# Racist Cop or Combative Professor?



## Archangel M

I just read this over at a blog that I like:

http://pepperspray.me/



> Everyone is talking about the black Ivy League professor who was arrested for disorderly conduct. Was it racism? Racial profiling of a black man by the police? If your conclusion is yes, you&#8217;ve probably made up your mind before examining the facts.
> 
> The facts: On July 16, 2009 at approximately 12:44 pm, Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr returned home from an overseas trip. He had trouble opening the door to his house. His taxi driver&#8211;another black man&#8211;helped him force the door open. This prompted a white passerby to call the police and report a break in.
> 
> By the time Cambridge Police responded to the call, the good professor was already inside his house. Sergeant James Crowley made contact with Gates. Gates was asked to step outside. What happened next depends on who you believe.
> 
> Those siding with the professor say that he was man in his castle, and the police had no reason, or right, to harass him. They go as far as to say that the only reason he was questioned was because he is black. Were he a white man, the police would have simply left him alone and continued patrol. They&#8217;ll even tell you that the white passerby was racist for calling the police.
> 
> On the other hand, those siding with the cops say that the professor could have avoided the arrest altogether if he simply remained calm and cooperated with the police. The cops were investigating a crime in progress. Why didn&#8217;t he just go along with the program?
> 
> After shouting and screaming at the police outside of his house, Gates was arrested and booked for disorderly conduct. He was released after posting $40 bail. On July 21st, the charge against Gates was dropped.
> Was there racial profiling going on? Did the cops "harass" the good professor based on his skin tone? I dare say no.
> 
> Officers responded to a burglary in progress. I don&#8217;t know how they do things in Cambridge, but it can&#8217;t be too different from the way I was trained. When investigating a burglary in progress, any occupant in the dwelling will be asked to step out, followed by a building search. So yes, the police had the right&#8211;and responsibility&#8211;to be there.
> 
> Is Sgt Crowley a racist? I can&#8217;t speak to that, since I don&#8217;t know the man. But based on existing information&#8211;even statements from the good professor himself&#8211;I&#8217;ll say that there aren&#8217;t enough facts to make it reasonable to believe that the sergeant&#8217;s actions constituted an act of racism.
> 
> A better question: Was the arrest legal? If so, was it a good arrest?
> Based on the sergeant&#8217;s report, the arrest was legal. Crowley articulated the elements of the crime, and made his arrest based on law. But that doesn&#8217;t mean it was a good arrest.
> 
> Cops in the field have a lot of discretion. There is a time and place to arrest for disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace. For more on this check out this post by Pete Moskos. Unless there&#8217;s something more to a grumpy old guy (with a limp and cane) other than a lot of trash talking, you&#8217;re wasting your time. Crowley&#8217;s report did not convince me that a disorderly conduct arrest was in order here.
> 
> Having said that, it appears to me that the good professor brought this whole thing upon himself. It had nothing to do with police racism, and everything to do with his arrogant, misguided belief that the police had no right to be in his home. His hostile and combative tone got him into those handcuffs.
> 
> My two pennies in the bucket: perhaps the better course of action for the police would have been to unhook the good professor once he calmed down. Sometimes that little misdemeanor arrest ain&#8217;t worth the headache and drama.


 
I have to agree with the author. To the people saying "the cops wouldnt have even shown up if it was a white guy.." I call ********! If a bypasser called my PD saying that someone was forcing a door on a residence that person would be stopped and ID'd BLACK or WHITE...exactly as this guy was. To say a white guy would have been driven by is a load of crap. This "professor" apparently had already determined that the only reason that this officer was investigating a break-in at his home was because of his race...while I wasnt there I can almost see the scene already. 

Officer: Stop what you are doing and show me some ID.

Prof: I live here!

Officer: ID please sir

Prof: (while handing over ID) THIS IS ********! WHY ARE YOU HASSLEING ME! THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE BOTHERING ME IS BECAUSE IM BLACK! YOU ARE A RACIST!

Officer: Sir please keep it down or you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

Prof: OH NOW YOU ARE THREATENING ME?? WHATS YOUR NAME AND BADGE NUMBER? THIS IS ****ING ********!!! yadda..yadda..yadda...

Officer: You are under arrest.

I have seen this drama played out time and time again..look Im not nieve enough to think that "driving while black" and the ilk isnt happening out there in some cities and jurisdictions, but its been my anecdotal experience that the accusation is thrown without cause far too often. If I had a nickle for every time I had to listen to this BS when I was just doing my job (and would have done the exact same regardless of race) Id be a welthy man. 

Like I said I dont know the details here and perhaps this cop was a cocky *** who pushed this guys buttons for no good reason...could be. But its been my experience that in these situations if the subject would have just said "thanks for looking out for my property officer..Im the homeowner and Im locked out...heres my ID" then all would be well. When you start out the contact with racist accusations against the cop what good is going to come of that?!? You dont combat the legit cases of racism by accusing every cop you come across.....what would this professor like the cops to do if there was some black guy legitimately breaking into his house? Just drive by...assume that it was the homeowner?

I also agree with the author. I dont think this was racist...I think the arrest was legitimate by the letter of the law...I think the decision to arrest was probably a bad discretion call.


----------



## Omar B

That article leaves out the fact that he showed them 2 forms of ID before he was arrested, his drivers license and college ID.  That should be the end of it, "Sorry about the mistake, have a nice evening."  He got arrested in his own home after presenting ID, that's wrong.
_
Minutes later, a Cambridge police sergeant appeared at his front door, saying he was responding to a report of a suspected break-in, Gates&#8217;s statement said. Gates showed his Harvard identification and driver&#8217;s license and asked the policeman for his name and badge number, Ogletree said. The sergeant walked away without answering, the statement said._ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anupUHzw.F0Y

_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&#8217;s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates&#8217; photograph, and the license includes his address._ http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr


----------



## Archangel M

You are only reading the victims statement...of course its going to support his side. 

BTW: The officer was right in going in...he doesnt know if this is the resident or the burglar. Some PD's will make you step-out..check the house..then ID yourself.

The rest of the story is that Gates began a tirade in the house and then followed the officer OUT OF THE HOUSE, yelling and screaming..where he was arrested.


Like I said though. While the officer is human..was probably pissed at the accusations..and "within the letter of the law"...the arrest was probably not a good idea.


----------



## Omar B

Whatever the sequence of events were no crime was committed and the home owner got arrested for forcing his own door.  Charges were dropped so I guess the cops see it that way too.


----------



## Archangel M

He wasnt charged for the burglary/door forcing..he was charged for disorderly conduct for his tirade outside his house. Thats the charge that was dropped.


----------



## Omar B

Whatever you say man, I'm with the Prof on this one.  Yeah I'm gonna get loud and disorderly after showing ID.


----------



## Carol

Oh please.   Professor Gates is making it sound like he's the only black man adrift in a sea of bigoted white snobs that want to do nothing better than lay the hammer down on a brother. And perhaps folks that think Cambridge = Harvard University and nothing else are believing it.

The city of Cambridge is very urban and very diverse.  There are many people from many different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups.  Like any urban environment, its also got its issues with poverty, drugs, and crime, but for the most part the Cantabrigian people are good folks that look out for one another. 

I think the officer may have made a bad judgment call.  I don't think he was racist and I certainly don't think the Cambridge Police deserve to be given a black eye by our President.


----------



## Archangel M

Omar B said:


> Whatever you say man, I'm with the Prof on this one. Yeah I'm gonna get loud and disorderly after showing ID.


 
Eh..Its not a matter of "whatever you say"..its a fact. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct.

If a cop came to my house and DIDNT ask for ID... assuming I was telling the truth..Id be pissed and complaining "that cop came here on a call of someone breaking in and left just because I told him I lived here...what if it really was a burglary?"

BTW: I remember my deparment chasing some bad guys after a robbery and finding a door open on a house. The guy inside said he lived there and was shirtless. After being ID'd without warrants the police left. Turned out it was a BG who broke in, took off his clothes and acted like the owner. We didnt discover the truth till the real owner came home. Fortunately he gave the officer a real drivers license at the time and was picked up on a warrant later.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> I just read this over at a blog that I like:
> 
> http://pepperspray.me/



I love that URL.  

I want to register http://dont-tase.me/bro  :lol2:


----------



## punisher73

Omar B said:


> Whatever you say man, I'm with the Prof on this one. Yeah I'm gonna get loud and disorderly after showing ID.


 

For what?  There is a sequence of events that have to be followed any time an officer is dispatched to a crime.  Many department policies include running every person through LEIN for information etc.


Do you REALLY buy his story that BOTH sides (police and him) had this polite discussion (as told by his story) and then he is suddenly put in handcuffs?  Come on now...simple logic tells you that for the police to arrest you for disorderly conduct there was something else to it.


----------



## celtic_crippler

This ain't rocket science. 

Regardless of race, one should be reassured, comforted, and thankful to know that they police will quickly show up to your house at the report of a break in. That's no cause for anger, quite the opposite. 

If it was a real break in and they didn't follow procedure then the owner would have complained about that. 

If the police show up, comply. If you did nothing wrong then that's the end of it. 

If the professor did not go on a tirade and did not show his butt, then the cops are in the wrong. If he did, then he brought it on himself and should learn the lesson that sometimes you just need to STFU.


----------



## MJS

I too, call ******** on those saying the cops were racist.  Its sooo typical to play that card in cases like this, its disgusting.  White, black, green or yellow, I've taken countless burg. in progress calls, with the suspects of various races, and they're taken care of the same way.  

Until the cops figure out who's who, yes, they have every damn right to detain everyone, until they sort things out.  The cops are not mind readers, so for anyone to say that the Prof. was arrested for forcing his own door, let me ask this...how the hell did they know at the time?  Would you assume that it was the home owner and not stop and ask for ID?  Please, lets have a dicussion with some common sense here please.  In cases like this, its perfectly normal for them to check the inside and outside of the house to make sure that nothing is wrong.  Theres also nothing wrong with ID'ing all parties there.

And I echo what the article said....if this Prof. instead of acting like an ***, just cooperated, and didn't get all huffy, macho and tough, maybe, just maybe, this incident would've been over pretty quick.  But instead, he followed the typical tough guy behavior that some show when dealing with the cops.  

Of course, I'm sure if this were a burg in progress, and the Prof came home and found his stuff gone, hmm...lets see, who would've been the first person he called?  Oh yeah, the cops.  

This guy was an *******, plain and simple.  Oh and BTW...if you're going to get loud and disorderly after showing ID, you're probably gonna find yourself cuffed and in the back of the car for interferring with the investigation.


----------



## jks9199

First -- I agree with Archangel.  It was a legal arrest -- but it wasn't a wise arrest.  (Which is probably why he was de-arrested at the station.)

Second -- Professor Gates was arrested for *disorderly conduct* not breaking into his own house.  His conduct in dealing with Sgt. Crowley who was investigating a report of black men breaking into a house is what led to the arrest.

Third -- I suspect that there were communication failures on both sides.

I understand a homeowner, probably tired after a long flight, being upset when the cops are at his door, questioning whether he lives there.  Especially if he's a black guy in a very much white neighborhood AND just came back from China.  I rather suspect at various points in his trip, possibly as early as recently as the customs line or even the cab stand at the airport, he was the victim of racist acts.  (Yes, there are racist cops.  And cab drivers.  And university professors.)

And I understand the cop, who's just trying to do his job and make sure that he really is the homeowner AND that everything really is OK, getting fed up quick with the irate guy yelling at him and making accusations.  (Yes, having been there & done that, I'm pretty confident that I have a decent idea what was being said.)  When the guy doesn't calm down -- the cop applies the tool he has to solve the solution: arrest.  Again -- not a particularly wise choice, but then again, it's not particularly wise to argue with the cop.

Let's look at it for a moment from the cop's viewpoint.  His dispatch probably went something like "Respond to <Gate's address>; complainant reports seeing two black males trying to force open the door."  You get there, and knock, and a black guy comes to the door.  "Is this the suspect?  Is it the homeowner with a suspect behind him telling him to get rid of the cops?" goes through your mind.  You ask him to step out (if it's a home invasion situation, get him out & he might tell you).  He's not exactly cooperative, but gives you ID.  YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE HOUSE.  And he's not acting "normal" for a homeowner in that situation.  And he won't calm down...

In my experience, the typical behavior in a case like that is some embarrassment, coupled with at least a grudging appreciation that the cops are making sure everything is OK.  Usually, when the race card gets dropped -- the person dropping it is trying to distract me  or keep me from doing my job. 

Yeah, with the wonders of 20/20 hindsight and in the ease and comfort of my home, it's easy to say that Sgt. Crowley should have walked away, and let Prof. Gates calm down when they left.  But he didn't know that then; he just knew that Prof. Gates was going nuts...

Like I said; communication failures on both sides.  

And Prof. Gates is capitalizing on that.  Kinda convenient how much press coverage he's had out of this, huh?

I'll tell you right now, my cynical inner voice is telling me that there are probably guys in suits with small gold badges whose motto is "Fidelity. Bravery. Integrity" walking around Cambridge, talking to everyone who'll talk, looking for evidence that Sgt. Crowley (and maybe the whole PD) is a racist.  And that, when the results of that investigation are forwarded to an Assistant United States Attorney, the writing on the wall will be to find SOMETHING, unless that AUSA wants to move into the private sector post-haste.


----------



## crushing

I assume the Sgt. Crowley isn't the officer in the foreground.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Personally I think racism is a problem but when it is called like in the old story "wolf" it will be ignored the same way. 

IN this article : 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly



> Obama 'stupidly' comment disappoints Mass. cop
> 
> NATICK, Mass.  A white police sergeant who arrested renowned black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. said Thursday he's disappointed President Barack Obama said officers acted "stupidly," despite acknowledging he didn't know all the facts.
> 
> Sgt. James Crowley responded to Gates' home near Harvard University last week to investigate a report of a burglary and demanded Gates show him identification. Police say Gates at first refused and accused the officer of racism.
> 
> Gates was charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was dropped Tuesday, and Gates has since demanded an apology from Crowley.
> 
> ...


 
Now if I refused I would be arrested for disordely conduct as well. 


So my problem is that until the facts are known people should presume all are innocent, even the President of the United States of America should hold his comments until he has been breifed. 

Personally I think the Professor and the current sitting President who the officer and the police department an apology.


----------



## Joab

As soon as the Professor showed his ID which had the address of the house he was in the incident should have ended. The officer should have handed the ID back and said "have a nice evening sir" and left.


----------



## crushing

Joab said:


> As soon as the Professor showed his ID which had the address of the house he was in the incident should have ended. The officer should have handed the ID back and said "have a nice evening sir" and left.


 
I'm sure that's where the officers would have liked for it to end too.

Professor Gates was likely very agitated that he had to break in to his own house and embarrassed that his cab driver had to help him do so.  I wouldn't be surprised if his door sustained some sort of damage that now needs repairs and on top that irritation and to add to the embarrassment, here come the cops and following them the neighbors to see what is going on.  From sideshow, to carnival, to big freakin' media/political circus.


----------



## CoryKS

I'm thinking racist, combative professor. Reminds me of the Eddie Murphy skit about going to Texas looking for racism. "Yeah, that's my bag! What's the matter, a black man can't have a suitcase?"

Police got a report of a break-in. The investigating officer asks for proof of ID. Show him the ID and STFU. Gates can't even argue that it wasn't a break-in - _it was_. All he had to do was prove he lived there. Instead, he asked for name and badge number and got hostile. He escalated into something it didn't need to be and then cried racism when he got arrested for it. 

Gates' behavior in this has been childish and emotionally-driven. I certainly hope he's not an accurate indication of the sort of "intellectual" that Harvard employs.

BTW:  Do you suppose there's a potential burglar in Cambridge who's considering robbing Gates, with the assumption that the police won't dare investigate it?


----------



## Omar B

I hear all the arguments, I still say once his identity was established the cop should have said "Have a nice day" and left.    The Prof did get agitated and loud, but he had already proven ID, what was the cop still doing there?  I would be pissed if after proving that I was not breaking into my own house to the cop he was not still sniffing around.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Omar B said:


> I hear all the arguments, I still say once his identity was established the cop should have said "Have a nice day" and left. The Prof did get agitated and loud, but he had already proven ID, what was the cop still doing there? I would be pissed if after proving that I was not breaking into my own house to the cop he was not still sniffing around.


 
From what I understand Gates continued to confront the officers. If he'd been polite, showed his ID immediately, thanked the officers for their quick response and left it at that...no story, but he didn't. He had to show his butt.

There's a reason I'm not a cop...they don't get paid enough for the crap they have to deal with.


----------



## Omar B

It's not like they've never been told off before.  It's his house, leave, it's that simple.  I know cops have a tough time, my best friend's dad is a NYPD detective, I've heard all the stories.  When it was established that there was no crime move on.


----------



## CoryKS

It seems to me that in this case, the assumption of poor treatment by the police due to racism became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gates framed this as a racial issue from the beginning and responded accordingly, growing angry and indignant until the officer arrested him. Whereas if he had acknowledged the circumstances and focused on establishing his identity, this would have been over quickly.

I read elsewhere that when the officer took him away, he asked Gates if he wanted the officer to lock the house. Gates replied that the door was unlockable due to a previous burglary. So you'd think the guy would have been more receptive to police efforts to prevent another one.

Smoking gun has the police report.


----------



## punisher73

Omar B said:


> It's not like they've never been told off before. It's his house, leave, it's that simple. I know cops have a tough time, my best friend's dad is a NYPD detective, I've heard all the stories. When it was established that there was no crime move on.


 

You seem to be missing a key point.  When the police first arrived they DID ask Gates for ID and to step outside to confirm his id.  Gates did not comply with what they asked for at first and by his own admission was on the phone while the officer was asking him to step outside.  It was only after this that Gates went to retrieve his ID.

Many of the people defending Gates read it like he came to the door and then immediately produced ID and then was harassed by the police.  That wasn't the case, even by Gates own statement (through his lawyer).  Then I see the complaints that the police had no business being there in the first place and were just supposed to leave.  Ummmm, someone calls 9-1-1 and we have to look into that until we can determine that everyone and everything is safe.

I think *BOTH *parties involved overreacted in this situation.  I don't think it had anything to do with race, but everything to do with a percieved lack of respect by both.  Too bad the officer didn't have a lapel mike on him like many departments do.  It would answer all the questions for sure.



> Black students and professors at Harvard have complained for years about racial profiling by Cambridge and campus police. Harvard commissioned an independent committee last year to examine the university's race relations after campus police confronted a young black man who was using tools to remove a bike lock. The man worked at Harvard and owned the bike.


 
Here is something from another news article trying to tie this incident to racism in general in that PD/area.  Again, do you REALLY think it's the police or is it just people feeling thinking that police can't come up and investigate a situation without it being profiling.  As a police officer, if I was on a college campus where there are ALOT of bike thefts each year and I see somebody trying to get a bike lock off using tools and not a key I am going to confront that person and determine ownership and what is going on.  It has nothing to do with the person being white/black or any other color under the rainbow.


----------



## Omar B

I hear what you are saying man, but identity was established so the cop should have left.  Combative, before, after, during, he didn't hit anybody, he was pissed and got loud at his own place.


----------



## blindsage

I'm truly amazed at the way people comment on situations like this.  There's only two sides and two sources on this: the officer's as stated in the (previously posted) police report, and Professor Gates as posted here and here.  These are the only sources we have, those and our assumptions based on our beliefs and experiences with police officers and race.  A lot of people keep talkin about how belligerent Professor Gates became, he denies this, so the only way to be 'convinced' this is what happened is by accepting the unvarnished 'truth' of the officer's statement.  That's not really useful.  Sure those that defend Gates are using the victim statement to back up what he says, but those defending the cop are just using the police report to back up what he says.  Why is one inherently more credible than the other?


----------



## Carol

Isn't anyone noticing the charges against Professor Gates were *dropped*?

It doesn't matter whether you are in your own home or not.  When you make a ruckus to the point where it can bother other people (the denser the population, the higher the risk) you run the risk for disorderly conduct. 

Why isn't President Obama coming to the aid of the woman that was arrested by the Cambridge PD because she flipped out at a Starbucks over the amount of foam in her latte?


----------



## Rich Parsons

blindsage said:


> I'm truly amazed at the way people comment on situations like this. There's only two sides and two sources on this: the officer's as stated in the (previously posted) police report, and Professor Gates as posted here and here. These are the only sources we have, those and our assumptions based on our beliefs and experiences with police officers and race. A lot of people keep talkin about how belligerent Professor Gates became, he denies this, so the only way to be 'convinced' this is what happened is by accepting the unvarnished 'truth' of the officer's statement. That's not really useful. Sure those that defend Gates are using the victim statement to back up what he says, but those defending the cop are just using the police report to back up what he says. Why is one inherently more credible than the other?


 

While I agree with your comments about two sides and not being there I ask you why did the President of the United States of America express his opinion as Stupidly arressted? Did he wait for all the data? 

If our leader can jump to conclusion then why cannot everyone else? 

Oh wait, Our Leader is a minority and by calling him on something might be called racism, even if the call is racism in itself? 

While everyone makes mistakes those involved in the case originally and our politcal leader as well, I believe we need another nationwide press conference on prime time TV with an apology from the President himself over ASSUMING, the guilt of the officer.


----------



## CoryKS

blindsage said:


> I'm truly amazed at the way people comment on situations like this. There's only two sides and two sources on this: the officer's as stated in the (previously posted) police report, and Professor Gates as posted here and here. These are the only sources we have, those and our assumptions based on our beliefs and experiences with police officers and race. A lot of people keep talkin about how belligerent Professor Gates became, he denies this, so the only way to be 'convinced' this is what happened is by accepting the unvarnished 'truth' of the officer's statement. That's not really useful. Sure those that defend Gates are using the victim statement to back up what he says, but those defending the cop are just using the police report to back up what he says. Why is one inherently more credible than the other?


 
Because the police report makes linear sense.  If we were to accept Gates' story, we have to accept that the officer was shown ID, found it acceptable, left the house, and then inexplicably arrested Gates when he stepped out of the house.  Why didn't he arrest him inside?  The police report mentions that a sizable crowd had gathered outside, so it shouldn't be difficult to get corroboration if that were true.  

I like how Gates managed to plug his new documentary in both accounts, though.  Never let a crisis go to waste.


----------



## blindsage

Rich Parsons said:


> While I agree with your comments about two sides and not being there I ask you why did the President of the United States of America express his opinion as Stupidly arressted? Did he wait for all the data?
> 
> If our leader can jump to conclusion then why cannot everyone else?


I agree.  I don't understand why the President made the statement he did.  But how does him jumping to a conclusion excuse anyone else?



> Oh wait, Our Leader is a minority and by calling him on something might be called racism, even if the call is racism in itself?


Do you have an oppression complex?  Every criticism of anyone who is a minority is called racist.  A lot of things are racist that many people refuse to recognize and educate themselves on and so get uptight when called on their ignorance.



> While everyone makes mistakes those involved in the case originally and our politcal leader as well, I believe we need another nationwide press conference on prime time TV with an apology from the President himself over ASSUMING, the guilt of the officer.


I wouldn't have a problem with that.


----------



## blindsage

CoryKS said:


> Because the police report makes linear sense. If we were to accept Gates' story, we have to accept that the officer was shown ID, found it acceptable, left the house, and then inexplicably arrested Gates when he stepped out of the house. Why didn't he arrest him inside? The police report mentions that a sizable crowd had gathered outside, so it shouldn't be difficult to get corroboration if that were true.
> 
> I like how Gates managed to plug his new documentary in both accounts, though. Never let a crisis go to waste.


The police report makes more linear sense if you _assume_ the officer was just innocent and acting in complete good faith. _If _we were to accept Gates' story the officer would have to account for a lot of things that don't seem kosher. But in either case what you saying is that the officer's report _seems_ more logical to you as it stands, and therefore you can make all kinds of assumptions about Gates'. The logic still isn't holding up.


----------



## CoryKS

blindsage said:


> The police report makes more linear sense if you _assume_ the officer was just innocent and acting in complete good faith. _If _we were to accept Gates' story the officer would have to account for a lot of things that don't seem kosher. But in either case what you saying is that the officer's report _seems_ more logical to you as it stands, and therefore you can make all kinds of assumptions about Gates'. The logic still isn't holding up.


 
Whatever, man. Like I said, either there were witnesses outside or there weren't. In any case, the charges got dropped so we probably won't hear from them. The fact that Gates is still crying like a little ***** about this tends to support the police account, IMO. But I'm not a juror on the trial which won't happen, so it doesn't matter what I think.

Interesting.


----------



## Omar B

CoryKS said:


> The police report mentions that a sizable crowd had gathered outside, so it shouldn't be difficult to get corroboration if that were true.



But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring?  I think people would have showed up wither way.


----------



## Carol

Omar B said:


> But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring?  I think people would have showed up wither way.



Ware street in Cambridge is not a residential area.  Its not possible for anyone (police or otherwise) to speed through Harvard Square.


----------



## CoryKS

Omar B said:


> But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring? I think people would have showed up wither way.


 
You'd have to ask them.  Which nobody will, now that the governor has apologized to Gates and the press has moved on to investigating Crowley's racial credentials.


----------



## crushing

Some more information about the officer that arrested Gates for disorderly conduct:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly

The article ends with the following:



> Harvard commissioned an independent committee last year to examine the university's race relations after campus police confronted a young black man who was using tools to remove a bike lock. The man worked at Harvard and owned the bike.


 
Isn't it a good idea for officers to question people that are breaking in to things, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.?  If not just to find out if the person doing the breaking and entering is the lawful owner?

These things remind me of a Chris Rock video:  
*Warning!!!!  Contains Profanity and Acted Violence*

[yt]uj0mtxXEGE8[/yt]


----------



## crushing

Omar B said:


> But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring? I think people would have showed up wither way.


 
Were those descriptions in the straw man report?


----------



## Omar B

Carol Kaur said:


> Ware street in Cambridge is not a residential area.  Its not possible for anyone (police or otherwise) to speed through Harvard Square.



Slow intersection huh.  More time for more people on a busier street to hear and see the police car and siren and wonder over.  So maybe this commotion and crowd gathering was in large part there for the officer's presence.  I know when there's a siren in NY people gather, not a good habit but people do.


----------



## Rich Parsons

From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly




> Cop who arrested black scholar is profiling expert
> 
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. &#8211; The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling.
> Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming


 

The officer knows his job and actually teaches the class on the subject at hand.


----------



## Rich Parsons

blindsage said:


> I agree. I don't understand why the President made the statement he did. But how does him jumping to a conclusion excuse anyone else?


 
It does not. But by being sarcastic and also by jumping to conclusion in my posts I make it so obvious to how bad it is to do so. 




blindsage said:


> Do you have an oppression complex? Every criticism of anyone who is a minority is called racist. A lot of things are racist that many people refuse to recognize and educate themselves on and so get uptight when called on their ignorance.


 
I do not have an oppression complex. 

I have been beat up by the police. 

I have been targeted by lots of border checks and also security at airports. Everytime I go through a secure check point I get more checks then anyone else I know. This is not an opression complex, it is a statement of fact. 

I can tell you stories that would have you laughing at how outrageous they are and later after you think about it having you cry as to how could that actually happen. 

Yes, may do get upset about being called out. 

But, my personal list of friends, and those I call brother of another mother, are not all caucasion, and I personally have stood up to both white and black people and groups for their racists comments. 

And in this case I think the President was being racist in that he assummed another White police officer was trying to beat and keep down an educated Black man. So I made my points that people should apologize for their actions. 




blindsage said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with that.


----------



## Archangel M

I keep hearing the "this is a case of racial PROFILING"...they keep on using those words, I dont not think they mean what they think they mean.

Profiling means targeting a person for the initiation of police contact. I stop you because you are a black guy driving in a "white neighborhood". I stop some black youth on a bike because hes in a white neighborhood where there have been bike thefts...those are "profiling" (in the "Wrong" sense...there are also examples of legitimate uses of "profiling"). Making a valid arrest of someone doesn't make it "profiling" just because they were black. If I get called by SOMEONE ELSE to the scene of a crime and make an arrest very rarely does "profiling" enter the equation...9 times out of 10 profiling is is done when the cop is looking to make contact with someone.


----------



## Carol

Omar B said:


> Slow intersection huh.  More time for more people on a busier street to hear and see the police car and siren and wonder over.  So maybe this commotion and crowd gathering was in large part there for the officer's presence.  I know when there's a siren in NY people gather, not a good habit but people do.



There is always a crowd in Harvard Square, period.  Its the busiest part of Cambridge.  The officer stated he was in his cruiser on Harvard near Ware, its likely that he did not put his siren on.


----------



## CoryKS

It doesn't really matter _why_ the crowd gathered.  What I'm interested in is what they saw or heard after they had gathered.  The police officer says that Gates was shouting and behaving "tumultuously".  Gates says that he didn't lose his cool but simply asked the officer for his name and number.  Should be easy to tell whose story is accurate.  Not that anyone will check now.


----------



## Archangel M

Sgt. Crowley's side of the story:

http://audio.weei.com/hosting/media/weei/1598198/w-sgtjimcrowley.mp3


----------



## celtic_crippler

Omar B said:


> But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring? I think people would have showed up wither way.


 
Where I'm from cops don't generally respond to a B&E with sirens blaring. Is it different up north? 

Just saw Obama commenting on it some more...said he thought it was silly to handcuff a middle aged man. How you LEO's feel about that? LOL


----------



## Archangel M

The president is ignorant of police procedures (dare I say STUPID?). If you are arrested you get handcuffed....period.


----------



## Carol

Why show knowledge of police procedure when you get a free shot at busting on the cops?


----------



## celtic_crippler

Archangel M said:


> The president is ignorant of police procedures (dare I say STUPID?). If you are arrested you get handcuffed....period.


 
What else is he ignorant of I wonder. :uhohh:

He should just fess up that his words were the result of a kneejerk reaction to hearing the story, but he probably won't. I don't think he's ever admitted to being wrong about anything has he?


----------



## blindsage

CoryKS said:


> The fact that Gates is still crying like a little ***** about this tends to support the police account, IMO.


According to his account he was treated completely innapropriately, that make him a ***** and supports the police account?



> Interesting.


That is interesting.


----------



## MJS

Joab said:


> As soon as the Professor showed his ID which had the address of the house he was in the incident should have ended. The officer should have handed the ID back and said "have a nice evening sir" and left.


 
And as I, and a few others have said, in cases like this, its natural to check the area.  Had there been someone inside and something happened to the homeowner, you can rest assure that he'd file some complaint that the cops didn't check the house.  

As always, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.  This guy was being a jerk, period, and couldve avoided half his issues, if he'd shut the hell up and act like an adult instead of a kid.


----------



## Archangel M

Im wondering how long its gonna be before the president whips out a "why did the cop shoot to kill...why didn't he shoot him in the leg?" He seems to be going right down that road.

Disappointing.


----------



## MJS

Omar B said:


> I hear all the arguments, I still say once his identity was established the cop should have said "Have a nice day" and left. The Prof did get agitated and loud, but he had already proven ID, what was the cop still doing there? I would be pissed if after proving that I was not breaking into my own house to the cop he was not still sniffing around.


 
And as I said, if there was someone in the house, you can bet the innocent Prof would have been pissed.  So...again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.


----------



## MJS

Omar B said:


> I hear what you are saying man,


 
Are you really???



> but identity was established so the cop should have left. Combative, before, after, during, he didn't hit anybody, he was pissed and got loud at his own place.


 
This differs from what the post above yours just stated.  Fact is, this guy was being a jerk, and interferring with an investigation.  Was it necessary for him to act like that?  No, but its the typical pattern from some people who just cant seem to be capable of talking normally.  The cops have a job to do...why can't people let them do it?


----------



## MJS

Omar B said:


> But was the crowd caused by Gates or by the police cruiser presumably speeding through a residential area to a "crime scene" sirens blaring? I think people would have showed up wither way.


 
And your use of the "crime scene" remark tells me that you're reading one side and one side only.  Until they get there, how else do you expect them to treat the scene?


----------



## MJS

celtic_crippler said:


> Where I'm from cops don't generally respond to a B&E with sirens blaring.


 
Really?  Man, where I work, you'd have a few cars screaming to the call.  Of course, once they get in the area, they shut things down, but to get there initially....look out. LOL.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Yeah, this sort of thing doesn't work anymore. A black man currently occupies the most powerful office in this country. I'm afraid the race card is maxed out.


----------



## blindsage

If only reality didn't interfere with that notion.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

More's the pity. That would imply we'd evolved as a species, instead of just being feces.


----------



## Omar B

MJS said:


> This differs from what the post above yours just stated.  Fact is, this guy was being a jerk, and interferring with an investigation.  Was it necessary for him to act like that?  No, but its the typical pattern from some people who just cant seem to be capable of talking normally.  The cops have a job to do...why can't people let them do it?



Yeah, he did his job, the person seen breaking in was the home owner.  



MJS said:


> And your use of the "crime scene" remark tells me that you're reading one side and one side only.  Until they get there, how else do you expect them to treat the scene?



Yes, I used quotes because there was no crime though the cop may have thought so at first.  Once he got there and established ID he should have left.  No I'm not reading one side, but I still see a man arrested in his own home for a disturbance more likely caused by blaring siren in a heavily peopled area.


----------



## Archangel M

This professors behavior wasnt "caused" by anything. He chose to act like an ***.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Archangel M said:


> The president is ignorant of police procedures (dare I say STUPID?). If you are arrested you get handcuffed....period.


 

You can be handcuffed for the security of the officer and not be arrested. 

I know I was, I was guilty of being 6'3" and 250 lbs where the female officer was small and slight of build. She responded to the domestic I called where the Ex-wife and her boyfriend showed up and I had called 9-1-1 . the offcier did not know who called so she hand cuffed me being the largest. 

It happens. Was I embarrassed with the neighbors watching? Yes. 

After they had all left, I staid outside on the porch and one neighbor came over and asked. I explained. The other talked to me the next day. 

Was I mad? Yes. 

Did I blame the officer once it was explained to me it was for her safety? No. But until I understood that she was concerned for her safety as I was calm and had the phone in my hand. I would have gotten in the back of her cruiser if she had asked. But instead she went strait to maximum security. Safety. Ok.


----------



## grydth

Can one choose to support neither of the above?

The screeching Professor Gates ignores one thing: That cop was there because of a report of a possible felony in progress at his place. Yes - that means the cop was risking his white *** to protect a black man's home. That's racist???  If he hadn't responded to the scene, then there'd have been accusations of no police protection for black folks. Seems the cop can be slurred with impunity no matter what he does.

The officer ignores one thing: Being a Jerk in the First Degree is not a crime. Were it so, 3/4 of the country would be under arrest. Once he knew that Gates was the homeowner, he should've let the ingrate's whines just roll off his back and cleared the area. The arrest should not have been made.


----------



## Archangel M

grydth said:


> Being a Jerk in the First Degree is not a crime. Were it so, 3/4 of the country would be under arrest.


 
While I agree with the spirit of your post (the cop could have just thickened his skin)..."being a Jerk in the first degree" in a public place (outside the home), if it includes behavior that meets the statute of disorderly conduct, is indeed a violation of law. Its a law that should be used properly and on people that deserve it (as compared to using it just because the guy pissed you off and you can), but it is a law nonetheless.


----------



## Joab

All he had to do was prove he lived there. Instead, he asked for name and badge number and got hostile. He escalated into something it didn't need to be and then cried racism when he got arrested for it. 

Gates' behavior in this has been childish and emotionally-driven. I certainly hope he's not an accurate indication of the sort of "intellectual" that Harvard employs.

BTW: Do you suppose there's a potential burglar in Cambridge who's considering robbing Gates, with the assumption that the police won't dare investigate it?[/quote]

Police have to give name and badge number when asked by a citizen, it is the law. It is a perfectly reasonable question, and a professional police officer would have given them immediately with courtesy.


----------



## Joab

celtic_crippler said:


> From what I understand Gates continued to confront the officers. If he'd been polite, showed his ID immediately, thanked the officers for their quick response and left it at that...no story, but he didn't. He had to show his butt.
> 
> There's a reason I'm not a cop...they don't get paid enough for the crap they have to deal with.


 
It's a tough job. I've worked in security for over 15 years including crowd control, it is tough. And being a cop is far harder, but at least they can do something...but dealing with difficult people is part of the job. The police officer did not act professionally in my estimation and allowed it to escalate far beyond what it should have. Once ID was established that should have been the end of it, regardless of wheteher or not Gates asked for his name and badge number.


----------



## Joab

punisher73 said:


> You seem to be missing a key point. When the police first arrived they DID ask Gates for ID and to step outside to confirm his id. Gates did not comply with what they asked for at first and by his own admission was on the phone while the officer was asking him to step outside. It was only after this that Gates went to retrieve his ID.
> Yes, but Gates eventually did give the officer his ID. After it was established that Gates lived there, that should have been the end of it, regardless of whether or not Gates asked for the officer's name and badge number and regardless of whether or not he asked for this info. politely. Period.


----------



## Archangel M

Uhhh..this guy wasnt arrested "because he asked for the cops ID"...yeah the cop could have (and probably should have) just walked back to his car and went 10-8. But turning this into a racial issue is out in left field IMO. The cop "could have just walked off" (doesnt change the legal legitimacy of the arrest however)...and the professor could have just said "thanks for looking out for my home officer..heres my ID".


----------



## crushing

Joab said:


> Yes, but Gates eventually did give the officer his ID.* After it was established that Gates lived there, that should have been the end of it*, regardless of whether or not Gates asked for the officer's name and badge number and regardless of whether or not he asked for this info. politely. Period.



Yes, that's probably where the officers wanted it to end.


----------



## Joab

If that is where the cops wanted it to end, why didn't they end it there than? Cops are supposed to be professionals, they are supposed to know who to deescalate situations. True, I wasn't there, but after realizing the whole thing was really a mistake in the first place, that the guy who broke into the house lived there, the proper approach would have been to use a bit of diplomacy and common sense and not arrest Gates. Even if Gates did disturb the peace, realize that its time to call it a night, have a nice evening sir, and walk away. Arresting Gates was way out of line.


----------



## Ray B

I don't know. I wasn't there. If the LEO asked for ID and Gate complied, then the LEO should have dropped it.

This is my experience:

When I had my commercial dojo, I had a security system installed complete with a panic button that would alert the local police of a robbery in progrss. One afternoon while working on my scooter in the front of the dojo, I hit the remote panic button by accident. The next thing I know, an LEO is approching me with a shotgun. He motioned me away and I complied. He asked who I was and I told him I owned the dojo. My ID was inside so he told me to stand in clear view until his partners (plural) secured the area. Once secured, we walked back in and I showed them my ID and the business license on the wall confirm that I was the owner. With a heart felt thanks I apologied and thank them for responding. The LEOs left without a problem. IMO, this is what should have happened.


----------



## Archangel M

"Way out of line"?? Thats a matter of opinion....

Probably could have been done different is different from "out of line"...either he was disorderly in public or he wasnt. The officer "could have (probably should have) used some discretion here..I agree. That doesnt mean that the arrest was unlawful.

The charges being dropped have noting to do with the facts in this case as much as it was political expediency IMO. The prosecutor using his discretion to not prosecute.


----------



## Archangel M

Ray B said:


> I don't know. I wasn't there. If the LEO asked for ID and Gate complied, then the LEO should have dropped it.
> 
> This is my experience:
> 
> When I had my commercial dojo, I had a security system installed complete with a panic button that would alert the local police of a robbery in progrss. One afternoon while working on my scooter in the front of the dojo, I hit the remote panic button by accident. The next thing I know, an LEO is approching me with a shotgun. He motioned me away and I complied. He asked who I was and I told him I owned the dojo. My ID was inside so he told me to stand in clear view until his partners (plural) secured the area. Once secured, we walked back in and I showed them my ID and the business license on the wall confirm that I was the owner. With a heart felt thanks I apologied and thank them for responding. The LEOs left without a problem. IMO, this is what should have happened.


 
One difference..you didnt stand out in front of your dojo going off on the cops for the way they dealt with you...making comments about their mothers...you dont know who you are dealing with..you are going to regret this..etc. All things the officer claimed were thrown at him by this educated professional.


----------



## Ray B

Anyone can call the police and claim that they saw you break into your own home. I guess after a long day, I would be a little ticked too. I only takes one disgruntled neighbor...


----------



## Archangel M

Ray B said:


> Anyone can call the police and claim that they saw you break into your own home. I guess after a long day, I would be a little ticked too. I only takes one disgrutled neighbor...


 
That has nothing to do with the police response to such a call.

It was a passerby by all accounts..I'd be grateful that someone was looking out for my property. Wouldnt you want someone to call if they thought someone was breaking into your home?


----------



## Joab

I've since read an interview with the police officer who arrested Gates. If what he said was true, and if Gates initially refused to show the officer his ID and than caused the kind of scene he describes, I agree Gates didn't handle this incident very well. If what the officer said was true, Gates did break the law by disturbing the peace. It's not how I would have acted, I would have shown my ID immediately, thanked the officers for showing up at my house for checking out admittedly suspicious activity, and called it a night. But even if that is the case, I think the officer should have let it go, and not arrested Gates. Than again, I wasn't there. Than again, they did drop the charge. I will agree that labeling the police officer racist is way out of line, we can not know his heart nor read his mind. Police take a lot of crap, I've seen far worse than this in downtown Seattle and the police let it go (Calling police four letter vulgar names, telling a cop "Terry can die so can you" referring to a slain Seattle police officer who's last name was Terry for instance, I wish the cops had arrested those guys quite frankly) and I think the police should have let this one go as well. True, it sounds like Gates should have handled this incident better, but so could have the police.


----------



## crushing

Joab said:


> If that is where the cops wanted it to end, why didn't they end it there than? Cops are supposed to be professionals, they are supposed to know who to deescalate situations. *True, I wasn't there,* but after realizing the whole thing was really a mistake in the first place, that the guy who broke into the house lived there, the proper approach would have been to use a bit of diplomacy and common sense and not arrest Gates. Even if Gates did disturb the peace, realize that its time to call it a night, have a nice evening sir, and walk away. *Arresting Gates was way out of line*.



So how do you know the arrest just slightly out of line, let alone way out of line?  We don't know what was said or how it was said.  All we know is that the officers showed up to possibly protect Gates' home, possessions, and possibly Gates himself from an intruder and somehow the officers end up the villains.

You can have all the verbal and de-escalation skills in the world, there may be some people you just can't calm down.


----------



## Joab

crushing said:


> So how do you know the arrest just slightly out of line, let alone way out of line? We don't know what was said or how it was said. All we know is that the officers showed up to possibly protect Gates' home, possessions, and possibly Gates himself from an intruder and somehow the officers end up the villains.
> 
> You can have all the verbal and de-escalation skills in the world, there may be some people you just can't calm down.


 
Your right, I wasn't there. Certainly we need more info from all the police officers and anyone else who observed this incident. I think both sides could have handled this a lot better quite frankly. I'm usually on the cops side, I've worked with them a lot, and it's a very tough job, but arresting the man...well, your right, I wasn't there. Investigate the case further, get more info. and than decide. I hope both sides learned something from this. I hope home owners will treat the police better when a situation like this happens, I hope the police learn to deescalate better, I hope something positive somes out of this whole mess.


