post explanation of his conduct is inconsistent with what he actually did.
QuoteThe officer didn't "Look around" because by the time he could have "looked around" Professor Race-Baiting had already established that he was the home owner and rather clearly wanted him to leave.
Except that the police report claims otherwise - it claims that Gates initially refused to provide ID and that the officer couldn't verify he was the homeowner. But he made no attempt to determine whether they was someone else dangerous in the house at that time.
Yes he did, he followed Gates in. That seems like a rather reasonable thing to do. Are you saying that since he, alone, did not immediately do a full search of the entire house (once again leaving Gates alone while he did so), then in fact he could not have been concerned that there was someone else in the house?
He asked for ID, Gates initially refused, then went into the house, and the officer followed him. How does that not follow? Seems rather simple to me. I think you are deconstructing his actions because you MUST find some reason to support your conclusion that he is some kind of secret closet racist, but his actions make perfect sense and his explanation certainly works fine - in fact, it isn't even really necessary, since his actions alone make perfect sense, and I suspect follow normal procedure for a case like this.
He doesn't KNOW there is someone in the house - in fact, he doesn't know much of anything other than there was a reported break in involving two people, and the guy who answered the door is acting erratically and is refusing to cooperate. So he followed him into the house to keep an eye on him.
How does that not match his explanation, or indicate that he is a racist? Are you claiming that if Gates was white, he would have let him out of his site?
The racist in this story is Gates.
Crowley was investigating a burglary in progress called-in by a known witness, at a house that had recently been burglarized. Gates should have simply identified himself, explained that he was the person forcing the door and thanked the officer for looking out for his property.
But Gates could not do that because he is a racist, cop-hating polemicist. His entire professional career is based on propagating the argument that white people oppress blacks. Gates and Obama both owe Crowley an apology.
This doesn't even fit a racial profiling scenario. This wasn't some cop exercising prejudicial discretion to stop a black man for no reason. Crowley was professionally investigating a possible crime in progress.
Obama's immediate and complete repudiation of Crowley is an indication of his own latent racist feelings about white people in general and the activities of cops in particular. Obama is not a post-racial healer; his comments exposed his loyalties. He is a cohort of Jeramiah Wright, Charles Ogletree, Henry Louis Gates Jr. and other divisive, race obsessed, elitist intellectuals.
OMG is Sgt. Leon: RACISS AGAINST HISSELF :mad:
QuoteBlack officer at scholar's home supports arrest
By BOB SALSBERG (AP) – 28 minutes ago
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."
Gates has said he was the victim of racial profiling.
President Barack Obama says the officers "acted stupidly." Lashley called Obama's remark "unfortunate" and said he should be allowed to take it back.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A multiracial group of police officers on Friday stood with the white officer who arrested a prominent black Harvard scholar and asked President Barack Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick to apologize for comments the union leaders called insulting.
Obama said Wednesday that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" during the disorderly conduct arrest of his friend, Henry Louis Gates Jr., in his own home near Harvard University. Gov. Deval Patrick said Gates' arrest was "every black man's nightmare."
Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, said Obama's remarks were "misdirected" and the Cambridge police "deeply resent the implication" that race was a factor in the arrest.
"President Obama said the actions of the CPD were stupid and linked the event to the history of racial profiling in America," O'Connor said. "The facts of the case suggested that the president used the right adjective but directed it to the wrong party."
Officers responded to Gates' home on July 16 after a woman called 911 and said she saw two black men with backpacks trying to force open the front door. The woman, Lucia Whalen, has not responded to repeated attempts for comment.
Gates has said he returned from an overseas trip, found the door jammed, and that he and his driver attempted to force it open. Gates went through the back door and was inside the house on the phone with the property's management company when police arrived.
Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling.
Gates, 58, maintains he turned over identification when asked to do so by the police. He said Crowley arrested him after the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment.
Crowley has refused to apologize, saying he followed protocol.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
QuoteGates, 58, maintains he turned over identification when asked to do so by the police. He said Crowley arrested him after the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment.
Still want to know what treatment he received that indicated racism and justified his unhappiness.
JR? Come on, surely you have
something?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
Incident report.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 01:25:47 PM
OMG is Sgt. Leon: RACISS AGAINST HISSELF :mad:
QuoteBlack officer at scholar's home supports arrest
By BOB SALSBERG (AP) – 28 minutes ago
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."
An obvious self-loathing Uncle Tom, and therefore unqualified to comment on the events he witnessed.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 24, 2009, 01:31:43 PM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
Incident report.
Obviously all lies, because JR says so.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 09:52:35 AM
How many B&Es are committed by 60 year men who need a cane to walk?
Dunno. Unless the answer is "zero" with no possibility of it ever changing, though, it does not matter.
I am kinda surprised by your wide-eyed credulity in this case, JR. You are making silly arguments to dismiss even the possibility that the cop was in the right. Any chance you have a horse in this race?
There is nothing new in the police report aside from a corroborating statement from a witness (who happened to be the person who called in to report the incident). However, if we assume the witness and the other cops all back Officer Crowley up, which appears to be the case, it does make Gates look EXTREMELY bad, as he specifically denied that he said some of the things in the report, such as calling the officer a racist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2009, 10:31:32 AM
Except that the police report claims otherwise ... he made no attempt to determine whether they was someone else dangerous in the house at that time.
Can you cite me the line where the officer states that he made (or gates says the officer made)
no attempt to determine whether there was someone else dangerous in the house at the time, or is this just something you are making up?
Oh, and make sure you go on ignoring the cop's testemony that he asked about this, because it would interfere with your argument.
I'm not going to read this entire thread because it's probably the usual dick pulling conest with pages of broken-up quotes.
But, I watched a number of videos of Gates in Africa for one of my classes and I'm not the least bit surprised by all this.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 01:53:46 PM
There is nothing new in the police report aside from a corroborating statement from a witness (who happened to be the person who called in to report the incident). However, if we assume the witness and the other cops all back Officer Crowley up, which appears to be the case, it does make Gates look EXTREMELY bad, as he specifically denied that he said some of the things in the report, such as calling the officer a racist.
My guess is that it went down more or less exactly as the cop said it went down, and Gates is lying; moreover, that the various sources of evidence (911 tapes, other witnesses, etc.) will all tend to prove this.
However, (and this is the big "however"), I still doubt that, strictly speaking, being a lying, yelling, race-card-playing, upper middle class asshole who attempts to intimidate the cops with his 'you don't know what a big man I am' routine -- justifies his arrest.
That being said, he could still lose big in the arena of public opinion if he's seen to be acting the jerk (and demanding apologies for it), and it won't do his friend Obama any good either.
Quote from: Maximus on July 24, 2009, 01:58:04 PM
But, I watched a number of videos of Gates in Africa for one of my classes and I'm not the least bit surprised by all this.
Why? What did he do?
Quote from: Maximus on July 24, 2009, 01:58:04 PM
But, I watched a number of videos of Gates in Africa for one of my classes and I'm not the least bit surprised by all this.
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Richard Roundtree? :unsure:
;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 01:59:55 PM
My guess is that it went down more or less exactly as the cop said it went down, and Gates is lying; moreover, that the various sources of evidence (911 tapes, other witnesses, etc.) will all tend to prove this.
However, (and this is the big "however"), I still doubt that, strictly speaking, being a lying, yelling, race-card-playing, upper middle class asshole who attempts to intimidate the cops with his 'you don't know what a big man I am' routine -- justifies his arrest.
That being said, he could still lose big in the arena of public opinion if he's seen to be acting the jerk (and demanding apologies for it), and it won't do his friend Obama any good either.
Yes, correct. I'm still not sure why he was arrested... being an asshole isn't a crime. I can understand the idea behind arresting someone in this situation for disorderly conduct, though. People can't be seen to be disobeying and disrespecting civil authorities publicly like that. It will further erode what little respect the public already has for law enforcement, which is a real danger in a relatively free society like ours.
No it was Gates. My instructor was a big fan. The videos were of a tour he made of Africa to discover the Real History(TM). It was a fine piece of pan-African revisionism.
There has to be SOME reason for assholes to cooperate with the police when said police are legitimately doing their job.
It's very odd - here, it's the absolute norm to ask for an ID if you're not sure who someone is (even if in uniform) and then it's expected that they wait quietly outside while you close the front door and 'phone to check. It's only the naive who let someone they can't identify 100% into their home.
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:11:43 PM
It's very odd - here, it's the absolute norm to ask for an ID if you're not sure who someone is (even if in uniform) and then it's expected that they wait quietly outside while you close the front door and 'phone to check. It's only the naive who let someone they can't identify 100% into their home.
Are you saying that Gates was not sure if Crowley was really a police officer?
This is new - is Gates making this claim, or are you making it for him? Did Crowley not identify himself as a police officer?
Quote from: Maximus on July 24, 2009, 02:07:57 PM
No it was Gates. My instructor was a big fan. The videos were of a tour he made of Africa to discover the Real History(TM). It was a fine piece of pan-African revisionism.
Levar Burton (aka Geordi Laforge) did something similar on PBS back in the 90s, where he went to see Timbuktu, which turned out to be a major shithole but he nonetheless rationalized it into something great. IIRC, that was the episode (can't remember the series name) where he admired some structure as a "feat of African engineering". Heh.
@ Berkut
He wasn't driving a marked police car. I think we've had people in uniform pretending to be officials. I'm saying the whole thing is odd that the policeman went into Gate's house before showing ID.
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:22:48 PM
@ Berkut
He wasn't driving a marked police car. I think we've had people in uniform pretending to be officials. I'm saying the whole thing is odd that the policeman went into Gate's house before showing ID.
The lengths people will go to excuse this guys behavior.
I've never heard anything about him claiming he was unsure that Crowley was a police officer, or was concerend for his own safety. I don't recall him going ballistic because he thought Crowley was not a cop - rather that he went ballistic because he knew Crowley was a cop, and apparently he hates cops, because they are all out to get the black man.
Whether people pretend to be cops isn't the issue - there is no indication that Gates actions had anything to do with him skeptical of Crowleys identity.
He did keep asking for the policeman's ID. The motives, we can always put into his mouth. But it is odd that the policeman went into the house.
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:27:09 PM
He did keep asking for the policeman's ID
No, he never asked for the cops ID, he asked for his name and badge number so he could report him as a racist out to get black men in America.
At no point has Gates ever said or indicated he had any doubts about Crowleys identity as a police officer.
Christ, you are just making shit up at this point in some desperate attempt to excuse the guy.
The backpedaling continues:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2447761120090724?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
My translation: Obama's staff have now reviewed the tapes & witness statements, realize that the good Prof. was totally lying about how the incident went down, and need to distance him.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Levar Burton (aka Geordi Laforge) did something similar on PBS back in the 90s, where he went to see Timbuktu, which turned out to be a major shithole but he nonetheless rationalized it into something great. IIRC, that was the episode (can't remember the series name) where he admired some structure as a "feat of African engineering". Heh.
I assume you're talking about Reading Rainbow? :huh:
He is an eminent professor of blackosity at Harvard. It is simply not conceivable that he could lie about his racial oppression.
This isn't about him, it is about all the lesser blacks, you know.
He could then 'phone to check the ID. But the policeman followed him into his house when he knew the guy was annoyed. it's very odd. Would you allow someone into your house you didn't know?
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 02:28:46 PM
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:27:09 PM
He did keep asking for the policeman's ID
No, he never asked for the cops ID, he asked for his name and badge number so he could report him as a racist out to get black men in America.
At no point has Gates ever said or indicated he had any doubts about Crowleys identity as a police officer.
Christ, you are just making shit up at this point in some desperate attempt to excuse the guy.
What do you expect derspiess? He'll go over to Africa , exclaim what a shithole the place is, and praise white people for enslaving them and bringing them to more civilized lands? :huh:
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:33:20 PM
He could then 'phone to check the ID. But the policeman followed him into his house when he knew the guy was annoyed. it's very odd. Would you allow someone into your house you didn't know?
But he has never claimed he went inside to phone to check the officers ID. You are just making this up out of whole cloth.
The cop followed him because that is what he was supposed to do, I imagine. As has been pointed out, at that point the cop has no idea who this person is, if he is a criminal, if there are others in the house who could be victims, or any idea what is actually going on. Following him into the house was likely exactly the right thing to do.
If you are going to claim it is "odd" or not the right thing to do, please cite some kind of evidence that police officers should not do that under those circumstances.
And ditch the "Gates didn't know if he was a cop!" angle. Not even Gates is stupid enough to try to sell that.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:35:25 PM
What do you expect derspiess? He'll go over to Africa , exclaim what a shithole the place is, and praise white people for enslaving them and bringing them to more civilized lands? :huh:
Not being a revisionist Pan-African nationalist does not require you to embrace that idea. It is possible to have sane ideas you know.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2009, 02:29:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Levar Burton (aka Geordi Laforge) did something similar on PBS back in the 90s, where he went to see Timbuktu, which turned out to be a major shithole but he nonetheless rationalized it into something great. IIRC, that was the episode (can't remember the series name) where he admired some structure as a "feat of African engineering". Heh.
I assume you're talking about Reading Rainbow? :huh:
No, this was a different show. The more I think of it, it may actually have been Gates's show :blush:
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 02:31:02 PM
He is an eminent professor of blackosity at Harvard. It is simply not conceivable that he could lie about his racial oppression.
This isn't about him, it is about all the lesser blacks, you know.
Heh. :D
Actually, I have a bit of sympathy for the Prof, at least initially. He's a hot-head no doubt, and who hasn't said stuff they later regret in the heat of annoyance?
Thing is, the cop's career is now on the line, in part because of his lies. That I find harder to excuse.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:35:25 PM
What do you expect derspiess? He'll go over to Africa , exclaim what a shithole the place is, and praise white people for enslaving them and bringing them to more civilized lands? :huh:
Not being a revisionist Pan-African nationalist does not require you to embrace that idea. It is possible to have sane ideas you know.
My problem is when Africans look to find pride in Africa - the homeland a great many of them were separated from, a lot of people in the western world slap crazy labels on them as if its sinful they should forsake their birthland for the cultural achievements of their people.
@ Berkut The officer said he heard him use words like 'chief' and such on the 'phone. I suspect we'll find the policeman and witness were lurvers (or perhaps a menage a trois since she is a neighbour) and they set this all up so they can sell the film rights
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 02:38:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 02:31:02 PM
He is an eminent professor of blackosity at Harvard. It is simply not conceivable that he could lie about his racial oppression.
This isn't about him, it is about all the lesser blacks, you know.
Heh. :D
Actually, I have a bit of sympathy for the Prof, at least initially. He's a hot-head no doubt, and who hasn't said stuff they later regret in the heat of annoyance?
Thing is, the cop's career is now on the line, in part because of his lies. That I find harder to excuse.
Yeah, if he had come out the next day and said "You know, in refelction, my actions and words yesterday towards Officer Crowley were ill-considered and unfair. I would like to apologize for being a giant asshole." I would have quite a bit of respect for him. People lose their cool all the time, I know I have.
But to follow up acting like a complete asshole by doubling down on your assholishness by demanding the OTHER guy crawl to you for an apology? Fuck him, he is scum.
It sounds like a grumbler vs Berkut fight to me. ^_^
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:43:44 PM
It sounds like a grumbler vs Berkut fight to me. ^_^
:lol:
A scrap-up between a black man and an Irishman is always going to end with blood all over the floor. ^_^
QuoteGates' legal team argues that authorities are misrepresenting the professor and the officer, and Gates has said he is determined to keep the issue alive despite the charges being dropped.
"This is not about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," he said this week.
Ogletree said Gates may bring forward people who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.
When asked for examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.
"I think you will be hearing much more complex and different perspective on him [Crowley] in the coming days and weeks," Ogletree said, alleging that Crowley "is well-known among people, particularly young people, for some of his police practices."
Gates has no immediate plans to file a lawsuit against the department, the attorney said. Ogletree had said earlier Gates might sue the police
:lol: Classy.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 02:44:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:43:44 PM
It sounds like a grumbler vs Berkut fight to me. ^_^
:lol:
A scrap-up between a black man and an Irishman is always going to end with blood all over the floor. ^_^
Am I the black man or the irishman?
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
QuoteGates' legal team argues that authorities are misrepresenting the professor and the officer, and Gates has said he is determined to keep the issue alive despite the charges being dropped.
"This is not about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," he said this week.
Ogletree said Gates may bring forward people who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.
When asked for examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.
"I think you will be hearing much more complex and different perspective on him [Crowley] in the coming days and weeks," Ogletree said, alleging that Crowley "is well-known among people, particularly young people, for some of his police practices."
Gates has no immediate plans to file a lawsuit against the department, the attorney said. Ogletree had said earlier Gates might sue the police
:lol: Classy.
Hey Gates told him that he should not be messing with him - gotta follow through on a threat like that, and what better way to follow through on the race card threat than to threaten to dredge up some more people who will call him a racist...if necessaty, of course.
Because this is about Gates protecting the lesser black men of America. Like garbon.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:40:43 PM
My problem is when Africans look to find pride in Africa - the homeland a great many of them were separated from, a lot of people in the western world slap crazy labels on them as if its sinful they should forsake their birthland for the cultural achievements of their people.
I think there are ways of celebrating Africa without going all Nazi about it and claiming the glorious achievements of the Black Race surpass all others.
Besides the main reason people slap crazy labels on them is because they tend to go about it as ignorantly as the white people who dress up like Kilts and think their ancestral Scotland is stil like Braveheart or who give money to the IRA. Somebody who knows alot about Africa and is interested in it for its own sake...well that is just called being interested in your heritage and that is different.
Even with the lack of a decent pension and a deferred retirement plan, I am so glad I got out of police work when I did.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2009, 02:50:05 PMor who give money to the IRA.
THEY SAID IT WOULD GO TOWARDS MEDICAL SUPPLIES
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 02:35:25 PM
What do you expect derspiess?
From someone like Gates, I guess that is exactly what I should expect. But from a true scholar/academic/whatever, I would expect a certain measure of objectivity, not rationalization of an empowering myth.
Heh, I like the "I could have calibrated those words differently" from Obama.
Do all politicians *have* to employ such euphemisms? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 02:38:37 PM
Actually, I have a bit of sympathy for the Prof, at least initially. He's a hot-head no doubt, and who hasn't said stuff they later regret in the heat of annoyance?
I agree. I think a lot of this is actually class. And I think it's especially difficult for the black middle class to deal with this sort of thing which is why I think Obama said what he did, Harold Ford Jr. got as annoyed about it as he did and John McWhorter wrote a big article about the interactions of the black community and the police.
I don't think there's anyway the arrest can be justified. It shouldn't cost the guy his job, by any stretch, but it shouldn't have happened and it was stupid.
QuoteFrom someone like Gates, I guess that is exactly what I should expect. But from a true scholar/academic/whatever, I would expect a certain measure of objectivity, not rationalization of an empowering myth.
What do you know of Gates's work? The guy's no Cornel West, he's a genuine academic and one routinely attacked by radical African-American intellectuals as an 'accomodationist'.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2009, 03:11:13 PM
Heh, I like the "I could have calibrated those words differently" from Obama.
Do all politicians *have* to employ such euphemisms? ;)
All of the hotheads who are involved in this non-incident are way too prideful to admit error and/or apologize. ^_^
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
What do you know of Gates's work? The guy's no Cornel West, he's a genuine academic and one routinely attacked by radical African-American intellectuals as an 'accomodationist'.
How DARE YOU slander Cornel West :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
What do you know of Gates's work? The guy's no Cornel West, he's a genuine academic
Not sure what point you're trying to make. I was speaking specifically about his silly conclusion in his Timbuktu documentary. Are you saying I should have expected less from him, based upon him being a 'genuine academic', or more?
Quoteand one routinely attacked by radical African-American intellectuals as an 'accomodationist'.
That may just speak to how far "out there" the radicals are, rather how rational/objective Gates actually is.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
I don't think there's anyway the arrest can be justified. It shouldn't cost the guy his job, by any stretch, but it shouldn't have happened and it was stupid.
The more I hear and see about Gates actions, the more I back away from my original feeling that the arrest was an over-reaction.
I don't care what his academic achievements are or were - that day he acted like a infantile child, and I am surprised you would go to such lengths to excuse his behavior.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
QuoteGates' legal team argues that authorities are misrepresenting the professor and the officer, and Gates has said he is determined to keep the issue alive despite the charges being dropped.
"This is not about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," he said this week.
Ogletree said Gates may bring forward people who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.
When asked for examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.
"I think you will be hearing much more complex and different perspective on him [Crowley] in the coming days and weeks," Ogletree said, alleging that Crowley "is well-known among people, particularly young people, for some of his police practices."
Gates has no immediate plans to file a lawsuit against the department, the attorney said. Ogletree had said earlier Gates might sue the police
:lol: Classy.
Heh.
To paraphrase:
'I got nothing - but I sure hope that some pissed-off students out there have something I can use to tar this guy!'
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
What do you know of Gates's work? The guy's no Cornel West, he's a genuine academic and one routinely attacked by radical African-American intellectuals as an 'accomodationist'.
