The sleeze keeps right on oozing

[JD_2B]

Is it possible he was baiting the police?

Yeah, that's possible, I suppose.

Is it even more possible that two egos clashed in the night?

That one cop, who is used to people becoming compliant and obsequious, clashed with one academic, who is used to people being compliant and obsequious, met under circumstances where each felt offended by the other's lack of obsequious reactions?

Let's use our imaginations shall we?

A man broke into his own house and the cops were called by a neighbor.

The cops came in not knowing what was going on and acted like cops typically do.

They DEMANDED proof that the man standing in his own home was who he said he was.

That proof was provided, but done so by a professor who was unused to be spoken to harshly.

He responded (probably overreacting to the cop's tone of voice) arrogantly.

The cop took unbrage that the man wasn't passive and thankful. The cop probably wasn't polite

The professor took umbrage that the cop didn't immediately take his word for who he was. He was probably not polite.

The cop arrrested the professor.

The professor was outraged.

Two fucking hardons clash in the night.

Had the professor been a nobody we'd have never heard about it.

But the professor was a somebody.

Is it about race?

Certainly that might have been part of it.

But what it really was about was egos and expectations and arrogance and pride and how people react when confront with police power.

Jesus, I can't believe this event isn't obvious to each and every one of us.

I loved the way you explained this.. Really love it.

Of course, racist or not- people are allowed by the First to speak their minds about other people, government, or institutions.. To an extent anyways.

All in all, I say that the cops and this professor (and his peers) need to get through it, and try to at least ACT like the mature role models of our country, rather than all this grandstanding, making a spectacle of themselves, and putting on shows of narcissism and what can easily be interpreted as the self inflicted desecration of their own character.

That explanation is pretty much the idea I get about that whole deal. Still, I would be wanting to know if the officer falsified a report in order to justify his actions. That is a major problem. Can't have cops making up probable cause.

Oh I agree completely- I think that cops should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for lying, manufacturing evidence, and in any obstructions of justice they may choose to partake in. I understand wanting to make a bust, but they need to follow the rules, to do this properly.

I live in a shitty neighborhood with alot of drugs and crime, and have heard some seriously fucked up stories about cops misbehaving. They are soooo intent on catching people dealing drugs, also that they tend to overlook so many other facets of the problems this neighborhood has..

For example- my neighbor drives a nice car. She is a nurse. We live in a neighborhood that is overall poor, mostly trailers- and on her way home from work one night, a cop pulled her over for no reason at all, and asked her to open the trunk. She would probably have been arrested for no reason at all, had she not cooperated, or asked for probable cause. When all was said and done, she asked the cop why he pulled her over, and he said it was because she drives a nice car, and he thought she might be dealing drugs.

The police in our area want our neighborhoods to get "better"", and it seems that when they DO get better, the higher quality residents are suddenly treated like scum of the earth. So much for encouraging diversity and urban renewal.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I loved the way you explained this.. Really love it.

Of course, racist or not- people are allowed by the First to speak their minds about other people, government, or institutions.. To an extent anyways.

All in all, I say that the cops and this professor (and his peers) need to get through it, and try to at least ACT like the mature role models of our country, rather than all this grandstanding, making a spectacle of themselves, and putting on shows of narcissism and what can easily be interpreted as the self inflicted desecration of their own character.

That explanation is pretty much the idea I get about that whole deal. Still, I would be wanting to know if the officer falsified a report in order to justify his actions. That is a major problem. Can't have cops making up probable cause.

Oh I agree completely- I think that cops should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for lying, manufacturing evidence, and in any obstructions of justice they may choose to partake in. I understand wanting to make a bust, but they need to follow the rules, to do this properly.

I live in a shitty neighborhood with alot of drugs and crime, and have heard some seriously fucked up stories about cops misbehaving. They are soooo intent on catching people dealing drugs, also that they tend to overlook so many other facets of the problems this neighborhood has..

