Obama - Page 6

Strangler Lewis · 07-24-2009, 11:12 AM

Yelling at a policeman is always stupid as a practical matter. However, the officer clearly behaved stupidly. Even if there was a technical basis for charging disorderly conduct, you can't tell me that every time a Harvard party gets a little loud, everybody gets arrested. Police officers have discretion in this matter. When Gates showed him his ID, he should have said, "Thank you, sir, just doing our duty, sorry for the misunderstanding." Then, if Gates still was upset and followed him out, he should have gotten into his car and left. Assuming that the officer is not a congenital asshole, one must suspect that he was following some sort of departmental policy to cure any mistake-and potential liability-by finding grounds to arrest the angry citizen.

scaeagles · 07-24-2009, 11:34 AM

While not a crime, I suppose, I think it is OK to yell at an officer, but to tell the officer that he'll "talk with his mama outside" and shout "this is what happens to black men in America" isn't just showing a lack of "proper groveling obeisance", it's being...stupid. I believe the officer did plenty to try to diffuse the situation and that Gates clearly wanted a confrontation. Again, that's not a crime, but everything I've read seems to point to the officer acting in a completely rational and controlled fashion, and Gates was completely the opposite.

Alex · 07-24-2009, 11:39 AM

Except that if you arrest people when no crime has been committed, you are...at a minimum, acting stupidly. Police don't get to arrest people just because they're annoyed by them.

The fact that he arrested someone you agree appears to have not been committing any crime or giving the officer reason to expect that he was committing a crime would suggest that while he wasn't ranting and raving, he was hardly acting in a completely rational and controlled manner.

innerSpaceman · 07-24-2009, 12:06 PM

Well, again, this is all detail I'm learning for the first time now - in this thread, in fact.

Two days ago, Obama very clearly said he did not know all the facts, but his initial reaction was based on what was reported so far was that the officer's actions were stupid.

Claiming they weren't so stupid based on later-known facts is 20/20 hindsight.

As for him not giving grist to the mill of media to ignore his health care stuff in favor of somethign juicy ... I suppose he could have flat-out refused to answer any non-healthcare questions. But after all the semi-ducking he did to other questions (not egregiously, just that queasy stay-on-message stuff), I was glad he answered this one directly and apparently with a little too much honesty.

scaeagles · 07-24-2009, 12:12 PM

I would suppose disorderly conduct is a judgement call on behalf of the officer. I guess I cannot say if a man acting like a lunatic screaming on his porch and refusing to quiet down when asked is disorderly conduct or not. One thing I haven't heard anyone who was on scene say, however, is that the arrest on disorderly was completely unjustified, and there were non-police people on scene. It is true that the charges were immediately dropped, but I do not know how frequently disorderly conduct charges are dropped post arrest on average.

innerSpaceman · 07-24-2009, 12:33 PM

I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this.

flippyshark · 07-24-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this.

Indeed. Especially now that Obama has phoned up the offended officer and offered to buy him a beer. Even at worst, this was a very minor faux-pas. The president spoke slightly out of turn because, by his own admission, he didn't have the facts. I agree it puts a dab of egg on his face, but big deal.

I for one am really hoping that Leo's upcoming rant is all about the birth certificate. (I kid because I love, Leo.)

Gemini Cricket · 07-24-2009, 12:44 PM

I think the charges were dropped because they were concerned about it turning into a firestorm in the media (Harvard professor and all, it is Cambridge, MA after all, there ain't much else in Cambridge except Harvard). Well, it did any way. But Gates turned it into a free for all by declaring it to be a race issue.

I think the officer acted appropriately. I think the Harvard professor wanted special treatment because he was a Harvard professor. What Gates should be concerned about is how he was racially profiled by his neighbors who called the cops.

I don't think Jim Crowley (Jesus, what a coincidence of a name, huh? JIM CROWley) should apologize. There is no evidence in his past that Crowley let racism taint his judgment in the past. He was called because someone was breaking into a house, which Gates was. Yes, it was his own house but he was breaking in nonetheless, what else is someone observing supposed to assume? Gates became unruly and disorderly, Crowley tried to explain but Gates wanted special treatment as a Harvard professor and didn't get it. Was Crowley just supposed to walk away and have this man continue disturbing the peace? Nope. The cop usually sticks around until the situation is resolved and everything calms down.

I think African Americans are unjustly targeted by some police officers in this country. I don't feel that that happened in this case.

Chernabog · 07-24-2009, 01:10 PM

I'm siding with the cop on this one.

When the President of the United States calls you stupid, based on facts that he does not have, is... well, stupid. The fact that the President of the United States does not understand why calling someone stupid (to the media, no less) is offensive, is... well, stupid. Especially when he knew the question was coming and had time to prepare his canned response. This was not an off-the-cuff exchange.

I was listening to a radio show this morning where people were outright nasty and vicious towards one of the hosts for even SUGGESTING that there was another side of the story than the Harvard Prof.'s.

The cops were investigating a break-in, to a place that had been broken into before. The Prof goes completely ballistic on them, and HE'S the one that first suggested this was race-based. I think it is patently unfair that this cop is now demonized as a racist and a bigot when this does not seem race-based as the actual facts come out.