----------



## crushing

Joab said:


> Your right, I wasn't there. Certainly we need more info from all the police officers and anyone else who observed this incident.



Hopefully they make public the secret evidence provided to President Obama about this issue.  He certainly wouldn't have condemned the police knowing as little about what really happened as we do.


----------



## MJS

Omar B said:


> Yeah, he did his job, the person seen breaking in was the home owner.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I used quotes because there was no crime though the cop may have thought so at first. Once he got there and established ID he should have left. No I'm not reading one side, but I still see a man arrested in his own home for a disturbance more likely caused by blaring siren in a heavily peopled area.


 
Again, the cops were responding to what they thought was a burg in progress.  How they respond to calls is pre-determined by the policies of that dept.  Where I work, that would be a lights/siren response.  The Prof was obviously pissed because of the door not opening, as well as the police being called.  Asking him for ID most likely pissed him off more.  You feel that once it was established that it was his home, they should have left.  I, and many others are saying that he was arrested because of his actions.  Furthermore, its perfectly normal to check the house.  If there were someone inside, are you telling me that the Prof would not have filed a complaint saying the cops didn't do their job?  

It has nothing to do with the siren.  Saying thats why he got upset is crazy.  He acted that way most likely because of the door and being questioned, God forbid.  

Please...if the cops took 30min to get there, you know damn well that the public would have been crying like babies about the slow response.


----------



## MJS

grydth said:


> The officer ignores one thing: Being a Jerk in the First Degree is not a crime. Were it so, 3/4 of the country would be under arrest. Once he knew that Gates was the homeowner, he should've let the ingrate's whines just roll off his back and cleared the area. The arrest should not have been made.


 
While being an *** isn't a crime, creating a disturbance and interferring with the investigation is.


----------



## jks9199

Joab said:


> As soon as the Professor showed his ID which had the address of the house he was in the incident should have ended. The officer should have handed the ID back and said "have a nice evening sir" and left.


It ain't that simple.

Keeping to some LOOSE similarities with this incident...  Let's say a guy is thrown out of a house by the cops after beating his wife half to death.  There's a protective order issued against him.  Or even just legally evicted from the place for whatever reason...  He's still got ID saying he lives there, but he doesn't necessarily have a right to be there.  Some extra digging is appropriate even if he's got an ID that lists that address.  What about a bad divorce or messy break-up?

Sure, the ID goes a long way towards supporting the claim.  But it's not automatically going to end the discussion.  A few more minutes chatting, a quick record check... and at least the cop has done what he can to make sure everything is right.


----------



## Joab

jks9199 said:


> It ain't that simple.
> 
> Keeping to some LOOSE similarities with this incident... Let's say a guy is thrown out of a house by the cops after beating his wife half to death. There's a protective order issued against him. Or even just legally evicted from the place for whatever reason... He's still got ID saying he lives there, but he doesn't necessarily have a right to be there. Some extra digging is appropriate even if he's got an ID that lists that address. What about a bad divorce or messy break-up?
> 
> Sure, the ID goes a long way towards supporting the claim. But it's not automatically going to end the discussion. A few more minutes chatting, a quick record check... and at least the cop has done what he can to make sure everything is right.


 
Your right. But they were called because of a break in. When they ascertained that the man with the ID was the man who broke in that should have pretty well finished it. There was no complaint about domestic violence. But you've made some valid points, perhaps a quick records check would have been a good idea.


----------



## jks9199

Carol Kaur said:


> Isn't anyone noticing the charges against Professor Gates were *dropped*?
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you are in your own home or not.  When you make a ruckus to the point where it can bother other people (the denser the population, the higher the risk) you run the risk for disorderly conduct.
> 
> Why isn't President Obama coming to the aid of the woman that was arrested by the Cambridge PD because she flipped out at a Starbucks over the amount of foam in her latte?


That the charges were dropped doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of the charges. (Gawd, that's a crappy sentence!)

The charges may have been dropped for a lot of reasons.  It could be that the university police intervened on Prof. Gates's behalf, or a Cambridge cop who'd taken a class with him.  It could be that the higher brass at the department recognized the headache this was going to be, and tried to smooth it over by having the charges dropped.  Or that, after he calmed down at the station, everyone simply thought better of it, and cut him loose... (until he got home and got pissed off again).  Or maybe someone was aware that, though the charge was valid, the local prosecutors or courts won't accept it.  Or any of a couple dozen other possibilities...

By the way, the charges were dropped nearly a week later.  That strongly suggests to me that it was either an appeasement effort (unwise, in my opinion), a response to the press storm, or pressure in the prosecutor's office.


----------



## MJS

Its perfectly normal to not only verify who everyone is, but to also check for any warrants, such as was already mentioned.  Just the other day, 2 girls, both underage, wrapped their car around a pole.  The driver was arrested for DUI and the passenger for a warrant.  

This goes to show that there is more to it than simply having the Prof show his ID and the cops go on their way.  I also find it interesting how the following questions are not being answered:

1) People are saying that it was the response of the cops, ie: lights/siren, that upset the Prof.  So, if they took their time getting there, are you telling me people still would not cry foul?  

2) What if there was someone inside or outside the residence?  The cops fail to check, the Prof gets hurt or killed.  Are you telling me that nobody would cry foul?


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> I keep hearing the "this is a case of racial PROFILING"...they keep on using those words, I dont not think they mean what they think they mean.
> 
> Profiling means targeting a person for the initiation of police contact. I stop you because you are a black guy driving in a "white neighborhood". I stop some black youth on a bike because hes in a white neighborhood where there have been bike thefts...those are "profiling" (in the "Wrong" sense...there are also examples of legitimate uses of "profiling"). Making a valid arrest of someone doesn't make it "profiling" just because they were black. If I get called by SOMEONE ELSE to the scene of a crime and make an arrest very rarely does "profiling" enter the equation...9 times out of 10 profiling is is done when the cop is looking to make contact with someone.


Or, to be blunt, the only racial profiling that took place was from the original complainant -- if anyone.  'Cause I'd sure want someone to call the cops if they saw me (or anyone else) forcing their way into my house, and didn't know me.

To continue to be blunt -- I give the two police reports (linked on page 2 of this thread) a lot more credence than the professor's press accounts.  Who's got more vested interest in portraying this a particular way?  The cops who filed their reports within hours of the event (and probably now wish it'd just go away) or the professor who's suddenly getting national, popular press attention and has his new idea to push... and probably doesn't want to be perceived as having made an *** out of himself.

As I've said; I think there were failures in communication on both sides.  There's something to learn from both sides.  But any of that is being lost in the race argument.


----------



## jks9199

Joab said:


> Police have to give name and badge number when asked by a citizen, it is the law. It is a perfectly reasonable question, and a professional police officer would have given them immediately with courtesy.


There's no such LAW in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Just about every agency does have a policy requiring officers to provide this information politely, when practical.  Someone yelling, demanding, and causing a disturbance may just have to live with "it'll be on your arrest paperwork", ESPECIALLY if they've already been given it a few times...

Don't know about Massachusetts, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have such a law either.


----------



## MJS

Joab said:


> Police have to give name and badge number when asked by a citizen, it is the law. It is a perfectly reasonable question, and a professional police officer would have given them immediately with courtesy.


 
I don't know about a law, but I would say its a courtesy.  However, seeing that you said its a law, can you cite a source for that please?


----------



## Archangel M

And our president had NO PLACE putting "I dont have all the facts" AND "the police acted stupidly" together during a press confrence....


----------



## Archangel M

jks9199 said:


> There's no such LAW in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Just about every agency does have a policy requiring officers to provide this information politely, when practical. Someone yelling, demanding, and causing a disturbance may just have to live with "it'll be on your arrest paperwork", ESPECIALLY if they've already been given it a few times...
> 
> Don't know about Massachusetts, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have such a law either.


 
Not a "law" here either...a policy in my PD..but not a law. This whole thing is becoming a bit antiquated. In this day and age of computer dispatching a citizen can call in and get all that at any time. If you give me a date and address I can tell you what the call was, who was there, access reports etc.


----------



## Big Don

The real racism I see in this case is Gates' screaming "Racist" all day long. 
That, and President Obama's idiotic statement.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Archangel M said:


> And our president had NO PLACE putting "I dont have all the facts" AND "the police acted stupidly" together during a press confrence....


 

Hell, something like THAT isn't gonna stop HIM. Never has before.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Archangel M said:


> And our president had NO PLACE putting "I dont have all the facts" AND "the police acted stupidly" together during a press confrence....


 
It's not his fault...it's what they put up on the teleprompter.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> Whatever the sequence of events were no crime was committed and the home owner got arrested for forcing his own door.  Charges were dropped so I guess the cops see it that way too.



No, he got arrested for acting like a jackass and creating a disturbance AFTERWARD!


----------



## sgtmac_46

crushing said:


> Hopefully they make public the secret evidence provided to President Obama about this issue.  He certainly wouldn't have condemned the police knowing as little about what really happened as we do.



:BSmeter:


----------



## sgtmac_46

Joab said:


> Your right. But they were called because of a break in. When they ascertained that the man with the ID was the man who broke in that should have pretty well finished it. There was no complaint about domestic violence. But you've made some valid points, perhaps a quick records check would have been a good idea.



There's a lot folks putting quite a lot of stock in Gates version of events......a version I find highly suspect.

I think more accurate would be that Gates FINALLY provided identification, after a confrontation and a tirade......after providing identification the officer began to leave, and Gates, not content to leave it at that, followed himself and created a disturbance there.

But the most ASININE thing out of this whole situation was our Dictator and Chief's statements on the matter......



> "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," Obama said. "But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
> 
> 
> 
> Obama continued: "What I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." He said that he had pushed for the passage of legislation in the Illinois legislature to address the problem.
> Obama went on to say that he stood in the White House "as testimony to the progress that's been made."
> "And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us," Obama said. "And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and often time for no cause, casts suspicion, even when there is good cause."
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203800.html



So he doesn't KNOW for a fact that the police are racist, but he's going to assume so and call them such out of ACORN/Community Organizer habit.


The man is a DISGRACE to the White House.


----------



## punisher73

Let's recap what we DO know from Gates own statements and the Dispatch information.

1) He was gone out of town (in China), maybe the passerby knew that the occupant was supposed to be out of town.  

2) There was NO luggage at the front door.  That was taken around back by the driver.  So the only thing seen was two people with backpacks trying to break in a door.  

3) Gates is on the phone with the company that owns the house to report the damage to the front door.  Police are at the front door and ask him to step outside.  Gates continues with the phone conversation while police keep asking him to step outside.

Now for some assumptions.

Gates JUST got back from a trip to China.  It's not far fetched to think that he was already tired from the trip and just wanted to get home and relax.  Upon arriving home he has to spend who knows how long trying to get into his own house.  After getting into his house he realizes that he has damaged the door and now has to make a call to get it fixed.  His stress level is already pretty high and his patience probably really low.

The police get dispatched to a call about two men breaking into a house.  Police arrive and see the front door damaged and try to make contact with the subject in the house.  Police at this point don't know who he is or what he is doing.  Their stress level is pretty high.  After requesting ID, they are confronted with the person asking THEM to show proper ID while still attempting to establish his ID.  Their patience level is probably pretty low at this point.

ID is established and the police want to leave.  Owner follows them out of the house and continues to verbalize his displeasure with the situation.  Police who now have had enough of listening to him arrest him for disorderly conduct.

This has NOTHING to do with race and everything to do with being human.  Human beings will reach a point where they just have had enough.  *BOTH *sides reached this point in the situation.

As far as the charges being dropped.  That is NOT the call of the police agency.  Only the Prosecuting Attorney's Office can do that.  One of the reasons that they can dismiss charges is "would not be in the best interest of the public".  They knew that they would have a crap storm if they continued on with the charges.  They knew it would be in THEIR best interest to make it go away.


----------



## punisher73

Archangel M said:


> And our president had NO PLACE putting "I dont have all the facts" AND "the police acted stupidly" together during a press confrence....


 

And yet very few people on this site believed my story about when Obyssmal came to our county to do an appearance.  He ordered all LEO's away from him so he would not be seen or photographed with them.  He has repeatedly shown a disrespect for those in uniform (military and police) and this is just another example of it.

How can you expect race relations to heal or get any better when the most influential person in the world jumps on the race bandwagon withouth knowing any of the facts?


----------



## jks9199

Gee... another page out of the Clinton success manual.  They had a reputation for demanding that uniformed officers be kept well out of sight when they were around.  Even if the uniforms were there for THEIR protection.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Sgt. Crowley is obviously a racist...I mean a white man giving CPR to a black man...putting his lips on his and trying to save his life...well, that's just plain racist. ...right...



> Crowley at age 27 gave CPR to a dying Reggie Lewis, the Boston Celtics star who had a fatal heart attack in 1993 during a practice game at Brandeis University, where Crowley was a campus police officer at the time.


 
More, also provides links to the police report, and comments posted by Gates on the website he maintains...sickening. Gates is doing nothing to further the advancement of blacks or any minority, quite the contrary from where I sit. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/police-officer-obama-butt-arrest/


----------



## jks9199

I didn't look much at Gates's website, TheRoot.com.  Too much of the little I read seems like it's written by activists who have already made up their mind on any issue -- and it's always that the "white man is wrong."  I've known professors of African American studies, and discussed some of these issues with them in the past; it's not a viewpoint intrinsic to their studies -- though it sometimes seems like it.  The few articles I read clearly seemed to begin with the assumption that Gates was fully in the right, and the cop fully wrong.

Personally, I suspect the charges were dropped at the request of the police, hoping to smooth things over.  I wish they weren't, because it creates the false impression that Sgt. Crowley was wrong.  I have the same issue with the way the IACP and many police chiefs individually have addressed accusations of racial profiling.  Before I go on, I freely admit that SOME officers do profile inappropriately -- but I also insist that they are a small minority today.  Every study I'm aware of has NOT supported any institutional bias.  In fact, one study was so contrary to the desired findings that the authors had to resort to publishing it as a book when the governmental body that commissioned it didn't like the results!


----------



## celtic_crippler

Just heard Sgt. Crowley is considering a lawsuit for defamation of character. 

The more I learn about this the more I hope he goes through with it and wins.


----------



## Omar B

sgtmac_46 said:


> No, he got arrested for acting like a jackass and creating a disturbance AFTERWARD!



That exclamation and capitals sure makes your point.  But I still believe that however loud the old man may have gotten, the police siren and flashing lights was more of a disturbance.


----------



## Archangel M

Theres a legitimate purpose behind lights and sirens dude.


----------



## Omar B

I know there is, but I'm saying that his legitimate purpose may have been more of a disturbance than one sole voice.


----------



## CoryKS

The bottom line is that Gates, through his own racist narrative and his self-regard for his marginal celebrity status, tried to establish dominance on a police officer who was responding to a routine call.  He failed in the short-term, resulting in his arrest.  He may have succeeded in the longer term, having brought national attention to himself and secured the apology of his personal friend the governor and also the sympathy of another influential friend, the president.  Looking at this from a still longer term perspective, it will be interesting to see what kind of fallout results from this.  The police are fuming about Obama's remarks, the officer is considering a defamation of character suit, and a lot of people who are usually sympathetic to racial injustice are rolling their eyes and saying "give me a ****ing break."  I'm actually surprised by the amount of pushback there has been on this, and I think it's possible that this may be an historical event in the sense that more people begin to cast a cynical eye to charges which up to now have seemed "truthy".  

In any case, Gates is clearly a man who is ruled by his emotions and has no claim to the label of "intellectual".  He is, quite frankly, a braying jackass.


----------



## tallgeese

Yeah, except that if these guys were sharp, they didn't have said lights and sirens going.  A burg in progress is a quiet approach when you get close.

So, the good Prof's disturbance is the issue here.  The dude's probably lucky he didn't get a gun pointed at him during the initial approach.

So we have a good samaritian who takes the time to call in a possible burg in progress rather than just walk along glad it's not his home being broken into, rare enough.  Cops respond and find an individual matching said descriptive inside.  They investigate and he turns tool and starts yelling and screaming.  

I might have taken him too.  Maybe not, but I'm not going to second guess.  The bottom line is that it seems that it was a legal arrest made in good faith.  Good luck with any civil suit if there's justice in the world at all.

Dropped charges are out of the hands of the cops and are up to the legal establishment and courts, which are highly politicized.  It doesn't suprise me at all that they elected to take the easy way out of this.  And quite frankly it probably isn't worth the time.  That's their choice.  It was the Prof's choice to engage in behavior that met the elements of a criminal offense.  He can't whine because officers made the choice to legally effect an arrest.


----------



## Steve

For me, the issue that bugs me is that a person who is not a criminal was arrested. Disorderly conduct is such a bogus charge. The guy was angry and the cop basically arrested him for it. What a chickensh## charge. 

In my mind, there's likely fault on both sides for allowing the situation to escalate to the point that the President of the US is commenting on it, but ultimately I fall back to the basic, fundamental truth that this guy was essentially arrested for being a jackass... and if that's illegal, half of our country will be in jail before long.


----------



## Joab

MJS said:


> I don't know about a law, but I would say its a courtesy. However, seeing that you said its a law, can you cite a source for that please?


 


The General Law of Massachusetts

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT 


TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS 


CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS 


POLICE OFFICERS 


Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards 


Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer&#8217;s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification. 
source: 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


----------



## shaolinmonkmark

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



i believe Obama and Gates should aplogize.


----------



## Archangel M

People who are "not criminals" get arrested all the time. Play your music too loud at 3 Am and tell the cops to go **** themselves and see what happens. Agree with DC statutes or not...it IS a law.


----------



## celtic_crippler

I really don't think it had anything to do with race. Instead, it had to do with an elitist thinking they were above the law. 

I don't care who you are or the color of your skin...you badger the police long enough, including talking about their momma, and you're gonna wind up in cuffs. Regardless of whether you live in an upscale neighborhood or a trailer park. 

...just looking back along the thread a little bit. Unless I missed it, nobody answered my question about the cop's response. I was under the impression that you don't respond to a B&E with sirens blaring...am I wrong?


----------



## Archangel M

What it boils down to is that the police officer showed up on a legitimate call from a third party. While conducting his investigation he asks the occupant to step-out (in case there is an intruder inside) asks if there is anybody else inside (IN CASE THERE IS AN INTRUDER INSIDE!!) and is trying to do his JOB! What he gets is this "professor" IMMEDIATELY ASSUMING that the cop is only doing this because hes a "BLACK MAN IN AMERICA!"

While there may be a shared burden in the outcome of this contact, the side that bears the brunt of it is pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Archangel M

celtic_crippler said:


> ...just looking back along the thread a little bit. Unless I missed it, nobody answered my question about the cop's response. I was under the impression that you don't respond to a B&E with sirens blaring...am I wrong?



Most PD's train that you use your lights and sirens until you get within a certain distance of the location...at which time you shut down so as not to give away your arrival.


----------



## punisher73

celtic_crippler said:


> I really don't think it had anything to do with race. Instead, it had to do with an elitist thinking they were above the law.
> 
> I don't care who you are or the color of your skin...you badger the police long enough, including talking about their momma, and you're gonna wind up in cuffs. Regardless of whether you live in an upscale neighborhood or a trailer park.
> 
> ...just looking back along the thread a little bit. Unless I missed it, nobody answered my question about the cop's response. I was under the impression that you don't respond to a B&E with sirens blaring...am I wrong?


 
You might go lights on to get there quickly, but in the case of B&E's most policy is that you go silent so you can get to them without alerting them and having them get away.

Also, the officer was right in the area with an UNMARKED patrol car since the Sgt. was on administrative assignment.


----------



## punisher73

stevebjj said:


> For me, the issue that bugs me is that a person who is not a criminal was arrested. Disorderly conduct is such a bogus charge. The guy was angry and the cop basically arrested him for it. What a chickensh## charge.
> 
> In my mind, there's likely fault on both sides for allowing the situation to escalate to the point that the President of the US is commenting on it, but ultimately I fall back to the basic, fundamental truth that this guy was essentially arrested for being a jackass... and if that's illegal, half of our country will be in jail before long.


 

The key here is environment.  If you are at a loud rowdy bar you can be a bit more of a jackass and it is not causing a disturbance and the behavior is not so out of the ordinary.  If you are in a very nice neighborhood like this and your behavior is scaring other people who live in the area and you are refusing requests to calm down, they probably are going to determine that the best way to reestablish peace  was to remove him from the situation.  

Granted there are some police who may abuse that charge, but it is a great tool for police officers to remove the subject when they are creating a hostile environment (many domestic situations that haven't crossed over the line yet or neighbors who WILL lead to a fight if someone isn't removed) and the need is there to remove the cause even though another more serious law hasn't been broke yet.

Seriously, ask yourself if you were a cop in that situation and a person was calling you a racist, talking about your mother and showing a complete and total disregard for your authority and then takes it into a public place and continues the behavior after telling him repeatedly to calm down or you would be arrested and the person continues, what would you do?  Just turn around and leave?  Show that the police don't have any authority to do their jobs?  What message does that send to the community with all those people watching that you can treat the police like that?


----------



## Archangel M

Breaking News: President calls Police Sgt and apologizes.


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> People who are "not criminals" get arrested all the time. Play your music too loud at 3 Am and tell the cops to go **** themselves and see what happens. Agree with DC statutes or not...it IS a law.


Difference being that in your example, someone presumably broke a law.   Speaking to your example, though, I've seen this situation more than once, and no one ever got arrested.  I've seen a few citations, many warnings and admonishments to keep it down, but never handcuffs.  And even in this situation, if the handcuffs were strictly for "telling the cops to go **** themselves" I'd disagree then, too.  I'm all for being polite and respectful to everyone, but I also have a well documented stubborn streak and the idea that I should kiss a cop's butt or get arrested really rubs me the wrong way.  

Once again, this guy broke no laws.  He was arrested for not offering the appropriate degree of respect to the cop.


punisher73 said:


> The key here is environment. If you are at a loud rowdy bar you can be a bit more of a jackass and it is not causing a disturbance and the behavior is not so out of the ordinary. If you are in a very nice neighborhood like this and your behavior is scaring other people who live in the area and you are refusing requests to calm down, they probably are going to determine that the best way to reestablish peace was to remove him from the situation.


In my opinion, I should have MORE latitude to act like a douche in my own home than in a public location, even if it's a rowdy bar.





> Granted there are some police who may abuse that charge, but it is a great tool for police officers to remove the subject when they are creating a hostile environment (many domestic situations that haven't crossed over the line yet or neighbors who WILL lead to a fight if someone isn't removed) and the need is there to remove the cause even though another more serious law hasn't been broke yet.


I can completely understand this.  I'm not advocating that the law be removed from the books.  I'm stating my opinion that this is an example of abuse of that law.  





> Seriously, ask yourself if you were a cop in that situation and a person was calling you a racist, talking about your mother and showing a complete and total disregard for your authority and then takes it into a public place and continues the behavior after telling him repeatedly to calm down or you would be arrested and the person continues, what would you do? Just turn around and leave? Show that the police don't have any authority to do their jobs? What message does that send to the community with all those people watching that you can treat the police like that?


I think it's really, really interesting that you say it like this.  To answer your question, I believe that the police officer should remain polite regardless of the amount of verbal abuse he's taking.  I believe that, as soon as he ID'd Gates, he should have thanked him for his time, apologized for the confusion and LEFT.  The message to the community... I'm not sure I understand your point.  It sounds like you're suggesting that Gates was arrested to send a message to the community.  I can't understand how you think that might be just.  To me, it speaks to insecurity and a lack of professionalism... sort of like Cartman of South Park saying, "You must respect my AUTHORITAH!" and slapping on the cuffs.

Just to set the record straight, I'm not apologizing or condoning Gates' behavior.  I simply believe that the cop allowed the situation to escalate unnecessarily and ultimately abused his position by arresting someone for being a jerk.


----------



## Archangel M

Sounds like Sgt. Crowley and the Pres are arranging a meeting to "have a beer" at the Whitehouse.


----------



## sgtmac_46

celtic_crippler said:


> Just heard Sgt. Crowley is considering a lawsuit for defamation of character.
> 
> The more I learn about this the more I hope he goes through with it and wins.



Well, Gates made the statement about not being the kind of person you want to mess with......apparently Sgt. Crowley is the kind of cop who these folks don't want to mess with.  A well respected police officer who has been recognized by the community as a positive force......they picked the wrong cop to try and 'Nifong'.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> That exclamation and capitals sure makes your point.  But I still believe that however loud the old man may have gotten, the police siren and flashing lights was more of a disturbance.



The police siren and flashing lights are required by law to warn motorists and prevent accidents when responding to priority calls.......of which a home break in qualifies.  Don't think so?  How do you want the police to respond if your mother, wife or girlfriend is home alone and someone is breaking in their house?  Think before you speak.

In addition, creating a disturbance is a very well defined term........following the officer out the door who is trying to leave, and screaming in your front yard certainly qualifies......AGAIN, think before you speak.


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> Sgt. Crowley is obviously a racist...I mean a white man giving CPR to a black man...putting his lips on his and trying to save his life...well, that's just plain racist. ...right...



If the CPR incident went like the Gates incident has gone, people may be hinting that the 'stupid racist' cop actually killed Reggie Lewis.


----------



## sgtmac_46

tallgeese said:


> Yeah, except that if these guys were sharp, they didn't have said lights and sirens going.  A burg in progress is a quiet approach when you get close.
> 
> So, the good Prof's disturbance is the issue here.  The dude's probably lucky he didn't get a gun pointed at him during the initial approach.
> 
> So we have a good samaritian who takes the time to call in a possible burg in progress rather than just walk along glad it's not his home being broken into, rare enough.  Cops respond and find an individual matching said descriptive inside.  They investigate and he turns tool and starts yelling and screaming.
> 
> I might have taken him too.  Maybe not, but I'm not going to second guess.  The bottom line is that it seems that it was a legal arrest made in good faith.  Good luck with any civil suit if there's justice in the world at all.
> 
> Dropped charges are out of the hands of the cops and are up to the legal establishment and courts, which are highly politicized.  It doesn't suprise me at all that they elected to take the easy way out of this.  And quite frankly it probably isn't worth the time.  That's their choice.  It was the Prof's choice to engage in behavior that met the elements of a criminal offense.  He can't whine because officers made the choice to legally effect an arrest.


 Well, that's exactly right......they likely cut their lights and sirens several blocks away......and the response by Sgt. Crowley sounded VERY controlled and restrained to anyone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense........which apparently excludes the POTUS.

This is not the MOST stupid thing our Com and Chief has done in his 6 months in office.......but it may go down as his biggest public BLUNDER!  Yes, Gates and Obama WILL have their usual apologists.......but for the AVERAGE American, they know what this was and WHO the racists were in this equation.


----------



## CoryKS

If Gates takes anything away from this experience, it should be this: Sometimes, people don't hate you because they're racist. Sometimes, they hate you because you're a complete *******.


----------



## sgtmac_46

CoryKS said:


> If Gates takes anything away from this experience, it should be this: Sometimes, people don't hate you because they're racist. Sometime, they hate you because you're a complete *******.



True that! :lfao:

I've known plenty of folks, of all races, with a chip on their shoulder who were SURE that the police were out to get them at every turn.....and guess what?  They acted in such a manner as to fulfill that prophecy every chance they got!


----------



## Steve

sgtmac_46 said:


> True that! :lfao:
> 
> I've known plenty of folks, of all races, with a chip on their shoulder who were SURE that the police were out to get them at every turn.....and guess what? They acted in such a manner as to fulfill that prophecy every chance they got!


 This entire thing is very unflattering to the police.  Even the way the Sgt is being defended makes him look like a petty civil servant abusing what power he has to retaliate for some lack of respect.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Archangel M said:


> Sounds like Sgt. Crowley and the Pres are arranging a meeting to "have a beer" at the Whitehouse.


 
Imagine that. President Public Image strikes again. LOL


----------



## Archangel M

If there was any "profiling" going on here it was the Prof. "profiling" a white cop at his door as only being there "because Im a black man in America".


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> This entire thing is very unflattering to the police.  Even the way the Sgt is being defended makes him look like a petty civil servant abusing what power he has to retaliate for some lack of respect.



I think you have it quite backwards there.........the most powerful man in the world attacking a civil servant without even knowing the facts is the issue........there IS an ABUSE OF POWER issue here........you just have a handle on the wrong end of it. 

As to the Sgt., yes we have the cop haters who are going to attack him regardless......but any rational opinion points the blame CLEARLY on the behavior of Gates...........Crowley isn't some 'Power Mad' rookie, he's a highly respected police officer who has been doing this job for over a decade without complaints of bias or abuse.........and he runs headlong in to Gates, who's got a chip on his shoulder the size of the TITANIC!

Yes, I know the general consensus is when you are a Harvard professor you can act like as big a jackass as you want with impunity.........but the officers responding to a report of a HOME BREAK-IN are doing their job by investigating that break-in, regardless of the opinions of those who think they can do the job better (though have never actually done it).


Make no mistake about it......the ONLY folks who think this is unflattering to the police are the truly shameless Obama apologists, and they are VASTLY in the minority of public opinion on this one...........this WILL hurt the President far more than he intended it to hurt Sgt. Crowley.


Barry needs to remember that he's NOT a community agitator for ACORN anymore (or, well, maybe he really is, but he shouldn't be)......he was elected by the American People to represent the UNITED US.........so he should leave his agitator tendencies at the door and watch what comes out of his mouth!


----------



## sgtmac_46

celtic_crippler said:


> Imagine that. President Public Image strikes again. LOL



He's probably going to try and make him an offer he can't refuse........i.e. fall on his sword and take one for his President!


----------



## Archangel M

This has been a lesson in how the world is full of people just waiting to be offended. If you dont give them a reason to be offended they will manufacture one...


----------



## Steve

sgtmac_46 said:


> I think you have it quite backwards there.........the most powerful man in the world attacking a civil servant without even knowing the facts is the issue........there IS an ABUSE OF POWER issue here........you just have a handle on the wrong end of it.


I didn't realize that this had turned to a right wing, anti obama love fest. Sorry. I missed the cue.





> As to the Sgt., yes we have the cop haters who are going to attack him regardless......


Why is someone who disagrees with you a "cop hater?" I am nothing of the kind. 





> but any rational opinion points the blame CLEARLY on the behavior of Gates...........


I have said more than once that I in no way condone Gates' behavior. I think it's pretty clear that he over-reacted. 





> Crowley isn't some 'Power Mad' rookie, he's a highly respected police officer who has been doing this job for over a decade without complaints of bias or abuse.........and he runs headlong in to Gates, who's got a chip on his shoulder the size of the TITANIC!


And so he then lost his cool and acted in a manner that was, IMO, unprofessional. Come on. Even in your defense of him, you guys keep suggesting that it was retaliatory. He arrested Gates because a Gates had the temerity to disrespect him. I'm really at a loss to believe that I'm the only one who sees this as an obvious abuse of power. It's like trying to blame the torch for burning down the house. If Sgt. Crowley had left, there would be no fuel for the fire. 





> Yes, I know the general consensus is when you are a Harvard professor you can act like as big a jackass as you want with impunity.........


I don't know about general consensus, but my opinion is that ANYONE should be able to act like a jackass. You, me, or a harvard professor. Jesus, people act like flaming turds all the time and don't get arrested for it. 





> but the officers responding to a report of a HOME BREAK-IN are doing their job by investigating that break-in, regardless of the opinions of those who think they can do the job better (though have never actually done it).


And after having determined that Gates wasn't a burgler... ie, having DONE HIS JOB, he should have thanked him, apologized for the confusion and LEFT. No more problems.





> Make no mistake about it......the ONLY folks who think this is unflattering to the police are the truly shameless Obama apologists, and they are VASTLY in the minority of public opinion on this one...........


You and other Obama haters are the only one's bringing the president into this thread. 





> this WILL hurt the President far more than he intended it to hurt Sgt. Crowley.


I guess you can only hope, but I think you've made your political agenda quite clear. 





> Barry needs to remember that he's NOT a community agitator for ACORN anymore (or, well, maybe he really is, but he shouldn't be)......he was elected by the American People to represent the UNITED US.........so he should leave his agitator tendencies at the door and watch what comes out of his mouth!


:jediduel:



			
				Archangel M said:
			
		

> This has been a lesson in how the world is full of people just waiting to be offended. If you dont give them a reason to be offended they will manufacture one...


Agreed. Maybe the next time Sgt. Crowley is offended, he'll manage to handle it in a more constructive way.


----------



## celtic_crippler

sgtmac_46 said:


> He's probably going to try and make him an offer he can't refuse........i.e. fall on his sword and take one for his President!


 
Well...you know us white Irish so-and-so's.... we can't _refuse _a beer. 

I'm sorry-:cheers:-s'alright


----------



## Empty Hands

sgtmac_46 said:


> So he doesn't KNOW for a fact that the police are racist, but he's going to assume so and call them such out of ACORN/Community Organizer habit.



No, he didn't do so.  What he said was the the police acted "stupidly in arresting someone in their own home."  "Stupidly", not "racistly."


----------



## celtic_crippler

I don't think Obama intended any harm actually. I just think he stepped in it, or pulled a "Biden" if you will. 

At any rate, he's obviously recognized that it was a bad PR move and is trying to smooth things over. Especially after the news agencies jumped all over his comments. 

SGT Crowley has never exhibited any racist behavior before, at least none that's been found to date. As a matter of fact, his record would indicate he is NOT one (refer to the example further back where he gave CPR to a black man.) 

Gates indicated his home had been broken into before so it baffles me that he would react the way he did, unless you attribute his bad attitude to jet lag and frustration from being locked out. 

I'm sure this story is far from over. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## Empty Hands

celtic_crippler said:


> As a matter of fact, his record would indicate he is NOT one (refer to the example further back where he gave CPR to a black man.)



I agree that I haven't seen any evidence that Crowley is a racist.

But.

The example you make is a terrible one.  Giving CPR to a dying player for the university you work for doesn't make you non-racist - it makes you human.  Congratulations!  

This is actually a pernicious aspect of the "racist/non-racist" debate that has developed.  Racism is a skewed way of seeing certain groups of people, with attendant views and behaviors that may be conscious or unconscious.  Most of us are thus racist to some degree, no one is perfectly un-prejudiced.

The dominant way of looking at racism now though is white hoods and lynching.  When someone is called racist, everyone thinks "lyncher" and defends from that standpoint, when what they need to address is "has skewed viewpoints."  You don't actively have to hate to be a racist.  You don't have to kill blacks or drop the n-word every 5 minutes or turn the firehoses on.  But that is what everyone thinks when they see "racist."

So that inhibits our national discussion about race.  Everyone is terrified of being called racist, because they perceive that they are being called a monster.  Crowley refusing to give CPR would make him a monster, giving prevents him from being a monster but not from being racist.  Until everyone can internalize the difference, this issue goes nowhere.

Again, I have no idea if Crowley is or isn't a racist, your example just sparked my response.


----------



## crushing

Archangel M said:


> Sounds like Sgt. Crowley and the Pres are arranging a meeting to "have a beer" at the Whitehouse.



Maybe the year round IPA from the 23rd Street Brewery?  http://www.brew23.com/beer.htm


----------



## CoryKS

crushing said:


> Maybe the year round IPA from the 23rd Street Brewery? http://www.brew23.com/beer.htm


 
Pale Ale?!  That's racist!


----------



## Carol

CoryKS said:


> Pale Ale?!  That's racist!



Its not racist, its just acting stupidly


----------



## Archangel M

Hmmm..according to CNN, now Gate's lawyer is saying "this is not about race"...BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Can you spell backfire? How about backpedaling?


----------



## crushing

stevebjj said:


> .You and other Obama haters are the only one's bringing the president into this thread.



:BSmeter:

The President brought himself into the discussion when he basically called the cops stupid.  Obama is now clarifying (back tracking on) his statements.  Of course we knew the Obama haters would jump all over this, but even the biggest Obama supporters know he put his foot squarely in his mouth on this one, which is why he is 'clarifying' as he should be.  I'm glad he recongized his mistake and is now working towards improving the situation instead of the opposite.


----------



## crushing

CoryKS said:


> Pale Ale?!  That's racist!



I'm glad I didn't link to Fitzpatrick's Brewing Company's Nutty Professor Brown Ale!!!


----------



## CoryKS

crushing said:


> I'm glad I didn't link to Fitzpatrick's Brewing Company's Nutty Professor Brown Ale!!!


 
:rofl:


----------



## Archangel M

Hmm..If you are going to subscribe to the "someone was looking to be offended" theory... Who here had more reason to be "offended"? The homeowner who ASSUMED the cop was only there because he was a "black man in America" or the cop who was having his honor and his mother impugned by the "mad professor" for just doing his job??

PS-Im also getting tired of all the "Gates shouldn't have been arrested for being disorderly IN his own home" pap...if the mad professor had stayed in his home he wouldn't have been arrested.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Carol Kaur said:


> Its not racist, its just acting stupidly


 
no doubt...everybody knows lager's are better



Archangel M said:


> Hmmm..according to CNN, now Gate's lawyer is saying "this is not about race"...BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
> 
> Can you spell backfire? How about backpedaling?


 
But I thought it was about "_how a black man is treated in America_"? 

Seems to me, Gates was the one that wanted to make it about race in the first place. Unless he now is saying he didn't say what he said.


----------



## CoryKS

celtic_crippler said:


> no doubt...everybody knows lager's are better
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought it was about "_how a black man is treated in America_"?
> 
> Seems to me, Gates was the one that wanted to make it about race in the first place. Unless he now is saying he didn't say what he said.


 
"They took my words out of context" in 5...4...3...


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> :BSmeter:
> 
> The President brought himself into the discussion when he basically called the cops stupid. Obama is now clarifying (back tracking on) his statements. Of course we knew the Obama haters would jump all over this, but even the biggest Obama supporters know he put his foot squarely in his mouth on this one, which is why he is 'clarifying' as he should be. I'm glad he recongized his mistake and is now working towards improving the situation instead of the opposite.


Sorry I wasn't clear.  The Obama haters are steering the thread away from the original post.  Better?  I know it's more fun for a select few on this board to bash Obama, and certainly more convenient than admitting that the cop was as much at fault in this as the prof.  Maybe if we keep this thread going for another page or two, you guys will convince yourselves that it was really Obama's fault it happened in the first place.


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> Hmm..If you are going to subscribe to the "someone was looking to be offended" theory... Who here had more reason to be "offended"? The homeowner who ASSUMED the cop was only there because he was a "black man in America" or the cop who was having his honor and his mother impugned by the "mad professor" for just doing his job??
> 
> PS-Im also getting tired of all the "Gates shouldn't have been arrested for being disorderly IN his own home" pap...if the mad professor had stayed in his home he wouldn't have been arrested.


Poor Sgt. Crowley.  He's the real victim in all of this.  :angel:


----------



## crushing

stevebjj said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear.  The Obama haters are steering the thread away from the original post.  Better?  I know it's more fun for a select few on this board to bash Obama, and certainly more convenient than admitting that the cop was as much at fault in this as the prof.  *Maybe if we keep this thread going for another page or two, you guys will convince yourselves that it was really Obama's fault it happened in the first place.*





I can see this is going nowhere.


----------



## Archangel M

I suggest that everybody read the Police Report:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

The "mad professor" acted like an *** right from the "get-go".


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> I suggest that everybody read the Police Report:
> 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html
> 
> The "mad professor" acted like an *** right from the "get-go".


Archangel M, there are two accounts, both certainly biased.  This is Sgt. Crowley's carefully written account.  

But that aside, I think it's pretty clear Gates was an ***.  In my mind, that's not even a consideration.  If cops go around arresting people for being jackasses, we've got bigger problems than racism in this country.


----------



## jks9199

Actually, if you read the report, Sgt. Crowley was in an unmarked cruiser.  It's not clear one way or the other whether or not he used lights or sirens.  It's pretty clear from his report and that of the other officer (who would face criminal charges for filing a false report... unlike someone's comments to the press) that they tried pretty hard to defuse the situation


----------



## jks9199

Actually, if you read the report, Sgt. Crowley was in an unmarked cruiser.  It's not clear one way or the other whether or not he used lights or sirens.  It's pretty clear from his report and that of the other officer (who would face criminal charges for filing a false report... unlike someone's comments to the press) that they tried pretty hard to defuse the situation before m


----------



## jks9199

Actually, if you read the report, Sgt. Crowley was in an unmarked cruiser.  It's not clear one way or the other whether or not he used lights or sirens.  It's pretty clear from his report and that of the other officer (who would face criminal charges for filing a false report... unlike someone's comments to the press) that they tried pretty hard to defuse the situation before making a


----------



## jks9199

Actually, if you read the report, Sgt. Crowley was in an unmarked cruiser. It's not clear one way or the other whether or not he used lights or sirens. It's pretty clear from his report and that of the other officer (who would face criminal charges for filing a false report... unlike someone's comments to the press) that they tried pretty hard to defuse the situation before making an arrest.

Maybe my position biases me.  But when you have a cop at your door -- it kind of trumps a phone call.  And when the cop is trying to protect YOUR residence, you can at least cooperate slightly.

I'm not absolutely absolving Sgt. Crowley of responsibility.   But there is no reason to believe, despite the insinuations, that race was a factor at all in this -- from the police side.  It absolutely was a factor from Prof. Gates's side.  I dare say that he'd be complaining even if Sgt. Crowley had simply looked at the ID, explained why he was there and left.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> Actually, if you read the report, Sgt. Crowley was in an unmarked cruiser. It's not clear one way or the other whether or not he used lights or sirens. It's pretty clear from his report and that of the other officer (who would face criminal charges for filing a false report... unlike someone's comments to the press) that they tried pretty hard to defuse the situation before making an arrest.
> 
> Maybe my position biases me. But when you have a cop at your door -- it kind of trumps a phone call. And when the cop is trying to protect YOUR residence, you can at least cooperate slightly.
> 
> I'm not absolutely absolving Sgt. Crowley of responsibility. But there is no reason to believe, despite the insinuations, that race was a factor at all in this -- from the police side. It absolutely was a factor from Prof. Gates's side. I dare say that he'd be complaining even if Sgt. Crowley had simply looked at the ID, explained why he was there and left.


I'm not sure if this was in response to me or not, but I've never accused (nor do I believe) that Crowley is a racist.  What I believe, based upon everything I've read and heard so far, is that he overreacted to verbal abuse, allowed a civilian to irritate him, and abused his authority to put this civilian in his place.  If anything, i agree that the only issue of racism was on the part of Gates.  

However, Gates having a chip on his shoulder, verbally abusing Crowley or being racist in no way absolves Crowley from abusing his position of authority and not simply leaving once it was clear that Gates was not a crook.


----------



## Archangel M

"Abuse of his authority" is strictly a matter of the peanut galleries opinion here..what matters is if there was probable cause to effect an arrest. Could have the Sgt. walked off? Should he have walked off? Maybe..probably...I would like to think I would have.

Did the officer "have to walk away"...did he make an illegal arrest? I would say (and Im fairly confident many attorneys would say) NO.


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> "Abuse of his authority" is strictly a matter of the peanut galleries opinion here..what matters is if there was probable cause to effect an arrest. Could have the Sgt. walked off? Should he have walked off? Maybe..probably...I would like to think I would have.
> 
> Did the officer "have to walk away"...did he make an illegal arrest? I would say (and Im fairly confident many attorneys would say) NO.


