PDA

View Full Version : Good for Obama........He admits he f**cked up



freeheeler
07-24-2009, 12:46 PM
He apologizes to the cop and the nation....almost, using political spoke of course

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/24/national/w082719D01.DTL&tsp=1


Trying to tamp down an uproar over race, President Barack Obama said Friday he used an unfortunate choice of words in commenting on the arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and could have "calibrated those words differently."

Melkor
07-24-2009, 12:46 PM
Crowley 1

Obama -23,489

doitbig191
07-24-2009, 12:47 PM
wow maybe he should apologize about his stimulus package too!

JolietKev
07-24-2009, 12:56 PM
I am not a fan of Obama, however at least he did the right thing. It looks like it was about to become a political firestorm so he rubbed it out as quickly as possible.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:02 PM
I am not a fan of Obama, however at least he did the right thing. It looks like it was about to become a political firestorm so he rubbed it out as quickly as possible.If the chief of police had made the same comment do you think he would have apologized? Incidentally, that was not an apology.

dabbmw2002
07-24-2009, 01:02 PM
calibrated? lulz, how about next time not being so quick to condemn the police which clearly is something that gets your rocks off.

Barry Bonds
07-24-2009, 01:05 PM
That I, an ignorant cracker in no way qualified to be U.S. President had better sense than to even comment on this subject in the media?

Especially if the person involved was the same race as I.

Wait. Excuse me, while I go organize my community.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:09 PM
That I, an ignorant cracker in no way qualified to be U.S. President had better sense than to even comment on this subject in the media?

Especially if the person involved was the same race as I.

Wait. Excuse me, while I go organize my community.
calibrated? lulz, how about next time not being so quick to condemn the police which clearly is something that gets your rocks off.The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!

Grimbeard
07-24-2009, 01:10 PM
Maybe Obamas mom should apologize for giving birth to him.

Melkor
07-24-2009, 01:11 PM
The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!

That may or may not be true, but in any case he should wait until the police actually screw up before doing so. ;)

otisthebat
07-24-2009, 01:13 PM
The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!

its pretty foolhardy to criticize the police and then admit that you dont have all the facts.

mrbeverage
07-24-2009, 01:17 PM
its pretty foolhardy to criticize the police and then admit that you dont have all the facts.

speaking before knowing ANY of the facts...... congress voting on bills before reading them... signing bills into law with out reading them..... see a patern?

KoreanMuscle
07-24-2009, 01:17 PM
The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!

Yea maybe, but shouldn't he have waited for the facts before he made such a comment? He even said himself that his view was subjective since he was friends with the man arrested, and that he did not know all of the facts. Seems to me that he made his comment based on emotion, and it was not factually based.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:18 PM
its pretty foolhardy to criticize the police and then admit that you dont have all the facts.The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

dabbmw2002
07-24-2009, 01:19 PM
The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!

as other people pointed, he spoke without having all the info. That is irresponsible, especially when your words carry a lot of weight as president.

Melkor
07-24-2009, 01:19 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

Actually, the facts are that he was arrested outside his home for causing a public disturbance and yelling at a police officer various accusations. If you don't like the law, say so. Don't try to pin it on the cop though. Black cops also enforce that law.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:20 PM
Yea maybe, but shouldn't he have waited for the facts before he made such a comment? He even said himself that his view was subjective since he was friends with the man arrested, and that he did not know all of the facts. Seems to me that he made his comment based on emotion, and it was not factually based.He gave his opinion not a condemnation.

Incidentally, presidents can make an emotional decision.

mrbeverage
07-24-2009, 01:21 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

perhaps if the Professor could have held his deep seeded racism in check when the officer was protecting and serving, he could have saved himself a ride to the "pokey".

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:22 PM
perhaps if the Professor could have held his deep seeded racism in check when the officer was protecting and serving, he could have saved himself a ride to the "pokey".Irrelevant. He was arrested for getting angry. That's not illegal!
Actually, the facts are that he was arrested outside his home for causing a public disturbance and yelling at a police officer various accusations. If you don't like the law, say so. Don't try to pin it on the cop though. Black cops also enforce that law.A disturbance stimulated by the cop. And you can't make a public disturbance in your home

IraHays
07-24-2009, 01:24 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.


gimme a f*cking break. I love to see you apply this logic to other areas you debate.

what a joke.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:25 PM
gimme a f*cking break. I love to see you apply this logic to other areas you debate.

what a joke.Temper, temper you could get arrested for that. Now consider the facts, then decide what you're defending.

BJplayer
07-24-2009, 01:27 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

Instigating and Initiating a racist hate filled rant at the cops for having the temerity to answer a suspected burglary call, and then playing the race card when you basically force the cops to arrest you; now that is something all Americans should be appalled about. But as usual, Krane sides with the black racist "victims". Typical...

amtharin
07-24-2009, 01:27 PM
A disturbance stimulated by the cop. And you can't make a public disturbance in your home.

Per the report the cop did nothing to stimulate the situaion other than show up and ask for ID. At that point he was yelled at and called a racist.

IraHays
07-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Temper, temper you could get arrested for that. Now consider the facts, then decide what you're defending.

people get arrested in their own home all the time. You are clearly bias and it's a joke. Bates did not cooperate at all and that doesn't make one bit of difference to you because he's black.

2.0Tsunami
07-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Irrelevant. He was arrested for getting angry. That's not illegal!A disturbance stimulated by the cop. And you can't make a public disturbance in your home



Yes you can...if people outside your home can hear it, it becomes a disturbing the peace. That's why so many home parties get shut down b/c of loud noises/people/music.

amtharin
07-24-2009, 01:30 PM
Irrelevant. He was arrested for getting angry. That's not illegal!

People get arrested for getting angry and yelling at cops (a.k.a. disorderly conduct) all the time.

mrbeverage
07-24-2009, 01:31 PM
Per the report the cop did nothing to stimulate the situaion other than show up and ask for ID. At that point he was yelled at and called a racist.

that quote is not mine, but KRANE's.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:31 PM
Instigating and Initiating a racist hate filled rant at the cops for having the temerity to answer a suspected burglary call, and then playing the race card when you basically force the cops to arrest you; now that is something all Americans should be appalled about. But as usual, Krane sides with the black racist "victims". Typical...Wrong! I "sided" with any citizen not having a right to be as angry as the want in the own home. The cop flagrantly abused his authority.

BJplayer
07-24-2009, 01:32 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

This is a lie. You are attempting to minimize the "professors" very non professorial conduct. He verbally assaulted the cops with a barrage of racist expletives. It wasnt the fact that he was angry, its the fact that he took that anger out on the cops. And now he wants to play the race card. This is the disease that is pandemic in the black community and Krane has a horrific case of it.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:33 PM
people get arrested in their own home all the time. You are clearly bias and it's a joke. Bates did not cooperate at all and that doesn't make one bit of difference to you because he's black.For crimes yes. The professor committed no crime! And yes I am bias...for the sanctity of the home.

dabbmw2002
07-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Wrong! I "sided" with any citizen not having a right to be as angry as the want in the own home. The cop flagrantly abused his authority.

so it is impossible to be disorderly on private property? What about killing people? is that permissible when on private property?

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:35 PM
This is a lie. You are attempting to minimize the "professors" very non professorial conduct. He verbally assaulted the cops with a barrage of racist expletives. It wasnt the fact that he was angry, its the fact that he took that anger out on the cops. And now he wants to play the race card. This is the disease that is pandemic in the black community and Krane has a horrific case of it.Being impolite isn't illegal! If it were, we'd all be in trouble.

