Cop, union: Obama shouldn’t have weighed in

[kpete]

Source: Boston Herald

Cop, union: Obama shouldn’t have weighed in
By Laura Crimaldi
Thursday, July 23, 2009 - Updated 0m ago

The head of a state police union called President Obama’s prime-time scolding of the Cambridge police force “regrettable” and said officers are expressing “outrage.”

The cop in the center of the national uproar said today he’s also disappointed at the president.

“I support the president of the United States 110 percent. I think he was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts as he himself stated before he made that comment,” Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley told WEEI-AM today.

Union members say they are backing Crowley.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1186694&pos=breaking

[FrenchieCat]

1. Cop shouldn't be arresting people in their own house

simply because those folks might get irrate that cops mistake him for a burglar of their own house.

[Fearless]

44. He did his legal job. Disorderly conduct IS a crime.

The police officer has no prior incidences of issues with race. He teaches a anti-profiling class for police officers. He did exactly what the textbook definition of his job is supposed to be in this case. Flame away.

[HughMoran]

53. How do you commit disorderly conduct in your own house?

Please explain to me about how my rights to say whatever I want in my own house are overridden when a cop walks in uninvited.

[Indydem]

62. Get some facts.

Gates was arrested on his front stoop after causing a scene.

Prior to that, he had invited the officer inside, where he began to rage and rant at him, where he followed him outside and was arrested.

[HughMoran]

73. ...and they dropped the charges why?

Oh, because the COP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY.

You get some common sense!

[Indydem]

78. Or maybe they decided it wasn't worth fucking with...

Either way, the police department has siad they stand behind the officer who has no record of stepping over his authority or racism.

[xocet]

167. Hilarious...

How on earth does someone get into the position of "stepping over his authority "? Your argument doesn't gain any credibility by your inability to articulate said argument.

If you are a German-speaker, to overstep is not a separable verb. Otherwise, I am not sure what language would cause such a deformation of regular English idiom - irony intended. Languages change, but please let us know what sort of revisions you intend to make before they need to be understood.

Lastly, is "jumping the shark" related to "stepping over one's authority"?
E.g.: "As soon as he stepped over his authority, it was clear that he had also jumped his shark."

[No Elephants]

437. Professor Gates has no bad record, either, and Harv. Law Prof Ogletree and former U.Chi Prof of Law

Obama stood behind Harv. Prof. Gates.

BTW, it is not necessary that this be racism. No crime was committed, yet a man was arrested because he did not kowtow to Crowley. Failure to kowtow is not a crime, especially when you are on your own property, being hassled for no reason.

Cops are known for sticking together, no matter what. And?

BTW, the PD also said this was unfortunate, regrettable, not Crowley's finest hour, etc. Sure, they also said it was not Gates' finest hour, but that was the words of the PD. And not having your finest hour is also not a crime.

Even if you believe every word in Crowley's report and read nothing else, Gates committed no crime. However, even as to being loud, Gates said he had bronchitis and could not have raised his voice if he tried. If you believe Crowley over Gates on the "yelling" issue, ask yourself why. At the time Crowley wrote the report, he had every incentive to paint Gates' conduct in as bad a light as possible. After the charges were dropped, when Gates first commented, Gates did not have an incentive to lie. And again, yelling in your own home when you are being hassled for no reason is not a crime.


BTW, not only does Gates have no negative record, he has a very long record of dealing with thousands of people of all kinds and being nothing but gentle and gracious.

[Fearless]

79. NO! They usually drop the charges!

It's a tactic used to regain control of a situation and they rarely prosecute (max penalty of 6mo in jail) unless there is violence against an officer. Get your facts straight!

[HughMoran]

82. Heh, so you admit this is just a tactic

...all that bullshit you're posting is just to make a point.

Point not well received.

[Fearless]

92. NO! It he was arrested, following procedure... it is used to calm someone down...

So they don't do something else. Disorderly conduct IS a crime. He was disorderly. The officer walked out of his house. He was followed. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. It is a good law because it helps keep situations under control, officers safe (clearly not applicable in this case), and keeps the disorderly conduct from escalating. THAT IS ALL.

[HughMoran]

106. "I was just following procedure"

Oh fucking please - do you have any idea how much BAD BEHAVIOR has been justified using that lame fucking expression?

[Fearless]

119. HE WAS PURSUED OUSIDE AFTER HE LEFT GATES. GATES CONTINUED TO CAUSE A SCENE.

HE WAS ARRESTED.

[HughMoran]

OMG! He caused a SCENE!!

Oh, well arrest the loud mouth then.

I guess you didn't grow up in the city over a bar like I did, because if people were like you the jails would be filled with hundreds of people every night.

C'mon, just a drop of common sense? Please?

[Fearless]

129. Get back to me when you understand police procedure... until then, you're making a joke of yourself.

[HughMoran]

132. Et tu?

I think your lack of common sense speaks volumes about your attitude.

[Fearless]

137. Your "Common Sense" vs. word of law... I wonder which one I'll follow.

[HughMoran]

139. Hey, I can relate to you "law and order" Republicans

;)

[Fearless]

151. Oh yess... google my past posts.

Or read my blog... or go to UMass Amherst and read my dissertation on applying universal health coverage in the US. ("Not In My Backyard:
Past and Present Roadblocks to Universal Health Coverage in the United States and What Can Be Done to Overcome Them")

Then we'll talk.

[No Elephants]

443. A dissertation on health care does not make you an expert in criminal law.

Besides, we really don't even have any way of knowing that something that appears online is actually your dissertion. Maybe it's my dissertation, or Hugh Moran's.

On a message board, I could be Sandra Day O'Connor or Arnold Schwartzenegger. Or not. As could you (except that you are clearly not O'Connor).

[paulsby]

418. abhorrent tactic

you have no argument so you attack the motivation of those you disagree with by calling them a "law and order" republican. that's a childish debate tactic, by those who can't discuss like adults. attack the motivations of your opponent by calling them a (closet, since this is a democratic site) republican. you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Threedifferentones]

461. Okay, we understand police procedure.

The procedure is, if you talk back to a cop, you can be arrested for making that cop feel like he was not in total control of the "situation." And of course, by "situation," they mean YOU, or MR. Gates, or whoever.

So, we think this procedure sucks. We do not think it keeps us safe, and we think it allows cops to hassle people for no good reason.

Cops are not supposed to have control of my home unless I am committing a crime. Of course, since annoying a police officer is a crime, I must accept that any cop who walks up to my door, no matter the situation, has absolute control of my life until he leaves. If I make him feel, deliberately or not, uncomfortable, I have committed a crime.

I really wish it were a joke that people defend this sort of crap. Unfortunately, I know from personal experience that many cops in many places act like professional bullies because they know they have the support of our government, 99% of other cops, and fascists like you.

[JeanGrey]

430. Common Sense? This is just amazing to me. I guess I've

known the "common sense" of not screaming at a cop just about all my life, because you'll probably be arrested.

[No Elephants]

446. Problem is,y ou should be arrested only for committing a crime. Raising your

voice, even to a cop, in and of itself, is not a crime. Disrespecting a police officer is NOT a crime, either.
Especially when you are in your own home.

So, your post indicates only that rogue cops have probably been acting illegally all your life, and during the life of the people who taught you that. It's about time cops stop acting illegally.

[JeanGrey]

451. Yes it is. When you follow a cop yelling and screaming

it is "disorderly conduct". It is that simple and as far as I know has always been that way.

[No Elephants]

458. First, even the police report (which has been revised, btw) never said anything about

"screaming." Your adding that is an effort to make Gates's conduct seem even worse than the police report states. So, that tends to show where your sympathies are.

Second, check the photo of Gate's arrest. Crowley's revised police report states that he had started to descended the stairs. (Not a statement I recall from the original report, btw.) The photo, however, shows that Gates was barely out of his doorway, so he could not have followed Crowley down the stairs?

The police report also states that Gates asked for his cane, saying he would fall without it. That's another reason we should not believe the police report when it states Gates followed Crowley down the stairs, but, again, the photo contradicts Crowley.'s report.

Third, even if Gates had followed Crowley down the stairs, he would still have been on his own property, where he had a perfect right to be and where Crowley was, at that point trespassing, his legitimate business having been concluded as soon as he refused to give Gates his name and badge number--and certainly after he'd seen Gates's ID.

Fourth, you are wrong about the law. I don' know what it may have been in 1620, when the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts. However, in my lifetime, there has been no law against raising your voice to a police officer, without anything more than that, and there isn't one now. Nor should there be.

The only laws broken in that incident were broken by Crowley. I've posted elsewhere on the thread what laws he broke.

[Hansel]

136. HE WENT OUT ON HIS FRONT PORCH.

Who's yelling now?

[Fearless]

140. He followed the officer while shouting at him. It is a threat. Crowley did his job.

[HughMoran]

147. OMG! He was shooting at him?

Oh, shouting - never mind.

What a whining little sivet coward that cop was.

[Fearless]

153. Do you know what the law is? Do you understand at all?

It isn't WHO is pursuing. It is that SOMEONE is pursuing. The person could be harmless or harmful, they are all treated the same way. Arrested AND RELEASED without charges.

[HughMoran]

155. I know what an out of control coward cop is too

He should be ashamed of his childish reaction to an old man locked out of his home. Disgraceful!

[Fearless]

157. Ask any police officer if his action was warrented. Ask ANY legal expert. Ask a state senator.

[HughMoran]

165. Most cops I know would wave it off as absurd

A little common sense is what most cops use - and you know it!

[Fearless]

169. No police officer, if pursued and shouted at, after leaving a premisis would do as you say.

It would, in Massachusetts, by law, be illegal to do so too.

[HughMoran]

170. That's idiotic and you know it

You act like cops and the people in their community act like robots. Please :eyes:

I KNOW cops that routinely let go arrestable offenses. I have seen this many times and experienced it first hand when I was a kid. Most cops I know are human, according to you they should all be automatons.

[Fearless]

172. HE DID LET IT GO. HE LEFT THE HOUSE....

Gates pursued him. Gates was arrested because he didn't stand down. If he had left it alone and not followed the officer back outside shouting at him, he would have been finished.

[HughMoran]

174. Forget it

You've turned off your brain. Bye.

[EFerrari]

175. Going out on your own porch is pursuit now?

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

177. Stand down!

:rofl:

Nice to see you here ;)

[Fearless]

178. It is when you shout at them. It is called a "perceived threat" or "presumed threat"

Any person walking back at an officer is subject to arrest. They could have a gun. They could in some way attack or harm the officer. It has nothing to do with Gates in particular or his specific makeup.

[EFerrari]

185. LOL! So, the Cambridge police felt threatened by this older LAME man

who was also ill at the time from a bronchial infection that OBSTRUCTED HIS BREATHING?

They need to find another line of work.

[Fearless]

187. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING! To choose to not follow the law in one case but not another...

IS NOT LEGAL. Do you not understand that? If you could do that, then the real threat could sue in court and WIN. It is also unconstitutional and illegal to profile people based on race, AGE, ABILITY, or any number of other factors.

[EFerrari]

193. The police have something called "discretion".

And they are trained to predict, contain and defuse crises.

They failed, miserably, here. They did not protect the neighborhood from harm. They did not protect the property resident and they made themselves look like idiots. They FAIL.

[HughMoran]

195. Apparently cops are supposed to use a computer to decide when to arrest people

If not, apparently they "tilt" and it's game over! :rofl:

[EFerrari]

206. I've sprinkled wheat germ into milk shakes that was smarter than these guys.

Holy cow. They aren't going to be happy for a long, long time. lol

[Fearless]

197. He left the house. He didn't arrest Gates. He was pursued. So, he did....

How many chances should a screaming man get?

[EFerrari]

202. Bullshit. Gates was arrested on his own front porch.

[Fearless]

211. After the officer left him inside. Gates followed him to the porch. Reread my priors.

[EFerrari]

236. Gates is not a sack of groceries. The officer didn't leave him anywhere.

And that officer was avoiding giving his information.

Seriously, the charges have been dropped, the mayor has apologized. To continue to attempt to justify this behavior is ridiculous.

[Fearless]

239. The officer gave his information. You can choose to ignore that all you want

Since it is the only crutch your scenario stands on. But it won't make it true.

[EFerrari]

251. Crutch? My scenario? Well, the DA's office agrees with me

and tossed the charges. The mayor did, too, when she apologized. That's real enough.

[Fearless]

260. THEY ALWAYS DROP DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGES IF THERE IS NO VIOLCENCE OR PRIORS!!!

We've already gone over this!

[EFerrari]

264. LOL. So the answer is in the question. It was bullshit

and now that whole department is going to take a bunch of shit because these responders didn't have the sense God gave a turtle.

