He(Gates) needs to realize this officer was doing his job. Once he (Gates) followed him outside screaming, he had every right to arrest him!!!!!
And, sure as heck didn't need the big nose of Obama sticking it in the middle of it all. He screwed up.

__________________
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
-Jimi Hendrix


The foolish person seeks happiness in the distance;
the wise person grows it under his feet.

Hey, you know ...OBAMA made a real idiot of himself over the Gates affair and who the hell is Jim Crow?

__________________
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
-Jimi Hendrix


The foolish person seeks happiness in the distance;
the wise person grows it under his feet.

Here is what Powell said on that:

"I think in this case the situation was made much more difficult on the part of the Cambridge Police Department," Powell said. "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would've thought at that point, some adult supervision would have stepped in and said 'OK look, it is his house. Let's not take this any further, take the handcuffs off, good night Dr. Gates.' "

Sounds about right to me. Powell says Gates over reacted too, which I definitely agree with.

What I'd really like to see come out of this would be for Gates and Crowley both to publicly appologize to one another, then to make a joint statement urging both for people to be respectful of the police, and calling for a renewed examination of the problem of racial profiling. Both Gates and Crowly are advocates of fighting racial profiling. It's ridiculous to let a fight between the two of them have the effect of reducing focus on the problem.

He was asked a question. I guess from a political standpoint he would have been wiser just to say something even more noncommital, but it's not like he actually said anything wrong about the case or anything. He did say that he didn't know the facts, he was biased, and he didn't know if it had anything to do with race... That's really pretty noncommital already.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

Not to be mean, but somebody who doesn't know what the Jim Crow laws were should not be questioning the ideas about race that a man like Gates, who grew up under the Jim Crow laws, and who lectures on race for Harvard, has. It's no different than somebody who doesn't know what a 'star' is questioning Stephen Hawking's grasp on theoretical physics...

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

No,na na na na na Noooooo.Gates was acting up and being
unruly.Tell me the justification for his actions.The cops had a
duty to perform.Gates was being a nuisance.If he had just cooperated
and produced a Driver's license so the Cops could verify,which is
what they Had to do.They didn't know who this Great,esteemed Black
scholar was.For all they knew,he might have had an accomplice
ransacking parts of the house.If an I.D. produced by Gates hadn't
the same address,that complicates matters.
The bottom line is Racial.Blacks are gonna scream,benefit of doubt
and may even shift any raciial motive unto Crowley,
Like I said.When did Gates dispute the claims of using words
like " Racist and " Rogue".Was it AFTER Obama chimed-in and he got
Lawyered-up.That's the only real question that need be asked now.

I'm not clear on your stance on racism... Is racism good? Or bad? You complain a lot about how racist blacks are, then you say all sorts of racist stuff... Pick a side.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

In my opinion Powell wasn't smart enough to recognize that this was a ploy to draw attention away from the con game and power screwing we're about to recieve on health care compliments of Obamalamadingdong and the congressional dumbocraps. Powell is way too wishy washy for my taste. And I can think of 3 better candidates right off the top of my head that would blow his sorry buttocks away....Palin, Romney and Guiliani. Any one of those makes Powell look like a schoolboy.

[quote=Shiva_TD;1546511]

I believe the facts are pretty well known.

The professor initially refused a lawful order to produce indentification and instead verbally attacked the officer. While he did eventually produce his identification, in compliance with the law, he was arrested for disorderly conduct related to his verbal attack on the officer who was lawfully attempting to investigate a possible break-in. He could have been arrested for obstruction of justice as well.

Amazing. Sorry Shiva, those are not necessarilyt the facts. When someone is in their own home...there is no such thing as a "lawful order" to produce identification. An officer can request identification. A homeowner can refuse. Leagally.

In contrast, Professor Gates also asked the Officer to identify himself, including his badge number. The Officer did not comply. And part of police policy is for an officer to provide that information, upon request.

Also, Gates did not give permission for the officer to enter his home. Without a warrant, the officer had no right to follow him. Another violation of policy and procedure.

The verbal attack is in dispute. However, even if Professor Gates verbally attacked and accused the Officer...this is not against the law.