From what I've read of Gates, his serious scholarship is undoubted and in many ways he's a highly sympathetic figure whose views I in many ways agree with (though anyone involved in "theory" is of course somewhat suspect! :D ).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jul/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation
Which makes it all the more regretable that he's putting all that in jeapardy by acting the ass in public (by that I don't mean being a hot-head in an angry confrontation with the cops - anyone can do that - but by pursuing it after the fact).
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:11:43 PM
It's very odd - here, it's the absolute norm to ask for an ID if you're not sure who someone is (even if in uniform) and then it's expected that they wait quietly outside while you close the front door and 'phone to check. It's only the naive who let someone they can't identify 100% into their home.
Here, it is different when a crime is suspected. Around here, criminals would use your system to vanish out the back door while the police waited quietly outside for the criminals to "confirm the identity" if the police. Criminals may be massively more stupid there, though.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:11:43 PM
It's very odd - here, it's the absolute norm to ask for an ID if you're not sure who someone is (even if in uniform) and then it's expected that they wait quietly outside while you close the front door and 'phone to check. It's only the naive who let someone they can't identify 100% into their home.
Here, it is different when a crime is suspected. Around here, criminals would use your system to vanish out the back door while the police waited quietly outside for the criminals to "confirm the identity" if the police. Criminals may be massively more stupid there, though.
:huh:
Quote from: swallow on July 24, 2009, 02:33:20 PM
He could then 'phone to check the ID. But the policeman followed him into his house when he knew the guy was annoyed. it's very odd. Would you allow someone into your house you didn't know?
Where are you getting these "facts?" Crowley didn't "follow" gates into the house, Gates was inside the house and the front door was broken and unclosable. Nothing odd in the US about a policeman getting a report of a break-in, arriving on the scene to find the door broken in, and entering the premises to investigate.
Remember, we aren't talking about wherever you are from here, we are talking about the US. Cops here are not nearly as naive as they are there, and criminals not so moronic.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 05:04:16 PM
Remember, we aren't talking about wherever you are from here, we are talking about the US. Cops here are not nearly as naive as they are there, and criminals not so moronic.
She's British, either a friend or sock of Mongers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
...It shouldn't cost the guy his job, by any stretch, but it shouldn't have happened and it was stupid.
I agree. Gates has many things to offer the university, despite his bigotry and arrogance.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
...It shouldn't cost the guy his job, by any stretch, but it shouldn't have happened and it was stupid.
I agree. Gates has many things to offer the university, despite his bigotry and arrogance.
:yes:
Have you guys all heard Obama's clarification? I have zero interest in reading back 5 pages of this thread to see if it has already been mentioned.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 03:31:39 PM
The more I hear and see about Gates actions, the more I back away from my original feeling that the arrest was an over-reaction.
I don't care what his academic achievements are or were - that day he acted like a infantile child, and I am surprised you would go to such lengths to excuse his behavior.
I'm not using his academic achievements to excuse his behaviour, I'm using it to counter DS's idea that he's not a 'true academic or scholar' when he demonstrably is.
Having said that we don't arrest children and I find the arrest ridiculous. I don't think a 67 year old man, with a cane, on his own property should be arrested for being 'tumultuous' no matter what he's saying unless the neighbours have complained about the noise at which point he should have the opportunity to shut up before he's arrested. For that matter I don't think it should happen to a 17 or a 27 year old either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 03:31:39 PM
The more I hear and see about Gates actions, the more I back away from my original feeling that the arrest was an over-reaction.
I don't care what his academic achievements are or were - that day he acted like a infantile child, and I am surprised you would go to such lengths to excuse his behavior.
I'm not using his academic achievements to excuse his behaviour, I'm using it to counter DS's idea that he's not a 'true academic or scholar' when he demonstrably is.
Having said that we don't arrest children and I find the arrest ridiculous. I don't think a 67 year old man, with a cane, on his own property should be arrested for being 'tumultuous' no matter what he's saying unless the neighbours have complained about the noise at which point he should have the opportunity to shut up before he's arrested. For that matter I don't think it should happen to a 17 or a 27 year old either.
He was giving multiple opportunities to shut up and calm down before he was arrested.
And I disagree - interfering with a police officer trying to do his job is and should be grounds for a short trip to a small cell to think about your dickishness for a while.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
He was giving multiple opportunities to shut up and calm down before he was arrested.
What I mean is he was making noise in his own house. The officer was there to see about a break in. He found out that it didn't happen and Gates (I think understandably) got angry and started shouting. Then he was asked to follow the officer outside (because of the acoustics in the kitchen) and the arrest was made. Which I think is wrong.
If Gates had been loud enough in his house to disturb one of his neighbours and they called the police for that. Then they should have gone round and asked him to calm down and quiet down, if he didn't, then arrest him. That would be fine.
QuoteAnd I disagree - interfering with a police officer trying to do his job is and should be grounds for a short trip to a small cell to think about your dickishness for a while.
How did he interfere with the guy doing his job? He saw there wasn't a break-in and got the guys ID. I think this is more to do with annoying the officer. Understandably, given his background (the seminar on racial profiling) he couldn't walk away from Gates because that would almost be accepting that he was a 'racist cop'.
It has far more, in my opinion, to do with pride and class than race - though I can't be sure. So, though I think both sides are understandable and sympathetic I don't think it should have reached the stage where it's getting an arrest because I expect better of the police. In these sort of situations I expect the police to be the ones who are mature and restrained and rise above a situation, rather than making a rather needless arrest, because the police are far more in control of situations.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
He was giving multiple opportunities to shut up and calm down before he was arrested.
Yes, though his supporters seem determined to ignore this.
QuoteAnd I disagree - interfering with a police officer trying to do his job is and should be grounds for a short trip to a small cell to think about your dickishness for a while.
I don't think he was actually interfering with the officer. What he was doing was screaming at him. I don't think the arrest was necessary and would probably not have made it in the officer's shoes, but what i find far more interesting than the arrest itself is the characterization of it by Gate's supporters. Sheilbh's "I find the arrest ridiculous" is just typical. Why "ridiculous?" Because it was unnecessary? Unnecessary doesn't imply "ridiculous." I suspect the vehemence is due to their own perception of the weakness of their argument.
I also don't buy the age argument that some have made. First, the officer doesn't know Gates's age (hell, many posters don't seem to know it, as he has aged seven years in two pages of posts). Second, the law doesn't make distinctions based on age. Third, it is disineguous to imply that the arguer would change his mind if Gates had been thirty years younger, when the other arguments make it clear that the arguer would not.
So why the age argument? Appeal to emotion, I am thinking.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 07:57:29 PM
I don't think he was actually interfering with the officer. What he was doing was screaming at him. I don't think the arrest was necessary and would probably not have made it in the officer's shoes, but what i find far more interesting than the arrest itself is the characterization of it by Gate's supporters. Sheilbh's "I find the arrest ridiculous" is just typical. Why "ridiculous?" Because it was unnecessary? Unnecessary doesn't imply "ridiculous." I suspect the vehemence is due to their own perception of the weakness of their argument.
When it's an arrest unnecessary is ridiculous because it's wrong. The police shouldn't be arresting people unless it's either necessary or to prevent any further escalation or danger (for example if someone's getting very aggressive).
QuoteI also don't buy the age argument that some have made. First, the officer doesn't know Gates's age (hell, many posters don't seem to know it, as he has aged seven years in two pages of posts). Second, the law doesn't make distinctions based on age. Third, it is disineguous to imply that the arguer would change his mind if Gates had been thirty years younger, when the other arguments make it clear that the arguer would not.
So why the age argument? Appeal to emotion, I am thinking.
Yeah there is that. As I say I don't think a 17 or 27 year old in Gates's situation should have been arrested. Though, also I do think there's more of an argument that the police could make about feeling threatened. I think a person half Gates's age would be more in a position to be threatening whereas Gates, at his age, with a cane is at best 'tumultuous'.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 07:57:29 PM
Yes, though his supporters seem determined to ignore this.
I think it's a silly point, I said that people should be given the chance to calm down when the police are called out on a breach of the peace. If they're just shouting people shouldn't operate on the assumption that they may be arrested for it. Why should he calm down in his own house when it's not a breach of the peace and no complaint has been made by the neighbours?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 07:51:31 PM
What I mean is he was making noise in his own house.
And outside his house. He got no warnings until he brought his tirade outside the house, so what happened inside the house seems moot.
QuoteThe officer was there to see about a break in. He found out that it didn't happen and Gates (I think understandably) got angry and started shouting.
Why is it "understandable" that Gates was angered and started shouting? Because the officer was white?
QuoteThen he was asked to follow the officer outside (because of the acoustics in the kitchen) and the arrest was made. Which I think is wrong.
I think it is wrong to mischaracterize what happened. the officer stated that, if Gates wanted to ask any more questions, the officer would answer them outside. Gates made an extremely iinappropriate comment and followed the officer outside yelling, not asking questions. The officer twice told gates he was in violation of the law (which he was) and would be arrested if he continued to violate the law. Which I think is questionable judgment, but clearly not
a priori "wrong."
QuoteIf Gates had been loud enough in his house to disturb one of his neighbours and they called the police for that. Then they should have gone round and asked him to calm down and quiet down, if he didn't, then arrest him. That would be fine.
If Gates hadn't come back to the US then he wouldn't have been home, but "if" scenarios are silly in this vein.
QuoteIn these sort of situations I expect the police to be the ones who are mature and restrained and rise above a situation, rather than making a rather needless arrest, because the police are far more in control of situations.
I agree, but not to the extent that I criticize the officer for differing from my position. He was there and was the one trained in how to handle these types of situations. He may not have had the kind of discretion we assume he had, or might have had a different set of standards imparted by his training.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:06:28 PM
I think it's a silly point, I said that people should be given the chance to calm down when the police are called out on a breach of the peace. If they're just shouting people shouldn't operate on the assumption that they may be arrested for it. Why should he calm down in his own house when it's not a breach of the peace and no complaint has been made by the neighbours?
He was given a chance to calm down and warned of the consequences of not doing so. He could shout inside his house all he wanted (barring complaints from neighbors) and had he chosen to do this he wouldn't have been arrested. But, while we agree on this point, it isn't relevant because Gates was not in his house when arrested.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:04:25 PM
Yeah there is that. As I say I don't think a 17 or 27 year old in Gates's situation should have been arrested. Though, also I do think there's more of an argument that the police could make about feeling threatened. I think a person half Gates's age would be more in a position to be threatening whereas Gates, at his age, with a cane is at best 'tumultuous'.
All true, but none of it relevant. Gates was not arrested because the police felt threatened by him. He was arrested because he was disturbing the peace (being 'tumultuous,' if you will).
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:04:25 PMI think a person half Gates's age would be more in a position to be threatening whereas Gates, at his age, with a cane is at best 'tumultuous'.
A friend of my father's was responding to a backup call for a domestic violence situation, and arrived to see an elderly couple the whatfor to each other; he tried to pull the old man off his wife, and in doing so, the wife swung at him. Punched him right square in the nose, inducing a stroke. Had to retire on full medical, and spent the next year learning how to walk, talk, and write again. All from a seventy-something.
Everyone is any situation is potentially threatening. Something you people, who have never had to deal with that sort of situation, don't ever understand.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 08:08:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 07:51:31 PM
What I mean is he was making noise in his own house.
And outside his house. He got no warnings until he brought his tirade outside the house, so what happened inside the house seems moot.
The officer asked Gates to accompany him outside.
QuoteWhy is it "understandable" that Gates was angered and started shouting? Because the officer was white?
No, because he was being asked to identify himself in his own house. That would piss off anyone.
QuoteI think it is wrong to mischaracterize what happened. the officer stated that, if Gates wanted to ask any more questions, the officer would answer them outside. Gates made an extremely iinappropriate comment and followed the officer outside yelling, not asking questions. The officer twice told gates he was in violation of the law (which he was) and would be arrested if he continued to violate the law. Which I think is questionable judgment, but clearly not a priori "wrong."
First of all the situation wasn't going to get any worse and the arrest wasn't necessary. So I think on that it's wrong and more because of the officer's pride (understandably) than anything else.
You're right I mischaracterised, sorry I read shoddily. What the officer said was that he was leaving and if Gates had any further questions he could follow him out. That's fine. But why didn't he leave?
QuoteIf Gates hadn't come back to the US then he wouldn't have been home, but "if" scenarios are silly in this vein.
I simply meant that this was different from the police being called because of a breach of the peace.
QuoteI agree, but not to the extent that I criticize the officer for differing from my position. He was there and was the one trained in how to handle these types of situations. He may not have had the kind of discretion we assume he had, or might have had a different set of standards imparted by his training.
I think it was understandably an issue of honour. I think, given his background, he probably felt a great deal of pride in not being a 'racist cop'. So when he was called one for him to walk away would have been to accept what Gates had said, that he was a 'racist cop'. I think that the guy has been more than punished by the press on his door and I feel very sorry for them.
What should have happened after this wrong, unnecessary arrest, was that the charges were dropped and both could hopefully talk it over. That didn't because Gates was a well-known, well-connected Harvard scholar and after the arrest he's been in control and I think it's very sad that it's become this big a story. But fundamentally I think that's the issue over all others: neither man could back down.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 08:15:00 PM
A friend of my father's was responding to a backup call for a domestic violence situation, and arrived to see an elderly couple the whatfor to each other; he tried to pull the old man off his wife, and in doing so, the wife swung at him. Punched him right square in the nose, inducing a stroke. Had to retire on full medical, and spent the next year learning how to walk, talk, and write again. All from a seventy-something.
Everyone is any situation is potentially threatening. Something you people, who have never had to deal with that sort of situation, don't ever understand.
Interesting, but also off the topic. Gates wasn't arrested for threatening a police officer, and frankly there were enough cops on the scene by the time of the arrest that it would be hard to argue that Gates was threatening any of them.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 08:12:40 PM
All true, but none of it relevant. Gates was not arrested because the police felt threatened by him. He was arrested because he was disturbing the peace (being 'tumultuous,' if you will).
Iif he was threatening it would be a necessary arrest, because he wasn't it wasn't.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 08:20:35 PM
Interesting, but also off the topic. Gates wasn't arrested for threatening a police officer, and frankly there were enough cops on the scene by the time of the arrest that it would be hard to argue that Gates was threatening any of them.
EVERYONE IS A THREAT. ESPECIALLY BLACK PEOPLE WITH CANES
THEYRE WEAPONS YOU KNOW
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:19:10 PM
The officer asked Gates to accompany him outside.
Long befoe the arrest, and Gates refused, so the officer took the information inside.
QuoteNo, because he was being asked to identify himself in his own house. That would piss off anyone.
Inside his own house with a non-functional front door that he and his driver had just busted open. No reasonable person would deny that circumstances were suspicious, and no reasonable person would be angered by the police verifying that they were not there to rob the house (and maybe harm the actual residents). You may be unreasonable, and Gates certainly was, but "anyone" would not be.
QuoteFirst of all the situation wasn't going to get any worse and the arrest wasn't necessary. So I think on that it's wrong and more because of the officer's pride (understandably) than anything else.
I understand that you think it unnecessary, though you provide no good reason why Gates should be exempt from the law, and while your mind-reading exercise is, I am sure, compelling to you, it leaves me un-moved.
QuoteYou're right I mischaracterised, sorry I read shoddily. What the officer said was that he was leaving and if Gates had any further questions he could follow him out. That's fine. But why didn't he leave?
He didn't leave because Gates proceded to violate the law (not a very good law, IMO, but that's neither here nor there). The better questions ares: why did Gates follow the officer out of the house? And why did he not stop disturbing the peace when he was informed (twice!) in no uncertain terms that he would be arrested if he persisted? There is the mind-reading exercise that would be revealing.
QuoteI think it was understandably an issue of honour. I think, given his background, he probably felt a great deal of pride in not being a 'racist cop'. So when he was called one for him to walk away would have been to accept what Gates had said, that he was a 'racist cop'. I think that the guy has been more than punished by the press on his door and I feel very sorry for them.
Perhaps, but again this is mind-reading. I can only evaluate and comment knowledgeably on what we have been informed about what happened, and I cannot see why the officer is being made the bad guy here. Gates gets zero sympathy from me, while the officer may have been guilty of misjudgment, i certainly don't asume that from the start. We don't know enough about the policies he was being ordered to enforce.
QuoteWhat should have happened after this wrong, unnecessary arrest, was that the charges were dropped and both could hopefully talk it over. That didn't because Gates was a well-known, well-connected Harvard scholar and after the arrest he's been in control and I think it's very sad that it's become this big a story. But fundamentally I think that's the issue over all others: neither man could back down.
You assume the officer could back down, when we don't know that (and we have no evidence at all that the arrest was "wrong"). We do know that Gates could have stayed in his house and none of this would have happened.
But I agree that it is absurd that we are still debating this story when it was all a big nothing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:20:40 PM
Iif he was threatening it would be a necessary arrest, because he wasn't it wasn't.
First part true, second part mere supposition. This is the fallacy of the false choice.
The biggest non-event ever continues to have legs: The Boston Globe is reporting that Obama called both Crowley and Gates today and all three agreed to meet at the White House. :rolleyes:
I predict Obama is going to force them to shake hands Clinton-Arafat-Sharon style and declare that he's solved America's racism problem. :)
Obama has tempered his remarks about this situation. We now know that Obama has spoken with Sgt. Crowley and pronounced him a "good man." The whole thrust of Obama's remarks and appearance speak to his fear that this incident was getting way, way too dangerous for him. The remarks from him went on to suggest that he hoped that his actions at this point would "tamp down the rhetoric" on this subject and instead make it a "teaching moment where we learn to listen to one another better."
Obama's an incompetent hypocrite with delusions of grandeur. Who do you suppose will be the last one to capitulate to the realization that Barrack Obama is heading to the elevated position of "Proven totally incompetent in 6 short months as POTUS"—his supporters, the MSM (same, I know) or Obama himself? I'm betting Obama, but it's a close run thing as his true believers (I'm looking at you, Minksy) are as delusional as he is.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 09:48:44 PM
Obama has tempered his remarks about this situation. We now know that Obama has spoken with Sgt. Crowley and pronounced him a "good man." The whole thrust of Obama's remarks and appearance speak to his fear that this incident was getting way, way too dangerous for him. The remarks from him went on to suggest that he hoped that his actions at this point would "tamp down the rhetoric" on this subject and instead make it a "teaching moment where we learn to listen to one another better."
Obama's an incompetent hypocrite with delusions of grandeur. Who do you suppose will be the last one to capitulate to the realization that Barrack Obama is heading to the elevated position of "Proven totally incompetent in 6 short months as POTUS"—his supporters, the MSM (same, I know) or Obama himself? I'm betting Obama, but it's a close run thing as his true believers (I'm looking at you, Minksy) are as delusional as he is.
:yes: Glad I voted for McCain.
Quote from: Jaron on July 24, 2009, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 09:48:44 PM
Obama has tempered his remarks about this situation. We now know that Obama has spoken with Sgt. Crowley and pronounced him a "good man." The whole thrust of Obama's remarks and appearance speak to his fear that this incident was getting way, way too dangerous for him. The remarks from him went on to suggest that he hoped that his actions at this point would "tamp down the rhetoric" on this subject and instead make it a "teaching moment where we learn to listen to one another better."
Obama's an incompetent hypocrite with delusions of grandeur. Who do you suppose will be the last one to capitulate to the realization that Barrack Obama is heading to the elevated position of "Proven totally incompetent in 6 short months as POTUS"—his supporters, the MSM (same, I know) or Obama himself? I'm betting Obama, but it's a close run thing as his true believers (I'm looking at you, Minksy) are as delusional as he is.
:yes: Glad I voted for McCain.
As am I. We have Berkut and Grumbler to blame for putting this monstrosity in the White House. When will these liberals learn? Crowley's blood is on their hands.
You left out ussdefiant Fate. He's been an OBamazombie for over a year.
Quote from: Fate on July 24, 2009, 09:48:44 PM
Obama has tempered his remarks about this situation. We now know that Obama has spoken with Sgt. Crowley and pronounced him a "good man." The whole thrust of Obama's remarks and appearance speak to his fear that this incident was getting way, way too dangerous for him. The remarks from him went on to suggest that he hoped that his actions at this point would "tamp down the rhetoric" on this subject and instead make it a "teaching moment where we learn to listen to one another better."
Obama's an incompetent hypocrite with delusions of grandeur. Who do you suppose will be the last one to capitulate to the realization that Barrack Obama is heading to the elevated position of "Proven totally incompetent in 6 short months as POTUS"—his supporters, the MSM (same, I know) or Obama himself? I'm betting Obama, but it's a close run thing as his true believers (I'm looking at you, Minksy) are as delusional as he is.
Did Fate revert to the other personality again, or did he just forget to log back in as Hansy before posting?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 10:01:06 PM
Did Fate revert to the other personality again, or did he just forget to log back in as Hansy before posting?
Is there some element to his trolls that seems different to you? He seems the same as always to me. Whatever position is best for trolling is
his position.