[Fearless]

273. Or because people like you want to see racism when it doesn't occur and the media wants money.

[EFerrari]

434. "People like me" didn't fabricate racial material to insert into the incident report.

That was your boy, Crowley.

[Hansel]

256. He says he gave his information.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe him over Gates. In real life, there are police officers who get pissed off when you ask for their badge numbers. They see it as challenging their authority. Try it sometime.

And they lie. Really they do.

[Fearless]

261. So one who has a record disputing that must have had an about face and became racist just for once.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

277. SO you automatically believe the cop?

I have busted cops lying dozens of times, do you not believe this happens almost constantly in this country?

[Fearless]

280. Uh-huh! I ALWAYS believe them...

:sarcasm:


Actually I look at the facts and see what looks like probably happened. The fact is that this police officer is one of the least likely I could imagine to do anything racist, based on his past and present activities. No one can cite one instance where he was accused of it in the past. There was a black cop with him. He supports Crowley. The only thing you can cling to is a vague chance that sometimes racism occurs, and therefore must now.


And, as for your supposed occupation... an even bigger discredit to anything you say. Clearly those who have such a vehement bias cannot make unbiased speculations.

[HughMoran]

286. Oh, so you can judge the character of this police officer, but not of the world renowned professor?

Are you sure you're not a bigot?

[No Elephants]

432. Re-read Crowley's police report. He repeatedly told Gates to step outside. When Gates did, Crowley

thanked Gates for complying with his request, then immediately cuffed him. Crowley's report never so much as implied that Crowley intended to leave. On seeing Gates' driver's license and Harvard ID, which told Crowley everything he needed to know to know that Gates belonged in that home, Crowley did not leave, but called the Harvard Police. Cop asshole hassler of the first order.

Look at the photo. Gates, cuffed, is barely over his own threshhold, and very much still on his own porch.

[Ka hrnt]

374. And they're not GOING to listen...

facts are irrelevant when it comes to belief, and some folks will absolutely refuse to believe that Dr. Gates could have possibly done something wrong.

[No Elephants]

441. No. First, police do NOT arrest every person who raises his or her voice,

or our jails would be even more overburdened than they are. So, they are using discretion all the time. Second, a cop, like the rest of society, has to be reasonable. Is it reasonable to perceive less of a threat from a 58 year old, lame, unarmed Harvard professor who has committed no crime, than from an armed man running from a robbery he just committed and therefore to treat the two differently? Duh. Whether it's criminal law or disability law, reasonableness is always a crucial factor. Third, raising your voice, in and of itself, is not a crime.

[1monster]

282. I call BS! Are you a police man? Then that explains why you are saying the officer

was pursued. Professor Gates said the officer asked him to step outside.

Even if Gates did step outside shouting that the officer is a racist, it does not rise to the level of a threat.

Didn't anyone every tell you, "Sticks and Stones may break my bones..."

[Fearless]

284. You would know the answers to all of your questions if you read the thread.

Cheers.

Fearless.

[HughMoran]

294. I really don't think that repeating the law is telling us anything

...because you later state that you "trust" the officer over the professor.

YOU have made a judgement and therefor your arguments are biased.

[Fearless]

297. And you have said that you trust the prof over the four officers present...

And you are biased.

[HughMoran]

299. No, I didn't actually

I said that he "may" have done this or that, but that in EITHER CASE the cop was OUT OF LINE and acted LIKE A STINKING COWARD!

[Fearless]

303. Uh-huh. I'll let those who read what you've written judge that.

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

311. OMG, look at the ridiculous stand you are taking

I've never seen someone go to the matt so hard for a stupid cop who overreated and made a fool out of himself.

[Fearless]

313. OMG my BFF Jill!

These things be a mutual entanglement.

[No Elephants]

459. Four officers filed a report? Anyway, taking Crowley's report (version 1) and only that,

Gates still did not commit a crime. Even version 2 does not make out a crime.

[paulsby]

420. just for the record

the disorderly conduct statute in mass does not require a threat. if gates stood in the middle of a residential street and repeatedly yelled "i love cream cheese" and was told to shut up cause he was breaching the peace, and he continued to do so, he also could be arrested for disorderly conduct. in that situation, there was clearly no threat, and he was not being arrested for praising cream cheese either.

[No Elephants]

440. Baloney. Raising your voice to ask why a cop is hassling you under the circumstances of this case

is not a threat. You check with any criminal defense lawyer what would happened it a statute making a threat a crime were applied simply to raising one's voice under these circumstances. The arrest would be unconstitutional because the statute would not have given enough notice of the nature of the activity prohibited. If you don't believe me, google "vague criminal statutes unconsitituional"

Being loud is being loud, period. And again, Gates denied being physically able to raise his voice. So, you are taking the word of a police report, known to be false in other respects, over the word of a Harvard professor. That is your prerogative, but at least be aware that that is what you are doing.

"I'm going to punch you" is a threat. Even a perceived threat has to be based upon a reasonable perception. Gates is a 58 year old lame unarmed Harvard professor who has voiced no threat and done nothing else wrong but ALLEGEDLY raise his voice in his own home; and Crowley has a night stick and a gun. Perceiving a threat of physical harm under those circumstances would not be reasonable.

Besides, all Crowley had to do to "save himself" would have been to leave--and no, Gates was NOT pursuing Crowley, ffs. And Crowley's police report did not claim that. You are making up stuff while telling others to gather facts.

[paulsby]

419. actually, you just stated a falsehood

it was not a mandatory arrest. it would NOT have been illegal to NOT arrest gates. that is inarguable. there are very few laws that require a mandatory arrest in MA. certain domestic violence offenses do. but breaches of the peace are DISCRETIONARY arrests. other than that, your posts have been quite factual. also, part of the reason that BOP arrests are discretionary is that different officers will give more or less warnings, etc. it's a totality of the circumstances thang. sometimes walking away is the better decision/ but that's not the point. the cop is not required to make the bEST decision (and im not saying his decision was or wasn't). only a legally justifiable decisions. the perfect is the enemy of the good and all that

[No Elephants]

454. Anyone who is truly an expert on the law would say Crowley acted improperly. Two have.

Obama and Ogletree, both long time professors of law at two of the most highly respected law schools in the nation.

[xocet]

226. Agreed.

In reading this thread, in particular your debate with Fearless, I went to take a look at the pages that Fearless claims as his own. It is interesting to note that he has the mentality of a authoritarian follower in his argument with you, whereas the pages that he claims as his own do not reflect that mentality upon cursory review. His stated views seem internally inconsistent.

What is really odd though is the Legoland-meets-Stephen Hawking-esque nature of the videos on his YouTube channel. He also seems to believe that cattle do not possess consciousness and, thus, experience no fear of death or no fear of impending death. All in all, the videos are a bit freaky on a subjective level.

Here is a good link on authoritarians - it has been on DU before and is worth the read:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[Fearless]

233. Oh now let's attack my character... This is so rich...

Can you cite anything? Other than your opinion of a small video editing project I was testing? Can anyone really argue that cows are humanly-conscious? Honestly you've got to try harder.

[xocet]

291. Citations follow...

Ok. Read the section in Altmeyer's book on Authoritarian followers.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

They tend to get very angry at anyone who is perceived to deviate from the norm of the group. You seem to be quite adamantly - possibly, to the point of agitation - behind the forces of law and order. From your posts, you seem to believe that there is no ambiguity in the situation. (This refers to your previous posts.)

From your blog and YouTube channel, you seem to hold views that are not within the social norm. That is perfectly fine. Do whatever you like - I have no say in it and certainly want to control no one. (This refers to material that you have published on the internet.)

These two disparate sets of views are internally inconsistent. One cannot both be strongly pro-norm and strongly anti-norm at the same time. One should consider the inherent ambiguity in all situations. To be unkind, one could call you a hypocrite. You seem willing to judge Professor Gates, but likely would be unwilling to be judged by the same token.

If you read the police report, it does not clearly say that the officer gave Professor Gates his information in a verifiable form. The officer only stated his surname and his affiliation with the Cambridge Police. The officer apparently did not want to give out his card, badge number or anything that could actually identify him and be kept. Here is the link to the report:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

As far as cattle are concerned, do you need for them to pass the Turing test to grant them consciousness? Here is a book that would likely expand your views on consciousness:

http://www.questforconsciousness.com/

It is ironic that you seem to break so many social norms and yet seem to still be quite the conformist. Those conformist views vis-a-vis law enforcement are likely why you were referred to as a "Republican"-type above. (There is not only a letter of the law, but also a spirit of the law.)

So, here are some things for you to think about. I have cited many things, and I stand by the statement that your views appear to be internally inconsistent.

Good luck with whatever you endeavor to do.

[Fearless]

300. Yet you can't cite anything "authoritarian" in anything I've said...

You just try to belittle me. Good luck. I've been around long enough. The skin is tougher than you can believe.

[xocet]

340. Authoritarian Follower...Not Authoritarian...

You skipped 95% of the argument and did not even get right what you chose to post as a reply to my post. I did not say you were an authoritarian. I said that it appears as if you are an authoritarian follower - that is a different thing entirely. Read Altmeyer's book if you need further definition of that concept.

Who cares about belittling you? You shift the argument away from anything substantive that anyone else cites. It is totally objective to surmise that you are likely a Republican having some fun on this site.

(I am done feeding the Republican troll for today. I hope that the food were enjoyable.)

[Fearless]

348. No one has cited anything. That's the problem.

A citation includes a link to something someone said. Good ones are unbiased. None of the above have occurred. All that people have given are their own opinions.


Also, you didn't answer my question. You assume you know me. Good luck with that. I've told you to search my posts for "republican troll" stuff. You won't find a thing. Try though... there are thousands. You stare at me and blindly accept everything you've been fed by the media and blindly agree with them that I must be wrong, because racism must be occurring because a prominent black man can't be wrong.

[sendero]

354. You are..

...a fool.

He was yelling because the officer would not give his name and badge number AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

guess what moron, police have to follow the law too. I hope Gates sues this PD into the stone age. Enough of the jackasses on a power trip.

[Hansel]

158. Give me a break.

I'm sorry, but I've seen police officers in action too many times to be this naive. Unless Gates really "threatened" him or chased him to his car, I have absolutely no empathy for what this officer did. It was downright stupid and unnecessary and he deserves every bit of criticism and flak his widdle bruise ego gets.

BTW, Gates says that the officer thanked him for walking outside of his house because now he could arrest him. Crowley got his feelings hurt instead of understanding the pain that Gates was feeling. He needs to take his interracial training again.

Just because you can arrest someone on a technicality doesn't mean it is the smart thing to do. Obama is 100% correct. This office acted stupidly. There was no real threat from a disabled 150 lb elderly gentleman. Crowley just got his nose bent out of shape.

[HughMoran]

163. Perfectly stated

I have no idea why this person is obsessed with "technical" reasons for arresting a person - can you imagine if people were arrested every time it was "technically" feasible to do so? The jails would be overflowing constantly.

[Fearless]

176. Technical is THE FUCKING LAW. Do you not get that?

It is the difference between justice and injustice, between society and chaos, between fair and unfair. All people are treated equally regardless of being black or older or walking with a cane. To do otherwise is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNETHICAL.

I am "technically" correct. I am legally correct and have cited it in MA state law. I could cite the Constitution and judicial precedent if you would REALLY like me to.

[HughMoran]

179. I am not an automaton

Clearly the law is not applied evenly, you are so ridgid on this that I don't see how you can argue about profiling or any of the other bad stuff that is done since you seem to think cops are perfect robocops or something.

[Fearless]

184. If he didn't apply this law evenly he would be in violation of the US and MA Consitution,

numerous judicial precedents, and the law he swore to uphold.

Let's say he doesn't apprehend Gates, and Gates pulls a gun or a knife. Gates could be killed, legally by the officer for doing so. The officer could be killed.

Of course, Gates, as the person we NOW see him as is certainly one of the last people to do this. But an officer on call will not know that beforehand.


If you can't see that, then there is nothing more to be said. You simply don't have a concept of legal precedent, law, constitutional law, or even the faintest idea of what the job of a police officer is.

[HughMoran]

192. No thinking person would argue the application of the law like that

We're humans, not automatons - stop this bizarre behavior - it's embarrassing.

[Fearless]

198. Are you saying that the law SHOULD apply to some people but not others?

Are you mad?

[HughMoran]

204. No, I'm saying that cops should, can and do use common sense

If all cops were like you, the world would be a horrible place with no discretion at all used, ever.

Now, THAT's mad!

[Fearless]

209. What you're saying is that cops should CHOOSE to arrest some people and not others...

regardless of what the law says based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are a threat (otherwise entitled PROFILING), and then let people who are actually a threat to the public who are arrested for sure under the same law have a legal precident to use in court to get them off potential fines and up to 6mos. jail time?