Finally, the lawful investigation was centered on whether or not some men had broken into the home and whether the men encountered were burglars. Once the officer ascertained that the man in the home was the home owner; the case was complete as unsubstatiated. There was no burglary. He should have reported this and removed himself...regardless of verbal attacks. Professor Gates has a right to express himself...however offensively in any way he chooses...in his own house. Further, the actual report of the verbal attacks are not "facts"...they are in dispute.

Also, the lady who called 911 has specifically disputed the "facts" as reported by Crowley. She did not report or identify the people as "Black" or as having backpacks. This aspect of the report by Crowley is unsubstatiated...and seems to be fabricated. She is probably going to sue, because the "facts" do not coincide with what she reported.

President Obama was correct in making the general statement that racial profiling is statistically occuring within the United States and did not limit his comment to the South because it happens in virtually all parts of the country.

I agree.

I believe it was correct that the professor was arrested. He should have realized that the officer was actually their to protect his property and he should have immediately complied with the officers lawful request to produce identification.

I disagree. He could have realized that. It would have been a good, appropriate move. But the idea that he "should" have realized that...and the idea that he "should" have immediately complied with the officer's request is subjective. It is not a fact. As a free person and homeowner, he had options. He was legally in his own home, minding his own business. The officer lawfully came to investigate a report. But he had no warrant and no probable cause to enter the home or arrest the Professor. If the police do not have a warrant...they cannot legally countermand refusal of the lawful tenant to respond, comply or give access. Shoulda, woulda coulda...is subjective. Gates could have complied. He could have cooperated. But he has a choice. Legally.


His verbal attack on the officer was unwarranted and did constitute disorderly conduct as well as obstruction of justice. The professor, and not the officer, created the situation warranting the arrest.

I disagree. Even by Massachusetts law, verbal attack is not usually considered as disorderly conduct. Accordingly, that charge would not stand...if prosecuted. It certainly could not be obstruction of justice...because by Crowley's own report, it became clear very early that he was dealing with the homeowner. There was no crime. So there was no obstruction of justice. Gates has a right to not comply. He does not legally have to provide any identification nor compliance. And the police...upon refusal of the tenant...have no right to enter or ask any further questions...until they obtain a warrant.

If Gates thought he could talk trash and not have consequences, that was naive...because things don't always go according to the law. But still, he has a right to talk any trash that he wants...on his property...in his home. It is not illegal. At all.

It was the prosecutor's office which made the call to drop the charges and it is their responsibility to make that determination. It is the officers job to arrest the individual and present the evidence to the prosecutor office.

Right. But the officer did not have any evidence that supported his action. He investigated a possible burglary. He determined that there was no burglary. Case closed. Done. Over. Yelling at an officer and accusing him of racism...simply is not a crime. It is not even disorderly (given the legal definitions and precidents)...when someone is in their own house or on their own porch. Crowley arrested Gates because Gates offended him. It's false arrest and illegal. He did not even mirandize Gates. Oooops. He's in big trouble.

He was in his house. He has a legal right to refuse and cuss and fuss...if he wants to.

Everyone should comply with the lawful requests of a police officer who is investigating a possible criminal act. If you refuse then you should be arrested. It's that simple.
LOL. Again with the "should". I disagree. In certain circumstances, citizens also have a lawful right to not comply with the lawful requests of police. This is well established. It is one reason why we have miranda laws. It is one reason why people do not have to answer questions or directions without the presence of their lawyer. I don't have a problem with police making lawful requests. But they are requests. Right? Citizens have some discretion...legally...regarding whether they comply or not. If a police officer comes to my house and legally requests that I step outside...I can legally refuse. If they come to my house and legally request for me to show my id...I can legally refuse. If they ask to enter my house...I can legally refuse. Sorry, Shiva. Please review the law. There really is no "should" in this regard....not along the lines you suggest. If there is a request, then there is a choice. And either choice...compliance or refusal is equally valid. And the police cannot "order" a person in their own home to comply with anything. Legally.

And technically, the officer entered Gates' house, uninvited. That is unlawful intrusion. It is against the law. If Gates prosecutes...Crowley and the Cambridge PD are toast.