If people stop responding to his trolls again, he will go away again. It is very simple.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 08:38:35 PM
The biggest non-event ever continues to have legs: The Boston Globe is reporting that Obama called both Crowley and Gates today and all three agreed to meet at the White House. :rolleyes:
I predict Obama is going to force them to shake hands Clinton-Arafat-Sharon style and declare that he's solved America's racism problem. :)
Or it could continue to hilariously blow up in his face :)
And like an episode of the Brady Bunch things go back to the way they were at the beginning after a short time:
QuoteGates says it's time to 'move on' from his arrest
Russell Contreras / Associated Press
Boston -- Black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. says he's ready to move on from his arrest by a white police officer, hoping to use the encounter to improve fairness in the criminal justice system and saying "in the end, this is not about me at all."
After a phone call from President Barack Obama urging calm in the aftermath of his arrest last week, Gates said he would accept Obama's invitation to the White House for a beer with him and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley.
In a statement posted Friday on The Root, a Web site Gates oversees, the scholar said he told Obama he'd be happy to meet with Crowley, whom Gates had accused of racial profiling.
"I told the president that my principal regret was that all of the attention paid to his deeply supportive remarks during his press conference had distracted attention from his health care initiative," Gates said. "I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sergeant Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige."
It was a marked change in tone for Gates, who in the days following his arrest gathered up his legal team and said he was contemplating a lawsuit. He even vowed to make a documentary on his arrest to tie into a larger project about racial profiling.
In an e-mail to the Boston Globe late Friday, he said: "It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience."
In a statement to The Associated Press, Gates promised to do all he could so others could learn from his arrest.
"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."
Gates, 58, did not say in his statement if he planned to file a lawsuit.
Crowley did not return a telephone message seeking comment Saturday.
The outcry began Monday, when word broke that Gates had been arrested five days earlier at the two-story home he rents from Harvard.
Supporters called the arrest an outrageous act of racial profiling. Public interest increased when a photograph surfaced of the handcuffed Gates being escorted off his porch amid three officers.
Cambridge police moved to drop the disorderly conduct charge on Tuesday -- without apology, but calling the case "regrettable."
Obama, who had said Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates, sought to tamp down the uproar Friday. He spoke to Crowley and Gates during separate telephone calls and declared that Crowley was a good man.
Obama invited the officer and the professor to the White House for a beer. He conceded his words had been ill-chosen, but he stopped short of a public apology.
A trio of Massachusetts police unions released a joint statement shortly after Obama's latest comments, saying Crowley had a friendly and meaningful conversation with the president.
"We appreciate his sincere interest and willingness to reconsider his remarks about the Cambridge Police Department," according to the statement. "It is clear to us from this conversation, that the President respects police officers and the often difficult and dangerous situations we face on a daily basis."
Gates added that he hoped his arrest would lead to a greater understanding about racial profiling in America.
"If my experience leads to the lessening of the occurrence of racial profiling, then I would find that enormously gratifying," Gates said on The Root. "Because, in the end, this is not about me at all; it is about the creation of a society in which 'equal justice before law' is a lived reality."
And, like a good family sitcom episode, we all learned a valuable lesson at the end of the episode. We learned something profound about race relations and how equal justice before the law is for everyone. :)
Quote"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."
"At least he got arrested for a good cause."
"What cause is that?"
"Race Relations?"
"You'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about race relations; this is a race riot. If I'm gonna get arrested for a word, my word is "Rodney King"".
I hate the phrase "teaching moment". Fuck that shit, I ain't doing any homework.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2009, 08:04:30 AM
I hate the phrase "teaching moment". Fuck that shit, I ain't doing any homework.
Let's reach out, and engage our stakeholders.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 08:15:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2009, 08:04:25 PMI think a person half Gates's age would be more in a position to be threatening whereas Gates, at his age, with a cane is at best 'tumultuous'.
A friend of my father's was responding to a backup call for a domestic violence situation, and arrived to see an elderly couple the whatfor to each other; he tried to pull the old man off his wife, and in doing so, the wife swung at him. Punched him right square in the nose, inducing a stroke. Had to retire on full medical, and spent the next year learning how to walk, talk, and write again. All from a seventy-something.
Everyone is any situation is potentially threatening. Something you people, who have never had to deal with that sort of situation, don't ever understand.
Absolutely true. Everyone is potentially threatening.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 26, 2009, 07:49:27 AM
Quote"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."
"At least he got arrested for a good cause."
"What cause is that?"
"Race Relations?"
"You'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about race relations; this is a race riot. If I'm gonna get arrested for a word, my word is "Rodney King"".
:punk:
Wonder if they re-re-mastered the movie for Blu-Ray. The first release looked worse than the DVD version.
Quote"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Savonarola on July 26, 2009, 06:11:48 AM
And, like a good family sitcom episode, we all learned a valuable lesson at the end of the episode. We learned something profound about race relations and how equal justice before the law is for everyone. :)
...as long as you're friends with the President.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 26, 2009, 02:26:25 PM
...as long as you're friends with the President.
The President would probably say you acted stupidly with that comment ;)
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2009, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 26, 2009, 02:26:25 PM
...as long as you're friends with the President.
The President would probably say you acted stupidly with that comment ;)
Will he later rescind that comment and invite me for a beer? :cheers:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2009, 08:04:30 AM
I hate the phrase "teaching moment". Fuck that shit, I ain't doing any homework.
He's a teacher. He lives for this shit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 10:01:06 PM
Did Fate revert to the other personality again, or did he just forget to log back in as Hansy before posting?
Fate is pissed at Obama for not being sufficiently homosupportive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 01:37:48 PM
Obviously all lies, because JR says so.
the police report supports my position and I have quoted it and cited it extensively in this thread. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 01:50:43 PM
I am kinda surprised by your wide-eyed credulity in this case, JR. You are making silly arguments to dismiss even the possibility that the cop was in the right. Any chance you have a horse in this race?
I see a well-known person in the community arrested on patently bogus charges that were immediately dropped once the grown-ups found what happened.
I think I can at least place on that.
Some people here seem to think that a private person in the sanctity of his own home bears the burden of being on his best behavior when a cop barges in without permission and starts asking questions.
I think the burden is the law enforcement officer to act in a lawful manner. Unfortunately that this seems to be the minority position here.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
And I disagree - interfering with a police officer trying to do his job
he wasn't charged with that. :contract:
I prefer "teaching moment" to "teachable moment."
QuoteBREAKING NEWS: Cambridge, Mass., police to release Gates tapes; audio, transcripts expected soon
Also, I love the human interest piece of this story. :o
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_hello_sgt_crowley_its_the_president.html
QuoteSgt. James Crowley was having a burger and a Blue Moon beer in Tommy Doyle's Irish Pub when his cell phone rang.
The Cambridge cop spoke for a moment and hung up looking altogether amazed.
"His jaw dropped," recalled Peter Woodman, a co-owner of the Kendall Square pub and two others of the same name. "He said, 'Jesus Christ, you'll never guess who's going to ring me.'"
Word quickly spread through Friday's lunchtime crowd that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had just telephoned Crowley to say President Obama would be calling him.
"'No way!'...'No way!'...'No way!'" patrons exclaimed.
A hush swept across the whole place. The TVs and music went off. The clanging in the kitchen ceased.
Crowley remained at a table by the front window, the cell phone set before him.
"He got a bit nervous for a minute or two then he got his head, Woodman said. "Cool as a cucumber, just sat there sipping his beer."
The pub stayed absolutely silent.
"You could hear a pin drop," Woodman said. "Literally 80 to 100 people standing around him. It was surreal."
A couple came in from the street and asked for a table.
"The whole bar [said,] 'Shhh! Shhh! Shut up and sit down!'" Woodman said.
After five or maybe six minutes, the phone rang again.
"He braced himself, took a deep breath," Woodman recalled.
After two, perhaps three rings, Crowley answered.
"Hello, Mr. President."
Obama addressed him as Sgt. Crowley.
"Call me Jimmy," Crowley said.
Obama said to call him Barack. They spoke for five minutes or more as the crowd stood transfixed.
"Not a person breathed," Woodman said.
Woodman watched a happy change come over the cop whose life had been upended after he responded to a report of a possible burglary. He had arrested Harvard Prof. Henry Gates for disorderly conduct.
Woodman knew Crowley to be the ultimate professional, an officer of the law before all else when on duty.
"He might know you outside work, but when he's working, he's Sgt. James Crowley," Woodman said.
Woodman is friendly with Crowley, but knows to expect no favoritism.
"If there's something wrong, Jimmy is the first guy going to roast me," Woodman said.
"If you break the law, you broke the law; if you don't, you didn't."
The world surely has too many racist cops, but by everything Woodman and others say Crowley is not one of them. Woodman saw in the days after the arrest that the accusation cut deep.
"He's blown away anybody could call his integrity into question," Woodman said. He won't admit it, but I think he was genuinely hurt by the whole thing."
Crowley seemed particularly bothered by the effect on his family. The media was staking out his home and the three kids could not just go out and play.
"You could see over the last few days he was stressed, he was under pressure," Woodman said.
The situation intensified after Obama said at a press conference on Wednesday that the Cambridge cops had "acted stupidly."
The police union held its own press conference on Friday to demand an apology from anyone who suggested the arrest was influenced by race.
Afterwards, Crowley and the cops took Woodman up on an invitation to stop into the pub for lunch away from the media.
Then came the phone calls. Obama told Crowley he regretted his choice of words and praised him as "an outstanding police officer and a good man."
At one point, "Barack" asked "Jimmy" what he was drinking. Barack said he also is partial to Blue Moon. They talked of getting together with Gates for a beer at the White House.
When the call ended and Crowley set down the phone, the pub erupted in cheers.
Obama would continue to suggest Crowley may have overreacted, but allowed that Gates may have as well. The fact remained that the President had called the cop. Woodman beheld a cop restored.
"A new man," Woodman said.
QuoteBarack said he also is partial to Blue Moon
Wow I love that beer. Good to see the Pres has good taste.
It is good, but genuine hefeweizen is like 1,000 times better.
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
It is good, but genuine hefeweizen is like 1,000 times better.
Well...yes it is a hefeweizen to drink when no hefeweizen is available or you are just being cheap.
But still I dig it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
It is good, but genuine hefeweizen is like 1,000 times better.
Blue Moon doesn't even try to be a Hefeweizen. It's a Witbier :contract: :nerd:
Oh. It tastes like a hefeweizen to me (only not as good). :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 11:41:24 AM
Blue Moon doesn't even try to be a Hefeweizen. It's a Witbier :contract: :nerd:
They are different? :blush:
I thought Hefeweizen was....nevermind I um...yes I will just stop before my beer ignorance embarrases me further.
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:42:03 AM
Oh. It tastes like a hefeweizen to me (only not as good). :blush:
Have you ever tried Hoegaarden? Much better than Blue Moon (which ain't bad for an American witbier).
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2009, 11:44:12 AM
I thought Hefeweizen was....nevermind I um...yes I will just stop before my beer ignorance embarrases me further.
I know the difference between witbier and hefeweizen, I just didn't realize Blue Moon is 'supposed' to be a witbier.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 11:44:22 AMHave you ever tried Hoegaarden? Much better than Blue Moon (which ain't bad for an American witbier).
Nein.
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2009, 11:44:12 AM
I thought Hefeweizen was....nevermind I um...yes I will just stop before my beer ignorance embarrases me further.
Both are top-fermented, unfiltered wheat beers, but Hefeweizen typically used to refer to the specific German style. Blue Moon is a Witbier/"Belgian White".
I've tried Hoegaarden and Blue Moon. :o
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2009, 11:50:25 AM
I've tried Hoegaarden and Blue Moon. :o
You're presidential material!
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 11:49:18 AMBoth are top-fermented, unfiltered wheat beers, but Hefeweizen typically used to refer to the specific German style. Blue Moon is a Witbier/"Belgian White".
IIRC the key difference with hefeweizen is the unique yeast used to brew it, similar to Belgian Lambic.
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 11:44:22 AMHave you ever tried Hoegaarden? Much better than Blue Moon (which ain't bad for an American witbier).
Nein.
Du musst versuchen.
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:51:52 AM
IIRC the key difference with hefeweizen is the unique yeast used to brew it, similar to Belgian Lambic.
That, plus the other flavorings they use-- coriander, orange peel, etc. (all of which are verboten in German brewing).
Quote from: Habbaku on July 27, 2009, 11:51:40 AM
You're presidential material!
Unfortunately, the black side of my family actually consists of African Americans. :weep:
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 11:54:05 AM
That, plus the other flavorings they use-- coriander, orange peel, etc. (all of which are verboten in German brewing).
Oh right, forgot about that. The weird spicy flavors in hefeweizen must come solely from the yeast.
Looks like Cambridge released the police tapes of this incident.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32169213/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Tape: Cop called Gates uncooperative
Released dispatch recording shows sergeant wanted more backup
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 11:56:53 AM
Oh right, forgot about that. The weird spicy flavors in hefeweizen must come solely from the yeast.
Yep. I suspect some funky interactions between the wheat and yeast are at play as well. I love that clove-like aftertaste that Franziskaner has.
Great, now I want a beer & it's only 2:30pm :(
Quote from: KRonn on July 27, 2009, 01:33:20 PM
Looks like Cambridge released the police tapes of this incident.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32169213/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/
Tape: Cop called Gates uncooperative
Released dispatch recording shows sergeant wanted more backup
Quote"Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 (police) and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed 'two men' at the home," the statement read.
OMG it was all started by a Porkncheese woman! I like how they make the distinction between Portuguese & 'white' :lol:
QuoteSgt. James Crowley said he was with a man who claims to live in the house and with identification showing he was Gates. Crowley said the man was not cooperating and told the dispatcher to "keep the cars coming."
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 01:41:32 PM
OMG it was all started by a Porkncheese woman! I like how they make the distinction between Portuguese & 'white' :lol:
I just literally fell out of my chair. Mainly because I was balancing it on one leg, but still. :D
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2009, 01:41:32 PM
OMG it was all started by a Porkncheese woman! I like how they make the distinction between Portuguese & 'white' :lol:
I like how her race is somehow relevant to the story. :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 01:49:12 PM
I like how her race is somehow relevant to the story. :blink:
Well a person who is not white cannot be racist.
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2009, 01:52:22 PMWell a person who is not white cannot be racist.
My mistake. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 01:49:12 PM
I like how her race is somehow relevant to the story. :blink:
You never know, she could have been robed on the bich...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 01:45:11 PM
QuoteSgt. James Crowley said he was with a man who claims to live in the house and with identification showing he was Gates. Crowley said the man was not cooperating and told the dispatcher to "keep the cars coming."
:lol:
Sounds pretty non-cooperative. :yes:
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 01:49:12 PM
I like how her race is somehow relevant to the story. :blink:
Well a person who is not white cannot be racist.
Too odd how we feel such a need to make the distinctions. Hey, good thing that maybe she wasn't a completely white person! But then, since when is Portuguese another race?
Quote from: KRonn on July 27, 2009, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 01:49:12 PM
I like how her race is somehow relevant to the story. :blink:
Well a person who is not white cannot be racist.
Too odd how we feel such a need to make the distinctions. Hey, good thing that maybe she wasn't a completely white person! But then, since when is Portuguese another race?
They at least count as hispanic, but I agree, who cares. Why care about any of this actually?
So now I can blame the true troublemakers in the world, the eggplant race.
Why would anyone consider it an issue if she had said it was 2 black guys breaking in anyway? Nothing a fact about someones description doesn't make one a racist.
edit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot. Perhaps this is one of those examples?
Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2009, 03:07:49 PM
Why would anyone consider it an issue if she had said it was 2 black guys breaking in anyway? Nothing a fact about someones description doesn't make one a racist.
edit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot. Perhaps this is one of those examples?
You probably can't even detect the racism in this post! :rolleyes:
;)
So wait, the end result is that the involved parties stop making a big deal about it, sit down and drink a beer together? I think that's pretty fucking stellar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2009, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 24, 2009, 10:01:06 PM
Did Fate revert to the other personality again, or did he just forget to log back in as Hansy before posting?
Fate is pissed at Obama for not being sufficiently homosupportive.
That came at no surprise. He's black, after all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 09:20:05 AM
I see a well-known person in the community arrested on patently bogus charges that were immediately dropped once the grown-ups found what happened.
CXare to share where this info comes from? Especially the bolded part.
QuoteI think I can at least place on that.
Okay, at least you concede that you have a horse in the race. I didn;t think you came to these conclusions through analysis.
QuoteSome people here seem to think that a private person in the sanctity of his own home bears the burden of being on his best behavior when a cop barges in without permission and starts asking questions.
Maybe some people do, buyt since that is utterly irrelevant to the gates situation, this assertion is a mere red herring.
QuoteI think the burden is the law enforcement officer to act in a lawful manner. Unfortunately that this seems to be the minority position here.
Disagree. I don't think the officer alone bears a burden to behave lawfully. I think the burden is on both to behave lawfully, and when one person does not, they pay the price. The presence of a police officer does not lift from Gates the burden to act lawfully. Not even Gat6es going into a verbal tizzy does that.
I thought that the charges were dropped was pretty widely known.
As for the rest, I don't have polling data, but Gates is one of the highest profile professors in a university town. As for the weakness of the charges, I have already covered that issue extensively.
The audio transcript of the Crowley's scanner is pretty devastating and at this point I would put grumbler's question back to him - it is now clear that having entered a house based on supposed exigent circumstances, and having learned that those circumstances did not in fact hold, it was the officer's obligation to quit the premises. Instead, he radioed to "keep the cars coming". I.e the evidence shows that he made the decision to escalate the situation into an arrest before Gates ever stepped out on his porch.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 07:44:50 PM
The audio transcript of the Crowley's scanner is pretty devastating
How so?
I heard an officer unable to transmit additional information and unable to communicate to dispatch and other officers when requested repeatedly because he was dealing with a disorderly person, who you could hear in the background whenever the sergeant keyed up his mic. Kinda difficult to hold two conversations at once.
So, in closing, go fuck your holier-than-thou Jew self, and when you're assraped by Siege for not being authentic Kosher, don't bother calling the police. Cophating New York heeb.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2009, 07:57:36 PM
So, in closing, go fuck your holier-than-thou Jew self, and when you're assraped by Siege for not being authentic Kosher, don't bother calling the police. Cophating New York heeb.
Now, you see Minsky? Cops aren't racist. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 07:44:50 PM
As for the rest, I don't have polling data, but Gates is one of the highest profile professors in a university town. As for the weakness of the charges, I have already covered that issue extensively.
The audio transcript of the Crowley's scanner is pretty devastating and at this point I would put grumbler's question back to him - it is now clear that having entered a house based on supposed exigent circumstances, and having learned that those circumstances did not in fact hold, it was the officer's obligation to quit the premises. Instead, he radioed to "keep the cars coming". I.e the evidence shows that he made the decision to escalate the situation into an arrest before Gates ever stepped out on his porch.
So his saying "keep the cars coming" is "devastating evidence" that he intended to arrest Gates regardless, because of course he is a racist?
How does that follow?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 07:44:50 PM
As for the rest, I don't have polling data, but Gates is one of the highest profile professors in a university town. As for the weakness of the charges, I have already covered that issue extensively.
How big is that town? I mean how likely is it that the cop even knew what this guy looked like. it's not like profs have that much exposure.
100k. It's generally hard for a tourist to know that he/she is going from Boston to Cambridge. Perhaps a Manhattan to Brooklyn sort of change (although not as distinct).
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2009, 10:45:32 PM
100k. It's generally hard for a tourist to know that he/she is going from Boston to Cambridge. Perhaps a Manhattan to Brooklyn sort of change (although not as distinct).
So there's a very good chance the cop just thought this was a loud mouth disgruntled old dude?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2009, 07:08:55 PM
I thought that the charges were dropped was pretty widely known.
So did I. Is anyone saying that they weren't?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2009, 07:44:50 PM
As for the rest, I don't have polling data, but Gates is one of the highest profile professors in a university town. As for the weakness of the charges, I have already covered that issue extensively.
The "highest profile progfessor in a university town" is not "well-known." I grew up in a university town and could not recognize a single professor by sight until I attended the university.
QuoteThe audio transcript of the Crowley's scanner is pretty devastating and at this point I would put grumbler's question back to him - it is now clear that having entered a house based on supposed exigent circumstances, and having learned that those circumstances did not in fact hold, it was the officer's obligation to quit the premises. Instead, he radioed to "keep the cars coming". I.e the evidence shows that he made the decision to escalate the situation into an arrest before Gates ever stepped out on his porch.
The transcript is pretty devastating only if you have a horse in this race. It is clear that the officer entered the house, discovered the circumstances, and left. As far as "keep the cars coming," I think it is perfectly possible that,since the cars he had called for were from the university police, he wanted them on hand to handle this screaming jerk in the background.
I turn your point back on you: given that Gates obviously wanted to escalate this incident until he was arrested, at what point did Gates receive enough adult supervision that he agreed that it was "time to put this behind" him?
Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2009, 03:07:49 PMedit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot.
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never. When you ask the same to some brown/black people, most say several times. These kind of events develop your "racism"-detector.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never.
You don't drive, do you?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 28, 2009, 03:35:22 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never.
You don't drive, do you?
No, I am talking about walking people.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2009, 03:07:49 PMedit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot.
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never. When you ask the same to some brown/black people, most say several times. These kind of events develop your "racism"-detector.
That's not even valid anecdotal evidence. That's pure fucking Eurocommie supposition.
