Obama '08?

@maporsche,

You're expanding on what really happened; Professor Gates did not "incite a riot."

How does anybody incite a riot from their porch? Please show us how that's done.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're expanding on what really happened; Professor Gates did not "incite a riot."

My charge is that Gates was inciting an situation that could put the officers in physical danger. In self protection the officer needed to end the situation before it got out of control and put him and his brothers in danger. There were four officers on the scene, and the crowd was eight and growing. How rapidly was the crowd forming?? We can't say if the cop was right that this threatened to get out of control, but in the lack of proof the cop should always win. The cop should always be assumed to be correct, unless we can prove that he was not, we owe at least that much support to be men and women in blue.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

"That could" is not even in the laws of any state or country. Your imagination needs to be toned down a bit.

0 Replies

The officers were far more effective at drawing a crowd than Gates. They escalated this situation.

All of this is besides the point. As Deb already posted, the MA law sides with Gates on this matter. Gates didn't incite a riot from his porch, so it is immaterial to discussion.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The officers were far more effective at drawing a crowd than Gates. They escalated this situation

Gates was the one doing the yelling, it was the yelling that got the attention of the forming crowd.

Deb has pointed out why this arrest was not likely to result in conviction, she has not given any evidence that this was a bad arrest, that the cop was wrong. Cops routinely make arrests not sure if the arrest will result in conviction, but make the arrest to maintain public order and safety. They also make arrests with no desire to convince to person arrested, but rather use the arrest as leverage to get at bigger fish. In the past cops made arrests in order to put a drunk in jail overnight to let him get sober enough that he would no longer be a threat to himself or others, with no intent to let the charges stand. An unlikely conviction does not equal bad arrest.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

to the powers that be:

The cutback on the minutes allowed to edit is highly annoying. Please revert back to the old formula.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk, Think for a moment if you can. Let's say Professor Gates was on his front porch alone and started to yell something. How do you conclude that will end up into a riot? Once the police arrived, it became a spectacle, because crowds will gather where police cars gather. People's curiosity is drawn when police cars are at any location - especially when there are more than one. Have you ever seen a car stopped by one police car? Not really a big deal. What happens when there are several police cars to stop one car? Curiosity jumps tenfold with rubberneckers and onlookers.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The officers were far more effective at drawing a crowd than Gates. They escalated this situation

Gates was the one doing the yelling, it was the yelling that got the attention of the forming crowd.

The presence of cop cars and for that matter reinforcements didn't draw a crowd? What report did you forget to read? Perhaps the crowd came when the cop was outside the house demanding in an assertive voice to come out.

Get your story straight.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Deb has pointed out why this arrest was not likely to result in conviction, she has not given any evidence that this was a bad arrest, that the cop was wrong.

You didn't read what Deb posted then. she posted what defines public disorder. That means directly that the cop was wrong.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Cops routinely make arrests not sure if the arrest will result in conviction, but make the arrest to maintain public order and safety.

Those are called bad arrests, and yes they happen. Public order and safety weren't at risk. The cops showed poor judgment if they thought it did.

hawkeye10 wrote:

They also make arrests with no desire to convince to person arrested, but rather use the arrest as leverage to get at bigger fish.

You are talking about organized crime. No crime was being committed. The cops should have left after Gates was identified, but instead they provoked further altercation.

hawkeye10 wrote:

In the past cops made arrests in order to put a drunk in jail overnight to let him get sober enough that he would no longer be a threat to himself or others, with no intent to let the charges stand. An unlikely conviction does not equal bad arrest.

Actually it does equal a bad arrest and worse an abuse of power. We do not give our police power so Carte Blanche.

Gates wasn't a threat to himself or anyone else. He was trying to get into his own house. The police escalated the situation and provoked him out of his house. Gates didn't need to go to jail, he needed to be left alone. Simple.

What would have happened if the police had simply left after identifying Gates? Face it: It was poor judgment by the police.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Any pillock can get rational about an irrational situation in which they played no part.

1 Reply

What was all too typical about this incident was a cop over reacting to his authority being challenged and the left charging racism when there is no evidence that it is involved except that a black man is involved.

Gates wasn't arrested because the police investigated a crime and found a black man at the scene. He was arrested because he is a loud mouthed jerk with paranoid delusions of grandeur.

What was atypical, was the president of the United States weighing in just after admitting he didn't know the facts, and throwing fuel on the fire.

