Housing While Black (3 Viewers)

[StrikeS2k]

But there is another side to this story that also is becoming very angry- at Obama. These are the millions of white middle class and blue collars who pay their bills, look upon the police force as their protectors and friends, and believe in law and order and not being rude to authority. Many of these fine Americans are Democrats and they voted for Obama. I don't think they're going to take too kindly to him saying "the police behaved stupidly" even if they did. They believe, rightfully so, that police are mistreated, especially by liberals, and not regarded as the heroes they really are. As these white Americans face increasingly more difficult economic conditions, I think they will become more and more resentful and angry at "liberal elites" who tell them that they are racist, the police are racist, etc.

I had to look a little ways to find this post.

why?

 

[Pat Patriot]

Tim, I am telling you what I read. I dont bookmark every article that I read. Did anyone else in this thread not read the same thing? Crowley met the complainant in front of the house and all reports have other neighbors gathering in front of the house. If all of this happened outside the house, it shouldnt really be that debateable.

I'm honestly confused about this. Such a big story, if there were witnesses, why doesn't a single one approach the press? Why isn't one of them on Sean Hannity's show, saying "Yeah, he was yelling at the top of his lungs!" Or, conversely, why isn't one on Keith Olbermann's show saying, "He wasn't yelling at all." Do you see my point? Even Gates acknowledges there were witnesses AFTER the arrest took place. But frankly I'm suspicious of their presence beforehand. If there were some story, article, report, I'd believe it. I can't find any.

Bill Carter - the individual who snapped the infamous photo of Gates - noted that Gates was yelling. The Boston Channel - 07/22/2009

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

That is a big hole in Gates story.IMO, you either think this arrest was racially motivated or you dont. Based mostly on Crowley's background, I dont think the arrest was racially motivated. Because if Gates wasnt yelling and out of control, which he claims he was not, then there is no other reason for Crowley to arrest him other than because he was black.

So Crowley doesnt arrest Gates as Gates is being uncooperative and potentially belligerent and is an unknown to Crowley. But once Crowley figures out that Gates is a Harvard professor and in fact the owner of the house, at that point he arrests the guy. Crowley must be a real dummy not to think that isnt going to seriously blow back on him.

 

[timschochet]

TexasFan02, I am greatly in debt to you.

According to the article you posted:

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

The important part is the bolded part. This coming from an independent witness, causes me to believe:

1. Gates indeed must have lied about not being able to yell.

2. If Gates lied about not being able to yell, then we have to assume that every aspect of his story is suspect. In terms of his story which contradicts the police officer, he has no credibility.

3. This does not logically lead to a conclusion that Crowley's version was entirely truthful. Yet, there is no reason not to believe it, at this point.

These are my new conclusions, based upon Texas02's linking me to an article which I had not read before. Pat Patriot also appears to be correct in his recollection of events. Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

 

[timschochet]

But there is another side to this story that also is becoming very angry- at Obama. These are the millions of white middle class and blue collars who pay their bills, look upon the police force as their protectors and friends, and believe in law and order and not being rude to authority. Many of these fine Americans are Democrats and they voted for Obama. I don't think they're going to take too kindly to him saying "the police behaved stupidly" even if they did. They believe, rightfully so, that police are mistreated, especially by liberals, and not regarded as the heroes they really are. As these white Americans face increasingly more difficult economic conditions, I think they will become more and more resentful and angry at "liberal elites" who tell them that they are racist, the police are racist, etc.

I had to look a little ways to find this post.

why?

I couldn't remember where it was. It was in the middle of the thread.

 

[TexanFan02]

TexasFan02, I am greatly in debt to you.

According to the article you posted:

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

The important part is the bolded part. This coming from an independent witness, causes me to believe:

1. Gates indeed must have lied about not being able to yell.

2. If Gates lied about not being able to yell, then we have to assume that every aspect of his story is suspect. In terms of his story which contradicts the police officer, he has no credibility.

3. This does not logically lead to a conclusion that Crowley's version was entirely truthful. Yet, there is no reason not to believe it, at this point.

These are my new conclusions, based upon Texas02's linking me to an article which I had not read before. Pat Patriot also appears to be correct in his recollection of events. Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

Nah. You've given enough time to this thread. Even Gates has said he wants to move on. I think the FFA should too. And credit whoever posted the link, I just commented on it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154554/

 

[StrikeS2k]

TexasFan02, I am greatly in debt to you.

According to the article you posted:

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

The important part is the bolded part. This coming from an independent witness, causes me to believe:

1. Gates indeed must have lied about not being able to yell.

2. If Gates lied about not being able to yell, then we have to assume that every aspect of his story is suspect. In terms of his story which contradicts the police officer, he has no credibility.

3. This does not logically lead to a conclusion that Crowley's version was entirely truthful. Yet, there is no reason not to believe it, at this point.

These are my new conclusions, changing my mind for the 10th time in this thread, based upon Texas02's linking me to an article which I had not read before. Pat Patriot also appears to be correct in his recollection of events. Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

guy was close enough to take that picture and to "hear him yelling" but still didn't hear anything that he was saying? wtf? was he yelling in tongues?

 

[StrikeS2k]

But there is another side to this story that also is becoming very angry- at Obama. These are the millions of white middle class and blue collars who pay their bills, look upon the police force as their protectors and friends, and believe in law and order and not being rude to authority. Many of these fine Americans are Democrats and they voted for Obama. I don't think they're going to take too kindly to him saying "the police behaved stupidly" even if they did. They believe, rightfully so, that police are mistreated, especially by liberals, and not regarded as the heroes they really are. As these white Americans face increasingly more difficult economic conditions, I think they will become more and more resentful and angry at "liberal elites" who tell them that they are racist, the police are racist, etc.

I had to look a little ways to find this post.

why?

I couldn't remember where it was. It was in the middle of the thread.

What do you mean by "it"? Do you mean your "support" for the PoPo? I've already shown that your initial reaction was to call the PoPo RACIST. Show me a thread where your INITIAL reaction was to support the PoPo, instead of assuming the worst. Otherwise don't expect me to change my opinion that you're a cop hating, race baiter like JJ or Al Sharpton.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

guy was close enough to take that picture and to "hear him yelling" but still didn't hear anything that he was saying? wtf? was he yelling in tongues?

Zoom lenses are pretty advanced these days.