Let me sum up the story: dick cop arrests dick professor. Charges are dropped and the President of the United States says some really stupid shit.
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2009, 11:14:20 PM
The "highest profile progfessor in a university town" is not "well-known." I grew up in a university town and could not recognize a single professor by sight until I attended the university.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone in Cambridge doesn't know Gates by sight. I mean, I saw Larry Summers on the street in Cambridge 3-4 times and nobody seemed to recognize him or at least they didn't bother him, though he was always with someone (he had this guy who was like his manservant or something). Anyway, Cambridge is a bigger town than I think some people in this thread realize. It's like what the Bronx is to Manhattan or something.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2009, 10:45:32 PM
100k. It's generally hard for a tourist to know that he/she is going from Boston to Cambridge. Perhaps a Manhattan to Brooklyn sort of change (although not as distinct).
Oops, it would help if I read back through the thread... but yes. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on July 27, 2009, 08:42:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2009, 07:57:36 PM
So, in closing, go fuck your holier-than-thou Jew self, and when you're assraped by Siege for not being authentic Kosher, don't bother calling the police. Cophating New York heeb.
Now, you see Minsky? Cops aren't racist. :)
It's no different that the elitist classism Minsky exhibits.
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 05:15:56 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone in Cambridge doesn't know Gates by sight. I mean, I saw Larry Summers on the street in Cambridge 3-4 times and nobody seemed to recognize him or at least they didn't bother him, though he was always with someone (he had this guy who was like his manservant or something). Anyway, Cambridge is a bigger town than I think some people in this thread realize. It's like what the Bronx is to Manhattan or something.
Cambridge is tiny.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2009, 06:51:22 AM
Cambridge is tiny.
:huh: uh, no. Not only did I live in Boston for 14 years but I practically lived in Cambridge for all of my senior year of college (Princesca lived there at the time I slept over almost every night :perv: )
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2009, 03:07:49 PMedit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot.
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never. When you ask the same to some brown/black people, most say several times. These kind of events develop your "racism"-detector.
Once I was waiting in a public parking lot to meet someone, minding my own business leaning against my car. A cop came up and asked what I was doing, I told him, and he said based on my answer and that I was parked maybe 50 yards from an ATM I was suspicious (I probably sounded a bit startled he was bothering to talk to me--maybe that was why I sounded suspicious). He asked if I had any weapons, I told him no, and he asked if he could search my car and see my ID. I told him to go ahead, he searched my car, and left.
Now imagine that situation, but with me as Prof. Gates.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2009, 03:07:49 PMedit: Of course, some people apparently have MUCH finer "racism" detectors than I do, and can detect racism in many cases when I cannot.
It depends. When you ask some white guy how often police asked for their identity-papers, most say never. When you ask the same to some brown/black people, most say several times. These kind of events develop your "racism"-detector.
I've been asked for ID by the police on at least a few occasions.
If someone reported a ongoing burglary at my house, and the cops showed up with me standing their with a busted down door, I would be pretty pissed if they DIDN'T ask me for some ID, and then were rather anal about making sure it was really me and everything was ok.
QuoteHow so?
I heard an officer unable to transmit additional information and unable to communicate to dispatch and other officers when requested repeatedly because he was dealing with a disorderly person, who you could hear in the background whenever the sergeant keyed up his mic. Kinda difficult to hold two conversations at once.
Because at the time he was transmitting "additional information" he no longer had any lawful basis for remaining in the house. He had already established that no crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed and that he was in a private residence without permission. The exigent circumstances that had permitted his entry vanished once he established the ID of the homeowner. Nor was there any other basis for remaining in the house - the mere fact that Gates may have been insulting him is neither a chargable crime nor a basis to remain in a private house without invitation.
At that point, he had only one move to make: depart from the house. Instead he stuck around and called to send more cars. Since there was no longer any investigation to conduct, that could only have been to do what he did - escalate the situation and precipitate an improper arrest without cause.
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2009, 11:14:20 PMThe transcript is pretty devastating only if you have a horse in this race. It is clear that the officer entered the house, discovered the circumstances, and left. As far as "keep the cars coming," I think it is perfectly possible that,since the cars he had called for were from the university police, he wanted them on hand to handle this screaming jerk in the background.
See above. There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, Cambridge city cops showed up in the cars. Second, once he had established that the person in the house was a homewoner, even a loud, obnoxious one, there was nothing for the university police to do, and the university police could not enter a private house without Gates' permission anyway.
Quotegiven that Gates obviously wanted to escalate this incident until he was arrested,
I see nothing at all to suggest that. On the contrary, despite the attempts to make Gates behavior sound more unreasonable through the use of creative adjectives and invective (e.g. "screaming jerk"), the fact is that the actual words that he was quoted by the police as using were quite tame.
Quoteat what point did Gates receive enough adult supervision that he agreed that it was "time to put this behind" him?
:huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 10:34:04 AM
QuoteHow so?
I heard an officer unable to transmit additional information and unable to communicate to dispatch and other officers when requested repeatedly because he was dealing with a disorderly person, who you could hear in the background whenever the sergeant keyed up his mic. Kinda difficult to hold two conversations at once.
Because at the time he was transmitting "additional information" he no longer had any lawful basis for remaining in the house. He had already established that no crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed and that he was in a private residence without permission. The exigent circumstances that had permitted his entry vanished once he established the ID of the homeowner. Nor was there any other basis for remaining in the house - the mere fact that Gates may have been insulting him is neither a chargable crime nor a basis to remain in a private house without invitation.
At that point, he had only one move to make: depart from the house. Instead he stuck around and called to send more cars. Since there was no longer any investigation to conduct, that could only have been to do what he did - escalate the situation and precipitate an improper arrest without cause.
Which cops do all the time. Because cops are cops.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 04:10:46 AM
No, I am talking about walking people.
I never been asked for identification when just walking about. :huh:
I think Yi is a KSG graduate, which means he's either trying to be sarcastic or has an extremely bad memory. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 05:34:19 AM
It's no different that the elitist classism Minsky exhibits.
I am just pointing to the reality of life. If Justice Breyer yells at a cop who enters his Cambridge home, he doesn't get arrested. There are double standards, whether or not I approve him. For some reason Gates didn't get the benefit of that double standard. Maybe it was because this particular cop was very scrupulous, or maybe it was for some other reason. I am not inclined to believe the former, because the officer's actions as I have already described were not otherwise scrupulous.
I have taken the position of the police before on these boards -- for example in the incident where they shot the guy in the car under the erroneous impression he was armed. I recognize that it is a high stress profession and that hard decisions sometimes have to made in an instant. But some 57 year limping professor carping about how "its because I'm black isn't it" and "you don't know who you are dealing with" should not create any issues for an experienced officer. There was a right way for the officer to handle this and a wrong way. This officer in this particular place and this particular time let his emotions rule his reason and picked the wrong way.
The only instance of genuine elitism I recall seeing coming from Minsky was when we had a discussion about wine varietals and he insisted it would only be possible to produce a quality Bordeaux in Bordeaux itself, even if the winery had access to the exact same strains of grape and yeast, identical soil, identical climate, and employed the same fermentation/maturation/bottling process.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 10:39:29 AM
See above. There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, Cambridge city cops showed up in the cars. Second, once he had established that the person in the house was a homewoner, even a loud, obnoxious one, there was nothing for the university police to do, and the university police could not enter a private house without Gates' permission anyway.
Having now read the transcript, it is pretty clear that the "keep the cars coming" was very early, after Gates had shown him a Harvard ID (with no address) but before he showed him the drivers license with address. At the time he made the comment, he wasn't sure that Gates was actually the owner of the house. As for having the Cambridge police on the scene, they may have been out of their jurisdiction, but presumably had more experience dealing with Gates and university professors in general. Their inability to enter the house is irrelevant insofar as I can tell. Do you raise that point for any specific reason?
QuoteI see nothing at all to suggest that. On the contrary, despite the attempts to make Gates behavior sound more unreasonable through the use of creative adjectives and invective (e.g. "screaming jerk"), the fact is that the actual words that he was quoted by the police as using were quite tame.
You are quick yourself to make assertions without evidence, and to use creative adjectives and invective. I threw this inpurely to see if you can notice these traits in another's posts even when you cannot see them in your own. I withdraw these particular comments entirely, since they served my purpose and added nothing to the actual discussion.
I am perfectly willing to concede that Crowley may have over-reacted by arresting Gates even though Gates followed him out of the house shouting invective. I don't know, though, what the CPD policies were on this kind of thing, so I don't leap to the conclusion that he was being unprofessional (unlike you).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 10:34:04 AM
Because at the time he was transmitting "additional information" he no longer had any lawful basis for remaining in the house. He had already established that no crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed and that he was in a private residence without permission.
On what basis do you make this assertion?
QuoteThe exigent circumstances that had permitted his entry vanished once he established the ID of the homeowner. Nor was there any other basis for remaining in the house - the mere fact that Gates may have been insulting him is neither a chargable crime nor a basis to remain in a private house without invitation.
Once he had established that Gates did indeed live there (after Gates showed him the drivers license) he did in fact leave. the situation was over... except that gates followed him out of the house shouting.
QuoteAt that point, he had only one move to make: depart from the house. Instead he stuck around and called to send more cars. Since there was no longer any investigation to conduct, that could only have been to do what he did - escalate the situation and precipitate an improper arrest without cause.
On what basis do you assert that he stuck around in the house? All the accounts I have seen indicate that he was trying to get out as soon as he could (and that he in fact didn't want to enter the house to begin with, but Gates refused to come out). You are imputing motive based on events that didn't occur, insofar as I can see. For instance, when did Crowley "call for more cars?"
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 10:52:17 AM
The only instance of genuine elitism I recall seeing coming from Minsky was when we had a discussion about wine varietals and he insisted it would only be possible to produce a quality Bordeaux in Bordeaux itself, even if the winery had access to the exact same strains of grape and yeast, identical soil, identical climate, and employed the same fermentation/maturation/bottling process.
I can't believe I said that. There is plenty of good cabernet-based wine made in the New World.
What is true is that no one has succeeded in making a decent grand cru ore even premier cru level white Burgundy (chardonnay) outside Burgundy. But I think it is theoretically possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 11:53:26 AM
I can't believe I said that. There is plenty of good cabernet-based wine made in the New World.
What is true is that no one has succeeded in making a decent grand cru ore even premier cru level white Burgundy (chardonnay) outside Burgundy. But I think it is theoretically possible.
Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. Let's go to the White House and drink some beer with Obama, thereby solving all problems in the world of viniculture. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 12:04:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 11:53:26 AM
I can't believe I said that. There is plenty of good cabernet-based wine made in the New World.
What is true is that no one has succeeded in making a decent grand cru ore even premier cru level white Burgundy (chardonnay) outside Burgundy. But I think it is theoretically possible.
Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. Let's go to the White House and drink some beer with Obama, thereby solving all problems in the world of viniculture. :)
Um, that would be to have some wine, cabernet perhaps, or other. :bowler:
Niggas don't drink wine :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2009, 11:19:02 AM
Having now read the transcript, it is pretty clear that the "keep the cars coming" was very early, after Gates had shown him a Harvard ID (with no address) but before he showed him the drivers license with address. At the time he made the comment, he wasn't sure that Gates was actually the owner of the house. As for having the Cambridge police on the scene, they may have been out of their jurisdiction, but presumably had more experience dealing with Gates and university professors in general.
There is nothing in the transcribed audio dispatch that indicates anything about a driver's license or when the officer saw it. Gates claims that he did show the driver's license at the same time he gave his Harvard ID. The police report and audio transcripts are entirely silent on this issue. Crowley has not to my knowledge contended that Gates did not provide the license and his incident report doesn't say either way.
There are three possibilities here:
1) Gates is telling the truth and gave both IDs. The incident report omitted this fact by accident.
2) Gates is telling the truth and gave IDs. The incident report omitted this fact because Officer Crowley saw the Harvard ID first and that was sufficient confirmation that Gates was who he claimed to be and never looked at the license.
3) Gates is not telling the truth and the officer only saw that Harvard ID, but concluded that it was sufficient confirmation. (not surprising b/c even if Crowley hadn't confirmed the name of the known resident, the house is university housing).
It could be any of those three, but whichever one applies, there is no excuse to seek to "keep the cars coming."
Also - metioning the Harvard police was simply your error on the misunderstanding that the "cars" he asked to come were university police. it is clear from the audio dispatch that was not the case.
QuoteII am perfectly willing to concede that Crowley may have over-reacted by arresting Gates even though Gates followed him out of the house shouting invective. I don't know, though, what the CPD policies were on this kind of thing, so I don't leap to the conclusion that he was being unprofessional (unlike you).
I assume the CPD policy complies with Massachusetts law and Mass constitutional standards for police conduct. They may be wrong, but it is the basis for my leap.
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 12:13:35 PM
Niggas don't drink wine :huh:
That's a common misconception. Put it in some cardboard and we're good to go.
:lol:
Actually there was this one black ex-employee of mine who enjoyed drinking wine. She also enjoyed filing nuisance racial discrimination complaints with the EEOC. So maybe it's just that sane African-Americans don't drink wine. :)
They sure do like grape soda though :cool:
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 04:10:46 AM
No, I am talking about walking people.
I never been asked for identification when just walking about. :huh:
It was one of the examples a high ranked police officer gave me, when we talked about racism and discrimination at the police (when I was councilor in my home town). He and others agreed there was some racism at the police, but never very serious cases. Just like this Gates case. Overblown, mainly because the media need something to write and report about.
PS: is the police in your country allowed to ask for identification, without any immediate reason?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 10:52:17 AM
The only instance of genuine elitism I recall seeing coming from Minsky was when we had a discussion about wine varietals and he insisted it would only be possible to produce a quality Bordeaux in Bordeaux itself, even if the winery had access to the exact same strains of grape and yeast, identical soil, identical climate, and employed the same fermentation/maturation/bottling process.
I can't believe I said that. There is plenty of good cabernet-based wine made in the New World.
What is true is that no one has succeeded in making a decent grand cru ore even premier cru level white Burgundy (chardonnay) outside Burgundy. But I think it is theoretically possible.
I saw
Bottle Shock. You can't fool me.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 01:15:32 PM
It was one of the examples a high ranked police officer gave me, when we talked about racism and discrimination at the police (when I was councilor in my home town). He and others agreed there was some racism at the police, but never very serious cases. Just like this Gates case. Overblown, mainly because the media need something to write and report about.
Well I'm a minority in America (about the same shade as Gates).
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 01:50:49 PM
Well I'm a minority in America (about the same shade as Gates).
Nobody worries about Indians. They probably figure you are a software engineer out for a stroll.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 28, 2009, 01:15:32 PM
It was one of the examples a high ranked police officer gave me, when we talked about racism and discrimination at the police (when I was councilor in my home town). He and others agreed there was some racism at the police, but never very serious cases. Just like this Gates case. Overblown, mainly because the media need something to write and report about.
PS: is the police in your country allowed to ask for identification, without any immediate reason?
If driving, yes. Otherwise no (or at least they can ask, but you aren't obliged to comply).
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
Define "tiny".
You could drive from the Charles River Bridge to the Slummerville line in, what, 10 minutes?
BTW tiny < 100 people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 10:34:04 AM
QuoteHow so?
I heard an officer unable to transmit additional information and unable to communicate to dispatch and other officers when requested repeatedly because he was dealing with a disorderly person, who you could hear in the background whenever the sergeant keyed up his mic. Kinda difficult to hold two conversations at once.
Because at the time he was transmitting "additional information" he no longer had any lawful basis for remaining in the house. He had already established that no crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed and that he was in a private residence without permission. The exigent circumstances that had permitted his entry vanished once he established the ID of the homeowner. Nor was there any other basis for remaining in the house - the mere fact that Gates may have been insulting him is neither a chargable crime nor a basis to remain in a private house without invitation.
At that point, he had only one move to make: depart from the house. Instead he stuck around and called to send more cars. Since there was no longer any investigation to conduct, that could only have been to do what he did - escalate the situation and precipitate an improper arrest without cause.
There was no longer any investigation to conduct? Why, because you said so? Not good enough, lawtalker.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 05:34:19 AM
It's no different that the elitist classism Minsky exhibits.
I am just pointing to the reality of life. If Justice Breyer yells at a cop who enters his Cambridge home, he doesn't get arrested. There are double standards, whether or not I approve him. For some reason Gates didn't get the benefit of that double standard. Maybe it was because this particular cop was very scrupulous, or maybe it was for some other reason. I am not inclined to believe the former, because the officer's actions as I have already described were not otherwise scrupulous.
Vice Presidents get to shoot people in the face while drunk, has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
But Gates exercised his right to get himself arrested, which 95% of all arrests do--they get themselves locked up by their actions, not by the officers'. No double standard there.
QuoteI have taken the position of the police before on these boards -- for example in the incident where they shot the guy in the car under the erroneous impression he was armed. I recognize that it is a high stress profession and that hard decisions sometimes have to made in an instant. But some 57 year limping professor carping about how "its because I'm black isn't it" and "you don't know who you are dealing with" should not create any issues for an experienced officer. There was a right way for the officer to handle this and a wrong way. This officer in this particular place and this particular time let his emotions rule his reason and picked the wrong way.
Still doesn't make you any less of a cophating New York heeb lawyer, Dershowitz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2009, 04:51:36 PM
You could drive from the Charles River Bridge to the Slummerville line in, what, 10 minutes?
Oh, you're talking physical size, then?
In that case it is rather smallish, but it's got a weird oblong shape and your path is taking one across the narrow side of the city.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 04:58:07 PM
There was no longer any investigation to conduct?
for the reasons stated. and if there was an investigation still to conduct, he didn't conduct it. He just lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him.
QuoteDershowitz
My hero.
Bet you Officer Crowley would have recognized him, even if he is just a prof in a gigantic megalopolis that is Cambridge, MA.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 04:58:07 PM
There was no longer any investigation to conduct?
for the reasons stated. and if there was an investigation still to conduct, he didn't conduct it. He just lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him.
It was still being conducted; all calls are active until the responding officer codes it with dispatch. As the call for service was still active, the investigation was still active as well.
QuoteDershowitz
QuoteMy hero.
Bet you Officer Crowley would have recognized him, even if he is just a prof in a gigantic megalopolis that is Cambridge, MA.
Lawyers with Jewfros all look alike.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 12:18:54 PM
There is nothing in the transcribed audio dispatch that indicates anything about a driver's license or when the officer saw it. Gates claims that he did show the driver's license at the same time he gave his Harvard ID. The police report and audio transcripts are entirely silent on this issue. Crowley has not to my knowledge contended that Gates did not provide the license and his incident report doesn't say either way.
But Crowley stated in interviews that Gates first just gave him the Harvard ID. That is perfectly consistent with his report that Gates appeared to be from Harvard, and his rquest for a Harvard policeman to be dispatched. Why would he do this if he intended to arrest Gates?
QuoteThere are three possibilities here:
1) Gates is telling the truth and gave both IDs. The incident report omitted this fact by accident.
2) Gates is telling the truth and gave IDs. The incident report omitted this fact because Officer Crowley saw the Harvard ID first and that was sufficient confirmation that Gates was who he claimed to be and never looked at the license.
3) Gates is not telling the truth and the officer only saw that Harvard ID, but concluded that it was sufficient confirmation. (not surprising b/c even if Crowley hadn't confirmed the name of the known resident, the house is university housing).
There is the possibility that Gates gave only the Harvard ID and epected it to be enough, but that the policeman was suspicious that gates gave only the Harvard ID. Again, consistent with his desire to have a harvard policeman respond, to confirm Gates's residence there.
QuoteIt could be any of those three, but whichever one applies, there is no excuse to seek to "keep the cars coming."
Since you chose to not include the facts that (1) Gates may not have demonstrated that he was the legal resident and (2) that Gates refused to say what had happened to the second man reported to be part of the break in (according to Crowley) there is no excuse not to note that a backup was needed. An unknown additional suspect is bad juju for one cop. Only an idiot would not ask for the backup to keep coming under the circumstances Crowley relates. You assume he did so for reasons known only to yourself, and that discrepancies between the transcript of Corwley's radio calls and the facts on the ground are due to some.. what, malice on Crowley's part?... something. Crowley's story is consistent with the transcript, and yours is not.
QuoteAlso - metioning the Harvard police was simply your error on the misunderstanding that the "cars" he asked to come were university police. it is clear from the audio dispatch that was not the case.
He specifically asked for Harvard police in the transcript I read. Are you disputing this?
QuoteI assume the CPD policy complies with Massachusetts law and Mass constitutional standards for police conduct. They may be wrong, but it is the basis for my leap.
I assume that the CPD policy complies with Massachusetts law and Mass constitutional standards for police conduct. They may be wrong, but it is the basis for my conclusion that Crowley acted properly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 05:31:02 PM
for the reasons stated. and if there was an investigation still to conduct, he didn't conduct it. He just lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him.
:lol: "[J]ust lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him." Classic revisionism in action. I suppose all of the other cps involved (black and white) supported the story of the warnings prior to arrest because they were sellouts to "the man?"
Quote from: Caliga on July 28, 2009, 05:24:36 PM
Oh, you're talking physical size, then?
In that case it is rather smallish, but it's got a weird oblong shape and your path is taking one across the narrow side of the city.
