18
   

Who Blew It? President Obama, Professor Gates or Sgt. Crowley

 
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
ok next
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Good grief, rampant envy.
Is this town versus gown?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:25 pm
@ossobuco,
class impacts behaviour....this should not be a novel concept for you.

But ya, all things considered I would rather be ruling class then middle class like I am. I also associate daily with working class folk and I sure as **** am glad that I am not a member of their class....

don't know more than a few poor folk, but I am sure that sucks too.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
I've spent time in most of the class layers, presently lower.
The whole whoopdedoo that some professor would get to live at a university house and therefore somehow not belong there is so much volumetric foofuraw.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:44 pm
@ossobuco,
I'll agree with you to the point that there is only a minority chance that Gate's legal status in that house precludes his right to claim ownership rights. My point is that those who claim that he had ownership rights must first prove it, given how murky his legal status in that house is.

Gates has the best of the best for a legal team, and still it took them days to get the charges dropped. There must be a reason.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't get that he doesn't belong there. Those who take him for not belonging there must prove it.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:22 pm
Next time you need to call the police.............

New Police Answering Machine
http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=0FD1BC69F8CB5380
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:29 pm
@TTH,
good catch...
0 Replies
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 01:26 am
@TTH,
Now that is really funny TTH. Thanks for lightning up the thread.
0 Replies
 
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 01:32 am
@hawkeye10,
I think you are reaching hawkeye.

I really wonder what you guys would do if this happened to you. Would you think that your civil rights were being violated?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:31 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I didn't look it up because it didn't matter to me or to my argument. I'm talking about absolute right and wrong, and not the law.

Brandon, you are not the arbiter of absolute right and wrong in this world. And I'm glad that you aren't. (Nothing personal -- I'm glad that no single person is.)

So, anyone who argues ethics on this message board is setting himself up as the arbiter of ethics in the world? Only the law may be discussed here? That strikes me as a very anti-democratic sentiment.


Of course not; but when we are discussing justification for police actions, the Law is the appropriate topic to discuss, not our opinions of what the law SHOULD be.

Cycloptichorn

These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 09:54 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.


'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 10:15 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.


'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

We've staked out our territory pretty clearly on this, and it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement. We should probably leave it at that. I could go on forever, and so could you, but to what end?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 10:25 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.


'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

We've staked out our territory pretty clearly on this, and it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement. We should probably leave it at that. I could go on forever, and so could you, but to what end?


Fortunately, the Law lies safely on my side of the argument; it is an arbiter between our different opinions. If you can't point to actions Gates took which violate the laws in question, then I don't think you have much of an argument that he should have been arrested.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 10:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
These discussions are not so rigidly limited. The subject I am discussing is the Gates arrest, and I insist on mentioning the fact that I think a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate under the circumstances which some accounts suggest may have occurred. There are two separate questions here. One is whether the arrest was justified under the letter of the law and the way it is usually interpreted. The other is whether such an arrest is reasonable, without regard to what the laws may happen to say now. I simply will not let my opponents win the argument by mandating that no discussion of the ethics of the sitation be allowed.


'Discussing the ethics' is immaterial; it's just you or I spouting off our opinion re: the behavior Gates engaged in.

Our opinions however are not relevant to the discussion; the Law and the rules governing the interaction between Gates and Crowley have nothing to do with and should have nothing to do with personal opinion. Laws are strictly defined for a reason.

What actions are you contending Gates undertook, which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him? I assert that he undertook no actions which lead to a reasonable case for arresting him, and certainly not for the crime he was arrested for.

Cycloptichorn

We've staked out our territory pretty clearly on this, and it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement. We should probably leave it at that. I could go on forever, and so could you, but to what end?


Fortunately, the Law lies safely on my side of the argument; it is an arbiter between our different opinions. If you can't point to actions Gates took which violate the laws in question, then I don't think you have much of an argument that he should have been arrested.

Cycloptichorn

Aside from issues of right and wrong and good and bad, Massachusetts' disorderly conduct law defines a "disorderly person" as one who:

1. with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
2. recklessly creates a risk thereof
3. engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
4. creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

It is covered in item 3 as tumultuous behavior.

A subject for future research would be to see if there are any federal or state laws about reasonable cooperation with the police.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 10:33 am
@Brandon9000,
Tumultuous - marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.

Which of his actions rose to this level of behavior?

None of them. I also believe that the 'disorderly conduct' law applies to public disturbances, and Gates was not in public in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 10:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tumultuous - marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.

Which of his actions rose to this level of behavior?

None of them. I also believe that the 'disorderly conduct' law applies to public disturbances, and Gates was not in public in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

If the courts can get a right to abortion out of the Constitution, which never once mentions abortion, birth, or reproduction, I think that I can assert that Gates behavior, at least as reported in some accounts, could be covered by the word "tumultuous."
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 03:36 pm
Gates recovers well, I have to give him that
Quote:
The woman who made the 911 call that led to Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates' controversial arrest wasn't present at the so-called beer summit. But she got a shot of kindness and a taste of gratitude from Gates himself.Lucia Whalen received a bouquet of flowers at her office from Gates, according to Whalen's attorney, Wendy Murphy."She described them as amazing, and appreciated them very much," Murphy said of the bouquet.The attorney described the flowers as being a beautiful assortment of what she believed were different colored roses.There was a note included from Gates, the details of which Murphy would not divulge. She said the note characterized Gates's "expression of gratitude" for Whalen's action.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/01/harvard.gates.flowers/index.html
Sglass
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 04:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Well it appears that Professor Gates is a real gentleman.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 04:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tumultuous - marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.

Which of his actions rose to this level of behavior?

None of them. I also believe that the 'disorderly conduct' law applies to public disturbances, and Gates was not in public in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

If the courts can get a right to abortion out of the Constitution, which never once mentions abortion, birth, or reproduction, I think that I can assert that Gates behavior, at least as reported in some accounts, could be covered by the word "tumultuous."


This is a non-sequitur. Your opinion of the SC's findings in Roe v. Wade is immaterial to the discussion we are having; you are basically feinting in another direction, b/c you know that the statute in question does not describe the behavior in question, and that said behavior took place in private, not in public. Instead of stating that, however, you are trying to salvage something of your argument by committing a Logical Fallacy. Not going to work.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 03:03:40