For example- my neighbor drives a nice car. She is a nurse. We live in a neighborhood that is overall poor, mostly trailers- and on her way home from work one night, a cop pulled her over for no reason at all, and asked her to open the trunk. She would probably have been arrested for no reason at all, had she not cooperated, or asked for probable cause. When all was said and done, she asked the cop why he pulled her over, and he said it was because she drives a nice car, and he thought she might be dealing drugs.

The police in our area want our neighborhoods to get "better"", and it seems that when they DO get better, the higher quality residents are suddenly treated like scum of the earth. So much for encouraging diversity and urban renewal.

Yeah, it is a tough job to do and do right but they have to get it right. We don't all want to be treated like criminals just because there are criminals around.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

One of the REQUIREMENTS of the Federal I-9 form used for employment is a PHOTO I.D. So to claim there is no law on the books saying a person is required by law to have I.D. is patently wrong. There is no law on the books saying a person has to have a drivers license, that I will agree with. Now, on this situation that has beaten worse than any dead horse I've ever seen, IMHO, if Obama had not come out so vocally on the situation NO ONE would give a damn one way or the other. You can scream to high heaven about how unconstitutional you feel it is to have to produce an I.D. or tell a cop your name if you're asked to. I'm pretty sure, not definately, but pretty sure that not a single one of you would hesitate to do so if asked by a cop be it a traffic stop or anything else. Anything to do with the Gates situation is IMHO nothing more than lip service simply because Obama made it a big deal by involving himself in something he really should have just left alone. The fact that he said he didn't know that much about the case should have been all he said. And the ONLY reason he did it was because Gates and he were "friends". The simple fact that he's not stepping in at every other case that is like this that I'm sure happens on a regular basis speaks volumes. HE made it into what it is simply because he knows Gates. In other words people, he wouldn't give a damn at all if it was YOU.

NOW...with all that said, I am going to say one thing. If one of my neighbors called the police and told them there was someone who appeared to be BREAKING IN MY HOUSE and they didn't recognize that person, and it was in fact me in the house when they showed up...the LAST thing I would even consider doing is berating the cop(s) that showed up and denying them proof that it was MY house. I would be a hell of a lot more thankful that they showed up to check and were being deligent enough to not just take my word for it but ask for proof. I damn sure wouldn't get pissed off about them looking after my home.

 

[Sweet Willy]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

One of the REQUIREMENTS of the Federal I-9 form used for employment is a PHOTO I.D. So to claim there is no law on the books saying a person is required by law to have I.D. is patently wrong.

Required for employment? Sure.

Are the cops offering you a job?

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Willy....this was in response to all the hoopla stating that there is NO LAW saying you have to an I.D. in this country. Unless you're independantly wealthy chances are you're going to work at some point in your life. So, there is in fact a LAW in this country that states you must have an I.D. When you make a blanket statement such as was made it helps if you have the actual facts in front of you first. Or better yet, don't make a blanket statement when it ONLY in very small circumstances. Actually, if you want to do pretty much ANYTHING in this country you're going to be required to have an I.D. of some kind.

It is also a law that you MUST have a drivers license to drive a car. So a cop stopping you while driving is completely within his/her rights to ask you for that little piece of I.D. Again, another instance that rebuts the "there is no law that says you must have an I.D." statement. I could name many other instances where the law says you must have a photo I.D. to do certain things but I think I've made my point.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Willy....this was in response to all the hoopla stating that there is NO LAW saying you have to an I.D. in this country. Unless you're independantly wealthy chances are you're going to work at some point in your life. So, there is in fact a LAW in this country that states you must have an I.D. When you make a blanket statement such as was made it helps if you have the actual facts in front of you first. Or better yet, don't make a blanket statement when it ONLY in very small circumstances. Actually, if you want to do pretty much ANYTHING in this country you're going to be required to have an I.D. of some kind.

There is no law requiring any US citizen to have an ID.

There is no law requiring any US citizen to produce ID at law enforcement request.

If you wish to be employed, you may have to provide an ID.

There is no law requiring anyone to be employed.