Of course I'm talking physical size. I buy grabon's population number, not much point in debating if 100K is tiny or not (no offense to Beeb).
And I think my path takes me from the southeastern corner to a midpoint north.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2009, 06:39:05 PM
Of course I'm talking physical size.
True...but how is that relevant. That does help on my analogy side though. That's why Cambridge really just feels like a neighborhood of Boston.
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 06:42:19 PM
True...but how is that relevant. That does help on my analogy side though. That's why Cambridge really just feels like a neighborhood of Boston.
Boston itself is tiny. It's a fucking postage stamp.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 05:31:02 PM
Bet you Officer Crowley would have recognized him, even if he is just a prof in a gigantic megalopolis that is Cambridge, MA.
I think you overestimate the ability of regular folks to recognize anyone who isn't on the cover of People Magazine.
:huh: Since when are people that concerned with a city's physical size?
I don't think many people consider Jacksonville to be America's largest city... even though it is in terms of square mileage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2009, 06:43:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 06:42:19 PM
True...but how is that relevant. That does help on my analogy side though. That's why Cambridge really just feels like a neighborhood of Boston.
Boston itself is tiny. It's a fucking postage stamp.
What's your point?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2009, 06:43:53 PM
Boston itself is tiny. It's a fucking postage stamp.
Larger than where I live.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2009, 06:48:50 PM
What's your point?
You're a point!
(Thanks for hard-returning Chemo Sabe.)
Hey Minsky, here's a good oh-loady-whoa-is-us column for you, what with the Black Man being your muscle:
QuoteA reminder for blacks: Too often, we still all look alike
Please take a good look at Professor Henry Louis Gates.
He is 5-foot-7, weighs 150 pounds, wears glasses and uses a cane. His legs are of unequal length, his mustache and goatee are gray. He is 58 years old and looks it.
It's important to see Mr. Gates - scholar, author, documentarian, Harvard University professor and African-American man - because that's what Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police department apparently did not do in the July 16 confrontation that has ignited debate about racial bias in the U.S. "justice" system.
For the three of you who do not know: The incident began when Mr. Gates, returning home from a trip to China, found his front door jammed. When he and his driver tried to force it, a neighbor, thinking it a burglary in progress, did the right thing and called police. Mr. Crowley responded, finding the driver gone and Mr. Gates inside. There are two versions of what happened next.
Police say Mr. Gates refused to comply with Mr. Crowley's order to step outside, initially would not identify himself and became belligerent, yelling that Mr. Crowley, who is white, is a racist, that he didn't know who he was messing with and that this was only happening because Mr. Gates is black.
Mr. Gates says he promptly produced his driver's license and Harvard ID, that the officer refused to provide his name and badge number, and that he could not have yelled anything because he has a severe bronchial infection.
This much is not in dispute: Mr. Gates was arrested after providing proof he was lawfully occupying his own home. The police report says he was "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place." That being his own front porch. Small wonder the charge has been dropped.
And here, Mr. Crowley's defenders would want you to know he is not some Central Casting redneck but an experienced officer who has led diversity workshops.
On the other hand, Mr. Gates is hardly Sister Souljah himself. Rather, he is a man who did the things African-Americans are always advised to do - work hard, get a good education, better yourself, only to discover that in the end, none of it saved him. In the end, he still winds up standing on his front porch with his wrists shackled, just like any drug dealer or carjacker anywhere.
Because sometimes, they just don't see you. It's one of the most frustrating verities of African-American life. Sometimes you simply know: They are looking your way but seeing their fears, their preconceptions, their stereotypes, that other black guy who did them wrong - everything except the one and only you.
By definition, racism denies individuality, and preconceptions leave us blind, making it possible for even a man who leads diversity training to look at a small, graying scholar and see a menace to society. If Mr. Gates was loud and agitated, common sense says Mr. Crowley should've simply removed the source of the agitation - himself. Problem solved.
Instead, he called for backup(!) and took Mr. Gates into custody. And if Mr. Gates looked like a lawbreaker to James Crowley, well, to me he looks like former Los Angeles Lakers star Jamaal Wilkes, pulled over because the tags on his car were "about to" expire; like clean-shaven, 6-foot-4 businessman Earl Graves Jr., detained by police searching for a mustachioed 5-foot-10 suspect; like Amadou Diallo, executed while reaching for his wallet.
And like me, with hands up and a rifle trained on my chest by an officer who later claimed he stopped me in that predominantly white neighborhood for a traffic violation.
Because I look like Henry Louis Gates, he looks like Jamaal Wilkes, and we all look like some dangerous, predatory black man intent on mayhem. So there is no shock here - only a sobering reminder that the old canard is, at some level, true.
We all look alike.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for The Miami Herald.
You know, cops do stupid things all the time.
Sometimes, those stupid things will be done around and to a black person.
It's true.
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:00:15 PM
You know, cops do stupid things all the time.
Sometimes, those stupid things will be done around and to a black person.
It's true.
No argument here. Seen it plenty.
Doesn't make it raciss, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 10:02:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:00:15 PM
You know, cops do stupid things all the time.
Sometimes, those stupid things will be done around and to a black person.
It's true.
No argument here. Seen it plenty.
Doesn't make it raciss, though.
I think that depends on how "eminent" the black person is, and how much he can get attention.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 08:08:55 PM
Hey Minsky, here's a good oh-loady-whoa-is-us column for you, what with the Black Man being your muscle:
This is pretty much the poster child story for the Minsky version of events. It makes up facts (the cop "finding the driver gone" that Crowley "called for backup" and the claim that the call was made by "a neighbor"). The one true statement here is that "By definition, racism denies individuality, and preconceptions leave us blind" - the question is whether or not that applied to Gates. Did he ignored the individual, Crowley, who was right in front of him, and was he blinded by his preconception that Crowley would never have investigated this apparent break-in had it been perpetrated by "white" men?
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:00:15 PM
You know, cops people do stupid things all the time.
Sometimes, those stupid things will be done around and to a black person with a different skin tone.
It's true.
FYP to make it even more true.
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:03:30 PM
I think that depends on how "eminent" the black person is, and how much he can get attention.
Eminence is over-rated. Rush Limbaugh is even more eminent than Gates.
Can I be eminent?
Do I have to go to college for that?
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:03:30 PM
I think that depends on how "eminent" the black person is, and how much he can get attention.
Get a room, Dorsey4racism.
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2009, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:03:30 PM
I think that depends on how "eminent" the black person is, and how much he can get attention.
Get a room, Dorsey4racism.
Don't even try to be black now. You haven't the practice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 12:17:29 AM
Don't even try to be black now. You haven't the practice.
My sister has been staying with me since May. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 12:17:29 AM
Don't even try to be black now. You haven't the practice.
My sister has been staying with me since May. :contract:
:lol:Well, there ya go. Say hey to all the kids.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 12:27:27 AM
:lol:Well, there ya go. Say hey to all the kids.
Don't worry, she leaves in a week.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 10:02:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 28, 2009, 10:00:15 PM
You know, cops do stupid things all the time.
Sometimes, those stupid things will be done around and to a black person.
It's true.
No argument here. Seen it plenty.
Doesn't make it raciss, though.
Stupid Cop Tricks does not equal racism. It equals fascism.
Quote from: Scipio on July 29, 2009, 05:15:31 AMStupid Cop Tricks does not equal racism. It equals fascism.
That would cover any aspect of the service industries.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2009, 05:17:12 AM
Quote from: Scipio on July 29, 2009, 05:15:31 AMStupid Cop Tricks does not equal racism. It equals fascism.
That would cover any aspect of the service industries.
I used to work in the service industries.. ;) !
Fruit-picking is a service industry now? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2009, 06:30:35 PM
But Crowley stated in interviews that Gates first just gave him the Harvard ID. That is perfectly consistent with his report that Gates appeared to be from Harvard, and his rquest for a Harvard policeman to be dispatched.
I haven't seen any interview transcripts. There is no question that Gates gave him a Harvard ID and there is also no question that Crowley was satisfied that Gates was the resident - both facts are confirmed in the incident report. Thus, the whole issue of the driver's license is a red herring - either Gates gave it, or Crowley concluded it wasn't needed. My guess is that Gates gave it and that Crowley simply didn't bother to mention it in the report -- he mentioned the Harvard ID because (as you point out) he needed to explain why the uni police were called. But it doesn't matter either way.
QuoteSince you chose to not include the facts that (1) Gates may not have demonstrated that he was the legal resident
That possibility is excluded by the officer's conclusion - based on whatever material was presented - that Gates was the legal resident.
Quoteand (2) that Gates refused to say what had happened to the second man reported to be part of the break in (according to Crowley) there is no excuse not to note that a backup was needed. An unknown additional suspect is bad juju for one cop. Only an idiot would not ask for the backup to keep coming under the circumstances Crowley relates.
Except that neither Crowley nor the responding officers acted in way vaguley consistent with that belief. If Crowley thought there might be an "unknown suspect" lurking about, he either would have undertaken a protective sweep or - as you indicate - call for backup and then undertaken the search. But of course that never happened because once Crowley realized it was the resident who was in the house -- a realization he reached before confirming that the Cambridge Police should send more cops -- he knew there wasn't a break-in in the first place. So when the back-up arrives, no attempt is made to secure the residence, because no one thought there was any need.
Put another way, if Crowley really believed what you are creatively attempting to ascribe to him, then he and his fellow officers deliberately and knowingly left the scene of a possible break-in without making any attempt to secure the residence. It would take even more than an "idiot" to do that.
QuoteHe specifically asked for Harvard police in the transcript I read. Are you disputing this?
He specifically asked for BOTH - that is the point your comment is trying to respond to.
QuoteI assume that the CPD policy complies with Massachusetts law and Mass constitutional standards for police conduct. They may be wrong, but it is the basis for my conclusion that Crowley acted properly.
That doesn't follow - if CPD policy is compliant, then Crowley didn't follow that policy.
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2009, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 28, 2009, 08:08:55 PM
Hey Minsky, here's a good oh-loady-whoa-is-us column for you, what with the Black Man being your muscle:
This is pretty much the poster child story for the Minsky version of events.
I don't need a poster child. I am not the one inventing spurious ex post motivations. I am just going by the policeman's own incident report and the dispatch recordings. Even assuming their accuracy in full, they are damning.
Quote from: grumbler on July 28, 2009, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2009, 05:31:02 PM
for the reasons stated. and if there was an investigation still to conduct, he didn't conduct it. He just lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him.
:lol: "[J]ust lured Gates outside and clapped cuffs on him." Classic revisionism in action. I suppose all of the other cps involved (black and white) supported the story of the warnings prior to arrest because they were sellouts to "the man?"
Only one other officer filed an incident report, and he mentioned no warnings.
So you are going to have to be a little more precise about what you mean by "supported the story".
Another very interesting aspect of this incident is the distinction between the witness' report and what Crowley recorded the witness as saying.
What the witness actually said: "Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure"
What Crowley wrote in his incident report: "[The witness] went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males . . ."
I point this out because although I have been relying on Crowley's own report to indict his conduct, it is additionally clear that his recollection as memorialized in the report is less than 100% reliable.
I also think it is interesting that Crowley has told "two men" and one "kind of Hispanic" and yet somehow heard (or at least wrote down that he heard) "two black men." I suppose it is theoretically possible that Whalen orally told Crowley something different from what she told everyone else, but that seems unlikely.
I noted that also and assumed Crowley misremembered what she'd said. Probably when he wrote the report he wasn't anticipating that the entire country was going to be reviewing it, so he didn't dwell on the minutiae of it all that much.
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:06:21 PM
I noted that also and assumed Crowley misremembered what she'd said. Probably when he wrote the report he wasn't anticipating that the entire country was going to be reviewing it, so he didn't dwell on the minutiae of it all that much.
"Black" and "hispanic, I'm not sure" do sound awfully similar.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
You shouldn't have taken that cialis then.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
It's harder than you think, Mr. Lily-white Wyoming boy.
African-Americans: ANGRY.
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:06:21 PM
I noted that also and assumed Crowley misremembered what she'd said. Probably when he wrote the report he wasn't anticipating that the entire country was going to be reviewing it, so he didn't dwell on the minutiae of it all that much.
The only explanation is that Crowley is a racist, and Gates was right all along.
Really, just take it on faith. If you just make that assumption right from the start, then interpret every piece of data either minutely or broadly (as the need arises) to make sure it conforms to what you know as The Truth, you can be an enlightened upper middle class liberal horrified at yet another example of the black man being held down too!
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:06:21 PM
I noted that also and assumed Crowley misremembered what she'd said. Probably when he wrote the report he wasn't anticipating that the entire country was going to be reviewing it, so he didn't dwell on the minutiae of it all that much.
I think the problem may be bigger than that because the witness claims never to have spoken to him at all.
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
It's harder than you think, Mr. Lily-white Wyoming boy.
African-Americans: ANGRY.
Or like Cuba Gooding Jr.'s dad in Boyz in the Hood, they are Furious :D
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:11:55 PM
The only explanation is that Crowley is a racist, and Gates was right all along.
Really, just take it on faith. If you just make that assumption right from the start, then interpret every piece of data either minutely or broadly (as the need arises) to make sure it conforms to what you know as The Truth, you can be an enlightened upper middle class liberal horrified at yet another example of the black man being held down too!
The only explanation is that Gates is a racist, and Crowley was right all along.
Really, just take it on faith. If you just make that assumption right from the start, then interpret every piece of data either minutely or broadly (as the need arises) to make sure it conforms to what you know as The Truth, you can be an hard-headed post-racial realist horrified at yet another example of the race card being used to destroy the reputation of a good police officer!
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 01:11:14 PM
It's harder than you think, Mr. Lily-white Wyoming boy.
African-Americans: ANGRY.
HEY! We have African-Americans here! We even have an African-American Studies Department at the University!
I am sure that at least 1% of the state is black, or at least Garbon-colored!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:11:55 PM
The only explanation is that Crowley is a racist, and Gates was right all along.
Doesn't work that way - those making the accusation have to provide the evidence to support it. If YOU want to claim that Crowley is a racist, you have to show why, which of course you cannot do.
If *I* want to show that Gates is a race baiting dickhead, then *I* have to show why - which of course is rather easy to do since he started accusing Crowley of being a racist and acting like a douchebag immediately, from all accounts, and your entire claim that Crowley is really a racist is based on what he did AFTER Gates started acting like a asshole.
Nice try though, keep up the faith, brother!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 12:33:23 PM
That possibility is excluded by the officer's conclusion - based on whatever material was presented - that Gates was the legal resident.
He concluded that the man "appeared to be" the legal resident.
QuoteExcept that neither Crowley nor the responding officers acted in way vaguley consistent with that belief.
Except that Crowley behaved precisely in a manner consisten with that belief, so long as he held it.
QuoteIf Crowley thought there might be an "unknown suspect" lurking about, he either would have undertaken a protective sweep or - as you indicate - call for backup and then undertaken the search.
No, he would have attempted to get Gates outside the house (if Gates was working in conjunction with another, it would split them up, and if he wasn't, it would protect Gates from any intruders). He wouldn't have undertaken a sweep until backups arrived, and he therefor radioed to keep the backups en route.
QuoteBut of course that never happened because once Crowley realized it was the resident who was in the house -- a realization he reached before confirming that the Cambridge Police should send more cops
There is no evidence that he reached any conclusion that gates was alone in the house before telling dispatch to continue to allow the backups to procede.
Quote-- he knew there wasn't a break-in in the first place. So when the back-up arrives, no attempt is made to secure the residence, because no one thought there was any need.
By the time the backups had arrived, Crowley had concluded that gates was the legal resident and that there was no break-in. That changes nothing about why he might have wanted them earlier.
QuotePut another way, if Crowley really believed what you are creatively attempting to ascribe to him, then he and his fellow officers deliberately and knowingly left the scene of a possible break-in without making any attempt to secure the residence. It would take even more than an "idiot" to do that.
If Crowley really believed what you are creatively attempting to ascribe to him, he would have told the backups to return to patrol. There was no need for them, in the "he just decided to be a racist and arrest gates" scenario you have concocted, and many reasons why he would not want such witnesses.
QuoteHe specifically asked for BOTH - that is the point your comment is trying to respond to.
Where did he specifically ask for backups from CPD?
QuoteThat doesn't follow - if CPD policy is compliant, then Crowley didn't follow that policy.
That doesn't follow. If CPD policy is complaint, Crowley followed that policy. See, two can play at this game.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 12:41:26 PM
So you are going to have to be a little more precise about what you mean by "supported the story".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story)
QuoteA black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 01:03:23 PM
Another very interesting aspect of this incident is the distinction between the witness' report and what Crowley recorded the witness as saying.
What the witness actually said: "Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure"
What Crowley wrote in his incident report: "[The witness] went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males . . ."
I point this out because although I have been relying on Crowley's own report to indict his conduct, it is additionally clear that his recollection as memorialized in the report is less than 100% reliable.
I also think it is interesting that Crowley has told "two men" and one "kind of Hispanic" and yet somehow heard (or at least wrote down that he heard) "two black men." I suppose it is theoretically possible that Whalen orally told Crowley something different from what she told everyone else, but that seems unlikely.
Two different conversations: The 911 call, and what Whalen said to Crowley. She could easily have told him something a bit different from what she told the 911 operators. I think this dog don't hunt.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
Two different conversations: The 911 call, and what Whalen said to Crowley. She could easily have told him something a bit different from what she told the 911 operators. I think this dog don't hunt.
Indeed.
Alternatively, he was wrong. Or Whalen was wrong.
People often make minor errors all the time, especially when it doesn't seem like it is really that minor anyway.
Construing this into some kind of nefarious conspiracy to racially arrest Gates just because you like to randomly arrest old black guys as part of your inherently racist attitude is rather ridiculous.
Let's pretend that the worst possible facts are behind this "discrepancy" - Whalen either never spoke to Crowley, or if she did, said nothing about the race of the people she called in.
So what? The fact that Crowley mentions the race, even that he reports that she told him their race, after the fact means nothing. It doesn't prove Crowley is a racist, or that he went out there intending to arrest Gates, or that the arrest was unlawful.
It means absolutely nothing, other than that perhaps Crowley was not as careful as he could have been when writing the report.
But JR is going to spin that into some kind of incriminating evidence for a completely unrelated conclusion - that Crowley is some kind of closet KKK member who arrested Gates because he was black? How does that follow from him saying that Whalen told him the people she saw were black, whether she actually said that or not?
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
Yep. If people want to get bent out of shape over police misconduct, they should rage on about the Cory Mayes case (in which a man has spent eight years so far of a life sentence for shooting a police officer who was conducting a no-knock raid on the wrong house).
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
I suggest everyone just take a chill pill and relax.
Jesus, does it have to be so hard?
Yep. If people want to get bent out of shape over police misconduct, they should rage on about the Cory Mayes case (in which a man has spent eight years so far of a life sentence for shooting a police officer who was conducting a no-knock raid on the wrong house).
That is a tough case.
And I don't think it was really the wrong house - they had a search warrant for both aprtments in the duplex.
It seems entirely possible that Mayes acted "reasonably", but will pay the price anyway - after all, anyone can say they didn't hear the police identify themselves after they shoot one. On the other hand, the entire thing seems like it was fucked up from the get-go by the cops.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 01:37:53 PM
Doesn't work that way - those making the accusation have to provide the evidence to support it.
I've provided the evidence; you simply choose to ignore it.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
By the time the backups had arrived, Crowley had concluded that gates was the legal resident and that there was no break-in. That changes nothing about why he might have wanted them earlier.
Sorry doesn't work. Crowley received whatever ID he received *before* making the call to "keep the cars coming." He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived. Thus, if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief. The simplest explanation - and the only one consistent with what actually happened - is that he didn't believe that was true at the time he made the call to dispatch and specifically confirmed the backup because he had decided to escalate the situation.
It is a creative effort, and a nice try at an ex post explanation for behavior that can't be explained, but it just doesn't fit the facts
QuoteIf Crowley really believed what you are creatively attempting to ascribe to him, he would have told the backups to return to patrol. There was no need for them, in the "he just decided to be a racist and arrest gates" scenario you have concocted, and many reasons why he would not want such witnesses.
Of course he needed witnesses - that is why he instructed Gates to come outside so that the other officers could witness Gates being angry, thus supplying Crowley with his bogus pretext.
QuoteWhere did he specifically ask for backups from CPD?
He called dispatch. He could either tell dispatch to send the cars back home, or to keep them coming. He chose the latter.
I understand your semantic point here, but it is just that. Crowley made a choice, and as a consequence of his choice, more officers arrived at the scene. If he makes a different choice, those officers never come, and the outcome is quite different.
QuoteIf CPD policy is complaint, Crowley followed that policy. See, two can play at this game.
Two can play the game, the problem is that you can't demonstrate that the facts provided sufficient cause to arrest under the Mass standards for disorderly conduct.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 03:21:20 PM
Two different conversations: The 911 call, and what Whalen said to Crowley. She could easily have told him something a bit different from what she told the 911 operators. I think this dog don't hunt.
Except for one big problem: there was only one conversation, because according to Whalen, the only words she ever spoke to Crowley were "I was the 911 caller."
Which means that Crowley fabricated from whole cloth a significant part of his incident report.