Oh, for crying out loud.  I never suggested that Crowley broke a law.  Jesus, the lengths you guys are going to in order to defend this guy's actions.  Should he have walked off?  Most definitely.  Absolutely.  I definitely would like to think that every LEO I know would have.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Whatever you say man, I'm with the Prof on this one. Yeah I'm gonna get loud and disorderly after showing ID.


Yes, you and the other race baters, including Obama, who had to do alot of back peddling to get himself out of his race bating quagmire.

This guy was arrested for his tirade against an officer on public property. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> And so he then lost his cool and acted in a manner that was, IMO, unprofessional. Come on. Even in your defense of him, you guys keep suggesting that it was retaliatory. He arrested Gates because a Gates had the temerity to disrespect him. I'm really at a loss to believe that I'm the only one who sees this as an obvious abuse of power.


 
I'd really like to know how you reached this conclusion.  Yes, many of us who happen to be LEOs on this forum have said that there were problems on both sides of the communication here.  But nothing I've written was intended to suggest that the arrest was any sort of retaliation, and I've seen nothing else supporting that idea.  There's nothing to suggest that Prof. Gates was arrested simply because he didn't show Sgt. Crowley appropriate respect.  Instead, when the professor's conduct became a public problem, and after he ignored warnings, the problem was solved.  I see nothing that even hints at abuse of power!

The only abuse of power I see is Professor Gates using his connections to get press coverage and Presidential comment after he made a very public *** out of himself.


----------



## seasoned

Anybody in their right mind, when confronted by a police officer, for legitimate reasons, would comply fully. The officer asks the questions, you answer the questions, everyone is on the same page, things are straightened out, case closed. Once Gates, and his big mouth came outside, he was in the public domain, and subject to a whole new set of rules. Gates was the aggressor, and the officer was very professional in his dealings. Gates sealed his fate by continuing to be belligerent outside, and in public, hence, disorderly conduct. Police officers have a hard enough job, as does professors at Harvard. I'm sure if Gates was teaching a class and a student became mouthy, that student would be dealt with. Everyone has a job to do, but in this case the officer was in charge and doing his job, and it was Gates that should have said "thank you officer" turned around, and gone into his house, case closed.


----------



## Archangel M

yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, you and the other race baters, including Obama, who had to do alot of back peddling to get himself out of his race bating quagmire.
> 
> This guy was arrested for his tirade against an officer on public property. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.



To be fair...while the "mad professor" was arrested for what he said/did in "public" it was from "private property" AKA-his porch. While it was his property, once you exit the house and make a scene you can be held responsible for your impact on the neighbors. You can't expect to be able to stand on your porch and swear/threaten/disturb every person that walks by. As the porch, front door, etc..portions of a house are generally open to the public (I can legally walk up to your door and ring the bell..thats what they are there for), I can typically walk up to/onto them and arrest your disorderly self.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Archangel M said:


> To be fair...while the "mad professor" was arrested for what he said/did in "public" it was from "private property" AKA-his porch. While it was his property, once you exit the house and make a scene you can be held responsible for your impact on the neighbors. You can't expect to be able to stand on your porch and swear/threaten/disturb every person that walks by. As the porch, front door, etc..portions of a house are generally open to the public (I can legally walk up to your door and ring the bell..thats what they are there for), I can typically walk up to/onto them and arrest your disorderly self.


Fair comment. The facts are, that the arrest was justified. The guy had a stick up his *** because an LEO dared to ask for the ID of a black man, let alone a professor. If Gates were a white friend of Obama, do you think that there would have been the media hype that this incident attracted? Do you think the president would have made the "stupid" comment?


----------



## Archangel M

Yeah..I have to agree with ya there.


----------



## Omar B

sgtmac_46 said:


> The police siren and flashing lights are required by law to warn motorists and prevent accidents when responding to priority calls.......of which a home break in qualifies.  Don't think so?  How do you want the police to respond if your mother, wife or girlfriend is home alone and someone is breaking in their house?  Think before you speak.
> 
> In addition, creating a disturbance is a very well defined term........following the officer out the door who is trying to leave, and screaming in your front yard certainly qualifies......AGAIN, think before you speak.



I did think before I spoke, and I still think that the arrest was over the line.  stay mad about my opinion, that's fine.  The cop should have used his judgment rather than run in the old guy, no matter how irate he may have been.  Plus he didn't give his badge number, how was the old guy to be sure it was a cop and not some impersonator, we've had quite a few of those in NY, heck a lady got raped by one not 4 months ago.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> I did think before I spoke, and I still think that the arrest was over the line. stay mad about my opinion, that's fine. The cop should have used his judgment rather than run in the old guy, no matter how irate he may have been. Plus he didn't give his badge number, how was the old guy to be sure it was a cop and not some impersonator, we've had quite a few of those in NY, heck a lady got raped by one not 4 months ago.


Impersonator :rofl:


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, you and the other race baters, including Obama, who had to do alot of back peddling to get himself out of his race bating quagmire.
> This guy was arrested for his tirade against an officer on public property. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.



Race bater now?  LOL.

The old man asked for the cop's badge number and it was not given, in fact he walked out the door.  As I stated before there have been robberies and rapes here in NY by men dressed as cops and there was even a firefighter too.  He didn't show up in a cop car, some dude showing up asking for your ID and waiting to check out your place.  Maybe he should have let the guy check out his place without getting proof positive who he was, or get on the phone and wait for however long to get a confirmation on the phone.


----------



## seasoned

Badge # is on the badge, name is on the name plate, on his shirt.


----------



## Archangel M

And once again you are confusing "using discretion" with "unlawful arrest"..."discretion" means "yes you have PC to make an arrest", but its probably better not to. By definition that means that an arrest would not be "over the line", just that its your opinion that it was unnecessary. 

Two different things.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Race bater now? LOL.
> 
> The old man asked for the cop's badge number and it was not given, in fact he walked out the door. As I stated before there have been robberies and rapes here in NY by men dressed as cops and there was even a firefighter too. He didn't show up in a cop car, some dude showing up asking for your ID and waiting to check out your place. Maybe he should have let the guy check out his place without getting proof positive who he was, or get on the phone and wait for however long to get a confirmation on the phone.


If you're asking me to believe that Gates politely asked the cop for his badge number, for fear of being attacked, robbed or raped, you are high. 
This whole thing is in the media because Professor Gates is black. Maybe instead of accusing the cop of being racist, you Gates and Obama should accuse him of being assholist. Surely that would better describe him. Gates has been on tv complaining about the fact that his arrest was racial as has Barack Obama. This is obviously not the case. The guy was being belligerent and created a scene that prompted a respectable, untarnished cop to arrest him. Instead of using this experience as a learning exercise, Gates decides to take his plight national and appear all over the media. This, in turn prompted Obama to respond in a totally inappropriate way. He has obviously been taking instruction from Biden.


----------



## Omar B

You seem to keep putting the word "race" in my mouth.  I have not brought it up once in any of my posts in this topic(except when quoting you).  I don't think he should have been arrested and that's the end of it.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> You seem to keep putting the word "race" in my mouth. I have not brought it up once in any of my posts in this topic(except when quoting you). I don't think he should have been arrested and that's the end of it.


Alright Omar, If you want to lay this game, i'll ask you a question. Did you agree with what Obama said in his 2 press conferences about this incident?


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear.  The Obama haters are steering the thread away from the original post.  Better?  I know it's more fun for a select few on this board to bash Obama, and certainly more convenient than admitting that the cop was as much at fault in this as the prof.  Maybe if we keep this thread going for another page or two, you guys will convince yourselves that it was really Obama's fault it happened in the first place.


But Sgt. Crowley wasn't "as much at fault" as Professor Gates.  Sgt. Crowley was doing his job, plainly identifiable as a police officer, and the professor was the one who caused the problems.


----------



## jks9199

seasoned said:


> Badge # is on the badge, name is on the name plate, on his shirt.


Not always, and not in every agency.  I don't know about theirs.  My badge doesn't have a number on it anywhere, for example.  And I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt on reading a nameplate; they're generally only about 1/2 inch top to bottom, and often are shiny metal...


----------



## seasoned

Gates should thank God he didn't have something in his hand, and asked to drop it, or let me see your hands. In his state of mind and with all the anger he holds, things could have gone a lot worst for him.


----------



## seasoned

jks9199 said:


> Not always, and not in every agency. I don't know about theirs. My badge doesn't have a number on it anywhere, for example. And I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt on reading a nameplate; they're generally only about 1/2 inch top to bottom, and often are shiny metal...


Good point, I carry for 2 agencies, one badge numbered and one not. Nameplate seems to always stick out loud and clear, when someone wants to know your name.


----------



## Joab

After reading all the police reports, hearing more and more about the story and accounts from the police officers involved, I will agree this whole situation was a lot more complicated than I previously thought. I do think that Professor Gates was wrong to play the race card, I don't think race had anything to do with this incident. It does seem to me that when the officer left after verifying that the man in the house was a resident he could have chosen to ignore the words of the professor and left and not arrested him. I think both sides over reacted to some degree with an unfortunate outcome.

Professor Gates I believe was clearly agitated,  spoke loudly, indicated that he believed he was being targeted because he was black. I don't believe this was the case, breaking into a house needed to be investigated. The officer could have ignored Professor Gates and left, he did not have to arrest the professor, but chose to do so. I wasn't there, but I still think that would have been preferable. Hopefully the two will be able to hash this out over a beer in the White House with President Obama and progress will be made regarding proper communication with a police officer performing his duty and not over reacting to a difficult person by the police.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Alright Omar, If you want to lay this game, i'll ask you a question. Did you agree with what Obama said in his 2 press conferences about this incident?



What game am I "laying?"  I didn't see the 2 press conferences (weird work hours) but I don't agree with him calling the guy stupid.  I'm not gonna agree that the guy deserved being arrested though if that's what you are looking for.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> What game am I "laying?" I didn't see the 2 press conferences (weird work hours) but I don't agree with him calling the guy stupid. I'm not gonna agree that the guy deserved being arrested though if that's what you are looking for.


The game you are "laying" is that you deny that your judgement is skewed by Gates' race. If a white professor had been beligerent to the cop and had been arrested for disorderly conduct, it would never had made the news and if it did, (due to the *** in question being a mate of Obama's)Obama would have shrugged the question off with a "no comment" and YOU wouldn't care less about the arrestee. How do I know this? Because you're as transparent as a prison cell tv.


----------



## Omar B

I fail to see that, as I said, I've not brought up his race as an issue once in this thread.  I'll let you in on a secret, I'm not black, I'm Indian.  An old man got arrested in his own house, that's how I see it.  I just caught onto your race bater comment that you must clearly think I'm sticking up for one of my "own" well that does away with your argument.  Since you continuously are referencing race in relation to my posts, there you are.


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> "Abuse of his authority" is strictly a matter of the peanut galleries opinion here..what matters is if there was probable cause to effect an arrest. Could have the Sgt. walked off? Should he have walked off? Maybe..probably...I would like to think I would have.
> 
> Did the officer "have to walk away"...did he make an illegal arrest? I would say (and Im fairly confident many attorneys would say) NO.


I'm quite confident it wasn't an illegal arrest.

And I've been in similiar situations, as you probably have, too.  Sometimes, I've walked away.  Sometimes, I've turned somebody into a pretzel on the ground.  Most often, it's been somewhere in the middle.  It might be surprising how seldom my PERSONAL ego was involved in the decision of what to do, though.

See, it's a balancing game.  I have to maintain the authority of the position for myself AND for others.  Sometimes, I can let a blowhard bluster and simply go on my way.  He'll blow himself out and be done.  But, sometimes, if I let that loudmouth get away with his attitude with me -- the next cop to deal with him or his buddies is only going to get more and worse.  And then someone gets hurt... because it will eventually reach the point where the only language that is understood is force.  I'll even admit to erring on both sides in different instances.

It's not easy.  Sgt. Crowley was justified and did have probable cause to make the arrest.  It may not have been an ideal solution -- but it did solve the problem.


----------



## Archangel M

Good article at:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJiZGY2NmQzNjIzM2Q4YTM1YmNmYjRmNGY2ZGQwNzQ=



> But let us examine the issue of racial profiling as it pertains &#8212; or doesn&#8217;t &#8212; to Mr. Gates&#8217;s arrest. As I wrote on Wednesday, the suggestion that Gates was &#8220;profiled&#8221; is ludicrous. Gates was not simply driving or walking along and into the awareness of some racist cop looking to exert authority over him. Far from it. Rather, a woman had phoned the Cambridge police to report she had seen two black men attempting to force entry into a home.  Sergeant James Crowley was in the area and was the first officer to respond to the call. After the witness informed him of her observations, Crowley saw a black man inside the home. No reasonable person would deny that at that moment, Sgt. Crowley had more than the sufficient amount of &#8220;reasonable suspicion,&#8221; as we say in the trade, required to investigate and even detain the man for the length of time necessary to determine if he was in fact a burglar. And yes, Sgt. Crowley was fully justified in making a warrantless entry into the home if necessary.
> 
> A man of ordinary sensibilities, having forced his way into his own home in broad daylight, might consider the possibility that he was seen doing so by someone who would misinterpret his actions and summon the police. Mr. Gates apparently failed to foresee such a contingency and instead assumed dark motives on the part of Sgt. Crowley. In fact, if Crowley&#8217;s account is accurate, it was Gates who profiled _him_, imputing racial animus as the reason for the sergeant&#8217;s presence on the front porch. When Crowley made the reasonable and tactically sound request for Gates to step out onto the porch, Gates, by his own account, refused to do so. &#8220;I knew he wasn&#8217;t canvassing for the police benevolent association,&#8221; Gates told a reporter from The Root. &#8220;All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, &#8216;No, I will not.&#8217;&#8221; Thus the stage was set for a test of wills, one that ultimately saw Gates arrested and carted off to the jug for a few hours.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> I fail to see that, as I said, I've not brought up his race as an issue once in this thread.  I'll let you in on a secret, I'm not black, I'm Indian.  An old man got arrested in his own house, that's how I see it.  I just caught onto your race bater comment that you must clearly think I'm sticking up for one of my "own" well that does away with your argument.  Since you continuously are referencing race in relation to my posts, there you are.


You didn't bring race in to this issue.......Obama and Gates introduced that canard.  In fact it was Gates' own racist views that created this situation.


----------



## sgtmac_46

seasoned said:


> Badge # is on the badge, name is on the name plate, on his shirt.


 Exactly, and what's more I actually believe Crowley when he says he identified himself when he showed up.  'I'm Sgt. Crowley with the Cambridge police department'.......


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> Oh, for crying out loud.  I never suggested that Crowley broke a law.  Jesus, the lengths you guys are going to in order to defend this guy's actions.  Should he have walked off?  Most definitely.  Absolutely.  I definitely would like to think that every LEO I know would have.



Walk off from what?  A burglary in progress?  Funny how nobody involved is required to exercise personality responsibility in this situation in your mind, INCLUDING the President of the United States, EXCEPT the officer involved who was trying to do his job.........that's pretty telling.

The most powerful man on the PLANET isn't required to exercise intelligence and comment sense in front of his teleprompter......BUT a police officer in a volatile situation MUST please every member of society.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Gates was loud and abrasive long before showing his ID.........the folks who identify with the professor in this situation must have an identical chip on their shoulder the size of Mt. Everest.........and probably is used to creating these type of situations.


Here's a hint......how about instead of assuming that the 'white cop' is here to racial profile the black man, use your BRAIN and realize he's here because the neighbor called about someone breaking in to your HOUSE, pull your head out of your nether regions, say 'Oh, ok officer, that was just me, my door was stuck, here's my identification, is there anything else I can do for you?'

But for SOME folks, being a jackass in these situations is viewed as a BIRTH RIGHT!  Anyone who thinks that wait is a racist IDIOT pure and simple.  The title of this thread should be changed to 'Racist Professor', because that's the root of the issue.....Gates is a blithering racist who sees SKIN COLOR even before common sense!  And the folks attacking Sgt. Crowley are doing their best to SHIELD that QUITE OBVIOUS REALITY that Gates Racism, regardless of what one thinks of Sgt. Crowley's response to his actions, was the CORE OF THE INCIDENT!

Because even if we say that perhaps Sgt. Crowley overreacted to Gates racist tirade.......Gates is STILL A RACIST!  And the President's defense of an obvious racist is disappointing, but not surprising given his circle of intimates.  The irony is that no one seriously disagrees with the fact that Gates is a racist........it's quite clear.  His apologists just justify it by the fact that in years past Gates was the victim of racism, so now his own racist views are justified.......really?!


----------



## MJS

I know I posted this question a while back and I know Sgtmac46 did as well, and AFAIK it still hasnt been answered, so here goes again.  I find it interesting that some are talking about the response of the PD and how that supposedly caused more of a disturbance, yet I'm wondering....how do you think the cops should respond to a call like that?  If they took their time and something went wrong, we all know damn well that someone would raise a stink.  So, the cops go 'code' to the call, most likely shut down prior to getting to the area, and somehow this is what caused the good 'ol Prof to get pissed off?  Please.  *rolls eyes*


----------



## elder999

I think the title of the thread is backwards.

It should read: _Racist *Professor* and Combative *Cop*_.

1) Mass. law is clear: when asked for name and badge number, officers have to give it.

2) There was nothing overtly racist in the cop's response-he got a burglary call, he had to check it out.

3)The Prof. was a bunch of things: sick, tired, old, uncooperative, pissed off at having to break his own door down, and, well, _black_. He naturally didn't respond well. If he had, none of this would happen.

4) After the cop had it sorted out, and was leaving, _he should have just kept going_-they handcuffed the man on his porch,not the sidewalk, and, frankly, arrested him for not repsecting the cop's authrority, nothing more. He hadn't done anything but yell at the cop, and he'd have stopped if the cop just left. 

Bad calls on both sides, no "profiling" involved.



			
				yorkshirelad said:
			
		

> The game you are "laying" is that you deny that your judgement is skewed by Gates' race. If a white professor had been beligerent to the cop and had been arrested for disorderly conduct, it would never had made the news and if it did, (due to the *** in question being a mate of Obama's)Obama would have shrugged the question off with a "no comment" and YOU wouldn't care less about the arrestee. How do I know this? Because you're as transparent as a prison cell tv.


 
Studies have shown that people tend to align themselves in conflict with people of their same perceived race. It's that simple-wrong and right don't enter into it, and sometimes that "perceived race" is *blue*. Obama should have kept his mouth shut, but he clearly doesn't know how to: a more "Presidential" thing to do would have been to offer no comment on a local affair that he didn't have all the facts about. He is, however, entitled to his opinion, whatever factors got him there, and however misguided it might be. To say the police acted "stupidly" might be a bit over reaching, but Sgt. Crowley was clearly fed up, and that's the place he acted from, not any particular good judgement: how likely is a riot in such a neighborhood? How likely would the Prof. be to keep "shouting" (there seems to be some question about his ability to raise his voice, due to illness) once the object of his anger had departed the scene? 

As for the Prof. himself, well, it's not the way I'd have handled it, or the way I've handled it in the past. Personally, though, I'm well known for not losing my cool-for being unflappable. I think it's kind of a given, working with the things that I do, that one maintain the majority of one's emotional responses internally,and act outwardly as appropriate to the situation. That's me, though-and I have to say that, while externally I've been compliant and cooperative in my interactions with the police, and most of those have generally been more than pleasant, without a hint of "racial" _anything_, some of them, back in New York, well, some of them had me seething _internally_. A man gets confronted in his own home, *told* to step out on the porch, and, while a cooler head (like mine) might have immediately connected the arrival of the police with the forcing of the front door and simply cooperated-or even maliciously complied in the hopes that he'd be arrested for breaking into his own home, and thus could _*really*_ sue-Skip Gates clearly could not.


----------



## Jade Tigress

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

Thank you.
Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
*


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> I fail to see that, as I said, I've not brought up his race as an issue once in this thread. I'll let you in on a secret, I'm not black, I'm Indian. An old man got arrested in his own house, that's how I see it. I just caught onto your race bater comment that you must clearly think I'm sticking up for one of my "own" well that does away with your argument. Since you continuously are referencing race in relation to my posts, there you are.


Hello, I can see your avatar, so I know you're not black, but that's inconsequential. The only reason that this incident is even an issue is because of the race componant. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the intelligence of everyone here.


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> I think the title of the thread is backwards.
> 
> It should read: _Racist *Professor* and Combative *Cop*_.
> 
> 1) Mass. law is clear: when asked for name and badge number, officers have to give it.
> 
> 2) There was nothing overtly racist in the cop's response-he got a burglary call, he had to check it out.
> 
> 3)The Prof. was a bunch of things: sick, tired, old, uncooperative, pissed off at having to break his own door down, and, well, _black_. He naturally didn't respond well. If he had, none of this would happen.
> 
> 4) After the cop had it sorted out, and was leaving, _he should have just kept going_-they handcuffed the man on his porch,not the sidewalk, and, frankly, arrested him for not repsecting the cop's authrority, nothing more. He hadn't done anything but yell at the cop, and he'd have stopped if the cop just left.
> 
> Bad calls on both sides, no "profiling" involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Studies have shown that people tend to align themselves in conflict with people of their same perceived race. It's that simple-wrong and right don't enter into it, and sometimes that "perceived race" is *blue*. Obama should have kept his mouth shut, but he clearly doesn't know how to: a more "Presidential" thing to do would have been to offer no comment on a local affair that he didn't have all the facts about. He is, however, entitled to his opinion, whatever factors got him there, and however misguided it might be. To say the police acted "stupidly" might be a bit over reaching, but Sgt. Crowley was clearly fed up, and that's the place he acted from, not any particular good judgement: how likely is a riot in such a neighborhood? How likely would the Prof. be to keep "shouting" (there seems to be some question about his ability to raise his voice, due to illness) once the object of his anger had departed the scene?
> 
> As for the Prof. himself, well, it's not the way I'd have handled it, or the way I've handled it in the past. Personally, though, I'm well known for not losing my cool-for being unflappable. I think it's kind of a given, working with the things that I do, that one maintain the majority of one's emotional responses internally,and act outwardly as appropriate to the situation. That's me, though-and I have to say that, while externally I've been compliant and cooperative in my interactions with the police, and most of those have generally been more than pleasant, without a hint of "racial" _anything_, some of them, back in New York, well, some of them had me seething _internally_. A man gets confronted in his own home, *told* to step out on the porch, and, while a cooler head (like mine) might have immediately connected the arrival of the police with the forcing of the front door and simply cooperated-or even maliciously complied in the hopes that he'd be arrested for breaking into his own home, and thus could _*really*_ sue-Skip Gates clearly could not.


Very well put! This is obviously an emotional subject for everyone involved. We all see things through our own unique pair of tinted spectacles. The above post has put all perspectives into....well, perspective.


----------



## sgtmac_46

elder999 said:


> I think the title of the thread is backwards.
> 
> It should read: _Racist *Professor* and Combative *Cop*_.
> 
> 1) Mass. law is clear: when asked for name and badge number, officers have to give it.
> 
> 2) There was nothing overtly racist in the cop's response-he got a burglary call, he had to check it out.
> 
> 3)The Prof. was a bunch of things: sick, tired, old, uncooperative, pissed off at having to break his own door down, and, well, _black_. He naturally didn't respond well. If he had, none of this would happen.
> 
> 4) After the cop had it sorted out, and was leaving, _he should have just kept going_-they handcuffed the man on his porch,not the sidewalk, and, frankly, arrested him for not repsecting the cop's authrority, nothing more. He hadn't done anything but yell at the cop, and he'd have stopped if the cop just left.
> 
> Bad calls on both sides, no "profiling" involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Studies have shown that people tend to align themselves in conflict with people of their same perceived race. It's that simple-wrong and right don't enter into it, and sometimes that "perceived race" is *blue*. Obama should have kept his mouth shut, but he clearly doesn't know how to: a more "Presidential" thing to do would have been to offer no comment on a local affair that he didn't have all the facts about. He is, however, entitled to his opinion, whatever factors got him there, and however misguided it might be. To say the police acted "stupidly" might be a bit over reaching, but Sgt. Crowley was clearly fed up, and that's the place he acted from, not any particular good judgement: how likely is a riot in such a neighborhood? How likely would the Prof. be to keep "shouting" (there seems to be some question about his ability to raise his voice, due to illness) once the object of his anger had departed the scene?
> 
> As for the Prof. himself, well, it's not the way I'd have handled it, or the way I've handled it in the past. Personally, though, I'm well known for not losing my cool-for being unflappable. I think it's kind of a given, working with the things that I do, that one maintain the majority of one's emotional responses internally,and act outwardly as appropriate to the situation. That's me, though-and I have to say that, while externally I've been compliant and cooperative in my interactions with the police, and most of those have generally been more than pleasant, without a hint of "racial" _anything_, some of them, back in New York, well, some of them had me seething _internally_. A man gets confronted in his own home, *told* to step out on the porch, and, while a cooler head (like mine) might have immediately connected the arrival of the police with the forcing of the front door and simply cooperated-or even maliciously complied in the hopes that he'd be arrested for breaking into his own home, and thus could _*really*_ sue-Skip Gates clearly could not.




Good points.......though I wouldn't say that we just identify with those of the same race........it would be more accurate to say we identify with those most like ourselves, race being one component of that.......and in Obama's case that apparently extends to identifying with people who say stupid things before thinking about them.


As for Gates........one would believe that a 'learned' and intelligent Harvard Professor would be able to control himself better........or at least come up with a better taunt for the officer than talking about his 'Mama'......


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Hello, I can see your avatar, so I know you're not black, but that's inconsequential. The only reason that this incident is even an issue is because of the race componant. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the intelligence of everyone here.



You were the one calling me a "race bater" man.  I presented what I thought on the issue of the old man being arrested and a couple cops within this thread have said that situations like this did not have to end in arrest.  You seemed to follow my posts screaming race and Obama though.


----------



## Carol

punisher73 said:


> As far as the charges being dropped.  That is NOT the call of the police agency.  Only the Prosecuting Attorney's Office can do that.  One of the reasons that they can dismiss charges is "would not be in the best interest of the public".  They knew that they would have a crap storm if they continued on with the charges.  They knew it would be in THEIR best interest to make it go away.



But police agencies ca (and do) make recommendations to the District Attorney office that the charges be dropped, do they not?

And, when the police makes such a recommendation, this carries considerable weight with the DA's office, does it not?




> A prosecutor is dropping a charge against prominent Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. after Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the city's police department recommended that the matter not be pursued.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/21/massachusetts.harvard.professor.arrested/


----------



## jks9199

Carol Kaur said:


> But police agencies ca (and do) make recommendations to the District Attorney office that the charges be dropped, do they not?
> 
> And, when the police makes such a recommendation, this carries considerable weight with the DA's office, does it not?
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/21/massachusetts.harvard.professor.arrested/


It all depends.  I know some jurisdictions that the prosecutors seldom listen to the officers when they make a request like that, unless there's on hell of a good reason.  And I know others that'll drop a charge without a question.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> You were the one calling me a "race bater" man. I presented what I thought on the issue of the old man being arrested and a couple cops within this thread have said that situations like this did not have to end in arrest. You seemed to follow my posts screaming race and Obama though.


I stand by my remarks.


----------



## jks9199

Allow me a small, unofficial observation... this thread is 13 pages long.  On a VERY heated topic and issue.  Yet, by and large, it's remained civil.  I'm impressed!  People are doing a fantastic job of discussing the issues, and not pulling personalities into it.  Great job, everyone!


----------



## MJS

Joab said:


> The General Law of Massachusetts
> 
> PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
> 
> 
> CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
> 
> 
> POLICE OFFICERS
> 
> 
> Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards
> 
> 
> Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officers person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.
> source: Here are the links to the relevant Mass. laws http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm and [URL="http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98c.htm"]http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98c.htm[/URL]


 
Thanks.   As far as showing this goes, as I said, it is a courtesy, however, in the middle of an investigation, providing that info, IMO, takes a back seat.  I highly doubt in this case, the Prof was doubting that the officers in front of him were fake.  He was most likely asking because he was pissed and wanted to file a complaint.


----------



## Big Don

The Smoking Gun has the POLICE REPORT.


elder999 said:


> I think the title of the thread is backwards.
> 
> It should read: _Racist *Professor* and Combative *Cop*_.


Almost, it should read Racist, combative professor and Cop.
There was NO racism by the police. NONE. How can I say that? They weren't accosting random black people. They only spoke to the ONLY person inside the house where the BREAK IN was reported. He happened to be black, and, by the way, an ***, but, the cops talked to him ONLY because a break in was reported AT THAT HOUSE and he was the only one AT THAT HOUSE. This whole mess would have been nothing had he not been a jackass.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> You were the one calling me a "race bater" man.  I presented what I thought on the issue of the old man being arrested and a couple cops within this thread have said that situations like this did not have to end in arrest.  You seemed to follow my posts screaming race and Obama though.



For the record I don't remotely believe that you are a race baiter......it's painfully obvious, however, that Gates is, and far more unfortunately, so is our President.

As to the arrest, many situations don't have to end in arrest.....this situation being the same......but it is GATES most responsible for his own arrest.  Furthermore, the worst allegation that one can make against Sgt. Crowley is that yes, he had the authority to arrest Gates (no one has intelligently argued that Gates wasn't legally subject to arrest), but that he should have used more discretion.......but even those arguing that point can't make a case that Sgt. Crowley did what he did out of any bias or general malice.........rather, they claim he responded to a volatile situation in a way they don't imagine themselves responding to.........that's all well and good, we are each entitled to our opinions.......but the REAL issue in this case is the ARROGANT and RECKLESS comments of our commander-in-chief........comments that show him UTTERLY unfit for the office he currently occupies.


----------



## sgtmac_46

MJS said:


> Thanks.   As far as showing this goes, as I said, it is a courtesy, however, in the middle of an investigation, providing that info, IMO, takes a back seat.  I highly doubt in this case, the Prof was doubting that the officers in front of him were fake.  He was most likely asking because he was pissed and wanted to file a complaint.



I don't even think he was asking because he wanted to file a complaint, I think the officer had already identified himself...probably several times.....I think he was asking for the EXACT same reason he was referring to Sgt. Crowley's mother.......it was part of his taunting diatribe........


----------



## Omar B

sgtmac_46 said:


> For the record I don't remotely believe that you are a race baiter......it's painfully obvious, however, that Gates is, and far more unfortunately, so is our President.
> 
> As to the arrest, many situations don't have to end in arrest.....this situation being the same......but it is GATES most responsible for his own arrest.  Furthermore, the worst allegation that one can make against Sgt. Crowley is that yes, he had the authority to arrest Gates (no one has intelligently argued that Gates wasn't legally subject to arrest), but that he should have used more discretion.......but even those arguing that point can't make a case that Sgt. Crowley did what he did out of any bias or general malice.........rather, they claim he responded to a volatile situation in a way they don't imagine themselves responding to.........that's all well and good, we are each entitled to our opinions.......but the REAL issue in this case is the ARROGANT and RECKLESS comments of our commander-in-chief........comments that show him UTTERLY unfit for the office he currently occupies.



Yeah man, I see what you are saying.  I also believe that it didn't have to end in arrest.  Some in this thread would frame me as a race bater for that.  Having a different opinion makes me some sort of race bater now.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> Yeah man, I see what you are saying. I also believe that it didn't have to end in arrest. Some in this thread would frame me as a race bater for that. Having a different opinion makes me some sort of race bater now.


Listen, anyone here who takes sides with the Professor is a race bater. The facts show quite clearly that the arrest (although not essential) was justified. That is the plain and simple truth. You yourself have said before on a previous thread Omar, that you have been targetted because of the way look. If we were to go back say, a year and this was a white friend of George Bush, the media would've painted the professor as an ******* and Bush would've been crucified in the media for defending his eccentric, angry friend.
Now given that the arrest was justified and that you have been "targetted", it doesn't take Columbo to deduce that your decision to support Gates has a racial componant. So I stand by my words.


----------



## Omar B

What happened to me has no bearing on how I feel about as you put it a "not essential" arrest.  As I said before, my best friend's dad is an NYPD detective, my past experience with cops has not been more shaded by by his influence than anything else.  And I say again, using your words, the arrest was "not essential."  Not everyone who gets loud gets arrested, not everyone who speeds gets a ticket, it didn't have to play out how it did.  I stand by that.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> my best friend's dad is an NYPD detective, quote]
> I remember hearing many a racist say, "I'm not a racist, I have black friends". Are you honestly trying to tell me that Gates' skin colour has no bearing on your opinion of this case?


----------



## jks9199

Omar B said:


> What happened to me has no bearing on how I feel about as you put it a "not essential" arrest.  As I said before, my best friend's dad is an NYPD detective, my past experience with cops has not been more shaded by by his influence than anything else.  And I say again, using your words, the arrest was "not essential."  Not everyone who gets loud gets arrested, not everyone who speeds gets a ticket, it didn't have to play out how it did.  I stand by that.


By the same reasoning, not everyone who has a cop come to their door investigating a reported burglary gets belligerent and accuses the cop of targeting them solely because of their race.  Both sides could have handled this differently.

To be very blunt... In my experience, most of the time when someone tries to say that I targeted them for attention solely because of their race -- it's an attempt to distract me from the real reason I stopped them.  They want me to hurry up and end the contact, and not look too deeply because they actually ARE up to something or they know they're wrong and want me to be afraid to ticket them...


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> Yeah man, I see what you are saying.  I also believe that it didn't have to end in arrest.  Some in this thread would frame me as a race bater for that.  Having a different opinion makes me some sort of race bater now.


  Yeah, it didn't have to end in arrest.....Gates could have used the brain that one would expect a Harvard Professor to have!

The only reason some folks are claiming that is that you've aligned yourself on this topic with a couple of obvious race baiters.  I understand, however, that you can agree with their position without agreeing with their whole position.

At the end of the day whatever one believes about Sgt. Crowley's arrest of Gates, it's obvious that Crowley wasn't motivated by racism........the same cannot be said for Gates........or Obama for that matter.


----------



## celtic_crippler

It seems like the key issue with most is whether or not Gates should have been arrested for disorderly conduct and whether or not Sgt. Crowley's decision to do so may have been based on Gate's race. Is that it? 

Thus far, the only evidence supporting anyone playing the "race card" points to Gates. It appears that Gates flew off the handle and did not exhibit the mature and rational behavior one would expect of a highly educated individual. 

However, the debate seems to be focused on whether Dr. Gates tantrum necessitated an arrest. 



> *Examples of Disorderly Conduct *
> 
> Disorderly conduct offenses vary widely by state. Here are some of the most common acts that are considered disorderly conduct offenses:
> 
> *Public drunkenness*
> Inciting a *riot*
> *disturbance of the peace*
> *loitering* in certain areas
> *fighting* / physical altercations
> obstructing traffic
> use of extremely obscene or *abusive language*
> loud or unreasonable *noise*


So...was Dr. Gates "disturbing the peace" by throwing a tantrum? 

Did Dr. Gates use "abusive language" when he said to Sgt. Crowley among other things, "...I'll meet yo' momma outside!" 

Really? A Harvard Professor resorting to "_yo momma_" attacks? I'd be embarrassed as hell if I were he.


----------



## MJS

sgtmac_46 said:


> I don't even think he was asking because he wanted to file a complaint, I think the officer had already identified himself...probably several times.....I think he was asking for the EXACT same reason he was referring to Sgt. Crowley's mother.......it was part of his taunting diatribe........


 
You're probably right.  And then this guy wonders why he gont arrested for disorderly.  *shrug*


----------



## sgtmac_46

jks9199 said:


> By the same reasoning, not everyone who has a cop come to their door investigating a reported burglary gets belligerent and accuses the cop of targeting them solely because of their race.  Both sides could have handled this differently.
> 
> To be very blunt... In my experience, most of the time when someone tries to say that I targeted them for attention solely because of their race -- it's an attempt to distract me from the real reason I stopped them.  They want me to hurry up and end the contact, and not look too deeply because they actually ARE up to something or they know they're wrong and want me to be afraid to ticket them...



Exactly.....the 'You're just messing with me because i'm a <insert group here>' statement is really an attempt to bluff and bully the officer in to looking no further in to the situation.........even white dirtbags try it.......many folks with a chip on their shoulder attempt to personalize every encounter with the police as if the police are somehow targeting them for something OTHER than what really happened.


----------



## MJS

Omar B said:


> Yeah man, I see what you are saying. I also believe that it didn't have to end in arrest. Some in this thread would frame me as a race bater for that. Having a different opinion makes me some sort of race bater now.


 
You're right...it didn't have to end in arrest, and I'd be willing to go so far as to say that there are many people who could avoid alot of what happens, if they took a bit of Chris Rocks advice.  Lets see..things such as a) shut the **** up, b) be polite.    That video IMO is designed to be a spoof, a comedy, to make folks laugh, but if you stop and think about it, so much applies to RL.


----------



## sgtmac_46

celtic_crippler said:


> It seems like the key issue with most is whether or not Gates should have been arrested for disorderly conduct and whether or not Sgt. Crowley's decision to do so may have been based on Gate's race. Is that it?
> 
> Thus far, the only evidence supporting anyone playing the "race card" points to Gates. It appears that Gates flew off the handle and did not exhibit the mature and rational behavior one would expect of a highly educated individual.
> 
> However, the debate seems to be focused on whether Dr. Gates tantrum necessitated an arrest.
> 
> So...was Dr. Gates "disturbing the peace" by throwing a tantrum?
> 
> Did Dr. Gates use "abusive language" when he said to Sgt. Crowley among other things, "...I'll meet yo' momma outside!"
> 
> Really? A Harvard Professor resorting to "_yo momma_" attacks? I'd be embarrassed as hell if I were he.


 Very good point!

Lets be clear.......this discussion has split up in to camps of various interests.  The apologists for Obama and Gates want to fixate on whether Gates 'needed' to be arrested (they won't even argue that an arrest wasn't technically justified given his behavior)..........but that's not what made this case NATIONAL NEWS........two things did.......Gates, a Harvard Professor, spewing racist invectives, and the most powerful man on the planet losing ALL OBJECTIVITY to lash out with equally stupid charges of racism, while admitting he knew nothing about the situation.


At the end of the day the issue here is Obama, and his VERY UNPRESIDENTIAL behavior.......not whether Sgt. Crowley was goaded in to arresting Gates, when he shouldn't have or even if Gates is an obvious racist........it was Obama's behavior, pure and simple, that showed the absolute WORST judgement in this situation........whereas BOTH Gates and Sgt. Crowley were thrust in to a situation that was heated, Obama had the opportunity to comment or not with the objectivity of distance.......and STILL said about the stupidest thing he possibly could!


----------



## sgtmac_46

MJS said:


> You're right...it didn't have to end in arrest, and I'd be willing to go so far as to say that there are many people who could avoid alot of what happens, if they took a bit of Chris Rocks advice.  Lets see..things such as a) shut the **** up, b) be polite.    That video IMO is designed to be a spoof, a comedy, to make folks laugh, but if you stop and think about it, so much applies to RL.


 
Gates didn't have to be polite........he could have presented his identification, resolved the situation, and asked at the end 

'Are we finished here, Officer?'

'Yes sir, we are.'

'Good.....now can you get out of my house, i've got a very busy day tomorrow'.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Omar B said:
> 
> 
> 
> my best friend's dad is an NYPD detective, quote]
> I remember hearing many a racist say, "I'm not a racist, I have black friends". Are you honestly trying to tell me that Gates' skin colour has no bearing on your opinion of this case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it does not.  As much as you would love to believe I'm a member of the black panther movement supporting him just because he's black, no.  Having a different opinion does not mean I'm playing up some race thing, it's just a different opinion, if you can't handle that then tough.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Don

Omar B said:


> yorkshirelad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it does not.  As much as you would love to believe I'm a member of the black panther movement supporting him just because he's black, no.  Having a different opinion does not mean I'm playing up some race thing, it's just a different opinion, if you can't handle that then tough.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what exactly, in your opinion, justifies his behavior?
> 
> 
> BTW, FYI for ALL of you Masters, when discussing bears, race or fish, it is BAITING ergo: BAITER, not BATER, although, given the choice, I'd rather Batter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Don

The ONLY racial Bias in this case is that of Mr Gates and President Obama. 
The Officers questioned the man they found inside the house where the break in was reported. 
They were not harassing black people at random.
Gates violated RULE #89:
Don't Start Nothin', Won't Be Nothin'!


----------



## jks9199

sgtmac_46 said:


> Very good point!
> 
> Lets be clear.......this discussion has split up in to camps of various interests.  The apologists for Obama and Gates want to fixate on whether Gates 'needed' to be arrested (they won't even argue that an arrest wasn't technically justified given his behavior)..........but that's not what made this case NATIONAL NEWS........two things did.......Gates, a Harvard Professor, spewing racist invectives, and the most powerful man on the planet losing ALL OBJECTIVITY to lash out with equally stupid charges of racism, while admitting he knew nothing about the situation.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day the issue here is Obama, and his VERY UNPRESIDENTIAL behavior.......not whether Sgt. Crowley was goaded in to arresting Gates, when he shouldn't have or even if Gates is an obvious racist........it was Obama's behavior, pure and simple, that showed the absolute WORST judgement in this situation........whereas BOTH Gates and Sgt. Crowley were thrust in to a situation that was heated, Obama had the opportunity to comment or not with the objectivity of distance.......and STILL said about the stupidest thing he possibly could!


You know what -- I'll give President Obama a little bit of leeway.  I'll grant that HIS comments may not have been tied to Professor Gates's race, but merely their friendship.  I've stood up for friends before without knowing all the details, and discovered later I was wrong.  Embarrassing -- but I'm human.  I'll give President Obama that much slack...  But, as PRESIDENT, he should have known better than to get involved.  "I don't have the details, and I'm sorry my friend had to go through that" would have been fine.  He would have shown public support for his friend without attacking the police.  And you cannot tell me that as skilled an orator as President Obama, taking the apparent care with what to say that seems to be in the video, just put his foot in his mouth.


----------



## Omar B

Big Don said:


> Omar B said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what exactly, in your opinion, justifies his behavior?
> BTW, FYI for ALL of you Masters, when discussing bears, race or fish, it is BAITING ergo: BAITER, not BATER, although, given the choice, I'd rather Batter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't justify his behavior.  I just said that it did not have to end like that, people don't always get arrested or get tickets, they can get a warning.  Didn't think I applauded or justified anyone's actions.
Click to expand...


----------



## geezer

The fact that this relatively minor affair has already generated over 15 pages of heated discussion is evidence that the race issues are still a huge problem for us as a nation. And, beyond that, the issue is being exploited by certain individuals who seem to bear an almost irrational hatred for our President, accusing him of being incompetant and "unfit for office" ...because of_ this _one minor mistep! I give irrational Obama haters get the same response I gave the irrational Bush haters. I ignore them.

As for the rest of us, who are _not_ reacting solely out of our emotional dislike of the President, what is so hard to understand about an accomplished and esteemed Black man still being human and losing his cool when he thinks he's being singled out by the cops _again_ for his race? I say 'again' because you know damn well people get singled out for the color of their skin, their age, their accent, their dress, the cars they drive, ...or you name it. It happens. And it ticks you off. So maybe that's why Professor Gates lost his cool. 