Good luck with your serious miscarriage of justice.

[HughMoran]

216. YES!!!! Cops know that a 58 year old lame breathless professor is NOT a fucking threat

So yes, cops should not arrest everyone who has technically broken the law. I'm a good person who was spared arrest several times when I was young as it was clear to the cop that I was a good kid who liked to push limits. I kind of doubt that professor Gates is a threat to society.

[Fearless]

218. THAT IS AGE PROFILING... like racial profiling... IT IS ILLEGAL.

[HughMoran]

228. It's called the United States of America

The law is applied like this, by humans, throughout the land.

You may not like that it doesn't fit into your rigid argument, but this is reality and I'm so thankful that the cops I had run ins with chose not to destroy my life based on childhood pranks.

[Fearless]

235. Are you aware that profiling by police officers is illegal?

Your argument seems to say that since EVERYONE is doing it, it might as well be legal. First of all, everyone isn't doing it. And the law has a purpose, to treat people equally and WITHOUT discrimination.

You should join Ferrari and start insulting my character now.

[HughMoran]

243. So is smoking pot

Drinking in public, public drunkeness, jaywalking etc.

What's your point?

[Fearless]

246. Reread my prior posts. I'm not retyping the whole thing again.

In short... To not arrest him because he LOOKS harmless is profiling and it is ILLEGAL.

[HughMoran]

248. It's illegal NOT to arrest someone who looks, acts and clearly is harmless?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fearless]

255. It is illegal to treat people differently under the law based on their "looks". YES!

[HughMoran]

270. Glad you're not a cop

You'd be talked to for not using common sense and for nuisance arrests.

[RaleighNCDUer]

327. Provide the statute.

I have never seen ANYTHING that says that profiling is illegal - only that it is ineffective and stupid.

[Hansel]

244. It IS applied to some people but not others?

All of the time. That's what racial profiling is all about. That is what profiling of poor people is all about.

They have different names and punishments for drugs that whites do and drugs that blacks and Hispanics do. Check out the sentences for crack cocaine versus regular cocaine. Rich people can literally steal billions of dollars legally while a poor person will spend months in jail for stealing a toaster oven.

Police use technicalities to stop Blacks and Hispanics and women all of the time without applying the same laws to white men. That is what profiling is all about. I have witnessed a friend being nearly beaten and kicked to death in the back seat of a car because the driver rolled through a stop sign. His crime, being Hispanic and not getting out of the car fast enough because his leg was broken. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and the charges were dropped. Clearly having his body in front of the officer's foot was disorderly.

I had a Black friend who was a pastor with a demeanor like Obama's have a gun pulled on him because the officer didn't believe a Black man would drive a classic car.

I have been slammed up against walls and had flashlights shined in my face and was stalked by the police for over a year for committing absolutely no crime whatsoever because one of my old bosses claimed I was doing and selling drugs. Her evidence, I fell asleep. Why? Because I had mononucleosis. Do you know why they finally stopped? Because the lead officer was found in bed with a 12 year old girl while they were both smoking pot.

A passenger was pulled from my car because he gave his brother the finger in jest and a squad car just happen to drive between us at the time. We were surrounded by six squad cars and my brother-in-law was beaten. When I asked what he had done wrong, I was slammed up against the back of the car and threatened with arrest for, you guessed it, disorderly conduct. You will jump to the conclusion that I yelled at him or must have done something to deserve it. You would be wrong.

In every single one of these instances the police threatened arrests for disorderly conduct. In my case I literally just asked why I was being slammed up against a wall in one case and what my brother-in-law had done in the other.

You really need to catch a clue about the real world. About what it is like to be Black or poor in America and just how out of control the police can be.

I have very good friends and some relatives who are police officers who have been there for me whenever I've needed them. But let's stop pretending that they are all boy scouts, because they are not.

Really, how stupid do you think we are?

[Fearless]

247. Racial and otherwise characteristic profiling is ILLEGAL regardless of if it occurs ever...

Reread what I said. You missed the point.

[HughMoran]

274. If you're an automaton zombie you'd turn off your brain and act like robocop

I am so glad you're not a cop. :crazy:

[Fearless]

281. I'm so glad you don't have any legal power whatsoever because this nation wouldn't have laws.

Unless you felt like enforcing them.

[HughMoran]

289. I thank god that people like you are NOT cops

No cop would make the rigid arguments that you're making. I've yet to meet a cop that thinks like you. :crazy:

[Fearless]

293. And now you've slipped from arguing facts to trying to belittle me...

Good day.

Fearless.

:kick:

[HughMoran]

296. So, now that you've admitted your BIAS and I've CALLED you on it, you run and hide

See you, Officer Crowley.

[Fearless]

298. " = Coward" right? I remember. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[HughMoran]

302. Fail

[Fearless]

304. And now we are children playing a game of nuh-uh.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

307. Classic Fail

:rofl:

[Fearless]

314. ... See here at DU we try to have intelligent debate... EPIC FAIL.

:banghead:

[HughMoran]

319. How many times can we hear you state the same rigid position over and over and over again

...before we wonder if you're actually an extra from the movie Robocop?

[Fearless]

321. How many times must you try to label me robocop? Have you seen Robocop?

[quakerboy]

414. The point is

profiling sure seems to have been applied to Gates. I feel safe in saying that that would never have happened to anyone on the German side of my family. Not even the aging gun nuts with a history of mental illness. Mostly I feel safe in saying it, because it never has, despite many bouts of public drunkenness, argumentation with police, and domestic disturbances. And yes, it would sure seem to be illegal. That's the whole point, the one that you seem to be missing.

[Hansel]

210. Good for you, you MIGHT be "technically" correct

but it still doesn't "fucking" matter. Do you think we are all stupid?

Arresting someone on their own stoop because he was upset because he believed his was racially profiled was "acting stupidly" just like Obama said. Crowley should have apologized and left the second he found out that Gates was in his own home. Gates was understandably upset and Crowley could have diffused the situation, but instead he chose to escalate the situation.

There are a lot of laws broken in front of a lot of cops every single day of every single week that they ignore. This was one of those times it should have been ignored if, in fact, Gates' actions really rose to the level of disorderly conduct which I believe is still in dispute.

You can cite anything you like. But it's a little naive to believe that cops don't overlook violations of the law all of the time. If they didn't, nearly every person on every roadway would have a ticket or be in jail. And a hell of a lot of corporate managers and nearly the entire Bush admin would be in jail.

[Fearless]

213. See my other posts

as to why this is a miscarriage of justice. If you don't understand then, I'll be happy to explain further.

[Fearless]

171. Do you understand the terminolgy of "perceived threat" or "potential threat"?

It means that a police officer as no reliable way of knowing (without stereotyping) whether a person is a threat to their safety. The disorderly conduct law, in MA, is used to protect officers in ALL cases, not just some. Because if you only arrest some, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Separate but equal, ring a bell?? ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE DISORDERLY, AFTER ASKED TO STOP, AFTER THE OFFICER LEFT THE HOUSE, WILL BE ARRESTED. It doesn't matter if the arrested is black or 58 or walks with a cane or anything. To stereotype threats based on those descriptors is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF PROFILING.

[Hansel]

259. Oh please stop. Do you understand how naive you sound? nt

[Fearless]

267. You can live in your fantasy world all you want...

But I live in the real world where there are real laws which are really supposed to be enforced. Where racism doesn't occur every time a black man is arrested and puts up a hissy fit. A place where we analyze all facts and don't use preconceived notions of race, police officers, and racial profiling to determine what occurred.

Have fun though. I'm sure you'll be continuously disappointed for the rest of your life. I'm finished putting up with your dribble. Every answer to every question you may have is above somewhere. Find them yourself.


Cheers!

Fearless.

:kick:

[Hansel]

287. Read post 244.

That's the real world sweetie. I spent 10 years working in the inner cities as a community organizer. You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but the real world is not what you have described.

Sure, there are good cops, but there are a hell of a lot of bad ones too. And just because people think someone is racially profiling them doesn't mean they are not.

I'm an older woman and I can guarantee you I am well past being disappointed in the world. I've seen just about everything there is to see. A lot of it is not very pretty. A lot of it is. But I'm not going to pretend that everyone in the position of authority is good and righteous because I know that not to be the case. And I am not naive enough to believe that everyone they hassle deserve it. Because I know they don't. Some cops racial profile. Many of them lie. That is just a fact.

I don't believe this police officer was racial profiling, BTW. I believe he's just a jerk who got his nose bent out of joint. I do believe Gates really believed he was being racially profiled. And I can assure you that events have very likely taken place in his life that justify this feeling. I feel sorry for him and don't think he's just playing the race card.

[Fearless]

290. You can generalize what I said all you want...

I never said that Gates doesn't think he was racial stereotyped. My ENTIRE statement thus far is that Crowley did nothing wrong. You can choose to disagree, and I would think you would based on your experiences and biases. But based on my experiences and my biases, I see it differently. I think it should probably be left at that.

[Hansel]

316. I think we can agree to disagree.

I don't think it is clear that Crowley did nothing wrong. There are 2 sides to every story and I've heard them both but still am not sure who was right or wrong. Even if he was technically right (and I have my doubts) he handled it stupidly. I agree with Obama.

But you are correct that we are both approaching it with our own biases. On the other hand, I've been around enough disorderly and belligerent people to know how to defuse the situation and I would have defused this. My own personal bias.

Nice chat though. You certainly stand by your convictions. Perhaps we will battle on the same side of an argument sometime. That could be fun. :hi:

[Fearless]

318. Agreed to disagree.

It's nice that sometimes people can disagree without becoming personally offended.

:hi:

Have a good one,
Fearless.

[Hansel]

320. You too! Thanks. nt

[No Elephants]

448. Crowley did plenty wrong. First, he did not adequately explain himself to Gates. How do I know?

Because of Gate's international reputation and my own observation of Gates's behavior in PBS specials and in interviews since this incident. he is nothing but gentle and gracious. (I do not have the same view of Crowley's demeanor, which seems arrogant and/or defiant, even when in the press conference, saying nothing. I could easily see him arresting someone simply because he did not feel as respected as he apparently likes to feel when in uniform--and never even realizing he is wrong to do that.

Crowley was entering Gates' home. He had a right to investigate a report of a POSSIBLE crime. He did not have a right to be as asshole, or to treat Gates lke a criminal. If had extended to Gates the courtesy and respect initially that Crowley demands for himself--on pain of arrest--Gates would never have reacted badly.

Upon being shown ID, including photo, address and Harvard status, Crowley should have left, When he did not leave, but instead y called the Harvard Universiy Police, Crowley became a trespasser because he had no further legitimate business there.

Crowley never read Gates his Mirandas--against his department's procedure, if not the law.

Crowley was asked repeatedly for his name and badge number and did not give them. Against the law.

All that is from Crowley's own report, if you read it fairly.

And his report is false as to his alleged conversation with Whalen. Against the law.

Crowley arrested Gates even though Gates had not committed any crime. Against the law.

And no, Gates's raising his voice, even if true, is not a threat or any other crime. Neither is following Gates out of his living room and onto his own porch, especially when (a) Crowley had repeatedly asked Gates to step outside; and (b) Crowley had not given Gates his name or badge number, after repeated requests.

[nosmokes]

408. The pig fucked up. No way around it.

[No Elephants]

447. Read the police report. The only one who broke the law was Crowley.

[sendero]

345. He wouldn't give his name and badge..

... number as required by law.

You fucktards are big pussy jackasses. I hope some cop on a power trip arrests your stupid fucking ass someday. Fool.

[gopiscrap]

238. You sound like a cop apologist

go back to Nazi Germany!!!

[Fearless]

240. I remember a time when people like me were told to go to Canada.

Germany... now that's rich.

[No Elephants]

455. Canada's a police state?

[alarimer]

96. It's just a tactic to ensure a docile public when the cops throw their weigh around.

Just authoritarian bullshit.

[Fearless]

100. Bull crap.

It's about protection for officers. If you have issues with police officers, as it seems, you hardly have an unbiased opinion on my fact.

[No Elephants]

453. And you see yourself as not biased in favor of cops? LOL

[paulsby]

417. true dat

even assuming that no political considerations were made (which is a stretch) disorderly arrests like this are routinely nolle pros'd. i see it all the time. the point of such an arrest in MA, is to stop a "breach of the peace" or anticipatory breach of the peace (i used to be a cop in ma and am familiar with the laws there). in 4 years of law enforcement in MA, i might have made 3 or 4 disorderly arrests.