Hmm - think I see something bloody in that dog's mouth. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 03:39:57 PM
It means absolutely nothing, other than that perhaps Crowley was not as careful as he could have been when writing the report.
It means he fabricated a significant part of it. And in a very strange way - he invented a statement about "two black men" with "backpacks" when the witness had called dispatch about "two men" with "suitcases".
It's odd that many of our more libertarian leaning posters seem so adamant about defending the police. Police misconduct is so often a favorite issue in those type of circles.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
It means he fabricated a significant part of it. And in a very strange way - he invented a statement about "two black men" with "backpacks" when the witness had called dispatch about "two men" with "suitcases".
Maybe they were large canvas bags and he saw them and thought "backpack."
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
It's odd that many of our more libertarian leaning posters seem so adamant about defending the police. Police misconduct is so often a favorite issue in those type of circles.
Because Gates was like the rich man yelling at the working class cop.
He just happened to be black.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 04:50:05 PM
Except for one big problem: there was only one conversation, because according to Whalen, the only words she ever spoke to Crowley were "I was the 911 caller."
Clearly she's lying.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 05:17:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 04:50:05 PM
Except for one big problem: there was only one conversation, because according to Whalen, the only words she ever spoke to Crowley were "I was the 911 caller."
Clearly she's lying.
Naturally.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:17:37 PM
Naturally.
Makes sense that all the citizenry involved would lie while the cop is the sole defender of the truth.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 05:24:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:17:37 PM
Naturally.
Makes sense that all the citizenry involved would lie while the cop is the sole defender of the truth.
Indeed. Cops are by and large morally superior to citizens. Especially race-baiting citizens.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2009, 05:29:14 PM
Indeed. Cops are by and large morally superior to citizens. Especially race-baiting citizens.
I wonder if Whalen actually saw Gates open his front door using a key.
Famous Uncle Tom criticizes Gates:
QuotePowell mildly critical of Gates' response
Former secretary of state also says that he has experienced racial profiling
The Associated Press
updated 2:45 a.m. ET, Wed., July 29, 2009
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was mildly critical Tuesday of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., whose angry response to a Cambridge, Mass., police officer touched off a national debate involving President Barack Obama.
Powell, interviewed by CNN's Larry King, criticized the way Gates dealt with Sgt. James Crowley, a white officer who responded to reports of a possible break-in by arresting the black professor at his home on a charge of disorderly conduct. The charge was soon dropped.
Gates "might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it," said Powell, one of the nation's most prominent African Americans.
"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal," he said.
But, Powell said, Gates was just home from China and New York and "all he wanted to do was get to bed."
When asked about the incident at a news conference, Obama said the police acted stupidly. The president subsequently toned down his criticism but not his denunciation of racial profiling generally.
I was also victim of profiling, Powell says
Powell said he was the target of racial profiling many times and he sometimes got angry.
On one such occasion, he said, he tried to meet someone at Reagan National Airport "and nobody thought I could be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy."
Asked how he dealt with the situation, Powell said "You just suck it up. What are you going to do?"
"There is no African American in this country who has not been exposed to this kind of situation," Powell said.
But, he said, "when you are faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something, this is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child.
"You don't argue with a police officer," Powell said.
Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2009, 03:53:34 PM
That is a tough case.
And I don't think it was really the wrong house - they had a search warrant for both aprtments in the duplex.
It seems entirely possible that Mayes acted "reasonably", but will pay the price anyway - after all, anyone can say they didn't hear the police identify themselves after they shoot one. On the other hand, the entire thing seems like it was fucked up from the get-go by the cops.
The cops said they didn't know the door they were busting down was in a different apartment. The police who were present but not part of the four-man unit that went into Mayes's apartment heard no calls of "police!" And Mayes had no motive for shooting any police. It is pretty clear that the dead cop (who was a K-9 unit cop, along for the ride) fucked up in some pretty major ways, and Mayes is paying the price.
What was Gate doing in China anyway?
Do you think that visit might have had an influence in his reaction?
I can easily see Gates radicalized by chinese anti-american propaganda, while dismissing chinese discrimination against non-han minorities.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
Sorry doesn't work. Crowley received whatever ID he received *before* making the call to "keep the cars coming." He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived.
Got a cite on this? You apparently have much, much more detail on this case than has been in the papaers I have seen. I assume your source is also where you got the transcript of the conversation between Gates and Crowley, so you should share.
QuoteThus, if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief.
I'd like a cite on this, also.
QuoteThe simplest explanation - and the only one consistent with what actually happened - is that he didn't believe that was true at the time he made the call to dispatch and specifically confirmed the backup because he had decided to escalate the situation.
That is certainly what you have convinced yourself to believe. Your convictions have no credibility with me, unless you share the sources of the facts that led you to them. You also don't explain why he wanted witnesses to his decision to escalate, nor why his fellow-officers support his decision to escalate.
QuoteIt is a creative effort, and a nice try at an ex post explanation for behavior that can't be explained, but it just doesn't fit the facts
Yes, this is true of your creative explanation, as I have pointed out.
QuoteOf course he needed witnesses - that is why he instructed Gates to come outside so that the other officers could witness Gates being angry, thus supplying Crowley with his bogus pretext.
There were no other police present when Crowley asked Gates to step outside. And why would he need more witnesses?
QuoteQuoteWhere did he specifically ask for backups from CPD?
He called dispatch. He could either tell dispatch to send the cars back home, or to keep them coming. He chose the latter.
Yo claimed that he had specifically asked for backups from CPD. When did he do this? It isn't in the transcript.
QuoteI understand your semantic point here, but it is just that. Crowley made a choice, and as a consequence of his choice, more officers arrived at the scene. If he makes a different choice, those officers never come, and the outcome is quite different.
So he DIDN'T specifically ask for backups from the CPD, but DID specifically ask for Harvard police. Why did he ask for Harvard police, f your theory is true? HUP officers would presumably be more inclined to take Gates's side of things, and their presence would complicate Crowley's nefarious plot.
QuoteTwo can play the game, the problem is that you can't demonstrate that the facts provided sufficient cause to arrest under the Mass standards for disorderly conduct.
I don't need to. A whole host of authorities on the topic (the CPD police) have weighed in and if you want to claim them wrong, you must provide demonstrate that the facts DID NOT provide sufficient cause to arrest under the Mass standards for disorderly conduct.
Actually, we can find out easily who is lying in this case. Gates claims that it was not Crowley, but another officer who arrested him and cuffed him:
Quotet looked like an ocean of police had gathered on my front porch. There were probably half a dozen police officers at this point. The mistake I made was I stepped onto the front porch and asked one of his colleagues for his name and badge number. And when I did, the same officer said, 'Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.' And he handcuffed me right there.
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1 (http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1)
Crowley claims that it was himself who did so:
QuoteIt was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then walked up the steps, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates... after the cuffs were properly applied...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html)
Actually grumbler, Crowley then says that his colleague cuffed Gates after complaints that they were too tight. So Gates was telling the same story as Crowly when he said that another colleague cuffed him. :)
The ghetto is such a cruel place, filled with lies and police brutality.
I did like "These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose." :D
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 06:55:19 PM
Actually grumbler, Crowley then says that his colleague cuffed Gates after complaints that they were too tight. So Gates was telling the same story as Crowly when he said that another colleague cuffed him. :)
Read Gate's story again. it is absolutely inconsistent with Crowley's.
Quote from: PDH on July 29, 2009, 06:56:40 PM
The ghetto is such a cruel place, filled with lies and police brutality.
The ghetto has its own culture and propagate urban legends of police brutality.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 06:59:42 PM
Read Gate's story again. it is absolutely inconsistent with Crowley's.
I don't think so. After all, while most of his story is different, they both state that a colleague cuffed Gates (although Crowley states that he cuffed Gates first).
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 06:59:42 PM
Read Gate's story again. it is absolutely inconsistent with Crowley's.
I don't think so. After all, while most of his story is different, they both state that a colleague cuffed Gates (although Crowley states that he cuffed Gates first).
Who cares?
He should have shot the mothefucker and place an old, unconnected cell phone in his hand.
Hell, he could just drop the cellphone by his side.
Then say he saw something on his hand and felt threatened.
That's all you need to get away with doing the right thing and making the world a better place.
Oh wait, what are we talking about?
This Gate guy isn't muslim, right?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
It's odd that many of our more libertarian leaning posters seem so adamant about defending the police. Police misconduct is so often a favorite issue in those type of circles.
Because Gates was like the rich man yelling at the working class cop.
He just happened to be black.
I didn't know you went in for Class warfare.
I don't.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2009, 07:01:53 PM
I don't think so. After all, while most of his story is different, they both state that a colleague cuffed Gates (although Crowley states that he cuffed Gates first).
Crowley says that he had a fellow officer move Gate's hands from behind to in front. This is not consistent with "'Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.' And he handcuffed me right there."
I got my sight set on you
And I'm ready to aim
I have a heart that will
Never be tamed
I knew you were something special
When you spoke my name
Now I can't wait to see you again
I've got a way of knowing
When something is right
I feel like I must have known you
In another life
'cause I felt this deep connection
When you looked in my eyes
Now I can't wait to see you again
[Chorus:]
The last time I freaked out
I just kept looking down
I stuttered when you asked me what I'm thinking about
Felt like I couldn't breathe
You asked what's wrong with me
My best friend Lesley said "Oh she's just being Miley"
The next time we hang out
I will redeem myself
My heart can rest till then (a-whoa a-whoa)
Now I can't wait to see you again
I got this crazy feeling deep inside
When you called and asked to see me tomorrow night
I'm not a mind reader but I'm reading the sign
That you can't wait to see me again
[Chorus]
I got my sight set on you and I'm ready to aim
[Chorus]
(a-whoa a-whoa)
Now I can't wait to see you again
Poster warned for derailing thread with useless fucking song lyrics. Douchebag.
That ain't fair.
Ypou are doing that because I am an immigrant that can barelly speak english.
Where are the joo lawtalkers when I need them?
I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you
But its gonna take money
A whole lotta spending money
Its gonne take plenty of money
To do it right child
Its gonna take time
A whole lot of precious time
Its gonna take patience and time, ummm
To do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it,
To do it right child
You see?
Racial profiling!
Neil post a damn song, far worst than mine, and nobody says shit.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 10:35:56 PM
You see?
Racial profiling!
Neil post a damn song, far worst than mine, and nobody says shit.
Someone (you) called him on it the very next post.
What are you talking about?
I'm lost.
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 10:35:56 PM
You see?
Racial profiling!
Neil post a damn song, far worst than mine, and nobody says shit.
The song I posted was a great song, and it was posted to mock you.
QuoteCNN) — A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a "banana-eating jungle monkey" — has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
Officer Justin Barrett told a local television station on Wednesday night that he was sorry for the e-mail.
"I regret that I used such words," Barrett told CNN affiliate WCVB. "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist."
He was placed on administrative leave after the e-mail surfaced, and he might lost his job as a result.
Barrett, 36, who is also an active member of the National Guard, sent off a fiery e-mail to some fellow Guard members — as well as the Boston Globe — in which he vented about a July 22 Globe column about Gates' controversial arrest.
Gates, a top African-American scholar, was arrested on July 16 and accused of disorderly conduct after police responded to a report of a possible burglary at his home. The charge was later dropped. The incident sparked a debate about racial profiling and police procedures.
Columnist Yvonne Abraham supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?"
In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."
Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."
He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."
Barrett's comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.
"Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially," Marano said. "He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man.""
According to a statement from Boston police, Commissioner Edward Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and his badge.
Barrett is now "on administrative leave, pending the outcome of a termination hearing."
CNN has been unable to reach Barrett for comment.
Davis wants Barrett, a two-year member of the Boston police force, fired, a source close to the investigation said. But he will continue to be paid while on leave, and no date has been set for his termination hearing.
P.S. I HATE NIGGERS!!!!!1111 Not a racist though! :)
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
Couldn't think of any lyrics
No I never wrote the lyrics
So I'll just sing any old lyrics
That come to mind, child
You really need words
Whole lotta rhyming words
You gotta rhyme so many words, mm-mm
To do it, to do it, to do it, to do it
To do it, to do it right, child
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
I know that you're probably sore
'Cause I didn't write any more
I just didn't get to complete it
So that's why I gotta repeat it
Oh I make a lotta money
They pay me a ton of money
They're payin' me plenty of money
To sing this song, child
I gotta fill time
Three minutes worth of time
Oh, how will I fill so much time, mm-mm
I'll throw in a solo, a solo, a solo
A solo, a solo here
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's just six words long
This song's got nothing to say
But I'm recording it anyway
I know if I put my mind to it
I know I could find a good rhyme here
Oh, you gotta have-a music
You need really catchy music
This song has got plenty of music
But just six words, child
And so I'll sing' em over
And over and over and over
And over and over and over, mm-mm
And over and over and over
And over and over and over again
Six words long, six words long
Six words long, six words long
Six words long, six words long
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 05:18:18 AM
QuoteCNN) — A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a "banana-eating jungle monkey" — has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
Officer Justin Barrett told a local television station on Wednesday night that he was sorry for the e-mail.
"I regret that I used such words," Barrett told CNN affiliate WCVB. "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist."
He was placed on administrative leave after the e-mail surfaced, and he might lost his job as a result.
Barrett, 36, who is also an active member of the National Guard, sent off a fiery e-mail to some fellow Guard members — as well as the Boston Globe — in which he vented about a July 22 Globe column about Gates' controversial arrest.
Gates, a top African-American scholar, was arrested on July 16 and accused of disorderly conduct after police responded to a report of a possible burglary at his home. The charge was later dropped. The incident sparked a debate about racial profiling and police procedures.
Columnist Yvonne Abraham supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?"
In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."
Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."
He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."
Barrett's comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.
"Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially," Marano said. "He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man.""
According to a statement from Boston police, Commissioner Edward Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and his badge.
Barrett is now "on administrative leave, pending the outcome of a termination hearing."
CNN has been unable to reach Barrett for comment.
Davis wants Barrett, a two-year member of the Boston police force, fired, a source close to the investigation said. But he will continue to be paid while on leave, and no date has been set for his termination hearing.
P.S. I HATE NIGGERS!!!!!1111 Not a racist though! :)
I love stupid cops.
They make Skip Gates's job alot easier though. :yes:
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 05:18:18 AM
QuoteCNN) — A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a "banana-eating jungle monkey" — has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
..."I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist."
:face:
Some of my best friends are jungle monkeys.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 06:38:01 PM
Got a cite on this? You apparently have much, much more detail on this case than has been in the papaers I have seen.
The source is the police dispatch transcript, which was printed in full by ABC news. The transcript makes it clear that the "keep the cars coming" was said in the same transmission as when he asked for the uni police to come. His exact words right after "keep the cars coming" were "Can you also send the Harvard University police this way?" That proves that Crowley had already seen Gates' ID when he sent that transmission.
QuoteI'd like a cite on this, also.
See above. If you are aware of anything to the contrary, feel free to provide the proof.
QuoteThere were no other police present when Crowley asked Gates to step outside. And why would he need more witnesses?
He wanted witnesses for the arrest of course.
QuoteSo he DIDN'T specifically ask for backups from the CPD, but DID specifically ask for Harvard police. Why did he ask for Harvard police, f your theory is true? HUP officers would presumably be more inclined to take Gates's side of things, and their presence would complicate Crowley's nefarious plot.
I can't think of any reason why Harvard Police would be more inclined to Gates' side over a fellow law enforcement officer. Not knowing the Cambridge police procedures I would have to speculate as to why he asked the uni police to be sent. It may be SOP that the uni police are to be called for any incident involving a Harvard affiliated person on a Harvard owned property. It may be something else. I don't see how it matters.
Quotedon't need to. A whole host of authorities on the topic (the CPD police) have weighed in and if you want to claim them wrong, you must provide demonstrate that the facts DID NOT provide sufficient cause to arrest under the Mass standards for disorderly conduct.
I already have earlier. Random CPD officers saying generally things like "I support Crowley" or "he made the right decision to arrest" is a classic fallacious argument from authority because they are not valid authorities for this point. It isn't surprising that officers support one of their own. But the subjective opinion of a fellow officer carries zero weight as to what the law provides. A prosecutor can't fix a legal deficiency through an officer affidavit asserting the arrest was compliant.
A far more relevant fact is that the Department dropped the charges as that represents an official action of the Department.
The real question now is which poster will have the endurance to get the last word. I'm betting that Minsky Moment doesn't have what it takes to outlast grumbler and Berkut, although he has been putting up a valiant show so far.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2009, 09:29:17 AM
The real question now is which poster will have the endurance to get the last word. I'm betting that Minsky Moment doesn't have what it takes to outlast grumbler and Berkut, although he has been putting up a valiant show so far.
Oh no, he has certainly outlasted me - this became a matter of faith for him long ago.
I don't know about grumbler though. I think he enjoys this kind of thing a lot more than I do.
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 05:18:18 AM
He was placed on administrative leave after the e-mail surfaced, and he might lost his job as a result.
Nicely done, CNN.
Another question is: if at the Beer Summit, both parties admit they were wrong, will all assembled here accept that and will debate end, or will it continue and perhaps move to a more theoretical plane of existence? :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 09:48:55 AM
Another question is: if at the Beer Summit, both parties admit they were wrong, will all assembled here accept that and will debate end, or will it continue and perhaps move to a more theoretical plane of existence? :contract:
We've got chronically hairy mental palms. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2009, 08:04:43 PM
Crowley says that he had a fellow officer move Gate's hands from behind to in front. This is not consistent with "'Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.' And he handcuffed me right there."
Continue to ignore what I said. :thumbsup:
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Continue to ignore what I said. :thumbsup:
They're doin' that because you are black.
Governor Patrick of Massachusetts also reacted "stupidly". Right after this happened he said that this was a black man's worst nightmare. I guess, like Obama also, he should have gotten the information before speaking. I wonder when the governor, Gates and Crowley are going to sit down for some beers? At this rate they'll all be drunk, and getting arrested by the cops for being drunk and disorderly... ;)
Maybe Crowley will flash his badge and ask for professional courtesy.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 11:38:35 AM
Maybe Crowley will flash his badge and ask for professional courtesy.
Lol.. Well, sitting in the car with the Pres, Gov and the Prof I imagine there might be some clout there. Real meaning to the phrase "Do you know who I am?" :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2009, 09:22:38 AM
The source is the police dispatch transcript, which was printed in full by ABC news. The transcript makes it clear that the "keep the cars coming" was said in the same transmission as when he asked for the uni police to come. His exact words right after "keep the cars coming" were "Can you also send the Harvard University police this way?" That proves that Crowley had already seen Gates' ID when he sent that transmission.
You claimed that "He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived." I want to know how you know that. The transcript does not have Crowley saying this.
QuoteSee above. If you are aware of anything to the contrary, feel free to provide the proof.
You claim that "if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief." I do not have to disprove your assertions; you have to support them.
QuoteHe wanted witnesses for the arrest of course.
Why? He could easily make an arrest without witnesses, and if (as you claim) he had nefarious motives for the arrest, he wouldn't
want witnesses.
QuoteI can't think of any reason why Harvard Police would be more inclined to Gates' side over a fellow law enforcement officer. Not knowing the Cambridge police procedures I would have to speculate as to why he asked the uni police to be sent. It may be SOP that the uni police are to be called for any incident involving a Harvard affiliated person on a Harvard owned property. It may be something else. I don't see how it matters.
HUP work for an organization where Gates is a big man. That would incline them to protect "their own." But even if it didn't, why would Crowley take the chance? If the house ownership required a notification of the HUP, then that fact would presumably be known by dispatch, and HUP would already have been called.
The reason it matters is that you are using Crowley's desire for more police as evidence of his nefarious purposes. If that is true, then his request for HUP presence also matters.
QuoteI already have earlier. Random CPD officers saying generally things like "I support Crowley" or "he made the right decision to arrest" is a classic fallacious argument from authority because they are not valid authorities for this point.
The police are not valid authorities for what powers the police have? And you are (without any evidence)? I call bullshit. You have by no means demonstrated that Crowley lacked the authority to arrest under those circumstances.
QuoteIt isn't surprising that officers support one of their own. But the subjective opinion of a fellow officer carries zero weight as to what the law provides. A prosecutor can't fix a legal deficiency through an officer affidavit asserting the arrest was compliant.
It is cretainly indicative, which your bald assertions are not.
QuoteA far more relevant fact is that the Department dropped the charges as that represents an official action of the Department.
The CPD did not drop the charges. The Middlesex County district attorney did. And, as we all know, charges are often dropped in perfectly legal arrests. Had the arrest been unlawful, Crowley would have faced disciplinary action, which he didn't. That is a far more relevant "official action of the Department."
[/quote]
Quote from: alfred russel on July 30, 2009, 09:29:17 AM
The real question now is which poster will have the endurance to get the last word. I'm betting that Minsky Moment doesn't have what it takes to outlast grumbler and Berkut, although he has been putting up a valiant show so far.