And what about Officer Crowley? He apparently has worked very hard to be a fair cop, and _an expert on race relations_ in police work. Yet is it so hard to understand that he's human too? In spite of himself, when Gates went off on his tirade, he got so ticked off that he went ahead and made the legal, but unecessary decision to arrest the Prof? 

And are the President's comments really that hard to understand either? I mean he started right off by saying that he probably couldn't be totally objective since Professor Gates was a personal friend, he overstepped a bit by calling the actions of the police "stupid"... although they _certainly weren't the wisest way_ to resolve this situation. And he noted the statistical facts that underly the distrust many in the Black community have for the police. Hell, what's so bad about that? Sure, it wasn't as polished a political statement as you might like. Maybe he also let his emotions color his speech a bit. Did any of you know that _he's a Black man?_ Surprise! Maybe he has also felt the sting of prejudice a few times. Maybe it isn't so easy being bi-racial in America either. 

Anyway, I say cut all three of the parties involved a little slack and let's get past this and back to issues of greater importance._ Now, will somebody invite me to the Whitehouse for a beer?_


----------



## dnovice

My opinion. The cop might or might not have been a racist but he is retarded. (I've nothing against police officers as whole, I worked with them side by side.) I think obama was right in his first response that he had to eventually retract. 

Sure, its fine that the cops showed up since a neighbor called about suspicious men trying to break into gates home. Sure, its fine that the cop asked for identification. However, the moment the cop ascertained that Gates was the owner of the house, regardless of how irate or high pitched the professors voice was he should explained to the professor that "he came because of a call and that next time gates should calmly talk to him." Then the cop should have walked away. 

Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.


----------



## Big Don

dnovice said:


> My opinion. The cop might or might not have been a racist but he is retarded. (I've nothing against police officers as whole, I worked with them side by side.) I think obama was right in his first response that he had to eventually retract.
> 
> Sure, its fine that the cops showed up since a neighbor called about suspicious men trying to break into gates home. Sure, its fine that the cop asked for identification. However, the moment the cop ascertained that Gates was the owner of the house, regardless of how irate or high pitched the professors voice was he should explained to the professor that "he came because of a call and that next time gates should calmly talk to him." Then the cop should have walked away.
> 
> Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.


That Gates supposedly felt he was being picked on because of his race is silly, and, not the fault of the cops.


----------



## Carol

Professor Gates was on university property.

He is the tenant, Harvard University is the landlord.  I believe the university owns all of the residences on Ware street.


----------



## Big Don

IMO, it doesn't matter if he rented the house or owned the whole town, his behavior was deplorable.


----------



## Archangel M

dnovice said:


> My opinion. The cop might or might not have been a racist but he is retarded. (I've nothing against police officers as whole, I worked with them side by side.) I think obama was right in his first response that he had to eventually retract.
> 
> Sure, its fine that the cops showed up since a neighbor called about suspicious men trying to break into gates home. Sure, its fine that the cop asked for identification. However, the moment the cop ascertained that Gates was the owner of the house, regardless of how irate or high pitched the professors voice was he should explained to the professor that "he came because of a call and that next time gates should calmly talk to him." Then the cop should have walked away.
> 
> Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.


 
He did "walk away" though. And Gates followed him out yelling and screaming...in front of other people watching from the street...that was the basis for arrest. You (a cop) typically cant charge DisCon if you are the only person being "offended" (cops cant be "offended" for DC)..there either has to be people witnessing or the behaivor is excessively loud during times that quiet is expected (if you are yelling and screaming at 2am..waking up the neighbors).


----------



## celtic_crippler

geezer said:


> The fact that this relatively minor affair has already generated over 15 pages of heated discussion is evidence that the race issues are still a huge problem for us as a nation. And, beyond that, the issue is being exploited by certain individuals who seem to bear an almost irrational hatred for our President, accusing him of being incompetant and "unfit for office" ...because of_ this _one minor mistep! I give irrational Obama haters get the same response I gave the irrational Bush haters. I ignore them.


 
Which is perfectly understandable...

But just "who" is perpetuating the problem in this case? 

At any rate, I don't think Obama's comments make him unfit for office. There are definately other, more valid points that could be made towards that POV without faulting him for speaking up for a friend. Which is why I think he probably said what he said, not just because Dr. Gates happens to be black but because they are friends. It's only natural and I would probably have done the same initially. 



geezer said:


> As for the rest of us, who are _not_ reacting solely out of our emotional dislike of the President, what is so hard to understand about an accomplished and esteemed Black man still being human and losing his cool when he thinks he's being singled out by the cops _again_ for his race? I say 'again' because you know damn well people get singled out for the color of their skin, their age, their accent, their dress, the cars they drive, ...or you name it. It happens. And it ticks you off. So maybe that's why Professor Gates lost his cool.


 
You're claiming to be fair you must emotionally detach yourself and look at the facts; I agree 100%. But it seems you're just as guilty of this in defending Dr. Gates. 

Sure, he's human and subject to the same flaws as the rest of us regardless of education. But nothing Sgt. Crowley did was out of the ordinary; he was *following procedure*. That's what the supporters of Dr. Gates can't get through their heads. 

Sgt. Crowley responded appropriately to a report of B&E. It just so happened the perp was the homeowner. Once that was established it should have been over, but Dr. Gates overreacted. Dr. Gates brought this on himself through his actions. Race has nothing to do with it other than gaining this story national attention. If Dr. Gates happened to be white and not a friend of President Obama's you probably would never have heard about it. 



geezer said:


> And what about Officer Crowley? He apparently has worked very hard to be a fair cop, and _an expert on race relations_ in police work. Yet is it so hard to understand that he's human too? In spite of himself, when Gates went off on his tirade, he got so ticked off that he went ahead and made the legal, but unecessary decision to arrest the Prof?


 
Agree. Sgt. Crowley is human and has a breaking point as well. A well-educated Harvard professor should have probably figured that out a long time ago. I don't have a PhD and I know that if I verbally go off on an individual they are likely to respond negatively...it ain't rocket science. 

That aside, all the evidence points to the fact that Sgt. Crowley was *justified* in arresting Dr. Gates for disorderly conduct. Granted, disorderly conduct is often used as a catch-all by many police and Sgt. Crowley could have made the decision to ignore Dr. Gates but Dr. Gates could have just as easily made the decision to discontinue provoking the police. 

The primary difference is Sgt. Crowley was legally justified in his actions and Dr. Gates was not. 



geezer said:


> And are the President's comments really that hard to understand either? I mean he started right off by saying that he probably couldn't be totally objective since Professor Gates was a personal friend, he overstepped a bit by calling the actions of the police "stupid"... although they _certainly weren't the wisest way_ to resolve this situation. And he noted the statistical facts that underly the distrust many in the Black community have for the police. Hell, what's so bad about that? Sure, it wasn't as polished a political statement as you might like. Maybe he also let his emotions color his speech a bit. Did any of you know that _he's a Black man?_ Surprise! Maybe he has also felt the sting of prejudice a few times. Maybe it isn't so easy being bi-racial in America either.


 
Not at all...as I said earlier, I would likely come to the defense of a friend as well. That's actually kinda' admirable. 

Police procedure has evolved over centuries based on situation after situation, experience after experience. They may not equally apply in all cases, but they're there for a reason. 

And here, you fall back to an emotional response. Blacks aren't the only ones that fall victim to over zealous cops. That excuse is old and a lot of Americans of all different colors are more than a little tired of it. 




geezer said:


> Anyway, I say cut all three of the parties involved a little slack and let's get past this and back to issues of greater importance._ Now, will somebody invite me to the Whitehouse for a beer?_


 
Maybe if you're wrongly accused of mistreating a friend of the President you'll get invited. 

But I agree, this story got entirely too much attention and distracted the nation from more important things...like the economy, a growing government, health care reform.... Hmmmm...if I were a conspiracy theorist and an Obama hater....LOL


----------



## MJS

Hmm....interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_caller


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> But Sgt. Crowley wasn't "as much at fault" as Professor Gates. Sgt. Crowley was doing his job, plainly identifiable as a police officer, and the professor was the one who caused the problems.


I disagree.  Sgt. Crowley chose to fan the flames.  As I said before, he could have simply thanked Gates for his time and left.  He stuck around, and the longer he stayed the more the situation escalated.  Am I missing something?  Did Gates actually put hands on Crowley or otherwise physically keep him from getting in his car and driving off?  

jks, you asked in another post where people suggested that it was retaliatory.  I wish I had time to go back and find all of the quotes.  More than one person said something along the lines of, "If you give a cop a hard time, expect to end up in cuffs."  Essentially, the gist is that if you don't pay proper respect to a cop, you get what's coming to you.  While I don't doubt that this is true, I think it's reprehensible.  

Ultimately, I think cops are civil servants.  Getting yelled at isn't something only cops have to endure.  Verbal and sometimes physical abuse occur in every service position, particularly any government service position.  Social Security reps, IRS reps, vet reps at the VA, and on down to the DMV and other State reps.. you name it, they take all kinds of abuse, and are expected to take the high road, deescalate situations and treat the public with respect regardless of how they're being treated.  The only difference between a cop being yelled at by a member of the public and any other government officer is that the cop has the authority to arrest you for being a jackass.  

Ultimately, I think that this entire situation is symptomatic of a larger issue in this country, and that's a general apathy and unquestioning acceptance of authority.  I'm not excusing Gates' actions or justifying them in any way.  I do, however, think that we should all be able to get angry at the fuzz when they appear at your door asking to see ID.  Is it right?  Maybe not, but it's certainly nothing that should result in an arrest.  What's funny to me is that there are so many libertarians on this board and the general consensus seems to be that, yeah, if you mouth off to a cop you'll get arrested.  I honestly don't get it.  Arrested for being angry, indignant, and belligerant.  That is hogwash, and in my opinion, abuse of authority.   

Once again, the bottom line for me is this: Had Sgt. Crowley thanked Gates for his time, apologized for any confusion and left, there would be no situation, no arrest and ultimately no story.  Gates was a jackass, but Crowley allowed the situation to escalate by sticking around and continuing to fuel the fire.  Why did he stick around?  After confirming that Gates' ID and that there was a reasonable explanation for the call, why didn't he leave right away?  As he moved outside to start heading to his car, why did he stop?


----------



## Twin Fist

*"and that's a general apathy and unquestioning acceptance of authority."

*that actually the exact OPPOSITE of the problem
a kid violates the schools dress code, the parents support the kid, people feel free to back talk the police, cuz they KNOW that some people will support them doing so. Dont agree with a law? break it anyway. 

When i was growing up in a not so nice part of town, we used to joke "whats the fastest way to get to Parkland(the local hospital)? smart off to a Dallas cop."

but you know what? we didnt smart off to the cops

40 years ago you KNOW the press knew about LBJ and JFK being man whores, but they didnt report it. Cuz they knew you dont poke the big dog. Not if you want to enjoy your retirement.

NO ONE respects authority any more. Thats the problem.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Absolutely nothing to do with race...



> BOSTON  The 911 caller who reported a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. did not mention race in the call


 
...and...


> Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed *'two men'* at the home


 
Dr. Gates should have been thankful IMHO!


> Whalen, who works nearby, called because she had been aware of recent break-ins in the area


 
So is the argument "who fanned the flames"? 

Was it the cop who was doing his duty and following procedure? 

or

Was it the verbally abusive, loud, obnoxious, ungrateful homeowner? 

I in no way endorse the abuse of power by the police. That is very well evidenced in other posts I've made on the topic. In this case, I feel the police were justified and just doing their job. It's not like they sodomized Dr. Gates with a taser. 

Could Sgt. Crowley have walked away? Sure! 

Could Dr. Gates have behaved like a civilized human being? Sure! 

Either action would have ended in a more peaceful result. 

But niether did, so...

Again...when you boil it all down to it's essence:

The primary difference is Sgt. Crowley was legally justified in his actions and Dr. Gates was not. 

We can play the "if so-and-so" game all day long but it doesn't matter in this case. If a frog had wings...he wouldn't bump his *** every time he hopped. LOL


----------



## CoryKS

If people don't hold a certain degree of respect for law enforcement, the system breaks down.  That's not an "unquestioning acceptance of authority", that's an acknowledgement that if you think the officer is doing his job poorly, the best way to handle it is not to jump in his ****.  There are channels for handling that sort of thing.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> yorkshirelad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it does not. As much as you would love to believe I'm a member of the black panther movement supporting him just because he's black, no. Having a different opinion does not mean I'm playing up some race thing, it's just a different opinion, if you can't handle that then tough.
> 
> 
> 
> Mate, I would not "love to believe you are a member of the black panther movement". In fact I would love to believe that the vicious, hateful black panther movement did not exist at all. I feel the same way about any hateful group that relies on violence and intimidation to further its agenda. I don't believe for one second that you would belong to such a group. I do believe however, that race IS a factor in your decision to support Gates, because of comments you have made on another thread. There is no contesting that Gates' arrest was legal and justifiable. Gates and Obama based their opinions on Gates' arrest on racial motives and I firmly believe that anyone else that harbours the same opinions in someway is racially motivated. If you can't handle that TOUGH.
Click to expand...


----------



## yorkshirelad

jks9199 said:


> You know what -- I'll give President Obama a little bit of leeway. I'll grant that HIS comments may not have been tied to Professor Gates's race, but merely their friendship. I've stood up for friends before without knowing all the details, and discovered later I was wrong. Embarrassing -- but I'm human. I'll give President Obama that much slack... But, as PRESIDENT, he should have known better than to get involved. "I don't have the details, and I'm sorry my friend had to go through that" would have been fine. He would have shown public support for his friend without attacking the police. And you cannot tell me that as skilled an orator as President Obama, taking the apparent care with what to say that seems to be in the video, just put his foot in his mouth.


If Obama had just stood by his friend, I would grant him some leeway, but he went further than this. He started going on about how black people had been abused by law enforcement in the past and that is unacceptable in my opinion.


----------



## jks9199

dnovice said:


> My opinion. The cop might or might not have been a racist but he is retarded. (I've nothing against police officers as whole, I worked with them side by side.) I think obama was right in his first response that he had to eventually retract.
> 
> Sure, its fine that the cops showed up since a neighbor called about suspicious men trying to break into gates home. Sure, its fine that the cop asked for identification. However, the moment the cop ascertained that Gates was the owner of the house, regardless of how irate or high pitched the professors voice was he should explained to the professor that "he came because of a call and that next time gates should calmly talk to him." Then the cop should have walked away.
> 
> Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.


It saddens me that you'd bandy words like "retarded" about when discussing a decorated professional, who made a judgement call that you disagree with.

At this point, I think that there is little dispute that the elements of the offense for disorderly conduct existed.  And I'd say that there's little room for argument that Prof. Gates brought on the problem with his response, which was well outside the norms for such an incident, and which almost unarguably was based on HIS expectation of racism, rather than the facts.

And I'd say there's little doubt that President Obama regrets saying anything about it at all.  He's had to basically eat his words, and he's significantly alienated the law enforcement community.


----------



## geezer

Considering that this is the "self-defense" forum and not the "political debate" forum, I'm going to share my _top secret self-defense secret for dealing with cops:_

Comply with their commands and (unless you are accused of a serious crime*) answer their questions directly and be courteous, even if you feel that they are full of ****. Arguing never helps. If you disagree, you can work that out with a judge later. Anyway, it's always worked for me... too bad Professor Gates didn't have this top secret training. 

*if you are a suspect in a serious crime, it may behoove you to remain silent and request a lawyer before saying anything.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> I disagree. Sgt. Crowley chose to fan the flames. As I said before, he could have simply thanked Gates for his time and left. He stuck around, and the longer he stayed the more the situation escalated. Am I missing something? Did Gates actually put hands on Crowley or otherwise physically keep him from getting in his car and driving off?
> 
> jks, you asked in another post where people suggested that it was retaliatory. I wish I had time to go back and find all of the quotes. More than one person said something along the lines of, "If you give a cop a hard time, expect to end up in cuffs." Essentially, the gist is that if you don't pay proper respect to a cop, you get what's coming to you. While I don't doubt that this is true, I think it's reprehensible.
> 
> Ultimately, I think cops are civil servants. Getting yelled at isn't something only cops have to endure. Verbal and sometimes physical abuse occur in every service position, particularly any government service position. Social Security reps, IRS reps, vet reps at the VA, and on down to the DMV and other State reps.. you name it, they take all kinds of abuse, and are expected to take the high road, deescalate situations and treat the public with respect regardless of how they're being treated. The only difference between a cop being yelled at by a member of the public and any other government officer is that the cop has the authority to arrest you for being a jackass.
> 
> Ultimately, I think that this entire situation is symptomatic of a larger issue in this country, and that's a general apathy and unquestioning acceptance of authority. I'm not excusing Gates' actions or justifying them in any way. I do, however, think that we should all be able to get angry at the fuzz when they appear at your door asking to see ID. Is it right? Maybe not, but it's certainly nothing that should result in an arrest. What's funny to me is that there are so many libertarians on this board and the general consensus seems to be that, yeah, if you mouth off to a cop you'll get arrested. I honestly don't get it. Arrested for being angry, indignant, and belligerant. That is hogwash, and in my opinion, abuse of authority.
> 
> Once again, the bottom line for me is this: Had Sgt. Crowley thanked Gates for his time, apologized for any confusion and left, there would be no situation, no arrest and ultimately no story. Gates was a jackass, but Crowley allowed the situation to escalate by sticking around and continuing to fuel the fire. Why did he stick around? After confirming that Gates' ID and that there was a reasonable explanation for the call, why didn't he leave right away? As he moved outside to start heading to his car, why did he stop?


 
Ya know, this thread is so large now, I really can't recall, but I have a question.  Was I correct in reading somewhere that Gates was on the phone while the cops were trying to figure out what was going on?  How long after the cops asked for ID, did they get it?  After ID was shown, was Gates still acting like a fool?  If so, while I understand what others are saying, in that the cops still could have left and left Gates vent, they didn't.  Do we know what he was doing and/or saying?  Perhaps if we did, then maybe it'd be clearer as to why he was arrested.

On the other hand, while I understand that after the events that happened, ie: issue with the front door, issue with the passerby calling a B&E in progress, etc., I find it interesting that people are saying that the cops fanned the flames, giving the impression that Gates did nothing wrong.  Did he have to act the way he did?  No.  He was playing the typical race card, acting like he was being harassed, blah, blah, blah, and instead of being the Professional that he should be, acted like a punk.


----------



## MJS

CoryKS said:


> If people don't hold a certain degree of respect for law enforcement, the system breaks down. That's not an "unquestioning acceptance of authority", that's an acknowledgement that if you think the officer is doing his job poorly, the best way to handle it is not to jump in his ****. There are channels for handling that sort of thing.


 
Exactly, and I find myself repeating what I always say....people could eliminate half the problems they bring on THEMSELVES, if they just shut the **** up, and dealt with things after.  The Prof. could have simply got into his car, and went to the PD to discuss this issue, if he felt things were not done right, but instead choose to be a jerk.  Even if he didn't go to the PD, he still could have acted like a mature adult, instead of an immature child, who felt he was getting a raw deal.


----------



## MJS

yorkshirelad said:


> If Obama had just stood by his friend, I would grant him some leeway, but he went further than this. He started going on about how black people had been abused by law enforcement in the past and that is unacceptable in my opinion.


 
Agreed.  Friend or not...IMHO, this was not an issue that he needed to involve himself in.  I mean, I find it hard to believe that things like this dont happen all the time, yet does the President involve himself in every race issue that happens on the streets?  I highly doubt it.


----------



## Steve

Twin Fist said:


> *"and that's a general apathy and unquestioning acceptance of authority."*
> 
> that actually the exact OPPOSITE of the problem
> a kid violates the schools dress code, the parents support the kid, people feel free to back talk the police, cuz they KNOW that some people will support them doing so. Dont agree with a law? break it anyway.
> 
> When i was growing up in a not so nice part of town, we used to joke "whats the fastest way to get to Parkland(the local hospital)? smart off to a Dallas cop."
> 
> but you know what? we didnt smart off to the cops
> 
> 40 years ago you KNOW the press knew about LBJ and JFK being man whores, but they didnt report it. Cuz they knew you dont poke the big dog. Not if you want to enjoy your retirement.
> 
> NO ONE respects authority any more. Thats the problem.


I don't think this is exactly apples to apples, but it's a fair point.  While it doesn't change my opinion on this subject, it does give me food for thought.  I think it's possible to respect authority without rolling over.  For example, in this particular situation, does anyone believe that Gates is other than the average, mostly law abiding citizen?  I'd go out on a limb and suggest that he pays his bills and doesn't go out of his way to break the law or disrespect cops or anyone else.  

What you're talking about regarding JFK and LBJ is something I brought up in the 90's during the lewinsky impeachment.  I'm not sure that us plebes have any more or less respect for authority, but it's clear that the upper echelons have zero respect, and that's played out over the last few decades.


----------



## MJS

dnovice said:


> My opinion. The cop might or might not have been a racist but he is retarded. (I've nothing against police officers as whole, I worked with them side by side.) I think obama was right in his first response that he had to eventually retract.


 
Nice choice of words.



> Sure, its fine that the cops showed up since a neighbor called about suspicious men trying to break into gates home. Sure, its fine that the cop asked for identification. However, the moment the cop ascertained that Gates was the owner of the house, regardless of how irate or high pitched the professors voice was he should explained to the professor that "he came because of a call and that next time gates should calmly talk to him." Then the cop should have walked away.


 
And the fact that Gates was acting like an *** should not have been addressed? As it was said, he was creating a public disturbance, an offense worthy of an arrest. I find it interesting how the cop is supposed to do nothing, while the other person can get away with yelling, screaming, probably swearing, rather than being civil. 



> Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.


 
And while I understand that being picked on is not fun, is it necessary to blow up? And has it been proven that profiling took place? People assume it did because the cops were white and the other guy was black. Gee, maybe next time I'm pulled over and its a cop whose race is anything other than white, I should cry foul and scream that I was being profiled. Please, give me a break.


----------



## Steve

CoryKS said:


> If people don't hold a certain degree of respect for law enforcement, the system breaks down. That's not an "unquestioning acceptance of authority", that's an acknowledgement that if you think the officer is doing his job poorly, the best way to handle it is not to jump in his ****. There are channels for handling that sort of thing.


Another fair point, MJS, but I think it ignores somewhat the reality of these situations. Most people don't interact with the cops personally very often. For the public, dealing with the cops goes hand in hand with emotionally charged, anxiety laden situations. Crowley has been on the force for years, but how many times does a person have a cop confront him? In his own home? As I've said repeatedly, I in no way defend Gates actions. I'm suggesting that it is Crowley's responsibility to act with sound judgement. In my opinion, staying there further incited Gates and was clearly a mistake. 

Yes, Gates acted poorly. But Crowley was in a position of authority. Crowley had the experience and the training to handle the situation, and I'm sure that Gates isn't the first irate person Crowley's dealt with in his career. Crowley is the expert. It is ultimately, in my opinion, his responsibility to manage the situation. 

As I said before, Crowley is a civil servant like any other civil servant. The only difference is that he can arrest the person saying, "Yo mamma."


----------



## celtic_crippler

geezer said:


> Considering that this is the "self-defense" forum and not the "political debate" forum, I'm going to share my _top secret self-defense secret for dealing with cops:_
> 
> Comply with their commands and (unless you are accused of a serious crime*) answer their questions directly and be courteous, even if you feel that they are full of ****. Arguing never helps. If you disagree, you can work that out with a judge later. Anyway, it's always worked for me... too bad Professor Gates didn't have this top secret training.
> 
> *if you are a suspect in a serious crime, it may behoove you to remain silent and request a lawyer before saying anything.


 
Excellent advice! It's worked well for me as well.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> And the fact that Gates was acting like an *** should not have been addressed? As it was said, he was creating a public disturbance, an offense worthy of an arrest. I find it interesting how the cop is supposed to do nothing, while the other person can get away with yelling, screaming, probably swearing, rather than being civil.


MJS, you were writing this as I was typing my response, but this speaks exactly to my point.  Short answer: yes.  Anyone else would endure the verbal abuse and terminate the conversation.  If you came into my office and laid into me, I'd take it to a point and remain polite.  Ideally, I'd deescalate the situation and resolve the issue.  If that doesn't work, I'd ask you to leave.  If I had the option to leave myself, I would.  And if I didn't handle the situation like this, I'd be disciplined at least, and fired at worst.  This is true at all levels of government, as well as any other service position.  Retail managers (who get paid very little) understand this concept well.


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> MJS, you were writing this as I was typing my response, but this speaks exactly to my point. Short answer: yes. Anyone else would endure the verbal abuse and terminate the conversation. If you came into my office and laid into me, I'd take it to a point and remain polite. Ideally, I'd deescalate the situation and resolve the issue. If that doesn't work, I'd ask you to leave. If I had the option to leave myself, I would. And if I didn't handle the situation like this, I'd be disciplined at least, and fired at worst. This is true at all levels of government, as well as any other service position. Retail managers (who get paid very little) understand this concept well.


 
Retail managers call the police in these situations.  As would anyone else who experienced an overly disruptive individual in their work place.


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> Retail managers call the police in these situations.  As would anyone else who experienced an overly disruptive individual in their work place.


No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.

Edit:  Just in case this goes without saying, I'm not talking about situations in which there is any threat of bodily harm.  I'm talking about situations like Gates': yelling, belligerance and regular, run of the mill crazy talk.


----------



## yorkshirelad

As a white guy, (well pink with red blotchy cheeks and black hair), I have been racially profiled by the British police many times.

The cheapest method of transport between Dublin and Northern England is the bus/ferry. It costs about 20 quid. You get on the bus at the bus station in Dublin. The bus take you tao the ferry. You get off the ferry in Holyhead and then get back on the bus until you get to Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds. 

Now bear in mind that when you get back on the bus after the ferry it's usually 0300 and you are tired and irritable after a 3 hour rocky ferry ride, filled with screaming babies, drunks and seasickness.

I have taken this trip tens of times and at least half of those times I've been stopped before resuming my place on the bus by the police. They would take me into a room and politely question me. My answers would ALWAYS be "yes sir" or "no sir". Then they would proceed to opens my bags and search the contents. When they would finish they would end with "sorry to trouble you sir" and I would end the conversation with a smile and say something on the lines of "No broblem officers" and I really meant it. It was no problem. I didn't once think that those guys wanted for one second to rifle through my underwear when the vast majority of the population were sleeping and I felt safe knowing that these guys were doing their job and I WAS being racially profiled.

Now, if I had let my lack of sleep/temper get to me for some unfathomable reason and said "No, I'm not going with you into that room, but i'll go in there with YO MOMMA, I would have been forced into the room and probably been given a cavity search and it would have been the fault of my uncontrolled jaw, NOTHING ELSE.

Again, the Gates' arrest was the fault of Gates. If anything he should've been happy that the police responded to his home. I know for one thing that if I was forcing entry into my home and the police arrived in due time, I would at least feel secure that if I WAS been burgled by some lowlife, they would respond in due time.


----------



## crushing

stevebjj said:


> Yes, Gates acted poorly.
> But Crowley was in a position of authority.
> Crowley had the experience and the training to handle the situation,
> and I'm sure that Gates isn't the first irate person Crowley's dealt with in his career.
> Crowley is the expert.
> It is ultimately, in my opinion, his responsibility to manage the situation.


 
Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Proably.  Yes.  He did, and some people are faulting him for it.


----------



## crushing

stevebjj said:


> No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.
> 
> Edit: Just in case this goes without saying, I'm not talking about situations in which there is any threat of bodily harm. *I'm talking about situations like Gates': yelling, belligerance and regular, run of the mill crazy talk.*


 
Is there a transcript?  If you have a link I would really like to read it.  THANKS!


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> Yes. Yes. Yes. Proably. Yes. He did, and some people are faulting him for it.


I was with you 'til the last.  He mismanaged the situation, and that's the entire issue.


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> Is there a transcript? If you have a link I would really like to read it. THANKS!


I'm sure you're aware of the same accounts I am.  There's Gates' version and the police report.  Somewhere in the middle is what really happened, I'm sure.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> MJS, you were writing this as I was typing my response, but this speaks exactly to my point. Short answer: yes. Anyone else would endure the verbal abuse and terminate the conversation. If you came into my office and laid into me, I'd take it to a point and remain polite. Ideally, I'd deescalate the situation and resolve the issue. If that doesn't work, I'd ask you to leave. If I had the option to leave myself, I would. And if I didn't handle the situation like this, I'd be disciplined at least, and fired at worst. This is true at all levels of government, as well as any other service position. Retail managers (who get paid very little) understand this concept well.


 
Hey Steve,

I think we're on the same page for the most part here.  What is missing, afaik, from this debate, is that we don't know what was said between the parties involved. If it has been posted here, my apologies for missing it. What I'm saying is, did the cop say nothing out of line, do his best to de-escalate, etc, and when it wasn't working, made the arrest? Perhaps he was going to leave, and Gates continued on with his rant, to which the cop could have still kept walking, but seeing that Gates now crossed into the disturbance area, opted not to and instead arrest the Prof.

Slightly off topic, but related nonetheless, seeing that you mentioned retail. Quite a few years ago, I, as well as my father and grandfather worked in a liquor store, that was owned by a long time family friend. I worked just on Saturdays, from 3-8. One of the regulars came in to purchase lottery tickets. He had ones to cash in as well. During the transaction, I had a feeling that there was a mistake made with the cash, but due to it being busy, continued on, and told my grandfather to make sure he counted the money to double check when he got there on Monday, and if there was an error, to fix it with the customer the next time he came in. 

This happened, but apparently this pissed off the customer. IIRC, there wasn't a mistake, but better to be safe than sorry.  So, now this guy comes in to get tickets the following Sat., and proceeds to tell me how offended he was that I accused him of ripping the store off. By this time, there was quite a line building and this guy wasn't letting up. I did my best to defuse the situation and trying to justify my standpoint, as I didn't want to be accused of stealing, if there was in fact a shortage. 

After quite a few minutes of this verbal abuse, I told him that he was going to have to either finish his purchase or leave the store, as I had others to tend to. He told me that I had to serve him. I told him that I did not, and to leave the store. He told me he was going to call the police, to which I handed him the store phone and asked if he wanted to call or if he wanted me to call. He went on for a few more seconds and then left. 

Moral of the story....for the small amount I was making an hour and for the short time I was there, I did not need the abuse, and neither did the other customers, who're being subjected to this. I offered up an apology and explaination, to which went ignored, so I escalated to asking and then telling him to leave. Had he stayed, I can assure you I would have called the police and I would not have served him. I can also say that when they arrived, I'd be willing to bet that after they heard my side of the story, that he would have been asked to leave and if he didn't, he'd have been arrested. Had this guy just been calm and listened, the incident would've probably ended sooner than later. Instead he choose, just like Gates, to create a public disturbance.


----------



## crushing

stevebjj said:


> I was with you 'til the last. He mismanaged the situation, and that's the entire issue.


 
It doesn't make sense to me that he had all of those bullet points going for him just to risk his job and throw it out the window.



stevebjj said:


> I'm sure you're aware of the same accounts I am. There's Gates' version and the police report. Somewhere in the middle is what really happened, I'm sure.


 
Once again, isn't there a great risk to a policeman's job if he were to falsify a police report?  Why would he risk throwing it all away on some disorderly jerk?  Gates misrepresents the situation (which you suggest he did) and it could mean finding a larger audience to purchase his story.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> jks, you asked in another post where people suggested that it was retaliatory.  I wish I had time to go back and find all of the quotes.  More than one person said something along the lines of, "If you give a cop a hard time, expect to end up in cuffs."  Essentially, the gist is that if you don't pay proper respect to a cop, you get what's coming to you.  While I don't doubt that this is true, I think it's reprehensible.
> 
> Ultimately, I think cops are civil servants.  Getting yelled at isn't something only cops have to endure.  Verbal and sometimes physical abuse occur in every service position, particularly any government service position.  Social Security reps, IRS reps, vet reps at the VA, and on down to the DMV and other State reps.. you name it, they take all kinds of abuse, and are expected to take the high road, deescalate situations and treat the public with respect regardless of how they're being treated.  The only difference between a cop being yelled at by a member of the public and any other government officer is that the cop has the authority to arrest you for being a jackass.
> 
> Ultimately, I think that this entire situation is symptomatic of a larger issue in this country, and that's a general apathy and unquestioning acceptance of authority.  I'm not excusing Gates' actions or justifying them in any way.  I do, however, think that we should all be able to get angry at the fuzz when they appear at your door asking to see ID.  Is it right?  Maybe not, but it's certainly nothing that should result in an arrest.  What's funny to me is that there are so many libertarians on this board and the general consensus seems to be that, yeah, if you mouth off to a cop you'll get arrested.  I honestly don't get it.  Arrested for being angry, indignant, and belligerant.  That is hogwash, and in my opinion, abuse of authority.



It seems clear from his report that Dr. Gates was not working with him, and did not want to listen to any explanation.  In his report, Sgt. Crowley says that Dr. Gates was being so loud and belligerent that the sergeant was having trouble hearing his radio and (I admit, I'm reading between the lines on this part) probably wanted some room in case things went bad.  Walking away may not have seemed a safe option; more in a moment.

Because I think that you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the job of law enforcement officer.  This post adds to my belief:



stevebjj said:


> MJS, you were writing this as I was typing my response, but this speaks exactly to my point. Short answer: yes. Anyone else would endure the verbal abuse and terminate the conversation. If you came into my office and laid into me, I'd take it to a point and remain polite. Ideally, I'd deescalate the situation and resolve the issue. If that doesn't work, I'd ask you to leave. If I had the option to leave myself, I would. And if I didn't handle the situation like this, I'd be disciplined at least, and fired at worst. This is true at all levels of government, as well as any other service position. Retail managers (who get paid very little) understand this concept well.



A law enforcement officer is a unique civil servant; every other civil servant or government official exists to either let the government do its job (all the clerks who make things move for the various people who do the work) or to provide a service to the public or body politic, ideally one that they cannot provide for themselves.  In other words, they let you do things.  They may control how or where, but they are there to enable you to do something at heart.

A LEO is different:  Their job is, very simply, to be the party pooper.  They make you STOP doing something that you want to.  LEOs make you comply with the law; they take the law and the government out to you, whether you want it or not. 

In the same way, there's an important difference between a police officer and a retail manager. When all is said and done, the retail manager can always walk away, and let someone else handle it. The cop, in the end, has to be able to impose his will on other people who aren't complying.

The cop relies on several factors to achieve this, hopefully without resorting to violence. One of those is simple compliance; people voluntarily submitting to the officer's will, whether that's to go back inside or even submitting to arrest. Compliance only works when there is a degree of respect coupled with confidence that if the people don't comply, the cops will make them comply.  As I said earlier, that means that the police have to balance walking away from a disorderly subject with the need to maintain their perceived authority.

Because, when all is said and done, the cop is the one who's job is to make someone obey the law, and bring them before the appropriate officials when they don't.

I've said before, I've been in very similar situations, many times.  Sometimes, I've let the person bluster.  Sometimes, I've walked away.  And, more than once, I've slammed the idiot to the ground and cuffed them.  In some cases, I've probably over-reacted.  In others, I *know* I under-reacted because someone else had to come along a few moments later and step things up significantly.  It's a tough balancing act.

I'm not saying that this arrest was absolutely essential.  Just because an arrest IS justified doesn't mean it's the best or wisest choice.  But I am absolutely saying that the arrest wasn't based on race, and that both sides could have handled the entire situation differently.

Sorry if this ends up reading a little disjointed...  I'm actually combining two replies that started out separate until I realized that they're really the same problem.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> I think we're on the same page for the most part here.


I agree.  I think that people are getting the impression I'm bashing the cops or defending Gates and I'm really doing neither.  I just think Crowley made a decision to stay.  I think it was a deliberate action on his part.  When the fork in the road between leaving and ending the situation or saying, "Screw that.  No way I'm going to let this uppity Harvard prof call me names" he chose to stay (note:  That was probably not exactly what Crowley's internal voice said, but is intended to be a lighthearted characterization).



> ...What is missing, afaik, from this debate, is that we don't know what was said between the parties involved.


Honestly, as long as they're just words and didn't cross over into direct, credible threats against anyone, I don't think it matters.  





> If it has been posted here, my apologies for missing it. What I'm saying is, did the cop say nothing out of line, do his best to de-escalate, etc, and when it wasn't working, made the arrest? Perhaps he was going to leave, and Gates continued on with his rant, to which the cop could have still kept walking, but seeing that Gates now crossed into the disturbance area, opted not to and instead arrest the Prof.


Exactly.  You and I see it exactly the same.  Only difference is that I believe that opting to stay was a poor decision that exacerbated the situation and caused more harm than good.





> Slightly off topic, but related nonetheless, seeing that you mentioned retail. Quite a few years ago, I, as well as my father and grandfather worked in a liquor store, that was owned by a long time family friend. I worked just on Saturdays, from 3-8. One of the regulars came in to purchase lottery tickets. He had ones to cash in as well. During the transaction, I had a feeling that there was a mistake made with the cash, but due to it being busy, continued on, and told my grandfather to make sure he counted the money to double check when he got there on Monday, and if there was an error, to fix it with the customer the next time he came in.
> 
> This happened, but apparently this pissed off the customer. IIRC, there wasn't a mistake, but better to be safe than sorry.  So, now this guy comes in to get tickets the following Sat., and proceeds to tell me how offended he was that I accused him of ripping the store off. By this time, there was quite a line building and this guy wasn't letting up. I did my best to defuse the situation and trying to justify my standpoint, as I didn't want to be accused of stealing, if there was in fact a shortage.
> 
> After quite a few minutes of this verbal abuse, I told him that he was going to have to either finish his purchase or leave the store, as I had others to tend to. He told me that I had to serve him. I told him that I did not, and to leave the store. He told me he was going to call the police, to which I handed him the store phone and asked if he wanted to call or if he wanted me to call. He went on for a few more seconds and then left.


Rare, but not unheard of.  I've been in similar situations and might have handled it a little different, although I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong.

The biggest difference here, and an option not available to you, would have been to remove yourself from the situation.   If you had the option to leave, it would have been a good one for you.  Crowley had this option, but chose not to use it.

Moral of the story....for the small amount I was making an hour and for the short time I was there, I did not need the abuse, and neither did the other customers, who're being subjected to this. I offered up an apology and explaination, to which went ignored, so I escalated to asking and then telling him to leave. Had he stayed, I can assure you I would have called the police and I would not have served him. I can also say that when they arrived, I'd be willing to bet that after they heard my side of the story, that he would have been asked to leave and if he didn't, he'd have been arrested. Had this guy just been calm and listened, the incident would've probably ended sooner than later. Instead he choose, just like Gates, to create a public disturbance.[/QUOTE]I think there are a million ways to handle the situation that wouldn't have allowed it to get this far.  The thing is, if you had the amount of training Crowley did, you might have handled it differently and should have.


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> It doesn't make sense to me that he had all of those bullet points going for him just to risk his job and throw it out the window.


How do you think he risked his job?  I'm not sure either way he was ever in danger of losing his job.  As has been stated many times, no one (certainly not me) is suggesting that the arrest was unlawful.  No one is saying that Gates wasn't acting irrationally.  I'm suggesting that Crowley should shoulder some of the responsibility for allowing the situation to escalate to the point where a non-criminal was arrested on a chicken### charge for being a jackass.





> Once again, isn't there a great risk to a policeman's job if he were to falsify a police report?  Why would he risk throwing it all away on some disorderly jerk?  Gates misrepresents the situation (which you suggest he did) and it could mean finding a larger audience to purchase his story.


What the heck are you talking about???  You've completely lost me.


----------



## jks9199

crushing said:


> It doesn't make sense to me that he had all of those bullet points going for him just to risk his job and throw it out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, isn't there a great risk to a policeman's job if he were to falsify a police report?  Why would he risk throwing it all away on some disorderly jerk?  Gates misrepresents the situation (which you suggest he did) and it could mean finding a larger audience to purchase his story.


Not only does an officer who knowingly falsifies a report jeopardize their job (and any future related job), but they also can be criminally prosecuted, and sometimes even sued in civil court, too.

Hell of a lot to put on the line over one guy, huh?


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> How do you think he risked his job?  I'm not sure either way he was ever in danger of losing his job.  As has been stated many times, no one (certainly not me) is suggesting that the arrest was unlawful.  No one is saying that Gates wasn't acting irrationally.  I'm suggesting that Crowley should shoulder some of the responsibility for allowing the situation to escalate to the point where a non-criminal was arrested on a chicken### charge for being a jackass.What the heck are you talking about???  You've completely lost me.


Sorry, but, by definition, even if it was a "*********** charge for being a jackass", Dr. Gates became a criminal the moment probable cause existed for his arrest.

I really wish that they hadn't dropped the charges, because that, in part, has fueled this tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> It seems clear from his report that Dr. Gates was not working with him, and did not want to listen to any explanation.  In his report, Sgt. Crowley says that Dr. Gates was being so loud and belligerent that the sergeant was having trouble hearing his radio and (I admit, I'm reading between the lines on this part) probably wanted some room in case things went bad.  Walking away may not have seemed a safe option; more in a moment.
> 
> Because I think that you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the job of law enforcement officer.  This post adds to my belief:
> 
> 
> 
> A law enforcement officer is a unique civil servant; every other civil servant or government official exists to either let the government do its job (all the clerks who make things move for the various people who do the work) or to provide a service to the public or body politic, ideally one that they cannot provide for themselves.  In other words, they let you do things.  They may control how or where, but they are there to enable you to do something at heart.
> 
> A LEO is different:  Their job is, very simply, to be the party pooper.  They make you STOP doing something that you want to.  LEOs make you comply with the law; they take the law and the government out to you, whether you want it or not.
> 
> In the same way, there's an important difference between a police officer and a retail manager. When all is said and done, the retail manager can always walk away, and let someone else handle it. The cop, in the end, has to be able to impose his will on other people who aren't complying.
> 
> The cop relies on several factors to achieve this, hopefully without resorting to violence. One of those is simple compliance; people voluntarily submitting to the officer's will, whether that's to go back inside or even submitting to arrest. Compliance only works when there is a degree of respect coupled with confidence that if the people don't comply, the cops will make them comply.  As I said earlier, that means that the police have to balance walking away from a disorderly subject with the need to maintain their perceived authority.
> 
> Because, when all is said and done, the cop is the one who's job is to make someone obey the law, and bring them before the appropriate officials when they don't.
> 
> I've said before, I've been in very similar situations, many times.  Sometimes, I've let the person bluster.  Sometimes, I've walked away.  And, more than once, I've slammed the idiot to the ground and cuffed them.  In some cases, I've probably over-reacted.  In others, I *know* I under-reacted because someone else had to come along a few moments later and step things up significantly.  It's a tough balancing act.
> 
> I'm not saying that this arrest was absolutely essential.  Just because an arrest IS justified doesn't mean it's the best or wisest choice.  But I am absolutely saying that the arrest wasn't based on race, and that both sides could have handled the entire situation differently.
> 
> Sorry if this ends up reading a little disjointed...  I'm actually combining two replies that started out separate until I realized that they're really the same problem.


JKS, I'm not sure I've posted anything that disagrees with any of these points you've made.  