 

[TexanFan02]

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

guy was close enough to take that picture and to "hear him yelling" but still didn't hear anything that he was saying? wtf? was he yelling in tongues?

Maybe he was yelling pretty loud but the cameraman was pretty far away. That's what it looks like in the picture ;-)

 

[timschochet]

What do you mean by "it"? Do you mean your "support" for the PoPo? I've already shown that your initial reaction was to call the PoPo RACIST. Show me a thread where your INITIAL reaction was to support the PoPo, instead of assuming the worst. Otherwise don't expect me to change my opinion that you're a cop hating, race baiter like JJ or Al Sharpton.

I don't have a lot of threads where I discuss the police one way or another. However, I just brought to the front page a thread entitled, "Capital Punishment", where I defended the death penalty for the cop killers in Pennsylvania, believing that this was the only suitable punishment. I believe this qualifies as initial support of the police: what say you?

 

[StrikeS2k]

What do you mean by "it"? Do you mean your "support" for the PoPo? I've already shown that your initial reaction was to call the PoPo RACIST. Show me a thread where your INITIAL reaction was to support the PoPo, instead of assuming the worst. Otherwise don't expect me to change my opinion that you're a cop hating, race baiter like JJ or Al Sharpton.

I don't have a lot of threads where I discuss the police one way or another. However, I just brought to the front page a thread entitled, "Capital Punishment", where I defended the death penalty for the cop killers in Pennsylvania, believing that this was the only suitable punishment. I believe this qualifies as initial support of the police: what say you?

I already responded in that thread. The short answer is NO it doesn't qualify.Oh, and as far as you not discussing the PoPo I find that hard to believe. There are countless threads about tasering and other potential power abuse by police threads. I find it hard to believe you don't post in those. Sounds good when defending the death penalty is as close as you come to "supporting" police though I'm sure.

 

[spacevan]

33 pages and still worthless.

 

[timschochet]

OK, Strike, you're going to have to take my word for this, because unfortunately I was not around to post back then:

Probably the angriest I've ever been at the use of racism as a "defense" was during the OJ Simpson trial, when Johnny Cochran attempted to cast suspicion on the Los Angeles Police Force. It may have been a shrewd strategy (it worked) but it grated on me and offended me, and to this day I get mad just thinking about it. He made use of the tensions from the Rodney King beating and exploited them to get OJ off. It was sickening.

Speaking of the Rodney King beating, I felt it was excessive, but not necessarily racism, and I argued it at the time until I was blue in the face. The riots that broke out were revolting, and I remember that our local congresswoman Maxine Waters claimed they were an "uprising" against an evil police force. That was an unforgiveable statement. The policemen who beat King received an eventual punishment much much worse than they deserved.

Again, you have to take my word that these feelings were genuine, and that your opinion of me is not correct.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

guy was close enough to take that picture and to "hear him yelling" but still didn't hear anything that he was saying? wtf? was he yelling in tongues?

'S'mofo butter layin' me to da' BONE! Jackin' me up... tight me!

 

[Pat Patriot]

OK, Strike, you're going to have to take my word for this, because unfortunately I was not around to post back thenrobably the angriest I've ever been at the use of racism as a "defense" was during the OJ Simpson trial, when Johnny Cochran attempted to cast suspicion on the Los Angeles Police Force. It may have been a shrewd strategy (it worked) but it grated on me and offended me, and to this day I get mad just thinking about it. He made use of the tensions from the Rodney King beating and exploited them to get OJ off. It was sickening. Speaking of the Rodney King beating, I felt it was excessive, but not necessarily racism, and I argued it at the time until I was blue in the face. The riots that broke out were revolting, and I remember that our local congresswoman Maxine Waters claimed they were an "uprising" against an evil police force. That was an unforgiveable statement. The policemen who beat King received an eventual punishment much much worse than they deserved.Again, you have to take my word that these feelings were genuine, and that your opinion of me is not correct.

At least you agree that Maxine Waters is a JOKE of a Congresswoman.

 

[Fennis]

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

Thought he had a bronchial inflammation and couldn't yell?Oops.

guy was close enough to take that picture and to "hear him yelling" but still didn't hear anything that he was saying? wtf? was he yelling in tongues?

'S'mofo butter layin' me to da' BONE! Jackin' me up... tight me!

Only one way to find out... The pic should be included in the Caption Contest.

 

[StrikeS2k]

OK, Strike, you're going to have to take my word for this, because unfortunately I was not around to post back thenrobably the angriest I've ever been at the use of racism as a "defense" was during the OJ Simpson trial, when Johnny Cochran attempted to cast suspicion on the Los Angeles Police Force. It may have been a shrewd strategy (it worked) but it grated on me and offended me, and to this day I get mad just thinking about it. He made use of the tensions from the Rodney King beating and exploited them to get OJ off. It was sickening. Speaking of the Rodney King beating, I felt it was excessive, but not necessarily racism, and I argued it at the time until I was blue in the face. The riots that broke out were revolting, and I remember that our local congresswoman Maxine Waters claimed they were an "uprising" against an evil police force. That was an unforgiveable statement. The policemen who beat King received an eventual punishment much much worse than they deserved.Again, you have to take my word that these feelings were genuine, and that your opinion of me is not correct.

WTH are you talking about? Threads are created regularly that talk about situations involving cops. What you're really saying is you can't find any posts where you commend cops for their work. We know why. And it just proves what I asserted above about your agenda and motives.

 

[Christo]

TexasFan02, I am greatly in debt to you.

According to the article you posted:

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

The important part is the bolded part. This coming from an independent witness, causes me to believe:

1. Gates indeed must have lied about not being able to yell.

2. If Gates lied about not being able to yell, then we have to assume that every aspect of his story is suspect. In terms of his story which contradicts the police officer, he has no credibility.

3. This does not logically lead to a conclusion that Crowley's version was entirely truthful. Yet, there is no reason not to believe it, at this point.

These are my new conclusions, based upon Texas02's linking me to an article which I had not read before. Pat Patriot also appears to be correct in his recollection of events. Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

You never know

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

DW, you do not have it right, at least not according to Professor Gates. At no point did he ever admit refusing to give Crowley an ID. From his story:

All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’

My lawyers later told me that that was a good move and had I walked out onto the porch he could have arrested me for breaking and entering. He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them.