The real question is how many shots the peanut gallery will take at a debate that two people are having because it interests them. My guess is that, now that AR has weighed in, FateRaz and RazFate are not far behind. Siege will then complain that we use "too many words." Finally, The Brain will make some crack at my/our expense that will make me laugh.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Continue to ignore what I said. :thumbsup:
As you continue to ignore what I said, Crowley said, and Gates said. :thumbsup:
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 03:24:06 PM
As you continue to ignore what I said, Crowley said, and Gates said. :thumbsup:
Nope. I simply said that both did agree on the point that Gates was handcuffed by a colleague. That's undeniable.
Quote from: PDH on July 30, 2009, 11:21:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Continue to ignore what I said. :thumbsup:
They're doin' that because you are a black man in America!
FYP.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 03:25:14 PM
Nope. I simply said that both did agree on the point that Gates was handcuffed by a colleague. That's undeniable.
Except that, according to Crowley, Ivey just moved the cuffs from behind to in front (Gates was already arrested and cuffed when Ivey moved the cuffs). Gates claimed that an un-named officer (but not Crowley) both arrested and handcuffed him. His statement is not consistent with Crowley's report. I dunno how much more obvious this could be.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
Had the arrest been unlawful, Crowley would have faced disciplinary action, which he didn't.
There's far too strong of opinions being bandied about here, with not enough hard evidence, for me to contribute much to the overall debate. But I did want to point out that disciplinary action as a result of an unlawful arrest would be quite unusual. It is somewhat understandable - whether an arrest is lawful or not depends on a precise legal conclusion, and it is quite possible for a well meaning officer acting without malice to engage in an unlawful arrest. But unless it's something quite egregious, they don't face any disciplinary action over it.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 03:30:08 PM
Except that, according to Crowley, Ivey just moved the cuffs from behind to in front (Gates was already arrested and cuffed when Ivey moved the cuffs). Gates claimed that an un-named officer (but not Crowley) both arrested and handcuffed him. His statement is not consistent with Crowley's report. I dunno how much more obvious this could be.
None of that disagrees with what I said. :o
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
You claimed that "He learned nothing new about Gates' status between the time he made that call to radio dispatch and the time the officers arrived." I want to know how you know that. The transcript does not have Crowley saying this.
for someone who is so punctilious about placing burdens of proof, you seem to have missed the narrative here. The way I know he learned nothing new is that his report does not indicate that he learned anything new (e.g. nothing about a driver's license). You are the one claiming that he learned something new; you are the one that needs to provide the evidence to prove it. The fact that the documents don't provide any such evidence is a problem for you, not me.
QuoteYou claim that "if he really believed at the time of the call there was a risk that some other nefarious person might be inside, nothing came to his attention that would have dispelled that belief." I do not have to disprove your assertions; you have to support them.
Once again, you have the burden of proof backwards. You are the one claiming that at the time he said "keep the cars coming" he believed that someone else wasinside, and that he subsequently was disabused of that belief. Thus, you must prove your claim by showing that after the time of that radio dispatch call, he learned some pertinent new fact that caused the alleged belief to be dispelled. You haven't done it and the documentary record provides zero support.
QuoteThe police are not valid authorities for what powers the police have? And you are (without any evidence)? I call bullshit. You have by no means demonstrated that Crowley lacked the authority to arrest under those circumstances.
The police are certainly not valid authorities for determining the scope of their own discretion. That is why we have courts, judges and juries, and elected executive officers to oversee police operations. No free society delegates the police the authority to determine the scope of their power.
Mass uses the Model Penal Code definition of disorderly conduct. There are two prongs that most be satisfied. Prong 1 is that there must be either specific intent public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; or reckless creation of a risk of that. Prong 2 involves showing that certain kind of behavior is at issue. Neither prong was satisfied here. Gates' didn't intend to cause public alarm - indeed had to be drawn out the house by the officer in the first place. While there were people present, they were there before ever Gates stepped out on his porch, drawn by the spectacle of police officers descending onto a private house in a quiet Cambridge street. There is no evidence that ny of them expressed annoyance or alarm.
But the clincher is prong 2. It turns out there is recent precedent on this very issue in Massaschusetts. the Massachusetts Appeals Court has held on multiple occasions that speech alone is insufficient to support a charge of disordely conduct, regardless of whether there is shouting, and regardless of the content of words said. For example, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, decided only a few years ago, the court held that:
QuoteWe agree, however, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had engaged in "violent or tumultuous behavior." Commonwealth v. Whiting, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 918 , 920 (2003). . . "To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). The Commonwealth argues that the defendant engaged in " 'tumultuous behavior' because he created a public nuisance by flailing his arms" and shouting. There is no claim that the defendant's loud protestations directed either at police or at Carins constituted a threat of violence and no evidence that the defendant's "flailing arms" were anything but a physical manifestation of his agitation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2009, 04:16:04 PM
for someone who is so punctilious about placing burdens of proof, you seem to have missed the narrative here. The way I know he learned nothing new is that his report does not indicate that he learned anything new (e.g. nothing about a driver's license). You are the one claiming that he learned something new; you are the one that needs to provide the evidence to prove it. The fact that the documents don't provide any such evidence is a problem for you, not me.
For you, the "fact" that he "learned nothing new" seems to carry weight. For me, his learning something new is irrelevant. I do not say that he learned something new, I merely point out that we have no evidence for your assertions of the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
QuoteOnce again, you have the burden of proof backwards. You are the one claiming that at the time he said "keep the cars coming" he believed that someone else wasinside, and that he subsequently was disabused of that belief.
Nope. I am merely pointing out a plauable explanation for an event you seem to have imbued with some significance as evidence of nefarious designs. I do not have to prove that my alternate explanation is true, I merely have to offer it as plausible. For you to dismiss it requires evidence.
QuoteThe police are certainly not valid authorities for determining the scope of their own discretion. That is why we have courts, judges and juries, and elected executive officers to oversee police operations. No free society delegates the police the authority to determine the scope of their power.
Stricken as non-responsive. If the police believe that their policy is lawful and was being followed, you have to offer some evidence to the contrary. You have failed to do so, but claimed that you have (when your "proof" was mere assertion).
In order for your case against Crowley to stand, you have to show that he was acting unlawfully. You have failed to do this, because all of your assertions to that effect are either completely unsupported or else supotrted by mis-statements of facts (like that he "called for backup").
QuoteMass uses the Model Penal Code definition of disorderly conduct. There are two prongs that most be satisfied. Prong 1 is that there must be either specific intent public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; or reckless creation of a risk of that. Prong 2 involves showing that certain kind of behavior is at issue. Neither prong was satisfied here. Gates' didn't intend to cause public alarm - indeed had to be drawn out the house by the officer in the first place
Another mis-statement of fact. Neither Crowley nor Gates assert that Gates "had to be drawn out of the house." Both assert that gates came willingly, in order to publically berate Crowley.
QuoteWhile there were people present, they were there before ever Gates stepped out on his porch, drawn by the spectacle of police officers descending onto a private house in a quiet Cambridge street. There is no evidence that ny of them expressed annoyance or alarm.
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The police officers on the scene have been unanimous insofar as we know, that this was a lawful arrest. Your mere assertion that it wasn't carries no weight.
But the clincher is prong 2. It turns out there is recent precedent on this very issue in Massaschusetts. the Massachusetts Appeals Court has held on multiple occasions that speech alone is insufficient to support a charge of disordely conduct, regardless of whether there is shouting, and regardless of the content of words said. For example, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, decided only a few years ago, the court held that:
QuoteWe agree, however, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had engaged in "violent or tumultuous behavior." Commonwealth v. Whiting, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 918 , 920 (2003). . . "To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). The Commonwealth argues that the defendant engaged in " 'tumultuous behavior' because he created a public nuisance by flailing his arms" and shouting. There is no claim that the defendant's loud protestations directed either at police or at Carins constituted a threat of violence and no evidence that the defendant's "flailing arms" were anything but a physical manifestation of his agitation.
[/quote]In one of the cited cases, LePore, the court noted that
QuoteA person is "disorderly" under G. L. c. 272, s. 53, "if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof; he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;
The Whiting case referenced at http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html (http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html) is apparently the wrong one.
If Crowley believed that Gates had followed him from the house to "whip up the crowd" over his treatment, Crowley could reasonably assume that Gates had met the standard of C v Lepore 9and the law0 in both prongs. And that is the only standard he had to meet; reasonableness.
I think that, in his shoes and absent any further evidence as to what the policies of the CP were in cases like this, i would certainly not have arrested. But my opinions, like yours, are not nearly as well-informed as those closer to the case, and given that yours is an extraordinary assertion (that Gates acted nefariously and is being protected by his fellow-officers and the CPD hierarchy) you need better evidence than your own (quite narrow) interpretation of the law.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 03:34:44 PM
There's far too strong of opinions being bandied about here, with not enough hard evidence, for me to contribute much to the overall debate. But I did want to point out that disciplinary action as a result of an unlawful arrest would be quite unusual. It is somewhat understandable - whether an arrest is lawful or not depends on a precise legal conclusion, and it is quite possible for a well meaning officer acting without malice to engage in an unlawful arrest. But unless it's something quite egregious, they don't face any disciplinary action over it.
If an officer is acting without malice and his interpretation of the law was reasonable, how could an arrest be "unlawful?" Improper, perhaps, but "unlawful?"
I would agree that Crowley's actions here were in excess of what I would do in his shoes based only on what I currently know, but if JR is correct and Crowley had decided to 'escalate' things to an arrest before even knowing who was in the house, he couldn't be acting without malice and in good faith, I shouldn't think.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2009, 03:37:35 PM
None of that disagrees with what I said. :o
I am not sure what your point is, then. :huh:
I think we can all agree that none of this would have happened if this country was ready to elect a black man.
Quote from: PDH on July 30, 2009, 05:21:52 PM
I think we can all agree that none of this would have happened if this country was ready to elect a black man.
We jumped the gun? :(
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 05:15:10 PM
In one of the cited cases, LePore, the court noted that
QuoteA person is "disorderly" under G. L. c. 272, s. 53, "if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof; he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;
You have to read the case in its entirety. LePore begins with that recitation of the statutory language but then goes on to specifically narrow its application to exclude cases where the only act alleged is a speech act. And in Lopiano - the case I actually cited - the suspect was in fact shouting at a police officer in a public place near at least one member of the public. It is the same fact pattern.
Your dog is snoozing on this one in the mid-day sun.
I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..
I agree with grumbler 100%.
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:37:31 PM
I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..
I agree with grumbler 100%.
You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:37:31 PM
I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..
I agree with grumbler 100%.
You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.
No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.
Mexico..
Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..
Have you seen Mexico lately?
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:37:31 PM
I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..
I agree with grumbler 100%.
You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.
No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.
Mexico..
Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..
Have you seen Mexico lately?
I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:43:48 PM
I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.
I've been to Mexico. Am I not alive?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:37:31 PM
I've only been casually reading this thread because all the big words spin' me right round, but I'm gonna go ahead and test the Jaron jinx theory..
I agree with grumbler 100%.
You ain't Tim. Only Tim has the capability to turn things into mush.
No sir..its not just Tim. Its something that runs deep in that spic blood.
Mexico..
Beautiful country, nice beaches, rich in resources, and with fertile lands from sea to shining sea..
Have you seen Mexico lately?
I'm never going to Mexico. I want to stay alive.
It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you. ^_^
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:45:09 PM
It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you. ^_^
Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.
I forgot, James Crowley was much more attractive than I was expecting. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:45:09 PM
It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you. ^_^
Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.
Someone has to do the manly work while you and your fellow homosexuals lick each others Buckeyes.
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:54:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:45:09 PM
It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you. ^_^
Already here. Helots are needed to pick the crops.
Someone has to do the manly work while you and your fellow homosexuals lick each others Buckeyes.
Now now, don't be jealous of our vast wealth of corn.
Quote from: Jaron on July 30, 2009, 05:45:09 PM
It is okay. You live in Ohio. Mexico is coming to you. ^_^
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2009, 05:35:00 PM
You have to read the case in its entirety. LePore begins with that recitation of the statutory language but then goes on to specifically narrow its application to exclude cases where the only act alleged is a speech act. And in Lopiano - the case I actually cited - the suspect was in fact shouting at a police officer in a public place near at least one member of the public. It is the same fact pattern.
Ah, no. LaPore is the Peeping Tom case. And in Lopiano, the issue was that the suspect was not attempting to accomplish anything by his speech other than venting. Not
necessarily so in the Gates case (ie a reasonable person could infer motives to Gates's speech).
QuoteYour dog is snoozing on this one in the mid-day sun.
My dog at least can hunt. So far, yours is just sniffing some yokel's crotch.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 05:19:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 03:34:44 PM
There's far too strong of opinions being bandied about here, with not enough hard evidence, for me to contribute much to the overall debate. But I did want to point out that disciplinary action as a result of an unlawful arrest would be quite unusual. It is somewhat understandable - whether an arrest is lawful or not depends on a precise legal conclusion, and it is quite possible for a well meaning officer acting without malice to engage in an unlawful arrest. But unless it's something quite egregious, they don't face any disciplinary action over it.
If an officer is acting without malice and his interpretation of the law was reasonable, how could an arrest be "unlawful?" Improper, perhaps, but "unlawful?"
What can I say - that's how the law is.
e.g. Officer is told that Mr. X has an outstanding warrant, so goes and arrests Mr. X. During the arrest Mr. X fights back and punches Officer. It later turns out that the information told to Officer was wrong - the warrant was for someone else, not Mr. X. It was reasonable however in those circumstances for Officer to have believed the information he was told (it came from telecoms, for example).
Nevertheless no legal authority existed to arrest Mr. X. The arrest was unlawful, and Mr. X was justified to use force to resist that unlawful arrest.
Peeping Tim case?
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
What can I say - that's how the law is.
e.g. Officer is told that Mr. X has an outstanding warrant, so goes and arrests Mr. X. During the arrest Mr. X fights back and punches Officer. It later turns out that the information told to Officer was wrong - the warrant was for someone else, not Mr. X. It was reasonable however in those circumstances for Officer to have believed the information he was told (it came from telecoms, for example).
Nevertheless no legal authority existed to arrest Mr. X. The arrest was unlawful, and Mr. X was justified to use force to resist that unlawful arrest.
Okay, thanks. Good example. That clarifies a few things in my mind on some other cases I have read about, though I am not sure it applies to this case (where the officer's judgement of motive appears to be a key).
Yeah, not sure it does. Whether an arrest is unlawful or not is rarely an issue for anyone - what the accused is interested in is whether or not they are found guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether or not the officer had reasonable and probably grounds to make the arrest in the first place. Cases of assault peace officer are one of the few times when the lawfulness of the officer's actions does matter.
I hope no one has linked this..I LOVE this. Does this guy think everyone in America is stupid?
Quote
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail in which he compared Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to a "banana-eating jungle monkey" has apologized, saying he's not a racist.
Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett has apologized for the e-mail he sent about Harvard professor.
Officer Justin Barrett, 36, told a Boston television station Wednesday night that he was sorry about the e-mail, a copy of which he also sent to The Boston Globe. He repeated his apology Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
"I would like to take this opportunity to offer fellow police officers, soldiers and citizens my sincerest apology over the controversial e-mail I authored," Barrett said on CNN. "I am not a racist. I did not intend any racial bigotry, harm or prejudice in my words. I sincerely apologize that these words have been received as such. I truly apologize to all."
Barrett was suspended from his military duties as captain in the Army National Guard and placed on administrative leave from the Boston Police Department pending the outcome of a termination hearing. Video Watch Barrett apologize »
Barrett said he was moved to write the note because he felt The Boston Globe column about the Gates incident to which he was responding "seemed like it was biased.
"It did not show the roles and duties of a police officer and how dangerous it already is without having a debate about people getting in a police officer's face, which should never happen at all."
Asked what led him to choose to use such language, he said, "I don't know. I couldn't tell you. I have no idea."
He added, in response to a question, that he had never used such language before.
Don't Miss
In a news conference Thursday morning, Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis denounced the e-mail.
"We have a relationship to maintain with the community," he said. "Police officers certainly have First Amendment rights, but they can't cross the line. I believe this crosses the line." Video Watch Davis say Barrett will be held accountable »
Davis also said he spoke Wednesday with Gates, whom he described as "gracious and incredibly thankful that we took action."
In his fiery e-mail, which he sent to some fellow Guard members as well as the newspaper, Barrett vented about a July 22 Globe column about Gates' arrest.
The African-American scholar was arrested July 16 and accused of disorderly conduct after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his Cambridge home. The charge was later dropped, but the incident sparked a debate about racial profiling and police procedures.
President Obama stepped into the debate and drew criticism by saying the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."
Obama, who later said he spoke without knowing all the facts, tried to calm the debate, meeting Thursday with Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, for a beer at the White House.
"At this point, I am hopeful that we can all move on, and that this experience will prove an occasion for education, not recrimination," Gates said afterward in a written statement. "I know that Sergeant Crowley shares this goal."
"What you had today was two gentlemen agree to disagree on a particular issue," Crowley told reporters afterward. "I don't think we spent too much time dwelling on the past; we spent a lot of time discussing the future."
Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham, who wrote the editorial that sparked Barrett's e-mail, supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?" Video Watch Blogger Bunch: Is race discussion possible? »
In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."
Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."
He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."
According to a statement from Boston police, Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and his badge. Barrett's prior arrests and field investigations will be looked at for indications of racial bias, Davis said. The department will also delve deeper into the officers who received or viewed the e-mail.
I like how he is apologizing to his "fellow police officers and soldiers" first. How about apologizing to the guy he actually insulted. What a scumbag.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2009, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2009, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2009, 07:47:07 AM
It may have been a police officer acting badly, or the professor acting badly, and neither side is yet proven at all, but it's become a racial issue regardless of what really transpired. And that's a sad in its own way.
Let's put it this way - if the suspect in question had been Justice Breyer (who resides in Cambridge and used to teach at Harvard), would he have been charged and arrested? What about Larry Summers?
I'd like to think race didn't play a role here, but it doesn't seem all that likely.
It would look a little odd if one of them had said "why, is it because I'm a Black man?"
Cop's reaction = :huh:
That being said, I personally don't think being mouthy with a cop ought to be an arrestable offence. That said, a longhaired teen being cuffed for it would make exactly zero waves (I used to be a longhaired teen and I knew that very well - I was always polite to cops) - this is a class thing as much as it is a race thing; upper middle class types expect service with deference from the cops.
Whether that expectation is reasonable or not is the issue. Ideally, in law the cops should give the same amount service with deference to everyone, and treat all alike; but it is well known they do not. The concern here is that the cop did not extend the deference to which this man was "entitled" by virtue of his position, and the suspicion is that he didn't extend the proper deference because the guy was Black; what people on the other side are objecting to is the notion that a cop should meekly offer that level of deference to anyone, Black or White; in law probably they are supposed to (i.e., not arrest someone for being mouthy) no matter what race or class they are.
Yeah, this is pretty much the thing.
Which opens a broader issue (can of warms?) about what are proper form of deference/address in a supposedly classless, democratic society, where, like here, you have a conflict of a low class "formal" authority figure (the cop) and an upper class only "soft" authority figure (the professor). Since I think cops are pigs, I'm on the black dude's side here, but your mileage may vary. :p
Quote from: ulmont on July 22, 2009, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 02:59:53 PM
Maybe the cop could have dealt with that better - maybe Gates didn't let him.
Why is it that you always* take the cop's side?
I mean, just this week, there was the Gates thing, a lawsuit over 12-year olds being tazed and threatened with sodomy - http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/20/illinois-officers-sued-for-unprovoked-tasering/ - and a cop who was caught on video attacking a woman in a gas station unprovoked (the cop lied about the attack and said the woman attacked him, was confronted by the video, and then returned to duty eight days later) - http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/1857461-Store-video-catches-Philly-cop-confronting-woman/ - why give the cop the benefit of the doubt over the professor, again?
*Unless they praise their union.
Berkut comes from a working class family, if I am not mistaken. This comes with a de rigeur level of anti-intellectualism and penchant for a brutal authority worship.
Quote from: swallow on July 22, 2009, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 03:55:01 PM
How was he not good enough for his job?
Even if he was an asshole, and didn't kiss Gates ass as much as his "eminent" position demanded, that says nothing about his ability to do his job.
The worst case scenario, as far as I can tell, is that the sergeant in question could be a bit more tactful and considerate. But shit, there are a lot of cops out there, and we aren't willing to pay to train them all that much, so what do you expect? They aren't all going to be super polite guys.
His job was to respond to a call, make sure a crime was not being committed, and secure the area. He did that. All the other bullshit that went down was completely secondary to his job.
At best, he over reacted. That's a pretty bad failing in that job. They do without doubt deserve more pay and training than they get.
Pretty much, yeah. It would be bad if he just yelled back abuse at him (being a professional, who should carry himself professionally even when confronted with a troublesome "customer"). But he actually abused him authority to "get back" at the guy. That's inexcusable.
It's like a lawyer deliberately losing a case for an unpleasant client - he would be out of the bar immediately.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2009, 02:33:51 PM
Btw, I think we can all agree that our commander in chief acted deplorably and should have stayed out of this minor squabble. :swiss:
He will learn his lesson and do just that next time Russia invades Georgia. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 01:48:21 AM
I like how he is apologizing to his "fellow police officers and soldiers" first. How about apologizing to the guy he actually insulted. What a scumbag.