BJplayer
07-24-2009, 01:35 PM
Wrong! I "sided" with any citizen not having a right to be as angry as the want in the own home. The cop flagrantly abused his authority.

Several witnesses to the "professor" verbally assaulting the cops say that the cop was in the right, including the neighbors. This wont end well for your black racist professors side of the story. He conducted himself poorly, and now plays the race card, and lies about what happened. This is the type thing that Krane consistenly sides with since blacks are claiming victimhood.

BJplayer
07-24-2009, 01:36 PM
Being impolite isn't illegal! If it were, we'd all be in trouble.

Why is making racial insults against whites being "impolite" while the same conduct aimed at blacks is a "hate crime" in your warped racist world?

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:37 PM
so it is impossible to be disorderly on private property? Thankfully for ALL of us...yes!
What about killing people? is that permissible when on private property?Those scenarios are irrelevant.

paolo59
07-24-2009, 01:38 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

It is a very foolish thing to yell at, accuse, belittle, and basically make a complete and utter ass of yourself when engaging with any law enforcement official. The gentleman acted like a stupid, jacked up 18 year old. He was arrested for disorderly conduct. Whether he was on his own front porch has nothing to do with it. One would expect some degree of intelligence, demeanor, and maturity from a Harvard professor. The whole scenario speaks much more clearly to the mindset and attitude of the individual than any "racial" idictment of the Cambridge police department, or the arresting officer.

hwpnow
07-24-2009, 01:38 PM
Well, if he's going to increase diplomacy with foreign nations, he has to also be the peacemaker for domestic disputes. As for Gates, I hope he sues the department and wins BIG.

dabbmw2002
07-24-2009, 01:39 PM
Thankfully for ALL of us...yes!Those scenarios are irrelevant.

could you show me what law states this?

IraHays
07-24-2009, 01:39 PM
As for Gates, I hope he sues the department and wins BIG.

Yeah, no matter what the facts are.

f*ckhead.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:40 PM
Why is making racial insults against whites being "impolite" while the same conduct aimed at blacks is a "hate crime" in your warped racist world?You're attempting to turn this into a racial debate. You should be ashamed. I'm defending citizens right to the sanctity of their homes.
could you show me what law states this?No! But I can tell you that being rude isn't illegal. Disorderly behavior refers to public property, not your private residence.

IraHays
07-24-2009, 01:42 PM
You're attempting to turn this into a racial debate. You should be ashamed. I'm defending citizens right to the sanctity of their homes.

bullsh*t. gtfo.

If he would have cooperated the cop would have left in 10 minutes. That is the bottom line. No one can argue this point.

LetMeOut
07-24-2009, 01:42 PM
And you can't make a public disturbance in your home

Wow, really?

Really really?

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:45 PM
It is a very foolish thing to yell at, accuse, belittle, and basically make a complete and utter ass of yourself when engaging with any law enforcement official. The gentleman acted like a stupid, jacked up 18 year old.Again, none of which are illegal.
He was arrested for disorderly conduct. Whether he was on his own front porch has nothing to do with it.Incorrect it is the foundation of the charge.
One would expect some degree of intelligence, demeanor, and maturity from a Harvard professor. The whole scenario speaks much more clearly to the mindset and attitude of the individual than any "racial" idictment of the Cambridge police department, or the arresting officer.True philosophical concepts, but we're talking legality here.
Wow, really?

Really really?Note the word PUBLIC!!!

AC33
07-24-2009, 01:47 PM
http://www.afrothought.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/gates_henry_arrest2.jpg

delusional cops making a stupid arrest

/thread

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:48 PM
bullsh*t. gtfo.

If he would have cooperated the cop would have left in 10 minutes. That is the bottom line. No one can argue this point.He did cooperate the officers already know it was his house! And do you really think the arrest served the public's interest? They arrested him because of chest thumping bravado.

LetMeOut
07-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Note the word PUBLIC!!!

Really? So it's not possible to make a public disturbance in your own house?

voltio8836
07-24-2009, 01:50 PM
My conclusion from what I have read so far:

-Gates was a douche
-Cop made a bad call for arrest



So conclusion? Cop should apologize for arresting gates and Gates should apologize for being a douche.

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 01:51 PM
The president has a right to chastise the police. That's not just his responsibility, that's his obligation!He also has a responsibility to not blindly make unfounded accusations when he has no actual knowledge of the situation.

He even said it himself. The first two sentences in his reply were 'I'm biased because I know him'. and 'I don't know all the facts'. The third sentence should have been 'Therefore, I won't comment until we have a full understanding of what happened'.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:52 PM
http://www.afrothought.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/gates_henry_arrest2.jpg

cops making a stupid arrest

/threadAny flat foot rookie beat cop can arrest someone. A sergeant should have been able to handle things a lot more diplomatically than he did. Remember, he's suppose to be a professional as well.

AC33
07-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Found this from another thread:



Critical speech directed at a police officer is not criminal thanks to our First Amendment.

Allegedly loud speech on one's own porch that is critical of the government actor who is present is not criminal (see link)

http://masscases.com/cases/app/46/46massappct471.html#back3


Model Penal Code [Note 3] - "disorderly" conduct may now only be "validly . . . applied to conduct which involves no lawful exercise of a First Amendment right." As thus construed, and as reiterated in Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 474, "disorderly" conduct, in accordance with s. 250.2 of the Model Penal Code [Note 4] is defined as follows:

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

"(a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or . . .

Page 474
"(c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor" (emphasis supplied in Feigenbaum).

The Commonwealth argues that the evidence supports both sections of the definition - the defendant's actions constituted tumultuous conduct and also created a hazardous condition by acts which served no legitimate purpose of the defendant.

1. Tumultuous behavior. Turning to the ordinary dictionary definition, we find that "tumultuous" is defined as "l: marked by tumult: full of commotion and uproar: riotous, stormy, boisterous . . . 2: tending or disposed to cause or incite a tumult . . . 3: marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval." Webster's Third New Intl. Dictionary 2462 (1993) [Note 5].

Massachusetts cases are in accord with these definitions. See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 597 (noting that the statute covers " 'tumultuous behavior,' which, while perhaps not physically violent, may nevertheless be characterized as involving riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise so as to constitute a public nuisance").

Other cases inform. In Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443 , 448 (1976), the defendants were held to have engaged in "fighting" and in "violent or tumultuous behavior." Due to their actions - drinking alcohol in a crowded mail, resisting arrest, punching and cursing police - a crowd of some two hundred people became hostile and abusive and threw "bundles of newspapers, books, and other debris" at the police. Id. at 447.

In Commonwealth v. Carson, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 920 , 921 (1980), campus police responding to a complaint of a "disturbance" found the defendant, a college student, drunk and belligerent. Cursing at the police officers, he attracted a crowd of

Page 475
fifty people, some of whom "laugh[ed] or yell[ed] abuse at the police." Ibid. His intoxication, belligerence, and his manner of resisting apprehension "could be fairly characterized as 'tumultuous"' and needlessly exacerbated a situation which "might have moderated of its own accord." Id. at 922.

In another case, the "defendant's actions of removing his hands from the [police] cruiser, flailing them in an agitated and belligerent manner while berating [police] Officer Rivera with loud profanities, and shoving his hands into the pockets of his baggy shorts, especially in light of Officer Rivera's previous encounter with the defendant on a gun charge, constituted tumultuous or threatening behavior beyond protected expressive speech or conduct." Commonwealth v. Mulero, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 963 , 965 (1995). Such actions, which led a crowd of about thirty persons to gather, provided the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant on a charge of disorderly conduct. Id. at 963-965.

In the present case, by contrast, the jury were not warranted in finding that the defendant, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof," engaged in tumultuous behavior as defined by statute, case law, or lexicon.

2. Conduct which serves no legitimate purpose. While the Commonwealth's evidence that the defendant did not heed the officer's warnings, failed to move her car, and illegally parked in a private driveway, warranted, perhaps, a finding that the defendant created "a hazardous or physically offensive condition," the Commonwealth offered no evidence to show that the defendant's action served no legitimate purpose. In Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 475, the court held that although behavior which was motivated by political purposes could be found to have created a hazardous condition, and might be considered "criminal under the common law or by some statute," such behavior "does not constitute disorderly conduct under G. L. c. 272, s. 53," because it has "a legitimate purpose."

The Commonwealth would have us confine Feigenbaum and the term "no legitimate purpose" to situations involving political expression. However, neither the opinion nor the Model Penal Code suggests such a limitation. Indeed, another section

Page 476
of the Model Penal Code, s. 250.4, defining "harassment [Note 6]," described in the comment as "a companion offense to disorderly conduct under s. 250.2," contains the same phrase. Model Penal Code s. 250.4 comment 1, at 360. Commenting on the catchall language of subsection (5) of s. 250.4, which covers "any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor," the drafters stated, "The import of the phrase . . . is broadly to exclude from this subsection any conduct that directly furthers some legitimate desire or objective of the actor." Model Penal Code s. 250.4 comment 5, at 368. See Commonwealth v. Wheaton, 409 Pa. Super. 622, 628 (1991) (defendant's efforts to maintain his water supply constituted a legitimate purpose precluding conviction of harassment). See also DiDonna v. DiDonna, 72 Misc. 2d 231, 233 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1972) (preservation of marriage a legitimate purpose).

While the comment to s. 250.4 of the Model Penal Code is noteworthy, far more significant is the language of s. 250.2(c), as construed by Feigenbaum. There is no reason provided by that case or other authority to view a political cause as anything other than one of a number of "legitimate purposes" under s. 53. Surely, a mother's interest in picking up her six and one-half year old son when he was released from school falls within the definition.

The judgment of conviction for being a disorderly person is reversed, and the verdict is set aside. Judgment is to enter for the defendant.
HOUSTON v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) [findlaw.com]
Upon shouting at police in an attempt to divert their attention from his friend during a confrontation, appellee was arrested for "wilfully . . . interrupt[ing] a city policeman . . . by verbal challenge during an investigation" in violation of a municipal ordinance making it unlawful for any person "to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty." After his acquittal in Municipal Court, appellee brought suit in Federal District Court challenging the ordinance's constitutionality and seeking, inter alia, damages and attorney's fees. The District Court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the ordinance was substantially overbroad since its literal wording punished and might deter a significant range of protected speech.

Held:

1. A municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment. The ordinance in question criminalizes a substantial amount of, and is susceptible of regular application to, constitutionally protected speech, and accords the police unconstitutional enforcement discretion, as is demonstrated by evidence indicating that, although the ordinance's plain language is violated scores of times daily, only those individuals chosen by police in their unguided discretion are arrested. Appellant's argument that the ordinance is not substantially overbroad because it does not inhibit the exposition of ideas, but simply bans unprotected "core criminal conduct," is not persuasive. Since the ordinance's language making it unlawful to "assault" or "strike" a police officer is expressly pre-empted by the State Penal Code, its enforceable portion prohibits verbal interruptions of police and thereby deals with speech rather than with core criminal conduct. Moreover, although speech might be prohibited if it consists of "fighting words" that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, the ordinance in question is not limited to such expressions but broadly applies to speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s] any policeman" and thereby impermissibly infringes the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals verbally [482 U.S. 451, 452] to oppose or challenge police action. Appellant's contention that the ordinance's sweeping nature is both inevitable and essential to maintain public order is also without merit, since the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. Pp. 458-467.
2. Abstention - assertedly to allow the state courts to reach a readily available limiting construction that would eliminate the ordinance's overbreadth - would be inappropriate here. Even if this case did not involve a First Amendment facial challenge, for which abstention is particularly inappropriate, the ordinance in question is plain and unambiguous and thus is not susceptible to a limiting construction. Moreover, it cannot be limited by severing discrete unconstitutional subsections since its enforceable portion is unconstitutional in its entirety. Even if the municipal courts had not had many opportunities to narrow the ordinance's scope, appellant's claim that state courts had not had the chance to construe the ordinance would be unavailing in light of the ordinance's nonambiguity. Nor does the availability of certification to state courts under state law in itself render abstention appropriate where, as here, there is no uncertain question of state law to be resolved. Pp. 467-471.
3. Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom and must be protected if that freedom would survive. Pp. 471-472.


Do not see how he broke any laws.

Without making this into a race thread, the Police did act stupidly.

IraHays
07-24-2009, 01:53 PM
He did cooperate the officers already know it was his house! And do you really think the arrest served the public's interest? They arrested him because of chest thumping bravado.

If he cooperated he would not have been arrested. If the cop illegally entered his house he could have done something about it later.

Also, it's hard to debate someone who has so many false assumptions. Your latest---that arrest are soley for the purpose of the public's interest.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 01:57 PM
If he cooperated he would not have been arrested. Immaterial. Cooperation in not necessary when you haven't broken the law.

Also, it's hard to debate someone who has so many false assumptions. Your latest---that arrest are soley for the purpose of the public's interest.No debate is necessary. It was an illegal arrest.
My conclusion from what I have read so far:

-Gates was a douche
-Cop made a bad call for arrest



So conclusion? Cop should apologize for arresting gates and Gates should apologize for being a douche.Fortunately, being a "douche" isn't illegal.

otisthebat
07-24-2009, 02:00 PM
Immaterial. Cooperation in not necessary when you haven't broken the law.

incorrect. when an officer is trying to question you and you are not cooperating and you are being disorderly, you have now broken the law.

IraHays
07-24-2009, 02:01 PM
incorrect. when an officer is trying to question you and you are not cooperating and you are being disorderly, you have now broken the law.

I can't argue with him any more. He just makes sh*t up/and or has no clue.

voltio8836
07-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Immaterial. Cooperation in not necessary when you haven't broken the law.No debate is necessary. It was an illegal arrest.Fortunately, being a "douche" isn't illegal.

Ok being a douche isn't illegal, but I agree with some of MISC that you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. So if the police force REALLY wanted to be fggots, they could have arrested him on grounds that he was yelling and disturbing the peace. However that would probably make the entire police force look like flaming fggots. And therefore, the charges were dropped.


Therefore both parties acted douchely and both parties should apologize to each other.

Again I dont know the exact situation but from reading news articles. I would like to know is, how did gates provide evidence that he was resident?

jack90
07-24-2009, 02:09 PM
You're attempting to turn this into a racial debate. You should be ashamed. I'm defending citizens right to the sanctity of their homes.No! But I can tell you that being rude isn't illegal. Disorderly behavior refers to public property, not your private residence.






Do not see how he broke any laws.

Without making this into a race thread, the Police did act stupidly.

agreed with both post.

hwpnow
07-24-2009, 02:09 PM
It is important for Prof. Gates to sue. Some people don't respect anything but loss of money. If Gates goes soft one this, then turd cops throughout the nation will learn to put on a good face for the camera, do what the fck you want to on the scene, and make anyone who judges you apologize while you refuse to apologize for anything.

I want him sued, and the department sued.

These cops just don't get it, EVER. Loss of money will help them get it. And who better than fckin' Texas to lead the way in showing how much they don't get it

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1501736.html

There need to be new policies set in place, tougher recruitment policies, sting operations at random, and TRANSPARENCY.

I really hope Gates doesn't bend over and take this, he needs to defend his rights.

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 02:12 PM
It is important for Prof. Gates to sue. Some people don't respect anything but loss of money. If Gates goes soft one this, then turd cops throughout the nation will learn to put on a good face for the camera, do what the fck you want to on the scene, and make anyone who judges you apologize while you refuse to apologize for anything.Why even bother with a trial? Clearly, the Guilty verdict has already been rendered, by people without full knowledge of the incident.

Quick, let's get get some rope and hang 'em all from the nearest tree!

IraHays
07-24-2009, 02:13 PM
I hope he does sue so he will humiliated, again.

Nikhiln25
07-24-2009, 02:15 PM
He did not appologize. He just said his words were taken wrongly. Which they were.

But if the professor really did show proof and he was still arrested I wouldn't be hesitant to believe racial profiling played a part. There is no reason to arrest him if there is proof that is his house.

IraHays
07-24-2009, 02:17 PM
But if the professor really did show proof and he was still arrested I wouldn't be hesitant to believe racial profiling played a part. There is no reason to arrest him if there is proof that is his house.

Right! becuase cops go arounding arresting black people for living in white neighorhoods all the time!

the f*ck?

otisthebat
07-24-2009, 02:19 PM
But if the professor really did show proof and he was still arrested I wouldn't be hesitant to believe racial profiling played a part. There is no reason to arrest him if there is proof that is his house.

he refused to show identification at first.

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:19 PM
here is the report. and apparantly Mr. Gates residence has been burglarized before. Oh and that " racist" cop teaches anti racial profiling courses in the academy. whats amazing is the child-like beserk behavior of a harvard professor.

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

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:20 PM
he refused to show identification at first.

supposedly it was insufficient i.d. , harvard campus police was called to the scene.

jack90
07-24-2009, 02:20 PM
he refused to show identification at first.

but then once he showed the identification the cop asked him to go outside to continue the argument

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:28 PM
but then once he showed the identification the cop asked him to go outside to continue the argument

not quite so, read the report.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

Nikhiln25
07-24-2009, 02:28 PM
lulz. This isn't Alabama in 1960. lmfao. It's Cambridge.
This is America where racist people still live.

jack90
07-24-2009, 02:30 PM
not quite so, read the report.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

uh yes. After identification was shown


he said he asked him to go outside for "better accoustics"

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 02:44 PM
But if the professor really did show proof and he was still arrested I wouldn't be hesitant to believe racial profiling played a part. There is no reason to arrest him if there is proof that is his house.The arrest had nothing to do with whether or not it was his house. He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct for the way he acted towards a police officer who was investigating a reported home break-in.

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:46 PM
uh yes. After identification was shown


he said he asked him to go outside for "better accoustics"


read the whole report dude.

Sgt Crowley "I told Gates I was leaving his residence and if he had any other questions regarding the matter , I would speak to him outside his residence."

the cop was leaving the scene, and told him if he wanted to talk he'll do it out side; gates followed the cop outside to the front and continued to act like a child. he was never "forced" outside brah.

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 02:49 PM
Or they arrested him for no valid reason because he was black.And that absurd accusation is based on what?

The police responded to a burglary call - this officer wasn't just driving up and down the street, looking for people with "wrong color" skin.

Gates acted like a complete jackass towards the officer - a man who was attempting to protect his home & property. Gates played the pathetic victim race card, when it had nothing to do with the situation or the officer's presence there.

Explain how your accusation of racism connects with an actual FACT from this officer's past:

As Gates spoke to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, the Herald was preparing to report that the cop in question, James Crowley, is the same one who fell to his hands and knees on a gymnasium floor 16 years ago to give Celtics star Reggie Lewis mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in a futile but heroic attempt to save his life.That damn bastard racist, trying to save a black man's life as cover for randomly arresting another black man, nearly two decades later. :rolleyes:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1186759

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:49 PM
The arrest had nothing to do with wether or not it was his house. He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct for the way he acted towards a police officer who was investigating a reported home break-in.

exactly and the cop was leaving the scene but was followed outside by gates going beserk.
this had nothing to do with race, or racism. his house was robbed before and the "racist" cop teaches anti-racial profiling courses in the police academy.

Bnk
07-24-2009, 02:51 PM
Obama apologizing to the officer is the first sign of sanity we have seen from this administration is quite some time....glad to see it.

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 02:51 PM
This is America where racist people still live.And as long as people like you pretend that racism must be the basis for any incident between people with different skin color, then we'll continue to have racists.

KRANE
07-24-2009, 02:52 PM
The arrest had nothing to do with wether or not it was his house. He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct for the way he acted towards a police officer who was investigating a reported home break-in.Lets get two things straight: disorderly conduct is not applicable in your home. And second, disorderly conduct one of those wide latitude, catch-all laws, that can be interpreted in virtually any way. This makes arresting someone especially easy when police have nothing of consequence to charge you with.

Besides, if they can do this to a Harvard professor (regardless of color), then us regular folk are in a lot of trouble.

God help us all if this is the type of policing we want.

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Obama apologizing to the officer is the first sign of sanity we have seen from this administration is quite some time....glad to see it.He didn't apologize...

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."

Positive K
07-24-2009, 02:58 PM
Lets get two things straight: disorderly conduct is not applicable in your home. And second, it's one of those wide latitude, catch-all laws, that can be interpreted in virtually any way. This makes arresting someone especially easy when police have nothing of consequence to charge you with. Besides, if they can do this to a Harvard professor (regardless of color), then us regular folk are in a lot of trouble.

God help us all if this is the type of policing we want.

he was arrested outside his residence after he followed the cop leaving the scene going beserk in front of a large crowd; and was warned twice before he was arrested. this was never a case of racism, his childish behavior got him arrested. whats sad is that racial profiling still exists to some extent and for some individuals to claim racism in vain is down right wrong.

Positive K
07-24-2009, 03:01 PM
He didn't apologize...

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."

its all political.he probably was "advised" to retract his comments; he down right just disrespected law enforcement without knowing the facts. did i mention he's friends with Mr.Gates?

TheSheepdog
07-24-2009, 03:35 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

no he wasnt

see what happens when you don't know all of the facts, you make comments like this.

TheSheepdog
07-24-2009, 03:36 PM
Or they arrested him for no valid reason because he was black.

lol

nutsy54
07-24-2009, 03:40 PM
no he wasnt

see what happens when you don't know all of the facts, you make comments like this.It's easier to distort and misrepresent the facts to fit your own pre-determined verdict, than to change your position as additional details become known :(

A ton of posts are fixated on the ID that Gates presented, or the fact it was his own home, or the absurd claim that racial profiling was involved in a reported burglary in progress, or the myth that he was arrested in his own home. Yet each of those is either false, or has absolutely no bearing on the actual reason for the arrest - Gates was causing a public disturbance in his neighborhood, by verbally assaulting a police officer who (after responding to stop a burglary of his home) was attempting to leave the scene with no further action planned or needed.

TheSheepdog
07-24-2009, 03:53 PM
The officer didn't follow this gentleman into his house.
The officer didn't know this man.
A neighbor called this in, the officer can only go by what was given to him by dispatch.

The officer gets a call that two black men are breaking into a home, he arrives to the home to find......a black man in the home.

The black man feels that its because of race that they are doing this, not knowing that a neighbor called it in.

The officer ask for ID, to de-escalate the scene, not to continue "harrasing" the man.

The subject is angry that he is in his own house and their are white officers yelling at him. Sht, he is an important black man...sht, he is an important man inthis country, he should be treated differently. The police dont know who he is, but they want to know because they want his ID.

The officers de-escalate their policing, they now know that it is the home of Henry Louis Gates Jr. Professor Gates is pissed off that a black man, a man in America, can't go into his home (banging against his broken door) without being treated like a burglar.

Now this is the unknown
The officer asked Prof. Gates to go outside to talk about what happened. Supposely the well-known professional prof, says something about the officers mother...about his mother. Prof. Gates his yelling and he is now outside angry and yelling.

Conclusion in my opinion, is one of two things
1.the officer thinks to himself, "whatever mothafuka", then write's a report of what happen to cover his ass.
2.the officer arrest Prof. Gates for disorderly conduct.

If a subject doesnt threaten me or curse and become belligerent around children, you let him go and write a report. If what occured, did occur, then the officer wasnt wrong.

Obama should've kept his mouth close. The moment he said, that "I could be a bit bias because Prof.Gates and I are friends...I don't know all of the facts", he shouldv'e stopped right there. Now the beloved highly intelligent President, made a fool of himself and cause a bit of divide.

Bill Cosby comments

Bill Cosby suggested that President Obama spoke too soon on the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

"I've heard about five different reports [on the details of the arrest]," Cosby said on Boston's WZLX. "If I'm the president of the United States, I don't care how much pressure people want to put on it about race, I'm keeping my mouth shut."

"I was shocked to hear the president making this kind of statement," Cosby said referring to the president's remarks during last night's press conference

The comedian appeared to have dialed his comments back a bit in a later interview on Boston's FOX 25 television station. Cosby cautioned those from coming up with their own conclusions, but gave the president some leeway.

"People who have not been there, people who don't know are beginning to have their own personal feelings, but they weren't there," Cosby said.

"Does this include the president?" asked the FOX25 reporter.

"It includes everybody," Cosby said. "[But] I would have to take into consideration that he lived in Cambridge for some time so he may know more than he's saying about situations of that sort," Cosby said.



^^^there it is right there ^^^

paolo59
07-24-2009, 04:00 PM
Obama apologizing to the officer is the first sign of sanity we have seen from this administration is quite some time....glad to see it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an apology. In fact, I heard no apology at all.

Melkor
07-24-2009, 04:05 PM
lol

You are a frikkin monster. gjdm

Halfway
07-24-2009, 05:49 PM
It's all under control people - They get to sample some of that famous Kobe beef the Obamas are so fond of serving and Michelle might even wear a sleeveless top to dinner.

Weightaholic
07-24-2009, 06:57 PM
How many actual lawyers are up in this thread?

newgene
07-24-2009, 07:15 PM
He apologizes to the cop and the nation....almost, using political spoke of course

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/24/national/w082719D01.DTL&tsp=1

I think he should flat out apologize instead of dancing around it. He immediately jumped in and accused a cop of being stupid simply by basis of skin color. Then, he comes back and said some BS like cooler heads should have prevailed.

NO! YOU ARE NOT ON BASE, AND IMMUNE TO ALL LAWS, BECAUSE YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN HOUSE!

The laws of disorderly conduct are written, and you have to abide by them. This professor has a history of racial run-ins, and what do you know, Obama is yet friends with him as well. If police come in your house after someone is breaking in, and they don't ID the person they speak with, shame on them. What if this was a jealous ex-husband who was breaking into the house he just got kicked out of? What if it was a lying criminal. Who knows. Cooperate with the police. I know I would be glad at any time an officer came to my house to investigate if anyone was breaking in. All officers at the scene, witnessed this guy throw out the race while yelling at the police. He needed to go to jail.

What the hell does the President of the United States have to do with this? What is the correlation? Also, how do we respect a leader who goes off half-cocked and makes statements without having the whole story? How do we accept a leader who can't be man enough to say simply, "I was wrong." He has damaged the trust of many Americans with this stunt. 5 bucks also says that the accused officer voted for him, as well. I wonder if he expected Obama to act like this.

Wow...

newgene
07-24-2009, 07:29 PM
not quite so, read the report.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

Right at the point after I identified myself and asked if anyone else was in the residence, and he refused to identify himself and refused to come out of the residence by replying, and he said, "No, I will not!" I would have toted him on the spot. If I am investigating a possible break-in, and I have someone who refused to obey direct commands, he's going to jail.

The last thing I need is to have him interfering with an investigation, while somebody else with him has a gun pointed at my head. And on top of that, I can't just leave an unidentified man in a house where I was called to investigate a burglary. That's why we have laws against people interfering with police business.

White, black, or whatever color, he would have gone to jail, or if I was nice, just detained until it was all sorted out. Too bad Gates wasn't going to let it go calmly to that.

lahti213
07-24-2009, 08:48 PM
Haha...there are a lot of ignorant people on this thread (the one who sticks out is KRANE). This is why I find web forums so entertaining.

newgene
07-24-2009, 09:11 PM
Disorderly behavior refers to public property, not your private residence.

Is that some Massachusetts law only? I don't know of any states that define it as in a public place. That would almost fall under a different statute such as, Disturbance of a Business, or Disturbing the Peace. Disorderly Conduct in MS, for example, is as follows:

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/035/0007.htm
MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972
As Amended

SEC. 97-35-7. Disorderly conduct; failure to comply with requests or commands of law enforcement officers; penalties.

(1) Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, or which may cause or occasion a breach of the peace, fails or refuses to promptly comply with or obey a request, command, or order of a law enforcement officer, having the authority to then and there arrest any person for a violation of the law, to:

(a) Move or absent himself and any vehicle or object subject to his control from the immediate vicinity where the request, command or order is given, or

(b) Arise, if lying or sitting down, and move to a point designated by said officer outside the immediate area of, or which is affected by the occurrences at, the place of issuing such order, command, or request, or

(c) Refrain from lying down or sitting down at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the place where said order, request or command is given, or

(d) Refrain from obstructing, with his body or any part thereof, or in any manner, the lawful movement or passage of any vehicle, or

(e) Refrain from placing, or permitting, or cooperating with another to place, his body or any part thereof, in front of or behind any vehicle, in such manner as to interfere with, or prevent its movement or block its path in lawful movement, or

(f) Refrain from chaining or tying or binding himself or another to any object or person, or

(g) Unbind, unchain or loosen himself, or remove himself, from any chain or other means whereby he may be prevented from moving away from the place or the immediate vicinity where he may be when such officer issues said order, request or command, or

(h) Walk or move to, enter and remain in, either or both, as may be directed by such officer, any police or other vehicle operated by any law enforcement officer or department, or any other vehicle designated by such an officer, or

(i) Act or do or refrain from acting or doing as ordered, requested or commanded by said officer to avoid any breach of the peace at or near the place of issuance of such order, request or command, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, which is made a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, such person or persons shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(2) Any person who causes, or aids, or encourages, or abets another to violate, or in violating, any provision of subsection (1) hereof, shall be guilty of disorderly conduct which is made a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, such person or persons shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(3) If any person alone or in concert with others violates subsections (1) or (2) hereof, or both, under such circumstances or in such a manner as to evince a wilful and wanton disregard for the life or safety of another and if as a result thereof another person or persons be injured, maimed or killed, the person or persons so violating subsections (1) or (2) hereof, or both, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, such person or persons shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not longer than five (5) years or be fined not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment.

(4) The provisions of this section are supplementary to the provisions of any other statutes of this state.

SOURCES: Codes, 1942, Sec. 2087.9; Laws, 1964, ch. 336, Secs. 1-4, eff from and after passage (approved May 28, 1964).


Section 1 would have had him hooked up in the state of Mississippi easy. I guess that's why I have a hard time understanding this.

Anyone have a copy of the MA statute. That would settle a lot of this.

TheIslander
07-24-2009, 09:19 PM
President B.O. didn't have all the facts, yet he sided with one side of the story. All that needs to be said is that B.O. shouldn't have commented until he knew the facts. This has made B.O. look like an idiot. But that's not really anything new.

TheSheepdog
07-25-2009, 08:02 AM
How many actual lawyers are up in this thread?

don't need to be a lawyer to know the law

newgene
07-25-2009, 09:07 AM
don't need to be a lawyer to know the law

+1

And I'm sure Obama was not a Massachusetts criminal attourney either, for that matter.

nutsy54
07-25-2009, 09:09 AM
+1

And I'm sure Obama was not a Massachusetts criminal attourney either, for that matter.He didn't need to be - since he started off with a personal bias and not knowing all the facts anyway. Why bother with pesky details like understanding the applicable laws?

newgene
07-25-2009, 09:11 AM
Just blurting out an opinion, and then having to retract in whatever form, is probably something we're going to have to get used to with this guy. I just hope he takes a little more time to get the facts on issues that effect the entire country.

Otherwise, it will take a long time to undo the damage this guy can do.

5x10
07-25-2009, 09:15 AM
What the hell does the President of the United States have to do with this? What is the correlation? Also, how do we respect a leader who goes off half-cocked and makes statements without having the whole story? How do we accept a leader who can't be man enough to say simply, "I was wrong." He has damaged the trust of many Americans with this stunt. 5 bucks also says that the accused officer voted for him, as well. I wonder if he expected Obama to act like this.

Wow...

spot on

lyrics312
07-25-2009, 10:27 AM
So many ignorant biased morons in this thread. This is a perfect example as to why I tend to stay away from the r/p section

KRANE
07-25-2009, 12:30 PM
I think he should flat out apologize instead of dancing around it. He immediately jumped in and accused a cop of being stupid simply by basis of skin color. Then, he comes back and said some BS like cooler heads should have prevailed.Stop! He said they, "acted stupidly...!"


NO! YOU ARE NOT ON BASE, AND IMMUNE TO ALL LAWS, BECAUSE YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN HOUSE!Irrelevant!


The laws of disorderly conduct are written, and you have to abide by them. This professor has a history of racial run-ins, and what do you know, Obama is yet friends with him as well.Irrelevant!

If police come in your house after someone is breaking in, and they don't ID the person they speak with, shame on them. What if this was a jealous ex-husband who was breaking into the house he just got kicked out of? What if it was a lying criminal. Who knows.Yes, who know? Speculation...and irrelevant!

Cooperate with the police.Because they always have your best interest in mind?
I know I would be glad at any time an officer came to my house to investigate if anyone was breaking in.Maybe you should see if you can rent a cell.
All officers at the scene, witnessed this guy throw out the race while yelling at the police. He needed to go to jail.Because throwing out the race card bothers you?


What the hell does the President of the United States have to do with this? What is the correlation? Umm, he works for the PEOPLE?
Also, how do we respect a leader who goes off half-cocked and makes statements without having the whole story? How do we accept a leader who can't be man enough to say simply, "I was wrong."In fact, he said from the start would make mistakes. But I don't think this was one of them.

He has damaged the trust of many Americans with this stunt.Only those that were already against him
5 bucks also says that the accused officer voted for him, as well. I wonder if he expected Obama to act like this.

Wow...That's what I said
I wouldn't go so far as to call it an apology. In fact, I heard no apology at all.Nor should there be, he's the POTUS. President Obama said they acted stupidly by arresting the professor and I couldn't agree more. This was an Ive league educated prominent individual that presented NO threat to the community! It was as clear abuse of authority. I just sorry so many of you are blinded by the racial implication that you don't see that.
So many ignorant biased morons in this thread. This is a perfect example as to why I tend to stay away from the r/p sectionI'm not sure which "bias" you're referring to? But if you're even close to being correct, then that's all the more reason for your presence.

markymark69
07-25-2009, 12:35 PM
its pretty foolhardy to criticize the police and then admit that you dont have all the facts.

It is no different than about 90% of the people on the R&P:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=287123471

I could pull about 400+ threads that are similar to that one...

Spetsnazos
07-25-2009, 12:38 PM
At least he apologized, I have never heard Bu$h say he did ANYTHING wrong. We are taking steps forward imo

otisthebat
07-25-2009, 12:38 PM
It is no different than about 90% of the people on the R&P:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=287123471

I could pull about 400+ threads that are similar to that one...

just because someone else did it, doesnt make it ok.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 12:39 PM
he was arrested outside his residence after he followed the cop leaving the scene going beserk in front of a large crowd; and was warned twice before he was arrested. this was never a case of racism, his childish behavior got him arrested. whats sad is that racial profiling still exists to some extent and for some individuals to claim racism in vain is down right wrong.Hmm, arrested for childish behavior in your home? And you don't consider that a stupid reason for arresting someone? I guess with all the serious crimes being committed cops have nothing better to do?

otisthebat
07-25-2009, 12:42 PM
Hmm, arrested for childish behavior in your home? Shall we all go line up at the police station?


he was arrested outside his residence

???

KRANE
07-25-2009, 12:47 PM
???Oh please. I didn't read anything about the police using a tape measure to determine precise jurisdictional authority? My point is, the man was at this HOUSE, not in a mall, and presented no harm to the public!

otisthebat
07-25-2009, 12:53 PM
Oh please. I didn't read anything about the police using a tape measure to determine precise jurisdictional authority? My point is, the man was at this HOUSE, not in a mall and presented no harm to the public!

you can be arrested on your front lawn.

markymark69
07-25-2009, 12:59 PM
you can be arrested on your front lawn.

interesting....on one thread...self described conservatives state a 10yr should be allowed to hunt with a gun on his parents property unsupervised....on this thread...self described conservatives advocate the police arresting you on your own property...for doing what exactly? Talking loudly?

hunting with gun by unsupervised 10yr on private property= ok
talking loudly on private property = not ok

And people wonder why I consider myself conservative..yet consistently bash self described conservatives on this forum.

hooked4life
07-25-2009, 01:01 PM
interesting....on one thread...self described conservatives state a 10yr should be allowed to hunt with a gun on his parents property unsupervised....on this thread...self described conservatives advocate the police arresting you on your own property...for doing what exactly? Talking loudly?

hunting with gun by unsupervised 10yr on private property= ok
talking loudly on private property = not ok

And people wonder why I consider myself conservative..yet consistently bash self described conservatives on this forum.

Yes, I always find this the most unsettling. But you have to remember that this guy just made a long rant thread about how with 2 years of training he's as capable as a MD to make on the spot diagnoses about who deserves to get treatment.

I guess I just can't understand that kind of hubris.

hooked4life
07-25-2009, 01:03 PM
don't need to be a lawyer to know the law

You sort of do actually. I just listened to a podcast from a prof at my school and it's not like any of the niggty gritty details are black and white (no pun) - it could go to court and either side could have a chance.

Sounds like the law is actually kind of hard to fully understand.

otisthebat
07-25-2009, 01:03 PM
interesting....on one thread...self described conservatives state a 10yr should be allowed to hunt with a gun on his parents property unsupervised....on this thread...self described conservatives advocate the police arresting you on your own property...for doing what exactly? Talking loudly?

hunting with gun by unsupervised 10yr on private property= ok
talking loudly on private property = not ok

And people wonder why I consider myself conservative..yet consistently bash self described conservatives on this forum.

i didnt participate in that thread, i dont know anything about it to make a statement. but nice try on generalizing all conservative viewpoints.

he did more than talk loudly, he was hindering a police investigation and being disorderly. when a cop is trying to get information and you are being a dick, you are breaking the law.

markymark69
07-25-2009, 01:20 PM
i didnt participate in that thread, i dont know anything about it to make a statement. but nice try on generalizing all conservative viewpoints.

he did more than talk loudly, he was hindering a police investigation and being disorderly. when a cop is trying to get information and you are being a dick, you are breaking the law.

Sorry, I wasnt insinuating that you participated in that thread.

I just find it ironic that some conservatives advocate a 10yr discharging a firearm on private property unsupervised...yet do not advocate talking loudly on your own property.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 01:20 PM
You sort of do actually. I just listened to a podcast from a prof at my school and it's not like any of the niggty gritty details are black and white (no pun) - it could go to court and either side could have a chance.

Sounds like the law is actually kind of hard to fully understand.Some laws are...some aren't. This particular one was designed as a catch-all law specifically to give law enforcement a wide latitude to squelch any activity they deemed objectionable. With such a loosely interpreted law as of disorderly conduct, kicking a can out of anger, could get you arrested.

lyrics312
07-25-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm not sure which "bias" you're referring to? But if you're even close to being correct, then that's all the more reason for your presence.

Let's just say I agree with your take on the situation. Knowing that, it should make my previous post make more sense.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 01:23 PM
he did more than talk loudly, he was hindering a police investigation and being disorderly. when a cop is trying to get information and you are being a dick, you are breaking the law.Heaven help us.

hooked4life
07-25-2009, 01:25 PM
Some laws are...some aren't. This particular one was designed as a catch-all law specifically to give law enforcement a wide latitude to squelch any activity they deemed objectionable. With such a loosely interpreted law as of disorderly conduct, kicking a can out of anger, could get you arrested.

Yea, but then all the nuisances get into the case. When was the Id handed over, did the porch have a roof (thus making it taxed as part of the full house - providing a strong argument to say Gates was 'inside'), when did Gates ask him to leave ... etc etc etc.

It gets super complicated super fast.

hooked4life
07-25-2009, 01:26 PM
when a cop is trying to get information and you are being a dick, you are breaking the law.

Um, not really.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 01:27 PM
Yea, but then all the nuisances get into the case. When was the Id handed over, did the porch have a roof (thus making it taxed as part of the full house - providing a strong argument to say Gates was 'inside'), when did Gates ask him to leave ... etc etc etc.

It gets super complicated super fast.You mean super silly. What a way to waste tax payer's money.
Let's just say I agree with your take on the situation. Knowing that, it should make my previous post make more sense.Even if your views ran contrary to mine, I'd still applaud your presence. Right or wrong, at least you have the courage to speak up.

hooked4life
07-25-2009, 01:30 PM
You mean super silly. What a way to waste tax payer's money.

No, I mean super complicated. Law in America is a highly complicated web of drawing one conclusion from another case kind of like it.

bubba g
07-25-2009, 02:20 PM
He apologizes to the cop and the nation....almost, using political spoke of course

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/24/national/w082719D01.DTL&tsp=1


Would he have apologized if there wasn't a public backlash over his comments?

KRANE
07-25-2009, 02:25 PM
Would he have apologized if there wasn't a public backlash over his comments?I don't recall there being a public backlash? All the objections I saw came from other headstrong cops.

nutsy54
07-25-2009, 02:28 PM
Would he have apologized if there wasn't a public backlash over his comments?Even with the "backlash"... He didn't actually apologize.


"I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."

a. Yes, I don't see how anyone could take the words "acted stupidly" the wrong way :rolleyes:

b. He "could" have used different words. Not "should". Not "I was wrong for speaking on a issue in which I had a personal bias and didn't know all the facts". No "apologize" anywhere in his statement.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 02:32 PM
Even with the "backlash"... He didn't actually apologize.



a. Yes, I don't see how anyone could take the words "acted stupidly" the wrong way :rolleyes:

b. He "could" have used different words. Not "should". Not "I was wrong for speaking on a issue in which I had a personal bias and didn't know all the facts". No "apologize" anywhere in his statement.None of his word would have changed the fact that the arrest was a stupid move. i concur with the presidents estimation. All these men were professionals; and a sergeant, especially that one, should have been able to handle things differently.

bigt405
07-25-2009, 02:43 PM
None of his word would have changed the fact that the arrest was a stupid move. i concur with the presidents estimation. All these men were professionals; and a sergeant, especially that one, should have been able to handle things differently.

And a college professor should be able to calmly explain to a cop the situation and easily show proof of he is without causing a scene.

Fernando12
07-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Here's my question: Who the **** cares anymore and why is this national news? The president was retarded to address this issue in the first place. The guy isn't even being charged and being arrested for disturbing the peace and acting like a jackass is perfectly legitimate, even if the cops were *******s too.

dontcare
07-25-2009, 02:47 PM
None of his word would have changed the fact that the arrest was a stupid move. i concur with the presidents estimation. All these men were professionals; and a sergeant, especially that one, should have been able to handle things differently.

I think the officers handled the situation fairly well, he deserved a good ass kickin. So I don't believe having to spend a few hours locked up, is the worst thing that could've happen to this jack ass.

KRANE
07-25-2009, 02:48 PM
And a college professor should be able to calmly explain to a cop the situation and easily show proof of he is without causing a scene.I'm not excusing his behavior, but college professors can't lose their temper? And remember, he wasn't in the lecture hall, nor on main street, he was at his house!! I can only wish that everybody else only behaved badly at home.
I think the officers handled the situation fairly well, he deserved a good ass kickin. So I don't believe having to spend a few hours locked up, is the worst thing that could've happen to this jack ass.Is that what you really want police to have the okay to do?

nutsy54
07-25-2009, 02:51 PM
None of his word would have changed the fact that the arrest was a stupid move. i concur with the presidents estimation. All these men were professionals; and a sergeant, especially that one, should have been able to handle things differently.Regardless of what we now know, after several days of additional reports and details, The President didn't have enough information at the time that he attacked the Cambridge police department, to make that determination. Especially since he then went into a "profiling" speech, that clearly had nothing to do with the event in Cambridge.

And even now, it's certainly far from settled whether the response and subsequent arrest was appropriate or not, given the situation.

nutsy54
07-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Here's my question: Who the **** cares anymore and why is this national news? The president was retarded to address this issue in the first place. The guy isn't even being charged and being arrested for disturbing the peace and acting like a jackass is perfectly legitimate, even if the cops were *******s too.You answered your own question, I bolded it for you ;)

Mr. Gates sought to create a racial incident where none occurred. He spread the gasoline, and our President lit the match.

"I have a personal bias, I don't know the facts... Therefore I have no further comment". How much easier would that have been?

People who look hard enough for racism behind every event, will find racism behind every event.

bigt405
07-25-2009, 03:03 PM
I'm not excusing his behavior, but college professors can't lose their temper? And remember, he wasn't in the lecture hall, nor on main street, he was at his house!! I can only wish that everybody else only behaved badly at home.Is that what you really want police to have the okay to do?

Why should he have lost his temper? His neighbor called the cops reporting a crime in progress(breaking and entering). The cops show up asks the people inside for identification. The cop was doing his job and if the professor had politely showed him identification and explained what had happened there would not had been a problem. As a matter of fact he should have thanked him for showing up because if it had been an intruder they would have been caught and his property would have been protected.

MyLastSerenade
07-25-2009, 03:54 PM
How much easier would this all have went if the convo went something like this..

Police: Sir we are going to have to see some I.D., we have a report of a break in
Gates: Certainly, give me one second because I just got back from China and my stuff is packed.

Police: Is there anyone else in the house?
Gates: No, No just me, here is my I.D. Is there anything else you need from me?

Police: Do you mind if we look around the property and check somethings out?
Gates: No not at all, I appreciate you being here, I have been out of the country and glad that y'all responded so quickly. I owe my neighbors a thank you for keeping a look out for me.

Police: ( a few minutes later) Alright Mr. Gates, have an nice day
Gates: You too sir.

(door Closes, Police Leave)
Gates: Those cracka ass crackas did this because I am black, sheet, let me gets some thunderbird and relax.


Point being, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all, or at least wait till they leave.

Melkor
07-25-2009, 03:57 PM
How much easier would this all have went if the convo went something like this..

Police: Sir we are going to have to see some I.D., we have a report of a break in
Gates: Certainly, give me one second because I just got back from China and my stuff is packed.

Police: Is there anyone else in the house?
Gates: No, No just me, here is my I.D. Is there anything else you need from me?

Police: Do you mind if we look around the property and check somethings out?
Gates: No not at all, I appreciate you being here, I have been out of the country and glad that y'all responded so quickly. I owe my neighbors a thank you for keeping a look out for me.

Police: ( a few minutes later) Alright Mr. Gates, have an nice day
Gates: You too sir.

(door Closes, Police Leave)
Gates: Those cracka ass crackas did this because I am black, sheet, let me gets some thunderbird and relax.


Point being, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all, or at least wait till they leave.

That's crazy talk. He was clearly required to mouth off and do everything in his power to get media attention on him and his upcoming documentary on racial profiling.

newgene
07-25-2009, 05:40 PM
Stop! He said they, "acted stupidly...!"

Irrelevant!

Irrelevant!
Yes, who know? Speculation...and irrelevant!
Because they always have your best interest in mind? Maybe you should see if you can rent a cell.Because throwing out the race card bothers you?

Umm, he works for the PEOPLE? In fact, he said from the start would make mistakes. But I don't think this was one of them.
Only those that were already against himThat's what I saidNor should there be, he's the POTUS. President Obama said they acted stupidly by arresting the professor and I couldn't agree more. This was an Ive league educated prominent individual that presented NO threat to the community! It was as clear abuse of authority. I just sorry so many of you are blinded by the racial implication that you don't see that.I'm not sure which "bias" you're referring to? But if you're even close to being correct, then that's all the more reason for your presence.

Wow...I've never seen a post more wrong over and over again. Above all, the professor was guilty of disorderly conduct. Again, the officers charged him under the MA statute, and they did that based on satisfying the elements of the crime.

Obama acted stupid by saying the police acted stupid. Only Obama is flat out wrong here. And, you CAN get arrested in your own home. Please show either a law or case law where that cannot be done.

Again, dude, you are way wrong on this one.

newgene
07-25-2009, 05:48 PM
I'm not excusing his behavior, but college professors can't lose their temper? And remember, he wasn't in the lecture hall, nor on main street, he was at his house!! I can only wish that everybody else only behaved badly at home.Is that what you really want police to have the okay to do?

Geesh...as I read more of these I'm more amazed. No, "losing your temper" to the police is not acceptable in any state. You can't do it to judges in court either. There are just certain times it can land you successfully in jail, charged with a crime.

And no, you can't do it at home because you are "on base." Let's face it, this dude tried to start a race issue where there was none.

For example, when I arrest white people, I get every excuse in the world for them to try to get out of it. When I arrest black people, it's the same thing. Only they feel like one of their excuses, the race card, is actually legitimate. Nonetheless, none of them get to break the law at will...even in their house.

Put it this way. If I get called to a burglary, and I see a man with a gun, I'm drawing mine on him, and I'm not putting mine away until that gun is not capable of shooting me. I don't care if it's his own house or not. The laws don't change because you are invincible in your own house. You can't murder, rape, assault, commit disorderly conduct, etc. just because it's inside your house. He's guilty of disorderly conduct by failing to obey with an official police investigation. Again, someone else could have easily been in the house and Mr. Gates could have been the burglar. He went to jail.

tnel00
07-26-2009, 07:31 PM
The fact are that he was arrested in his own home for being angry. That's something ALL Americans should be appaulled about.

1) No he wasn't...he was arrested outside of his home, was it on the street (public) or his yard (private) we don't know, but he wasn't arrested inside of his house.

2) So when a husband get's angry and threatens to beat his wife he shouldn't spend the night in the tank?

trap-bar
07-26-2009, 10:40 PM
not trying to promote anything but it seems like racism has been on a uphill climb for a couple years now. i seriously believe that a race war could break out within the next decade

FIVE OAKES
07-27-2009, 04:30 AM
That's crazy talk. He was clearly required to mouth off and do everything in his power to get media attention on him and his upcoming documentary on racial profiling.

That's exactly what I've been thinking...Gates has probably been hoping for this opportunity for a LONG time. Some way to get into the spotlight and stir up some ****, so he seems more relevant. Just like another Jesse Jackson.

A professor of black history who has written books on the "African-American experience"....

His whole existence basically revolves around black oppression. Without it, he wouldn't be the man he is today.

Gates is the one who was racial profiling. If it was a black cop, he would have happily cooperated and probably would have offered the cop a drink.

trap-bar
07-27-2009, 09:09 AM
That's exactly what I've been thinking...Gates has probably been hoping for this opportunity for a LONG time. Some way to get into the spotlight and stir up some ****, so he seems more relevant. Just like another Jesse Jackson.

A professor of black history who has written books on the "African-American experience"....

His whole existence basically revolves around black oppression. Without it, he wouldn't be the man he is today.

Gates is the one who was racial profiling. If it was a black cop, he would have happily cooperated and probably would have offered the cop a drink.

probably would have gave him a full ride to his college as well

TheSheepdog
07-27-2009, 02:28 PM
probably would have gave him a full ride to his college as well

or maybe, just maybe, he had the grades and the intellect to get into the school based on merit

swearujacked
07-27-2009, 02:31 PM
What the fuk is the big deal about this in the first place? Charges were dropped against they guy.... not a big deal

nutsy54
07-27-2009, 02:35 PM
not trying to promote anything but it seems like racism has been on a uphill climb for a couple years now. i seriously believe that a race war could break out within the next decadeOnly if people like Mr. Gates and President Obama keep making knee-jerk assumptions, and look for racism where none exists...

TheSheepdog
07-27-2009, 02:43 PM
Only if people like Mr. Gates and President Obama keep making knee-jerk assumptions, and look for racism where none exists...

being that I'm the only other black man in this thread besides Krane, it is my assumption that race wasnt an issue with this arrest, but race is still an issue in America (and I can unfortunately say that it has been an issue in my life)

what that being said, this thread has ran its course....good night sweet prince.

Later Nutsy.