Well, I take it back. The only thing here I might disagree with is the idea of imposing the cop's will.  When it's done for it's own sake as nothing more than a demonstration of power, I have a problem with that.  And that's what I see this as.  The catalyst for Gates tirade WAS Crowley.  Can anyone honestly suggest that this isn't clear from all accounts?  Had Crowley left, Gates would have had no one to yell at.  We're talking about an aging academic.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> Not only does an officer who knowingly falsifies a report jeopardize their job (and any future related job), but they also can be criminally prosecuted, and sometimes even sued in civil court, too.
> 
> Hell of a lot to put on the line over one guy, huh?


Jesus guys.  Who the hell suggested falsifying a report?  



> Sorry, but, by definition, even if it was a "*********** charge for being a jackass", Dr. Gates became a criminal the moment probable cause existed for his arrest.
> 
> I really wish that they hadn't dropped the charges, because that, in part, has fueled this tempest in a teapot.


BS.  By your definition, every person who gets a speeding ticket is a criminal having broken the law.  How many cops can stand up to that kind of technical scrutiny?


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.
> 
> Edit: Just in case this goes without saying, I'm not talking about situations in which there is any threat of bodily harm. I'm talking about situations like Gates': yelling, belligerance and regular, run of the mill crazy talk.


 


stevebjj said:


> I was with you 'til the last. He mismanaged the situation, and that's the entire issue.


 
Sgt. Crowley made the call after several minutes that Dr. Gates had crossed that line. Whether we like it or not, that is the officer's call. Easy way to avoid it? Don't act like a jack ***. LOL

:deadhorse  :deadhorse  :deadhorse 
*The primary difference is Sgt. Crowley was legally justified in his actions and Dr. Gates was not*.


----------



## Steve

Alright guys.  While I don't think my position is far removed from anyone else's, nor do I believe it's extreme, I understand that you guys want to vindicate the cop.  I get it.  He's a paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach.  I understand.  I'll let it go.


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> Alright guys. While I don't think my position is far removed from anyone else's, nor do I believe it's extreme, I understand that you guys want to vindicate the cop. I get it. *He's a paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach. *I understand. I'll let it go.


 
Not at all! 

Is it possible he crossed the line? Perhaps, but where's the evidence? 

All the evidence I've seen points to Dr. Gates acting like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum. 

From everything that's been reported it shows that Dr. Gates actions fit the bill when it came to what is considered "disorderly conduct." 

Cops don't have to write you a ticket for speeding, but they can once they pull you over or they can let you off with a warning. 

Sgt. Crowley didn't necessarily have to arrest Dr. Gates either, but Dr. Gates was "speeding" and he got a "ticket." 

That's my point. I don't deny yours that he could have let it go. I doubt that it would have done anything to quell the national attention it got though, simply because Dr. Gates is friends with Obama.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Omar B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mate, I would not "love to believe you are a member of the black panther movement". In fact I would love to believe that the vicious, hateful black panther movement did not exist at all. I feel the same way about any hateful group that relies on violence and intimidation to further its agenda. I don't believe for one second that you would belong to such a group. I do believe however, that race IS a factor in your decision to support Gates, because of comments you have made on another thread. There is no contesting that Gates' arrest was legal and justifiable. Gates and Obama based their opinions on Gates' arrest on racial motives and I firmly believe that anyone else that harbours the same opinions in someway is racially motivated. If you can't handle that TOUGH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you wish man, I told you my bit and that's it.  I've lived all over the world and race has never been an issue till I moved to the US at 16.  For some reason this country is more fixated on race and skin color than anywhere else I've grown up.  I'm Indian, my wife is French, I've lived in 8 countries including Jamaica, Brazil, Burma, Austria, and I've never seen a society where race is this much of an issue.
> 
> As I said before and you don't seem to hear, I don't think the old man should have gotten arrested, he could have gotten a warning.
Click to expand...


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> Alright guys.  While I don't think my position is far removed from anyone else's, nor do I believe it's extreme, I understand that you guys want to vindicate the cop.  I get it.  He's a paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach.  I understand.  I'll let it go.



You understand nothing, then.  The 'cop' did not exceed his authority of violate the law.....lets say for the sake of argument, however, that he 'shouldn't' have arrested Gates.......the officer is STILL not a racist, nor his actions the result of racial bias.

Gates, on the other hand, is a RACIST no matter how one spins the case, and by proxy, The President of the United States' position is inherently a racist and biased on.......regardless of what we conclude about Crowley's actions.......zero racial bias on Crowley's part, MUCH racial bias by Gates and Obama.

Moreover, Obama's abuse of power far exceeds anything that happened at Gates' house.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Omar B said:


> As I said before and you don't seem to hear, I don't think the old man should have gotten arrested, he could have gotten a warning.


 The problem is that you weren't there, nor remotely know exactly what happened......you've read accounts of it, but it's never the same as being there.  Hence, the conclusion 'I would have done something different' holds little weight.


----------



## sgtmac_46

celtic_crippler said:


> Not at all!
> 
> Is it possible he crossed the line? Perhaps, but where's the evidence?
> 
> All the evidence I've seen points to Dr. Gates acting like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum.
> 
> From everything that's been reported it shows that Dr. Gates actions fit the bill when it came to what is considered "disorderly conduct."
> 
> Cops don't have to write you a ticket for speeding, but they can once they pull you over or they can let you off with a warning.
> 
> Sgt. Crowley didn't necessarily have to arrest Dr. Gates either, but Dr. Gates was "speeding" and he got a "ticket."
> 
> That's my point. I don't deny yours that he could have let it go. I doubt that it would have done anything to quell the national attention it got though, simply because Dr. Gates is friends with Obama.



Absolutely correct!  An officer doesn't have to PROVE that he could not have POSSIBLY taken any other course of action other than rest........the only REAL questions are these, when discussing his behavior.

1) Did he have probable cause to believe a crime was being committed?  All indications show that Gates behavior rose to the level of the statute pertaining to peace disturbance.

2) Did he have the lawful authority to make an arrest?  See one.

The argument that 'He didn't have to make arrest' is utterly irrelevant......did he have the LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for an arrest?  The obvious answer is YES!


It's not my intent to PROVE that Sgt. Crowley was a "paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach".......but, only rather, that his ACTIONS were OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE........and that Gates' most certainly weren't objectively reasonable.


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.
> 
> Edit:  Just in case this goes without saying, I'm not talking about situations in which there is any threat of bodily harm.  I'm talking about situations like Gates': yelling, belligerance and regular, run of the mill crazy talk.



Every business i'm familiar with will call the police for this type of disturbance immediately........perhaps your town's businesses are more tolerant of adult temper tantrums......results may vary.


----------



## sgtmac_46

yorkshirelad said:


> If Obama had just stood by his friend, I would grant him some leeway, but he went further than this. He started going on about how black people had been abused by law enforcement in the past and that is unacceptable in my opinion.



EXACTLY!  A 'Gates is a good friend of mine, I know the man, I think he's a good man, but I can't comment on this case as I know little about it, but I support him as a friend'........THAT would have been commendable........NOT the racist diatribe he launched in to in insinuating that the incident was because of racist cops.


----------



## sgtmac_46

dnovice said:


> Feeling that you are being picked on because of who you are "whether you are black, white, hispanic can make you very irate. If you are going to racial profile (which is not necessarily racism) then you must expect the angry backlash that you will get from some innocent people, and handle it. A whole sgt couldn't do that. That saddens me.



I suspect that folks fall on either side of this debate based on whether they personally can identify with having a raging case of persecution complex or not.......those of us who can't really identify with the justification that you can act like a 3 year old because you automatically jump to the conclusion you're being persecuted at the drop of the hat don't side with Gates......other folks seem to feel that's a perfectly legitimate position to take.  It's actually pretty interesting.

Silly me, I expect a Harvard Professor to act like an adult.....THAT saddens me........Lets not even GET in to the joke of a POTUS.


----------



## sgtmac_46

There are folks who FIXATED on focusing solely on this officer, and make the issue purely about him.......but there are THREE people in this incident, and THREE issues.

1) Gates' behavior.
2) Sgt. Crowley's decision to arrest based on that behavior.
3) Obama's response to a local incident.

Attacking Crowley does NOTHING to deal with the other two separate issues........but some hope that if they squeal loudly enough about the Poh-Lice they can drown out the discussion of the REAL national issue involved here.........the VERY INSTRUCTIONAL teaching moment about the Character (or lack thereof) of our President!

Sgt. Crowley's actions don't effect the American people........so even if his judgment was poor, it's a local phenomenon.

Gate's actions don't directly effect the American people........so even if HIS judgment was poor, it's a local phenomenon.

Barack Obama is the MOST POWERFUL MAN on the PLANET......HIS actions effect not only America, but the WORLD........so if HIS judgment is poor, and he is strongly biased, as appears to be the case, that fact bodes VERY ILL for all of us!


----------



## jks9199

sgtmac_46 said:


> Every business i'm familiar with will call the police for this type of disturbance immediately........perhaps your town's businesses are more tolerant of adult temper tantrums......results may vary.


I can't tell you how many of them I've responded too...

We've got one restaurant in town that I seldom eat at (despite very good food) because we get too much drama with the owner...


----------



## Steve

sgtmac_46 said:


> You understand nothing, then. The 'cop' did not exceed his authority of violate the law.....lets say for the sake of argument, however, that he 'shouldn't' have arrested Gates.......the officer is STILL not a racist, nor his actions the result of racial bias.


Sigh... never said he was a racist.  I also never said he "exceeded" his authority.  I said that, in my opinion, he abused his authority.  There is a difference.





> Gates, on the other hand, is a RACIST no matter how one spins the case, and by proxy, The President of the United States' position is inherently a racist and biased on.......regardless of what we conclude about Crowley's actions.......zero racial bias on Crowley's part, MUCH racial bias by Gates and Obama.


I don't disagree.  





> Moreover, Obama's abuse of power far exceeds anything that happened at Gates' house.


I'm not sure I agree that Obama abused authority, but I do agree he mishandled the situation.  He acted stupidly.  Now, had he used his influence to get the cop suspended, that would have been an abuse of his power.  But he didn't.  He didn't really *do* anything beyond say something he shouldn't have.   


sgtmac_46 said:


> It's not my intent to PROVE that Sgt. Crowley was a "paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach".......but, only rather, that his ACTIONS were OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE........and that Gates' most certainly weren't objectively reasonable.


To the extent that Crowley, by not leaving once his work there was done, actually contributed to the situation, his actions were wrong.   


sgtmac_46 said:


> Every business i'm familiar with will call the police for this type of disturbance immediately........perhaps your town's businesses are more tolerant of adult temper tantrums......results may vary.


Be that as it may, if you were to ask the manager of every retail outlet in your local mall (presuming they're aware of their corporate policy... which isn't a given), they will tell you that they are required to call their corporate LP officer BEFORE calling the police or in most cases even mall security.  This is often the case even in situations where they see someone walk out of the store with product.   


sgtmac_46 said:


> There are folks who FIXATED on focusing solely on this officer, and make the issue purely about him.......but there are THREE people in this incident, and THREE issues.
> 
> 1) Gates' behavior.
> 2) Sgt. Crowley's decision to arrest based on that behavior.
> 3) Obama's response to a local incident.
> 
> Attacking Crowley does NOTHING to deal with the other two separate issues........but some hope that if they squeal loudly enough about the Poh-Lice they can drown out the discussion of the REAL national issue involved here.........the VERY INSTRUCTIONAL teaching moment about the Character (or lack thereof) of our President!


Honestly, I'm only discussing Crowley's actions because largely I agree with everyone's take on both Gates' and Obama's actions.  I'm "fixated" on Crowley simply because everyone else seems to want to paint this as a situation engineered entirely by Gates' poor behavior.  I'm suggesting that Crowley is AS culpable in creating the situation as Gates, and that because he is presumably a well trained authority figure, he could have (should have) defused the situation.  





> Sgt. Crowley's actions don't effect the American people........so even if his judgment was poor, it's a local phenomenon.
> 
> Gate's actions don't directly effect the American people........so even if HIS judgment was poor, it's a local phenomenon.
> 
> Barack Obama is the MOST POWERFUL MAN on the PLANET......HIS actions effect not only America, but the WORLD........so if HIS judgment is poor, and he is strongly biased, as appears to be the case, that fact bodes VERY ILL for all of us!


Okay.  Now you're going out into left field a little.  If Bush's mouth didn't cause the apocalypse, I'm pretty sure that Obama saying something stupid won't either.  



jks9199 said:


> I can't tell you how many of them I've responded too...
> 
> We've got one restaurant in town that I seldom eat at (despite very good food) because we get too much drama with the owner...


You guys are giving me a headache.   Of course they happen.  People will call the cops.  People call 911 when the burger king guy messes up their order. 

That doesn't change the situation.  As I said, most corporate retail outlets have procedures.  Not everyone knows them... not everyone follows them.  Most companies have a policy that the employees are not "allowed" to call the cops unless they have first called their LP rep.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Omar B said:


> yorkshirelad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you wish man, I told you my bit and that's it. I've lived all over the world and race has never been an issue till I moved to the US at 16. For some reason this country is more fixated on race and skin color than anywhere else I've grown up. I'm Indian, my wife is French, I've lived in 8 countries including Jamaica, Brazil, Burma, Austria, and I've never seen a society where race is this much of an issue.
> As I said before and you don't seem to hear, I don't think the old man should have gotten arrested, he could have gotten a warning.
> 
> 
> 
> At last you concede that race IS an issue in determining your opinion. I agree that in the US race is more polarizing and controversial than in any other country that I've been to. I think that this is because people of the US are desperate to cling to some kind of racial identity. Some people believe that this is a good thing. They believe that the US is rich and diverse in culture, but there is a problem with the situation.
> 
> I have a couple of friends, aquaintances really, from Kenya. They came here to make better lives for themselves and joined the Navy. They are both proud of the fact that they are serving the US and hope to gain citizenship through service. I was chatting with them in a bar several years ago, when a small gang of women approached us. They asked the usual questions, Where are you from? How long have you been here? Then one of them asked one of the fellas "So you're a real African American?" He looked bemused and replied "No, I'm African and hope to someday become an American." This endeered me to him. I thought to myself, here comes a guy from Africa who wants to work hard and serve the US and all he wants in return is to become an American.
> 
> I feel the same way. I can't wait for the time that I hand over my British passport and I am sworn in as an American. Not an Anglo American or an Irish American, but an American.
> 
> I worked in an Irish bar slinging drinks for a while and one of the customers said "Where are you from?" I said "England". The guy went into a diatribe about an Englishman working in an Irish bar. I asked the guy where he was from "New York". I asked him when the last time he went to Ireland was. "Never". I shook my head and walked away. The guy is maybe 4th generation Irish and still considers himself Irish American. My mother and father are Irish as were all my grandparents and I lived there for 7 years and yet I am English, because I was born in England.
> 
> Race IS an issue in general but this is as much a fault of blacks as it is whites. Why not just drop the African, Irish, Italian and any other prefixes that attached to the word American and start accepting others for what they are PEOPLE.
> 
> If Gates had accepted the cop as a cop doing his job there would'nt of been an issue, but he didn't he descriminated against his colour BLUE.
Click to expand...


----------



## blindsage

Regardless of how out of line Professor Gates may have been, calling him a racist indicates a complete lack of understanding of the issues of race in this country.


----------



## blindsage

yorkshirelad said:


> Race IS an issue in general but this is as much a fault of blacks as it is whites. Why not just drop the African, Irish, Italian and any other prefixes that attached to the word American and start accepting others for what they are PEOPLE.


Go back to your history books and maybe you'll figure out why the prefixes exist.  I've never had a problem being accepted by any of those groups as a PERSON (despite being a poor oppressed white male).


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> Regardless of how out of line Professor Gates may have been, calling him a racist indicates a complete lack of understanding of the issues of race in this country.


HE injected race into the debateand please don't give me some tribe about the impossiblity of blacks to be racist. Gates is a racebater and the only prejudice the cop has is a prejudice against *******s.


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> Go back to your history books and maybe you'll figure out why the prefixes exist. I've never had a problem being accepted by any of those groups as a PERSON (despite being a poor oppressed white male).


I know why the prefixes exist, I just think they don't have to. Tou may not have had a problem with any of those groups, but go to England and walk your white *** around Harehills or Chapeltown in Leeds and you will have a problem. Chapeltown is a notorious "no go area" aptly named because the cops won't go there.

Now as we are refering to the US, I'm sure if you were to go to certain urban areas of LA or maybe New York, then you will have a problem as your white **** would stick out like a blind coblers thumb. Just think about it.


----------



## jks9199

blindsage said:


> Regardless of how out of line Professor Gates may have been, calling him a racist indicates a complete lack of understanding of the issues of race in this country.


Why?

Does it reasonably appear that he shaped the encounter by his perception that it was based on race, and that a white cop was only challenging him because of his race?  Were his perceptions based on a racially-derived stereotype?  (For that matter, have you read any of the posts on his website, TheRoot.com?)

Or are you suggesting that a black man can't be racially prejudiced?


----------



## Archangel M

The whole "I object to not being able to question authority" thing....

I think it shows an ignorance of law enforcement and what they can and cant legally do. Sure you CAN question authority. You can also stick your finger in a light socket, take pot shots at the white house with an AK, jump from a plane without a chute etc....nothing stopping you. Just know what the possible consequences are going to be.

Look its not about just knuckling under to authority, its about the REASON the cop is giving you orders. When a cop tells you what to do there are a few possible reasons for it...if he is making contact with you of his own accord, as in just walking up to you in the street and asking you questions, you can choose to not do as he tells you and there is little to no legal authority for him do do anything about it. If the cop is stopping you because you match the description of a robbery suspect, are in a house that has been reported to have been broken into, have been stopped for speeding, were just seen stabbing a guy on the street, and you decide to be a Gates sized *** with him...well you chose to not "respect his authority", so be prepared for the consequences because he certainly has the authority...even duty to MAKE you comply with his demands..."respect" them or not.

The real question is "do you really know why this cop is talking to you?" Are you going to roll the dice thinking that he has no reason to be detaining you? Because even if you are in fact not the suspect he is looking for you can still be subject to arrest if you become a big enough ***. It depends on if the cop has reasonable cause to believe that you were the suspect...do you know what HE thinks? THAT is why the advice to be co-operative at the moment of contact is very reasonable.


----------



## Omar B

yorkshirelad said:


> Omar B said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you concede that race IS an issue in determining your opinion. I agree that in the US race is more polarizing and controversial than in any other country that I've been to. I think that this is because people of the US are desperate to cling to some kind of racial identity. Some people believe that this is a good thing. They believe that the US is rich and diverse in culture, but there is a problem with the situation.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are magically finding things in my post I did not say yet again.  I did not say race was a determining issue in anything.  Unless you missed the point, I was saying that I've never seen a people more concerned with race than here in the US.
Click to expand...


----------



## Carol

Omar B said:


> I think you are magically finding things in my post I did not say yet again.  I did not say race was a determining issue in anything.  Unless you missed the point, I was saying that I've never seen a people more concerned with race than here in the US.



The U.S. is concerned about race, because we have a statistically significant representation of many different races.  Other countries also have different dividing lines.

India and other countries in that part of the world, while diverse in their own ways, do not have a populace that is racially and ethnically diverse as the United States.  Instead, India draws their dividing lines on religion, to the point where their constitution specifically describes rights and responsibilities in their constitution.  And if there is a religion that isn't defined in the constitution, such as Sikhism, then those folks are classified at the will of the government (Sikhs, for example, are considered to be Hindu under the constitution).   From what I understand, India also has some affirmative-action style of processes for people that are from lower-class families Other countries are Muslim states with Shari'a law.


There is France, who is often accused of social and governmental practices that are so intolerant they are often accused of institutionalizing racism.  There is Japan which is also very intolerant of people from other nations.  

Then there was South Africa and that whole apartheid thing, but I'd rather not go there...


----------



## blindsage

yorkshirelad said:


> HE injected race into the debateand please don't give me some tribe about the impossiblity of blacks to be racist. Gates is a racebater and the only prejudice the cop has is a prejudice against *******s.


I never said blacks couldn't be racist, and I never said the cop was prejudice. Your assumptions are getting the better of you.


----------



## dnovice

Big Don said:


> That Gates supposedly felt he was being picked on because of his race is silly, and, not the fault of the cops.


 
It is not silly at all. It's based on his experiences in life. If he's been pulled over a lot because he looks suspicious its annoying. If a cop comes up to your house questioning you, the underlying conclusion is that you do not look like you own the place. That is what can be deferred from that kind of questioning even if that was not the cops intention.


----------



## dnovice

Carol Kaur said:


> Professor Gates was on university property.
> 
> He is the tenant, Harvard University is the landlord. I believe the university owns all of the residences on Ware street.


 
Right. But as a tenant you are contracted rights to the property up to a large extent for an amount of time


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> The whole "I object to not being able to question authority" thing....


Oh boy.  I can't wait to hear this one.  So, you're suggesting that we never question authority? 





> I think it shows an ignorance of law enforcement and what they can and cant legally do.


NO!  I have never argued the legality of Sgt. Crowley's actions.  Come on, dude.  Work with the drug!  





> Sure you CAN question authority. You can also stick your finger in a light socket, take pot shots at the white house with an AK, jump from a plane without a chute etc....nothing stopping you. Just know what the possible consequences are going to be.


So, let me get this straight.  You're comparing any act of defiance to authority as 1: suicide by electrocution 2: suicide by secret service 3: suicide by... well, squish.   So, you're arguing that one should never question the actions of an officer of the law because it's... suicide?  Really?  That's the argument you're making.   What a ridiculous thing to say.  Because cops never break the law or do anything wrong.  Because nothing bad has ever happened in situations where people obey authority figures unquestioningly.   

But more to the point of this thread, I'm suggesting that the cops should be held accountable for their role in engineering a situation.  Put it this way (if you'll forgive an analogy).  A guy gets rear ended in his car; it's the other guys fault.  A guy gets rear ended 10 times in a year... maybe he's doing something to put himself in situations where he's getting rear ended.  Even though, technically, it's the other guys fault, at some point the insurance company starts to go, "Hmmm."  





> Look its not about just knuckling under to authority, its about the REASON the cop is giving you orders.


So, okay, without quoting the rest of your post (which I tried to read carefully to make sure I understand it), you seem to be going off on a tangent about whether or not people can ignore an officer of the law.  I don't think anyone but you has suggested doing so.

What we're talking about is whether an officer of the law should take responsibility for contributing to a situation in which he lost control and ultimately arrested someone who had otherwise broken no laws.  Or to say it another way, Crowley was as much a part of creating the situation as Gates.  Had Crowley left once he realized there was no crime committed, there would be news story.  It's not as though Gates was experiencing a psychotic break and his actions were unpredictable.


----------



## Archangel M

At the bottom of all this is the question..who REALLY injected race into this situation? "Impressions" and all aside...who decided to ramp this all up on the basis of race with no proof or even reason to believe based on the situation that it was even a factor? 

I don't think it was the cop.


----------



## blindsage

yorkshirelad said:


> I know why the prefixes exist, I just think they don't have to.


Do you know why the prefixes exist?  These groups didn't come here and asks to be treated differently so they could keep ties to their ethnic backgrounds.  Their 'different' ethnic identities were socially and institutionally imposed on them for a couple hundred years.  But you'll just brush that off like it has no meaning, doesn't happen today, and people should just 'get over it' right?  



> Now as we are refering to the US, I'm sure if you were to go to certain urban areas of LA or maybe New York, then you will have a problem as your white **** would stick out like a blind coblers thumb. Just think about it.


Well, since I've lived in both L.A. and NY I actually know exactly what it's like, I don't have to imagine.  Yup, there's dangerous parts to be white in, gosh those darn racists minorities.  Their just out to get me because I'm different from them and white.  It's all their fault, there's no context or history that's created that situation.   I'm so angry at the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers and the Latin Kings and the Crips for all the oppression and violence I've experienced at their hands.


----------



## Archangel M

Steve..without getting all silly with you. In the end, what do you think being an *** with the cop "just because you can" is going to really accomplish on the street? Dont be ridiculous of course Im not saying that "questioning the cop on the scene is tantamount to suicide"...what Im saying is that you sure CAN if you want to but if that cop has a legal reason to to what he is doing you are certainly going to wind up on the short end of the stick. Even if you have a "rouge cop" on your hands, is acting like Gates going to really change the outcome to your advantage? Go ahead and "question autrhority" all ya want...its the American way...just do it smartly.


----------



## Carol

dnovice said:


> Right. But as a tenant you are contracted rights to the property up to a large extent for an amount of time



Oh absolutely!  The Ware street house is his home, and he has just as much rights to it as I have to my own apartment.  (Sorry, the engineer in me occasionally gets stuck on persnickety details ) 

But, whether renter or homeowner, its still possible to run afoul of the law if you cause too much of a ruckus.


----------



## dnovice

Archangel M said:


> He did "walk away" though. And Gates followed him out yelling and screaming...in front of other people watching from the street...that was the basis for arrest. You (a cop) typically cant charge DisCon if you are the only person being "offended" (cops cant be "offended" for DC)..there either has to be people witnessing or the behaivor is excessively loud during times that quiet is expected (if you are yelling and screaming at 2am..waking up the neighbors).


 
Right. You mention some good points. Still, he could have continued into his car and driven off... As a cop, he should know the effect his questioning had on Gates and acted appropriately.


----------



## blindsage

jks9199 said:


> Why?
> 
> Does it reasonably appear that he shaped the encounter by his perception that it was based on race, and that a white cop was only challenging him because of his race? Were his perceptions based on a racially-derived stereotype? (For that matter, have you read any of the posts on his website, TheRoot.com?)


Since much of the black experience in this country is defined by race and always has been, it's not suprising that he might perceive this situation through that lens. I have read his posts on the Root, I was the one who originally posted links to it on here. None of it would bring me to the conclusion that he is racist against white people. Maybe overreacting, and completely misinterpreting the situation because of the society we live in, but I wouldn't call it racist no. 



> Or are you suggesting that a black man can't be racially prejudiced?


Ummm....no.


----------



## Archangel M

dnovice said:


> Right. You mention some good points. Still, he could have continued into his car and driven off... As a cop, he should know the effect his questioning had on Gates and acted appropriately.



I would like to think I would have..but combining the fact of me being "pissed off" with the ability to make a legal arrest...who knows? I fortunately wasnt involved in this fracas.


----------



## blindsage

Archangel M said:


> At the bottom of all this is the question..who REALLY injected race into this situation? "Impressions" and all aside...who decided to ramp this all up on the basis of race with no proof or even reason to believe based on the situation that it was even a factor?
> 
> I don't think it was the cop.


The surface answer is, of course, Gates. That's the answer your looking for right? But you say with no proof, granted, and no reason to believe that it was even a factor, so you assume. The black experience in this country in relation to law enforcement has a long, dubious and at times disturbing history, not acknowledging that, regardless of whether Professor Gates actions were good, smart or correct, is disingenuous at best. You don't have any idea if Professor Gates had a reason to believe that race was a factor since you have no idea what his experience with law enforcement is.


----------



## Archangel M

I cant control what people "believe"...I work with facts and evidence. It's way to easy to excuse unreasonable behavior with no evidence of impropriety. I believe thats what the term "dropping the race card" means.


----------



## blindsage

You work with facts and evidence, and large doses of assumption. You call his reaction unreasonable, without knowing anything about his experience with law enforcement. I'm not excusing whatever behavior of his may be inappropriate, but I'm also not pretending we don't have significant issues with race and law enforcement in this country, which evidently has contributed to this situation in one form or another. It doesn't excuse any transgression on Professor Gates behalf, or make officer Crowley guilty of any racist behavior, but it doesn shed light on the reality of the situation whether you want to acknowledge it or just keep the blinders on.


----------



## dnovice

Archangel M said:


> I cant control what people "believe"...I work with facts and evidence. It's way to easy to excuse unreasonable behavior with no evidence of impropriety. I believe thats what the term "dropping the race card" means.


 
And from experience I hope... since nothing goes exactly according to text book. 

As for dropping the race card... that is hard to do. Its not easy to understand unless you've had similar experiences. Would it be easy for you to ignorepeople treating you as a second class citizen? Sure, the race card is abused but after being pulled over numerous times for cops to see if your car truly is yours, or if you have been followed in stores because you don't like you belong throughout your life, you start to see things through a racial lens. These lens are hard to discard. As such I would't say drop the race card, I'd rather say minimize the using race card.


----------



## dnovice

Archangel M said:


> I would like to think I would have..but combining the fact of me being "pissed off" with the ability to make a legal arrest...who knows? I fortunately wasnt involved in this fracas.


 
If you combine anger and power you get a result based on ego


----------



## Archangel M

dnovice said:


> If you combine anger and power you get a result based on ego



Again...If the arrest is legal the rest is opinion and really doesn't matter. If I pull you over and was initially going to let you go, but you started acting like an *** so I decided to write you a ticket..would that have been "wrong"...would it have been "improper"...would it have been "illegal"?


----------



## Empty Hands

blindsage said:


> Well, since I've lived in both L.A. and NY I actually know exactly what it's like, I don't have to imagine.  Yup, there's dangerous parts to be white in, gosh those darn racists minorities.



There's no safer person in Compton than a white person.  The gangs know you aren't a member...and don't want to shoot their customers.  The independents don't want to bring the heat down on them.  

Most of the crime victims in the "bad areas" are the residents - the minorities.


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> I never said blacks couldn't be racist, and I never said the cop was prejudice. Your assumptions are getting the better of you.


You say this and yet tell me that calling Gates racist shows a lack of understanding on my part. You're just ASSUMING that Gates isn't a racist, or at least a race bater. I'm calling Gates a racist because he was offended at the gaul of a WHITE officer, doing his job. He's a racist and by that token so is Obama.

My assumptions are not at all getting the better of me. YOU are a leftist and it is the MO of leftists to express a sympathy for Blacks and other minorities who express racial bigotry, while calling foul on any LEO who has the audacity to do his job, which in this case he was justified in doing. 

I am not ASSUMING anything, I am responding to your crazy ASSUMPTION that Gates cannot be a racist.


----------



## Big Don

blindsage said:


> Regardless of how out of line Professor Gates may have been, calling him a racist indicates a complete lack of understanding of the issues of race in this country.


Because black people are incapable of racism? Ha. That's a good one.


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> What we're talking about is whether an officer of the law should take responsibility for contributing to a situation in which he lost control and ultimately arrested someone who had otherwise broken no laws. quote]
> 
> Losing control would be tazing the guy or punching him in the face or bashing him on the head with his truncheon. Crowley JUSTIFIABLY arrested this idiot. As far as I'm concerned Gates lost control and Crowley controlled the situation.


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> Well, since I've lived in both L.A. and NY I actually know exactly what it's like, I don't have to imagine. Yup, there's dangerous parts to be white in, gosh those darn racists minorities. Their just out to get me because I'm different from them and white. It's all their fault, there's no context or history that's created that situation. I'm so angry at the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers and the Latin Kings and the Crips for all the oppression and violence I've experienced at their hands.


Well aren't you the regular Hemingway, off on all your little adventures. As you say there are places where it IS dangerous to be white. I suppose those whites who do get their heads kicked in by the poor minorities should just understand that its their own fault, for being white and that instead of being angry they should just accept that the poor minorities are angry.


----------



## yorkshirelad

dnovice said:


> If you combine anger and power you get a result based on ego


You're right, Gates was angry at being asked for id by a cop just doing his job and and the power associated with being an esteemed professor and a friend of Obama lead to a major ego trip.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> There's no safer person in Compton than a white person. The gangs know you aren't a member...and don't want to shoot their customers. The independents don't want to bring the heat down on them.
> 
> Most of the crime victims in the "bad areas" are the residents - the minorities.


Oh Empty, I'll gladly drop you off in urban LA, in an area of my choosing and when I see you again, listen to your happy stories of the friendships you made. Let's do it.....please.


----------



## jks9199

blindsage said:


> You work with facts and evidence, and large doses of assumption. You call his reaction unreasonable, without knowing anything about his experience with law enforcement. I'm not excusing whatever behavior of his may be inappropriate, but I'm also not pretending we don't have significant issues with race and law enforcement in this country, which evidently has contributed to this situation in one form or another. It doesn't excuse any transgression on Professor Gates behalf, or make officer Crowley guilty of any racist behavior, but it doesn shed light on the reality of the situation whether you want to acknowledge it or just keep the blinders on.


I don't care about his experience.

Of the fights in my career, most of them have involved blacks.  All but one of the others involved Hispanics.  (Many of the ones involving blacks also involved the same family.)

Should I deal with every black person I deal with through that perspective?  Or should I be expected to take each one as an individual, and shape my actions accordingly?

Sorry, everything points to Dr. Gates being way out of line here.  I don't know if he was tired from traveling, irritated, or arrested 80 times for invented offenses, and I don't care.  He crossed the line, and faced the consequences.  Except he didn't face the consequences.  Most of us would still have a court date; what happened there would be up to the judge and the prosecutor.


----------



## Carol

dnovice said:


> And from experience I hope... since nothing goes exactly according to text book.
> 
> As for dropping the race card... that is hard to do. Its not easy to understand unless you've had similar experiences. Would it be easy for you to ignorepeople treating you as a second class citizen? Sure, the race card is abused but after being pulled over numerous times for cops to see if your car truly is yours, or if you have been followed in stores because you don't like you belong throughout your life, you start to see things through a racial lens. These lens are hard to discard. As such I would't say drop the race card, I'd rather say minimize the using race card.



One can't ignore something like that.  

As a person that used to be very orthodox in my faith, I used to wear a turban or some sort of religious headdress on my head every time I was in public.  I know what it is like to - literally overnight - take on the visage of one of the most despised stereotypes in America.  

I was in the NYC area over 9/11.  My boss and I were doing an installation at a large company.  I saw hate in the eyes of some of the travelers that were stranded at the hotel with me because we couldn't go home.  I saw it in the eyes of the people on the Amtrak train driving through the still-smoldering NYC to Boston, the departure point of the two planes that bombed the twin towers.  I got home to the condo I was in the process of losing in my divorce around midday on the 12th.  I was pretty shaken from all the events and just put on the TV and vegged out.   That provided no escape.  Shortly after I tuned in, I watched a good friend and brother in faith arrested on an Amtrak train in Providence.  To add to the stereotype, one of the cable news networks showed the picture of my friend (as seen on the link) alongside a picture of Osama Bin Laden.

Work didn't stop. I got plenty of ugly looks flying to NYC, I got just as many flying to Montreal, which required flying out of the international wing at Logan Airport.  I instantly became the person "randomly selected" to have my luggage dug through or whatever.  Flying down south was arguably worse. The TSA and airline people in BOS, NYC, and MTL at least tried to act professionally.  In Norfolk or Raleigh it was usually an unwavering stare accompanied by "Alllllllllright, now you jes' step over here so we can (fill in the blank)"

In December of 2001, someone in Norfolk even sent a female TSA agent to the boarding area to give me a second pat down and wanding before I got on the plane.  She kept testing her metal detector wand with her keys to ensure it worked, she seemed convinced that I was up to no good.  A few minutes before we were supposed to close up and take off, the Norfolk Police boarded the plane, looking for me.  I was to come off the plane, with my bags.  I can only imagine the people on board were frightened by what they saw.  (I wasn't in trouble.  The officers had come to get me because my father had just died.) 

I didn't have any serious run-ins with law enforcement.  I know many other Sikhs that did, including my ex who had a terrible run-in with the U.S. Secret Service at a large, public U.S. Department of Homeland Security event.  (My ex was a DHS employee, with a security clearance, with DHS ID around his neck, working the event).   Another friend went to do some routine immigration paperwork, and met up with a overzealous DHS officer that commented on my friend's turban and dug deeply in to his records.  The officer discovered a technicality in my friend's visa processing.  My friend was thrown in to federal prison.  He was there for while lawyers traced the liability to a mistake by an immigration attorney in Chicago.   It took 3 or 4 months for the charges to be dropped and my friend freed.

I don't think I can turn a blind eye to misunderstandings or even overly aggressive actions because of ethnic appearance.  But my own thoughts echo that of SALDEF and other organizations that have come to the aid of American Sikhs in crisis - the answers can be found in education, documentation, and follow up through the proper channels....not in fighting (literally or figuratively) with law enforcement.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> I agree. I think that people are getting the impression I'm bashing the cops or defending Gates and I'm really doing neither. I just think Crowley made a decision to stay. I think it was a deliberate action on his part. When the fork in the road between leaving and ending the situation or saying, "Screw that. No way I'm going to let this uppity Harvard prof call me names" he chose to stay (note: That was probably not exactly what Crowley's internal voice said, but is intended to be a lighthearted characterization).
> 
> Honestly, as long as they're just words and didn't cross over into direct, credible threats against anyone, I don't think it matters. Exactly. You and I see it exactly the same. Only difference is that I believe that opting to stay was a poor decision that exacerbated the situation and caused more harm than good.Rare, but not unheard of. I've been in similar situations and might have handled it a little different, although I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong.


 
I don't know...I still think that if we knew what was said, it may shine a brighter light on this.  I mean, lets say Gates made threats of violence towards Crowley.  I mean, we can 'what if' this all day, but assuming there was, I'd think that if given the choice between walking and acting, if threats were made, acting would and should prevail.  I guess the next question is...was Crowley obligated to walk away?  



> The biggest difference here, and an option not available to you, would have been to remove yourself from the situation. If you had the option to leave, it would have been a good one for you. Crowley had this option, but chose not to use it.
> 
> Moral of the story....for the small amount I was making an hour and for the short time I was there, I did not need the abuse, and neither did the other customers, who're being subjected to this. I offered up an apology and explaination, to which went ignored, so I escalated to asking and then telling him to leave. Had he stayed, I can assure you I would have called the police and I would not have served him. I can also say that when they arrived, I'd be willing to bet that after they heard my side of the story, that he would have been asked to leave and if he didn't, he'd have been arrested. Had this guy just been calm and listened, the incident would've probably ended sooner than later. Instead he choose, just like Gates, to create a public disturbance.


I think there are a million ways to handle the situation that wouldn't have allowed it to get this far. The thing is, if you had the amount of training Crowley did, you might have handled it differently and should have.[/quote]

Thats correct, I couldn't leave, even if I wanted to.  Seeing that this guy I dealt with was a regular to the store, I was hoping that things would have ended after my grandfather spoke to him.  Apparently he felt the need to address it again with me, which is fine of course, however, his choice of words and actions that he picked, in a nutshell, sucked.  Had he calmed down, stepped aside, kept his cakehole shut for a few and let the other customers leave, I'd have been happy to explain in more detail.  Then again, perhaps it was a good thing that there were others there.  In the event the police were called, I had quite a few witnesses.


----------



## MJS

celtic_crippler said:


> Sgt. Crowley made the call after several minutes that Dr. Gates had crossed that line. Whether we like it or not, that is the officer's call. Easy way to avoid it? Don't act like a jack ***. LOL
> 
> :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse
> *The primary difference is Sgt. Crowley was legally justified in his actions and Dr. Gates was not*.


 


stevebjj said:


> Alright guys. While I don't think my position is far removed from anyone else's, nor do I believe it's extreme, I understand that you guys want to vindicate the cop. I get it. He's a paragon of human virtue and beyond reproach. I understand. I'll let it go.


 


celtic_crippler said:


> Not at all!
> 
> Is it possible he crossed the line? Perhaps, but where's the evidence?
> 
> All the evidence I've seen points to Dr. Gates acting like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum.
> 
> From everything that's been reported it shows that Dr. Gates actions fit the bill when it came to what is considered "disorderly conduct."
> 
> Cops don't have to write you a ticket for speeding, but they can once they pull you over or they can let you off with a warning.
> 
> Sgt. Crowley didn't necessarily have to arrest Dr. Gates either, but Dr. Gates was "speeding" and he got a "ticket."
> 
> That's my point. I don't deny yours that he could have let it go. I doubt that it would have done anything to quell the national attention it got though, simply because Dr. Gates is friends with Obama.


 
I have to agree with CC here.  I was listening to a radio station the other day and this topic came up.  Funny how the hosts were saying the same thing some are saying here...be polite and STFU.  Its really that simple.  I don't think, despite what some are thinking, that we ( the ones siding with Crowley) are putting in some 'untouchable' category.  While walking away may have been an option, it was his call.  No different than a cop pulling someone over for running a light.  He could simply give them a verbal, he could give a written warning, or a ticket.  I've seen cops pull cars over with expired plates, and let them go with a verbal.  I'm sitting there thinking, "WTF!" and he lets them go??? Again, his call, not mine.


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.
> 
> Edit: Just in case this goes without saying, I'm not talking about situations in which there is any threat of bodily harm. I'm talking about situations like Gates': yelling, belligerance and regular, run of the mill crazy talk.


 


sgtmac_46 said:


> Every business i'm familiar with will call the police for this type of disturbance immediately........perhaps your town's businesses are more tolerant of adult temper tantrums......results may vary.


 
I have to go with Sgt on this one.  I doubt that every business around has an official manager working at every waking moment.  That being said, where I work, if a business calls to report someone who is no longer wanted there, for whatever reason, ie: loitering, yelling, etc., the police are called and they are sent.  What the cop does, again, is his call, depending on what happens when he arrives.


----------



## CoryKS

Iowahawk nails it:

Cambridge Police Profiling Still a Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty *******s.


----------



## kaizasosei

I don't know the exact details, but seeing all the police madness, i think the professor would have been smarter had he remained calm and found a way of identifying himself.  -   gotta say, tho, some people especially, innocent people all indignant do not like to get cuffed or face to the pavement, lawn whatever....

i think that police should come up with further instructions that other potential innocent might follow more readily whilst minimizing the threat levels.  Like for example, answering simple questions, for one.  Also, i think it would be good for officers to take more care to explain things to people a bit earlier than one second before reaching to cuff them.  Give them a frickin chance to even agree and comply.  People talk about human rights abuse in other countries and people from other countries say that america is wrong in this or that way, great in so and so a way....but maybe, everyone is somewhat wrong.  Maybe human rights are even more complicated than the socalled advanced countries.  Personally, being not east or west but consider myself an simple observer, i think the socalled more advanced countries have caused much upheaval in other lands, socially and culturally.   I mean,  i am a great fan of freedom.  That is one of the things that makes me like america.  The concept of freedom.  At the other exteme you might say are morals, justice or equality.  Even more extreme, one could say is a totalitarian government.  So what do you have in a totalitarian government?  A bunch of people living under the stick, under the gun.  Do you think they are good people just because they are wary careful citizens in a place of many dungeons and executioners??
Now give these people freedom.  It is like giving an seriously abused child another child to take care of.  Optimistically, could work out, but more than often, they will use that freedom to cause trouble for others and despise the 'freedom' of others.  
Sorry, this may all sound a little psycho, but it is meant mostly in a spiritual way.  In worldly sense, i suppose one could say that growth requires health, experience and time


About the police system, it may seem like i am shooting to make things really complicated and silly, but i firmly believe that to eliminate such attitudes and infringements of the basic rights of others is to make police work much smoother and more pleasant(that is to the sane cop-as the violent beaters will be really disappointed in losing all their precious victims).  ****, if i want to brutalize people, the police is clearly the best career, right?....sad to say, but probably true.


----------



## Steve

Archangel M said:


> Steve..without getting all silly with you. In the end, what do you think being an *** with the cop "just because you can" is going to really accomplish on the street?