[No Elephants]

438. LOL, what "situation?" A 58 year old lame man ALLEGEDLY raising his voice. OOOOOOoooo. Scary.

[Wizard777]

225. It's still the legally protected environs of his home.

So he might as well have been standing in his living room.

[Fearless]

258. If you pursue an officer, it doesn't matter where it occurs....

The officer left and he followed him to the porch. Where there were three other officers, one black fyi. He was arrested for pursuing an argument with the officer after the officer left. End of story. It is the law. Period. Reread the other posts if you STILL don't understand.

[Wizard777]

329. Absent a legal reason to be there. The officer is trespassing.

He has a right to follow the officer to ensure he leaves the property.

[msanthrope]

385. Invited him inside? Could you cite that please? n/t

[msanthrope]

389. He did NOT invite the officer inside. Cite where either the

police report or the Gates statement says that Gates invited the cop inside....

[panAmerican]

424. Gates NEVER invited him in

Gates followed him outside, only in an attempt to get the officer's name and badge number, which he had refused to divulge after following Gates into the kitchen uninvited.

[No Elephants]

428. No, you get some facts. If you read the first version of the police report,

the officer repeatedly asked Gates to step outside. As soon as he did so, though, the officer thanked him for stepping outside, then cuffed him.

So whatever occurred, occured inside the home of Gates. And btw, the police should have been out of that home as soon as Crowley saw Gates's ID.

As far as your "rage and rant," LOL, the police report did not even say anything like that.

[No Elephants]

436. Please see Reply 432. And one half step over his threshhold to his front porch is still his home.

[Fearless]

66. I'll cite the law...

Arrested in Massachusetts for Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?


A disorderly person is defined as one who:

* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
* recklessly creates a risk thereof
* engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
* creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace....



MGL CHAPTER 272. Mass General Laws, excerpt.

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.



http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm

[HughMoran]

71. Well, they dropped the charges

It's clear that only a person who likes highlighting text and splitting hairs would see this as disorderly conduct. Apparently you're a cop.

[Fearless]

76. No. It's the law...

And they almost always drop the charges. It's meant to regain control of a situation and usually the state does not prosecute them.

And though I'm not, if I was a police officer, what difference would that make? If anything, I would have a better knowledge of the law and it's application than you. But as I said, I'm not.

[HughMoran]

83. So it's a law used as a tool to harass people

Understood loud and clear.

[Fearless]

94. You are not listening. The law exists to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM ESCALATING SITUATIONS.

They are arrested, and let go when they calm down. Sometimes they will be fined. Sometimes, with priors, there will be jail time.

[HughMoran]

111. So, did he prevent the situation from being escalated?

I think not. Look at this fucking thread and the dozens of others.

He made the situation worse by acting like a coward following procedure WITH NO COMMON SENSE AT ALL!!

[Fearless]

114. The situation he stopped from escalation was violence from the disorderly person!

This has nothing to do with the media. He couldn't possibly understand how people would cling to this issue. He was doing his job. He followed the law. He protected himself. It is the law. To do otherwise, would be UNLAWFUL.

[HughMoran]

122. He's a flaming coward for not just LEAVING. He acted BADLY.

Only a fool can't see how he didn't use his better judgement by turning and walking back to his cop car. He reacted like an angry person and HAD TO DROP THE CHARGES LATER.

Unless you actually think the 58 year old man with a cane was actually a threat to him - which you've already admitted above THAT HE WASN'T A THREAT, thereby cutting down your own argument that there was a situation in need of control.

[Fearless]

125. HE DID LEAVE. GATES PURSUED HIM!

[HughMoran]

130. Hobble, hobble - hey sonny, get back here!

:rofl:

You're killing me! Stop it!

:rofl:

[Fearless]

134. Are you insulting Gates now too? I'm utterly confused.

[HughMoran]

138. Cane

= hobble

[Fearless]

141. Yes. My comment stands.

[RaleighNCDUer]

339. I see your point. A person with a cane CAN pursue.

Look at DareDevil!

[RaleighNCDUer]

336. LOL

Some pursuit.

[Hansel]

145. Here's how not to escalate it. Leave.

Gates showed his ID and at that point Crowley's work was done.

[HughMoran]

149. No, that would require acting professionally and NOT getting angry

Clearly the cop lost his cool (along with a few hot-heads here)

[Fearless]

154. No. He did his job. You ASSUME there was anger based on your distrust of police officers.

THERE IS NO PROOF. Your accusation is baseless.

[HughMoran]

160. You can only arrest a 58 year old man with a cane IN HIS OWN RESIDENCE

...if you're an idiot who doesn't know when to turn and LEAVE THE FUCKING MAN'S HOUSE. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF HE CHASED HIM TO THE PORCH - JUST FUCKING LEAVE. He could not have been using sound judgement to arrest this man in this situation. I know I wouldn't have arrested him and I doubt you would have either,

[Fearless]

181. You can be arrested for pursuing an officer and shouting at him. YES! It's called...

DISORDERLY CONDUCT!

He could have a gun. It isn't the person Gates is, its the person that an on call officer may encounter. There may be a person looking to do harm to an officer. Gates more than likely would never have done that, but no one, NO ONE can know that when making a house call without some sort of PROFILING. Police officers treat EVERYONE who is exhibiting aggression as a THREAT regardless of their race, age, ability, sex, gender, or whatever. It is the law. And it is the law because it protects officers.

[HughMoran]

183. it's called "whining"

Cop = coward

[Fearless]

186. IT'S CALLED THE FUCKING LAW!

Read my above comment.


If you don't like the law, then have it changed. But we don't get to pick which laws to follow like that. If we did, it would be chaos.

[HughMoran]

200. Oh. My. God

You're starting to sound like some of my right-wing friends.

No common sense, just react - if it's not black, it's white. Discretion? never heard of such a word.

[Fearless]

203. Are you suggesting that the law should apply to SOME and not to others?

And don't call me a Rethug. Again, look at my previous posts. It's the same idea as "I'm right because I have black friends". But do so anyways if it makes you feel better.

[HughMoran]

205. I'm telling you that real world cops use something known as "discretion"

Unlike you, cops (THANK GOD!!) are not automatons.

[Fearless]

214. I'm telling you that to do so reqires the use of PROFILING based on age (in this case)...

Also reread my priors on it being a potentially serious miscarriage of justice.

[HughMoran]

234. Well, I hope and pray that cops continue to use discretion/common sense going forward

Do you have any idea of the consequences of cops arresting every single solitary person who is "technically" violating the law? Can you say "riots".

[Fearless]

237. Wow... just wow.

:wow:

[No Elephants]

444. No, it's called what you BELIEVE to be the law. Too bad you don't get the difference.

[gopiscrap]

245. Thank you

Fucking pigs are always looking for a scene so that they can practiced their gestapo tactics on people!

[RaleighNCDUer]

Wanton and lascivious????

You highlited 'wanton and lascivious'?

Dude, get ye to a fucking dictionary.

[HughMoran]

338. Didn't you know he bitch-slapped the cop with his c__k?

:rofl:

[Fearless]

352. IN SPEECH or behavior... shouting constitutes this.

Consult a lawyer.

[HughMoran]

355. I don't see where he shouted, not that shouting is illegal (except in your mind)

Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- by Charles Ogletree

This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

[Fearless]

356. Your document is biased. "Client, Friend, colleague..."

You can believe it if you want to. I choose not to.

[HughMoran]

358. Ahhh, so now we're getting down to brass tacks. YOU believe the cop BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO!

Hmmm, explain why you would take the word of the officer over a citizen in his own home?

[Fearless]

362. Because he has no past complaints in his decades on the force that are racially motivated.

He is decorated and well respected in the community. He teaches a class on not racial profiling for police officers.


Why do you automatically believe Gates?

[HughMoran]

365. Who's talking about race? Ignore the possible racial issue for the sake of argument.

Why do you not believe a world renowned Professor?

I believe private citizen Gates did not choose to have his front door damaged (who did it?) and then to be harassed by the cops who should have simply said "sorry, there was a miscommunication here" and left immediately. You think the cops were right to barge in a make a fool out of their department nation wide, never mind violating Professor Gates rights to live in peace?

[Fearless]

367. I tend to believe that the arrested has more motivation to lie than the arrester to arrest.

If we're not racially motivated.

[HughMoran]

377. But you don't see the risk of the police using gestapo techniques if given too much leeway?

I'm more concerned about the individual liberties on Professor Gates (and me for that matter) versus the right of the cops to harass a person in their own home, not provide information requested, then use a technicality to arrest the individual who then pursues the officer who would not comply with a legally binding request of him. I pay for the cops salary and expect him (them) to respect the rights of the citizens who employ them.

[Fearless]

378. My previous coupled with the officer's history negates that in my mind.

[HughMoran]

379. I guess this is where we agree to disagree

I'm sorry that you made the assumption that you did - it seems so counterintuitive to me, but it is what it is.

[Fearless]

380. And not a moment too soon.

[No Elephants]

442. LOL, Crowley teaches a class to Lowell cops on racial profiling? Gates has a Ph.d. In African

American issues and teaches classes at Harvard University, as well as writing books on the subject, as well as generating several PBS specials on the subject, as well as lecturing all over the world on the subject. And, he has dealt with thousands of people of all classes all over the world, including President Obama, with never a problem. His reputation as a gentle, gracious scholar is universal.

Crowley's police report has been proven inaccurate, which is a crime. Moreover, when Crowley wrote it, he had plenty of incentive to paint Gates' behavior as badly as he possibly could (and the report STILL cites no crime). After the charges were dropped was the first we heard from Gates and he had nothing to gain from lying then.

Cops have a reputation for busting people for disorderly conduct when they feel they are not being treated with respect (not a crime). World renown scholars do not have a reputation for shouting at cops.

As between Gates and Crowley, there's a lot more reason to believe Gates, IMO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

390. In speech or behavior - consult a dictionary

Wanton: Immoral or unchaste; lewd

Lascivious: Of, or characterized by, lust; lewd

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you. C'mon. Admit it.

[No Elephants]

439. Shouting is not wanton or lascivious speech or behavior. Consult the law and the police report.

Or even a dictionary. "Wanton" and "lascivous" have to do with sexual behavior, not decibel count.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/382/382mass108.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/sjcMay03s&invol=1


Besides, Crowley says he arrested Gates for loud and tumultous behavior in a public place, not for wanton or lascivious behavior. Plus, Gates was in his own home the entire time, until he took one step outside (onto his own porch) at Crowley's repeated request. Whereupon, Crowley immediately thanked him and cuffed him. That is per Crowley's own report.

As far as being loud, even in his own home. Gates says he could not have raised his voice if he tried due to bronchitis. So, if you believe Crowley, whose report is known to be false in another key respect, over Gates, you have to ask yourself why.

For someone who keeps insisting others get the facts right and consult lawyers (to post on a message board, LOL), you don't seem to take your own advice seriously.

[No Elephants]

433. Gates had bronchitis. He said he could not have been loud if he tried. He was also

not wanton or lascivious in speech or behavior. Neither was he idle or disorderly. He was being hassled in his own home and asking why. Nor did he threaten. Nor was he tumultous.

You could have saved yourself a lot of bolding time. He was arrested for not being as subservient to a cop as the cop would have preferred, even though the cop was, at that point, trespassing. (His legit business ceased when he saw the ID. When he did not leave at that point, but instead called the Harvard Police, he was trespassing, whether he was inside or on the porch at the time he called.)

[Demonaut]

63. I agree with you and the union, he should not have commented

admitting you're biased and then giving an opinion when it carries so much weight as POTUS was a foolish move

[Xipe Totec]

64. Flame away?

Gladly!

It was an inexcusable abuse of authority, and lack of good judgement on the part of the cop.

If the cop is such an expert, he should have known how to defuse, rather than escalate the situation.

He fucked up royally.

[Fearless]

69. I'll cite the disorderly conduct law... again

Arrested in Massachusetts for Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace?


A disorderly person is defined as one who:

* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
* recklessly creates a risk thereof
* engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
* creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.

Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace....



MGL CHAPTER 272. Mass General Laws, excerpt.

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.



http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm

[HughMoran]

75. Nitpicking and then dropping charges?

You're stretching your credibility here bro.

[Fearless]

80. NO! The arrest was to regain control of a situation!

Nothing more. Charges are almost always dropped unless there is violence against the officer! It is a way to diffuse a situation and nothing more!

[HughMoran]

86. Or, he could have been angry and used the law as an excuse. Control over a 68 year old?

Holy fucking shit, are you serious?

A 68 year old man with a cane IN HIS OWN FUCKING HOME?

Are you proud to be defending this COWARDLY behavior?

I'm embarrassed for you.