In your post, you stated:

I bleieve it is admitted even by Gates that his first response was not to obey the what, request? lawful order? but rather to begin by giving the officer grief. His resposne was not to cooperate but to gain control of the situation and have it play out to his individual seense of decorum.

So this is not correct, according to Gates. As I wrote before, you have accepted Crowley's version of events here. If Gates is telling the trth, he gave both his Harvard ID and Drivers License to Crowley. He complied.

Help me. Gates story is not that his first reaction was to comply, produce the items, and then question the officer but was surprise, followed by contempt as expressed in his policeman's benevolence line, and then "No I will not." I'm not going with Crowley solely, though I notice you completely ignore what his training and self interest ina dangeous situation would be, i am going here with gates direct quote. "NO I WILL NOT. " That is refusal. I agree that after this Gates did give over his information, but at this point, this crucial point, what is it we have? I'll answer since you seem unwilling. What we have is a potential felon in a dangerous and exigent circumstance refusing at the very least a request and very liekly a lawful order, and by doing so he is for some as yet undetermined amount of time prolonging a very dangerous situation.I noticed you took no stab at defining what procedure you would like to see here. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise if you undertook it in good faith.

You stated that Gates said no when asked for his ID. That's what Crowley says. Gates says he said no when asked to step outside. I think he has a good reason to do so. I admit not being an expert about police procedure, but if Gates is telling the truth, then Crowley should have left upon examining the drivers license. That should have been the end of it. Now if Gates is lying, that's something different. If a policeman comes to your door and, before asking you anything else, asks you to step outside, is it against the law to refuse? I'm asking because I honestly don't know the answer.

You are going to go down swinging on this. Whether the lawful order, if there was one, and again, I admit tht it is possible the Sgt, for whatever reason, ignored his training and did not phrase it correctly which would in fact make it difficult or impossible to enforce, was to come out and identify himself or to identify himself you don'tbelieve we can take Gates self reported initial reaction of denial at face value. The guy has by the time we get to your quote had time to calm down, speak to his attorney, and to become the hero of his own self serving narrative, which is what we all do in life. Still, there is a direct statement of noncoopertion.The reason this is a point with me is regardlesss of the color combinations of Cop and suspect, and regardless of whose neighborhood these things happen in, the law and the procedure have to apply more or less across the board. I can tell yo that there is no question but as a legal matter that officers, in an exigent circumstance or with potential felonies unfolding in their prescence do have a right to issue orders with which one has to cooperate so long asw those orders are related to resolving the situation and are not patently unlawful.

Presume this was a real break in, with armed burglers who in addition to home invasions liked to dabble in rape. Presume also that all suspects will, being in the act of committing felonies, also be willing to lie to cops about their I.D. and their right to be where they are. The law and the procedure has to apply.

Gates refusal was a crime. You keep wanting to rush forward to "yeah but shortly thereafter things were fine so it must not have been a crime", but we are not yet to the next moment. See officers don't know whats coming next. I just want you to admit the simple point that at least to this precise point in time the officer is by the book and Gates is the bad guy. Come on, you can do it. I'll help, just as I have in my other postings I am going to admit that I don't believe the crime should be charged, that I don't like the officer having choosen instead to charge disturbing the peace as these statutes are always problematic and perhaps the subject of more challenges constitutionally than any statutues but anti-loitering ones. You will get from me a fair chance to make some pioints and I will concede them, but for now, won't you concede the one point?

 

[Otis]

How the hell is this 33 pages? Such a dumb non-story. I hope something interesting happens soon, so that on CNN I start seeing less of this and Sanjay Gupta talking about Michael Jackson.

 

[PatsWillWin]

How the hell is this 33 pages?

Who posted in: Housing While Black

timschochet 134

Christo 79

KnowledgeReignsSupreme 73

Aaron Rudnicki 67

Maurile Tremblay 64

 

[BassNBrew]

Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

Yes, you'll change your mind again when you find out the neighbor's gardener passed gas while laying mulch.

 

[3C's]

How the hell is this 33 pages?

Who posted in: Housing While Black

timschochet 134

Christo 79

KnowledgeReignsSupreme 73

Aaron Rudnicki 67

Maurile Tremblay 64

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: timschochet. really shortened the thread for me

 

[Buckychudd]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25592.html

3 amigos get suds; she gets scorn

By: Roger Simon

July 30, 2009 04:31 AM EST

She will not get a beer with the boys. Lucia Whalen has not been invited to the White House.

The three amigos — Henry Louis Gates Jr., James Crowley and Barack Obama — will throw back some cold ones on the South Lawn on Thursday as the whole world watches this “teachable moment” on race in America.

And they deserve a drink. They have been through so much! How they have suffered!

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Instead, she has been reviled. She has been scorned. She was pilloried in the mainstream media and abused in the blogosphere. “Whites like Lucia have bigotry programmed into them,” one Cambridge blogger wrote. “Her description of the two black males is just so, so bigoted. Not only that, it could have led to people getting shot unnecessarily.”

Facts? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! And the truth is too slow! In this age of instant communication, we must publish conclusions first — no matter how hurtful or how dangerous — and then let the truth catch up.

In fact, Whalen did not describe “two black males” breaking into a house. She volunteered no racial description at all when she called. (When she was then asked by a police dispatcher to describe the two men, Whalen said “one looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure.”) Whalen didn’t even say the two men were trying to break into the house.

Here, from the actual 911 tape, is what she said: “I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key, but I did notice they had to use their shoulders to try to barge in.”

It was a proper call. It was the call of a good and responsible citizen. And the police showed up, which is what they are supposed to do.

After that, guys began behaving badly.

You can make a pretty good case that Gates, Crowley and Obama all acted hastily and regrettably. Gates, returning home with a head cold after a 20-hour flight from China, reacted angrily to being confronted in his own house by a police officer. Crowley overreacted by arresting Gates on a bogus disorderly conduct charge. And Obama, who had the most time to think about his actions and is, after all, the president of the United States, admitted he lacked all the facts but, nonetheless, publicly accused the Cambridge police of acting “stupidly.”

So who is the one person who acted properly in all of this? Lucia Whalen.

Her reward? “People called me racist and said I caused all the turmoil that flowed, and some even said threatening things that made me fear for my safety,” Whalen said Wednesday.