I'm not suggesting anyone be an *** with the cop just becuase one can.  I thought you said you weren't going to get silly.  In response to your tangent regarding challenging authority, I said that there are times when challenging authority is the right thing to do. 

With regards to this thread, I'm suggesting that the cop not be given a free pass.  My participation in this thread stems from the exonoration of Crowley.  He's being painted as a victim in this, and I believe that's a mistake.  As much as Gates contributed to this situation, Crowley did, too.  At any point, Sgt Crowley could have ended things, but chose not to.  





> Dont be ridiculous of course Im not saying that "questioning the cop on the scene is tantamount to suicide"...


Actually, that's exactly what you wrote.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but where I'm from, if you 





> what Im saying is that you sure CAN if you want to but if that cop has a legal reason to to what he is doing you are certainly going to wind up on the short end of the stick. Even if you have a "rouge cop" on your hands, is acting like Gates going to really change the outcome to your advantage? Go ahead and "question autrhority" all ya want...its the American way...just do it smartly.


I wonder if you'd say the same thing were you in his position.  I'm not sure how the discussion turned to challenging authority.  While I believe that this is an important discussion, what Gates did wasn't "challenging authority."  I would say that what he did was more along the lines of losing his cool.  

I think it's a given that losing one's cool with a cop is a mistake, but it's an emotional one.  As I've said a million times now, I in no way condone Gates' behavior.  Returning to my point in this thread, given that Crowley has the experience, the training, and the authority, it is my believe that he should have handled the situation professionally and without allowing his ego to get involved.  From everything I've read, it sounds like Gates got under his skin and instead of leaving, he chose to put the uppity college professor in his place.


----------



## Steve

yorkshirelad said:


> stevebjj said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we're talking about is whether an officer of the law should take responsibility for contributing to a situation in which he lost control and ultimately arrested someone who had otherwise broken no laws. quote]
> 
> Losing control would be tazing the guy or punching him in the face or bashing him on the head with his truncheon. Crowley JUSTIFIABLY arrested this idiot. As far as I'm concerned Gates lost control and Crowley controlled the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree that the definition of "losing control of a situation" is subjective.  I have a lower threshold, because the arrest in this situation is right in the wheelhouse of my definition.
Click to expand...


----------



## jks9199

kaizasosei said:


> i think that police should come up with further instructions that other potential innocent might follow more readily whilst minimizing the threat levels.  Like for example, answering simple questions, for one.


  You mean like this and this?  





> Also, i think it would be good for officers to take more care to explain things to people a bit earlier than one second before reaching to cuff them.  Give them a frickin chance to even agree and comply.


 Sgt. Crowley, according to his report, did warn him.  Twice.  How many chances does he have to give the guy? 





> About the police system, it may seem like i am shooting to make things really complicated and silly, but i firmly believe that to eliminate such attitudes and infringements of the basic rights of others is to make police work much smoother and more pleasant(that is to the sane cop-as the violent beaters will be really disappointed in losing all their precious victims).  ****, if i want to brutalize people, the police is clearly the best career, right?....sad to say, but probably true.


In the US -- police work is the wrong career if you want to brutalize people.  Cops are held to standards, and the few who do brutalize people are fired and often face charges.  Note that there is a distinction between legitimate use of force, no matter how ugly or extreme, and brutality.


----------



## kaizasosei

I can imagine that being a leo is a stressfull job.  So it may be easier coming up with ideas than it would be carrying them out.  
  I have to say though, i checked out the link that you posted.  It appears to me to be all information directed towards the common citizen informing them of things like turning on the lights in the car or how to pull over.  
  It mentions that one may feel anxious or upset that when being pulled over....great, but most of the information is common sense to me, and i think i have learned enough in life to sit still long enough to manage well.

I think i didn't express that clearly enough. What i meant was tips and training for the officer.  I don't know exactly how it would go...i suppose the authorities and instructors would need to think stuff up but something along the lines of....when stopping someone, you may feel very very upset and feel the need to use the mace or taser.... you may want to experiment with a few seconds of silence or deescalation of the shouting rather than the good ol' traditional game of escalation....etc-ask them their name, use it-see if it connects-.  

And granted police work is dangerous.  That is why they have tools, weapons and the right to instruct others.   Sure criminals can be sneaky and dangerous, but that is why there are procedures.  So with all these advantages, i would think that most of the time, an officer need not break a sweat or even worry much as long as procedure is being followed.  

Do you know how long it takes to tame a bird or to call on a deer, or how grand one must be to be able to comfort a child?  So when i see people, shouting and hating actually purposely escalating and provoking the resisting of arrest so they can go to, it does sicken me a bit. I think to myself, they are not great people.  One should be able to deal with people nicely even if you have to be loud or forceful, not to take things personally.   I mean, if a suspect is a good distance away, it would do better to clarify the situation than to rush into things with the suspect out of controll and hateful of the police.

i know, it's complicated.  Just people that's all, just people.  I have seen cases of officers in tough situations that acted very sanely.  But for some ******* quack, being in such a position of power must be absolutely invigorating.

j


----------



## jks9199

LEOs generally receive extensive training in dealing with people, and couple that with direct experience.  

But the bottom line is that, at some point, the cop has to make a decision whether this person is enough of a problem that they must be dealt with, or if they'll calm down on their own.  Sgt. Crowley attempted to de-escalate in a couple of ways.  He asked Dr. Gates to step outside, into a more neutral environment.  Many people do behave very differently in their home compared to outside.  Sgt. Crowley warned Dr. Gates.  He then warned him again, with his handcuffs in hand.  

He could perhaps have walked away.  I don't know.  I don't know the neighborhood, I don't know who was watching, or what else was going on.  Those are all things I'd be taking into account.  In one setting, I might simply walk away.  In another, the moment he raised his voice, he's in cuffs.  There's no one magic answer.

One of my academy instructors did an exercise with us.  He had us take a piece of paper out, and place a series of dots on it.  He then walked us through connecting them.  He then told us that was the last time we'd be simply connecting the dots; police work is never simply moving from one thing to the next the same way, every time.


----------



## blindsage

yorkshirelad said:


> You say this and yet tell me that calling Gates racist shows a lack of understanding on my part. You're just ASSUMING that Gates isn't a racist, or at least a race bater. I'm calling Gates a racist because he was offended at the gaul of a WHITE officer, doing his job. He's a racist and by that token so is Obama.
> 
> My assumptions are not at all getting the better of me. YOU are a leftist and it is the MO of leftists to express a sympathy for Blacks and other minorities who express racial bigotry, while calling foul on any LEO who has the audacity to do his job, which in this case he was justified in doing.
> 
> I am not ASSUMING anything, I am responding to your crazy ASSUMPTION that Gates cannot be a racist.


I'm not assuming anything.  You assume things about me based on labelling me a 'leftist'.  You assume I think Gates can't be racist.  I never said he couldn't be one (as a matter of fact I said the opposite), I said he isn't one.  The difference is pretty big.


----------



## blindsage

Big Don said:


> Because black people are incapable of racism? Ha. That's a good one.


Umm...no.  But please play again.


----------



## blindsage

yorkshirelad said:


> Well aren't you the regular Hemingway, off on all your little adventures. As you say there are places where it IS dangerous to be white. I suppose those whites who do get their heads kicked in by the poor minorities should just understand that its their own fault, for being white and that instead of being angry they should just accept that the poor minorities are angry.


So you give an example of what I should do to prove your point, I explain that I've have been there and done that and it doesn't prove your point, so you resort to condescension to undermine my stance. Nice. Can you point me to the post where I said a victim of assault shouldn't be angry at being assaulted? Oh, wait, no you can't. Assuming again are we?


----------



## blindsage

jks9199 said:


> I don't care about his experience.


Clearly.  Maybe that's part of the problem.



> Of the fights in my career, most of them have involved blacks. All but one of the others involved Hispanics. (Many of the ones involving blacks also involved the same family.)
> 
> Should I deal with every black person I deal with through that perspective? Or should I be expected to take each one as an individual, and shape my actions accordingly?


Sure, you should be expected to take each one as an individual.



> Sorry, everything points to Dr. Gates being way out of line here. I don't know if he was tired from traveling, irritated, or arrested 80 times for invented offenses, and I don't care. He crossed the line, and faced the consequences. Except he didn't face the consequences. Most of us would still have a court date; what happened there would be up to the judge and the prosecutor.


Well since I never said he shouldn't face any consequences of any lines he crossed, this is not only irrelevent to my post, it actually illustrates my point.  I never condoned any innappropriate or illegal action on his part.  I did argue that what is 'reasonable' to you may not equate to 'reasonable' for a person of a different experience.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> I have to go with Sgt on this one. I doubt that every business around has an official manager working at every waking moment. That being said, where I work, if a business calls to report someone who is no longer wanted there, for whatever reason, ie: loitering, yelling, etc., the police are called and they are sent. What the cop does, again, is his call, depending on what happens when he arrives.


You're acting like that was my opinion.  MJS, go back and read what I actually wrote.  It's not open for debate.  It's not like I made it up.  I am very confident that the corporate policies in most, if not all, of the stores in your local mall, you'd find that what I said is true.  Most of what you guys disagree with in my posts are things I never said.  It's making me feel like I'm on an episode of Candid Camera (Online Version).


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> LEOs generally receive extensive training in dealing with people, and couple that with direct experience.
> 
> But the bottom line is that, at some point, the cop has to make a decision whether this person is enough of a problem that they must be dealt with, or if they'll calm down on their own. Sgt. Crowley attempted to de-escalate in a couple of ways. He asked Dr. Gates to step outside, into a more neutral environment.


LOL... so that he could arrest him.  Come on...


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> I'm not assuming anything. You assume things about me based on labelling me a 'leftist'. You assume I think Gates can't be racist. I never said he couldn't be one (as a matter of fact I said the opposite), I said he isn't one. The difference is pretty big.


The thing is that in every thread you have expressed leftist opinions. You are the king of assumptions. You assume that because I'm not prepared to let Gates skate on his behaviour that I have no historical insight into the plight of blacks. I think he's a race bater and has a dislike for white cops in particular, that's why he's a racist.

In the '90s there was a situation in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) where white landowners were being butchered and their lands taken from them by indigenous blacks and the government did nothing. The landowners adopted their Kommando mentality once again, to stop these murderous cretins. Now, if one of those white land owners came to the US on asylum and said "I hate blacks" to me, I would consider him racist, but I would understand the historical significance of his racism.

The same applies to Gates, I get it, black people have been enslaved in the past, they have been downtrodden. Some of their ancestors originally came here as a result of being bought into slavery. That's all terrible. It's not, however an excuse for Gates to behave like child in the throws of a tantrum. He messed up and I just wish the cops hadn't of caved and dropped the charges. He's an elitist who in my opinion, thinks that his position in the university and friendship with Obama makes him somehow immune from the consequences of disturbing the peace.


----------



## Empty Hands

yorkshirelad said:


> Oh Empty, I'll gladly drop you off in urban LA, in an area of my choosing and when I see you again, listen to your happy stories of the friendships you made. Let's do it.....please.



I already live here you goofball.  And I already have black friends.  Just wondering...does all that racial resentment hurt?  At the very least, I think your blood pressure might be elevated.


----------



## Empty Hands

jks9199 said:


> Sgt. Crowley attempted to de-escalate in a couple of ways.  He asked Dr. Gates to step outside, into a more neutral environment.



Or because he knew that he would have grounds to arrest if Gates was being "tumultuous" in public.  You're just assuming good intentions.  That's part of what bothers some people about the defense of Crowley.  His word is taken as gospel; Gates' is discounted.  Even though the competing words of these two individuals are all we have to go on.


----------



## yorkshirelad

blindsage said:


> So you give an example of what I should do to prove your point, I explain that I've have been there and done that and it doesn't prove your point, so you resort to condescension to undermine my stance. Nice. Can you point me to the post where I said a victim of assault shouldn't be angry at being assaulted? Oh, wait, no you can't. Assuming again are we?


You sarcastically made comments about the black panthers and other hateful gangs, that lead me to believe that you sympathize with them. Btw, I apologize for being condescending, but it just fits when I'm sparring with you. It's like the proverbial rear scoop kick to the groin that you can't evade and although it doesn't knock you out, it pisses you off.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> And I already have black friends.


Funny, that's what every racist I ever met says.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> I already live here you goofball..


Sorry mate, on your profile it says you're in Tarzana. Maybe your business is there. The last time I went there, was to the Machado Academy and throughout the whole area I never saw one black person (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough or maybe Tiger Woods and Chris Rock were playing golf at the time). Who knows? My.... there is some nice real estate out in your neck of the woods.


----------



## elder999

yorkshirelad said:


> Sorry mate, on your profile it says you're in Tarzana. Maybe your business is there. .


 
Pretty sure he _*works*_ there. Don't know where he lives.....


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> Pretty sure he _*works*_ there. Don't know where he lives.....


Still a lovely place....just saying.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

> There's no safer person in Compton than a white person. The gangs know you aren't a member...and don't want to shoot their customers. The independents don't want to bring the heat down on them.
> 
> Most of the crime victims in the "bad areas" are the residents - the minorities.


 Really thats how it is on the West coast?

I know here in Miami you will get robbed and your face stomped if you walk into certain neighborhood.


----------



## Empty Hands

yorkshirelad said:


> Funny, that's what every racist I ever met says.



Oops, you caught me.  Tricky!



yorkshirelad said:


> Sorry mate, on your profile it says you're in Tarzana. Maybe your business is there. The last time I went there, was to the Machado Academy and throughout the whole area I never saw one black person (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough or maybe Tiger Woods and Chris Rock were playing golf at the time). Who knows? My.... there is some nice real estate out in your neck of the woods.



North or south of the 101?  South yes, North...not so much.  There are plenty of black people here, but by and large it's the Latino gangs that cause the problems.  Same in Van Nuys or the north side of Woodland Hills.  The graffiti gets annoying.  Still, in 6 years I've never had a problem.  By and large, if you leave them alone, they leave you alone.


----------



## Steve

yorkshirelad said:


> The thing is that in every thread you have expressed leftist opinions. You are the king of assumptions. You assume that because I'm not prepared to let Gates skate on his behaviour that I have no historical insight into the plight of blacks.


The only question I have is why you are prepared to let Crowley skate on his behavior while pursuing your points against Gates with the tenacity of a pitbull?  To my knowledge, no one is suggesting Gates acted well or rationally.  Omar empathized with him, but that's about it.  Yet, you continue to turn every response into a race related, anti-Gates response, even when asked about Crowley's behavior.  You don't see the double standard?


----------



## Empty Hands

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Really thats how it is on the West coast?
> 
> I know here in Miami you will get robbed and your face stomped if you walk into certain neighborhood.



Well, I never said it was _safe, _just safer than being a minority.  Most of the victims of the gangs and other criminals around here are other gang members or bystanders living in the area.  I've been through Crenshaw, Watts/Compton, whatever the ******** around USC is called, and similar.  Never had a problem.  I was more terrified to go to a movie theatre in Baltimore.


----------



## Steve

yorkshirelad said:


> You sarcastically made comments about the black panthers and other hateful gangs, that lead me to believe that you sympathize with them. *Btw, I apologize for being condescending, but it just fits when I'm sparring with you*. It's like the proverbial rear scoop kick to the groin that you can't evade and although it doesn't knock you out, it pisses you off.


There it is.  That's the crux of it right there.  This isn't a discussion with you.  In your mind, it's sparring.  It's like the lightbulb went off.  You aren't discussing things.  You're reading with the intent to rebut.  It's a mock battle.  Maybe that's why I've been beating my head against the wall.  Here I thought we were trying to explain our points of view and perhaps come to some kind of understanding, and all the while you've been reading the posts looking only for a means to refute the points and further your own agenda.


----------



## Empty Hands

stevebjj said:


> The only question I have is why you are prepared to let Crowley skate on his behavior while pursuing your points against Gates with the tenacity of a pitbull?



Gates-gate (ha!) is like a reactionary hot fudge sundae with crack and hookers sprinkled on top.  It's completely irresistible.  In one fell swoop, a reactionary can target:

1) Defending the police.
2) Criticizing a liberal.
3) Criticizing a black man, and get to call him the "real racist" to boot.
4) Criticizing an "elite Harvard intellectual".
5) Criticize the President, combining elements of 2-4 irrespective of all actual evidence and reason, and get to decide it makes him incompetent too.

All those political resentments and flash points get combined in one tasty package.  If only welfare cheats and the French could be worked in, the perfect storm of wingnuttery would be complete.  Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Empty Hands said:


> Gates-gate (ha!) is like a reactionary hot fudge sundae with crack and hookers sprinkled on top.  It's completely irresistible.  In one fell swoop, a reactionary can target:
> 
> 1) Defending the police.
> 2) Criticizing a liberal.
> 3) Criticizing a black man, and get to call him the "real racist" to boot.
> 4) Criticizing an "elite Harvard intellectual".
> 5) Criticize the President, combining elements of 2-4 irrespective of all actual evidence and reason, and get to decide it makes him incompetent too.
> 
> All those political resentments and flash points get combined in one tasty package.  If only welfare cheats and the French could be worked in, the perfect storm of wingnuttery would be complete.  Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.



That's not really an argument, that's a not-so-clever punt.

I'd point out what you're attempting in one fell swoop but it's obvious and would get redundant.


----------



## Steve

Empty Hands said:


> Or because he knew that he would have grounds to arrest if Gates was being "tumultuous" in public. You're just assuming good intentions. That's part of what bothers some people about the defense of Crowley. His word is taken as gospel; Gates' is discounted. Even though the competing words of these two individuals are all we have to go on.


LOL.  I thought the same thing.  "Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly.


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> The only question I have is why you are prepared to let Crowley skate on his behavior while pursuing your points against Gates with the tenacity of a pitbull?  To my knowledge, no one is suggesting Gates acted well or rationally.  Omar empathized with him, but that's about it.  Yet, you continue to turn every response into a race related, anti-Gates response, even when asked about Crowley's behavior.  You don't see the double standard?



Because other officers present, of various races, AND different agencies, have backed Crowley's account of the events, and stated that his actions were justified by the situation.  They were there....you weren't.....nor was the President.

Now you can fall back on the 'Cops lie for each other' argument, but that would just reveal the core of a bias in your argument if you did so.


----------



## Steve

Empty Hands said:


> Gates-gate (ha!) is like a reactionary hot fudge sundae with crack and hookers sprinkled on top. It's completely irresistible. In one fell swoop, a reactionary can target:
> 
> 1) Defending the police.
> 2) Criticizing a liberal.
> 3) Criticizing a black man, and get to call him the "real racist" to boot.
> 4) Criticizing an "elite Harvard intellectual".
> 5) Criticize the President, combining elements of 2-4 irrespective of all actual evidence and reason, and get to decide it makes him incompetent too.
> 
> All those political resentments and flash points get combined in one tasty package. If only welfare cheats and the French could be worked in, the perfect storm of wingnuttery would be complete. Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.


Can we work in some pro-gun rhetoric?


----------



## sgtmac_46

Empty Hands said:


> Or because he knew that he would have grounds to arrest if Gates was being "tumultuous" in public.  You're just assuming good intentions.  That's part of what bothers some people about the defense of Crowley.  His word is taken as gospel; Gates' is discounted.  Even though the competing words of these two individuals are all we have to go on.



Now, actually he has numerous witnesses, including the original caller, who backs her versions of events, as well some audio of the event.......You have Skippy 'The White Man is the Devil' Gates and wishful thinking......i'll take the side that DOESN'T have as it's sole witness an avowed racist. 



> LAMB: At one point you had a line in there, something to the effect, "My mother despised white people."
> 
> GATES: My mother hated white people.
> 
> LAMB: All her life?
> 
> GATES: Probably. I didn't know until -- in 1959 we were watching Mike Wallace's documentary called "The Hate that Hate Produced." It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn't believe -- *I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people's faces and telling them off. It was great.  *


*
*


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> Can we work in some pro-gun rhetoric?


How about you work in some rhetoric about how we can believe the words of an avowed racist over anyone else.


----------



## Steve

sgtmac_46 said:


> Because other officers present, of various races, AND different agencies, have backed Crowley's account of the events, and stated that his actions were justified by the situation. They were there....you weren't.....nor was the President.
> 
> Now you can fall back on the 'Cops lie for each other' argument, but that would just reveal the core of a bias in your argument if you did so.


sgtmac, once again you've rebutted an argument I haven't made. Doesn't that get old? It's like you're continuously debating a fictitious, liberal icon in your head. 

I'm basing my _opinions_ on what I've read and heard. If, because we weren't there, we can't profer our own opinions, you might want to take your own advice and cut Gates some slack. You weren't there, either. 

Once again, had Crowley said (regardless of whatever buffoonery Gates may or may not have been engaging in), "Mr. Gates, thanks for your time and I apologize for any confusion. Have a nice day," and then left, there would be no story. Instead, he invited Mr. Gates outside where he could arrest him. At the very least, as I've said, Crowley should be held responsible for his contribution to the situation. Had he politely left, there would be no arrest and no story.

Edit:  Just to add, nothing I've said here conflicts with ANYTHING you've said.  At all.


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> The only question I have is why you are prepared to let Crowley skate on his behavior while pursuing your points against Gates with the tenacity of a pitbull? To my knowledge, no one is suggesting Gates acted well or rationally. Omar empathized with him, but that's about it. Yet, you continue to turn every response into a race related, anti-Gates response, even when asked about Crowley's behavior. You don't see the double standard?


Gates and Obama turned this into a racial deal, not me. Did you see the interview Gates gave to one of the networks after this debarcle. He said something on the lines of "This is a consideration for all BLACK men". Then Obama played the race card at the healthcare press conference. These two players started all the racial BS.

Crowley went to the residence as a cop to perform his duty. Gates' response was uncalled for and totally purile. Crowley never insulted him or followed him, yet Gates insulted Crowley and followed him with a childish diatribe. Btw the "yo Momma" quote would've been embarassing for a ten year old school boy. Gates arrest was legal. 

You know as well as I do, that if we went back say one year and this was a white professor friend of George Bush, most who are decrying Crowley, would be screaming "Damn Bush and his ******* friends". Olberman would be revelling in it as would Bill Maher, the NYT would have it all over the front page and some of you here would be sayingf the same thing.

I don't care if Gates is black, white or pink with prurple polka dots, he behaved like an *******.

I hope Crowley goes to the whithouse, eats the canapes, drinks some fine cabernet and then tell Gates to go forth and multiply.


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> sgtmac, once again you've rebutted an argument I haven't made. Doesn't that get old? It's like you're continuously debating a fictitious, liberal icon in your head.


 Never said anything about liberals.....I asked you a question about why some people have suddenly decided that a racists version of events is more believable than that of numerous other people present.....I won't claim that's your position, but it does seem to be many folks. 



stevebjj said:


> I'm basing my _opinions_ on what I've read and heard. If, because we weren't there, we can't profer our own opinions, you might want to take your own advice and cut Gates some slack. You weren't there, either.


 I don't have to cute Gates any slack.......he's an obvious racist and deserves to be condemned as one.......there's no place in the 21st Century for his kind of rhetoric from a man of ANY race! 



stevebjj said:


> Once again, had Crowley said (regardless of whatever buffoonery Gates may or may not have been engaging in), "Mr. Gates, thanks for your time and I apologize for any confusion. Have a nice day," and then left, there would be no story. Instead, he invited Mr. Gates outside where he could arrest him. At the very least, as I've said, Crowley should be held responsible for his contribution to the situation. Had he politely left, there would be no arrest and no story.


 So you claim, from your arm chair........but what you know about the incident is only what you've heard, most of it OBVIOUSLY heavily biased toward Skippy Gates' very DUBIOUS version of events, and dismissive of the version supplied not only by Crowley, but other officers of various races on scene, as well as the original caller.




As for George W. Bush, say what you will about the man.........he never at his worst moment displayed the kind of personal arrogance that Obama did in this one off-teleprompter speech.......and it would only be an applicable analogy if Bush was close friends with David Duke.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> Well, I never said it was _safe, _just safer than being a minority. Most of the victims of the gangs and other criminals around here are other gang members or bystanders living in the area. I've been through Crenshaw, Watts/Compton, whatever the ******** around USC is called, and similar. Never had a problem. I was more terrified to go to a movie theatre in Baltimore.


Maybe you and I should get together for Frappacinos, start a book club and invite all the nice gangbangers. We could even start a knitting circle....oh what fun.


----------



## sgtmac_46

As Obama has stated this should be a teachable moment.......unfortunately for Obama the lesson is that the kind of OVERT RACIST rhetoric and beliefs held and espoused by men like Skippy Gates should not be tolerated or excused from anyone, regardless of race.  The idea that we need to give a wink and nod to racist views held by members of certain races because we think, based on some errant views of historical ills that they are ENTITLED to those racist views, is ASININE IN THE EXTREME!

The Hutus used as the notion that they were entitled to their views based on historical wrongs to SLAUGHTER NEARLY ONE MILLION TUTSI'S in the Rwandan Genocide..........if the logic that Skippy Gates and his ilk are ENTITLED to their hatred because of acts committed decades and even centuries ago, then the Hutus were perfectly justifed as well........and that's a dangerous argument.

That is why the issues of this incident go FAR BEYOND whether or not an individual police officer lost his momentary cool and allowed himself to be goaded in to an arrest that many folks who watch too many reruns of Law and Order feel they wouldn't have made in their fantasy world version of police work.........because at it's WORST on Crowley's part, what you have is an officer who let an irate idiot get the better of his momentary judgment.......there is ZERO evidence of any kind of racial bias, and every reason to believe that had the incident been EXACTLY the same, but involving an irate WHITE guy, he would have done EXACTLY the same thing.........the issue of Skippy Gates and Barack Obama's bias, however, are FAR FAR more troubling.


----------



## Empty Hands

sgtmac_46 said:


> i'll take the side that DOESN'T have as it's sole witness an avowed racist.



"in *1959* we were watching Mike Wallace's documentary called "The Hate that Hate Produced." It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn't believe --I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people's faces and telling them off. It was great.*"*

THIS is what makes him an avowed racist to you?  He enjoyed Malcolm X standing up to the white man in *19****ing59?  *Why don't you think back for, oh, about 6 nanoseconds what life was like for your average black person in 1959, particularly in the South.  Then ask yourself why it's a bad thing that Malcolm X stood up to that, in any way he chose.

This is absolutely shameless and disgusting behavior on your part.


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> There it is. That's the crux of it right there. This isn't a discussion with you. In your mind, it's sparring. It's like the lightbulb went off. You aren't discussing things. You're reading with the intent to rebut. It's a mock battle. Maybe that's why I've been beating my head against the wall. Here I thought we were trying to explain our points of view and perhaps come to some kind of understanding, and all the while you've been reading the posts looking only for a means to refute the points and further your own agenda.


Well you must admit Steve this does resemble a game. I mean nothing you say to me is gonna persuade me that your position IN THIS CASE is correct. I get the impression that the feeling is mutual.

There have been threads where my position has changed somewhat, during and after the debate and I really do enjoy the joust.

I got into this thread rather late, because it went unnoticed. I believe that it should be in the Political DEBATE thread. I really thought that you guys were enjoying this also, why on earth would we be here otherwise. Itr's a beutiful day here in HB and the beach is only 10 blocks away, but I choose to be here, because I enjoy it. I also happen to believe that in this instance my position is valid, everything has been said partaining to the case.

Btw, my agenda at this time is to enjoy myself. My agenda (as you call it) has been staed. I'm very forthright and have no sinister motives to hypnotize you into conforming to the mind of Dom. Trust me, one of me is more than enough. That's why my wife and I have both decided never to have children......right, let's get back to it shall we, come on touch gloves.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Empty Hands said:


> "in *1959* we were watching Mike Wallace's documentary called "The Hate that Hate Produced." It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn't believe --I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people's faces and telling them off. It was great.*"*
> 
> THIS is what makes him an avowed racist to you?  He enjoyed Malcolm X standing up to the white man in *19****ing59?  *Why don't you think back for, oh, about 6 nanoseconds what life was like for your average black person in 1959, particularly in the South.  Then ask yourself why it's a bad thing that Malcolm X stood up to that, in any way he chose.
> 
> This is absolutely shameless and disgusting behavior on your part.



No, the fact that he considered the white man the devil and still does makes him a racist.......are you really going to make this debate about whether Skippy Gates harbors racist views?  GO AHEAD!  I'll take that argument all day long!  


But before we begin lets examine the core of your argument........are you going to argue that Skip Gates isn't racist because.......

1) There is no evidence of racist views.
2) That black folks CAN'T be racist no matter how racist their views

Just so we know where you stand.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> Gates-gate (ha!) is like a reactionary hot fudge sundae with crack and hookers sprinkled on top. It's completely irresistible. In one fell swoop, a reactionary can target:
> 
> 1) Defending the police.
> 2) Criticizing a liberal.
> 3) Criticizing a black man, and get to call him the "real racist" to boot.
> 4) Criticizing an "elite Harvard intellectual".
> 5) Criticize the President, combining elements of 2-4 irrespective of all actual evidence and reason, and get to decide it makes him incompetent too.
> 
> All those political resentments and flash points get combined in one tasty package. If only welfare cheats and the French could be worked in, the perfect storm of wingnuttery would be complete. Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.


I must admit, I do the first five rather well, but I'm still trying to figure out the french angle....Can some of you Canadians help me out?


----------



## Empty Hands

sgtmac_46 said:


> No, the fact that he considered the white man the devil and still does makes him a racist



Post even the SLIGHTEST evidence that is the case.  Your quote won't cut it!  He said it was "great" that Malcolm X called the white man the devil and got in his face in 1959.  I think it was great too.  That doesn't mean I believe the white man is the devil.  JIM CROW WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN 1959 IN THE SOUTH!  Until you acknowledge THAT in light of your quote, you are engaging in the most disingenuous, dishonest, and outright VILE character assassination!  Seriously!  What you are saying is "Gates thought it was great someone stood up to the Jim Crow regime?  Called them names? RACIST!"

Disgusting.



sgtmac_46 said:


> .......are you really going to make this debate about whether Skippy Gates harbors racist views?  GO AHEAD!  I'll take that argument all day long!



Why don't you post some actual evidence?  Rely on something other than a vast reservoir of racial resentment and your own assumptions.


----------



## sgtmac_46

yorkshirelad said:


> I must admit, I do the first five rather well, but I'm still trying to figure out the french angle....Can some of you Canadians help me out?



He's just pulling out every 'Fox News Watching/France Hating' cliched 'conservative' stereotype he can fit in one post.......nothing new.


----------



## Archangel M

_Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.

_Bwahaha!! Yeah, THOSE are the reasons this has been in the news so long. Its not the medias fault for making an arrest for a minor law violation into NATIONAL news? Its NOT the fault of the President of the United States opening hit trap on the matter in front of the press?

NO..its a vast right wing conspiracy thats the cause of all this.

Please.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> LOL... so that he could arrest him.  Come on...


So now you're accusing him of entrapment?

Look, it seems you've already decided that Sgt. Crowley was out of control, looking to arrest Professor Gates for whatever reason, maybe just because he dared to question the sergeant.  You're going to interpret everything as being a means for Sergeant Crowley to further that.

I've said several times that, given the circumstances, the arrest may not have been the wisest or best choice.  That doesn't matter, because it was the choice that Sergeant Crowley made in the moment.  He was there, I wasn't.  I can think of arrests I've made that, in hindsight, might have been better satisfied with some other action.  Oh, well.  Just like Sergeant Crowley, I had legal authority and justification for the arrest.  I can think of other times when I should've or could've arrested, and didn't.

Can you possibly accept that maybe, just maybe, Sergeant Crowley was within his authority, and took reasonable steps to avoid the arrest, then took Dr. Gates into custody only when he felt that it was the best option available in light of the totality of the circumstances?  That it wasn't just a knee jerk, out of control response to a situation where someone challenged his authority?


----------



## sgtmac_46

Empty Hands said:


> Post even the SLIGHTEST evidence that is the case.  Your quote won't cut it!  He said it was "great" that Malcolm X called the white man the devil and got in his face in 1959.  I think it was great too.  That doesn't mean I believe the white man is the devil.  JIM CROW WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN 1959 IN THE SOUTH!  Until you acknowledge THAT in light of your quote, you are engaging in the most disingenuous, dishonest, and outright VILE character assassination!  Seriously!  What you are saying is "Gates thought it was great someone stood up to the Jim Crow regime?  Called them names? RACIST!"
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post some actual evidence?  Rely on something other than a vast reservoir of racial resentment and your own assumptions.


 Really.....you think it's great that 'The White Man' is the devil?  Not the nuanced 'Racist White Men' or 'Those who wrote Jim Crow laws'.........but the general 'The White Man is the Devil' INCLUDING those who struggled to bring equality and fairness to society!  That's pretty telling.

By the way, the PROOF of Skippy Gates continued racist views are his CURRENT actions and words, including this incident, which he turned in to a racial incident PURELY by his own actions.......I don't have to prove that to you, as it's obvious your biases wouldn't let you believe it if I had a written confession......but the majority of Americans are certainly seeing it that way.


Here's a hint.......TRULY racist people let their racism seep out in moments of stress........remind me.....what did Skippy Gates say during his encounter with Sgt. Crowley?


----------



## Archangel M

jks9199 said:


> Can you possibly accept that maybe, just maybe, Sergeant Crowley was within his authority, and took reasonable steps to avoid the arrest, then took Dr. Gates into custody only when he felt that it was the best option available in light of the totality of the circumstances?  That it wasn't just a knee jerk, out of control response to a situation where someone challenged his authority?



That obviously wouldn't mesh with his worldview in relation to LEO's.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> _Thus, a relatively minor affair gets blown into a massive Event that has consumed the news cycle for going on two weeks now.
> 
> _Bwahaha!! Yeah, THOSE are the reasons this has been in the news so long. Its not the medias fault for making an arrest for a minor law violation into NATIONAL news? Its NOT the fault of the President of the United States opening hit trap on the matter in front of the press?
> 
> NO..its a vast right wing conspiracy thats the cause of all this.
> 
> Please.



That's the spin for every inconvenient issue......'Vast Rightwing Conspiracy'..........it's starting to sound more like the Dimocrat Underground or the Daily Kook in some corners.


----------



## Carol

stevebjj said:


> Can we work in some pro-gun rhetoric?



[gratuitous pro-gun rhetoric]

The Cambridge PD can be armed.  

But not Professor Gates.  HarvardRES does not allow guns or ammunition in university housing, even if the resident is properly licensed.

Perhaps if Professor Gates was allowed to own a gun in his own home, he wouldn't have felt as frustrated and powerless. 

So There.    :lfao:

[/gratuitous pro-gun rhetoric]


----------



## sgtmac_46

jks9199 said:


> So now you're accusing him of entrapment?
> 
> Look, it seems you've already decided that Sgt. Crowley was out of control, looking to arrest Professor Gates for whatever reason, maybe just because he dared to question the sergeant.  You're going to interpret everything as being a means for Sergeant Crowley to further that.
> 
> I've said several times that, given the circumstances, the arrest may not have been the wisest or best choice.  That doesn't matter, because it was the choice that Sergeant Crowley made in the moment.  He was there, I wasn't.  I can think of arrests I've made that, in hindsight, might have been better satisfied with some other action.  Oh, well.  Just like Sergeant Crowley, I had legal authority and justification for the arrest.  I can think of other times when I should've or could've arrested, and didn't.
> 
> Can you possibly accept that maybe, just maybe, Sergeant Crowley was within his authority, and took reasonable steps to avoid the arrest, then took Dr. Gates into custody only when he felt that it was the best option available in light of the totality of the circumstances?  That it wasn't just a knee jerk, out of control response to a situation where someone challenged his authority?



NOPE! NOPE! NOPE!  Law Enforcement officers MUST not only make the 'Objectively Reasonable' decision based on the situation at hand.....they MUST make the decision that will make the entire country happy, including all the TV Cop experts in their arm chairs......OTHERWISE they are a racist and bad cop.

At the same time, while the standards for behavior applied to an individual law enforcement officer on the part of many people is obscenely HIGH........they apply a far LOWER standard to the judgment of the MOST POWERFUL MAN ON THE PLANET!  

In their twisted warped world view the local street cop has such AWESOME POWER as to require that any who fills the job must not only do it perfectly, but please everyone in the process.......while the POTUS (if he's the right political ideology) can pretty much screw up as bad as he wants, with the justification that he's only human. 

Bottom line......Sgt. Crowley, motivated by his view of enforcing the law and maintaining order.......regardless of critique on his actions at the moment.  I have zero reason to believe that race even factored in to his actions EXCEPT to perhaps to DELAY a more assertive response out of the notion that this would blow up in his face!


----------



## sgtmac_46

Carol Kaur said:


> [gratuitous pro-gun rhetoric]
> 
> The Cambridge PD can be armed.
> 
> But not Professor Gates.  HarvardRES does not allow guns or ammunition in university housing, even if the resident is properly licensed.
> 
> Perhaps if Professor Gates was allowed to own a gun in his own home, he wouldn't have felt as frustrated and powerless.
> 
> So There.    :lfao:
> 
> [/gratuitous pro-gun rhetoric]



Okay, that was pretty good!


----------



## yorkshirelad

Empty Hands said:


> Post even the SLIGHTEST evidence that is the case. Your quote won't cut it! He said it was "great" that Malcolm X called the white man the devil and got in his face in 1959. I think it was great too. That doesn't mean I believe the white man is the devil. JIM CROW WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN 1959 IN THE SOUTH! Until you acknowledge THAT in light of your quote, you are engaging in the most disingenuous, dishonest, and outright VILE character assassination! Seriously! What you are saying is "Gates thought it was great someone stood up to the Jim Crow regime? Called them names? RACIST!"
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post some actual evidence? Rely on something other than a vast reservoir of racial resentment and your own assumptions.


Again, for the umpteenth time, GATES and OBAMA brought race into this quagmire, so much so that Obama is now back peddling. Why the diatribe Empty, admit it Gates is a race bater and because of that he is by definition a racist. God, you need to take an ativan.


----------



## yorkshirelad

sgtmac_46 said:


> He's just pulling out every 'Fox News Watching/France Hating' cliched 'conservative' stereotype he can fit in one post.......nothing new.


That's why I can't for the life of me treat the comments seriously Sgt.


----------



## jks9199

Empty Hands said:


> Or because he knew that he would have grounds to arrest if Gates was being "tumultuous" in public.  You're just assuming good intentions.  That's part of what bothers some people about the defense of Crowley.  His word is taken as gospel; Gates' is discounted.  Even though the competing words of these two individuals are all we have to go on.


Sgt. Crowley's word is in an official police report, and he is subject to multiple and serious sanctions for dishonesty.  Dr. Gates only accounts are to the press, with few repercussions for him to be less honest.

Sgt. Crowley's accounts serve to document his actions.  Dr. Gates accounts have served to gather press attention, and further his other actions.

Sgt. Crowley's report was written before any press attention on the incident.  Dr. Gates took his story to the press.

I don't know, but I think the odds are that Sgt. Crowley's report (and that of the other officer who filed a report) is probably a bit closer to facts.


----------



## Archangel M

CoryKS said:


> Iowahawk nails it:
> 
> Cambridge Police Profiling Still a Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty *******s.



That was too frickin funny!


----------



## sgtmac_46

jks9199 said:


> Sgt. Crowley's word is in an official police report, and he is subject to multiple and serious sanctions for dishonesty.  Dr. Gates only accounts are to the press, with few repercussions for him to be less honest.
> 
> Sgt. Crowley's accounts serve to document his actions.  Dr. Gates accounts have served to gather press attention, and further his other actions.
> 
> Sgt. Crowley's report was written before any press attention on the incident.  Dr. Gates took his story to the press.
> 
> I don't know, but I think the odds are that Sgt. Crowley's report (and that of the other officer who filed a report) is probably a bit closer to facts.



Nobody would lie to the press just to paint themselves in a better light, would they?


----------



## kaizasosei

Alright, i just got back from walking the dog and getting into a slight argument and a slight confrontation.  - made up at the end- reminds me again of how when we fight people or ideas with resentment, most of it is just fighting and hurting ourselves.  Boy, i would feel even cooler would i not use such vulgar language sometimes....oh well, all's well that end's well


Anyhow, as i understand it this controversial story has become quite an heated discussion.  White and black tensions...police and even the president himself has come into play.  

Obviously any story can be spun in a certain direction to sway peoples minds towards a desired goal.  Not being there in person, it is hard to say how aggressive the policeman was or how out of controll the professor was.  These are key points and we can only go on the accounts of others. 

Was Malcolm x a racist?  Is there a time to stand up to authority or to defy oppression?   Firstly, we are all packing plenty of stereotypes about people, race, gender and basically anything that distinguishes someone.  It is through becoming mature enough to be altruistic, sensitive enough to be mindful and brave enough to challenge our own fears and misconceptions, that we rise above racial issues. Also, kind of a stretch, but we also must constantly aim to instill such good characteristics in others.  One thing is that there is so much negativity around, and it is not easy dealing with hurt or hatred.  Even jokes can do damage and cause problems if there is enough hurt or hatred around.

A person like MalcomX, one could definately consider to be highly intelligent.  An intelligent person will be able to reflect on and transcend or even correct his own misconceptions or predjudice.  Therefore, i believe MalcomX was definately not a racist as he was a person standing up against racism.  He did not call for black people to be established as better or anything, he was demanding equality in an unequal and unfair world.  I think that honesty and bravery are important too.   

Surely all people share stereotype ideas and racial profiling.  It's something natural to a cerain point.  
So, seeing the whole escapade from this angle, one can see that neither side is really all that wrong.  Some people are so racist or hateful of a particular group, that they will avoid any contact, especially physical, meaning they don't even want to touch with a pole.  That would be pathetic racist behaviour.  I think that the worst racism comes from people that hide it and pretend like it's the way.  People who preach racism are very hurtful and must do plenty of damage, but i think a good person thats slightly clever would be able to see through the mess.

Saying white people are the devil..again, a different time different age.  But i venture to say that maybe, maybe it was a way of bringing the communities together.  Also, to make the government know that there is someone that has the power to move things and if the government doesn't make a constructive move, there would be more and more unrest.  It is very important for all peoples to have such a leader that is able to unite and guide the collective-that is the essence of government, no?.
Another point, we have to hear or take a look at the whole speach.  I'm gather it didn't start with white people are the devil but had a more meaningful message with a begining and ending.