[Indydem]

90. Wow, He is 58. That just shows how ignorant you are of the situation.

[HughMoran]

95. facepalm

:eyes:

58, yeah, that's so much better.

:eyes:

[Fearless]

97. What does age matter? There is no violence charge against the officer.

Maybe... because there was no violence by the officer.

[HughMoran]

103. He overreacted and acted like a cowardly angry fool

If that's the kind of behavior that you support, then maybe you should check your pulse.

[Fearless]

108. THE OFFICER LEFT AND WAS PURSUED! ONLY THEN DID HE ARREST GATES!

[HughMoran]

116. OMFG!! A 58 year old man is mad at me for harassing him - I MUST ARREST HIM AT ONCE!!!!!

C'mon, use your brain for a second (use your brain meaning "use your common sense")

[Fearless]

121. CROWLEY LEFT THE HOUSE. GATES PURSUED. HE WAS ARRESTED.

How difficult is that to understand?

[HughMoran]

143. Where did he chase the cop to - public property or his own?

??

[Fearless]

156. He followed the cop back outside. That is a sign of AGGRESSION. It is an arrestable offence....

TALK TO ANY POLICE OFFICER.

[HughMoran]

166. Absurd - most cops I know would just walk away

I just heard he insulted the cops mama - OMFG!!!!!

[Fearless]

188. HE DID FUCKING WALK AWAY!

[HughMoran]

208. NOT FAR ENOUGH!! In fact, it sound like he was baiting him so he could arrest him.

If that's what he did, it was infantile, if not it was simply cowardly.

[Fearless]

221. He only made it to the stoop before the prof. was back on him again.

You are using your preconceived insecurities of police officers to determine that, even without evidence and with evidence to the contrary, Crowley MUST be instigating him. No black man, professor, 58 year old, enfeebled, whatever, would EVER be wrong. :sarcasm:

[HughMoran]

350. Perhaps this statement provided on Professor Gates behalf by his lawyer might influence you?

Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- by Charles Ogletree

This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

[Fearless]

363. No. Because it's biased. He wouldn't say things that implicate him.

[HughMoran]

369. So you have simply decided to believe the cop over Professor Gates

Your choice, I couldn't imagine taking such a position, especially when you consider that Professor Gates already had enough issues with his front door being damaged. Did someone try to break into his house? I know that's a pretty dramatic event since my apartment was broken into in an apartment on the other side of the Charles. Travelling is stressful enough without having to worry about whether your house was broken into, never mind THEN having the cops come in and infer that YOU may be the person that damaged the front door and broke in. Think about this from Professor Gates position for a minute - can you do that?

[Fearless]

373. I already told you why I believe Sgt. Crowley over Gates.

I am able to see the situation from both sides. Because I choose one you don't like, you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry, no dice.

[HughMoran]

383. As I said above, your position is incomprehensible to me

I will not cede my rights to the word of a single cop.

[Fearless]

91. Except that he has a record that negates that charge...

Teaches a program for police officers that teaches officers NOT to racially profile. And has for years.

He also once gave mouth-to-mouth to Celtic Reggie Lewis (a black man, if we need to nitpick).

The officer also grew up in the city.

All of this is stupid. No where is there a documented case that the officer has ANY isses with race.

[HughMoran]

99. Just like Gates status is no excuse, HIS RECORD IS NO EXCUSE

Arrogance does not excuse bad behavior!

[Fearless]

104. Gates was arrogant... he chased after the officer who had left his house already...

THEN he was arrested for disorderly conduct. The officer had LEFT. He CONTINUED. GATES WAS ARRESTED.

[Indydem]

107. Don't bother.

These posters see racist boogeymen around every corner and corrupt cops behind every badge. Its not worth the energy, I do believe.

[Fearless]

112. Indeed.

[HughMoran]

133. High fives for the arrogance!

Gotta love the simple folk.

[Fearless]

146. Are you calling me unintelligent now? Good luck with that.

And "simple folk" is a stereotype. A very bigoted one too based on educational, social, economic, and racial generalizations.

[HughMoran]

135. Hobble, hobble - hey sonny, get back here!

I could post this all day - you're a friggin' riot!

[EFerrari]

173. Bullshit. Gates was asking for identifying information

which this asshole was legally bound to provide. And the asshole took advantage of the fact that Gates went out on his own porch.

The asshole had not left.

And asking for a name and badge number is not harrassment, it's the law.

[Fearless]

190. IT WAS GIVEN. Read the reports.

[EFerrari]

196. No, the information was not given to him while the officer

was still in his house. And please don't bother to refer me to the police reports, the original OR the scrubbed one, again.

[Fearless]

201. Yes. Because police officers are evil. They never get things right. They're all racist...

Get over yourself.

[EFerrari]

207. You can't argue the facts, so that's what you have left. nt

[Fearless]

217. No, because you are not listening to facts because you don't want to. If you want more facts...

Look at my other posts above. Otherwise, I will just brush off your outlandish generalizations of police officers.

[EFerrari]

224. I've made no generalizations about police officers.

I've called these assholes racists, which they are.

[Fearless]

241. An officer who arrests a black man who argues with him and then pursues him is a racist...

One who gave mouth-to-mouth to Reggie Lewis (a black man and former Celtic), who teaches a class against racial profiling for police officers and has for years.


Good luck with that.

[EFerrari]

268. Wait -- your're saying he's okay because he touched a black person?

lol

[Fearless]

283. Nope. Nice try though.

[No Elephants]

431. Yeah, ya did. You cited his giving mouth to mouth to a black person as evidence that he is not

racist.

Nice try yourself.

[lexanman]

84. Then why were the charges dropped?

[Fearless]

117. Because disorderly conduct charges are almost ALWAYS dropped...

Unless there are priors, or violence by the arrested.

[HughMoran]

152. Of course, because they are often used as a legal form of harassment

As you've so adroitly demonstrated for use here.

[Fearless]

191. Go talk to an ADA. Talk to a judge. Talk to someone with a degree...

Or are you afraid you won't hear what you want to?

[HughMoran]

279. Some of us live in the REAL world

I hope the automaton robocop Matrix world is good for you because life would not be worth living in your world.

[Fearless]

295. So judges, ADA's, lawyers, and other legal professionals don't live in the real world?

They won't know what they're talking about? Have a good night.

Fearless.

:kick:

[HughMoran]

315. What % of the small percent of people actually arrested for offenses are even prosecuted?

In your world anything less than a 100% prosecution rate is tantamount to a war crime.

[Fearless]

326. Prosecution has nothing to do with it actually. If you read my threads you'd know that.

[HughMoran]

335. Well, he shouldn't have been arrested either

Taken from a GD post:

"Gates repeatedly requested the arresting officer's name and badge number. Gates says the officer provided neither, although the officer claims that he did, in fact, state his name. Was the officer required to provide this information?"

Yes. Massachusetts law requires police officers to carry identification cards and present them upon request. Officers are also required to wear a "badge, tag, or label" with their name and/or identifying number. The law is aimed at precisely the situation in question—suspects who feel their rights are being violated. Few other states impose this requirement on their officers as a matter of law, but many individual police departments, such as the New York Police Department, have adopted it (PDF) as a matter of policy.
Here are the links to the relevant Mass. laws http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm and http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98c.htm If you read the police report from Crowley, it is clear that he did not comply with the law here.

Finally, the arrest was bogus under Mass law
What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

Here is some good language from the Houston v. Hill case http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...
Today's decision reflects the constitutional requirement that, in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint. We are <482 U.S. 451, 472> mindful that the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order. Cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, supra, at 37 (dissenting opinion). But the First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

[Fearless]

341. State judicial cases from other states do not apply to MA, sorry.

Also, it isn't a debate as to whether the law is constitutional, but whether the officer is legally bound to follow it. He is.

Likewise.... The officer gave his badge. You choose not to believe that because it props up your bogus racism case. Even Gates himself admitted that he was shown the badge. It's cited in numerous places in this thread, which you've ignored. So that doesn't apply.


Likewise... The final link doesn't work. Judge from it being "Houston v. Hill" it will be a state case of TEXAS not MA. Doesn't apply.

[HughMoran]

343. Since they could not pursue the case, they had to drop it

They would have been made utter fools if they pursued such an idiotic case. Only a moron would think the arrest was for a valid offense.

[Fearless]

349. You change your spots again... but I'll bite... Like I said...

THEY ALWAYS DROP THE CHARGES. WHY? BECAUSE THE PURPOSE IS TO NEUTRALIZE A SITUATION. IT ISN'T ABOUT PROSECUTION.

[HughMoran]

353. Or maybe it's because it was an illegal arrest - see within...

Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- by Charles Ogletree

This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

[Fearless]

357. You cite someone who is a "client, friend, and colleague"... clearly unbiased.

[HughMoran]

360. SO it's a he said, he said and you CHOOSE to believe the cop. Why?

What is your angle on this?

Why have you chosen to take the cops word over the word of Professor Gates?

[Fearless]

361. I take his word because of Sgt. Crowley's past and present work regarding race.

[HughMoran]

370. ...and ignore Professor Gates work on race?

bbbbbut...? I can't comprehend your position.

[Fearless]

375. You asked me to step back from race. I did. I also gave my race included reason above, also to you

Good night.

[No Elephants]

435. No, you do that. Talk to a defense attorney. BTW, Gates's lawyer not only has a legal degree,

but was Obama's professor and is currently an advisor of Obama's, as well as a Harvard Law Pofessor. See what he (Ogletree) said about this.

FYI, Obama is an attorney, too, as well as a former professor for 12 years at University of Chicago Law School, which is right up there with Harvard Law. See what he (Obama) said about this. (And no, Obama never took back what he said. Read his alleged "apology" very carefully.)

[fascisthunter]

346. so then what the hell is the purpose... intimidation?

[mistertrickster]

124. Gates story and the cop's don't match. Gates said he showed DL and

cop said he didn't.

Gates said he asked him to leave. Cop's story is somewhat contradictory in which he told Gates to come to the porch and when he did, he arrested him.

In his report, cop said, "if he had gone inside his house, he wouldn't have been arrested."

Really?

Anyway, this is an UNKNOWABLE situation. Two sides have two stories, both are right if true.

[grahamhgreen]

142. Disorderly conduct - in your own house? c'mon... And what is that 'disorderly' - a bad haircut?

[grahamhgreen]

144. delete

[Fearless]

223. Pursuing an officer is disorderly actually. n/t

[fascisthunter]

347. wait a second... an old man with a cane and limp pursued a cop

I don't believe it

[nosmokes]

413. Escorting the pig out of your house is hardly *pursuit* n/t

[1monster]

272. According to the sequence of events, the Gates was irrate because the officer would not give his

name and badge number.

The officer then asked Gates to step outside and cuffed him when he did.

Since when is getting irrate in one's own home disorderly conduct? If he had committed battery on the officer, then it would be a different story, but that wasn't even alledged.

Try again. The officer was out of line.

[Fearless]

288. Yet there were three other officers there, one black...

if that matters, and no reason for him not to give his badge number. Also, I don't put credence in the "facts" set forward by the person who is looking to sue. People who want to win cases lie, and they don't just have to be police officers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

359. "...one black, if it matters..."

It doesn't, yet you keep bringing it up.

Interesting.

[sarcasmo]

342. What police department do you work for?

[paulsby]

416. get your facts correct

NOBODY is claiming he arrested gates IN his home. the arrest took place fronting the house. there were 8 civilian witnesses to this incident. NONE of them have made any statements that refute this fact. it simply staggers me how many people form opinions without knowign the case facts. you are an excellent example of this.

[bliss_eternal]

2. "stay in your place, boy...."

:eyes:

[Raschel]

29. That Obama, he's so "arrogant"

:eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

70. Uppity negro.

:puke:

[joeybee12]

3. One thing cops do for sure is circle their wagons around fellow cops...

...coulda seen this coming a mile away...

[YOY]

8. That's the main problem with cops. You have good cops and bad cops.

And they stick up for each other infallibly except in the worst of cases.

Seldom will a good cop say a bad cop is just that to anyone other than another cop.

[joeybee12]

9. Very true...they cover for bad cops until what has happened is so

horrendous they can't look the other way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Maybe, Officer Crowley, you should check your emotions at the door

before going off half-cocked and arresting a personal friend of the President of the United States on bullshit charges.

Ya think?

[Bette Noir]

38. You have a point.

I read a story on AP just now (sorry, I don't know how to post a link) that said the officer involved was an expert in interracial relations who taught other cops how to avoid profiling. My reaction is that he couldn't have been very good at it.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. They should be just as critical of the reporter who asked him the question then.

:shrug:

[tularetom]

6. Obama is a citizen. The item is in the news. The guy is a friend of his.

So shut the fuck up, crowley. You're a cop, a public servant. You work for the taxpayers, not vice versa.