Whalen said she “tried to be careful and honest” with her wording when she called 911.

But some say she should not have called at all. Some say she should have shut up and saved herself the headache and heartache that followed. This is what a smart person would have done.

But Whalen decided to be a good citizen and not a smart one.

Wednesday, she was asked if she would make the call again today.

“I have had much reflection on that,” Whalen said, “and, yes, I would make the call.”

That is a teachable moment.

And somebody owes her a beer.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

The real story here is sexism on the part of Obama and the media.

 

[timschochet]

OK, Strike, you're going to have to take my word for this, because unfortunately I was not around to post back thenrobably the angriest I've ever been at the use of racism as a "defense" was during the OJ Simpson trial, when Johnny Cochran attempted to cast suspicion on the Los Angeles Police Force. It may have been a shrewd strategy (it worked) but it grated on me and offended me, and to this day I get mad just thinking about it. He made use of the tensions from the Rodney King beating and exploited them to get OJ off. It was sickening. Speaking of the Rodney King beating, I felt it was excessive, but not necessarily racism, and I argued it at the time until I was blue in the face. The riots that broke out were revolting, and I remember that our local congresswoman Maxine Waters claimed they were an "uprising" against an evil police force. That was an unforgiveable statement. The policemen who beat King received an eventual punishment much much worse than they deserved.Again, you have to take my word that these feelings were genuine, and that your opinion of me is not correct.

WTH are you talking about? Threads are created regularly that talk about situations involving cops. What you're really saying is you can't find any posts where you commend cops for their work. We know why. And it just proves what I asserted above about your agenda and motives.

If you're determined to believe that I am anti-police, then I suppose there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. So you go on believing you understand my motives.

 

[Parrothead]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25592.html

3 amigos get suds; she gets scorn

By: Roger Simon

July 30, 2009 04:31 AM EST

She will not get a beer with the boys. Lucia Whalen has not been invited to the White House.

The three amigos — Henry Louis Gates Jr., James Crowley and Barack Obama — will throw back some cold ones on the South Lawn on Thursday as the whole world watches this “teachable moment” on race in America.

And they deserve a drink. They have been through so much! How they have suffered!

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Instead, she has been reviled. She has been scorned. She was pilloried in the mainstream media and abused in the blogosphere. “Whites like Lucia have bigotry programmed into them,” one Cambridge blogger wrote. “Her description of the two black males is just so, so bigoted. Not only that, it could have led to people getting shot unnecessarily.”

Facts? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! And the truth is too slow! In this age of instant communication, we must publish conclusions first — no matter how hurtful or how dangerous — and then let the truth catch up.

In fact, Whalen did not describe “two black males” breaking into a house. She volunteered no racial description at all when she called. (When she was then asked by a police dispatcher to describe the two men, Whalen said “one looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure.”) Whalen didn’t even say the two men were trying to break into the house.

Here, from the actual 911 tape, is what she said: “I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key, but I did notice they had to use their shoulders to try to barge in.”

It was a proper call. It was the call of a good and responsible citizen. And the police showed up, which is what they are supposed to do.

After that, guys began behaving badly.

You can make a pretty good case that Gates, Crowley and Obama all acted hastily and regrettably. Gates, returning home with a head cold after a 20-hour flight from China, reacted angrily to being confronted in his own house by a police officer. Crowley overreacted by arresting Gates on a bogus disorderly conduct charge. And Obama, who had the most time to think about his actions and is, after all, the president of the United States, admitted he lacked all the facts but, nonetheless, publicly accused the Cambridge police of acting “stupidly.”

So who is the one person who acted properly in all of this? Lucia Whalen.

Her reward? “People called me racist and said I caused all the turmoil that flowed, and some even said threatening things that made me fear for my safety,” Whalen said Wednesday.

Whalen said she “tried to be careful and honest” with her wording when she called 911.

But some say she should not have called at all. Some say she should have shut up and saved herself the headache and heartache that followed. This is what a smart person would have done.

But Whalen decided to be a good citizen and not a smart one.

Wednesday, she was asked if she would make the call again today.

“I have had much reflection on that,” Whalen said, “and, yes, I would make the call.”

That is a teachable moment.

And somebody owes her a beer.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

The real story here is sexism on the part of Obama and the media.

maybe she prefers Zima? Personally, I'd pass on the 'beer summit'..

 

[timschochet]

You are going to go down swinging on this. Whether the lawful order, if there was one, and again, I admit tht it is possible the Sgt, for whatever reason, ignored his training and did not phrase it correctly which would in fact make it difficult or impossible to enforce, was to come out and identify himself or to identify himself you don'tbelieve we can take Gates self reported initial reaction of denial at face value. The guy has by the time we get to your quote had time to calm down, speak to his attorney, and to become the hero of his own self serving narrative, which is what we all do in life. Still, there is a direct statement of noncoopertion.The reason this is a point with me is regardlesss of the color combinations of Cop and suspect, and regardless of whose neighborhood these things happen in, the law and the procedure have to apply more or less across the board. I can tell yo that there is no question but as a legal matter that officers, in an exigent circumstance or with potential felonies unfolding in their prescence do have a right to issue orders with which one has to cooperate so long asw those orders are related to resolving the situation and are not patently unlawful.Presume this was a real break in, with armed burglers who in addition to home invasions liked to dabble in rape. Presume also that all suspects will, being in the act of committing felonies, also be willing to lie to cops about their I.D. and their right to be where they are. The law and the procedure has to apply.Gates refusal was a crime. You keep wanting to rush forward to "yeah but shortly thereafter things were fine so it must not have been a crime", but we are not yet to the next moment. See officers don't know whats coming next. I just want you to admit the simple point that at least to this precise point in time the officer is by the book and Gates is the bad guy. Come on, you can do it. I'll help, just as I have in my other postings I am going to admit that I don't believe the crime should be charged, that I don't like the officer having choosen instead to charge disturbing the peace as these statutes are always problematic and perhaps the subject of more challenges constitutionally than any statutues but anti-loitering ones. You will get from me a fair chance to make some pioints and I will concede them, but for now, won't you concede the one point?