Granted, as has been said, a suspicious mind sees only evil.


j


j


----------



## sgtmac_46

kaizasosei said:


> Alright, i just got back from walking the dog and getting into a slight argument and a slight confrontation.  - made up at the end- reminds me again of how when we fight people or ideas with resentment, most of it is just fighting and hurting ourselves.  Boy, i would feel even cooler would i not use such vulgar language sometimes....oh well, all's well that end's well
> 
> 
> Anyhow, as i understand it this controversial story has become quite an heated discussion.  White and black tensions...police and even the president himself has come into play.
> 
> Obviously any story can be spun in a certain direction to sway peoples minds towards a desired goal.  Not being there in person, it is hard to say how aggressive the policeman was or how out of controll the professor was.  These are key points and we can only go on the accounts of others.
> 
> Was Malcolm x a racist?  Is there a time to stand up to authority or to defy oppression?   Firstly, we are all packing plenty of stereotypes about people, race, gender and basically anything that distinguishes someone.  It is through becoming mature enough to be altruistic, sensitive enough to be mindful and brave enough to challenge our own fears and misconceptions, that we rise above racial issues. Also, kind of a stretch, but we also must constantly aim to instill such good characteristics in others.  One thing is that there is so much negativity around, and it is not easy dealing with hurt or hatred.  Even jokes can do damage and cause problems if there is enough hurt or hatred around.
> 
> A person like MalcomX, one could definately consider to be highly intelligent.  An intelligent person will be able to reflect on and transcend or even correct his own misconceptions or predjudice.  Therefore, i believe MalcomX was definately not a racist as he was a person standing up against racism.  He did not call for black people to be established as better or anything, he was demanding equality in an unequal and unfair world.  I think that honesty and bravery are important too.
> 
> Surely all people share stereotype ideas and racial profiling.  It's something natural to a cerain point.
> So, seeing the whole escapade from this angle, one can see that neither side is really all that wrong.  Some people are so racist or hateful of a particular group, that they will avoid any contact, especially physical, meaning they don't even want to touch with a pole.  That would be pathetic racist behaviour.  I think that the worst racism comes from people that hide it and pretend like it's the way.  People who preach racism are very hurtful and must do plenty of damage, but i think a good person thats slightly clever would be able to see through the mess.
> 
> Saying white people are the devil..again, a different time different age.  But i venture to say that maybe, maybe it was a way of bringing the communities together.  Also, to make the government know that there is someone that has the power to move things and if the government doesn't make a constructive move, there would be more and more unrest.  It is very important for all peoples to have such a leader that is able to unite and guide the collective-that is the essence of government, no?.
> Another point, we have to hear or take a look at the whole speach.  I'm gather it didn't start with white people are the devil but had a more meaningful message with a begining and ending.
> 
> Granted, as has been said, a suspicious mind sees only evil.
> 
> 
> j
> 
> 
> j


 Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.

They went so far as to make ideological bedfellows with the KKK...No joke!  Mohammad Ali actually APPEARED at a Klan rally and gave a SPEECH about their common goals of racial seperation....



> *Muhammad Ali's meetings with Ku Klux Klan leaders revealed by documentary*
> 
> * Shortly before he fought Joe Frazier in the Philippines in 1975, Muhammad Ali    met with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan. *
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...s-revealed-by-documentary-Boxing-and-MMA.html





Now if your GOALS are identical to an organization such as the KKK.......i.e. RACIAL SEPERATION........how can one argue that the Klan's goals are racist, but the Nation of Islams' isn't?  That argument is fundamentally schizophrenic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

The Gates of Political Distraction 



> Conservatives won this round in the culture wars, not merely because most of the facts broke their way, but because their grievance is one that a certain species of liberal never seems to grasp. Whether the issue is abortion, evolution or recycling, these liberal patricians are forever astonished to discover that the professions and institutions and attitudes that they revere are seen by others as arrogance and affectation.
> 
> The elitism narrative routinely blind-sides them, takes them by surprise again and again. There they are, feeling good about their solidarity with the coffee-growers of Guatemala, and then they find themselves on the receiving end of criticism from, say, the plumbers of Ohio.


----------



## kaizasosei

It's a matter of strategy.  You don't always move in straight lines.  So why didn't the government go ahead and give everyone what they want.  Hell, split the country into two, have schools, buses and townships completely segregated...it's an impossibility.   When someone tells you quite clearly that they don't want you, what do you say??  The correct answer is(the most strategically neutral yet hurtful answer) is a clear and sharp ' i don't want you either'  

doesn't mean it has to be that way, but the message is clear, and if heard can effect a complete reversal of the situation.  








j


----------



## Steve

You guys just can't do it.  When your own double standards are pointed out you can't admit it.  

Okay, I'll try again.  After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley?  Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger?  No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did.  Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.  

So, if we can all agree on this, the question is, why did Crowley stick around after having ID'd Gates?  Why didn't he leave?  So far, in this thread and everywhere else, the only reasons I've seen or heard about amount to these:
1:  He was mean to me.
2:  He was yelling mean things at me.
3:  He said something about my mama.

Even if that's all true, why didn't he leave?   I believe it's because he was irritated and felt disrespected, and that he had decided to arrest Gates but realized he couldn't do so until he was outside the house.

It's kind of like Yorkshirelad goading others in this thread... Crowley WAS the conflict, and yet he decided to stay.  That just doesn't compute for me.  It seems deliberate.  

I don't think race was involved in Crowley's decision to stay.  I believe that ego definitely played a large role.  Uppity Harvard Academic saying something about my mama!  "Ahem.  Sir, if you'd like to step out here, we can discuss this in front of all of these witnes... er... I mean, in a neutral area."  

Come on guys.  Give me a break.  Once again, I'm not saying Gates acted with dignity and honor.  I think it's clear that he over reacted.  I'm suggesting that Crowley, in spite of all of his training, made an egregious error in judgement at best or deliberately prodded an angry academic so that he could slap the cuffs on him at worst.  I don't know where it falls on that spectrum, but I'm relatively confident it's in there somewhere.

That a few of you are so quick to hide behind technicalities in order to protect Crowley, presuming the best on his behalf and the worst on Gates' is alarmingly biased.  It's like they're all sitting in a pile of cow crap but you guys refuse to admit that Crowley stinks too.

In the same way, your rationale for Crowley's behavior is that Gates and Obama behaved poorly.  YOu can't accept the notion that Crowley might have crap on his uniform, too.


----------



## jks9199

sgtmac_46 said:


> Bottom line......Sgt. Crowley, motivated by his view of enforcing the law and maintaining order.......regardless of critique on his actions at the moment.  I have zero reason to believe that race even factored in to his actions EXCEPT to perhaps to DELAY a more assertive response out of the notion that this would blow up in his face!



Y'know...  There's actually some truth to this.  Most cops have probably held off or delayed a little as someone starts to play the "you're only doing this 'cause I'm..." usually, but not exclusively, a race, often black.  I know I can think of times when I put up with crap that I wouldn't have otherwise because the guy was black.  I can't help but wonder if Sgt. Crowley wouldn't have simply told a white man to "shut up, hang up the phone and let me do my job!"


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> You guys just can't do it.  When your own double standards are pointed out you can't admit it.
> 
> Okay, I'll try again.  After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley?  Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger?  No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did.  Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.


 Why don't you ask that question to Sgt. Crowley and the other officers who were there?  They obviously made a determination based on more than just something they read on the internet or saw some talking head say on TV......if only everyone could do the same. 

See at the end of the day......your assumptions about the case are heavily biased by 3 things

1) The dubious statements of Skippy Gates
2) Your own beliefs about the situation based on what you THINK happened that are only supported by reason 1.
3) The desire to put the entire issue on the actions of Sgt. Crowley, and dismiss the REAL REASON this is a national issue.......which isn't whether some clown got himself arrested for created a peace disturbance.


Boiling this entire debate down to Sgt. Crowley is a tactic, pure and simple........a tactic that hopes folks are dumb enough to buy the notion that believing that Sgt. Crowley overreacted to a racist diatribe somehow shields the racist involved......and his acolyte's subsequent racist and ignorant remarks. 

The rational perspective, however, is even if one acknowledges Sgt. Crowley's actions were a moment of bad judgment based on dealing with an emotionally hijacked racist........NONE OF THAT in any way shields Skippy Gates or Barry Obama from RIGHTFUL scrutiny of even WORSE BEHAVIOR!


----------



## sgtmac_46

kaizasosei said:


> It's a matter of strategy.  You don't always move in straight lines.  So why didn't the government go ahead and give everyone what they want.  Hell, split the country into two, have schools, buses and townships completely segregated...it's an impossibility.   When someone tells you quite clearly that they don't want you, what do you say??  The correct answer is(the most strategically neutral yet hurtful answer) is a clear and sharp ' i don't want you either'
> 
> doesn't mean it has to be that way, but the message is clear, and if heard can effect a complete reversal of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j


 Oh no, it's not a matter of strategy........it's the poison of racism.  Just as an abused child has a tendency to grow in to an abusing adult.  The fact, however, that they were the victim of abuse as a child does not excuse the behavior in the adult.  That is the teaching moment for racism........being the victim of earlier racism does not justify present and future racism.  End the cycle.

As to the question of why they didn't give everyone wanted they wanted and split the country......i'm not sure what point you think you're making with that question, though I believe that was already tried.......in 1861.......the results were less than ideal.



Here's what it boils down to........the root of black racism is founded in earlier racial victimization.  I understand that.  However, the result of that racism is a kind of vicious desire for a pound of flesh on the part of some folks.  Now here's the problem for them.......i'm willing to share the country with all races.  I've never victimized anyone because of their race.  I'm NOT GOING TO PLAY PUNCH DUMMY as some sort of penance for past racists who happen to share a similar skin tint as me....NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!  

So, in essence, those who harbor these racist delusions of racial vengance and comeuppance have really two choices.....GET OVER IT and lets build a better America together.......OR PREPARE FOR CONFLICT!  Because i've seen the results of these kind of racial blood grudges.........Rwanda 1995 being a prime example of what happens with a perceived aggrieved group, i.e. the Hutus, gains the opportunity to take out their racial grievance on a previous population that has historically oppressed them, i.e. the Tutsi'.........they put nearly 1 Million Tutsi's and moderate Hutu's to the blade within a couple of days!  Or how about the Balkan conflicts involving the Serbians gaining the power to take out those old animosities.

Bottom line.......aligning oneself along racial lines is FUNDAMENTALLY DANGEROUS!


----------



## Archangel M

> Okay, I'll try again. After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley? Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger? No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did. Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.



You just dont get it. Making an arrest for disorderly conduct has NOTHING to do with a "physical threat" or feeling that you are in "physical danger". A guy in a wheelchair yelling and screaming at passersby is subject to a DC arrest.

It seems like every argument against the Sgt. boils down to "I don't think he should have..." NOT "he had to legal basis for"...

You know the old saying about opinions.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> You just dont get it. Making an arrest for disorderly conduct has NOTHING to do with a "physical threat" or feeling that you are in "physical danger". A guy in a wheelchair yelling and screaming at passersby is subject to a DC arrest.
> 
> It seems like every argument against the Sgt. boils down to "I don't think he should have..." NOT "he had to legal basis for"...
> 
> You know the old saying about opinions.


 Touche!

It's easier to make an argument when you can change the bar of right and wrong to fit your argument, not to stick with the 'Objectively Reasonable' standard provided by law!


----------



## Archangel M

I particularly enjoy the 'I was on a long flight excuse" Would Gates accept the "I just pulled a double shift" excuse from a cop who insulted his mother?


----------



## yorkshirelad

sgtmac_46 said:


> Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.
> 
> They went so far as to make ideological bedfellows with the KKK...No joke! Mohammad Ali actually APPEARED at a Klan rally and gave a SPEECH about their common goals of racial seperation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if your GOALS are identical to an organization such as the KKK.......i.e. RACIAL SEPERATION........how can one argue that the Klan's goals are racist, but the Nation of Islams' isn't? That argument is fundamentally schizophrenic.


You beat me to it....Well, not really. I was going to compare the Nation of Islam with the purveyors of apartheid in South Africa, but the Klan comparison is more apt.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> I particularly enjoy the 'I was on a long flight excuse" Would Gates accept the "I just pulled a double shift" excuse from a cop who insulted his mother?



Gonna bet he wouldn't.......but, then some folks believe that Police officers (because of the VAST power they wield) need to be held to a far higher standard.......which is to a great degree true, however, does a Police Officer wield more true power than a Harvard Professor?  Possibly.  Does he wield more TRUE power than the President of the United States of America?  That's fundamentally ridiculous........but some examine Sgt. Crowley's behavior as if he is the ONLY one in this equation with an obligation, owing to his 'power' to behave in a rational manner........while Skippy Gates and, more frightening STILL, the POTUS, is given a pass utterly and completely!

The real issue here isn't Crowley OR Gates..........but President Obama and how he illustrated his personal biases in one of his disasterous 'Off the Prompter' moments......a rare moment when he showed us the REAL Barack Obama.......an acolyte of the kind of racial animosity demonstrated by Skippy Gates and Reverend Jeremiah 'USofKKKA' Wright!


----------



## sgtmac_46

The problem with those who lean left, and we've seen good demonstration of this here......is that they critique those to their political right with microscopic attention.......BUT they are utterly unable to turn that microscope internally and view their own inconsistencies and absurdities.

They perceive inconsistency and absurdity on the part of those they disagree with, but have to create strawmen in order to illustrate that absurdity, because to fairly characterize their opponents points would be to concede them......the reverse, however, is not true.  

One can fairly characterize the arguments of those who claim Skip Gates isn't a racist by using their own arguments, and allow the absurdity of their argument on the matter to illustrate itself.

Here's the problem, and root of their internal contradiction......No matter what they CLAIM, they are defending a political position built on GROUP IDENTITY POLITICS.........why that fails is because those of us who are attacking that position aren't defending a different group.......we are arguing from the perspective of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY........where groups don't even factor in.  In my thinking Skip Gates is a man.........not a representative of some larger group.  

Sgt. Crowley is a man......I don't even consider Sgt. Crowley a representative of a group, even though some wish to characterize him as some representative of some larger concept they have of 'Police'.  In this situation I judge each of them based on their actions and their motives.......Skip Gates was driven by his own personal biases, based on race, to act in a manner that was reprehensible.  

Sgt. Crowley acted in response in a fashion that he felt was called for by his training and experience, AND the obligations of his profession......whether he was off kilter on his judgment about whether Gates' arrest was the best course of action to uphold that obligation is open for discussion, but not his belief at the moment that it was the best course of action.  

It seems pretty clear the root motive of Sgt. Crowley's actions AND the root motives of Skip Gates' actions.......


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> I don't think race was involved in Crowley's decision to stay. I believe that ego definitely played a large role. Uppity Harvard Academic saying something about my mama! "Ahem. Sir, if you'd like to step out here, we can discuss this in front of all of these witnes... er... I mean, in a neutral area."
> 
> .


But that's just it Steve, YOU may not think that race has anything to do with Crowley's decision to arrest Gates, but Gates and Obama do. Again, they injected race into this bollix.
There doesn't have to be a percieved thread to constitute a disturbance of the peace as you know, but it's still an offense. 
We have established thus far that;

1) Sgt Crowley was dispatched to Gates' house for a legitimate reason.

2) Gates was in a combative mood.

3) There was no racial componant in this mess until Gates and Obama injected one into the situation.

4) The arrest was legal. 

5) LEOs in general have a lot more to lose in creating a hostile situation than the average Joe blow.

I really don't understand what your beef is.

Oh and btw, yes Malcolm X, Elijah and Louis Farrakhan are all racists. It's a fact and their mouthpiece Malik Shabaz is a racist and a misogynist. Does anyoneone remember his sdebate with Michelle Malkin when he called her the white man's whore? If you want to point the finger at despicable specimens, look no further than these guys.


----------



## crushing

sgtmac_46 said:


> Uhm, no.....you are referring to the 'For Mass Consumption' Denzel Washington HOLLYWOOD version of Malcolm X.......what Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam REALLY wanted was a SEPARATION of Races.......the desire of the Nation of Islam was a separate society for Black people and White people, and they viewed themselves, i.e. the Nation of Islam elite, as being the heads of that black society.


 
There are different Malcolm Xs depending on when you look at him and his life.  Malcolm X underwent a transformation after his pilgrimage to Mecca after seeing people of all colors from all over the world also making the pilgrimage.  Malcolm X also seperated himself from the Nation of Islam and its founder, Elijah Muhammad.  The media often fails to portray complex characters and stages and instead offer an amalgam.  Add to that the fact that Malcolm X detractors will often point to certain points in his life while ignoring other, especially post-Hajj.


----------



## Archangel M

Almost EVERY LEO here has said "perhaps the Sgt. could have/should have used his discretion here"...

We all have probably arrested someone then thought perhaps that it wasn't in the interests of justice after the fact, and there have been times I have left a scene regretting that I didn't arrest. But thinking that perhaps Gates should have been left to yell and holler all he wanted doesn't make Crowley's arrest "WRONG". That seems to be the fundamental disconnect between the LEO/NON-LEO's here. Hell every person I arrest "believes" that it was WRONG and that I should have given them a break.


----------



## sgtmac_46

yorkshirelad said:


> But that's just it Steve, YOU may not think that race has anything to do with Crowley's decision to arrest Gates, but Gates and Obama do. Again, they injected race into this bollix.
> There doesn't have to be a percieved thread to constitute a disturbance of the peace as you know, but it's still an offense.
> We have established thus far that;
> 
> 1) Sgt Crowley was dispatched to Gates' house for a legitimate reason.
> 
> 2) Gates was in a combative mood.
> 
> 3) There was no racial componant in this mess until Gates and Obama injected one into the situation.
> 
> 4) The arrest was legal.
> 
> 5) LEOs in general have a lot more to lose in creating a hostile situation than the average Joe blow.
> 
> I really don't understand what your beef is.
> 
> Oh and btw, yes Malcolm X, Elijah and Louis Farrakhan are all racists. It's a fact and their mouthpiece Malik Shabaz is a racist and a misogynist. Does anyoneone remember his sdebate with Michelle Malkin when he called her the white man's whore? If you want to point the finger at despicable specimens, look no further than these guys.




And it's obvious that some folks think if they stick to the script of discussing this topic purely framed around Sgt. Crowley, that they can make President Obama's 'too candid for comfort' statements disappear......NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! 

That is the topic......Sgt. Crowley's actions, regardless of what anyone thinks, don't effect my world one bit.........The POTUS being the man his statements suggest he is, is of far more concern!


----------



## yorkshirelad

sgtmac_46 said:


> The real issue here isn't Crowley OR Gates..........but President Obama and how he illustrated his personal biases in one of his disasterous 'Off the Prompter' moments......a rare moment when he showed us the REAL Barack Obama.......an acolyte of the kind of racial animosity demonstrated by Skippy Gates and Reverend Jeremiah 'USofKKKA' Wright!


I'm glad Obama behaved this way. His poll numbers dropped by 30 points after 'the speech'. I guess its time for some damage limitation. I suppose he's gonna spend a little time touring various 'cop shop' for the photo opportunities.


----------



## sgtmac_46

crushing said:


> There are different Malcolm Xs depending on when you look at him and his life.  Malcolm X underwent a transformation after his pilgrimage to Mecca after seeing people of all colors from all over the world also making the pilgrimage.  Malcolm X also seperated himself from the Nation of Islam and its founder, Elijah Muhammad.  The media often fails to portray complex characters and stages and instead offer an amalgam.  Add to that the fact that Malcolm X detractors will often point to certain points in his life while ignoring other, especially post-Hajj.



This is true.....but the POINT is that it is the 'The White Man is the Devil' Malcolm X that Skip Gates was speaking so highly of......that less enlightened Malcolm X was driven by the same racist ideology that prompted the Nation of Islam to align itself ideologically with the KKK in calling for racial separation.

It's no surprise,then, that the enlightened Malcolm X got himself in the cross hairs of the NOI.


----------



## sgtmac_46

yorkshirelad said:


> I'm glad Obama behaved this way. His poll numbers dropped by 30 points after 'the speech'. I guess its time for some damage limitation. I suppose he's gonna spend a little time touring various 'cop shop' for the photo opportunities.



Yeah, that's what the whole 'Drink a beer with the cop' bit is all about......but it'll take more than that to twist this in to a 'Teachable moment' in the manner he wants.


----------



## yorkshirelad

crushing said:


> There are different Malcolm Xs depending on when you look at him and his life. Malcolm X underwent a transformation after his pilgrimage to Mecca after seeing people of all colors from all over the world also making the pilgrimage. Malcolm X also seperated himself from the Nation of Islam and its founder, Elijah Muhammad. The media often fails to portray complex characters and stages and instead offer an amalgam. Add to that the fact that Malcolm X detractors will often point to certain points in his life while ignoring other, especially post-Hajj.


Yes and Hitler was good to his Mum AND a vegetarian because he didn't like the idea of hurting furry little creatures.


----------



## crushing

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yeah, that's what the whole 'Drink a beer with the cop' bit is all about......but it'll take more than that to twist this in to a 'Teachable moment' in the manner he wants.


 
The teachable moment can be summarized by Mel Brooks in History of the World: Part 1, "It's good to be (or at least know) the king."


----------



## yorkshirelad

sgtmac_46 said:


> That is the topic......Sgt. Crowley's actions, regardless of what anyone thinks, don't effect my world one bit.........The POTUS being the man his statements suggest he is, is of far more concern!


Yep, this situation, coupled with Obama's past aquaintances/friends make him one scary guy in the position he's in.


----------



## sgtmac_46

crushing said:


> The teachable moment can be summarized by Mel Brooks in History of the World: Part 1, "It's good to be (or at least know) the king."



Well, this is true!

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he's living in America......where the political winds are far more fickle on the national level than they are in Hyde Park, Chicago.


----------



## sgtmac_46

yorkshirelad said:


> Yep, this situation, coupled with Obama's past aquaintances/friends make him one scary guy in the position he's in.



And what gets me is that it's no surprise to many of us what kind of guy Obama is......exactly the kind his supporters adamantly denied he was to the point of demonizing anyone who pointed it out........yet, any time Obama wanders off Teleprompter he makes the kind of statements that reinforce exactly who many of us knew he was long before November 2008.

Many moderates, however, are starting to wake up with an astonished 'We didn't know this Obama before' realization.......well you folks should have known him.  All anyone had to do to know the REAL Barack Obama was listen to Jeremiah Wright sermons.


----------



## yorkshirelad

sgtmac_46 said:


> Many moderates, however, are starting to wake up with an astonished 'We didn't know this Obama before' realization.......well you folks should have known him. All anyone had to do to know the REAL Barack Obama was listen to Jeremiah Wright sermons.


But that's just it Sgt, everyone heard the Wright sermons, but people WANTED to believe that Obama was different, that he was a new breed of politician who would change the way Washington did business. He IS the bloody wizard of Oz. His spin doctors masterfully told the moronic masses not to look behind the curtain. "Don't look at the man". "Look at the image". Stalinistic blue/red posters of the new messiah were posted everywhere. The cult of personality was once again being used as it was in the good ol' USSR.

We know he began his career in the livingroom of an unrepentant terrorist. We know he was a member of Wright's church for 20 years and we were expected to believe that he NEVER heard Wright's hateful rhetoric. Even though those HATEFUL speaches were being sold in Trinity's gift shop. We know that he had no executive experience and his only leadership experience was as a "community activist" (whatever that is) for the very sinister Acorn group. We know that he has Marxist sympathies. We know all of this and everyone knew this before the election and yet he won the election through masterful manipulation of the elite media. 

Now we have this Gates debarcle and I wonder how this will be handled. I know full well . You can bet your life that the word will be put out that if you disagree with Gates, you are a racist as this was the tactic they used in the election. "If you don't vote for and tow the line with Obama, then your a racist".


----------



## jks9199

Y'know... Moving to President Obama and where he may be going or what his beliefs are is kind of off topic here, and probably a discussion better suited to another part of the forum.  I'm not wearing a mod hat, as I'm obviously very involved in this discussion... but I do think it's a bit of a distraction.


----------



## yorkshirelad

jks9199 said:


> Y'know... Moving to President Obama and where he may be going or what his beliefs are is kind of off topic here, and probably a discussion better suited to another part of the forum. I'm not wearing a mod hat, as I'm obviously very involved in this discussion... but I do think it's a bit of a distraction.


We've gone from Gates and Crowley to Obama to Malcolm X, to Obama. This whole thread is about Gates and Obama's reaction to a police officer. I think it's prudent to scrutinize some of Obama's past aquaintances/dealings in order to put his comments about the police officer's "stupid" behaviour into context. This is just another example of Obama's mindset and it has to be explored.


----------



## Steve

sgtmac_46 said:


> Why don't you ask that question to Sgt. Crowley and the other officers who were there?  They obviously made a determination based on more than just something they read on the internet or saw some talking head say on TV......if only everyone could do the same.
> 
> See at the end of the day......your assumptions about the case are heavily biased by 3 things
> 
> 1) The dubious statements of Skippy Gates


Not at all.  I'm presuming the worst about Gates.





> 2) Your own beliefs about the situation based on what you THINK happened that are only supported by reason 1.


See response to your #1.  I'm presuming Gates acted like a complete idiot.  Your #2 then, is completely groundless.





> 3) The desire to put the entire issue on the actions of Sgt. Crowley, and dismiss the REAL REASON this is a national issue.......which isn't whether some clown got himself arrested for created a peace disturbance.


My desire to point out what for me is really simple common sense in the middle of a lot of extreme emotional reaction and partisan rhetoric.





> Boiling this entire debate down to Sgt. Crowley is a tactic, pure and simple........a tactic that hopes folks are dumb enough to buy the notion that believing that Sgt. Crowley overreacted to a racist diatribe somehow shields the racist involved......and his acolyte's subsequent racist and ignorant remarks.


And, once again, I'm focused on Sgt. Crowley only because others are so fixated on treating him like a saint.  Were you vehemently (and blindly) defending Gates and blaming Crowley, my side in this debate would read decidedly differently.





> The rational perspective, however, is even if one ackowledges Sgt. Crowley's actions were a moment of bad judgment based on dealing with an emotionally hijacked racist........NONE OF THAT in any way shields Skippy Gates or Barry Obama from RIGHTFUL scrutiny of even WORSE BEHAVIOR!


Dude, this is entirely my point.  You're not being rational.  You're being emotional.  I have not once disputed that Gates acted like a jackass and Obama handled the situation stupidly.  My concern in this thread has only ever been that you and a few others are attempting to make it ALL about the black dudes (wow... and you're saying THEY want it to be all about race) and completely forgive and forget (or better yet, pretend otherwise) Crowley's contribution to the SNAFU.

Sgtmac and Yorkshirelad (And whomever else), I'm not a cop hater.  I have lots of friends who are cops.  I ate dinner with a cop a few weeks back.  (this is intended to be tongue in cheek, before one of you cleverly points out that I sound like a racist)  Being serious, though, I have nothing but respect for the police and what they do.  I am, however, reluctant to put them on a pedestal and treat them as sacrosanct.  I cannot, in the face of what appears to me to be a blatant lack of judgement and restraint, allow someone to be given a free pass simply because he is a cop.  As I said above, were you all forgiving Gates and attacking Crowley, my participation in this thread would be the opposite.  They ALL participated in ACTIVELY creating this situation.  Gates by his actions and Crowley by his.  Both exhibited an alarming lack of judgement that led to this conclusion.  

I think it's telling that you guys want nothing more than to forget Crowley's participation and make it entirely about Obama....


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> My concern in this thread has only ever been that you and a few others are attempting to make it ALL about the black dudes (wow... and you're saying THEY want it to be all about race) .


Listen if Gates had been a jackass, which as you say, he was and had made a complaint about Crowley through  the police department, I would still think he was a jackass, but I would've been ok with his decision to complain. After all Crowley is (I would expect) well able to deal with that kind of scrutiny. 

My whole point is that Gates took this to the media and went on a diatribe about been persecuted because he was BLACK. Then Obama hitched himself to the Gates' racial wagon. I don't know how many more times I can say this but here I go again. Crowley responded to a call and was faced with a contencious fool, who for whatever reason wanted a confrontation, after Crowley cautioned Gates, the professor still wouldn't let up and continued to the point where he caused a disturbance, which resulted in Crowley executing a legal arrest.

Did Crowley inject race into the situation, no. Did Crowley perform an illegal arrest, no. Did Gates cause a disturbance, yes. Did Gates and Obama inject race into the situation, yes. 

If Gates was an albino scandinavian, and behaved the same way, I would STILL consider the arrest legal and Gates a jackass. It has nothing to do with Gates and Obama being black. It does have something to do with both Gates and Obama using race to persecute a cop.

I do have a problem with the Police department though. I believe they should have charged Gates for disturbing the peace.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> Sgt. Crowley, according to his report, did warn him.  Twice.  How many chances does he have to give the guy?


jks, I'm sorry I missed this response.  Regarding this statement by you, I am reminded of something that hits close to home.  My oldest is 13 now.  When he was much younger, about 4 or 5, he was willful.  I would tell him to do something... go to bed, perhaps.  He would defy me.  I would demand that he obey and he would say no.  Now, I understand (and understood then) that this was normal.  However, I would handle the situation poorly.  I would draw a line in the sand and he would cross it.  "Don't do X or you're losing TV for a day."  He'd do X.  "Do it again and it's 2 days."  Before I knew it, he'd be out of TV for 5 years or some ridiculous thing like that.  Point is, he misbehaved, but I was as much to blame for the situation.  I am the adult and I allowed the situation to spiral out of control and the consequences to exceed the crime.  I would always regret it (and remember these situations with regret and some amount of shame), and I would like to think that I am much better at managing myself, so that I can better control situations like that.   

In much the same way, I believe that Crowley lost control of the situation.  While Gates acted like a buffoon, Crowley SHOULD have been able to manage the situation, but didn't.  At some point, he began drawing lines in the sand, and before he knew it, the consequences were far in excess of the situation.  

What would be worse, and we'll never know whether this is the case or not, would be if Crowley recognized it and deliberately chose to escalate the situation by asking Gates out only so he could arrest him.  While I'd give Crowley the benefit of the doubt, only he can know for sure if that was the case.


----------



## Steve

yorkshirelad said:


> Listen if Gates had been a jackass, which as you say, he was and had made a complaint about Crowley through  the police department, I would still think he was a jackass, but I would've been ok with his decision to complain. After all Crowley is (I would expect) well able to deal with that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> My whole point is that Gates took this to the media and went on a diatribe about been persecuted because he was BLACK. Then Obama hitched himself to the Gates' racial wagon. I don't know how many more times I can say this but here I go again. Crowley responded to a call and was faced with a contencious fool, who for whatever reason wanted a confrontation, after Crowley cautioned Gates, the professor still wouldn't let up and continued to the point where he caused a disturbance, which resulted in Crowley executing a legal arrest.
> 
> Did Crowley inject race into the situation, no. Did Crowley perform an illegal arrest, no. Did Gates cause a disturbance, yes. Did Gates and Obama inject race into the situation, yes.
> 
> If Gates was an albino scandinavian, and behaved the same way, I would STILL consider the arrest legal and Gates a jackass. It has nothing to do with Gates and Obama being black. It does have something to do with both Gates and Obama using race to persecute a cop.
> 
> I do have a problem with the Police department though. I believe they should have charged Gates for disturbing the peace.


Okay.  Fair enough.  I'm going to concede each and every point.  I have never argued that Crowley broke a law, nor have I ever argued that Gates didn't yell at him on his front lawn.

Now that we have that out of the way, do you think Crowley contributed to the situation by remaining on premises after positively ID'ing Gates and determining that no crime had been committed?  Or to say it another way, do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


----------



## Big Don

stevebjj said:


> Now that we have that out of the way, do you think Crowley contributed to the situation by remaining on premises after positively ID'ing Gates and determining that no crime had been committed?  Or to say it another way, do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


Uh, I don't know about you, but, I don't turn my back on people who are screaming and hollering at me...
Did Gates contribute, in your opinion, by instantly throwing the RACE CARD?


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Uh, I don't know about you, but, I don't turn my back on people who are screaming and hollering at me...
> Did Gates contribute, in your opinion, by instantly throwing the RACE CARD?


Okay.  Thanks for playing, Big Don.  You didn't let me down.  I'll put you down for, "No.  Crowley's a perfect specimen."   Why am I not surprised?

Yorkshirelad?  Sgtmac?  I'm hedging my bets, but the smart money's that you'll try to throw up some chaff and change the subject, too.


----------



## Big Don

stevebjj said:


> Okay.  Thanks for playing, Big Don.  You didn't let me down.  I'll put you down for, "No.  Crowley's a perfect specimen."   Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Yorkshirelad?  Sgtmac?  I'm hedging my bets, but the smart money's that you'll try to throw up some chaff and change the subject, too.


So, we can all put you down as: "I'm not answering the question, because doing so would clearly make me look dumb." Is that right?


----------



## Archangel M

> Now that we have that out of the way, do you think Crowley contributed to the situation by remaining on premises after positively ID'ing Gates and determining that no crime had been committed? Or to say it another way, do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


 
Woulda..coulda..shoulda..bottom line is he didnt haveta. He had a legal reason to be where he was and do what he did.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

For those that say that Sgt. Crowley contributed to the situation my question is this: To what situation did he contribute?

I am certain that he did not go to the press, or speak with the President.  And why, when he was already making a scene in public, would you think that this "situation", would not have occured anyway, ie. Gates going to the press or Pres?

While I am not saying that I would have arrested Gates (we don't have such laws here in California), I don't begrudge him his reasoning for doing so.  I find it interesting that there are those who "know" that Sgt. Crowley arrested him because he got upset with Gates for what he said.  In fact, you have no idea why he did it.  And even if Sgt. Crowley told you the reason, those of you who have predetermined the reason would not probably believe it anyway.

Let me give you an example from my own personal experience.  I have pulled over people for traffic violations.  Sometimes, they make the excuse that I have only pulled them over for being black/hispanic.  So what are my options?  I can let them go, in which case there is no record of the reason for which I detained them, so if they complain it will seem as though I'm making excuses.  Or, I can write them a citation, in which case it will be legally documented, even to the point where I will get to argue my position in court and have a judge determine whether my stop was justified or not.  

One carries a higher risk of getting me administratively into trouble then the other. 

Which way would you go???


----------



## Archangel M

+1 that is the "backfire" component of using the "race card" in police contacts (as a ploy). It now puts the cop in the position of thinking "damn I was going to let him go with a warning, but if he calls in a complaint and I have no documentation as to why I contacted him it will look like I DID pull him over for no reason."

Ive had people "seal their fate" into a summons for exactly that reason.


----------



## CoryKS

Good god, this thread is epic.  It even survived a Godwin a few pages back.  It cannot be stopped!


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> So, we can all put you down as: "I'm not answering the question, because doing so would clearly make me look dumb." Is that right?


Big Don, the point is, I've answered your question in almost every single post in this thread.  But, since you're being obtuse, I'll say it again.  Gates introduced race.  Gates was as much a part of the problem as anyone else.  I am genuinely at a loss at how I could be more clear.  You guys continuously attack a straw man and avoid (and continue to avoid) the questions I ask.  The reason I'm focusing on Crowley is that everyone else seems to be deliberately excusing him from his involvement.

As for looking dumb, I'm pretty sure we all look dumb by now, and have for many pages.  It's interesting to me to think about the parallels between the course of this thread and the topic of the thread.  Much the same as I believe Crowley is as guilty of creating the situation as Gates, I'm sure I am as guilty as you guys for creating this quagmire of misunderstanding.  When I read your remark about not wanting to look dumb, I actually laughed out loud because I'm pretty sure we all already do. 

Of course, I'm too stubborn to let it drop, so... there ya go.  It's a recognized character flaw I have.


			
				yorkshirelad said:
			
		

> Woulda..coulda..shoulda..bottom line is he didnt haveta. He had a legal reason to be where he was and do what he did.


And once again, you fail to even approach the subject.  Fingers in the ears, saying, "Lalalala."  Anytime someone is granted authority over someone else, there is the potential for abuse of that authority.  In this case, Crowley allowed the situation to spiral out of control to the point he had no choice but to arrest Gates, at best, or engineered the spiral so that he could arrest Gates at worst. 

5-0Kenpo, Crowley was the focus for the tirade.  Had the police left after having done their job, there would be nothing to report.  Instead, he chose to stick around and make things worse.  I'll ask the same question again, in case someone might want to answer it.  I realize it's conjecture, but that's okay, because this is a discussion.     In the absence of any kind of threat of violence or some other real danger, after ID'ing Gates, had Crowley ignored Gates' tantrum and said, "Thank you for your time.  Sorry for any confusion.  Have a nice day."  And left.  Do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


----------



## Big Don

stevebjj said:


> Big Don, the point is, I've answered your question in almost every single post in this thread.  But, since you're being obtuse, I'll say it again.  Gates introduced race.  Gates was as much a part of the problem as anyone else.  I am genuinely at a loss at how I could be more clear.  You guys continuously attack a straw man and avoid (and continue to avoid) the questions I ask.  The reason I'm focusing on Crowley is that everyone else seems to be deliberately excusing him from his involvement.


 Funny how people blame those who start problems...





> 5-0Kenpo, Crowley was the focus for the tirade.  Had the police left after having done their job, there would be nothing to report.  Instead, he chose to stick around and make things worse.  I'll ask the same question again, in case someone might want to answer it.  I realize it's conjecture, but that's okay, because this is a discussion.     In the absence of any kind of threat of violence or some other real danger, after ID'ing Gates, had Crowley ignored Gates' tantrum and said, "Thank you for your time.  Sorry for any confusion.  Have a nice day."  And left.  Do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


There absolutely would be, because Gates thinks he was persecuted, is a friend of Obama, and LOVES to be in the media.


----------



## seasoned

stevebjj said:


> Big Don, the point is, I've answered your question in almost every single post in this thread. But, since you're being obtuse, I'll say it again. Gates introduced race. Gates was as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I am genuinely at a loss at how I could be more clear. You guys continuously attack a straw man and avoid (and continue to avoid) the questions I ask. The reason I'm focusing on Crowley is that everyone else seems to be deliberately excusing him from his involvement.
> 
> As for looking dumb, I'm pretty sure we all look dumb by now, and have for many pages. It's interesting to me to think about the parallels between the course of this thread and the topic of the thread. Much the same as I believe Crowley is as guilty of creating the situation as Gates, I'm sure I am as guilty as you guys for creating this quagmire of misunderstanding. When I read your remark about not wanting to look dumb, I actually laughed out loud because I'm pretty sure we all already do.
> 
> Of course, I'm too stubborn to let it drop, so... there ya go. It's a recognized character flaw I have.
> And once again, you fail to even approach the subject. Fingers in the ears, saying, "Lalalala." Anytime someone is granted authority over someone else, there is the potential for abuse of that authority. In this case, Crowley allowed the situation to spiral out of control to the point he had no choice but to arrest Gates, at best, or engineered the spiral so that he could arrest Gates at worst.
> 
> 5-0Kenpo, Crowley was the focus for the tirade. Had the police left after having done their job, there would be nothing to report. Instead, he chose to stick around and make things worse. I'll ask the same question again, in case someone might want to answer it. I realize it's conjecture, but that's okay, because this is a discussion. In the absence of any kind of threat of violence or some other real danger, after ID'ing Gates, had Crowley ignored Gates' tantrum and said, "Thank you for your time. Sorry for any confusion. Have a nice day." And left. Do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


One thing you won't hear on this thread is, cops are taught to win, don't quote me.


----------



## kaizasosei

Don't want to really come between..., but i must say that power does corrupt a person easily. Hope it's ok to share this story, for example, funny that just yesterday, in the parka guys canine attacked my gfs dog.  So having the responsibility of taking care of the dog, i saw myself having to shout- also, i was figuring out if the guy himself, who was chatting with some lady,  was someone i had seen once there that practices cappoeira with his dog always barking at him and he doing very powerful spin kicks and the like without hitting the dog.  Now i love playfighting with dogs, so i was naturally interested.  But it made me mad because i think it is the wrong way to go and technically he could hit the dog by accident rather easily with ultrafast spinkicks. He doesn't give the dog a chance, there is no wrestling really only weaving in and out-plus, why? I mean, it takes a lot of energy to do those moves, why in a public place....-if i see him i will confront him to see if he is a good guy and might even challenge him.
  I'm a person that really minds my own business, but in this case i would like to at least talk to the guy and take a little closer look at the whole thing. Whatever the owner of the dog in question was not the cappoeiraguy. 

Anyhow,,rambling now, i know but when i shouted at the mut to stop attacking #my dog, i may have been a little more nasty that was necessary.  Shouting in japanese out of habit, i effectively managed to stop the dog that was not really nasty.  OK, so here we go, the guy i guess responding to the aggression and worry in me-simply makes a snyde remark like -speakgerman-  so i look at him and say, 'i will speak in any language i goddamn feel like'-half in english with a couple of f words. 'why should i?' i ask
  Ok, then he says, 'you do not want to mess with me', you don't know me' do you blabla.'   Me being a careful person wondered if he be some kind of hab and truly have connections and knowledge. so I said to him, 'well, you don't know me either do you, do you'   
Also, i purposely said it in a bit of a spooky calm way to retort to the stupid line.  he seemed to geniuinly not have a clue as to my person-answering 'no he doesn't know me, but he can see..'? wtf- do i look so weak, ok- maybe the limp from the blister on my heel(damn wool folds-i normally never get blisters even for days on walking)...?

i think when he said that he is not to be messed with, i think he meant some martial arts training.  Not like his dad is police chief or he has a syndicate of prowlers under his controll, or is one himself.


. Then i tell him he's a piece of ****(in english&german for added clarity).  My plan, i want him to attack me.  But he is not that type of guy it seems.-  I start leaving, i tell him sorry for the mean words, but after i shout to protect my canine, he tells me to speak so and so language...(sortof reeks of racial intollerance)- and THAT, i tell him, i find distasteful(finally able to find vocab without f words).  

So i'm a good deal away now and he retorts 'thank god'(like thank god i find it distasteful??-actually kindergarten level)-  wtf- why is the guy bringing god into this, i thought.  So i stop and head back walking briskly, limp gone-  the guy was very frightened and making the stop motion with his palms, going back meters, while repeatedly giving me warnings--the lady leaves.  I go closer and keep repeating what he had said, with open arms but the fear in him his dog starts growling, i crouch down and reach peacefully for the dog and the dog is pacified and i pet it vigorously lovingly exposing my face.  I get up and head towards him closer, he still trying to stop me, collapsing a bit and i have to turn my hips a tad because i can sense he is thinking to hit me in the nuts(later on a find a mirco scratch on the knuckle of my thumb).
  I keep smiling and telling him 'thank god' and slowly he is beginning to see that i mean him no harm and if i did, i think he would most likely have no chance. 

OK, sorry for the long story, but it is fresh and shows how ****ed up we can be when provoked in certain ways.  I personally, believe that Gates should not have provoked the Policeman in the first place.  I think that he was abusing his status and power in the first place.  Then i also agree that the police should have left, but they are human too and if challenged in certain ways, their egos kick in, their complexes and whatever.  Just like any confrontation, one hurts and challenges the other.  It's in peoples nature to want to do something to the other to get justice done, the smart ones know how to charge and sue, the less aware might lose their cool.

In my story, the guy started with the power trip- telling me 'i don't want to mess with him'  i was spooked, i was imagining a team of mercenaries stalking me down.  I thought the guy had access to peoples files and could influence lives,jobs and fortune.  
Then i ask if he knows me....he seemed disinterested.  He was bluffing, i was confused. i  mean i don't have much worldly power and am a very cashless luckless person(hopefully can change that) with my passion in the arts and spirituality my only real asset.  Still, it's a vicious circle.   After leaving again, the guy called me back and we bowed to each other, both appologized for our shortcomings and walked off practically, sortof having made friends


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

Chris Rock has this to say about it:


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> You're acting like that was my opinion. MJS, go back and read what I actually wrote. It's not open for debate. It's not like I made it up. I am very confident that the corporate policies in most, if not all, of the stores in your local mall, you'd find that what I said is true. Most of what you guys disagree with in my posts are things I never said. It's making me feel like I'm on an episode of Candid Camera (Online Version).