Gemini Cricket · 07-24-2009, 01:18 PM

Obama just pulled one of his "I talked to them personally and now everything's okay" stunts. He personally called Crowley.
Source

He did this to try and placate the GLBT community too. Like those gay rights advocates who keep coming out of the White House saying, 'Oh, I talked to the president and everything will be fine'. All this without anyone really knowing what he said or if he will actually do anything about the problem...

07-24-2009, 11:12 AM	#51
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	Yelling at a policeman is always stupid as a practical matter. However, the officer clearly behaved stupidly. Even if there was a technical basis for charging disorderly conduct, you can't tell me that every time a Harvard party gets a little loud, everybody gets arrested. Police officers have discretion in this matter. When Gates showed him his ID, he should have said, "Thank you, sir, just doing our duty, sorry for the misunderstanding." Then, if Gates still was upset and followed him out, he should have gotten into his car and left. Assuming that the officer is not a congenital asshole, one must suspect that he was following some sort of departmental policy to cure any mistake-and potential liability-by finding grounds to arrest the angry citizen. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 11:34 AM	#52
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	While not a crime, I suppose, I think it is OK to yell at an officer, but to tell the officer that he'll "talk with his mama outside" and shout "this is what happens to black men in America" isn't just showing a lack of "proper groveling obeisance", it's being...stupid. I believe the officer did plenty to try to diffuse the situation and that Gates clearly wanted a confrontation. Again, that's not a crime, but everything I've read seems to point to the officer acting in a completely rational and controlled fashion, and Gates was completely the opposite.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 11:39 AM	#53
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Except that if you arrest people when no crime has been committed, you are...at a minimum, acting stupidly. Police don't get to arrest people just because they're annoyed by them. The fact that he arrested someone you agree appears to have not been committing any crime or giving the officer reason to expect that he was committing a crime would suggest that while he wasn't ranting and raving, he was hardly acting in a completely rational and controlled manner.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 12:06 PM	#54
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, again, this is all detail I'm learning for the first time now - in this thread, in fact. Two days ago, Obama very clearly said he did not know all the facts, but his initial reaction was based on what was reported so far was that the officer's actions were stupid. Claiming they weren't so stupid based on later-known facts is 20/20 hindsight. As for him not giving grist to the mill of media to ignore his health care stuff in favor of somethign juicy ... I suppose he could have flat-out refused to answer any non-healthcare questions. But after all the semi-ducking he did to other questions (not egregiously, just that queasy stay-on-message stuff), I was glad he answered this one directly and apparently with a little too much honesty.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 12:12 PM	#55
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I would suppose disorderly conduct is a judgement call on behalf of the officer. I guess I cannot say if a man acting like a lunatic screaming on his porch and refusing to quiet down when asked is disorderly conduct or not. One thing I haven't heard anyone who was on scene say, however, is that the arrest on disorderly was completely unjustified, and there were non-police people on scene. It is true that the charges were immediately dropped, but I do not know how frequently disorderly conduct charges are dropped post arrest on average.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 12:33 PM	#56
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 12:44 PM	#58
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I think the charges were dropped because they were concerned about it turning into a firestorm in the media (Harvard professor and all, it is Cambridge, MA after all, there ain't much else in Cambridge except Harvard). Well, it did any way. But Gates turned it into a free for all by declaring it to be a race issue. I think the officer acted appropriately. I think the Harvard professor wanted special treatment because he was a Harvard professor. What Gates should be concerned about is how he was racially profiled by his neighbors who called the cops. I don't think Jim Crowley (Jesus, what a coincidence of a name, huh? JIM CROWley) should apologize. There is no evidence in his past that Crowley let racism taint his judgment in the past. He was called because someone was breaking into a house, which Gates was. Yes, it was his own house but he was breaking in nonetheless, what else is someone observing supposed to assume? Gates became unruly and disorderly, Crowley tried to explain but Gates wanted special treatment as a Harvard professor and didn't get it. Was Crowley just supposed to walk away and have this man continue disturbing the peace? Nope. The cop usually sticks around until the situation is resolved and everything calms down. I think African Americans are unjustly targeted by some police officers in this country. I don't feel that that happened in this case.
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 01:10 PM	#59
Chernabog Biophage Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Moon Posts: 2,679	I'm siding with the cop on this one. When the President of the United States calls you stupid, based on facts that he does not have, is... well, stupid. The fact that the President of the United States does not understand why calling someone stupid (to the media, no less) is offensive, is... well, stupid. Especially when he knew the question was coming and had time to prepare his canned response. This was not an off-the-cuff exchange. I was listening to a radio show this morning where people were outright nasty and vicious towards one of the hosts for even SUGGESTING that there was another side of the story than the Harvard Prof.'s. The cops were investigating a break-in, to a place that had been broken into before. The Prof goes completely ballistic on them, and HE'S the one that first suggested this was race-based. I think it is patently unfair that this cop is now demonized as a racist and a bigot when this does not seem race-based as the actual facts come out. __________________ And they say back then our universe Was a coal black egg Until the god inside Burst out and from its shattered shell He made what became the world we know ~ Bjork (Cosmogony)
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2009, 01:18 PM	#60
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Obama just pulled one of his "I talked to them personally and now everything's okay" stunts. He personally called Crowley. Source He did this to try and placate the GLBT community too. Like those gay rights advocates who keep coming out of the White House saying, 'Oh, I talked to the president and everything will be fine'. All this without anyone really knowing what he said or if he will actually do anything about the problem...
	Submit to Quotes