Tell you what, DW, now that it appears to me that Gates was either deliberately lying or at best simply wrong about what happened (I suppose its possible he didn't remember yelling; seems unlikely though) I am a whole lot closer to accepting Crowley's story in it's entirety, as I stated above.So to answer your question: yes, I do concede the point: if Gates was asked for his ID and if he hesitated or refused, he broke the law. That makes sense. If Gates was initially asked to come outside, as he relates, and he refused, but handed over his ID when asked, I'm not sure that is against the law. I don't think it is, but you may have a different opinion. So it depends really, IMO, on whom you believe. At this point, I no longer believe Gates.Fair enough?

 

[timschochet]

This woman Whalen appears to be the biggest victim in this entire affair. She attempted to do her duty as a citizen. She avoided using racial descriptions. Yet the media reported that she did, and I don't know where they got this from. The police? In any event, if it's not true, it's very irresponsible journalism. Whalen's reward was criticism in the press followed by death threats. She remains fearful. What a terrible thing!

One point to add about Whalen- she should have been able to say, "two Black men" without criticism. The fact that she was hesitant to do so could have hampered the police in the event a real crime was occuring. It is not racial profiling to tell the police the skin color of a suspect, IMO.

 

[Gigantomachia]

This woman Whalen appears to be the biggest victim in this entire affair. She attempted to do her duty as a citizen. She avoided using racial descriptions. Yet the media reported that she did, and I don't know where they got this from. The police? In any event, if it's not true, it's very irresponsible journalism. Whalen's reward was criticism in the press followed by death threats. She remains fearful. What a terrible thing!One point to add about Whalen- she should have been able to say, "two Black men" without criticism. The fact that she was hesitant to do so could have hampered the police in the event a real crime was occuring. It is not racial profiling to tell the police the skin color of a suspect, IMO.

That's what she gets for being a narc, IMO.If she had minded her own business none of this would have happened. Just saying.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You are going to go down swinging on this. Whether the lawful order, if there was one, and again, I admit tht it is possible the Sgt, for whatever reason, ignored his training and did not phrase it correctly which would in fact make it difficult or impossible to enforce, was to come out and identify himself or to identify himself you don'tbelieve we can take Gates self reported initial reaction of denial at face value. The guy has by the time we get to your quote had time to calm down, speak to his attorney, and to become the hero of his own self serving narrative, which is what we all do in life. Still, there is a direct statement of noncoopertion.The reason this is a point with me is regardlesss of the color combinations of Cop and suspect, and regardless of whose neighborhood these things happen in, the law and the procedure have to apply more or less across the board. I can tell yo that there is no question but as a legal matter that officers, in an exigent circumstance or with potential felonies unfolding in their prescence do have a right to issue orders with which one has to cooperate so long asw those orders are related to resolving the situation and are not patently unlawful.Presume this was a real break in, with armed burglers who in addition to home invasions liked to dabble in rape. Presume also that all suspects will, being in the act of committing felonies, also be willing to lie to cops about their I.D. and their right to be where they are. The law and the procedure has to apply.Gates refusal was a crime. You keep wanting to rush forward to "yeah but shortly thereafter things were fine so it must not have been a crime", but we are not yet to the next moment. See officers don't know whats coming next. I just want you to admit the simple point that at least to this precise point in time the officer is by the book and Gates is the bad guy. Come on, you can do it. I'll help, just as I have in my other postings I am going to admit that I don't believe the crime should be charged, that I don't like the officer having choosen instead to charge disturbing the peace as these statutes are always problematic and perhaps the subject of more challenges constitutionally than any statutues but anti-loitering ones. You will get from me a fair chance to make some pioints and I will concede them, but for now, won't you concede the one point?

Tell you what, DW, now that it appears to me that Gates was either deliberately lying or at best simply wrong about what happened (I suppose its possible he didn't remember yelling; seems unlikely though) I am a whole lot closer to accepting Crowley's story in it's entirety, as I stated above.So to answer your question: yes, I do concede the point: if Gates was asked for his ID and if he hesitated or refused, he broke the law. That makes sense. If Gates was initially asked to come outside, as he relates, and he refused, but handed over his ID when asked, I'm not sure that is against the law. I don't think it is, but you may have a different opinion. So it depends really, IMO, on whom you believe. At this point, I no longer believe Gates.Fair enough?

Fair enough, up until this exact point in the story the officer is doing exactly as he should.Now, I will state that officers encounter technivcal crimes all of the time, but given the very brief nature of them, the stress and cunfusion humans have in processing information, that most prosecutors and judges are extremely reluctant to follow through on such, and one is certainly inviting a jury to nullify if the refusal was for mere seconds of time.The officer was correct to not charge the situation.After, Gates apparently became abusive along with assertive of his rights. I don't believe he was asserting his rights based upon any objective view that the officer was wrong, but upon his subjective view that race played a role. This of course doesn't matter as a legal point. Legally he can question the officer or be abusive so long as he is not also threatening or inciting. From this point forward Gates may have failed the good citizenship test but I do not believe his behavior rose to the level of disturbing the peace. (As a constitutionalist I ,of course, object to Cops using the force of their office to impose Good citizenship. The praqctice of some officers to in effect charge contempt of Cop is more than merely troubling, it flies in the face of the rule of law.) Of course I have always had constitutional beefs with disturbing ordinances even while in the past called upon to enforce them.The thing is this, I cannot defend Gates behaior even while condeming the officer's. what we get by Gates legal overreaction is reinforcement of a self fueling reinforcing loop. by screaming racist the issue is raised. having been raised others question whether it might be so and then they thenmselves have an example that it continues and they then factor that into their behavior. Breaking this cycle takes trust and effort and I would hope a leader, an opinion maker would appreciate that and do something about it.In the end we have an example of real animous that could be addressed when we have an officer referring to Gates in very ignorant and derogatory terms. That is a story. we have the president jumping to conclusions, that is a story. I just don't feel that Gates as a hero of the civil rights movement is a story. he is a putz, at lest he was in this one situation and in the immediate aftermath. I concede, however, that the sum of a man cannot be surmized from one unusual and stressful situation so I should temper my criticism carefully to only the handling of this specific situation.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This woman Whalen appears to be the biggest victim in this entire affair. She attempted to do her duty as a citizen. She avoided using racial descriptions. Yet the media reported that she did, and I don't know where they got this from. The police? In any event, if it's not true, it's very irresponsible journalism. Whalen's reward was criticism in the press followed by death threats. She remains fearful. What a terrible thing!One point to add about Whalen- she should have been able to say, "two Black men" without criticism. The fact that she was hesitant to do so could have hampered the police in the event a real crime was occuring. It is not racial profiling to tell the police the skin color of a suspect, IMO.