Dude knows he fucked up and he's scared he's going to get busted for it. That's the reason for all the tough guy bravado.

[Cha]

15. His ego is bigger

than his brain that's for sure.

[Leontius]

33. The dude who fucked up

Wednesday night was President Obama. He admitted he didn't really know the details of what happened and then said the police acted stupidly, maybe when the whole story comes out they did but with the various stories that have been released it seems Gates may have acted stupidly also.

[Veilex]

65. Not saying I agree or disagree with the intent behind your

statement, but I'd like to point out that the Cop has every bit as much a right to say what he wishes in the public forum as Does Obama. In fact, I'd rather have a public servant express their opinion rather than not... they are after all, human too. There are far too many public servants who receive far too much flack and thusly tend to avoid saying anything... IE: whistle blowers

Again, not saying I necessarily agree or disagree...
Just that Cops are people too
(and sometimes they make mistakes just like anyone else).

[cboy4]

7. Here's the deal. Law enforcement is heavily, heavily comprised of

conservatives from coast to coast.

Your local police department or sheriff's department also doubles as your local Republican headquarters.

I let everything these people say go in one ear and out the other.

So should Obama.

[Gman]

406. If the truth be known, law enforcement is heavily comprised of criminals with a badge

they have a license to be a criminal and carry a gun and get away with it.

[high density]

10. If Obama had refused to comment we'd have different people bashing him over that

He was screwed either way once the question had been posed to him.

[Cha]

18. The best course is to answer honestly

and fuck those who can't handle the truth.

[fjc]

20. Maybe, but he could have responded with a bit more reserve..

I'm sorry this happened. I don't know all the facts, so lets see what the deal is etc.

[tomm2thumbs]

32. true, and he admitted he didn't know the facts but then went on to make a conclusion

something very unbecoming to have not put more disclaimers on - I'm sure they are regretting addressing the issue at all. Remember the girl who reported she was attacked by Obama supporters who etched initials into her face? Anything is possible nowadays and jumping to a conclusion from across the country is simply disappointing.

[Auggie]

48. He could have said he didn't know the facts and couldn't comment...

that would be the truth.

[Regret My New Name]

423. Yeah. Damned if he does and damned he don't...

But really, I suppose that's with anything anyone does, particularly when that anybody is the president.

[LaurenG]

11. Of course cops are backing their own.

They don't have bar's meeting halls called "The Fraternal Order of Police" in most major cities for nothing. Being a police officer automatically places you in a clique, referred to as the brotherhood, they aren't about to let one of their own take responsibility for bad police work if they can help it.

Why the police think they are above the law is beyond me but that also comes with the territory. As far as them being offended that Obama made a statement about this - I don't care...

[Bette Noir]

39. A cop friend of my dad's once shot and killed an innocent man in his bed.

The cop had misread the address on the warrant. My dad, along with all his brother cops, thought it was just terrible that the shooter was suspended without pay for a week. After all, it was an honest mistake.

[FiveGoodMen]

"an honest mistake"?

Shooting a man in his bed would seem out of line even if they'd gone to the right house, no?

[Cha]

12. Obama was asked a question..sorry if the

cop and the union can't handle the truth.

[endarkenment]

13. Oh too bad. Boo hoo. Asked and answered.

Perhaps african americans are somewhat sensitive to the issue of racial profiling and the police? Why would that be? How many white americans were arrested last year for allegedly breaking into their own homes when in fact they were doing nothing of the sort?

[louis-t]

14. So, a racist cop is bashing the president

for calling him on his racism? Don't believe his "I support the president" spiel, either.

[Indydem]

26. Well his record shows otherwise...

He is the istructor at the police aademy on NOT engaging in profiling, appointed by a black police commissioner and praised by the head of the police academy who is black.

He also tried, unsuccessfully, to save the life of Reggie Lewis (who is black) with CPR.

I don't know many racists who would give a black man CPR.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99KBEAO1&show_article=1

Its disturbing how everyone on this board is quick to run around screaming "RACISM!" when only half the facts are available.

[lexanman]

37. I read that article too

He is the instructor on profiling. Fellow officers are always going to stand behind their fellow officer. Providing CPR is a legal duty required of the officer. What kind of instructor he is does not reflect well on the Cambridge police, as they have a very long history of racial profiling and complaints by minorities in the community. Perhaps Crowley was an "expert" of another variety in his teaching.

The facts are pretty clear. Gates was arrested after he showed ID. The officer refused to give his name or badge number, which is illegal. And the charges were dropped because Gates did nothing to be arrested for in the first place.

Sounds like Officer Crowley needs a refresher course in what he teaches at the academy.

[Indydem]

40. Please show me one source where officer refused to identify himself?

Gates never even claimed that in his interview with The Root.

[lexanman]

42. Here you go.

www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/23/arresting-officer-in-gates-case-denies-racism-refuses-to-apolog




Gates repeatedly asked to see the officers badge number and asked his name. That is when the officer arrested him for disorderly conduct. If someone is repeatedly asking to see your indentification, the officer is clearly not identifying himself, which is illegal.

[Indydem]

46. Officer and witness say he tried to provide both.

But Gates would not stop ranting long enough to listen.

He said he said. I believe the officers.

[lexanman]

49. The witness was another officer

You mean Gates asking over and over to see identification actually stopped the officer from showing his identification? Wow. That's like saying he wouldn't stop screaming because I continued to beat him with a baseball bat. What Logic.

[Indydem]

50. He wasn't asking for identification. He was asking for name and badge number.

According to 2 officers on the scene (which I have seen reports from) Gates would not stop yelling long enough for the officer to tell him what he wanted to know. Gates kept yelling over him, and he admits in his own interview that he was yelling things like:

"You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer"
"Is this how you treat a black man in America?"

Gates meade this about race, not the officer, who according to all reports and people who've worked with him, has absolutely no record of racism.

[lexanman]

57. Um.

The officer's name and badge number IS his identification.

The reports of Gates yelling was from the officer. He was asking questions.


"You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer"
"Is this how you treat a black man in America?"

Asking for his identification repeatedly stopped the officer from saying one word? Really? I guess Gates had his hand over the officers mouth then. Gates must also have had both of the officers arms pinned behind him so the officer could not pull out his badge.

I cant wait for this to go to court.

[Indydem]

61. Wow, Do you have a reading problem?

The officer was in uniform, with his badge on his person, in clear view.

When he was trying to give Gates his information (the badge number is itty bitty numbers after all) Gates kept shouting him down and the officer refused to try to talk over his ranting. According to the officer, he tried to tell gates his information three times, and was interupted each time.

So do you believe Gates or the officer? I believe, at this point, the officer.

[lexanman]

77. His badge was in clear view? Links?

If it was Gates could have looked right at them. Why would he repeatedly ask for his name and badge number if that info was right there to see? Hmmm? Itty Bitty? The name and number on an officer's badge are easily visible. Perhaps you next talking point will be that Gates was blind and deaf and couldn't hear what the officer was saying. Smells like bullshit. Be back with those links soon, by the way.:hi:

[Indydem]

85. Well...

The badge is a required part of the police uniform in Cambridge, and the officer's police report says he was on uniformed duty, so you do the simple, yet effective, math.

[lexanman]

93. the math is pretty simple.

The officer didn't have his badge on. Can you tell me why a person would ask repeatedly for a badge number and name if it was rigth there in front of his face?

Or you could be correct and he did have his badge on and Mr Gates suddenly became instantly blind and deaf, then was instantly cured. Like I said, can't wait for this to go to court.

[Indydem]

105. Um, because gates was being an irate asshole?

Thats the best I can provide. Thats what witnesses and fellow officers describe. And if you read Gate's interview with the Root, thats what I see there too. Someone who imediately injects a racial undertone into a public servant doing a job.

[lexanman]

118. the witnesses were fellow officers

who are always going to cover for their own. lease remember to include that when you post. Oh, and your previous post from the herald stated that the officer refused to show his badge and refused to give his name.

You obviously see the police side. And thats fine. Im cool with that.

Wait until court and I guess we'll see which one of us is correct.

[Fearless]

123. The video from squad cars is being reviewed by the independent panel set up by the Captain...

of the Cambridge police force. Happy?

[Indydem]

127. That is again, the lawyers statement.

It admits that Gates invited him into his home, and maintains his case that he did not provide his name or badge number, something I have adressed repeatedly.

We will see. Gates will not sue. He will lose and any competant lawyer will inform him of that.

[EFerrari]

230. No, it doesn't. That's wrong.

http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr

[Fearless]

242. Agreed.

[msanthrope]

388. He was not invited in. That is false. Reread both the Gates statement

and the police report.

At NO point was he invited in the house.

If he was, as you claim, cite it.

[msanthrope]

393. Cite it--directly. From the lawyer's statement--(you can't. Not there).

[Ka hrnt]

400. Yep....

That's my impression too. I don't know if Officer Crowley is among them, but three of the four officers were definitely wearing their badges (the fourth is not visible):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates,_Jr.#2009_incident_with_Cambridge_police

[No Elephants]

450. could be Gates could not see it from where he was and did not want to get closer, so as

not to seem physically threatending? Or maybe Gates just has poor vision. He wears eyeglasses, which may or may not serve to correct his vision 100%. And the number on a badge is not huge. In any case, it's irrelevevant. Crowley is legally obligated to provide his name and badge number when asked. And he never said in his report that Gates did not give him the opportunity to provide it.

[Hansel]

60. He said it in his interview on CNN last night.

[louis-t]

426. You know, as more stuff comes out

it is becoming apparent that Mr. Gates may have been the one who acted "stupidly". It seems the cop acted according to the rules.

[Gator_Matt]

109. You make libelous statements about a cop you don't know so casually...

Prove to me that the cop arrested the screaming individual because he is black rather than because he was creating a fiasco. This is why people roll their eyes at charges of racism. Save it for when it is legitimate, instead of simply when the person in question happens to be black. It cheapens what should be a serious issue.

For all the talk of bias here, I see a lot of posters immediately condemning this cop who has ZERO record of racist behavior. On the contrary, his record is one of acclaim, particularly in regards to race. My goodness, the person who appointed him to head the (anti-)racial profiling unit was himself black.

[Fearless]

131. Exactly!

[Ka hrnt]

401. Hear hear...

They shout about the cops rallying around one of their own and assuming guilt on the part of the Gates...while they themselves are rallying around Gates and assuming the officer's guilt. Comical, really...

[louis-t]

427. See my reply to a previous poster.

It appears Mr. Gates may have been the one who acted "stupidly".

[chelsea0011]

16. Crowley was on WEEI this AM? Let me guess. It was the morning show.

For people that don't know, WEEI is a SPORTS station. And the these two in the AM once said an escaped gorilla from the city zoo that was roaming the streets reminded them of an Arican American child waiting for the school bus. Just a little context from the RW jerks on WEEI.

[redqueen]

17. The Blue Wall strikes again... how absolutely, unbelievably shocking.

Not.

[Wizard777]

19. I don't about their Police State. But here in America we have Freedom of Speech.

That includes our President.

[Fearless]

194. Actually in this case, he doesn't. Public figures are not supposed to comment on legal proceedings.

It puts their sway behind it. It is grounds for a judicial miscarriage.

[Wizard777]

220. There are no legal proceeding. So this isn't like Nixon saying Manson was guilty.

Gates is not being charged with any crime. There will be no trial. So Obama may properly comment upon this.

[Fearless]

262. Actually there are two legal proceedings...

Gates had previously said he would sue. The Cambridge Police force is currently investigating the whole thing.

[Wizard777]

332. He didn't comment about those. Only the original incident.

[No Elephants]

457. Saying you will sue is not a legal proceeding. Neither is an investigation. BTW, the PD is not

investigating the whole thing. It has circumscribed the scope of its examination of this event. Also, I just read Crowley's report again, in PDF format. It is not the same as the version that was online, not in PDF form, the day after the event. It's been revised to try to cover Crowley's butt. And it's still factually wrong. And it still never indicates that Crowley gave his badge number. And it's still not believable to anyone who has observed Gate's behavior. (Wish I had saved a copy of the first version to Word.)

[24601]

227. And freedom of speech includes the freedom to be wrong.

As Dr. Bill Cosby said, President Obama wasn't there. As President Obama said, he didn't have all the facts. The President exercised poor judgment and pre-judged what had happened. He should have not commented.

[MrsBrady]

21. people usually don't like it when you point out their flaws

cops don't want to hear the truth about themselves, apparently.

[CBGLuthier]

22. local issue???????

Oblivious. Totally oblivious.

[Politicalboi]

23. Looters and survivors

You only know the difference by the color of their skin.