*shrug* What he says doesn't really matter now. He completely ruined his career.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2009, 07:41:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2009, 07:37:50 AMI guess the cops should have allowed themselves to be killed. :(
The Fates, Martinuses and Joan Robinsons of the world would prefer it. Law enforcement and its premium placed on tactical control and authority affects their sense of fair play.
Not so keen on Fate, but I'm quite honored to be put in the same "troll brigade" as Joan Robinson/Minsky Moment.
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 09:48:55 AM
Another question is: if at the Beer Summit, both parties admit they were wrong, will all assembled here accept that and will debate end, or will it continue and perhaps move to a more theoretical plane of existence? :contract:
I, for one, hope this m.o. from Obama will become a constant feature of his politics.
Scenario: Russia invades Georgia.
Day 1: Obama calls Putin stupid.
Day 2: Obama says he didn't mean it.
Day 3: Obama invites Putin and Shakashvili (sp) for a round of beer.
Alcohol solves all problems.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 06:23:14 AM
Scenario: Russia invades Georgia.
Day 1: Obama calls Putin stupid.
Day 2: Obama says he didn't mean it.
Day 3: Obama invites Putin and Shakashvili (sp) for a round of beer.
Putin is a teetotaller proving again that Russia is not to be trusted.
It also shows that to rule Russia one only has to be the only sober person left in the country.
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2009, 08:01:06 AM
Putin is a teetotaller proving again that Russia is not to be trusted.
Yeltsin's amusing drunkenness trumps Putin's Kung Fu in coolness, but only by a little bit.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2009, 08:01:06 AM
Putin is a teetotaller proving again that Russia is not to be trusted.
Yeltsin's amusing drunkenness trumps Putin's Kung Fu in coolness, but only by a little bit.
Judo :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 31, 2009, 08:06:38 AMJudo :contract:
Ok, whatever. I can't tell that chink shit apart. :)
excerpt from Beer Summit AAR:
Quote
Gates was the only one who drank a fully American beer, opting for a Sam Adams light. Obama drank Bud Lite, made by a Belgian company, Biden had nonalcoholic Buckler, brewed by Dutch Heineken, and Crowley chose Blue Moon, from Canadian Molson.
Conclusions:
Gates loves America.
Obama hates America.
Biden is a homo.
Crowley loves North America.
full article at: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8218741&page=2 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8218741&page=2)
It's Coors-Molson.
It is good to see the President AND Vice-President addressing the really important issues that trouble America.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 08:25:13 AM
It is good to see the President AND Vice-President addressing the really important issues that trouble America.
I agree! :w00t:
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:23:35 AM
excerpt from Beer Summit AAR:
Quote
Gates was the only one who drank a fully American beer, opting for a Sam Adams light. Obama drank Bud Lite, made by a Belgian company, Biden had nonalcoholic Buckler, brewed by Dutch Heineken, and Crowley chose Blue Moon, from Canadian Molson.
Conclusions:
Gates loves America.
Obama hates America.
Biden is a homo.
Crowley loves North America.
full article at: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8218741&page=2 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=8218741&page=2)
Did they actually drink their beers? In the short clip I saw only the cop actually drank anything.
How it should have been:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/understocked.png
Obama is a drunk.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 06:11:07 PM
Ah, no. LaPore is the Peeping Tom case.
Irrelevant - it sets out a standard that is binding on Mass law enforcement. The fact that the precise fact pattern differs doesn't change the generall applicability of the standard.
QuoteAnd in Lopiano, the issue was that the suspect was not attempting to accomplish anything by his speech other than venting. Not necessarily so in the Gates case (ie a reasonable person could infer motives to Gates's speech).
Incorrect for two reasons.
First, the question of intent is prong 1. Lopiano goes to prong 2 - what is the objective conduct that triggers the violation. You need both.
Second, I don't know what "motives" you are purporting to "infer" from Gates speech, but Crowley knew exactly what Gates' motives were. Gates had slagged off Crowley continuously in his house. Crowley invited him to continue that discussion outside, and Gates did the same thing there and said the same things there he did in his house. His motive pure and simple was to vent against Gates.
Third, whatever motive you are trying to infer could just as well have been inferred to Lopiano.
Law is often full of gray areas - but this situation is not one of them.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:23:35 AM
Biden is a homo.
What gay misses an opportunity to get drunk? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2009, 11:03:40 AM
What gay misses an opportunity to get drunk? :yeahright:
Good point. Ok, Biden is a pussy.
I approve the idea of more White House keggers, but this "party" seems to have been pretty stiff, with lawyers and families etcetera in attendence. boring.
It's enough to drive a man to drink.
Biden doesn't drink, so he needed a non alcoholic beer. Because god forbid he drink water or soda at a "beer summit." :D
The beer summit was a good idea though.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 31, 2009, 11:40:34 AM
I approve the idea of more White House keggers, but this "party" seems to have been pretty stiff, with lawyers and families etcetera in attendence. boring.
It's enough to drive a man to drink.
The spliff party was out back, but the lawyers and families weren't invited.
...
We never seem to get invited to that sort of thing. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2009, 12:36:56 PM
The beer summit was a good idea though.
Yeah, all the news coverage about what kind of beer they were drinking really took the edge off the whole black men vs police angle.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2009, 12:36:56 PM
The beer summit was a good idea though.
Indeed, the President of the United States surely has nothing better to do than spend some quality times with his good friends Professor Gates. He should have invited the Reverend Wright to join them, they could have really made some progress on showing Crowley the error of his ways then.
Funny that Wright was Obamas "father figure", confidant, advisor, good buddy, family friend until he got thrown under the bus, and then Gates was his good friend and the cope were "stupid" for arresting him (with "stupid" of course being code for "racist bastards"), and now Obama has backed off on that as well.
I am sure it is nothing though.
Quote from: Malthus on July 31, 2009, 12:44:00 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 31, 2009, 11:40:34 AM
I approve the idea of more White House keggers, but this "party" seems to have been pretty stiff, with lawyers and families etcetera in attendence. boring.
It's enough to drive a man to drink.
The spliff party was out back, but the lawyers and families weren't invited.
...
We never seem to get invited to that sort of thing. :(
that's purely out of respect for your reputation.
PREDICTION FOR THE NEXT YEAR:
Crowley and Gates become BFFs and do Oprah where she makes them apologize to each other and all the housewives cry and applaud.
They then write a book together. Crowley gets rich, Gates gets richer.
Obama solves the racism problem.
I LOL.
Everyone wins.
QuotePREDICTION FOR THE NEXT YEAR:
Crowley and Gates become BFFs and do Oprah where she makes them apologize to each other and all the housewives cry and applaud.
They then write a book together. Crowley gets rich, Gates gets richer.
Obama solves the racism problem.
I LOL.
Everyone wins.
We can hope for such great change in America.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
We can hope for such great change in America.
ADDENDUM: Berkut gets angrier. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
We can hope for such great change in America.
ADDENDUM: Berkut gets angrier. :)
I couldn't decide to go with:
1. How can that be possible?
or
2. That goes without saying.
Which do you like more?
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 12:46:59 PM
Indeed, the President of the United States surely has nothing better to do than spend some quality times with his good friends Professor Gates.
I thought it was a good idea from the stance of a good PR move. Takes attention away from failing healthcare reform and Obama's initial negative comments.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2009, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 12:46:59 PM
Indeed, the President of the United States surely has nothing better to do than spend some quality times with his good friends Professor Gates.
I thought it was a good idea from the stance of a good PR move. Takes attention away from failing healthcare reform and Obama's initial negative comments.
Yeah, it is actually a problem he can "do" something about.
Of course, he should ahve kept his mouth shut to begin with, but I do appreciate that he gives us there little insights into his true thinking from time to time.
Still glad you voted for the guy, Berkut? :P
I don't see how this was a bad move for Obama either. It's a story in the news, we gets to actually do something to 'bridge the racial divide', and everyone seems happy at the end of the day.
There's a little room to criticize for wasting his time I suppose, but Presidents do far worse in terms of time wasting PR moves than this.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:01:28 PM
Yeah, it is actually a problem he can "do" something about.
Of course, he should ahve kept his mouth shut to begin with, but I do appreciate that he gives us there little insights into his true thinking from time to time.
Agreed on all counts.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 01:04:21 PM
we gets to actually do something to 'bridge the racial divide'
What are you using "actually" to mean in this sentence?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 31, 2009, 01:03:22 PM
Still glad you voted for the guy, Berkut? :P
Every time I think it was a mistake, Sarah Palin makes the news again, so no, not really.
I guess I am sad I was forced to vote for him, and I don't think there is much doubt (at this point - it is still early) that McCain would have made better policy and choices in almost every single major issue Obama has "addressed" so far.
But then again..Palin...:puke:
So you were wrapped up in concern that McCain would die leaving us with Mme. Palin as president?
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2009, 01:09:10 PM
So you were wrapped up in concern that McCain would die leaving us with Mme. Palin as president?
Indeed.
Plus it was the latest in a long line of what I saw as pandering moves, which I understood (and even defended him on) but it kind of became a lot to swallow after a while.
But mostly it is the fear of Palin as President.
Classy statement from Gates:
QuoteI would like to applaud President Obama for bringing Sergeant Crowley, me and our families together. I would also like to thank the President for welcoming my father, Henry Louis Gates, Sr., who for most of his life has been a Republican! My dad turned 96 this past June, and the fact that he worked two jobs every day is the reason that my brother, Dr. Paul Gates, and I were able to receive such splendid educations. I am honored that he chose to join me at the White House, along with my fiancée, my daughters, and my brother.
SGT. CROWLEY: "We Agreed to Move Forward."
Sergeant Crowley and I, through an accident of time and place, have been cast together, inextricably, as characters – as metaphors, really – in a thousand narratives about race over which he and I have absolutely no control. Narratives about race are as old as the founding of this great Republic itself, but these new ones have unfolded precisely when Americans signaled to the world our country's great progress by overcoming centuries of habit and fear, and electing an African American as President. It is incumbent upon Sergeant Crowley and me to utilize the great opportunity that fate has given us to foster greater sympathy among the American public for the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand.
Let me say that I thank God that I live in a country in which police officers put their lives at risk to protect us every day, and, more than ever, I've come to understand and appreciate their daily sacrifices on our behalf. I'm also grateful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is a sacrosanct value and I hope that one day we can get to know each other better, as we began to do at the White House this afternoon over beers with President Obama.
Thank God we live in a country where speech is protected, a country which guarantees and defends my right to speak out when I believe my rights have been violated; a country that protects us from arrest when we do express our views, no matter how unpopular.
And thank God that we have a President who can rise above the fray, bridge age-old differences and transform events such as this into a moment in the evolution of our society's attitudes about race and difference. President Obama is a man who understands tolerance and forgiveness, and our country is blessed to have such a leader.
The national conversation over the past week about my arrest has been rowdy, not to say tumultuous and unruly. But we've learned that we can have our differences without demonizing one another. There's reason to hope that many people have emerged with greater sympathy for the daily perils of policing, on the one hand, and for the genuine fears about racial profiling, on the other hand.
Having spent my academic career trying to bridge differences and promote understanding among Americans, I can report that it is far more comfortable being the commentator than being commented upon. At this point, I am hopeful that we can all move on, and that this experience will prove an occasion for education, not recrimination. I know that Sergeant Crowley shares this goal. Both of us are eager to go back to work tomorrow. And it turns out that the President just might have a few other things on his plate as well.
Gates might have made a very bad decision initially, and exacerbated it a bit later, but he's a smart enough man to know when he needs to give... either that or had enough friends/advisors who were smart enough to know that.
I'm 99% sure that someone in the Whitehouse wrote that statement (and a similar one for Crowley) well before either met the President.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:12:28 PM
Indeed.
Plus it was the latest in a long line of what I saw as pandering moves, which I understood (and even defended him on) but it kind of became a lot to swallow after a while.
But mostly it is the fear of Palin as President.
I fear some freak occurrence will allow Pelosi to take the throne but that doesn't motivate me to act all crazy.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2009, 01:09:10 PM
So you were wrapped up in concern that McCain would die leaving us with Mme. Palin as president?
If McCain lives until 2013, Berkut will be forced to admit that it was his vote that destroyed the United States.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
I'm 99% sure that someone in the Whitehouse wrote that statement (and a similar one for Crowley) well before either met the President.
Possible, but I don't see Gates allowing anyone to ghostwrite for him.
Pres Obama's first "Gate"?
Gates-Gate. ;)
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2009, 01:20:40 PM
If McCain lives until 2013, Berkut will be forced to admit that it was his vote that destroyed the United States.
Even if McCain didn't die before his 1/2 terms, he'd be setting her up for a powerful shot at the Presidency if she managed to complete at least one VP term without looking retarded.
Not a bad statement, but an apology for acting like a grade-A asshole and accusing someone of racism on no grounds at all seemed to be missing from it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:18:37 PM
Gates might have made a very bad decision initially, and exacerbated it a bit later, but he's a smart enough man to know when he needs to give... either that or had enough friends/advisors who were smart enough to know that.
Yeah, Gates' statement was quite good, classy. Whether it was him or not, still he sanctioned it so gets good credit for it.
Crowley also spoke well about things to the media at the White House.
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 01:24:20 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:18:37 PM
Gates might have made a very bad decision initially, and exacerbated it a bit later, but he's a smart enough man to know when he needs to give... either that or had enough friends/advisors who were smart enough to know that.
Yeah, Gates' statement was quite good, classy. Whether it was him or not, still he sanctioned it so gets good credit for it.
He gets a C, at best.
Probably the best statement he could possibly make that doesn't include an apology.
I've been trying to tell you guys that the "word on the street" was always that Gates was cool. He obviously overreacted on the day of, and then I guess was possessed by Al Sharpton's ghost for the following couple of days.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
Probably the best statement he could possibly make that doesn't include an apology.
Like I said, they're saving that for Oprah.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:23:53 PM
Not a bad statement, but an apology for acting like a grade-A asshole and accusing someone of racism on no grounds at all seemed to be missing from it.
He did stand to look quite badly from this. He wasn't looking a winner from things as the incident details played out. He had initially gone so far, perhaps "stupidly", ;) that it was perhaps becoming difficult for him to back off. This statement does help him, I'd think.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:22:33 PM
Even if McCain didn't die before his 1/2 terms, he'd be setting her up for a powerful shot at the Presidency becoming a PowerPoint consultant or a supporter of gay marriage (like VPs before her), if she managed to complete at least one VP term without looking retarded.
:P
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
Probably the best statement he could possibly make that doesn't include an apology.
Why should he? His claims of racism may be true.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:23:53 PM
Not a bad statement, but an apology for acting like a grade-A asshole and accusing someone of racism on no grounds at all seemed to be missing from it.
He may have done all those things, but he did them on his front porch, for which an arrest was a bit over the top and unnecessary. I don't think he really needs to apologize to the people who arrested him.
Quote from: Gates
And thank God that we have a President who can rise above the fray, bridge age-old differences and transform events such as this into a moment in the evolution of our society's attitudes about race and difference. President Obama is a man who understands tolerance and forgiveness, and our country is blessed to have such a leader.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Kleves on July 31, 2009, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: Gates
And thank God that we have a President who can rise above the fray, bridge age-old differences and transform events such as this into a moment in the evolution of our society's attitudes about race and difference. President Obama is a man who understands tolerance and forgiveness, and our country is blessed to have such a leader.
:rolleyes:
People were right to fear that Obama would try to steer us into a pseudo-post racial moment. :weep:
I wish Dr Gates was more like Berkut, i.e. always calm, never getting angry, and always apologizing for harsh words. :(
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
I wish Dr Gates was more like Berkut, i.e. always calm, never getting angry, and always apologizing for harsh words. :(
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
I wish Dr Gates was more like Berkut, i.e. always calm, never getting angry, and always apologizing for harsh words. :(
There is nothing wrong with harsh words, as long as they are right.
And I am perfectly capable of apologizing when I screw up.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
I wish Dr Gates was more like Berkut, i.e. always calm, never getting angry, and always apologizing for harsh words. :(
Oh Snap!
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
I'm 99% sure that someone in the Whitehouse wrote that statement (and a similar one for Crowley) well before either met the President.
I am almost equally sure that it didn't because the speech contains some noticeable Gatesisms that a WH staffer would not have written. It may be that someone for the WH vetted it or suggested some language though.
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
I've been trying to tell you guys that the "word on the street" was always that Gates was cool.
it's been kind of sad to see some here try to equate him with the likes of Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright given that his entire life he has been a principled voice for moderation and "accomodation" and kwown and respected for his open-mindedness in engaging with others. I think Crowley was seriously wrong and that his actions were probably impacted by race but its not like I've tried make some ridiculous caricature of him as some Bull Conner crossed with Mark Fuhrman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2009, 02:42:25 PMit's been kind of sad to see some here try to equate him with the likes of Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright given that his entire life he has been a principled voice for moderation and "accomodation" and kwown and respected for his open-mindedness in engaging with others. I think Crowley was seriously wrong and that his actions were probably impacted by race but its not like I've tried make some ridiculous caricature of him as some Bull Conner crossed with Mark Fuhrman.
What's the value of a man's entire life when balanced against the sweetness of rhetorical advantage on the internet?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2009, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:25:32 PM
I've been trying to tell you guys that the "word on the street" was always that Gates was cool.
it's been kind of sad to see some here try to equate him with the likes of Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright given that his entire life he has been a principled voice for moderation and "accomodation" and kwown and respected for his open-mindedness in engaging with others.
I think it is sad to see someone whose entire life has been a principles voice for moderation and accommodation blow it in one temper tantrum at a cop trying to do his job in the face of an irrationally hostile asshole.
He certianly wasn't "open minded" when he started ranting about being a black man in MAerica becaues a cop asked him for some ID.
Whether or not Crowley is a super secret closet racist, he did nothing to instigate Gates at all, and Gates had jumped the shark long before you can argue that Crowley was over-reacting and exceeding his authority because he is a racist.
Gates needs no help from anyone else to create a "ridiculous caricature" of himself. He did that on his own.
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2009, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2009, 02:42:25 PMit's been kind of sad to see some here try to equate him with the likes of Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright given that his entire life he has been a principled voice for moderation and "accomodation" and kwown and respected for his open-mindedness in engaging with others. I think Crowley was seriously wrong and that his actions were probably impacted by race but its not like I've tried make some ridiculous caricature of him as some Bull Conner crossed with Mark Fuhrman.
What's the value of a man's entire life when balanced against the sweetness of rhetorical advantage on the internet?
Depends - in the man in question white or black?
JR seems to think that is an important distinction - he is quite willing to accuse Crowley of racism without a single smidge of evidence that anything he did had anything to do with race. Of course, Crowley is not an "eminent and important" academic, so the value of his entire life is somewhat lower, I suspect.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 01:41:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
I wish Dr Gates was more like Berkut, i.e. always calm, never getting angry, and always apologizing for harsh words. :(
There is nothing wrong with harsh words, as long as they are right.
And I am perfectly capable of apologizing when I screw up.
There is plenty wrong with harsh words. They tend to anger and upset people, put them on the defensive.
Now there are times when you want people to be angry and upset. It can be a useful technique at times. It can get people's attention.
But "correctness" is a very poor excuse for using harsh words. There is always a way to say the same thing without a harsh tone. Be harsh if you want to be harsh, but don't blame people for getting upset when those kinds of words are designed to upset people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 01:20:00 PM
I'm 99% sure that someone in the Whitehouse wrote that statement (and a similar one for Crowley) well before either met the President.
I am almost equally sure that it didn't because the speech contains some noticeable Gatesisms that a WH staffer would not have written. It may be that someone for the WH vetted it or suggested some language though.
Fair enough. I remain convinced that the WH knew what the post-meeting script was going to be however, no matter who wrote the words.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2009, 02:42:25 PM
Mark Fuhrman.
Now there is an interesting fellow: comes to the public's attention for recorded racist diatribes that sink the prosecution in a high profile murder case, and turns that start into a career as a fox news commentator with MLB friends that bring him along to the locker room.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
I think it is sad to see someone whose entire life has been a principles voice for moderation and accommodation blow it in one temper tantrum at a cop trying to do his job in the face of an irrationally hostile asshole.
Gates is human, no?
The whole situation seems like it ought to be an episode of Yes, Minister. I bet Humphrey Appleby wrote that Gates statement.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
He certianly wasn't "open minded" when he started ranting about being a black man in MAerica becaues a cop asked him for some ID.
No he was tired after a long vacation and surprised to find an cop showing up unannounced and walking uninvited into his home.
If you weren't so busy trying to spin some class-based narrative of your own, you might be able to emphathize with that position and understand why someone might not be cool.
I'm not the kind of man to throw accusations around..
but doesn't Berkut seem to be fired up about this a little more than usual?
When isn't Berkut fired up?
I said MORE THAN USUAL, potato brain.
Can't we all just get along?
Quote from: Jaron on July 31, 2009, 05:56:38 PM
I said MORE THAN USUAL, potato brain.
Delicious Potatoes.
Quote from: Jaron on July 31, 2009, 05:54:50 PM
I'm not the kind of man to throw accusations around..
but doesn't Berkut seem to be fired up about this a little more than usual?
Berkut is scared of black people. He's made that clear by now. GOD DAMN AMERICA!