That's what she gets for being a narc, IMO.If she had minded her own business none of this would have happened. Just saying.

Ah, I sometimes too enjoy throwing a cat into a roomful of dogs.

 

[Gigantomachia]

This woman Whalen appears to be the biggest victim in this entire affair. She attempted to do her duty as a citizen. She avoided using racial descriptions. Yet the media reported that she did, and I don't know where they got this from. The police? In any event, if it's not true, it's very irresponsible journalism. Whalen's reward was criticism in the press followed by death threats. She remains fearful. What a terrible thing!One point to add about Whalen- she should have been able to say, "two Black men" without criticism. The fact that she was hesitant to do so could have hampered the police in the event a real crime was occuring. It is not racial profiling to tell the police the skin color of a suspect, IMO.

That's what she gets for being a narc, IMO.If she had minded her own business none of this would have happened. Just saying.

Ah, I sometimes too enjoy throwing a cat into a roomful of dogs.

You got it backwards. Try throwing a dog into a roomful of cats.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This woman Whalen appears to be the biggest victim in this entire affair. She attempted to do her duty as a citizen. She avoided using racial descriptions. Yet the media reported that she did, and I don't know where they got this from. The police? In any event, if it's not true, it's very irresponsible journalism. Whalen's reward was criticism in the press followed by death threats. She remains fearful. What a terrible thing!One point to add about Whalen- she should have been able to say, "two Black men" without criticism. The fact that she was hesitant to do so could have hampered the police in the event a real crime was occuring. It is not racial profiling to tell the police the skin color of a suspect, IMO.

That's what she gets for being a narc, IMO.If she had minded her own business none of this would have happened. Just saying.

Ah, I sometimes too enjoy throwing a cat into a roomful of dogs.

You got it backwards. Try throwing a dog into a roomful of cats.

The very next opportunity I get.

 

[The Z Machine]

Man, no comments on my praise for mixed-heritage women? I thought we could all agree on that at the minimum.

 

[Dexter Manley]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25592.html

3 amigos get suds; she gets scorn

By: Roger Simon

July 30, 2009 04:31 AM EST

She will not get a beer with the boys. Lucia Whalen has not been invited to the White House.

The three amigos — Henry Louis Gates Jr., James Crowley and Barack Obama — will throw back some cold ones on the South Lawn on Thursday as the whole world watches this “teachable moment” on race in America.

And they deserve a drink. They have been through so much! How they have suffered!

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Instead, she has been reviled. She has been scorned. She was pilloried in the mainstream media and abused in the blogosphere. “Whites like Lucia have bigotry programmed into them,” one Cambridge blogger wrote. “Her description of the two black males is just so, so bigoted. Not only that, it could have led to people getting shot unnecessarily.”

Facts? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! And the truth is too slow! In this age of instant communication, we must publish conclusions first — no matter how hurtful or how dangerous — and then let the truth catch up.

In fact, Whalen did not describe “two black males” breaking into a house. She volunteered no racial description at all when she called. (When she was then asked by a police dispatcher to describe the two men, Whalen said “one looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure.”) Whalen didn’t even say the two men were trying to break into the house.

Here, from the actual 911 tape, is what she said: “I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key, but I did notice they had to use their shoulders to try to barge in.”

It was a proper call. It was the call of a good and responsible citizen. And the police showed up, which is what they are supposed to do.

After that, guys began behaving badly.

You can make a pretty good case that Gates, Crowley and Obama all acted hastily and regrettably. Gates, returning home with a head cold after a 20-hour flight from China, reacted angrily to being confronted in his own house by a police officer. Crowley overreacted by arresting Gates on a bogus disorderly conduct charge. And Obama, who had the most time to think about his actions and is, after all, the president of the United States, admitted he lacked all the facts but, nonetheless, publicly accused the Cambridge police of acting “stupidly.”

So who is the one person who acted properly in all of this? Lucia Whalen.

Her reward? “People called me racist and said I caused all the turmoil that flowed, and some even said threatening things that made me fear for my safety,” Whalen said Wednesday.

Whalen said she “tried to be careful and honest” with her wording when she called 911.

But some say she should not have called at all. Some say she should have shut up and saved herself the headache and heartache that followed. This is what a smart person would have done.

But Whalen decided to be a good citizen and not a smart one.

Wednesday, she was asked if she would make the call again today.

“I have had much reflection on that,” Whalen said, “and, yes, I would make the call.”

That is a teachable moment.

And somebody owes her a beer.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

The real story here is sexism on the part of Obama and the media.

maybe she prefers Zima? Personally, I'd pass on the 'beer summit'..

Yea, right."No thanks. I've got much better and more interesting things to do than have a beer with the President in the White House. I respectfully decline the invitation"

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Man, no comments on my praise for mixed-heritage women? I thought we could all agree on that at the minimum.

 

[Parrothead]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25592.html

3 amigos get suds; she gets scorn

By: Roger Simon

July 30, 2009 04:31 AM EST

She will not get a beer with the boys. Lucia Whalen has not been invited to the White House.

The three amigos — Henry Louis Gates Jr., James Crowley and Barack Obama — will throw back some cold ones on the South Lawn on Thursday as the whole world watches this “teachable moment” on race in America.

And they deserve a drink. They have been through so much! How they have suffered!

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Instead, she has been reviled. She has been scorned. She was pilloried in the mainstream media and abused in the blogosphere. “Whites like Lucia have bigotry programmed into them,” one Cambridge blogger wrote. “Her description of the two black males is just so, so bigoted. Not only that, it could have led to people getting shot unnecessarily.”

Facts? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! And the truth is too slow! In this age of instant communication, we must publish conclusions first — no matter how hurtful or how dangerous — and then let the truth catch up.

In fact, Whalen did not describe “two black males” breaking into a house. She volunteered no racial description at all when she called. (When she was then asked by a police dispatcher to describe the two men, Whalen said “one looked kind of Hispanic, but I’m not really sure.”) Whalen didn’t even say the two men were trying to break into the house.