[bluestateguy]

24. Yeah well he did

and he is the President of the United States and you will God damn give him the respect that he deserves.

it would be unfortunate if federal funding for the Cambridge Police Department had to be pulled as a consequence.

[Raschel]

28. WTH. I know the cops are out of control, but they think they're above the POTUS?!!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Well of course.

It's not like he's a citizen or something.

[Fearless]

323. You know that's illegal right? VERY illegal. 1800's illegal.

[RaleighNCDUer]

425. What's illegal? For the government to withhold discretionary funds?

Do you REALLY believe that?

[NAO]

25. I heard a rumor that at the Acting Stupid News Conference, there was talk of health care...

...but I haven't seen any news stories on that so I guess we should focus on the 'alleged' stupidity.

[get the red out]

27. So he upsets the racist element of our citizenry

They hate him, and all Democrats, anyway. They are a bunch of Christo-Fascists taking their daily brain download from a fat, drug addicted, college drop-out, who got out of the draft for anal cysts, that has been married three times. These people the President pissed off are too brain-dead to see the hypocrisy of their very existence as a group.

[Psephos]

30. Anger is legitimate. Raining it down on a cop is a low-percentage strategy.

Gates would not have been arrested if he hadn't followed the cop outside after the cop knew he was legit, and kept yelling at him.

I'm just pointing out what the arrest-avoidance strategy was.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Right. The cop was taunting him, trying to get him to step outside so

he would be in the 'public' - you can't bust someone for a public disturbance if they are in their own home after all.

So Gates was too reactive - can you say YOU wouldn't be if some jackass cop violated YOUR 4th amendment rights by entering your house without a warrant after you expressly denied him permission to enter?

Why would a person who had done nothing wrong NEED an 'arrest-avoidance strategy'?

[Indydem]

56. Gates invited the officer into his home.

He needed to go to the kitchen to retrieve his ID.

[lexanman]

89. Now

I will ask you for links. Invited in? Links?

[Indydem]

98. Boom, argument destroyed.

"When police arrived, Gates invited the officer into his kitchen and "handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer" as proof he lived there."

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/20129361/detail.html

[lexanman]

110. This is according to the police report, which gates refutes

Gates' attorney and fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree refuted the police account in a statement posted on the Web site The Root.

boom, argument stands.

[Indydem]

115. Absolutely not. That account is based on the lawyers statement from the Root.

NOT from the police report.

[lexanman]

120. well

we will see which one of us is right when it goes to court. There really isn't a point to continue debating it. You are taking the side of the officer and Im taking the side of Gates.

[EFerrari]

222. Wrong. The lawyer's statement does not say the officer was invited in:

The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr

[Fearless]

229. While in "hot persuit" you do not need to request entry.

At that point he believed it was a break in. Saw ID, realized it wasn't. LEFT. Was pursued. And arrested a disorderly man for... DISORDERLY CONDUCT. All legal. All procedural. No profiling. No stereotyping. No miscarriage of justice.

[EFerrari]

232. Oh, please. Hot pursuit? The man was standing in his home.

:rofl:

[Fearless]

249. Hot pursuit is in play until the ID is given by Gates. Until then he IS a potential burglar.

[msanthrope]

392. Hot persuit (sic)? Probable cause for HP does not arise from

your paranoid white neighbor seeing black people on your porch.

It arises from an officer witnessing a crime and pursuing a fleeing suspect.

Massive 4th amendment fail.

[fascisthunter]

322. unbelievable... now where do you suppose they heard that misinfo from?

[Fearless]

328. He doesn't need an invite when pursuing an AT THIS POINT potential burgular.

It's called "hot pursuit".

[msanthrope]

395. Yes, he does need an invite---the cop witnessed nothing....

he merely had a 911 call of black people on a porch.

That does not give rise to PC for HP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

372. The lawyer's statement says nothing about invinting him in.

What you quote is the news account which holds a PARTIAL account.

"The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him."

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/07/lawyers_statement_on_the_ahttp.html

There is NO mention of any invitation. Gates went to get his wallet, the officer followed. That is a violaton of the 4th amendment.

[msanthrope]

391. Fail. You are citing a newspaper, not the actual statement of Gates or

or the Gates police report.

Please provide an citation of original source material.

[RaleighNCDUer]

219. Actually, he didn't. When asked for ID, he said it was in the kitchen and

he would go get it, I'll be right back. There's no way you can interpret I'll be right back as an invitation in. As soon as Crowley stepped across that threshhold without permission he violated Gates' 4th amendment rights.

[Indydem]

301. how where it has said Crowley entered without Gates permission. I have not seen such a claim.

[RaleighNCDUer]

394. You find the invite.

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/07/lawyers_statement_on_the_ahttp.html

[Indydem]

399. "The officer followed him"

Not:

"The officer unlawfully followed him"
"The officer violated Gates fourth amendment rights and followed him"
"The officer forced his way into the home, following Gates into the kitchen."

The lack of alliteration is telling. I think the attorney left out any details to avoid incriminating his client and showing exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the local television station, specifically uses the term "invited" in their coverage, and no one has challenged that from the Gates camp.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/20129361/detail.html

Overall, I think Gates did invite him, or the officer was within the jurisdiction of his job to enter or the attorney would be making a big deal out of that, not whether the officer was racially motivated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

403. You just can't admit that the invite is not there.

Good night.

[No Elephants]

449. Failure to challenge a reporter's version of an event means zero legally. So does omission of

"unlawfully" from a description of the facts of an event. "The officer followed him" is a fact. "Unlawfully" is a conclusion of law that a judge makes (not even a jury, but only a judge). A lawyer knows the difference between a fact and a conclusion of law.

Don't know why Ogletree or any lawyer would make a big deal of anything. The charges were dropped. If Gates brings a suit, that's the time to make a big deal of something--and in court, not in the press--but no case has been brought yet. It's not appropriate at all for a lawyer in this context as it now sits to be a media whore.

Let's assume, just for discussion, though, that the officer had some sort of "doing his duty" right to follow Gates in. That would have ended as soon as Gates produced ID showing his photo, his address and that he was a Harvard employee. It would also have ended when he ignored repeated requests from Gates for his name and badge number.

When his duty had ended, so did his right to be on the property. From that point on, he was trespassing, even if he had had a right to be there initially. In other words, rights can end and the scope of an invitation, if any, can be exceeded.

[Psephos]

Don't harsh on the messenger ;)

I simply stated the arrest avoidance strategy without further opinion. I've done it both ways and based on experience, I'll use the AAS exclusively in the future, should the occasion rise.

[Aramchek]

31. awww, somebody's upset that they got called out for being stupid

so what do they do?

they act stupider.

[lexanman]

34. I hope the cop

and the police dept is sued badly. Any body with any knowledge of the Cambridge police dept knows very well the history of racism that is embedded. The WEEI_AM station in the morning has two openly racist wingnut hosts, and the fact that this officer went on the air should tell you plenty.

[Fearless]

45. Cite yourself?

[lexanman]

51. I'm not sure what you mean.

do you mean cite links for what I posted?

Here you go.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/mediaBiz/index.php/2008/11/04/weei-responds-to-dennis-callahan-election-flap/

http://blogs.townonline.com/cambridge/2009/07/23/crowley-tells-weei-i-really-wasnt-sure-what-i-was-dealing-with/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/01/cambridge_man_c_2.html

[Indydem]

59. OK, so you've proven (sort of) tha the sports talk hosts are shock jocks...

Now prove that the Cambridge officers are racists and specifically the officer in question. We'll wait.

[lexanman]

67. sort of..lol

they are not sort of shock jocks. they are openly racist. Want links about the Cambridge Police Dept and its very racist and bigoted past? Be back in a jiffy! No need to wait long.

[lexanman]

81. Here you go.

whew, all this running back and forth is sure gettin me tired.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Cambridge+Police+racism+history&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=_9loSqynM4-IMtfn_c8M&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12

[Indydem]

88. Hey idiot, most of those reports are about Cambridgeshire in Britain. Try again.

[lexanman]

101. oops wrong links

no need to call names. Now, now. Temper yourself, child. Be back with our Cambridge right here in the US.:hi:

[Fearless]

128. Cite the "history of racism" in Cambridge. That would be current history BTW.

[lexanman]

159. dozens more coming up

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/06/us/racism-blamed-for-brawl-at-u-of-massachusetts.html

[lexanman]

161. Im also in the process

if gathering reports of the CPD involving racial profiling. They are many.


http://www.thefire.org/case/649.html

[Fearless]

252. This doesn't have anything to do with Cambridge as it is nearly 2 hours away.

Nice try.

[RaleighNCDUer]

376. self delete

lost the thread

[EFerrari]

212. I put up three links this morning after looking for 1 minute:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3981640&mesg_id=3982600

[Fearless]

271. One from 1987, one from a different city 2 hours away, and one that...

only cites the Gates case as racism. Keep trying. Unless of course you expect me to believe that Sgt. Crowley must be racist because three times in the last 22 years in various cities in the Commonwealth, there were questionable actions. Good luck.

[EFerrari]

292. I don't need you to believe anything.

But imagine that the stories will keep bubbling up at the moment. In a way, Crowley did perform a public service. He jumped the shark so well, it's forced people to take a look at him, at his department and at racism in law enforcement.

[Fearless]

305. Actually the LOCAL news is reporting quite the contrary. But it must be them racist MA media people

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

310. The local media is strongly right wing, yes. You bet.

[Fearless]

317. All local media? Cite something? Otherwise, it's situationally biased hearsay

[EFerrari]

324. Better idea: why don't you run down all the liberal radio stations

that are backing Obama today. :hi:

[Fearless]

330. Because radio is nationally right wing leaning. Nice try though.

Also, the radio isn't the only media. There's tv. Newspapers. Blogs. Journals. And many freelance reporters.


And, you made the accusation, the burden of proof lies on you not me. "You can't say the sky is green. I'm right until YOU prove me wrong." It doesn't work that way.

[EFerrari]

331. Okay. What about the Globe and the Herald?

Yes, anyone who follows the news knows that the media in the Boston area is strongly right wing.

[Fearless]

333. Can you cite an example?

"Anyone... knows" is a generalization and not good evidence.

[EFerrari]

337. Go to either newspaper's website.

It's been pouting cop and angry union all day.

[Fearless]

344. Wow...

First you still aren't giving evidence to your accusation. You're saying it's there... go look for it.

Second, you can't define your evidence based off of itself. That would be like saying the definition of "unclear" is "unclear".

[EFerrari]

364. Yes, I'm asking you to go look at your own media

as if you don't already know what you'll find there. Wow. :wow:

[Fearless]

366. It's a wonder you'll ever win an agrument at all.

Google "burden of proof".



Have a good night.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

368. And ypu avoided the whole thing.

lol

[Fearless]

371. Sorry if I don't do your research for you. Goodnight.

[EFerrari]

397. I'm not posting right wing spew to this site

and especially when you knew exactly what it is and where it is.

[lexanman]

164. more

http://michaelannland.blogspot.com/2007/08/racism-comes-full-circle-in.html

[Fearless]

269. Springfield and Cambridge are 2 hours apart.

[tj2001]

35. Name ONE instance where the police union didn't applaud the cop

even when he shot somebody in the back. While lying on the ground. Unarmed. In handcuffs.

[grahamhgreen]

150. Hmmm..... no responses!

[mr_liberal]

36. I think his use of the word "stupidly" is the

problem. He probably shouldn't have weighed in at all but that makes it even worse.

I don't know all the facts about it yet, but it sounds to me like Gates acted like a lunatic, but that the police officer then went overboard in arresting him.

[Incitatus]

54. It was approriate.

If you arrest someone who you know hasn't committed a crime, then you did something stupid.

[mr_liberal]

68. The crime was disorderly conduct,

and even though the cop was probably technically correct in arresting him it seems like he could have handled it differently . But you shouldnt have to put up with that kind of abuse if youre a cop either.

Obama should have stayed out of it, but if he said anything at all he should have said "it seems like maybe the cop overreacted, but I don't know all the facts." Something like that.

Gates seems like a real squirrel though lol

[No Elephants]

445. A citizen in his own home who has committed no crime should not have to put

up with that kind of abuse from a cop. And, no, the cop was not technically correct in arresting him. And, no, Obama should not have stayed out of it, since he was asked a direct question. And "stupidly" is a mild comment, given what happened. He could have said "illegally," because Crowley broke several laws.

Gates seems like a squirrel? No, but you sure might--and worse--if you keep posting stuff like that.

BTW, you do get by now that you have not fooled anyone, right?

[fascisthunter]

41. He Would go on WEEI... bigoted right wing dumb ass propaganda station

and it's supposed to be a sports talk station. At least that's how they disguise themselves.