It's ironic but Obama refused to condemn the brutal tyrants in Iran because the situation was "still playing out," and yet had no problem calling an American police officer stupid based on only a superficial, and erroneous, understanding of the facts.

It's also ironic that the man who is quick to apologize for his country all over the world, can't apologize for his own mistake.

What the hell does "calibrating" your words mean? I'm sure one his fans will be able to explain the phrase. I'm looking forward to it.

As far as this thing becoming a "great teaching moment," it's only still alive because Obama couldn't keep his trap shut, the only thing we can learn from this "beer summit" is political tactics, and I'll be damned if I want Obama to teach me anything that doesn't have to do with his intentions for governance. That's not his job. He's Commander-In-Chief, not Guru-In-Chief.

The arrogance of this guy is unbelievable. Cops are stupid, doctors are greedy crooks, people who go to church and own guns are despairing, and he's going to teach us all to be better citizens and human beings.

3 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Any pillock can get rational about an irrational situation in which they played no part.

Not just ANY pillock spendi. You've yet to show any rational ability in ANY situation be it one you played a part, or otherwise.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Any pillock can get rational about an irrational situation in which they played no part.

Why is that not rational? Insults count for nothing. I'm not a member of the TKO worship fraternity.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

+1.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, You go half cocked and think you've made a credible argument trying to equate what happened in MA and Iran. A "loud mouthed jerk" is not cause of an arrest by any laws of our land. You do know about our free speech amendment of the Constitution don't you?

He did apologize for his mistake about Sgt Crowley; you just don't know how to pay attention. That's your problem - like so many things you spout about.

The only arrogance being shown here is people like you who think you understand the laws of our land, but is ignorant to a fault.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

cop was outside the house demanding in an assertive voice to come out.

according to the police report the conversation was held at close range, and there is no evidence that the officer raised his voice.

Quote:

That means directly that the cop was wrong.

not so, for the multiple reasons that I have given

Quote:

but instead they provoked further altercation.

Gates was certainly provoking a confrontation, however I argue that the police were attempting to gain a dominant position so as to end it, and that they were justified in using this common police tactic.

Quote:

What would have happened if the police had simply left after identifying Gates? Face it: It was poor judgment by the police.

the cops attempted to disengage and leave the scene, however Gates made it clear by his actions that he would not let them go without a fight. We don't know what Gates was going to do if the cops went to their cars and attempted to drive off, nor what the crowd was going to do, but we do know that the cops felt that they were at risk, that ending the situation by arrest was the better way to go. Without video evidence to contradict the police position we need to assume that the police knew what they were doing, and made the best choices that they could under pressure with the situation that that they believed that they had.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn - I've not approached this from the vantage point of racist intent. Neither has Obama. Obama certainly said too much, but has since admitted as much. As for throwing gas on the fire, he is actually going out of his way to help calm the situation, calling for a meeting with those involved to extend an olive branch. After all is said and done and the people involved have moved on, it seems that the GOP still wants to stink about it.

Obama is not perfect, and he'll make public mistakes. I'm not pleased that he got involved, but I think he is doing what is reasonable expected of him considering his mistake.

What concerns me about this situation is that in the spirit to stick it to Obama, conservatives sided against the laws of the land. It is plainly clear that the law does not permit the use of an arrest on Gates. What is more important: Embarrassing Obama or having our rights respected and the powers we grant our law enforcement not abused? Hate Obama all you like, but don't get so zealous that you close your eyes to injustice.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk wrote:

Quote:

..provoking a confrontation...

What in hell does that mean? Let's see; Sgt Crowley has a gun with backup police, and Professor Gates is "provoking a confrontation?"

What laws did Professor Gate break? Please list them for us to see.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Obama is not perfect, and he'll make public mistakes. I'm not pleased that he got involved, but I think he is doing what is reasonable expected of him considering his mistake.

What? He has a team to manage every word he utters on the record. How could it have been a mistake? Are you accusing the president of blurting out the first thing that comes into his head like you do?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What laws did Professor Gate break?

Conduct prejudicial to the good order of Her Majesty's peace or whatever is the equivalent in US law.

1 Reply

@spendius,

No, like you do, spendi. At least Obama makes sense when he speaks - unlike you. Your blurting at the wrong time at the wrong place is a bad habit with you. You just don't notice all the people who have asked to you disappear.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know