Here, from the actual 911 tape, is what she said: “I don’t know what’s happening. I don’t know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key, but I did notice they had to use their shoulders to try to barge in.”

It was a proper call. It was the call of a good and responsible citizen. And the police showed up, which is what they are supposed to do.

After that, guys began behaving badly.

You can make a pretty good case that Gates, Crowley and Obama all acted hastily and regrettably. Gates, returning home with a head cold after a 20-hour flight from China, reacted angrily to being confronted in his own house by a police officer. Crowley overreacted by arresting Gates on a bogus disorderly conduct charge. And Obama, who had the most time to think about his actions and is, after all, the president of the United States, admitted he lacked all the facts but, nonetheless, publicly accused the Cambridge police of acting “stupidly.”

So who is the one person who acted properly in all of this? Lucia Whalen.

Her reward? “People called me racist and said I caused all the turmoil that flowed, and some even said threatening things that made me fear for my safety,” Whalen said Wednesday.

Whalen said she “tried to be careful and honest” with her wording when she called 911.

But some say she should not have called at all. Some say she should have shut up and saved herself the headache and heartache that followed. This is what a smart person would have done.

But Whalen decided to be a good citizen and not a smart one.

Wednesday, she was asked if she would make the call again today.

“I have had much reflection on that,” Whalen said, “and, yes, I would make the call.”

That is a teachable moment.

And somebody owes her a beer.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

The real story here is sexism on the part of Obama and the media.

maybe she prefers Zima? Personally, I'd pass on the 'beer summit'..

Yea, right."No thanks. I've got much better and more interesting things to do than have a beer with the President in the White House. I respectfully decline the invitation"

meh.. not interested

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Man, no comments on my praise for mixed-heritage women? I thought we could all agree on that at the minimum.

Always had a thing. Often the more ingrediants in the stew the better.

 

[Orange Crush]

Are we going to have a new crime spree across the country, where people decide to tempt more "contempt of cop" charges?

Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest

A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting "I hate the police" near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C.

Pepin Tuma, 33, was walking with two friends along Washington's hip U Street corridor around midnight Saturday, complaining about how Gates had been rousted from his home for not showing a proper amount of deference to a cop. "We'd been talking about it all day," said Tuma. "It seems like police have a tendency to act overly aggressively when they're being pushed around," Tuma recalled saying.

Then the group noticed five or six police cruisers surrounding two cars in an apparent traffic stop on the other side of the street. It seemed to Tuma that was more cops than necessary.

"That's why I hate the police," Tuma said. He told the Huffington Post that in a loud sing-song voice, he then chanted, "I hate the police, I hate the police."

One officer reacted strongly to Tuma's song. "Hey! Hey! Who do you think you're talking to?" Tuma recalled the officer shouting as he strode across an intersection to where Tuma was standing. "Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?" the police officer said, according to Luke Platzer, 30, one of Tuma's companions.

Tuma said he responded, "It is not illegal to say I hate the police. It's not illegal to express my opinion walking down the street."

According to Tuma and Platzer, the officer pushed Tuma against an electric utility box, continuing to ask who he thought he was and to say he couldn't talk to police like that.

"I didn't curse," Tuma said. "I asked, am I being arrested? Why am I a being arrested?"

Within minutes, the officer had cuffed Tuma. The charge: disorderly conduct -- just like Gates, who was arrested after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his home and Gates protested their ensuing behavior.

D.C.'s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything "in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others" or by shouting or making noise "either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons."

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has said that the city's disorderly conduct law is "confusing, overbroad, frequently used by police to harass disfavored individuals" and that it "violates constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and petition."

Tuma spent a few hours in a holding cell and was released early Sunday morning after forfeiting $35 in collateral to the police, he said. A "post and forfeit" is not an admission of guilt, and Tuma doesn't have a court date -- but the arrest will pop up if an employer does a background check.

Tuma filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Police Complaints, alleging a lack of probable cause, a false arrest, and that the officer used harassing and demeaning language -- Tuma alleges the officer called him a "######." Tuma has retained a lawyer. He might sue if he's not satisfied after a meeting with the complaint office on Thursday.

"I have an actionable claim," he said.

So how many is a "considerable" number of persons? Does the number change if one of the persons is a police officer? Maybe a police officer is just allowed to assume that everyone within a hundred yards is automatically annoyed by the thing that is annoying him and can thus make that inference be the reason for making the arrest?

 

[Pat Patriot]

Are we going to have a new crime spree across the country, where people decide to tempt more "contempt of cop" charges?

Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest

A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting "I hate the police" near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C.

Pepin Tuma, 33, was walking with two friends along Washington's hip U Street corridor around midnight Saturday, complaining about how Gates had been rousted from his home for not showing a proper amount of deference to a cop. "We'd been talking about it all day," said Tuma. "It seems like police have a tendency to act overly aggressively when they're being pushed around," Tuma recalled saying.

Then the group noticed five or six police cruisers surrounding two cars in an apparent traffic stop on the other side of the street. It seemed to Tuma that was more cops than necessary.

"That's why I hate the police," Tuma said. He told the Huffington Post that in a loud sing-song voice, he then chanted, "I hate the police, I hate the police."

One officer reacted strongly to Tuma's song. "Hey! Hey! Who do you think you're talking to?" Tuma recalled the officer shouting as he strode across an intersection to where Tuma was standing. "Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?" the police officer said, according to Luke Platzer, 30, one of Tuma's companions.

Tuma said he responded, "It is not illegal to say I hate the police. It's not illegal to express my opinion walking down the street."

According to Tuma and Platzer, the officer pushed Tuma against an electric utility box, continuing to ask who he thought he was and to say he couldn't talk to police like that.

"I didn't curse," Tuma said. "I asked, am I being arrested? Why am I a being arrested?"

Within minutes, the officer had cuffed Tuma. The charge: disorderly conduct -- just like Gates, who was arrested after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his home and Gates protested their ensuing behavior.

D.C.'s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything "in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others" or by shouting or making noise "either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons."

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has said that the city's disorderly conduct law is "confusing, overbroad, frequently used by police to harass disfavored individuals" and that it "violates constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and petition."

Tuma spent a few hours in a holding cell and was released early Sunday morning after forfeiting $35 in collateral to the police, he said. A "post and forfeit" is not an admission of guilt, and Tuma doesn't have a court date -- but the arrest will pop up if an employer does a background check.

Tuma filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Police Complaints, alleging a lack of probable cause, a false arrest, and that the officer used harassing and demeaning language -- Tuma alleges the officer called him a "######." Tuma has retained a lawyer. He might sue if he's not satisfied after a meeting with the complaint office on Thursday.

"I have an actionable claim," he said.

So how many is a "considerable" number of persons? Does the number change if one of the persons is a police officer? Maybe a police officer is just allowed to assume that everyone within a hundred yards is automatically annoyed by the thing that is annoying him and can thus make that inference be the reason for making the arrest?

Poke a waspnest with a stick and get what you deserve. Obama would probably say that Tuma acted stupidly. Evidently the teaching moment hasnt taught very many people much.

 

[Da Guru]

Are we going to have a new crime spree across the country, where people decide to tempt more "contempt of cop" charges?

Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest

A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting "I hate the police" near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C.

Pepin Tuma, 33, was walking with two friends along Washington's hip U Street corridor around midnight Saturday, complaining about how Gates had been rousted from his home for not showing a proper amount of deference to a cop. "We'd been talking about it all day," said Tuma. "It seems like police have a tendency to act overly aggressively when they're being pushed around," Tuma recalled saying.

Then the group noticed five or six police cruisers surrounding two cars in an apparent traffic stop on the other side of the street. It seemed to Tuma that was more cops than necessary.

"That's why I hate the police," Tuma said. He told the Huffington Post that in a loud sing-song voice, he then chanted, "I hate the police, I hate the police."

One officer reacted strongly to Tuma's song. "Hey! Hey! Who do you think you're talking to?" Tuma recalled the officer shouting as he strode across an intersection to where Tuma was standing. "Who do you think you are to think you can talk to a police officer like that?" the police officer said, according to Luke Platzer, 30, one of Tuma's companions.

Tuma said he responded, "It is not illegal to say I hate the police. It's not illegal to express my opinion walking down the street."

According to Tuma and Platzer, the officer pushed Tuma against an electric utility box, continuing to ask who he thought he was and to say he couldn't talk to police like that.

"I didn't curse," Tuma said. "I asked, am I being arrested? Why am I a being arrested?"

Within minutes, the officer had cuffed Tuma. The charge: disorderly conduct -- just like Gates, who was arrested after police responded to a report of a possible break-in at his home and Gates protested their ensuing behavior.

D.C.'s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything "in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others" or by shouting or making noise "either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons."

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has said that the city's disorderly conduct law is "confusing, overbroad, frequently used by police to harass disfavored individuals" and that it "violates constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and petition."

Tuma spent a few hours in a holding cell and was released early Sunday morning after forfeiting $35 in collateral to the police, he said. A "post and forfeit" is not an admission of guilt, and Tuma doesn't have a court date -- but the arrest will pop up if an employer does a background check.

Tuma filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Police Complaints, alleging a lack of probable cause, a false arrest, and that the officer used harassing and demeaning language -- Tuma alleges the officer called him a "######." Tuma has retained a lawyer. He might sue if he's not satisfied after a meeting with the complaint office on Thursday.

"I have an actionable claim," he said.

So how many is a "considerable" number of persons? Does the number change if one of the persons is a police officer? Maybe a police officer is just allowed to assume that everyone within a hundred yards is automatically annoyed by the thing that is annoying him and can thus make that inference be the reason for making the arrest?

Poke a waspnest with a stick and get what you deserve. Obama would probably say that Tuma acted stupidly. Evidently the teaching moment hasnt taught very many people much.

People hate the police until they need them.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Disturbing lack of respect for the 1st Amendment in here.

 

[Witz]

TexasFan02, I am greatly in debt to you.

According to the article you posted:

Bill Carter, the man who snapped a photograph of Gates being led away in handcuffs, said police officers were calm and that Gates was "slightly out of control" and "agitated" when he was arrested.

"The officers around kind of calmed him down," Carter said. "I heard him yelling -- Mr. Gates yelling. I didn't hear anything that he was saying so I couldn't say that he was belligerent."

The important part is the bolded part. This coming from an independent witness, causes me to believe:

1. Gates indeed must have lied about not being able to yell.

2. If Gates lied about not being able to yell, then we have to assume that every aspect of his story is suspect. In terms of his story which contradicts the police officer, he has no credibility.

3. This does not logically lead to a conclusion that Crowley's version was entirely truthful. Yet, there is no reason not to believe it, at this point.

These are my new conclusions, based upon Texas02's linking me to an article which I had not read before. Pat Patriot also appears to be correct in his recollection of events. Is there any reason I should not now conclude as I do?

Nah. You've given enough time to this thread. Even Gates has said he wants to move on. I think the FFA should too. And credit whoever posted the link, I just commented on it.

Just here to help.

 

[DrJ]

More racial profiling

 

[djmich]

More racial profiling

 

[Parrothead]

More racial profiling

you mean he actually cooperated with the police?? Unpossible..

 

[johnnycakes]

More racial profiling

Racial? What were the cops, anti-semites? No, this is a sad statement on how the Z-Generation, or whatever it is we're up to now, has no cultural sophistication whatsoever. We had an intern from this generation working for us over the summer. She had never seen Revenge of the Nerds and didn't even know who Cheech and Chong were. No surprise this cop didn't know who Bob freakin' Dylan was. And Dylan apparently used his stage name, too... I might have given the cops the benefit of the doubt if he had identified himself as Robert Zimmerman.

 

[The Big Guy]

More racial profiling

Racial? What were the cops, anti-semites? No, this is a sad statement on how the Z-Generation, or whatever it is we're up to now, has no cultural sophistication whatsoever. We had an intern from this generation working for us over the summer. She had never seen Revenge of the Nerds and didn't even know who Cheech and Chong were. No surprise this cop didn't know who Bob freakin' Dylan was. And Dylan apparently used his stage name, too... I might have given the cops the benefit of the doubt if he had identified himself as Robert Zimmerman.

It could easily be considered racial profiling, as he was just a white guy walking down the street in a mnority neighborhood. I know that area well and the neighborhood in question is mostly hispanic. So someone called the cops on an old white guy, walking down the street looking at the 100 year old houses and bungalows in the neighborhood. Should someone start a thread and call it "Walking While White"?