[BunkerHill24]

52. F*ck you, Officer Crowley, and the horse you rode in on

You and your racist police union can go to hell

[Gator_Matt]

113. Tell it to the familes of cops who die every year protecting you

Your blanket statement of racism is repulsive and unfounded. Go back to your armchair and leave this discussion to adults.

[EFerrari]

182. And more crap. The racist police union is specifically asking

that race be taken out of the discussion -- because they know they're wrong.

“What needs to be done here is to analyze the situation on a purely rational basis and put aside the emotion and the questions of race,” said Roberts.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1186694

And using dead people to prop up your viewpoint is pathetic.

[BunkerHill24]

411. You don't know me and I am not your kid, so don't lecture me asshole

I live in Boston and I see this racism sh*t every day.....this is personal to me.

[nosmokes]

412. Should we tell it to the families of the pigs that shoot down innocent unarmed

people,including children, the disabled and the mentally ill too?

just wondering

[JonLP24]

55. Obama has my support

Go on and speak your mind Mr. President. :applause: Don't let these cops hold you back.

[LiberteToujours]

58. Why not read the full police report?

It is corroborated by a witness (the woman woman who called in the burglary). Gates _immediately_ jumped to conclusions and accused the police officer of racism, before even producing his ID, exclaiming "This is what happens to a black man in this country!". He then continued to harass the officer after the officer left the house, and refused to stop yelling after several warnings. That would (and should) get anyone arrested on a disorderly conduct charge, black or white. Being a Harvard professor doesn't make you immune from the law, though it may make you more delusional and paranoid about the subject you teach. And it sure doesn't guarantee humility either (see the many references in the police report about Gates exclaiming that the officer "doesn't know who he's messing with").

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates3.html

[JonLP24]

72. I see no statements from the witness

Just the arresting officer's report. The only thing it mentions is about her is that she told the officer she called it in and she explained two black men were trying to wedge his shoulder in the front door. Also he wasn't leaving, he asked Gates to step outside so he could provide his personal information in which the officer said that Gates said a very hard to believe quote, "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside."

Also sometimes witnesses can get things wrong(No witness statements other then what she saw then what she reported but that isn't) and also what about cross-examination and all that good stuff? Oh right, it's not even going to trial!

[kenfrequed]

74. ah

I suppose the neighbor is going to admit she didn't recognize her neighbor, or that she called the cops because she saw a black man going into his own home?

[merwin]

102. Why are there no quotes from the officer? Just the single quote over and over

"This is what happens to black men in America!". The report goes on to say "As the Sgt was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted "You don't know who your messing with" (on a side note, I love the grammar error in 'your').

The report includes nothing that the officer actually said, and only makes Gates look like a raving lunatic, while at the same time referring to him as "the gentleman".

The minute Gates showed his ID to the police officer, the officer should have apologized for the inconvenience and left, regardless of whether or not Gates was yelling at him.

His neighbor (guessing Irish by the last name) called the cops on him for trying to get into his own house. I don't know about you, but I know my neighbors pretty well by sight (day or night) after a few months of living somewhere, even if I have never talked to them. The police officer arrives, one person answers the door. There is no sign of a break-in. How does someone who is trained in NOT racially profiling manage to fuck up a situation like that.

Do you honestly think that if the cop showed up at this woman's house she would have been arrested AFTER proving that it was her own house, even if she got upset with the police officer?

[Hansel]

126. So what?

The guy's in his own home and the police officer is forcing him to prove he belongs there. Gates is a well respected and well known member of the community who has worked very hard to get to where he is at, but still has to prove to some cop that he is in his own home.

The best way for the officer to have handle it would have been to apologize after seeing Gates ID and to have left the home without looking back. He could have written his name and badge number on a piece of paper if Gates wasn't listening. If this guy is the expert interracial instructor for the police dept, he should understand the reaction he got from Gates and not be so damn clueless. But instead, he gets defensive and plays into the understandable anger instead of defusing the situation. The report reaks of BS and of a guy who got his nose bent out of shape because someone called him a racist. It seems to have hit home just a little too easily.

Also, Gates says that after he went out on the porch Crowley smiled and said "thanks for following me out here, you're under arrest." So his piece in the report about Gates "yelling very loud" and the "acoustics of the kitchen" was BS. He's lying. How can one tell? Because he's offering too much detail about why he went outside.

He could have said he went outside because he saw Gate's ID and knew it was his house and was done with the investigation. But he knew damn well he could not arrest Gates inside his house. So he added the crap about it being too loud. Why? Because he's trying to cover his ulterior motive, which was to have a reason to arrest Gates.

I lived in a poor neighborhood when I was a kid and saw the cops play these BS games for my entire youth. The police report doesn't pass the laugh test in more places than just the acoustics of the kitchen.

Obama is right. He acted stupidly. He could have easily just apologized and left, but his nose was too bent out of shape. He let his emotions get the best of him and he abused his power because his feelings were hurt. Tough. I hope Cambridge has to pay through the nose because this guy is too f*cking stupid to just apologize.

Whether or not Gates was yelling is completely irrelevant to me. He had a right to be upset and a cop trained in racial sensitivity should have known that.

[EFerrari]

168. So, are you saying the Cambridge police are wimps

who can't handle an upset 58 year old lame man with a breathing problem standing in his own home

They need to turn in their badges in that case. Gawd knows how they will fuck up with an able bodied youngster.

Oh, and by the way, cops who've screwed up big time LIE in their incident reports to contain the damage.

[HughMoran]

189. Apparently so

No decent cop I know would have arrested a person in this situation. Well, unless they also happened to be black (I'm actually serious).

[EFerrari]

199. People really don't like knowing that you're right, do they. nt

[Leontius]

250. just a thought

don't people lie to protect their reputations too.

[EFerrari]

254. That's exactly what the arresting officer did.

Why? Skip Gates isn't Britney. He has zero history of this stuff. The Cambridge Police, on the other hand, do have a history of handling black men inappropriately.

[Leontius]

275. Do you have any record of officer Crowley's

history of being a racist or a bad officer or being accused of being a racist or bad officer.

[EFerrari]

285. Not of him specifically, no. But the department as a whole

seems to have a problem. Another black professor who teaches neuroscience recounted his experience with near arrest for walking on Harvard Yard while black and the stories are coming out from that black community apace.

And given his defensive posture, it's not hard to believe he has a problem. He could have apologized and this would be ended, both for him and for his department. Instead, the whole apparatus has been mobilized to protect him. Why? What is the benefit or the need?

[Fearless]

306. Cite something!

[EFerrari]

309. LOL. So, is your father in that union?

[Fearless]

325. Must be... otherwise I can't hold that opinion, whatever you think that is or entails.

And why my father? Why not my mother?

[EFerrari]

334. That would be an outlier, but why not your mom?

Or yourself or your partner?

They're going to lose this one, as they should. They and you are defending the indefensible.

[Fearless]

351. There will be no lawsuit. You watch. They have no legal legs to stand on.

And like it or not. The judicial system values these things.

[EFerrari]

410. Don't bet on it. Crowley's out there shooting his mouth off

and saying it was Gate's tone that was disturbing.

If there's no lawsuit it will be because Dr. Gates doesn't want to deal with these idiots for the next two years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

381. Well, that's pretty obvious - they'd tase or shoot him. nt

[sybylla]

87. Where's the whaaaambulance when you need it.

Goodness. If the cop in question did such a fine job, why are they whining so badly?

[grahamhgreen]

148. People - we live in a police state.

[Fearless]

384. There's a million Iraqi civilians who just rolled over in their graves.

[mix]

396. yep

And the rabid defense of racist policing on this thread shows how bad it really is...

[LatteLibertine]

162. Gates "disorderly conduct"

was repeatedly demanding the officer's name and badge number because he was upset with the way he was treated.

Some police won't admit they're wrong. Some certainly do enjoy being bullies. I've seen that time and again regardless of race. Minorities do seem to catch it much more though.

Anyone remember the cop who held that NFL player in a hospital parking lot while his mother in law was inside dying? All because of traffic violation.

Police DO have the power to exercise discretion and many choose to be assholes instead.

[RaleighNCDUer]

386. But that couldn't happen TODAY. That's ancient history.

Really. What was it? LAST MONTH?

[CakeGrrl]

180. Backing Crowley in WHAT?

The President expressed an opinion when asked. This isn't an ongoing matter since the charges were dropped, so why does anyone feel they need to "back" anyone just because they don't like what was said?

If Gates is pursuing further action for any reason, it will be on the basis of what occurred at his home, not on what the President had to say about it after the fact.

Tempest in a dumbass teapot, really.

[EFerrari]

215. The Big Blue machine is out en force today in that area.

Article after article about what poor victims they are. I'm SO GLAD Obama had the guts to say something, and especially as carefully as he did.

[Fearless]

312. So carefully so as to not direct attention away from the purpose of the Q&A right?

Since all the major news outlets which should be talking about Obama's support of health care and dispelling of health care horror stories is still happening, not that average American is distracted by a local Cambridge arrest or anything. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

409. Racial profiling is also a national issue with plenty of horror stories of its own.

[Fearless]

308. The ongoing matter is the lawsuit of Gates' and the investigation by Cambridge's Police Force

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

253. Enjoy your stay at DU!

[TankLV]

263. unfortunately, you've overstayed yours...

[EFerrari]

266. I love you, too, Tank.

[Amonester]

257. So true!

:thumbsup:

[Fearless]

278. And suddenly everything becomes clear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

387. I wish I could see what the tombstoned asshole you are apparently

agreeing with said.

[HughMoran]

398. He had to have seen it to be able reply to it

What exactly did I miss here?

[EFerrari]

404. It was a freeper troll faking a broadbrush of cop hating, iirc.

[HughMoran]

407. Thanks

I also misunderstood the poster I was responding to, but thanks anyway.

[TankLV]

265. Looks like you've scared out a few...

gee - white posters defending a RACIST PIG over a black President...nice...

[Fearless]

276. I love how you prefaced with "White" and "Black"... especially because no one...

said anyone was "White".

:applause:

[Fearless]

382. Sorry for the mess in the middle everyone, the OP poses a valid and different question.

[slampoet]

402. Is there ANYTHING a black man can say to a cop that WON'T piss them off?

[Gman]

405. The "cop at the center of the national uproar" needs to get TF over it

[quakerboy]

415. Akin to saying "Insurance companies, lobby: obama shouldnt have weighed in

on health care.

[Javaman]

421. So many to block, so little time. nt

[Name removed]

422. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeanGrey]

429. He knows that now, obviously.

[No Elephants]

452. Initially, I said Obama should have

used other words. With the benefit of everything that has happened since then, I take it all back.

Should Obama have weighed in? Absolutely.

Race is, as one person put it, the "birth defect" of this nation, be it slaves who came over with the very first settlers or Native Americans. Or, our treatment of the Chinese. Or internment of the Japanese. Or any of the other racial shameful bigotry, racial and otherwise, in which this continent and its invaders have engaged (and taught and made official policy) from Columbus forward.

Should he have used the word "stupidly?" Originally, I said no. He should have said something like "the arrest could have been avoided." In hindsight, "stupidly" was accurate. Arresting a 58 year old disabled Harvard professor for being in his own home when that was perfectly avoidable was indeed stupid cop macho. It may also have been illegal. It may also have been racist. But, it was definitely stupid.

As far as not knowing all the facts, I am sure Obama knew as much as anyone else who felt free to comment endlessly knew at that point, the difference between Obama and many posters here being that Obama is smart enough to assume he does not know everything. However, he did know enough to know the arrest was eminently avoidable and therefore stupid.

Am I glad Obama commented when he did? Well, the timing threw discussion about payment for medical care off balance, but it opened a national discussion on equality, which is more of an issue for this nation than even health care. And inappropriate actions by cops, from shootings to arrests when no crimes have been committed, to profiling, is not far behind. And, as it turns out, Congress was not going to do anything about medical costs before the break anyway. And, at the rate they're going, what they are likely to do will benefit insurance companies, not patients. So, the longer that is delayed, the better, IMO.

[EFerrari]

456. Did you see this? CatWoman posted a link to the WJ discussion

yesterday between Joe Madison and Armstrong Williams. Madison really knew his stuff. It's about an hour:

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/08/01/WJE/A/21600/Joe+Madison+Radio+Talk+Show+Host+Armstrong+Williams+Radio+TV+Talk+Show+Host+Columnist.aspx

[No Elephants]

460. Thanks. No, I didn't see it and I was just about to leave the board for a while, so

I won't watch now. But thank you again.

BTW, do me a favor and remember the post to which you are responding. If anyone ever says that I don't admit being wrong, I'll make you my witness!