I believe that Obama is wrong is not addressing this matter more objectively but that does not support the OP expressed.

LOL. I think Obama was masterful in his response. He answered the question directly without parsing and politicking. When he studied it further, he maintained his position...as supported by the available facts...but also said that it seemed that both were good men who may have overreacted to the circumstances. Then, he went further and invited the men to come to the White House and discuss the situation. Masterful. He expressed his opinion, considered differing views and moved forward for dialogue and reconcilliation.

Shiva. "Objectivity" is largely a myth. "Truth" is socially constructed. It is not absolute. It is not fixed. It is informed by the subjectivities of human beings. Was Officer Crowley's report and actions "objective"? LOL. No. Was Professor Gates' report and actions "objective"? No. And in this case, Obama knows Harvard, knows Gates...knows the history and the law. He has academic, legal, personal and experiential knowledge and expertise about the setting and the topic and the issues. He does not have to be "objective"...and he provided context and disclaimers indicating that what he was about to say was not "objective". He qualified his statements by saying that he had not heard all the facts. He gave his opinion...forthrightly...based on what he knew...and stating clearly what he knew and what his bias was. He was right on. He made no mistake. As the information comes out...it is increasingly clear...legally...that Crowley's actions in the arrest were "stupid"...among other things. If this goes to court...Crowley and the PD are toast. Because Crowley clearly violated procedure, policy and common sense. Outside of Cambridge...police officers all across the nation are kinda shrugging their shoulders and shaking their heads. Once he found out that Gates was the tenant...that is it. Game over. Back on up out of there. Yelling and accussing and whatever...those are not "good" things. But they are not against the law. "disorderly conduct" is a bogus charge. Would not stand up in court.

And you know why? Because most citizens would not allow or stand for a police officer to enter a home just because a tenant...in their own home...refused to comply with orders of identification. Why? Because the Constitution and Bill of Rights and other laws actually protect citizens from that. I don't have to step outside my house. I don't have to show id unless you have a warrant. I don't have to invite police into my house upon demand or request. They have the right to request. I have the right to refuse. So do you. So does Gates.

So,in yer mind's eye Gates has Poetic license.?
Gates IS the authority.How dare anyone let alone a
White cop,usage authority over Little Skippy.
The gall of that White Cop.
If Skippy felt perfectly in his rights to ask the Cop for his
Identification and badge number,even before he satisfactorally
met his own burden of proof,is perfectly acceptable.
Talk about Uppity.
Maybe that's the real problem here.
I mean,it ain't like Obama ever admits his mistakes.
After all,Liberals Gave him supreme Poetic License.
Which is The Great " Teachable moment " here.
Obama was afforded Supreme Poetic License,throughout
the Campaign,and far into his first 6 months as Pres.
But that all ended like a bolt of lightning,the minute
he showed his true colors.He had no business thinking
his Executive Branch Authority could,all by itself
usurp the justice due a Public Servant like Crowley,
by asserting his inappropriatness as officer.
Obama inserted race where it had no cause.
Obama infringed on the rights of a private citizen by
asserting his take on a local law enforcement matter,
particularly w/o sufficient facts to fairly access.
Obama single-handidly exascerbated an issue
and threw fuel upon,discrediting a matter.
I'm glad there's a Congressional bill being written
demanding a full apology by Obama for HIS Inappropriatness.
This isn't about turnabout is fair play.
This is about what Executive branch Powers Obama seems to think
he can make up,like virtually all the other stuff he's so
willy-nilly conned America into.

lol. "dumbocraps". That's cracking me up. Nicely played. I hadn't heard that before. Did you make that up? Or is that a standard term on talk radio or something? Although I actually think "dumbocrats" is funnier. Hmm... Although the elephant is the GOP... But, I still approve.

But, I think you have the ploy backwards. It was a Republican ploy to draw attention away from health care and to try to discredit Obama at a crucial time. Obama's whole health care speech got forgotten and all anybody ever talked about was the lame Gates question. Democrats and liberal media have been desperately trying to get people to refocus on health care. They're trying to sap the democrat's momentum. That's why Fox and talk radio won't shut up about Gates.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming