Are minorities stopped disproportionately or do they commit disproportionate crime?

[Zombie Acorn]

At the end of Obama's press conference tonight he received a kind of odd ball question about professor gates at Cambridge. He alluded to thinking there is still rampant racism because a disproportionate amount of minorities were being stopped.

He stated this as fact, and of course the other side of the story is that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime by population. Does this seem a bit odd to anyone else? If I was an officer who saw a section of the populous committing a disproportionate amount of crime, I would make a disproportionate amount of stops.

[jknight8907]

The short answer is what the Bureau of Justice reports:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

[nuckinfutz]

At the end of Obama's press conference tonight he received a kind of odd ball question about professor gates at Cambridge. He alluded to thinking there is still rampant racism because a disproportionate amount of minorities were being stopped.

He stated this as fact, and of course the other side of the story is that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime by population. Does this seem a bit odd to anyone else? If I was an officer who saw a section of the populous committing a disproportionate amount of crime, I would make a disproportionate amount of stops.

A bit of both.

Minorities who are lower income are likely to live in a lower income higher crime areas and thus get caught up in the law enforcement undertow

[Ugg]

At the end of Obama's press conference tonight he received a kind of odd ball question about professor gates at Cambridge. He alluded to thinking there is still rampant racism because a disproportionate amount of minorities were being stopped.

He stated this as fact, and of course the other side of the story is that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime by population. Does this seem a bit odd to anyone else? If I was an officer who saw a section of the populous committing a disproportionate amount of crime, I would make a disproportionate amount of stops.

Arresting an obviously erudite professor in his own home doesn't cut it.

I can understand if it was a poor neighborhood and the guy was poorly dressed and spoke "street" and was drunk. I think that's the real point that's being made, is that too many white people refuse to believe that black men can be successful. When they are, they get slapped back down by whites who can't let go of their own prejudices.

[Badandy]

I can understand if it was a poor neighborhood and the guy was poorly dressed and spoke "street" and was drunk. I think that's the real point that's being made, is that too many white people refuse to believe that black men can be successful. When they are, they get slapped back down by whites who can't let go of their own prejudices.

Any evidence for this? I don't really see the point you're making. What does "slapped back down by whites who can't let go of their own prejudices mean"? I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, I'm just baffled on what you're referring to with successful black people getting "slapped back down" from whites.

[thegoldenmackid]

Racial Profiling is legal in this country. But the answer is both.

[Axl Rose]

Both.

[Rodimus Prime]

I read the story and heard about the story.

The cops did everything right up until the point they arrested him. As soon as they saw his id and it proved that he lived there that should of been to the end of it.

How it should of been handled is cops should show up and do ask for the id and proof that he does live there. Nothing wrong with that. But as soon as they see the id is should be "Thank you, sorry to bother you have a nice day"

Hell I will even cut the cops slack on stepping into the house uninvited if they make it no farther than the entry way really. I cut them slack on the grounds that they are just looking around to make sure some one is not there threatening the guy and just make sure everything is in order but still the end of it.

[nuckinfutz]

The cops did everything right up until the point they arrested him. As soon as they saw his id and it proved that he lived there that should of been to the end of it.

How it should of been handled is cops should show up and do ask for the id and proof that he does live there. Nothing wrong with that. But as soon as they see the id is should be "Thank you, sorry to bother you have a nice day"




Bingo. This isn't hard stuff here. Gates doesn't have to be a model citizen once he's satisfactorily proven that it was his home. For me I'm going to be cordial with Law Enforcement (especially if I know I'm in the wrong) but when I know I'm right my patience would be fairly limited as well.

[spaceboots06]

Racial Profiling is legal in this country. But the answer is both.

Isn't Texas part of America? I think it's legal but not too legal. Because here in NYC people had a big fit over the NYPD searching Muslim people's belongings exclusively on the trains so they had to start searching other races too.

[Badandy]

I read the story and heard about the story.

The cops did everything right up until the point they arrested him. As soon as they saw his id and it proved that he lived there that should of been to the end of it.

How it should of been handled is cops should show up and do ask for the id and proof that he does live there. Nothing wrong with that. But as soon as they see the id is should be "Thank you, sorry to bother you have a nice day"



I didn't read/see the story, so I apologize if this is a bad question. Don't they need probable cause to do this? They can't just barge into people's houses and demand proof they live there...

[Rodimus Prime]

I didn't read/see the story, so I apologize if this is a bad question. Don't they need probable cause to do this? They can't just barge into people's houses and demand proof they live there...

I will fill you in on the back story and then it everything upto the arresting part is understandable.

The profession lock himself out of the house and had to break in to his own house to to speak. A neighbor or someone else saw this and though he was breaking into the house and call the cops. which in my book was the right thing to do. If I saw some one breaking into a house I am going to assume they are doing it to steal.

Ok the cops response to a breaking and entering call and when they get there he answer the door. The guy matches the description the cops have to go on which is an African American male so they ask for some id and proof he live there since he does match the description of the guy breaking into the house.

Now as soon as they saw the id was correct that should of been the end of it.

[CorvusCamenarum]

The police reports (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF) are interesting reading. All the guy had to do was say "Yes, officer, this is my home, I locked myself out, here's my ID," and problem solved in a few minutes. Instead, he chooses to act as though he has a chip on his shoulder the size of a bull elephant. No sympathy for this guy.

[Eraserhead]

Isn't Texas part of America? I think it's legal but not too legal. Because here in NYC people had a big fit over the NYPD searching Muslim people's belongings exclusively on the trains so they had to start searching other races too.

No stopping the fact that that supposedly happens a huge amount at airports - according to Gerry Adams (head of Sein Fein) the only people who get "randomly selected" for additional security checks are him and Muslims.

The police reports (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF) are interesting reading. All the guy had to do was say "Yes, officer, this is my home, I locked myself out, here's my ID," and problem solved in a few minutes. Instead, he chooses to act as though he has a chip on his shoulder the size of a bull elephant. No sympathy for this guy.

He's an academic on black history - of course he's going to be arrogant about this kind of thing.

Personally once he'd shown the Harvard ID and driving licence the cop should have backed right off.

[Desertrat]

1. Racial profiling is illegal, but some does occur. There are cases of "Driving while black" or "Walking while Mexican". Not as many as popular gossip would have it believed, however.

2. Blacks do commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes. Federal data bears this out. DOJ, CDC. I don't think I need to veer this thread into the reasons, however.

3. In this case, the cops should have backed off after seeing the ID as to proof of residency, arrogance or not. It appears that they let resentment of personal insult overcome their professional judgement.

'Rat

[Dagless]

In my town the Asian quarter get up to more mischief than any other, but it's also the poorest area. Every other week theres a murder or attempted whilst in our village we get the occasional drunken brawl. Car crimes are more common there too. And the only riot our town had was caused by a clash between an asian kid and a white kid.

But the poor white areas are rubbish too, who just so happen to have the highest concentration of BNP supporters.

[Ugg]

The police reports (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF) are interesting reading. All the guy had to do was say "Yes, officer, this is my home, I locked myself out, here's my ID," and problem solved in a few minutes. Instead, he chooses to act as though he has a chip on his shoulder the size of a bull elephant. No sympathy for this guy.

Have you ever locked yourself out of your house? It's pretty annoying and makes people angry. The police officer should have backed off once he got the ID. There's no law saying that a person has to be nice to police officers, especially when they're clearly being butt heads.

No sympathy for the police officer who clearly entered the house uninvited and refused to back down. It sounds like he wanted a confrontation not a solution.

[Shivetya]

Gates acted out the part of "ABM" and got what he asked for. PrezBo is a subscriber to the ABM model and fellow race warlord so of course he is going to make a scene - he cannot resist inserting himself into anything anymore.

Of course PrezBo will try to imply there is racism, its far better than the truth the statistic show... which is by percentage of population this group commits more crimes. Just as bad they kill each other and their community seems more intent on blaming the other guy (with help from RWs) instead of acknowledging the monster under the bed.



The key to remember is...

He was ONLY arrested outside his house AFTER he continued to follow and harass the officer. Basically he copped an attitude because he wanted to be more offended than he should have been. His own words quite clearly demonstrate he was purposefully exaggerating the situation. I would not doubt he was pleased with being arrested.



Oh this picture is great http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Henry_Gates_Porch_072109.jpg

[kavika411]

The police reports (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF) are interesting reading. All the guy had to do was say "Yes, officer, this is my home, I locked myself out, here's my ID," and problem solved in a few minutes. Instead, he chooses to act as though he has a chip on his shoulder the size of a bull elephant. No sympathy for this guy.

The arrest, as narrated in the arrest report, stands on all fours. The only question is whether the report is some sort of fraud. If it is, the drafting officer(s) should be arrested and the charges against Gates dropped. If it is not, Gates is doing a selfish, massive disservice to the legions of people who have been wrongly accused/arrested because of a minority status.

[Zombie Acorn]

Arresting an obviously erudite professor in his own home doesn't cut it.

I can understand if it was a poor neighborhood and the guy was poorly dressed and spoke "street" and was drunk. I think that's the real point that's being made, is that too many white people refuse to believe that black men can be successful. When they are, they get slapped back down by whites who can't let go of their own prejudices.

He broke into his own house and then was allegedly uncooperative when questioned through the door. Sounded like he immediately thought they were racist because they were investigating a break-in. It would be like jimmying your lock open in the parking lot and not expecting to be stopped.

[fivepoint]

The fact that the President of the United States of America got on National Television last night and personally scolded these police officers, not having been there, not knowing all the facts, not apparently knowing that the accused followed the cops out of the house and continued to harass them, is a sad, sad state of affairs.

This guy was obviously trying to make a bigger deal out of something than was there to begin with. The officers were simply responding to a call of robbery. If he would have calmly shown the officers his ID, like most innocent people would, been maybe a little mad but generally kept calm and cool... like most innocent people would, nothing more would have happened. The cops would have apologized for the inconvenience and that would have been the end of it.

Problem is, that guy was looking to be an ass. Looking to make a political statement, a scene, looking to harass and impede the law officers in their work, and was arrested as such.

I wan't there, like the President, so I can't know all of the facts... but what I can say is that he has no right to stand up on his bully-pulpit (literally in this case) and cast judgement on these police officers.

What a shameful disgrace of a thing for a President to do. I thought Obama was doing a good job of staying above most of this racial drama... apparently not.

[Zombie Acorn]

The fact that the President of the United States of America got on National Television last night and personally scolded these police officers, not having been there, not knowing all the facts, not apparently knowing that the accused followed the cops out of the house and continued to harass them, is a sad, sad state of affairs.

This guy was obviously trying to make a bigger deal out of something than was there to begin with. The officers were simply responding to a call of robbery. If he would have calmly shown the officers his ID, like most innocent people would, been maybe a little mad but generally kept calm and cool... like most innocent people would, nothing more would have happened. The cops would have apologized for the inconvenience and that would have been the end of it.

Problem is, that guy was looking to be an ass. Looking to make a political statement, a scene, looking to harass and impede the law officers in their work, and was arrested as such.

I wan't there, like the President, so I can't know all of the facts... but what I can say is that he has no right to stand up on his bully-pulpit (literally in this case) and cast judgement on these police officers.

What a shameful disgrace of a thing for a President to do. I thought Obama was doing a good job of staying above most of this racial drama... apparently not.

I have a feeling Obama may be asked for an apology for basically calling Cambridge police "stupid". Kind of like when he dug his whole in Vegas. Either way I have no idea why the question was asked at this press conference.

[barkomatic]

He broke into his own house and then was allegedly uncooperative when questioned through the door. Sounded like he immediately thought they were racist because they were investigating a break-in. It would be like jimmying your lock open in the parking lot and not expecting to be stopped.

Every since Obama was elected, there has been a growing perception that we live in a "post racial society". I think black activists became alarmed by this sentiment and needed to highlight an incident like this(the Harvard professor being arrested that is) to try and keep momentum behind policies like affirmative action. The justification for such policies has been eroding for years.

It was inappropriate for Obama to comment on this situation at all before all the facts were sorted out. It reveals a bias and that is something the President can't afford.

[Ugg]

It was inappropriate for President Obama to comment on this situation at all before all the facts were sorted out. It reveals a bias and that is something the President can't afford.

If it's not appropriate for the president of the United States to stand up against inequality, then who is appropriate?

Would you be fluffing your feathers if Clinton or Bush had done this?

Something tells me that you're saying black presidents can't stand up against inequality against blacks because a black president might be prejudiced. What a bunch of BS.

[rhett7660]

If you read the police report it says the officers were leaving after they verified who's house it was and verified who he was. The office had ended it. Mr. Gates continued.. Read page 2 paragraph 3.

I haven't heard what the President has said, so I won't comment on that.

[barkomatic]

If it's not appropriate for the president of the United States to stand up against inequality, then who is appropriate?

Would you be fluffing your feathers if Clinton or Bush had done this?

Something tells me that you're saying black presidents can't stand up against inequality against blacks because a black president might be prejudiced. What a bunch of BS.

Of course a President should stand up against inequality. That's not what I said.

I will repeat that the President should not have commented on a situation before all the facts come in. Doing so has the potential to reveal or suggest bias if later the facts turn the other way.

Also, I think its hilarious that you added the word "President" to my quote as if to indicate I had no respect for that office or Obama. You then go ahead in your own response to leave out the word "President" when referencing "Clinton" and "Bush".

Clearly, you're the one who is biased and have no ability to view this situation objectively and without emotion.

For the record, I voted for Obama and agree with much of what he is trying to do for our country. However, does the fact that I voted for someone mean that I must agree with literally everything he says and does? Is it now politically incorrect to disagree in any way with a black President?

[kavika411]

If it's not appropriate for the president of the United States to stand up against inequality, then who is appropriate?

With regard to his comments last night, exactly which "inequality" was Obama standing up against? The question concerned Gates' arrest. By Obama's own words, (1) Gates is Obama's friend, (2) Obama is biased, and (3) Obama doesn't know all the facts of the arrest. Is the idea that as long as the end of Obama's answer - to a very specific question - is a broad recitation of racism in history that, well hell, it's a stand he should take?

[Badandy]

If I was breaking into my house and and the police came and asked for ID, I'd just give it to them. You know what I'd do then? Ask them how their day was going and realize that small mix-ups are bound to happen. Seems to me that this is a story over nothing, he should have let it go. I'm not saying arresting him was right, but humans are prideful creatures; Yelling at them and insulting them for their mistakes often doesn't lead to the outcome you're hoping for.


On another note, I want to relate a quick story from high-school. It's anecdotal so you can't extrapolate from it. I just thought it was hilarious at the time. I had a substitute teacher for a class who was black and afterwards we were talking:

Her: "You wouldn't believe this, I got pulled over yesterday!"
Me: "Why?"
Her: "DWB."
Me: "What's that?" (didn't know what the acronym was then)
Her: "Driving while black."
Me: "They pulled you over for no reason? That's awful"
Her: "I know."
Me: "What did they even say they pulled you over for? They had to give a reason."
Her: "No front license plate."
Me: "Well did you have one?"
Her: "No"
Me: "Oh"

I left shortly thereafter. I'm white and I've gotten pulled over four times for not having a front license plate.

That's it, I thought it was entertaining at the time.

[Shivetya]

If it's not appropriate for the president of the United States to stand up against inequality, then who is appropriate?

Would you be fluffing your feathers if Clinton or Bush had done this?

Something tells me that you're saying black presidents can't stand up against inequality against blacks because a black president might be prejudiced. What a bunch of BS.

In a heartbeat I would be complaining. The difference is that Obama has taken the art of vilifying to new levels. He almost seems incapable of having a press conference without slandering someone or some group.

The guy plays straight from the victim playbook. He is a classic race and class warlord.

The guy sucks

[leekohler]

In a heartbeat I would be complaining. The difference is that Obama has taken the art of vilifying to new levels. He almost seems incapable of having a press conference without slandering someone or some group.

The guy plays straight from the victim playbook. He is a classic race and class warlord.

The guy sucks

Proof of your claims of slander, please. And no- I never heard you criticize Bush for one thing.

And sorry, Obama is 100 million times better than Bush was. Obama may be criticizing people, but at least he isn't trying to interfere in families' end of life decisions, like with Terry Schiavo. He's also not invading countries and lying about the reasons. I'll take this guy over that one any day.

[Eraserhead]

Have you ever locked yourself out of your house? It's pretty annoying and makes people angry. The police officer should have backed off once he got the ID. There's no law saying that a person has to be nice to police officers, especially when they're clearly being butt heads.

No sympathy for the police officer who clearly entered the house uninvited and refused to back down. It sounds like he wanted a confrontation not a solution.

+1

If you read the police report it says the officers were leaving after they verified who's house it was and verified who he was. The office had ended it. Mr. Gates continued.. Read page 2 paragraph 3.

I haven't heard what the President has said, so I won't comment on that.

The police report is hardly a fair and balanced report on the truth here. Obviously they are going to try and cover their arses.

[leekohler]

+
The police report is hardly a fair and balanced report on the truth here. Obviously they are going to try and cover their arses.

Exactly- live in a big city or even a college town for a few years. You'll never believe a police report again.

[fivepoint]

Proof of your claims of slander, please. And no- I never heard you criticize Bush for one thing.

And sorry, Obama is 100 million times better than Bush was. Obama may be criticizing people, but at least he isn't trying to interfere in families' end of life decisions, like with Terry Schiavo. He's also not invading countries and lying about the reasons. I'll take this guy over that one any day.

As a person who was not a fan of Bush, opposing many of his policies including the bailout, including Iraq, including NCLB, and far too many others to name... I have to say, it's difficult to stop laughing at your comment. Obama is 100 million times better than Bush?

Well, I guess if you consider unparalleled expansion of socialistic programs and deficit spending, increasing taxes on small businesses in a time of economic depression, attempting to pass legislation promising to increase our energy prices by 50%, proposing the largest expansion of government since the New Deal and the Great Society, failing to shut down Gitmo quickly, expanding our military presence abroad, creating government ownership of large corporations, bailing out companies that were 'too big to fail,' and things like this.... successes, then I suppose I could see where you're coming from.

Also, your implication that Obama isn't "trying to interfere in families' end of life decisions" indicates you really must not know much about socialized medicine and/or rationing of care.

[Eraserhead]

Exactly- live in a big city or even a college town for a few years. You'll never believe a police report again.

In fact if police reports were always fair and balanced why bother having trials at all?

[Desertrat]

If the photo of Post #18 is the real deal, forget "racism".

For all the anti-cop comments above, one thing about a notable number of university profs I've known: They can be arrogant SOBs. There's quite equal odds that something trivial set off the good prof, just as likely as the cops having gone overboard at something.

I don't know; nobody else here knows.

And Obama didn't know any more than we do when he shot off his mouth. Sure, he oughta stand up against unjust treatment, but it helps to know the facts before you start running your mouth.

[leekohler]

As a person who was not a fan of Bush, opposing many of his policies including the bailout, including Iraq, including NCLB, and far too many others to name... I have to say, it's difficult to stop laughing at your comment. Obama is 100 million times better than Bush?

Well, I guess if you consider unparalleled expansion of socialistic programs and deficit spending, increasing taxes on small businesses in a time of economic depression, attempting to pass legislation promising to increase our energy prices by 50%, proposing the largest expansion of government since the New Deal and the Great Society, failing to shut down Gitmo quickly, expanding our military presence abroad, creating government ownership of large corporations, bailing out companies that were 'too big to fail,' and things like this.... successes, then I suppose I could see where you're coming from.

Also, your implication that Obama isn't "trying to interfere in families' end of life decisions" indicates you really must not know much about socialized medicine and/or rationing of care.

Fivepoint, that is the absolute most hysterical rant I've ever read by you yet. I don't even know where to start. That is one of the most untruthful, exaggerated, paranoid things you've ever posted. "Expanding our military presence abroad"? Do you mean Afghanistan, where we always should have been instead of Iraq? Because we're leaving Iraq, in case you hadn't noticed. I do support the Afghanistan effort, and always have, even when Bush did it. So yes, I view that as a very good thing.

Guantanamo is being shut down. If it's not fast enough for you, well I fail to see how that's Obama's fault.

As for the rest of your post, it's too ridiculous to even reply to.

If the photo of Post #18 is the real deal, forget "racism".

For all the anti-cop comments above, one thing about a notable number of university profs I've known: They can be arrogant SOBs. There's quite equal odds that something trivial set off the good prof, just as likely as the cops having gone overboard at something.

I don't know; nobody else here knows.

And Obama didn't know any more than we do when he shot off his mouth. Sure, he oughta stand up against unjust treatment, but it helps to know the facts before you start running your mouth.

Do you know the facts?

[Juventuz]

The police report is hardly a fair and balanced report on the truth here. Obviously they are going to try and cover their arses.

The crowd that gathered to watch the events corroborated the officers story.

[Badandy]

Do you know the facts?

No, and it seems no one does yet, including Obama. That's what most people are taking exception to. He's shouting "racism" and turning it into a national issue before the facts are known. Seems like he's jumping the gun a bit.

[Eraserhead]

He's shouting "racism" and turning it into a national issue before the facts are known. Seems like he's jumping the gun a bit.

Actually that doesn't appear to be the full story:

First Obama joked about what would happen if he was found breaking into the White House.

"Here, I'd get shot," Obama quipped before calling the behaviour of the police stupid.

Obama said: "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact."


(source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2009/jul/23/barack-obama-arrest))

The crowd that gathered to watch the events corroborated the officers story.

Source?

[fivepoint]

Fivepoint, that is the absolute most hysterical rant I've ever read by you yet. I don't even know where to start. That is one of the most untruthful, exaggerated, paranoid things you've ever posted. "Expanding our military presence abroad"? Do you mean Afghanistan, where we always should have been instead of Iraq? Because we're leaving Iraq, in case you hadn't noticed. I do support the Afghanistan effort, and always have, even when Bush did it. So yes, I view that as a very good thing.

I like that you jump right to the personal attack, forget the issues, if you just label my reply as a 'hysterical rant' the argument becomes a lot easier.

Anyway... Obama ran a campaign promising to 'bring the troops home'. Instead, he vastly increased our forces in Afghanistan. And no, you can't take credit for the Iraq war ending... the war was won thanks to the surge which Obama vehemently objected to. If Sen. Obama would have had his way, we'd most likely be there with twice as many soldiers now. But go ahead, say that Obama won the war, we all know the truth. :)



Guantanamo is being shut down. If it's not fast enough for you, well I fail to see how that's Obama's fault.

Guantanamo is being shut down? Really? Please provide proof. It seems to be working like normal today, and Obama has pushed off the deadline again and again. He's stalling because he doesn't have a solution to the problem. He promised to do it as soon as he got in office, months later and nothing has been done except talking.





As for the rest of your post, it's too ridiculous to even reply to.


Taking the easy way out, are we Lee? I don't think you have a reply to these issues. I think you know that I'm painting Obama in a truthful light, which happens to be bright red. Obama's first months in office have been a complete disaster. He's remaking this country, he's 'changing' things, that's for sure... Unfortunately, he's making our citizens more dependent on big government, he's burdening our children with unparalleled levels of debt, and using fear (even more than Bush did) to get public support of his socialistic policies.

[Eraserhead]

Guantanamo is being shut down? Really? Please provide proof. It seems to be working like normal today, and Obama has pushed off the deadline again and again. He's stalling because he doesn't have a solution to the problem. He promised to do it as soon as he got in office, months later and nothing has been done except talking.

The original deadline was 1 year... When has he backed out of that?

[Juventuz]

Source?

Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8153681&page=1), I think the third page mentions the witnesses and the first page mentions that part of the altercation can be heard on police radios.

[Badandy]

Actually that doesn't appear to be the full story:


Thanks for more information. It seems to me he was saying everything right--until

and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact.

I know, he qualified it with "separate and apart from this incident." Do you know what's also separate and apart from this incident? The Los Angeles Galaxy fans booing David Beckham.

[leekohler]

I like that you jump right to the personal attack, forget the issues, if you just label my reply as a 'hysterical rant' the argument becomes a lot easier.

Anyway... Obama ran a campaign promising to 'bring the troops home'. Instead, he vastly increased our forces in Afghanistan. And no, you can't take credit for the Iraq war ending... the war was won thanks to the surge which Obama vehemently objected to. If Sen. Obama would have had his way, we'd most likely be there with twice as many soldiers now. But go ahead, say that Obama won the war, we all know the truth. :)

Excuse me? WTF? Who said we "won" the Iraq war? Please provide proof and a quote.





Guantanamo is being shut down? Really? Please provide proof. It seems to be working like normal today, and Obama has pushed off the deadline again and again. He's stalling because he doesn't have a solution to the problem. He promised to do it as soon as he got in office, months later and nothing has been done except talking.

Executive order signed and it's been set in motion. You can't just close the place down without figuring out where the people there are supposed to go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html







Taking the easy way out, are we Lee? I don't think you have a reply to these issues. I think you know that I'm painting Obama in a truthful light, which happens to be bright red. Obama's first months in office have been a complete disaster. He's remaking this country, he's 'changing' things, that's for sure... Unfortunately, he's making our citizens more dependent on big government, he's burdening our children with unparalleled levels of debt, and using fear (even more than Bush did) to get public support of his socialistic policies.

As soon as you start crying "socialism", I stop listening. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have no grasp of the term. That's why you don't deserve a reply on those "issues".

[Badandy]

As soon as you start crying "socialism", I stop listening. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have no grasp of the term. That's why you don't deserve a reply on those "issues".

To be fair, socialism means the state ownership of industry and means of production...

You're telling me government bailouts, appointing people to the boards of companies, and government ownership of those companies is not in the slightest bit socialism?

[Eraserhead]

I know, he qualified it with "separate and apart from this incident."

Its a fact that minorities have been treated badly by the police in the past - in many if not all countries.

[Juventuz]

Executive order signed and it's been set in motion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html


You may have missed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo21-2009jul21,0,7424103.story) the articles (http://www.newsweek.com/id/207596) from earlier (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/two-presidential-task-forces-on-the-war-on-terror-fail-to-meet-deadlines.html) this week that said that they've missed the July deadlines already and it will impact the closing.

[Eraserhead]

Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8153681&page=1), I think the third page mentions the witnesses and the first page mentions that part of the altercation can be heard on police radios.

All of the sources that make Gates look like he behaved badly are police sources and the neighbour in question is a neighbour of the police officer not Gates. So that article doesn't say what you think it does.

[leekohler]

You may have missed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo21-2009jul21,0,7424103.story) the articles (http://www.newsweek.com/id/207596) from earlier (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/two-presidential-task-forces-on-the-war-on-terror-fail-to-meet-deadlines.html) this week that said that they've missed the July deadlines already and it will impact the closing.

Thanks, but do these articles say that Guantanamo is not closing now?

[Juventuz]

Thanks, but do these articles say that Guantanamo is not closing now?

Gitmo's was scheduled to close by January 2010, now it looks like it's going to be pushed back. A report that was due earlier this week has been delayed until Jan. '10.

[Eraserhead]

You may have missed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo21-2009jul21,0,7424103.story) the articles (http://www.newsweek.com/id/207596) from earlier (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/two-presidential-task-forces-on-the-war-on-terror-fail-to-meet-deadlines.html) this week that said that they've missed the July deadlines already and it will impact the closing.

From the LA times article:

The officials said they had made substantial progress in reviewing the cases of the approximately 240 prisoners at the facility, and had decided that dozens of detainees were eligible for transfer to other countries or were suitable for trial.

But the officials acknowledged that two reports that were supposed to be delivered to the president by Wednesday -- one on how to overhaul the nation's detention policy and another on interrogation policy -- would not be ready.

As you can see in the second paragraph the things they haven't done is to fully tidy up the issue and make sure it doesn't re-occur. That looks to me like something that doesn't have to be done by the time Guantanemo Bay is shut.

[fivepoint]

Excuse me? WTF? Who said we "won" the Iraq war? Please provide proof and a quote.

We're moving troops out of the cities. The handover is in progress. This is well documented.







Executive order signed and it's been set in motion. You can't just close the place down without figuring out where the people there are supposed to go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html

I'll grant you that he's been trying to get it closed down. Success is something completely different. Virtually no progress has been made, no one knows where the prisoners will go if they can go anywhere. So far, he's failing to show progress.







As soon as you start crying "socialism", I stop listening. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have no grasp of the term. That's why you don't deserve a reply on those "issues".

That doesn't surprise me. You all hate that word so much, which is funny because it perfectly describes what's happening.

From Wikipedia: Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or whole community ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Taking from the rich to give to the poor is a type of socialism.
Taking from the rich to have universal health care is a type of socialism.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a types of socialism.

Unfortunately, this is just touching the surface with Obama. I could go on and on with lists of things he wants to do which are socialism. I will grant you one thing though... taking from the poor to give to the ultra wealthy corporations is corporatism and socialism.

P.S. Just because you don't like the word, doesn't mean everyone will stop using it. And just because we aren't all Marxists yet, doesn't mean that we can't point out socialistic policies and trends when we see them being implemented.

[Peterkro]

To be fair, socialism means the state ownership of industry and means of production...

You're telling me government bailouts, appointing people to the boards of companies, and government ownership of those companies is not in the slightest bit socialism?

To be fair that's a complete load of bollocks,socialism wants the collective ownership of the means of production no mention of state. I believe what you are referring to is State Capitalism as practised in China and the Soviet Union amongst others.

[Badandy]

Its a fact that minorities have been treated badly by the police in the past - in many if not all countries.

But so is the fact that the Los Angeles Galaxy fans booed David Beckham (besides the countries part). The point is, him saying this fact, out of all the facts in the world, means he's associating this incident with some kind of discriminatory practice before it's been discovered as such.

To be fair that's a complete load of bollocks,socialism wants the collective ownership of the means of production no mention of state.

No it isn't, it's in the definition. How do you think the collective's desires can be achieved and their plans coordinated and set in motion? There has to be some kind of administration, which is what the concept of a state is.

[Eraserhead]

But so is the fact that the Los Angeles Galaxy fans booed David Beckham (besides the countries part).

Yeah, but David Beckham isn't a minority.

[leekohler]

We're moving troops out of the cities. The handover is in progress. This is well documented.

Again- who stated that we "won" the war? Just because we're leaving, hardly means we've won.








I'll grant you that he's been trying to get it closed down. Success is something completely different. Virtually no progress has been made, no one knows where the prisoners will go if they can go anywhere. So far, he's failing to show progress.

BS. You act as if the process is entirely up to him. It's not. There are tons of factors and issues at work. Undoing something like that is not going to happen overnight.








That doesn't surprise me. You all hate that word so much, which is funny because it perfectly describes what's happening.



Taking from the rich to give to the poor is a type of socialism.
Taking from the rich to have universal health care is a type of socialism.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a types of socialism.

Unfortunately, this is just touching the surface with Obama. I could go on and on with lists of things he wants to do which are socialism. I will grant you one thing though... taking from the poor to give to the ultra wealthy corporations is corporatism and socialism.

P.S. Just because you don't like the word, doesn't mean everyone will stop using it. And just because we aren't all Marxists yet, doesn't mean that we can't point out socialistic policies and trends when we see them being implemented.

The word is just fine. It's your misuse of it and paranoia that's appalling.

[Desertrat]

leekohler, have you become reading-challenged? Asking me that question about knowing the facts immediately after I had just posted that I did not know anything beyond early news reports? Duh?

As far as character slander here about the cops, and Obama's implicit slurring, here's at least an FWIW from a guy I know:

"Made a few phone calls to people I trust. Consensus is cop is a standup guy with an outstanding rep. The Prof is your run of the mill dingbat academic given to these sort of antics."

Proves nothing, of course, but it's reasonable...

'Rat

[Juventuz]

All of the sources that make Gates look like he behaved badly are police sources and the neighbour in question is a neighbour of the police officer not Gates. So that article doesn't say what you think it does.

Woops, you're right. That's the wrong article, here's (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/20143900/detail.html) one that talks about people who witnessed the incident. Here's a copy of the police report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17512830/Gates-Police-Report), page 3 has Officer Figueroa's report of a witnesses recounting of events. I believe it was Gate's neighbor.

As for the sources, I'd tend to believe the audio from a police scanner. It's not like they're making it up as they go along.

[leekohler]

leekohler, have you become reading-challenged? Asking me that question about knowing the facts immediately after I had just posted that I did not know anything beyond early news reports? Duh?

As far as character slander here about the cops, and Obama's implicit slurring, here's at least an FWIW from a guy I know:

"Made a few phone calls to people I trust. Consensus is cop is a standup guy with an outstanding rep. The Prof is your run of the mill dingbat academic given to these sort of antics."

Proves nothing, of course, but it's reasonable...

'Rat

Hey- I'm at work, rat. Sometimes I miss a word. Regardless, you were making claims in your post.

And there's absolutely nothing reasonable about that quote you posted. It's obviously biased.

[Juventuz]

From the LA times article:

As you can see in the second paragraph the things they haven't done is to fully tidy up the issue and make sure it doesn't re-occur. That looks to me like something that doesn't have to be done by the time Guantanemo Bay is shut.

From the Newsweek article:

The postponement of the two reports is sure to raise fresh questions about whether Obama will be able to shut down Guantánamo by next January as he pledged immediately after taking office. While publicly saying they remain committed to next January's deadline, officials privately acknowledge that a host of political and diplomatic problems—including the reluctance of foreign countries to accept detainees and fierce opposition from members of Congress to moving them to the United States—has made closing the facility far more daunting than they had anticipated.

Many comments made would indicate that while they don't want to admit it, they know if won't shut down by January.

[leekohler]

Many comments made would indicate that while they don't want to admit it, they know if won't shut down by January.

That's probably true, but at least it's being dealt with.

[it5five]

"Made a few phone calls to people I trust. Consensus is cop is a standup guy with an outstanding rep. The Prof is your run of the mill dingbat academic given to these sort of antics."


Them there peoples who do learnin' is crazy.

[Badandy]

Yeah, but David Beckham isn't a minority.

So? Everytime a minority is arrested or charged with something and we feel like talking about unrelated and separate facts we just happen to bring up discriminatory practices? Eraserhead, it was inappropriate to bring up that fact just because the guy who got arrested was black. Until more details are known, the fact that Obama rattled off truly is separate and unrelated, meaning it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

[Juventuz]

That's probably true, but at least it's being dealt with.

yes, it's being dealt with, but with most things it takes time. I think Obama rushed into it and set unrealistic goals.

[Eraserhead]

Many comments made would indicate that while they don't want to admit it, they know if won't shut down by January.

It looks like you may be right.

So? Everytime a minority is arrested or charged with something and we feel like talking about unrelated and separate facts we just happen to bring up discriminatory practices? Eraserhead, it was inappropriate to bring up that fact just because the guy who got arrested was black. Until more details are known, the fact that Obama rattled off truly is separate and unrelated, meaning it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

I suppose.

[leekohler]

yes, it's being dealt with, but with most things it takes time. I think Obama rushed into it and set unrealistic goals.

Well of course. But I do think it will be done.

[Zombie Acorn]

If it's not appropriate for the president of the United States to stand up against inequality, then who is appropriate?

Would you be fluffing your feathers if Clinton or Bush had done this?

Something tells me that you're saying black presidents can't stand up against inequality against blacks because a black president might be prejudiced. What a bunch of BS.

Pretty sure if I broke into my house and then was uncooperative and then abusive afterwards I would be taken in too.

[Peterkro]

How do you think the collective's desires can be achieved and their plans coordinated and set in motion? There has to be some kind of administration, which is what the concept of a state is.

I'm afraid along with all other authoritarians you lack the imagination to see that a state is not necessary for the collective desires of people to be achieved. In fact I'd say it's impossible for our collective desires to be achieved with authority of any sort. See Anarchism or non authoritarian Socialism for further details.

(if you read your definition of Socialism in your previous post you'll see no mention of a state).

[Badandy]

I'm afraid along with all other authoritarians you lack the imagination to see that a state is not necessary for the collective desires of people to be achieved. In fact I'd say it's impossible for our collective desires to be achieved with authority of any sort. See Anarchism or non authoritarian Socialism for further details.


I've looked into those and concluded that anarchism and non-authoritarian socialism are unbelievably naive and unrealistic ideals that I don't even agree with in principle.

[Peterkro]

I've looked into those and concluded that anarchism and non-authoritarian socialism are unbelievably naive and unrealistic ideals that I don't even agree with in principle.

As I suspected an authoritarian but that's O.K. the rest of us will make sure you don't starve.

[Badandy]

As I suspected an authoritarian but that's O.K. the rest of us will make sure you don't starve.

Thanks. Have fun trying to gain influence through the system.

[Peterkro]

You do realise your previous post about having looked into Anarchism is almost word for word Lenins view,by your company you shall be known.

[Badandy]

You do realise your previous post about having looked into Anarchism is almost word for word Lenins view,by your company you shall be known.

Care to find me the quote?

[Peterkro]

"the anarchists are correct in their rejection of the state, but naive and utopian in their claim that the state can be abolished overnight"

From State and Revolution (I think you'll have to get the book if you want to read it).
Here is the wiki entry for the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_and_Revolution

[Badandy]

"the anarchists are correct in their rejection of the state, but naive and utopian in their claim that the state can be abolished overnight"


Whereas I said the anarchists were wrong in the rejection of the state and though they were naive for thinking it possible or desirable. I gotta be honest with you, the only similarity I see is I used the word "naive" which the translator also used when he translated his statement over to English.

[Peterkro]

Whereas I said the anarchists were wrong in the rejection of the state and though they were naive for thinking it possible or desirable. I gotta be honest with you, the only similarity I see is I used the word "naive" which the translator also used when he translated his statement over to English.

Lenin was not the only one to use naive and utopian together it has been used by authoritarians often in defence of their privileges.Which as I pointed out is the cliché you used.

[thejadedmonkey]

Minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crimes that are visible.

Ex: A minority man kills someone in the city. At the same time, a white man gets busted for drunk driving and killing someone in the suburbs. The murder in the city gets covered more then the drunk driving arrest in the suburbs.

result: I see how a minority killed someone tonight, and completely miss the drunk driving accident.

[xlii]

The real criminals are in Wall Street and the CEO's office of these major corporations.

[skunk]

Minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crimes that are visible.Especially if you take white-collar crime into account (as above). Minorities also are far more likely to be incarcerated.

[Peterkro]

Especially if you take white-collar crime into account (as above). Minorities also are far more likely to be incarcerated.

And executed.

[rhsgolfer33]

The real criminals are in Wall Street and the CEO's office of these major corporations.

And which crimes are these people supposedly committing? Just because its against your morals doesn't make it a crime in the legal sense. Additionally, just because whatever these people are supposed to be doing is against your morals doesn't make it against everyone else's. Morals are relative to the person, thus your usage of crime as an act that is a grave offense especially against morality is about as persuasive as someone citing the bible as evidence in a gay marriage debate against an atheist. If you're using crime as something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful its still relative to who you talk to; there are certainly millions of people who agree with corporate leaders and Wall Street and aspire to be or are in those positions.

I'm not trying to patronize you, but gross over generalizations about people who are or want to be on Wall Street or atop a major corporation bother me. Criminals are everywhere, its hardly unique or concentrated in any realm.

[skunk]

Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen.

[rhsgolfer33]

.

Nice quote Skunk, good find. I'm gonna file that one way, its very true.

[Ugg]

Taking from the poor to give to the rich is a type of socialism.

There, I changed that for you to reflect the reality of the last ~30 years.

The real criminals are in Wall Street and the CEO's office of these major corporations.

Exactly and the crocodile tears over Bernie Madoff's sentencing only goes to show that the republicans are only hard on crime when it involves poor people.

[Badandy]

There, I changed that for you to reflect the reality of the last ~30 years.

How dare those rich people get a good education, get good grades, get a good internship, gain a full time position in a company that provides for advancement, and then do a good job. How dare they! In fact, what poor people did the rich take from in that scenario?

Exactly and the crocodile tears over Bernie Madoff's sentencing only goes to show that the republicans are only hard on crime when it involves poor people.

Bernie Madoff was despicable and deserves to be put away for the rest of his life. Who said what he did wasn't awful?

[it5five]

Bernie Madoff was despicable and deserves to be put away for the rest of his life. Who said what he did wasn't awful?

Dmac, on this forum alone.

[Badandy]

Dmac, on this forum alone.

What's his quote? I missed it.


I think if you were to poll republicans, the vast majority would agree that what Madoff did was repugnant.

[Peterkro]

What's his quote? I missed it.


I think if you were to poll republicans, the vast majority would agree that what Madoff did was repugnant.

Repugnant because he was caught methinks.

[Badandy]

Repugnant because he was caught methinks.

No, repugnant because he was stealing and committing massive fraud.

[Shivetya]

Especially if you take white-collar crime into account (as above). Minorities also are far more likely to be incarcerated.

Mainly because their crimes tend to be violence of the physical types.

More white collar crime gets prosecuted than many would believe, however it rarely makes the news because it isn't as sensational as a murder or rape.

I guess we could allow the minorities off the hook for murder and rape just because someone pilfered money from an expense account. After all, it evens the scales.

[Zombie Acorn]

There, I changed that for you to reflect the reality of the last ~30 years.



Exactly and the crocodile tears over Bernie Madoff's sentencing only goes to show that the republicans are only hard on crime when it involves poor people.

Poor pay very little in taxes, and get the most benefit from the system. What exactly are the rich taking from them exactly? Giving them a job? :confused: Selling them products? :confused:

The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, the bottom 50% see the most benefit from the money. If you aren't willing to do anything to make yourself wealthy then don't expect anything to change. Behind every rich family there was some poor son of a bitch who took a risk and made it. My uncle literally lived in a chicken coop 10 years ago (I am not kidding), he now just finished building a mansion. America at its greatest.

[iShater]

Poor pay very little in taxes, and get the most benefit from the system. What exactly are the rich taking from them exactly? Giving them a job? :confused: Selling them products? :confused:

The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, the bottom 50% see the most benefit from the money. If you aren't willing to do anything to make yourself wealthy then don't expect anything to change. Behind every rich family there was some poor son of a bitch who took a risk and made it. My uncle literally lived in a chicken coop 10 years ago (I am not kidding), he now just finished building a mansion. America at its greatest.

Doesn't the top 1% get most of the income anyways?

[Zombie Acorn]

Doesn't the top 1% get most of the income anyways?

Income is a product of the work you do. In a free market system you are getting paid for who/what you know. If you are a janitor there are 300,000,000 people who could do your job. If you are a CEO with high level connections you may be 1 out of 100 or so and are paid accordingly. Same goes with athletes.

Its easy to criticize from the bottom, your ancestors didn't work hard enough to bring you to the top. Maybe if you start now your great grandchildren can make it. There is always someone more wealthy than you, its the people who whine about it being unfair instead of doing something about it that stay at the bottom.

[Ugg]

Income is a product of the work you do. In a free market system you are getting paid for who/what you know. If you are a janitor there are 300,000,000 people who could do your job. If you are a CEO with high level connections you may be 1 out of 100 or so and are paid accordingly. Same goes with athletes.

Its easy to criticize from the bottom, your ancestors didn't work hard enough to bring you to the top. Maybe if you start now your great grandchildren can make it. There is always someone more wealthy than you, its the people who whine about it being unfair instead of doing something about it that stay at the bottom.

I can't believe the sense of entitlement that has grown up in the last 30 years. One would think we're living in Medieval Europe after hearing such statements as yours.

First the wealthy make laws to make them even wealthier, protect themselves from retribution and then pass laws to penalize the poor for being poor.

Now the time is ripe for a revolution and it's not hard to see who it will be on the losing end.

[it5five]

What's his quote? I missed it.


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735417

That thread.

[rhsgolfer33]

First the wealthy make laws to make them even wealthier, protect themselves from retribution and then pass laws to penalize the poor for being poor.

What laws would these be? The top 5% of American earners pay almost 60% of the total income tax while the bottom 50% of earners are responsible for about 3% of all income tax paid. I'm not sure what laws these are, but they're certainly not the tax laws.

[skunk]

As usual, those who trot out this tired old line conveniently ignore any other tax except income tax. Why is that, do you think?

[InvalidUserID]

Depends on the area.

[skunk]

Um, no, I don't think that's it. Try again.

[rhsgolfer33]

As usual, those who trot out this tired old line conveniently ignore any other tax except income tax. Why is that, do you think?

The reciepts of most other forms of taxes are a lot harder to quantify. Income tax is easily trackable at the federal level, its esssentialy the easiest one to get data on. Its tough to find out gross sales tax receipts by income since they're not really tabulated together.

The lower income levels, of course, pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes, but big deal, people in the top 10% still produce higher gross sales tax receipts than do the lower percentages. Sure, sales tax is regressive as a percentage of income, but that doesn't mean gross receipts or percent of gross receipts are lower for the upper incomes than they are for the lower incomes, that just means wealthier people pay a lower percentage of income towards sales taxes. The relationship between income and sales tax isn't a direct one. The direct relation that should be looked at when viewing sales tax is between amount spent and sales tax paid, not sales tax paid and income. Additionally, the terrible blow of sales tax is softened for most at the bottom, considering many necessity items that the lower levels spend most of their money on are exempt from sales tax.

Would you like me to trot out the estate tax as well? The one that mainly targets those with large estates to pass on? How about property tax? The one that taxes those who can afford to own property and generally taxes those with more expensive or larger properties at a higher rate. Sales taxes is really the main tax you can argue as being regressive, and even then, the top income still contribute most to its gross receipts.

[leekohler]

Additionally, the terrible blow of sales tax is softened for most at the bottom, considering many necessity items that the lower levels spend most of their money on are exempt from sales tax.

Oh really? You must not live in Chicago. Our sales tax is 10%, and nothing is excluded. Some things are even taxed higher, depending on what they are.

[rhsgolfer33]

Oh really? You must not live in Chicago. Our sales tax is 10%, and nothing is excluded. Some things are even taxed higher, depending on what they are.

You pay sales tax on unprepared food at the grocery store? That must suck.

[iShater]

Income is a product of the work you do ....

Its easy to criticize from the bottom, your ancestors didn't work hard enough to bring you to the top. Maybe if you start now your great grandchildren can make it. There is always someone more wealthy than you, its the people who whine about it being unfair instead of doing something about it that stay at the bottom.

Excuse me? my ancestors didn't work hard enough? Personal attack here?

But now you make me wonder on a slightly different topic. If slavery made your ancestors rich, is that YOUR fault?

And CEOs? There are enough qualified people for those positions that millions should not be automatic payouts.


What laws would these be? The top 5% of American earners pay almost 60% of the total income tax while the bottom 50% of earners are responsible for about 3% of all income tax paid. I'm not sure what laws these are, but they're certainly not the tax laws.

The average income for middle class americans declined, the percentages where different. So while cutting pay for the middle class, someone made out like a bandit.

Oh really? You must not live in Chicago. Our sales tax is 10%, and nothing is excluded. Some things are even taxed higher, depending on what they are.

Is there tax on tea? ;)


By the way, I think we are way off topic already! :eek:

[rhsgolfer33]

By the way, I think we are way off topic already! :eek:

Of course, this is the MacRumors PRSI forum, are we ever actually on topic for very long?

[kavika411]

Oh really? You must not live in Chicago. Our sales tax is 10%, and nothing is excluded. Some things are even taxed higher, depending on what they are.

We've gotten to 10% sales tax here, too. It's asinine.

That said, we are getting way off topic.

Looks like the Obama/Gates incident which precipitated this thread is getting more and more interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99L0H700&show_article=1

[leekohler]

You pay sales tax on unprepared food at the grocery store? That must suck.

Yes, we do.

[skunk]

By the way, I think we are way off topic already! :eek:Well, since the Prez has now retracted his intemperate comments, the topic can afford a little diversion.

[Eraserhead]

Its easy to criticize from the bottom, your ancestors didn't work hard enough to bring you to the top. Maybe if you start now your great grandchildren can make it. There is always someone more wealthy than you, its the people who whine about it being unfair instead of doing something about it that stay at the bottom.

That sounds like the sort of thing the English aristocracy wouldn't dare to say any more.

Why should my success depend on how well my father did? Besides its incredibly inefficient and you will miss a lot of talented people out with a system like that.

[iShater]

Well, since the Prez has now retracted his intemperate comments, the topic can afford a little diversion.

Wow. :eek: :)

[iShater]

That sounds like the sort of thing the English aristocracy wouldn't dare to say any more.

Why should my success depend on how well my father did? Besides its incredibly inefficient and you will miss a lot of talented people out with a system like that.

The American Dream is dead, and now we know some of the people who killed it. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

We've gotten to 10% sales tax here, too. It's asinine.

That said, we are getting way off topic.

Looks like the Obama/Gates incident which precipitated this thread is getting more and more interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99L0H700&show_article=1

That's nice to see! OMG! A president who can admit a mistake. God, that's refreshing, given what we had to live through the past 8 years.

[skunk]

Why should my success depend on how well my father did? One can be downwardly mobile as well as upwardly. Such a simplistic view of the meaning of existence! Is getting to the top of the pile all that matters?

[rhsgolfer33]

Yes, we do.

Ouch man, I thought California was bad. I believe we're up past 10%, but I don't pay it when I buy unprepared food at the grocery store. They should create an exemption for that, that's extremely unfair for lower wage earners in your area. Are you sure some food items aren't tax at a lower rate Lee? It seems to me I remember reading that certain food and drugs in Chicago were taxed at a much lower rate, in the 2-3% range.

[skunk]

Are you sure some food items aren't tax at a lower rate Lee? It seems to me I remember reading that certain food and drugs in Chicago were taxed at a much lower rate, in the 2-3% range.That's only real essentials, like doughnuts and crack.

[leekohler]

Ouch man, I thought California was bad. I believe we're up past 10%, but I don't pay it when I buy unprepared food at the grocery store. They should create an exemption for that, that's extremely unfair for lower wage earners in your area. Are you sure some food items aren't tax at a lower rate Lee? It seems to me I remember reading that certain food and drugs in Chicago were taxed at a much lower rate, in the 2-3% range.

Yes it is lower, but local tax gets added to the state tax. However, almost everything else you buy is taxed at the 10% rate, including clothes.

[iShater]

Ouch man, I thought California was bad. I believe we're up past 10%, but I don't pay it when I buy unprepared food at the grocery store. They should create an exemption for that, that's extremely unfair for lower wage earners in your area. Are you sure some food items aren't tax at a lower rate Lee? It seems to me I remember reading that certain food and drugs in Chicago were taxed at a much lower rate, in the 2-3% range.

I do believe food is taxed lower, I need to double check.

Considering the cost of fresh vs. prepared food (thank you Walmart), it is cheaper to buy prepared food! :eek:

[Eraserhead]

One can be downwardly mobile as well as upwardly. Such a simplistic view of the meaning of existence! Is getting to the top of the pile all that matters?

I'd count success as doing what makes you happy, you can't do that without having as many opportunities as possible - many of which can be denied/difficult to get to you if you're poor/low class.

That's only real essentials, like doughnuts and crack.

Same difference :p.

[rhsgolfer33]

That's only real essentials, like doughnuts and crack.

And sunflower seeds. I just found a receipt from the local grocery store with my lovely ranch flavored seeds, no tax and they can be pretty damn addicting. :p

[Gelfin]

That sounds like the sort of thing the English aristocracy wouldn't dare to say any more.

Why should my success depend on how well my father did? Besides its incredibly inefficient and you will miss a lot of talented people out with a system like that.

I take issue with the idea that we are bent on regressing towards emulation of the British aristocratic system of decades past. You clearly are underestimating the American competitive spirit. I'll have you know we are regressing towards emulation of the British feudal system of centuries past.

[skunk]

I take issue with the idea that we are bent on regressing towards emulation of the British aristocratic system of decades past. You clearly are underestimating the American competitive spirit. I'll have you know we are regressing towards emulation of the British feudal system of centuries past.So that's what they mean by "Serf's up!"

[Desertrat]

My abject apologies for interjecting an on-topic post into the thread. :D

http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090724/4a693fd0_3ca6_1552620090724172210280

Quote:

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said (he) supported Crowley "100 percent."

[iShater]

My abject apologies for interjecting an on-topic post into the thread. :D

http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090724/4a693fd0_3ca6_1552620090724172210280

Quote:

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said (he) supported Crowley "100 percent."

When was the last time officers disagreed after any incident? :confused:

[CorvusCamenarum]

Oh really? You must not live in Chicago. Our sales tax is 10%, and nothing is excluded. Some things are even taxed higher, depending on what they are.

What are the property taxes like there? Sales tax here is 9%, no exemptions, but property taxes here are shockingly low. One is these is the reason for the other.

[Full of Win]

Well, since the Prez has now retracted his intemperate comments, the topic can afford a little diversion.

Sorry, no retraction. He said it and the message is CRYSTAL CLEAR. In issues where there is a difference of opinion between a white and black individual, the white individuals 'acts stupidly'. It does not matter the evidence, because recall, evidence and facts don't matter. Long story short: if you are the white in the conflict YOU ARE WRONG NO MATTER WHAT.

2010 is looking better and better.

[skunk]

Sorry, no retraction.You must be reading different papers. Or too busy to read at all. Please don't apologise.

[iShater]

Sorry, no retraction. He said it and the message is CRYSTAL CLEAR. In issues where there is a difference of opinion between a white and black individual, the white individuals 'acts stupidly'. It does not matter the evidence, because recall, evidence and facts don't matter. Long story short: if you are the white in the conflict YOU ARE WRONG NO MATTER WHAT.

2010 is looking better and better.

Oh please, where the hell do you get that from? I think you kinda got it the other way around.

[Cleverboy]

Are minorities stopped disproportionately or do they commit disproportionate crime? My answer, is that this question is far too simple-minded. If all of America simply lived on one big island, one neighborhood, maybe one great big house, and there were like... I don't know... 25 of us, and you ran these statistics... hey, great... seems clear enough. But, if you take national statistics and use them to racially profile locally, where the statistics defer... you may begin to cause problems and descrimination where none should exist. For example, if 3/10 blacks nationally have been charged with a crime (compared to 1/10 whites and 2/10 latinos), but locally, only 1/20 blacks and 1/20 whites are charged with a crime, should local law enforcement be attending to national statistics for their profiling, or should they make an extra effort to observe the crime and not the color.

Of late, there have been a LOT of definitions of "racial profiling" thrown about. For the record, I do not believe the Gates case was an instance of racial profiling. I think it was a case of an irritable professor and an officer who initiated a standard procedure when dealing with someone who was disturbing the peace. Should a misunderstanding between law enforcement and law abiding citizens EVER graduate to an arrest? No. Should citizens feel within their right to yell insults at officers in an attempt to garner some impression of lost respect? No. Without going into the history of this country, its worth noting that this incident can be seen differently were it happening to you, depending on your background and situation.

I also thought just yesterday that Obama should invite BOTH of the two men to the White House for a beer. Not unsurprisingly, he's done just that. He gave a non-apology apology (basically, "whoops" my word choice was poor, I didn't mean to cause pain for anyone), and pressed everyone to "move along". I really hope Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates can take him up on the offer. I'm a little amused that he used the term "teachable moment". Someone needs to tell him that he's not in front of a class, and he's clearly one of the students. Having everyone involved "learn" by talking things out however, is likely to benefit the bunch. I'm sure Obama's learned something new.

Obama's Bad Vocabulary List (words he shant be repeating):

Typical
Sweety
Cling
Pay-Grade
Seances
Fifty-seven
Stupid


My abject apologies for interjecting an on-topic post into the thread. :D
http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20090724/4a693fd0_3ca6_1552620090724172210280
Quote:
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said (he) supported Crowley "100 percent."
I think its a tough call. I'm sure there are plenty of cranky old men who have the cops called on them in their own homes, that would only get arrested if they actually struck the officer. The thing I'm missing is a disparity between the police reports and the professor's account. It's NOT a "contradiction", its a disparity. Namely, according to the police reports, Gates NEVER, EVER produced any identification (it ruins the narrative). According to Gates, there was outrage, but then the identification was produced, and apparently Gates asked to have the officer's badge number, at which point the officers ignored him and began departed the premises. Only after he continued yelling at them out onto the porch, did they seek to calm him down, and then subsequently arrest him.

At the end of the day, I know I wouldn't have screamed at the police, but if he was my grandfather, I'd understand his outrage after being tired from a long overseas flight... only to find a jammed door. Door swelling. It's the root of all evil.

~ CB

[Full of Win]

Oh please, where the hell do you get that from? I think you kinda got it the other way around.

I beg to differ, I think I got his message loud and clear.

Here is the new policy, something I call the "Obama Doctrine", which states that when a conflict between a white and black exist, the white person is wrong.

In my estimation, you cannot retract your person viewpoints, and clearly this is how he feels.

[.Andy]

I beg to differ, I think I got his message loud and clear.

Here is the new policy, something I call the "Obama Doctrine", which states that when a conflict between a white and black exist, the white person is wrong.

In my estimation, you cannot retract your person viewpoints, and clearly this is how he feels.
"Obama Doctrine"

[Cleverboy]

I beg to differ, I think I got his message loud and clear. Here is the new policy, something I call the "Obama Doctrine", which states that when a conflict between a white and black exist, the white person is wrong. In my estimation, you cannot retract your person viewpoints, and clearly this is how he feels. You're going to spend a lot of time trying to misinform people. I can't say I wish you well with whatever it is you're trying to sell.

Here's Obama's quote:
I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sergeant [James M.] Crowley specifically. I could have calibrated those words differently. I told this to Sergeant Crowley. I continue to believe that there was an overreaction in pulling professor Gates out of his home and to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I've heard, that professor Gates overreacted as well.

My hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment. Where all of us -- instead of pumping up the volume -- spend a little more time listening to each other and trying to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities. That instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective about what we can do to contribute to more unity. Lord knows we need it right now. Here is a clear distillation of what he said:

Did not intend to malign the Cambridge Police Department
Told Sgt. Crowley he could have chosen different words
Continues to believe it was an overreaction to pull Gates from his home
Continues to believe that Gates overreacted as well
Hopes this is a teachable moment
Finds value in listening more and less time "pumping up the volume" by flinging accusations
We should focus improved relations between law enforcement and minority communities
Deeply believes that we need unity right now


~ CB

[skunk]

"Obama Doctrine""Bollocks"

[.Andy]

"Bollocks"
"indeed"

[skunk]

"."

[rhsgolfer33]

In my estimation, you cannot retract your person viewpoints, and clearly this is how he feels.

I don't think its clearly how he feels. While I think it was really off base for him to comment on the issue, I think he said what anyone would have said when a personal friend was involved. Clearly he's found out more of the facts and he's clarified what he meant and altered his view somewhat. Contrary to popular belief, even the President of the United States can change his mind. I'm not trying to defend what he said, as a Harvard educated attorney he should have known better than to comment when the words "I'm biased, he's my friend, and I don't know all the facts," came out of his mouth, but he did and he's apologized and clarified what he meant, its not that big of a deal anymore.

[Cleverboy]

You know... I was listening to the radio and I heard another detail that would have easily ticked off someone in Gates position. Apparently when Gates went and got his ID, it wasn't a driver's license with his address on it, but a college photo id showing who he was. It's irksome enough to have someone come to your home (after a harrowing issue with your door), asking you for identification, and then dismissing the identification you give him, while being very forward and unsympathetic. If I'd used my passport several hours earlier (who knows where I put it), had an issue with my front door, and was still tired and irritable after an international flight, had all my mail stopped (so none is readily available to tie my id to my address)... I might get a bit flustered.

It all depends on your personality. I'm rarely stirred to high anger, although you can catch me on a bad day. Usually, when I get angry, I speak in measured words. Other people become very animated. I'm still positive the police report left many critical details on the cutting room floor, and "colored" the facts to present a reasonable narrative against an insulting incident.

~ CB

[Rt&Dzine]

The guy plays straight from the victim playbook.
Here is the new policy, something I call the "Obama Doctrine", which states that when a conflict between a white and black exist, the white person is wrong.

Looks like everyone is playing from the victim playbook.

[spaceboots06]

Gonna just jump in here from reading the little I did in this thread but did you guys know 1 out of 3 African Americans are in some stage of the correctional system?

[Full of Win]

You're going to spend a lot of time trying to misinform people. I can't say I wish you well with whatever it is you're trying to sell.

Here's Obama's quote:
Here is a clear distillation of what he said:

Did not intend to malign the Cambridge Police Department
Told Sgt. Crowley he could have chosen different words
Continues to believe it was an overreaction to pull Gates from his home
Continues to believe that Gates overreacted as well
Hopes this is a teachable moment
Finds value in listening more and less time "pumping up the volume" by flinging accusations
We should focus improved relations between law enforcement and minority communities
Deeply believes that we need unity right now


~ CB

All people need to do is to look at what he said during the initial press conference, not the subsequent backpedalling to hide the obvious.

How can one (Obama) say they do not know the all the facts in a case, but then render a judgment call in saying the officer "acted stupidly"? It does not make sense to me.

The only way I can how he did this was that he looked at the race of the arresting officer and the person who was arrested, saw that one was white and the other was black, and let his own latent racism do the rest and blame the white officer... case closed. He did not listen to the police recording, he did not talk with the others on the scene, he just saw White vs. Black and used that as his guiding light to make his judgement call and blame the white guy.

Its a sad time to be an American:(

[Eraserhead]

How can one (Obama) say they do not know the all the facts in a case, but then render a judgment call in saying the officer "acted stupidly"? It does not make sense to me.

What about if your friend got arrested and you thought he was innocent?

Might you not say the officer acted stupidly?

[Full of Win]

What about if your friend got arrested and you thought he was innocent?

Might you not say the officer acted stupidly?

He is the president :rolleyes:. He can not take sides like this and make disparaging remarks without all the facts. Moreover, he should not let race act as a factor in his judgments, however, he clearly has in this case.

[Full of Win]

You know... I was listening to the radio and I heard another detail that would have easily ticked off someone in Gates position. Apparently when Gates went and got his ID, it wasn't a driver's license with his address on it, but a college photo id showing who he was. It's irksome enough to have someone come to your home (after a harrowing issue with your door), asking you for identification, and then dismissing the identification you give him, while being very forward and unsympathetic. If I'd used my passport several hours earlier (who knows where I put it), had an issue with my front door, and was still tired and irritable after an international flight, had all my mail stopped (so none is readily available to tie my id to my address)... I might get a bit flustered.

It all depends on your personality. I'm rarely stirred to high anger, although you can catch me on a bad day. Usually, when I get angry, I speak in measured words. Other people become very animated. I'm still positive the police report left many critical details on the cutting room floor, and "colored" the facts to present a reasonable narrative against an insulting incident.

~ CB

I'm guessing that a non-school officer cannot accept a school ID since he cannot easly access a database with the number to confirm its authentic. This is perfectly understandable I would think. However, if presented with a drivers license, he can call the number in and confirm its a valid ID.

I just hope the audio is released and we can hopefully hear the good professor in all of his professionalism. :)

[Eraserhead]

He is the president :rolleyes:. He can not take sides like this and make disparaging remarks without all the facts. Moreover, he should not let race act as a factor in his judgments, however, he clearly has in this case.

He's still human - which means he is capable of making a mistake.

At least unlike Bush when he makes a gut decision that is wrong he apologises.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I'm guessing that a non-school officer cannot accept a school ID since he cannot easly access a database with the number to confirm its authentic. This is perfectly understandable I would think. However, if presented with a drivers license, he can call the number in and confirm its a valid ID.

I just hope the audio is released and we can hopefully hear the good professor in all of his professionalism. :)

If you read the police reports to which I linked, Crowley notes that when Gates presented his Harvard ID, he asked for the Harvard police to come out. Hardly dismissive as Cleverboy would intimate.

[skunk]

I wonder how many middle-aged housebreakers routinely carry a fake Harvard University ID?

[Cleverboy]

If you read the police reports to which I linked, Crowley notes that when Gates presented his Harvard ID, he asked for the Harvard police to come out. Hardly dismissive as Cleverboy would intimate. It's at the officer's descretion. I'm sure he's seen a Harvard ID before. He's looking for something with your name and picture on it. To then call the Harvard police out compounds the problem, and becomes even more infuriating. It's interesting that you should want to be so appreciative of "by the book" attitudes. Caught at the wrong moment, you'd see a police confrontation that isn't quickly resolved as intrusive and highly irritating too... especially in your own home. "You're calling the Harvard Police to come out... what?"

I was taking pictures of my new vehicle the other day, and a police officer stopped by and stared at me. I smiled and said, "Hi! Just taking some pictures, I just got this new vehicle, I wanted to guage if I'd have any issues parking compared to the F-150 nearby." and he confirmed verbally that it was my vehicle, and drove on. He didn't ask me for my ID. He didn't ask to see my registration. If he did, considering my registration wasn't ready yet, there would be a point where this would escalate to a level I would start thinking was unreasonable and stupid. That didn't happen, the officer just told me that he had an F-150 (I have a new Nissan Frontier) and that he didn't have any parking problems, shrugged and moved on. I still think showing your Harvard ID and being able to answer a few basic questions should have been good enough (especially for that community, calling more police is a highly embarassing thing for most people).

~ CB

[Cleverboy]

This is probably the best, clearest article I've read on the incident to date... gleaning information from a number of sources, and reconstructing a tale of two accounts that more than not, match perfectly with each others narrative. The discrepancies are interesting, but not pronounced, and boil down to very fine points that I think get lost quickly. Who's fudging on these fine points? Who knows, but I can see a clear picture of how this could have happened no other way, given the set-up.

Analysis: What they saw during the Gates arrest
By JESSE WASHINGTON (AP) – 5 hours ago
Henry Louis Gates Jr. felt the hairs on the back of his neck stand up as he looked across the threshold of his home at Sgt. James Crowley. Looking back at Gates, Crowley worried about making it home safely to his wife and three children.
Fear was the only thing the white police officer and black scholar had in common. Soon their many differences would collide, exploding into a colossal misunderstanding.
How could things go so wrong? How could two by all accounts decent men start a fire that drew comparisons to the O.J. Simpson case and knocked President Barack Obama off his racial tightrope?
Part of the answer lies in the truth seen through each man's eyes during the episode, which ended with one of the most influential men in America charged with disorderly conduct.
If this really is to become a "teachable moment," as Obama hopes, then we have to examine what they saw, according to their public statements — and why they saw it that way.
___
It's early afternoon on Ware Street in Cambridge, Mass., a few blocks from the campus of Harvard University. Gates and his car service driver, a large black man, are trying to force open Gates' jammed front door. Lucia Whalen, a 40-year-old white woman who works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine, is passing by and calls 911.
According to Crowley's police report, he arrived to find Whalen standing on the sidewalk in front of the home. She told Crowley that "she observed what appeared to be two black men with backpacks on the porch ... her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door," the report says.
No one is blaming Whalen, who has not spoken publicly since the story broke.
"It wasn't her fault," Gates said.
We don't know how she sees the world, what types of experiences color her vision.
But had she shared just one or two different details with Crowley — or if the sergeant had gleaned something else from their conversation — things might have happened differently.
Gates, 58 and gray-haired, says he was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. He says his driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, Gates says, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.
None of that was on Crowley's mind when he walked up the steps to Gates home.
"Witnesses are inherently reliable," he said later. "She told me what she saw."
___
Crowley is on the porch, alone; Gates is inside his home. They apparently notice each other through the front door window at about the same time.
Crowley sees the unknown: "I really wasn't sure exactly what I was dealing with," he said later.
The sergeant is 42, a decorated 11-year police veteran who grew up attending diverse public schools in Cambridge. All three of his brothers work in law enforcement. He's an instructor in a police academy class on how to avoid racial profiling.
He asks Gates to step outside.
"I was the only police officer standing there and I got a report that there was people breaking into a house. (The request) was for my safety, because first and foremost I have to go home at night, I have three beautiful children and a wife who depend on me," he said later.
"So I had no other motive other than to ensure my safety, because this gentleman either could have been one of the people breaking in, or he could have been the homeowner who was unaware that there were people in his house unauthorized. I just didn't know."
Gates, meanwhile, is a renowned scholar of black history who has spent most of his life literally cataloguing the sins of the past in volumes like "Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience."
"I know every incident in the history of racism from slavery to Jim Crow segregation," he said recently.
He knows some of it firsthand. About 1989, hired by Stanley Fish to teach at Duke University in Durham, N.C., "one of the first things Gates did was buy the grandest house in town," Fish wrote in a recent blog on The New York Times' Web site.
"During the renovation workers would often take Gates for a servant and ask to be pointed to the house's owner. The drivers of delivery trucks made the same mistake."
"The message was unmistakable: What was a black man doing living in a place like this?" Fish wrote.
So when Gates hears Crowley ask him to step outside, he sees history. How could he not?
"All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger," Gates said later. "And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, 'No, I will not.'"
___
Crowley asks Gates to prove he lives there.
Looking out his front door, Gates sees someone who should be asking, "Is everything all right, sir?" He sees someone who would not doubt that a 58-year-old, gray-haired Harvard professor lived in this home — if he were white.
Gates sees a racist.
Gates leaves the front door to get his identification. Crowley follows him inside. Gates says he provided a driver's license with the address of the home they were standing in; Crowley's police report only mentions a Harvard ID.
"Now it's clear that he had a narrative in his head," Gates said. "A black man was inside someone's house, probably a white person's house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."
Gates demands that the sergeant provide HIS identification.
Crowley sees someone who should be grateful, but instead is yelling and falsely accusing him of being a racist. He sees a problem — "something you wouldn't expect from anybody that should be grateful that you're there investigating a report of a crime in progress," he said.
Neither man understood what the other one saw.
___
Gates continues to demand that Crowley provide his name and badge number.
Crowley said in his report that he had already told Gates his name, twice, but Gates was yelling too much to hear him. Gates said Crowley ignored his demands.
Gates doesn't let up. Crowley says he'll talk to Gates outside. Then he says something Crowley understands perfectly, boiling down his 2,095 pages of "Africana" down into one cry of resistance:
"I'll speak with your mama outside," he said, according to the police report.
Gates denies making the remark.
Should Gates have realized that you can't antagonize the police? Should Crowley have understood what it means to suspect a black man of breaking into his own home? Arguments will persist for years.
Once he recovered his balance, backing off his statement that Crowley acted "stupidly," he Obama assumed his traditional position of racial referee and said that both men overreacted.
"My hope," the first black president continued, "is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other ... and that instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jHud4VBSlwHX-0MPU8m15Yh9lE8gD99MBQ3O0

~ CB

[Badandy]

It seems like Gates is living in the past. Where he sees racism on the part of the police officer asking him to step outside of the house, he's committing the same prejudicial thought process by refusing to comply to a police officer...because it was a white one.

Look, I'm a white person. If I looked like I was breaking into a house with someone else, I wouldn't be mad if a police officer asked me to step outside. It's logical. That is not a racist thing to ask; you have to take the person outside so you can view the whole situation (if you're a police officer). He's in a nice house at Harvard, I doubt this is going to be a replay of the Rodney King incident (even though that was overblown). Just show him the ID, and say "have a nice day." But no, since it was a white police officer and this guy lives in a world where every black person is maligned (as a direct result of his area of research) he can't just assume the simple explanation: the police officer was responding to a call and wanted some proof.

Gates is the racist one in this story, not the officer.

[nuckinfutz]

It seems like Gates is living in the past. Where he sees racism on the part of the police officer asking him to step outside of the house, he's committing the same prejudicial thought process by refusing to comply to a police officer...because it was a white one.

Look, I'm a white person. If I looked like I was breaking into a house with someone else, I wouldn't be mad if a police officer asked me to step outside. It's logical. That is not a racist thing to ask; you have to take the person outside so you can view the whole situation (if you're a police officer). He's in a nice house at Harvard, I doubt this is going to be a replay of the Rodney King incident (even though that was overblown). Just show him the ID, and say "have a nice day." But no, since it was a white police officer and this guy lives in a world where every black person is maligned (as a direct result of his area of research) he can't just assume the simple explanation: the police officer was responding to a call and wanted some proof.

Gates is the racist one in this story, not the officer.


http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=7222907

Gates seems to be "over it" after the initial anger has subsided the logical part returns.

Also keep in mind Gates is almost 60 years old. I'm going to assume that many of the people posting in this thread
are far younger. Being nigh 60 years of age means you lived in different times in America for your most formative years.
You remember Malcom X and MLK Jr getting assasinated. You remember race riots and integration in the South causing
severe problems.

I'm not inclined to call neither Gates nor the officers racist in this scenario.

[skunk]

Gates is the racist one in this story, not the officer.No, you are simply failing to empathise as much with him as with the police officer. The witness was clearly a total airhead, and both Gates and the cop were reacting according to their prejudices. Neither is a racist. There is no political capital to be made here.

[Badandy]

No, you are simply failing to empathise as much with him as with the police officer. The witness was clearly a total airhead, and both Gates and the cop were reacting according to their prejudices. Neither is a racist. There is no political capital to be made here.

Yes, the witness was an airhead. From the info I've read, Gates was the one reacting to prejudices (that seems pretty...prejudicial to me). Seems like it's pretty SOP to ask someone to step outside of a house to ask them a question. Not only that but if a cop was summoned after I broke into my own house , I'd think "well that sucks, but it's a misunderstanding" and just cooperate. Not think the worst and yell.

[skunk]

Not only that but if a cop was summoned after I broke into my own house , I'd think "well that sucks, but it's a misunderstanding" and just cooperate. Not think the worst and yell.You are white. You are not conscious of a history of your "type" being treated with prejudice. Why would you be worried?

[Badandy]

You are white. You are not conscious of a history of your "type" being treated with prejudice. Why would you be worried?

So that absolves him of racist allegations and allows him to be so suspicious of a police officer that he won't comply with a perfectly logical request because the officer happens to be white? Skunk, would it be alright of me to wince everytime a black guy passes me on the street because he might rob me?

[Eraserhead]

Skunk, would it be alright of me to wince everytime a black guy passes me on the street because he might rob me?

No

[Badandy]

No

Of course not, because I'm not going to take a massive generalization (whether it be "black people are thiefs and will rob me" or "some white people used to hate my people") and treat a single individual any differently. Now if the black guy had a knife out in my first example or if the police officer was shouting racial slurs, that would be different.

[Cleverboy]

Yes, the witness was an airhead. From the info I've read, Gates was the one reacting to prejudices (that seems pretty...prejudicial to me). Seems like it's pretty SOP to ask someone to step outside of a house to ask them a question. Not only that but if a cop was summoned after I broke into my own house , I'd think "well that sucks, but it's a misunderstanding" and just cooperate. Not think the worst and yell.
Mm. And now the witness is put in the uneviable position of clearing up a police report that is probably almost, but not entirely, factual. She's saying that she never spoke with the officer outside of the house, and that she never said "black". The implication is that the description "black" was added to Crowley's narrative simply for convenience given the result. I think Obama was correct in his assessment that this arrest was "stupid", but that he should NOT have said it in a press conference. The arrest WAS stupid. Gates testifies that he not ONLY produced his Harvard ID but his driver's license. At the end of the day, we'd have to have had a video camera to get all the details straight. Thin blue lines are pretty solid, especially on things like "slight" details needed to justify their authority. It's tough out there. Sometimes getting the job done doesn't mean keeping the details crystal clear. Gates isn't likely to be that accurate a resource either, especially if he feels Crowley fudged facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, released the 911 phone call Monday. In the call, Lucia Whalen reports seeing "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all."

"I just saw it from a distance, and this older woman was worried, thinking somebody's breaking in someone's house and they've been barging in," Whalen says. "She interrupted me, and that's when I noticed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So I was just calling because she was a concerned neighbor, I guess." Video Listen in on the 911 phone call »

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."

~ CB

[skunk]

So that absolves him of racist allegations and allows him to be so suspicious of a police officer that he won't comply with a perfectly logical request because the officer happens to be white?I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where I said that he was absolved of anything.

Apparently the witness was blameless, my mistake there.

[rhsgolfer33]

I think Obama was correct in his assessment that this arrest was "stupid", but that he should NOT have said it in a press conference. The arrest WAS stupid. Gates testifies that he not ONLY produced his Harvard ID but his driver's license.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, not suspicion of burglary, showing his Harvard ID and drivers license wouldn't matter much in the case of disorderly conduct. I'm not saying the arrest was the correct move, but lets stop throwing around the whole he showed his ID thing, because it doesn't make damn difference in a disorderly conduct charge; particularly if Gates continued his conduct outside of his home where it would be easy to prove a reasonably likely affect on the public, the reason the charged was dropped is because the majority of the contact took place inside of Gates' home, where it would be much more difficult to prove a disorderly conduct charge.

[Badandy]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where I said that he was absolved of anything.


I've nothing against the guy personally, but it seems as though assuming a white police officer was there to give him trouble seems pretty prejudicial to me. Witnesses are unreliable, I'm just going on the given information.

[Cleverboy]

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, not suspicion of burglary, showing his Harvard ID and drivers license wouldn't matter much in the case of disorderly conduct. I'm not saying the arrest was the correct move, but lets stop throwing around the whole he showed his ID thing, because it doesn't make damn difference in a disorderly conduct charge; particularly if Gates continued his conduct outside of his home where it would be easy to prove a reasonably likely affect on the public, the reason the charged was dropped is because the majority of the contact took place inside of Gates' home, where it would be much more difficult to prove a disorderly conduct charge. Which beggars the question if the police angers you, and asks you to step out of your house, onto your own porch, is it an intentional attempt to put you in position to be in a "public place", so that a "disorderly conduct" charge can stick?

I'm sorry, but the whole exchange where Gates demands Crowley's information and is angry when the issue doesn't immediately go away, shouldn't escalate to a "disorderly conduct" issue.

If you are on the sidewalk, and start yelling at an officer, that's one thing... if an officer demands you open your door, and asks you identify yourself and your right to be in your own house, and this makes you angry when the interaction seems wrong-headed and drawn-out... they should just leave you when they've gotten the information they need. If you don't "threaten" then in ANY way (ie. "you'd better leave my house, or I'll hurt you" or "I've got a weapon and I'll use it" or "f you, you @#$% bastards!"), you should have a thick enough skin that the incident should simply be a "can you believe that guy" conversation as you and your partner drive off on your way. If the worse you've got from someone in their own house is the disputed "I'll see your momma outside!"... it's a weak case for an arrest. Seriously.

It's nice to concentrate on the words "disorderly conduct" and sweep away all the other details. I agree, it makes life simple until you're on the other side disagreeing with what happened to you.

~ CB

[rhsgolfer33]

Which beggars the question if the police angers you, and asks you to step out of your house, onto your own porch, is it an intentional attempt to put you in position to be in a "public place", so that a "disorderly conduct" charge can stick?

Its one thing if the officer demands you to step outside, but in this case Crowley's asking of Gates to step outside if he wanted to continue the discussion wasn't proposed for that purpose. Crowley realized Gates lived there, it would have been inappropriate for him to remain in the house once he ascertained that fact, so he attempted to leave. Asking Gates to step outside if he wanted to continue the discussion clearly wasn't to make a disorderly conduct charge stick, IMO. Gates, as far as I can tell never actually stepped off of his property, hence the dismissal of the charge.

I'm sorry, but the whole exchange where Gates demands Crowley's information and is angry when the issue doesn't immediately go away, shouldn't escalate to a "disorderly conduct" issue.

It does if Gates yelling, action, etc affect the public. Obviously it didn't in this case, Gates, IMO, was arrested for what is termed "contempt of cop." Clearly an officer isn't going to deal with some stuck up Harvard professor yelling at him and calling him a racist when he attempts to do his job. The situation could have been handled better, but Gates could have very easily prevented the situation from happening by putting his big boy panties on and talking like a civilized human being. Should Crowley have arrested him? No. But should you expect an officer to arrest you if you're yelling at him, calling him a racists, etc? Yes. Just because they're police officers doesn't mean they're not human.

"f you, you @#$% bastards

That seems to be along similar lines of yelling and screaming at an officer accusing him of racism.

It's nice to concentrate on the words "disorderly conduct" and sweep away all the other details. I agree, it makes life simple until you're on the other side disagreeing with what happened to you.

The fact is, I'm not dumb enough to go yelling at an officer if he was investigating a possible burglary at my home and questioned me, asked me for ID, etc., so I'll probably never have that problem. If I thought any questioning an officer was doing was out of line, or his entry into my home was out of line I wouldn't be yelling at him, I'd wait until he left or arrested me for whatever suspicion charge he could draw up, and then I'd call my attorney. Yelling and carrying on like a child doesn't get you any where in any situation, I'd expect a Harvard professor as distinguished as Gates to know that.

Both Gates and Crowley were in the wrong. But it would have been very, very easy for Gates to have culled the situation by treating Crowley with respect. I think Gates inflamed the situation with his absurd conduct and got a reaction out of Crowley. Obviously Crowley could have responded better, but the arrest never would have happened if Gates showed Crowley some respect instead of spouting racism at the first site of a white police officer.

[jknight8907]

This may have been asked earlier, but I didn't wade through all the pages to find out.

Do his neighbors not know what he looks like? At first I thought this must have taken place at night where they couldn't ID the guy, but it was at high noon. Surely they could've looked out the window and just said "heh, he locked himself out again"?

[Cleverboy]

This may have been asked earlier, but I didn't wade through all the pages to find out.

Do his neighbors not know what he looks like? At first I thought this must have taken place at night where they couldn't ID the guy, but it was at high noon. Surely they could've looked out the window and just said "heh, he locked himself out again"? Apparently, the 911 caller said that they might have simply had trouble opening their own door, and that she didn't know the race of the first person, but that the second larger man may have been hispanic. What any subsequent conversation at the scene may have related, its not clear.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/raw-data-transcript-cambridge/
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Um, I don't know what's happening. I just had an older woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware Street. And they kind of had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in. When I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen were already in the house. I noticed two suitcases. So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there.

911 OPERATOR: You think they might have been breaking in?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I don't know 'cause I have no idea. I just noticed.

911 OPERATOR: So you're saying you think the possibility might have been there? What do you mean by barged in? You mean they kicked the door in?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: No, they were pushing the door in. Like, umm, the screen part of the front door was kind of like cut.

911 OPERATOR: How did they open the door itself with the lock?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: They, I didn't see a key or anything 'cause I was a little bit away from the door. But I did notice that they pushed their (interrupted).

911 OPERATOR: And what do the suitcases have to do with anything?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I don't know, I'm just saying that's what I saw.

911 OPERATOR: Do you know what apartment they broke into?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: No, they're just they first floor. I don't even think that it's an apartment. It's 17 Ware Street. It's a house, it's a yellow house. Number 17. I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key but I did notice that they kind of used their shoulder to kind of barge in and they got in. I don't know if they had a key or not because I couldn't see from my angle. But, you know, when I looked a little closely that's what I saw.

911 OPERATOR: (inaudible) guy or Hispanic?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm.

911 OPERATOR: Are they still in the house?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: They're still in the house, I believe, yeah.

911 OPERATOR: Were they white, black or Hispanic?

FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking in someone's house, they've been barging in. And she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So, I was just calling 'cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.
Given the 911 call, you'd have thought instead of demanding ID, that the attitude would have been, "Hi, there. We received a report of a break-in, and we wanted to make sure everything was ok." I'd have seen the ID issue as an afterthought, after making sure the possible residents were clear that I wasn't there to give them a hard time (just hold the "who are you" issue in your back pocket, in order to let them "trap" or "vindicate" themselves).

~ CB

[Cleverboy]

He was arrested for disorderly conduct
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/obama-was-right-about-the_b_244888.html
But one thing is clear: Gates did not violate any law. Under Massachusetts law, which the police officer was supposedly enforcing, yelling at a police officer is not illegal.

There are clear decisions of the Massachusetts courts holding that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct. And yet that is exactly what Gates was arrested for.

The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.

In several cases, the courts in Massachusetts have considered whether a person is guilty of disorderly conduct for verbally abusing a police officer. In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, a 2004 decision, an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.

So Massachusetts law clearly provides that Gates did not commit disorderly conduct.

The Cambridge Police should be training their officers to know the difference between legal and illegal conduct. What Gates did was probably not so smart -- in general, be nice to people carrying guns -- but it wasn't disorderly conduct. At least not in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

That explains why the charges against Gates were dropped. It wasn't because the police were trying to defuse the situation. It was because Gates had done nothing illegal.

Arresting someone for doing something that isn't illegal is pretty stupid. [Cough, cough.] It was a stupid charge to use inside of someone's house, in the neighborhood they were in (where nothing was likely to develop out of verbal disagreement with the police), and without any additional reason to want to hold the offending party. Stupid. Just because you're insulted doesn't mean being a cop gives you a right to position someone outside their house, and then arrest them as they continue acting upset. It's not right in many countries, but its certainly not right here in America.

I think this dispute begins and ends with one thing. Race. The police arrested him because their pride was hurt, because the professor saw racism and called it as he saw it. He felt disrespected in his own home, and in his own town, and felt the need to say it. The uncomfortable truth is, however, being called "racist" is such a HUGE issue for many people, it trumps common sense, especially when the "racism" charge is unfounded or worse specious. Calling a police officer "racist", especially in Boston, especially while threatening to file a complaint, is especially irritating, given the caliber and reputation of the officer involved.

I GET that... but reduced to the facts... the case was dropped, for the most part, because it looked like a case of poor judgment by the arresting officer. When it comes to the authorities however, it doesn't help the climate to heap blame on police officer's when the mistake is so minor (especially a judgment call). That said, you simply don't arrest non-threatening people in their own home, for being insulted that you're their, and loudly protesting their treatment.

In ANY other case... if you're outside of your property (no, REALLY outside of it, as in... on public property) and stirring a commotion, if the officer has reason to fear his safety (for instance, if your identity hasn't been confirmed as a prominent member of your community), drugs/alcohol is involved, etc... this conversation would not exist. You'd be wrong. Someone knocks on your door for whatever reason, demanding you identify yourself, once your identity has been confirmed, they really, really, really need to leave... even if you're farting repeatedly in their general direction.

Its funny, when I hear people talking about the professor's "bad behavior", it really seems like the ONLY thing he did was talk loudly and call them a racist. I heard one guy on the radio said, "And I even heard he'd said something about the officer's mother." While Gates denies having said anything of the sort, Crowley only said that when asking Gates to step outside, he'd been told, "I'll see your momma outside!" Usually when you hear someone is "cutting up", they're transformed themselves into a swaring, cursing, fist waving, chest-thumping, spit-shooting Tasmanian Devil of anger. Getting mad and saying you think your treatment is racist, and that you can't believe this is being drawn out like this in your own home... well.

The FACTS are with Gates. The emotional outcry from the greater public is with Crowley, simply because more people are annoyed with being called racists than with feeling racially profiled. The arrest, by ALL COUNTS, was a flagrant waste of tax payer's money. There was NO CRIME, and it would have been quickly forgotten if it had been handled as such.

~ CB

[uberamd]

Would it be wrong for them to ask the black cop to make the arrest? As you could see in the most famous picture of the incident, a black police officer is standing there as well. What would have happened if he was the first one in? To me, after watching all of these news programs where the police are constantly bashed, I get a little annoyed.

He was arrested for "Breathing while Black." Come on, get real. I swear every time an african american gets arrested in this country the race card is played. Its insane.

[rhsgolfer33]

The FACTS are with Gates.

I already stated that even though he was arrested for "disorderly conduct," the real reason he was brought in was "contempt of cop," which isn't a crime. Crowley shouldn't have arrested him, I made that clear, but if you start yelling at an officer, calling him a racist, cursing at him, etc., you're probably going to end up at the station.

You're interpretation of the facts are with Gates, mine aren't. I don't know if you've ever been on a jury, but its relatively easy for people to form different opinions from the same situation and fact pattern. We just happen to disagree on this one. :)

[JBazz]

Isn't Texas part of America? I think it's legal but not too legal. Because here in NYC people had a big fit over the NYPD searching Muslim people's belongings exclusively on the trains so they had to start searching other races too.

Muslim is not a "race".

[Cleverboy]

Crowley shouldn't have arrested him, I made that clear, but if you start yelling at an officer, calling him a racist, cursing at him, etc., you're probably going to end up at the station. Not that you're saying he did, but I've heard nothing that indicated Gates "cursed" at the officer. Again, "contempt of cop" as the offense, is something few people acknowledge in this discussion. I'm not interested in predicting outcomes, just in understanding what HAPPENED and what SHOULD have happened. I've also noted that I'm wary of the police, and would likely veer far from giving them any excuse to make something up about an encounter. I've worked for the police and have friends who are officers. There's a lot that happens that isn't publicised about goings on with law enforcement. They're people too, with goods and ills exacerbated by a profession where they put their lives at risk.
You're interpretation of the facts are with Gates, mine aren't. I don't know if you've ever been on a jury, but its relatively easy for people to form different opinions from the same situation and fact pattern. We just happen to disagree on this one. :) Personally, I'm very aware of the difference between "facts" and "interpretation". There's a firewall there for me. So, when I say "the FACTS are with Gates", I'm clear. Like the article I quote notes... if this had gone to court, it would have been dismissed. This was the equivalent of a "nuisance arrest" made simply to teach Gates a lesson. Cops shouldn't do that. Period. You can rationalize why the police are entitled to do something the law says they aren't, but you're not dealing with anything but emotion. I would be dealing in emotion if I were arguing whether or not Gates could successfully sue the police. At that point I would be doing the same as you are trying to find an explanation for why this was "ok". But, I don't think Gates should/could sue, because this shouldn't have even come this far.

Bottomline: I think both men overreacted. Crowley used his profession for personal ends (resolving his perception of disrespect of himself and his job), while Gates should have dealt with his outrage with calm civility (especially if he claims to truly understand the history of non-violent protest in the struggle for civil rights). If he truly saw it as a civil rights issue, he should have sat down after furnishing his ID and refused to leave his home under any circumstances. Checkmate to any police officer trying to get under his skin or be "alpha male" on his own property.

There is nothing more or less to this case. Would it be wrong for them to ask the black cop to make the arrest? As you could see in the most famous picture of the incident, a black police officer is standing there as well. What would have happened if he was the first one in? To me, after watching all of these news programs where the police are constantly bashed, I get a little annoyed. Believe it or not, black people can be "racist" towards other black people. While this sounds strange, its a point of fact. Whites can be racist towards other whites too. It's more maddening when you see things like ethnic divides, but often its "class" divides, etc when the two people look pretty much the same. I question whether the black person would have wanted to make the arrest, given the way it all happened. The black officer in the picture didn't even seem interested in observing what was going on. His job was insuring nothing got out of hand outside. I also wouldn't doubt he was there to send a message given what the professor was already shouting.
He was arrested for "Breathing while Black." Come on, get real. I swear every time an african american gets arrested in this country the race card is played. Its insane. That's exactly why this case is a hot button... because hearing someone call "racist" is REALLY annoying when its a specious accusation.

~ CB

[uberamd]

That's exactly why this case is a hot button... because hearing someone call "racist" is REALLY annoying when its a specious accusation.

~ CB

Maybe we should have a camera crew follow all police officers around, like they do on the show Cops. Then, if anyone tries to dispute anything they just need to roll the footage. This "he said" "she said" BS is pointless.

[Cleverboy]

That's exactly why this case is a hot button... because hearing someone call "racist" is REALLY annoying when its a specious accusation.Maybe we should have a camera crew follow all police officers around, like they do on the show Cops. Then, if anyone tries to dispute anything they just need to roll the footage. This "he said" "she said" BS is pointless. Seriously. "Do I have your permission to record our conversation?" I've been thinking about that idea just for driving around, to ward off "he said/she said" in accident descrepancies. That's why many cop cars have a camera in them, especially when they're doing traffic stops on the highway. Human beings "remember" things in funny ways, and sometimes the facts can wobble. I mean... I'm not talking "RoboCop" or anything. Just something on the officer's shoulder, that digitally records certain types of confrontation.

~ CB

[nuckinfutz]

Gruber provides a good link

http://www.slate.com/id/2223673/

Professor Gates should have taken his stand on the Bill of Rights and not on his epidermis or that of the arresting officer, and, if he didn't have the presence of mind to do so, that needn't inhibit the rest of us.

[Cleverboy]

Gruber provides a good link
http://www.slate.com/id/2223673/ Here's a better quote from the article.Moreover, whatever he said to the cop was in the privacy of his own home. It is monstrous in the extreme that he should in that home be handcuffed, and then taken downtown, after it had been plainly established that he was indeed the householder. The president should certainly have kept his mouth closed about the whole business—he is a senior law officer with a duty of impartiality, not the micro-manager of our domestic disputes—but once he had said that the police conduct was "stupid," he ought to have stuck to it, quite regardless of the rainbow of shades that was so pathetically and opportunistically deployed by the Cambridge Police Department. It is the U.S. Constitution, and not some competitive agglomeration of communities or constituencies, that makes a citizen the sovereign of his own home and privacy. There is absolutely no legal requirement to be polite in the defense of this right. And such rights cannot be negotiated away over beer.

And regarding Christopher Hitchens experience... hey, Constitutional Rights or not, the firmness of your voice, your language skills (watch a car sale change dramatically by throwing in words like "sticker price", "invoice price", and the like), and yes... your appearance... as well as the attitude and demeanor of the officer involved. He walked a tightrope with the following exchange (from the article).
More recently, I was walking at night in the wooded California suburb where I spend the summer, trying to think about an essay I was writing. Suddenly, a police cruiser was growling quietly next to me and shining a light. "What are you doing?" I don't know quite what it was—I'd been bored and delayed that week at airport security—but I abruptly decided that I was in no mood, so I responded, "Who wants to know?" and continued walking. "Where do you live?" said the voice. "None of your business," said I. "What's under your jacket?" "What's your probable cause for asking?" I was now almost intoxicated by my mere possession of constitutional rights. There was a pause, and then the cop asked almost pleadingly how he was to know if I was an intruder or burglar, or not. "You can't know that," I said. "It's for me to know and for you to find out. I hope you can come up with probable cause." The car gurgled alongside me for a bit and then pulled away. No doubt the driver then ran some sort of check, but he didn't come back. Might everyone get away with this backtalk, without his background? I wouldn't think so. Psychology is always useful though.

~ CB