 

Originally Posted by *celtic_crippler* 

 
_Retail managers call the police in these situations.  As would anyone else who experienced an overly disruptive individual in their work place._
No, they don't. Not typically. In fact, they aren't usually allowed to call the police or even mall security until they've directed to do so by their LP rep. Of course, each company has their own policies.

This is what was said from the last exchange.  I'm simply saying that I can't believe that calling the PD has to be cleared by anyone.  AFAIK, mall security have no arrest powers, despite what they may think, so if there was someone getting assaulted, I'd think that someone should call.  If someone punched me in the back of the head and took my wallet, you're saying that its the company policy that a manager or some official head of the store would need to give the ok first, before they call?  I'm asking, what if there is no official person working at the time?  Is one of the highschool age kids working the counter going to call or tell me they can't?


----------



## MJS

stevebjj said:


> You guys just can't do it. When your own double standards are pointed out you can't admit it.
> 
> Okay, I'll try again. After having positively IDing Gates, does anyone believe that Gates was any kind of physical threat to Sgt. Crowley? Or, I guess, more relevant, does anyone believe that Crowley felt as though he was in any physical danger? No accounting of the situation leads me to believe that he did. Everything points to what amounts to a sticks and stones situation.


 
Seeing that a) nobody on this forum was present, and b) we don't have, what I feel is very important, and that is exactly what words were said.  I asked his before in another post, and you felt it wasn't necessary, but in fact it is.  Why do you think the 911 tapes were pulled?  To use as evidence as to what the convo. between the caller and dispatcher was.  If some dash-cam on the cruiser caught this incident, if some passerby started taping this from the street, you can bet that this would help.  This is turning in a he said/she said game.  We're all speculating as to what was said.  I can't answer the above questions, because I wasn't there.  As I said, Gates could've said that he was going back in the house to grab a gun and shoot Crowley.  He could have said that he was going to come out and kick his ***.  We dont know.  



> So, if we can all agree on this, the question is, why did Crowley stick around after having ID'd Gates? Why didn't he leave? So far, in this thread and everywhere else, the only reasons I've seen or heard about amount to these:
> 1: He was mean to me.
> 2: He was yelling mean things at me.
> 3: He said something about my mama.


 
Why did Gates still have to act like an ***?  Crowley had options...leave or stay.  He chose to stay.  We don't know why, but I can take a shot and say that he stayed because Gates was still causing a public disturbance.  If Crowley left and Gates continued to stand in front of his yard for another 30min yelling and screaming, you can damn well bet that his neighbors would be justified in calling the cops back, because he's causing a disturbance.  Why should anyone have to subject themselves to that?



> Even if that's all true, why didn't he leave? I believe it's because he was irritated and felt disrespected, and that he had decided to arrest Gates but realized he couldn't do so until he was outside the house.
> 
> It's kind of like Yorkshirelad goading others in this thread... Crowley WAS the conflict, and yet he decided to stay. That just doesn't compute for me. It seems deliberate.
> 
> I don't think race was involved in Crowley's decision to stay. I believe that ego definitely played a large role. Uppity Harvard Academic saying something about my mama! "Ahem. Sir, if you'd like to step out here, we can discuss this in front of all of these witnes... er... I mean, in a neutral area."
> 
> Come on guys. Give me a break. Once again, I'm not saying Gates acted with dignity and honor. I think it's clear that he over reacted. I'm suggesting that Crowley, in spite of all of his training, made an egregious error in judgement at best or deliberately prodded an angry academic so that he could slap the cuffs on him at worst. I don't know where it falls on that spectrum, but I'm relatively confident it's in there somewhere.
> 
> That a few of you are so quick to hide behind technicalities in order to protect Crowley, presuming the best on his behalf and the worst on Gates' is alarmingly biased. It's like they're all sitting in a pile of cow crap but you guys refuse to admit that Crowley stinks too.
> 
> In the same way, your rationale for Crowley's behavior is that Gates and Obama behaved poorly. YOu can't accept the notion that Crowley might have crap on his uniform, too.


 
I get the impression that you feel it was ok for Gates to keep acting like a raging *******, once it was established he wasn't a crook.  Is that what you're saying?  Are you saying that Crowley should have just left and let him keep spewing?  So you're saying its ok for Gates to cause a public disturbance?


----------



## MJS

I don't know...I'm still confused on why this is centering around Crowley.  He was sent to a burg in progress, according to what was told to the dispatcher.  He gets there, after fishing thru the mess, determines that Gates is the homeowner, was having issues with the door, returned from a trip and somehow, its being said that the cop is a racist because he was 'harassing' a black man.  This is the biggest load of bull that I've seen.  People are asking why Crowley didn't leave.  Ok, why was Gates being an ***?  Did he have to yell and act like a 2yo who didn't get his way with mommy and daddy?  For the same reason those claim that Crowley should have left, Gates should've shut his piehole long enough to see that the cop was only doing his job.  But like always, the almighty race card has to be played, God forbid it isn't.  I wonder...would Gates have been an *** if it was a black cop that arrived on scene?  IIRC, wasn't there a pic. floating around somewhere with a black cop present?


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> Now that we have that out of the way, do you think Crowley contributed to the situation by remaining on premises after positively ID'ing Gates and determining that no crime had been committed? Or to say it another way, do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


I don't think that Crowley would've been doing his job, if he'd left while a raving nutcase was causing a public disturbance. However trivial you think Gates' behaviour was, the cops (notice I say cops in the plural, there was more than one) deamed his behaviour sufficiently disturbing to warrant an arrest.
Steve, if Crowley had been out of line and his behaviour noted by the president the way it was, do you not think that his department would've handled it?You know, set up some kind of enquiry with the possibility of some kind of punitive action. Do you not think that with this amount of scrutiny from the media, Harvard, POTUS, Crowley's department would not be initiating some kind of damage limitation. But they didn't. Instead, the President is in damage limitation mode. I wonder why?


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> Crowley was the focus for the tirade. Had the police left after having done their job, there would be nothing to report. Instead, he chose to stick around and ?


 
That's a pretty large assumption. When I lived in Yorkshire as a kid, I used to ride my bike down to a village called Berwick in Elmet. The village is a quaint little place and very quiet. I hadn't been there for years and one day read an article about it in 'The Yorkshire Evening Post'. Apparently a disturbed guy, let's called him Fred, took the liberty to stand next to the maypole and shout "evolution, devolution" over and over again. The police came out to speak to him, he ould get verbally aggressive. They would move him to another place. Well, he came back and one of the local home owners got pissed and went out to give Fred a piece of his mind. Fred punched him, the guy banged his head on trhe pavement and died. Guess whose head was on the block? Was it crazy guy, no. He got what he needed, psychiatric care. Was it the cops? Yep. Why? Because logic prevailed that they should've dealt with him correctly when they had the chance.
Now Steve, you have tried to climb inside the head of Gates and come to the assumption that if Crowley had just left him on the side walk, screaming like a three year old girl, the situation would've dealt with itself. But what if your assumption is incorrect and Gates had carried on being pissed and in turn pissed off other residents, who in turn had seen the cops leave and therefore decided to shut Gates up themselves? 

You see, your assumptions open the door to further speculation. We do not know how Gates would've behaved IF Crowley had just left, but we KNOW for certain how Gates behaved during his little scene with Crowley and that is all we have to go on.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> jks, I'm sorry I missed this response.  Regarding this statement by you, I am reminded of something that hits close to home.  My oldest is 13 now.  When he was much younger, about 4 or 5, he was willful.  I would tell him to do something... go to bed, perhaps.  He would defy me.  I would demand that he obey and he would say no.  Now, I understand (and understood then) that this was normal.  However, I would handle the situation poorly.  I would draw a line in the sand and he would cross it.  "Don't do X or you're losing TV for a day."  He'd do X.  "Do it again and it's 2 days."  Before I knew it, he'd be out of TV for 5 years or some ridiculous thing like that.  Point is, he misbehaved, but I was as much to blame for the situation.  I am the adult and I allowed the situation to spiral out of control and the consequences to exceed the crime.  I would always regret it (and remember these situations with regret and some amount of shame), and I would like to think that I am much better at managing myself, so that I can better control situations like that.
> 
> In much the same way, I believe that Crowley lost control of the situation.  While Gates acted like a buffoon, Crowley SHOULD have been able to manage the situation, but didn't.  At some point, he began drawing lines in the sand, and before he knew it, the consequences were far in excess of the situation.
> 
> What would be worse, and we'll never know whether this is the case or not, would be if Crowley recognized it and deliberately chose to escalate the situation by asking Gates out only so he could arrest him.  While I'd give Crowley the benefit of the doubt, only he can know for sure if that was the case.



First, Dr. Gates is not a 5 year old child.

Second, did you let your child misbehave or defy you indefinitely?  Or did a time come where you took some sort of disciplinary action, and actually stuck with it?  You empowered the child's defiance by drawing the line, than shifting it back.  Sgt. Crowley drew the line.  But when Dr. Gates crossed it, the sergeant took action.  He had to, if he wanted respect down the road.


----------



## Archangel M

Thing is Steve..you keep focusing on how Crowley ALLOWED someone else to behave...Crowley DIDNT CONTROL Gates...Crowley maybe LURED/BAITED Gates outside..etc.

Since when are cops now responsible for how another CHOOSES to behave? If some mook on the street assaults me on the street tonight is his responsibility mitigated because I wasnt aware enough..wasnt trained properly....didnt control him properly?

The bottom line is, perhaps Crowley "could have" done many things differently but he was still doing his job within its legal parameters. I think every cop here has already said that. You seem to want us all to now lay BLAME on him as well.

Gates CHOSE to act the way he did on his own accord...trying to lay the blame for a persons actions on another person is classic liberal "victim status" BS in my opinion.


----------



## CuongNhuka

I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this. 
The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do
Gates showed proof that it was his house
The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go
Gates started screaming racism
Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have

People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.


----------



## kaizasosei

I have thought about that before.  That to be crazy and violent is a danger to oneself, so it is better to be dealt with by an officer than running into a dangerous adversary. But even with all the legal backing of a badge, it is still possible to get in trouble and have ones actions scrutinized.  I guess that is a comforting thought on one hand,-  i personally don't want to polarize the issue of police vs. civilian anymore.  I would rather see it in a case by case way.  Only thing is that it does suck to have legal problems 

Unfortunately, we can't see it.  No video to go on.  Maybe there is one?  I haven't come across one yet.  Without that,.. i must say i have little info as it is.   I do think that generaly however, one should do more study on why people resist arrest and figure out how to get through their skulls.  
I mean, i can see it, i guess i wouldn't mind lying down, getting cuffed or even being ruffed up a bit , ok- but the point is that the people believe that they haven't done anything and there is little connection between the officer and the people- it should be like in a restaurant where you get arrested and then get told to have a nice day- ok, might be is exaggerated in the case of a true crime and resentments-  

At the end of the day, must be cool to get to have a beer at the white house.


j


----------



## Archangel M

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this.
> The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do
> Gates showed proof that it was his house
> The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
> The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go
> Gates started screaming racism
> Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have
> 
> People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.



If you are not interested, dont participate.

I think this interests cops quite a bit because it illustrates a phenomena that we see all the time and most people dont believe us when we talk about it....


----------



## Twin Fist

i would have been ok with it if Gates had gotten bounced around in the back of the cop car.

get mouthy with police at your own risk i say.


----------



## Twin Fist

CuongNhuka said:


> The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go




wrong answer

the cops in NO WAY screwed up.


----------



## yorkshirelad

archangel m said:


> gates chose to act the way he did on his own accord...trying to lay the blame for a persons actions on another person is classic liberal "victim status" bs in my opinion.


qft


----------



## yorkshirelad

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this.
> The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do
> Gates showed proof that it was his house
> The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
> The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go
> Gates started screaming racism
> Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have
> 
> People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.


 
The cop did his job and made a legal arrest. Gates behaved like a royal ******* and Obama injected a racial element into a situation where there was none....yep nothing wrong with that:rofl:


----------



## Big Don

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this.
> The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do


As soon as they did, Gates started screaming about being a black man in America





> Gates showed proof that it was his house


 No, Gates argued, talked about the Cop's mom. 





> The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
> The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go
> Gates started screaming racism
> Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have
> 
> People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.


Had Gates calmly showed his ID when the cops showed up, there would have been NO problems. Instead, Gates chose to violate the rule:
"Don't Start Nothing. Won't be nothing"


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

stevebjj said:


> 5-0Kenpo, Crowley was the focus for the tirade. Had the police left after having done their job, there would be nothing to report. Instead, he chose to stick around and make things worse. I'll ask the same question again, in case someone might want to answer it. I realize it's conjecture, but that's okay, because this is a discussion. In the absence of any kind of threat of violence or some other real danger, after ID'ing Gates, had Crowley ignored Gates' tantrum and said, "Thank you for your time. Sorry for any confusion. Have a nice day." And left. Do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


 
But if you read the report, and believe it, that is exactly what he did.  After ID'ing him, he left.  It was only after Gates left the inside of his home and continued yelling did Crowley then take him to jail, again, after warning him to stop.  

So I am still not understanding how Crowley contributed to this.  Tell me, based on Gates (even self-admitted) behavior, do you believe that this wouldn't have gone up the chain if Crowley had not arrested him.  I still think we would be talking about this.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this.
> The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do
> Gates showed proof that it was his house
> The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
> *The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go*
> Gates started screaming racism
> Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have
> 
> People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.


 
You're wrong.  The prosecutors declined to press charges.  That is a completely different scenario to that which you posit.  After almost ten years of being a cop, I can tell you that sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to why the do or do not prosecute.  Usually, it consists of what they think they can win, not whether it's right to prosecute.  

And again, how do you know why the cops arrested him.  You have no idea.  The man was breaking the laws of the State of Massechusetts.  Uh, you get over it.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> First, Dr. Gates is not a 5 year old child.
> 
> Second, did you let your child misbehave or defy you indefinitely? Or did a time come where you took some sort of disciplinary action, and actually stuck with it? You empowered the child's defiance by drawing the line, than shifting it back. Sgt. Crowley drew the line. But when Dr. Gates crossed it, the sergeant took action. He had to, if he wanted respect down the road.


jks, that's very true.  Gates isn't a child, however, the relationship is the same.  Crowley is in a position of authority over Gates, and presumably has the training, experience and wisdom (not to mention responsibility) to handle the situation well and not lose control.  This relationship is much the same as a parent and a child.  When a child misbehaves, do you blame the child or the parent?  Often, the parent is to blame.

To your second point, there are a lot of ways to handle a situation.  The overriding principle I learned and always try to keep in mind is to not allow the situation to escalate so that the punishment is out of proportion to the situation.  In other words, you don't ground a kid for two weeks because he doesn't want to go to bed.  In the same vein, you don't arrest a guy for being angry with you because you accused him of being a burglar in his own home, even if he's being a jackass.

I will try to get back and read/respond a little more carefully to the rest of the thread, but I can't promise anything.  It's crazy hot here and my house has no AC.  So, for the last few days, it's been a low of about 90F in my house at night... up around 105F during the day.  Three dogs and three kids to keep cool has been keeping me up most of the night, so I may not make much sense.

But, really quickly, yorkshirelad, are you comparing Gates to a guy experiencing a psychotic episode in your hometown?

And archangel, as I've said before, I'm focusing more on Crowley only because so many here want to give him a free pass.  I'm not suggesting that he be fired or anything like that.  I'm suggesting that he is not without blame and that this situation was as much a product of his actions as of Gates.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> jks, that's very true.  Gates isn't a child, however, the relationship is the same.  Crowley is in a position of authority over Gates, and presumably has the training, experience and wisdom (not to mention responsibility) to handle the situation well and not lose control.  This relationship is much the same as a parent and a child.  When a child misbehaves, do you blame the child or the parent?  Often, the parent is to blame.
> 
> To your second point, there are a lot of ways to handle a situation.  The overriding principle I learned and always try to keep in mind is to not allow the situation to escalate so that the punishment is out of proportion to the situation.  In other words, you don't ground a kid for two weeks because he doesn't want to go to bed.  In the same vein, you don't arrest a guy for being angry with you because you accused him of being a burglar in his own home, even if he's being a jackass.
> 
> I will try to get back and read/respond a little more carefully to the rest of the thread, but I can't promise anything.  It's crazy hot here and my house has no AC.  So, for the last few days, it's been a low of about 90F in my house at night... up around 105F during the day.  Three dogs and three kids to keep cool has been keeping me up most of the night, so I may not make much sense.
> 
> But, really quickly, yorkshirelad, are you comparing Gates to a guy experiencing a psychotic episode in your hometown?
> 
> And archangel, as I've said before, I'm focusing more on Crowley only because so many here want to give him a free pass.  I'm not suggesting that he be fired or anything like that.  I'm suggesting that he is not without blame and that this situation was as much a product of his actions as of Gates.


I don't think any of us have given Sgt. Crowley a "free pass."  Most of us who are cops have said that, though we weren't there and can't speak with certainty, making an arrest may not have been the best course.  But... I reread the reports.  Sgt. Crowley tried to leave, and was followed.  He warned Dr. Gates twice.  Dr. Gates was yelling to the crowd, causing a public disturbance.  Efforts to calm him failed.  He got arrested.  Sgt. Crowley had the legal authority to be there, he had the legal justification (probable cause) to make the arrest, and he tried to calm the situation.  Sgt. Crowley neither created nor added to the situation; Dr. Gates's outrageous response to the sergeant's official presence inflamed it and took a routine encounter that should have lasted all of 3 minutes to an arrest.


----------



## yorkshirelad

stevebjj said:


> But, really quickly, yorkshirelad, are you comparing Gates to a guy experiencing a psychotic episode in your hometown?
> .


The situation is comparable Steve. This is how I see it, take our loveable psycho Fred and his "evolution, devolution" rant and transport him from the quiet town of Berwick in Elmet to Leeds city centre and he would not get a second look. People would walk by him all day and not even glance in his direction. No cop would even consider arresting him for diturbing the peace. The situation is different in Berwick in Elmet however. The village is extremely quiet, suburban and it's inhabitants upper middle class. Any kind of distruption which would wake one up from an afternoon nap would be a disturbance of the peace. Relativity in action.

Now Gates goes off on a rant for all the world to hear. He said some things that were offensive and caused a stir, and said them loud and aggressively. I have never been to Boston, but I would hazard a guess that where Gates lives is a community of middle class academics, who usually behave in a professional manner. In other words, he doesn't live in a white dogshit infested council estate full of chavs. So you have to put Gates' actions into the context of where he lives.

Another thing to consider is both Gates' and Crowley's past. Crowley has an unblemished record as a cop and teaches race relations. How do you know this, my chubby little limey friend, I hear you ask? Well, if Crowley had so much of an argument with his mother about which trousers he was going to where for Sunday mass, as an eight year old, we would have heard about it on the network news. Gates' however is known as a black activist who has sympathies with the hateful separatist group The Nation of Islam. He is also known to have a hot temper and he's the one who made a racial issue out of this bollixology.

As a result of all the above info, I deduce that Crowley went to the Gates' residence (as a result of a 9/11 call) in order to prevent a possible break in/burglary. Effectively putting his own life on the line to seure Gates' property, as all LEOs would do. Gates was pissed already at having to break in to his own home. He had had a long journey and was tired, is known to have a temper in the best of times and adding to all the above was then faced with a WHITE cop. All this added together created a temper tantrum that ultimately lead to his arrest.

The professor is, however an arrogant elitist, who sees his position of authority at the university and his friendship with POTUS as an excuse to behave like a pre-pubescent princess, without suffering the consequences that the rest of the great unwashed (us) would have to suffer, if we had placed ourselves in similar circumstances.

Well today is the day. Obama's attempt at damage limitation. Corwley, Gates and Obama, will have a beer and hash this out like adults. The professor and Obama will, politely try to coherse the good Sgt to admit that he was wrong, so that they can all sing cumbaya together. Well Crowley represents the nation's LEOs in this meeting and I for one hopes that he, respectfully tells the both of them to stick it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Archangel M

I hope Crowley is wise enough to bring a lawyer and union rep. with him....


----------



## yorkshirelad

Archangel M said:


> I hope Crowley is wise enough to bring a lawyer and union rep. with him....


No, they're gonna loosen their ties, put their feet up on the couches in the 'oval office', drink a couple of cold ones and shoot the **** for an hour or so. Just like old friends.....Well that's what we're all expected to believe anyway.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

I'll save you a wasted hour in front of the TV and tell you how it's gonna go:

Gates/Obama will ask Crowley to apologize, and Crowley won't do it because he shouldn't have to apologize for doing his job. Riots ensue.


----------



## Twin Fist

i wouldnt be shocked if the president, or his staff rather, threaten the cop into apologizing.


----------



## elder999

Twin Fist said:


> i wouldnt be shocked if the president, or his staff rather, threaten the cop into apologizing.


 

There will be no "threats," only _gentle persuasion,_ and a _*change*_ will come over Sgt. Crowley. He'll publicly state that he's learned a valuable lesson, that he didn't realize what it was like to be a black man in America, and that he has a new understanding-and how he _*hopes*_ he can spread that understanding, especially among police, to affect positive _*change*_ in America......_kumbaya, kumbaya, kumbaya...._ :lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist

now THATS change i can believe in


----------



## yorkshirelad

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'll save you a wasted hour in front of the TV and tell you how it's gonna go:
> 
> Gates/Obama will ask Crowley to apologize, and Crowley won't do it because he shouldn't have to apologize for doing his job. Riots ensue.


Let's hope.


----------



## elder999

Twin Fist said:


> now THATS change i can believe in


 
Ya better believe it. Mark my words, 'cause I'm pullin' a Nostradamus, here. That's just how it will go down. Not gonna say the guy will apologize, but he's already an Obama supporter-he'll have no problem making a statement like that for "the good of the country," and, of course, subsequently making a bunch of people feel bad, and question their own judgement...._bwahaha_ *haha*, and all that. :lfao:.


----------



## blindsage

Hilarious!  If he comes forward and says, "No I didn't apologize, even with their pressure," you're gonna say 'Damn straight'.  But if he does apologize you just gave a 'prediction' to undermine any possible legitimacy to him changing his mind or even coming to an understanding with Gates.  Nice trick.  I don't think Crowley or Gates is the problem.  It's their my-guy-can-do-no-wrong supporters.


----------



## Twin Fist

no, pretty much Gates is the problem


----------



## jks9199

WTOP is reporting on the outcome of the get-together:


> "We agreed to move forward," Crowley said later when asked if anything was solved. "I think what you had today was two gentlemen agreeing to disagree on a particular issue. I don't think that we spent too much time dwelling on the past. We spent a lot of time discussing the future."


 
He's got a very good point.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Twin Fist said:


> no, pretty much Gates is the problem


Gates is just a nut. It's Obama that's the problem. He actually entertained Gates' racial notions. What a debarcle!


----------



## Archangel M

What concerns me are the people attacking the woman who called 911 and the black police officer who supported Crowley.


----------



## Big Don

Archangel M said:


> What concerns me are the people attacking the woman who called 911 and the black police officer who supported Crowley.


Gee, Really? 
I mean I totally understand where they are coming from. If you see someone breaking into my house, let them.


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> There will be no "threats," only _gentle persuasion,_ and a _*change*_ will come over Sgt. Crowley. He'll publicly state that he's learned a valuable lesson, that he didn't realize what it was like to be a black man in America, and that he has a new understanding-and how he _*hopes*_ he can spread that understanding, especially among police, to affect positive _*change*_ in America......_kumbaya, kumbaya, kumbaya...._ :lfao:


That picture is quite offensive Elder...Obama does not have and never did have an eyebrow ring:rofl:


----------



## celtic_crippler

Archangel M said:


> What concerns me are the people attacking the woman who called 911 and the black police officer who supported Crowley.


 
No good deed goes unpunished.....

...anyway...

As I've stated before...:deadhorse...

Sgt, Crowley was legally in the "right"... that's the big difference. 

If you have a problem with how things went down in this particular case, then you need to address what "disorderly conduct" is and how it is considered a crime and when a LEO can charge somebody...

It doesn't matter *IF *Sgt. Crowley *SHOULD* have busted Dr. Gates or not. He had a legal right and even a responsibility to bust Dr. Gates the way the law is written today. 

If you do not agree with what happened, then you should address the LAW, not the man responsible for upholding it.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> What concerns me are the people attacking the woman who called 911 and the black police officer who supported Crowley.



Uh...that bugs the bejeezus out of me.  I think it particularly stings because I am a 40 year old white woman as well.

My neighborhood is very diverse.  Its built a hillside.  The nicest residences in the neighborhood are a string of townhouses at the top of the hill.  These townhouses are very similar to the houses owned by HarvardRES.  They are houses that are leased out to local businesses that use them as executive housing.

If I were to go out for a walk and saw one or two people trying to get through a locked door on "executive hill" (as we call it), I'd call 911. I'd likely do the same thing if I saw something similar on Ware streeet.   Doesn't matter if they were men, women, white, black, Asian, Latino...that's not the proper way to get through a door.

When you call the cops, you have to give the dispatcher a description.  You can either say "There are two guys trying to break in to a residence" and wait for the dispatcher to prompt you through all the questions, or you can offer a description from the start.


----------



## Archangel M

Carol Kaur said:


> Uh...that bugs the bejeezus out of me. I think it particularly stings because I am a 40 year old white woman as well.
> 
> My neighborhood is very diverse. Its built a hillside. The nicest residences in the neighborhood are a string of townhouses at the top of the hill. These townhouses are very similar to the houses owned by HarvardRES. They are houses that are leased out to local businesses that use them as executive housing.
> 
> If I were to go out for a walk and saw one or two people trying to get through a locked door on "executive hill" (as we call it), I'd call 911. I'd likely do the same thing if I saw something similar on Ware streeet. Doesn't matter if they were men, women, white, black, Asian, Latino...that's not the proper way to get through a door.
> 
> When you call the cops, you have to give the dispatcher a description. You can either say "There are two guys trying to break in to a residence" and wait for the dispatcher to prompt you through all the questions, or you can offer a description from the start.


 
And when it comes down to it, skin color is just an identifying feature. I hope we are not going to enter into some silly phase where we can describe the color of a shirt a person is wearing but we cant describe skin color.


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> And when it comes down to it, skin color is just an identifying feature. I hope we are not going to enter into some silly phase where we can describe the color of a shirt a person is wearing but we cant describe skin color.


Virginia DMV records do not include race... and haven't for something like 20 years.

Nah, not an important detail for a cop running someone by name and DOB in the street.  There couldn't possibly be say, more than one Michael Jordan.  Or John Smith.  Nah...  Listing race or skin color couldn't help ID someone...  (Of course, VA DMV will let you register your car as a "5 door sedan", too.  One day, I want to see if they'll let me register a car with a body style "dog.")


----------



## Andrew Green

xkcd.com


----------



## Joab

The beer summit came and went and both sides agreed to disagree agreeably according to news reports. Neither Crowley or Gates would apologize, but will continue the discussion. It's a start.


----------



## Big Don

Joab said:


> The beer summit came and went and both sides agreed to disagree agreeably according to news reports. Neither Crowley or Gates would apologize, but will continue the discussion. It's a start.


I don't believe it is. Crowley had nothing to apologize for, Gates will never apologize.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

When they were agreeing and disagreeing I wonder if it was on beer....

:drinky:


----------



## celtic_crippler

It was just another publicity stunt to deter and distract the sheeple from the real issues.


----------



## sgtmac_46

celtic_crippler said:


> It was just another publicity stunt to deter and distract the sheeple from the real issues.



Namely the 1,000 page travesty of a socialized medicine bill that the president is trying to get passed before anyone realizes what the hell it truly is.


----------



## sgtmac_46

jks9199 said:


> Y'know... Moving to President Obama and where he may be going or what his beliefs are is kind of off topic here, and probably a discussion better suited to another part of the forum.  I'm not wearing a mod hat, as I'm obviously very involved in this discussion... but I do think it's a bit of a distraction.



It's not off topic at all......President Obama FIRMLY injected himself in to this debate to the point that his is inseparable from it.......I can prove that with one simple question.........if President Obama hadn't involved himself, would we even be discussing this?  I rest my case.

In fact, President Obama is not only NOT off topic......regardless of what else we discuss he is the REAL topic.......neither Skippy Gates or Sgt. Crowley effect most of our lives directly........the most powerful man on the planet is an ENTIRELY different story......his poor judgment on the matter SHOULD be concern NUMBER ONE!


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> I am, however, reluctant to put them on a pedestal and treat them as sacrosanct.  I cannot, in the face of what appears to me to be a blatant lack of judgement and restraint, allow someone to be given a free pass simply because he is a cop.


Spare me.........you want to label everyone else's position as emotionally charged, but it's obvious you're the one that's taking the emotional track.....bottom line is that your 'treat them as sacrosanct' argument PROVES it......i'm not giving Sgt. Crowley a free pass simply because he's a cop......a cop TRULY does something wrong, i'll be the first to condemn him as a disgrace to the profession. 

The difference between you and me is that i've DONE the job, and you haven't......therefore, I know what is PART of the job and what occurs on the job, and I have the perspective to critique the behavior of other officers based on experience.......not cop show reruns.   Therefore, your statements about what ANYTHING 'appears' to you to be, on the face of it, NEEDS to be taken with a huge grain of salt........I know you're smart enough to realize that appearances and reality are often two different things.

It's like watching ER and critiquing the operation of a surgeon........or if that's too much for you, watching a few episodes of 'Deadliest Catch' and then deciding you're an expert on crab fishing and critiquing the technique and actions of some crab fisherman you happen to see working. 

Does that mean you don't have the right to critique?  Absolutely not, as a citizen of a free country it's you're right to be as wrong as you want.


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> jks, I'm sorry I missed this response.  Regarding this statement by you, I am reminded of something that hits close to home.  My oldest is 13 now.  When he was much younger, about 4 or 5, he was willful.  I would tell him to do something... go to bed, perhaps.  He would defy me.  I would demand that he obey and he would say no.  Now, I understand (and understood then) that this was normal.  However, I would handle the situation poorly.  I would draw a line in the sand and he would cross it.  "Don't do X or you're losing TV for a day."  He'd do X.  "Do it again and it's 2 days."  Before I knew it, he'd be out of TV for 5 years or some ridiculous thing like that.  Point is, he misbehaved, but I was as much to blame for the situation.  I am the adult and I allowed the situation to spiral out of control and the consequences to exceed the crime.  I would always regret it (and remember these situations with regret and some amount of shame), and I would like to think that I am much better at managing myself, so that I can better control situations like that.
> 
> In much the same way, I believe that Crowley lost control of the situation.  While Gates acted like a buffoon, Crowley SHOULD have been able to manage the situation, but didn't.  At some point, he began drawing lines in the sand, and before he knew it, the consequences were far in excess of the situation.



Since you brought it, how do you think you SHOULD have handled it?  Tolerate the behavior?  I've seen the effects of that.  Perhaps you let your guilt override your original better judgment.  The notion that you CREATED the behavior by NOT tolerating it is a bit silly.

By the way, what experience do you have (other than dealing with a 4 year old) to make the judgment about what Crowley 'SHOULD' have been able to manage?


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> Do you think that there would be any kind of story at all if Crowley had simply left after having done his job?


 His job's to leave?


----------



## sgtmac_46

seasoned said:


> One thing you won't hear on this thread is, cops are taught to win, don't quote me.


There is a view among many people that the job of police should be morphed in to a sort of social worker.


----------



## sgtmac_46

MJS said:


> I don't know...I'm still confused on why this is centering around Crowley.  He was sent to a burg in progress, according to what was told to the dispatcher.  He gets there, after fishing thru the mess, determines that Gates is the homeowner, was having issues with the door, returned from a trip and somehow, its being said that the cop is a racist because he was 'harassing' a black man.  This is the biggest load of bull that I've seen.  People are asking why Crowley didn't leave.  Ok, why was Gates being an ***?  Did he have to yell and act like a 2yo who didn't get his way with mommy and daddy?  For the same reason those claim that Crowley should have left, Gates should've shut his piehole long enough to see that the cop was only doing his job.  But like always, the almighty race card has to be played, God forbid it isn't.  I wonder...would Gates have been an *** if it was a black cop that arrived on scene?  IIRC, wasn't there a pic. floating around somewhere with a black cop present?



It's centered around Sgt. Crowley because to look to closely at the other two clowns involved in dangerous, politically speaking.......there are many folks trying to spin this situation as being about 'Racist Cops'.......one of whom is the President of the United States.


----------



## sgtmac_46

jks9199 said:


> First, Dr. Gates is not a 5 year old child.
> 
> Second, did you let your child misbehave or defy you indefinitely?  Or did a time come where you took some sort of disciplinary action, and actually stuck with it?  You empowered the child's defiance by drawing the line, than shifting it back.  Sgt. Crowley drew the line.  But when Dr. Gates crossed it, the sergeant took action.  He had to, if he wanted respect down the road.



BINGO!  The empowerment for the 5 year old didn't come from drawing the LINE.......but the from the guilt trip that caused him to change his mind.  Fair, Firm and Consistent are the watchwords.........some folks seem to want to eliminate 'Firm and Consistent' because it makes them 'feel guilty'.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> Thing is Steve..you keep focusing on how Crowley ALLOWED someone else to behave...Crowley DIDNT CONTROL Gates...Crowley maybe LURED/BAITED Gates outside..etc.
> 
> Since when are cops now responsible for how another CHOOSES to behave? If some mook on the street assaults me on the street tonight is his responsibility mitigated because I wasnt aware enough..wasnt trained properly....didnt control him properly?
> 
> The bottom line is, perhaps Crowley "could have" done many things differently but he was still doing his job within its legal parameters. I think every cop here has already said that. You seem to want us all to now lay BLAME on him as well.
> 
> Gates CHOSE to act the way he did on his own accord...trying to lay the blame for a persons actions on another person is classic liberal "victim status" BS in my opinion.



All true, except for ONE thing.......Cops are REQUIRED to interview when people act a certain way.......they are NOT, however, as Steve believes 'to leave'........IN FACT, any COP that leaves while a man is actively creating a disturbance is NOT DOING his job....he's avoiding his job to avoid trouble.


----------



## sgtmac_46

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm impressed that you guys are so involved with this. I think the people consistently posting this area need to find something to do other then talk about this.
> The Cops showed up and did what they needed to do
> Gates showed proof that it was his house
> The cops should of left, but arrested the guy because he was being an ***
> The cops realised they ****ed up and let him go
> Gates started screaming racism
> Obama stepped in where he shouldn't have
> 
> People get the hell over it. It's not the end of the world if cops screw up a little, someone over reacts, and Obama answers a damn question.



Lets make it perfectly clear........Obama calling the police of this country RACISTS.....IS A BIG DEAL!


----------



## sgtmac_46

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But if you read the report, and believe it, that is exactly what he did.  After ID'ing him, he left.  It was only after Gates left the inside of his home and continued yelling did Crowley then take him to jail, again, after warning him to stop.
> 
> So I am still not understanding how Crowley contributed to this.  Tell me, based on Gates (even self-admitted) behavior, do you believe that this wouldn't have gone up the chain if Crowley had not arrested him.  I still think we would be talking about this.


 Exactly.

A man who follows a police officer in an emotionally charged state needs to be intervened on.

The ENTIRE argument of those who believe that Sgt. Crowley was wrong, are basing it on the ASININE assumption that his PRESENCE was creating this situation, and that he should have removed himself from the situation........that Gates was under no obligation to control himself.......that Sgt. Crowley should have control not only of himself, but of Gates, and is responsible for both their behaviors.

The reality is that Sgt. Crowley's job is to ALSO intervene on behalf of the public, and prevent further disturbance from happening......if Gates is following him in to the front yard of this neighborhood, very soon it's likely to escalate further from there.........simply abandoning the scene and leaving an emotionally charged subject yelling in his front yard in the middle of the night is NOT what the neighbors (THE PUBLIC) would desire or expect.......it's a police officer EVADING his responsibility to maintain order.........again the notion that the officers presence is rightfully causing Gates' actions is ASININE!


----------



## sgtmac_46

stevebjj said:


> jks, that's very true.  Gates isn't a child, however, the relationship is the same.  Crowley is in a position of authority over Gates, and presumably has the training, experience and wisdom (not to mention responsibility) to handle the situation well and not lose control.  This relationship is much the same as a parent and a child.  When a child misbehaves, do you blame the child or the parent?  Often, the parent is to blame.


 If the child misbehaves and the parents REFUSES to intervene, I blame the parent.  It is a parents responsibility to ensure that the child behaves properly.  Ignoring bad behavior doesn't remotely do that.....it merely encourages that behavior.



stevebjj said:


> To your second point, there are a lot of ways to handle a situation.  The overriding principle I learned and always try to keep in mind is to not allow the situation to escalate so that the punishment is out of proportion to the situation.  In other words, you don't ground a kid for two weeks because he doesn't want to go to bed.  In the same vein, you don't arrest a guy for being angry with you because you accused him of being a burglar in his own home, even if he's being a jackass.


 There is a way to handle that......if he continues to create a disturbance and escalates by entering his front yard in the middle of the night, for all the neighbors to hear, you take him in to custody and stop the disturbance.




stevebjj said:


> But, really quickly, yorkshirelad, are you comparing Gates to a guy experiencing a psychotic episode in your hometown?


 It's more accurate than comparing him to a 5 year old child........wait a minute, perhaps the 5 year old child comparison IS pretty accurate.



stevebjj said:


> And archangel, as I've said before, I'm focusing more on Crowley only because so many here want to give him a free pass.  I'm not suggesting that he be fired or anything like that.  I'm suggesting that he is not without blame and that this situation was as much a product of his actions as of Gates.


 Nobody is giving Crowley 'A free pass'.....I know from EXPERIENCE what his job is and he did it........I simply refuse to 'attack the cop' simply because that's what all the 'cool kids' do.


----------



## sgtmac_46

blindsage said:


> Hilarious!  If he comes forward and says, "No I didn't apologize, even with their pressure," you're gonna say 'Damn straight'.  But if he does apologize you just gave a 'prediction' to undermine any possible legitimacy to him changing his mind or even coming to an understanding with Gates.  Nice trick.  I don't think Crowley or Gates is the problem.  It's their my-guy-can-do-no-wrong supporters.



Actually the problem is our POTUS......and HIS 'my-guy-can-do-no-wrong' supporters.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Carol Kaur said:


> Uh...that bugs the bejeezus out of me.  I think it particularly stings because I am a 40 year old white woman as well.
> 
> My neighborhood is very diverse.  Its built a hillside.  The nicest residences in the neighborhood are a string of townhouses at the top of the hill.  These townhouses are very similar to the houses owned by HarvardRES.  They are houses that are leased out to local businesses that use them as executive housing.
> 
> If I were to go out for a walk and saw one or two people trying to get through a locked door on "executive hill" (as we call it), I'd call 911. I'd likely do the same thing if I saw something similar on Ware streeet.   Doesn't matter if they were men, women, white, black, Asian, Latino...that's not the proper way to get through a door.
> 
> When you call the cops, you have to give the dispatcher a description.  You can either say "There are two guys trying to break in to a residence" and wait for the dispatcher to prompt you through all the questions, or you can offer a description from the start.



Imagine that!  You call because you're concerned that your neighbors house is getting broke in to.......and people start attacking you by calling you a racist!  That REALLY illustrates well the mindset of one side of this debate.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> And when it comes down to it, skin color is just an identifying feature. I hope we are not going to enter into some silly phase where we can describe the color of a shirt a person is wearing but we cant describe skin color.



There are those who would like to make it illegal to even use race as a descriptive factor under those circumstances.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Andrew Green said:


> xkcd.com



Okay, that was pretty good!


----------



## elder999

Well, maybe it was a "photo op" moment, but I think, that after all the finger pointing, tongue wagging, shouting, arresting, emailing and beer drinking was over, Sgt. Crowley displayed the real content of *his* character by helping the guy down the stairs.....


----------



## Archangel M

elder999 said:


> Well, maybe it was a "photo op" moment, but I think, that after all the finger pointing, tongue wagging, shouting, arresting, emailing and beer drinking was over, Sgt. Crowley displayed the real content of *his* character by helping the guy down the stairs.....



and Im pretty sure that the prof. probably got the same treatment at the time of his arrest....getting arrested isn't typically getting taken to the ground, tazed, knelt on and banged off of a car roof for a trip to the station where you are hosed down naked in a cell. For a discon arrest the person is typically out the door before I can even finish my report.


----------



## Big Don

Hey, SgtMac, don't hold back so much, let loose a little, tell us how you really feel.


----------



## Gordon Nore

elder999 said:


> Well, maybe it was a "photo op" moment, but I think, that after all the finger pointing, tongue wagging, shouting, arresting, emailing and beer drinking was over, Sgt. Crowley displayed the real content of *his* character by helping the guy down the stairs.....



Agreed. Long before this was a photo op for President Obama, other opportunists were spinning this story to their advantage. Putting Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates in a room together was not only the smart thing to do, it was the right thing to do.

President Obama's role as conciliator would have had more resonance had he resisted the impulse to comment. I would describe that from afar as a low point in his Presidency -- he didn't need to say anything, didn't have the facts, and should have set an example by staying above the fray.

This event still has the potential to be a good learning opportunity about racial tensions.


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> and Im pretty sure that the prof. probably got the same treatment at the time of his arrest....getting arrested isn't typically getting taken to the ground, tazed, knelt on and banged off of a car roof for a trip to the station where you are hosed down naked in a cell. For a discon arrest the person is typically out the door before I can even finish my report.


He absolutely did get "special treatment" during his arrest.  They cuffed him in front (see the pictures or Sgt. Crowley's report), and got his cane.  

He's lucky... because it takes a hell of a lot for me to cuff a prisoner's hands in front.  I may take various steps to reduce shoulder strain (I once had to use 3 sets of cuffs to handle a particularly large guy!), but I don't think there have been 5 people I've arrested and cuffed in front.


----------



## Archangel M

I think Gates can find a "teachable moment" from of all people Bob Dylan.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-tc-ft-dylan-0816-0817aug17,0,7306722.story


----------



## Big Don

Archangel M said:


> I think Gates can find a "teachable moment" from of all people Bob Dylan.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-tc-ft-dylan-0816-0817aug17,0,7306722.story


Aside from Bob Dylan not being recognized by two different cops, and the amusement that gave me, The difference between Dylan and Gates? Dylan didn't immediately pitch a fit. He behaved as an adult should. Wow, I never liked Dylan's music or politics, but, I can respect him for his behavior in this instance.


----------



## Hudson69

Omar B said:


> Whatever the sequence of events were no crime was committed and the home owner got arrested for forcing his own door. Charges were dropped so I guess the cops see it that way too.


 
The Professor was apparently only arrested after losing control; after being warned not too.  I do not know how I would handle responding to an in-progress call for service and then being called a racist by the person whose property crime I was (potentially) responding too.

Honest Citizens and Criminals come in all sizes and shapes so dress and mannerisms take a back seat until as many facts as possible can be laid bare.  Being there was good, getting good ID was mandatory, management of the arrestee during initial contact could have gone better.

To make matters worse, it was an ugly situation only made all the poorer by a political figure who made a "I hear this as all Police are bad" statement after the fact.


----------