You are patently wrong.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

What a great job of spinning and deflecting the facts there Willy. You have got to be a liberal. You've got the SOP down pat. You are the one that is patently WRONG here. But you keep right on spinning away. Simple fact.........there are many laws that state you MUST have an I.D. to do certain things in your life. To sit and try to say that there is NO law saying a person has to have an I.D. when there are in FACT many that cover the NORMAL day to day existance of the majority of this country is not just wrong it's a blatant lie. There is no MAYBE about having to have a photo I.D. to be employed. The only way you'd get around it is to work for yourself or work for someone illegally. Even working for yourself the Fed. Govt. can require you show a completed I-9 if you pay yourself a salary out of your business.

 

[Sweet Willy]

What a great job of spinning and deflecting the facts there Willy. You have got to be a liberal. You've got the SOP down pat. You are the one that is patently WRONG here. But you keep right on spinning away. Simple fact.........there are many laws that state you MUST have an I.D. to do certain things in your life. To sit and try to say that there is NO law saying a person has to have an I.D. when there are in FACT many that cover the NORMAL day to day existance of the majority of this country is not just wrong it's a blatant lie. There is no MAYBE about having to have a photo I.D. to be employed. The only way you'd get around it is to work for yourself or work for someone illegally. Even working for yourself the Fed. Govt. can require you show a completed I-9 if you pay yourself a salary out of your business.

So if I am self employed, I am required to show myself an ID? That's cool. I need to verify to myself who I am on occassion.

There is no US law requiring anyone to have an ID.

You are right in a practical sense but in a legal sense, you are wrong. You are touting the socialist idea here. People who recognize freedom understand that free people are not required to carry "papers".

 

[JD_2B]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

One of the REQUIREMENTS of the Federal I-9 form used for employment is a PHOTO I.D. So to claim there is no law on the books saying a person is required by law to have I.D. is patently wrong. There is no law on the books saying a person has to have a drivers license, that I will agree with. Now, on this situation that has beaten worse than any dead horse I've ever seen, IMHO, if Obama had not come out so vocally on the situation NO ONE would give a damn one way or the other. You can scream to high heaven about how unconstitutional you feel it is to have to produce an I.D. or tell a cop your name if you're asked to. I'm pretty sure, not definately, but pretty sure that not a single one of you would hesitate to do so if asked by a cop be it a traffic stop or anything else. Anything to do with the Gates situation is IMHO nothing more than lip service simply because Obama made it a big deal by involving himself in something he really should have just left alone. The fact that he said he didn't know that much about the case should have been all he said. And the ONLY reason he did it was because Gates and he were "friends". The simple fact that he's not stepping in at every other case that is like this that I'm sure happens on a regular basis speaks volumes. HE made it into what it is simply because he knows Gates. In other words people, he wouldn't give a damn at all if it was YOU.

LOL! His friend was in trouble and he stepped in to help, said a few words about how indecently the situation was handled, and you portray that to mean that everyone on this thread, or discussing the SITUATION heard what Obama had to say about it, and that Obama doesn't give a rats ass about any other similar situation, because this was like doing pro bono for a friend??? Get real.. That is ridiculous.. on all accounts.

NOW...with all that said, I am going to say one thing. If one of my neighbors called the police and told them there was someone who appeared to be BREAKING IN MY HOUSE and they didn't recognize that person, and it was in fact me in the house when they showed up...the LAST thing I would even consider doing is berating the cop(s) that showed up and denying them proof that it was MY house. I would be a hell of a lot more thankful that they showed up to check and were being deligent enough to not just take my word for it but ask for proof. I damn sure wouldn't get pissed off about them looking after my home.

And I am sure that the professor was not pissed off about them checking the situation out, at all- but he was probably LIVID (and rightly so) about the racial profiling that the cops were doing, and the sure as shit cocky ass attitude that the cops probably gave him, seeing as though they automatically thought he was a burglar just because he is BLACK.

I am sick and damned tired of people sticking up for the cops every time there is a BLACK person who is wrongfully charged with a crime, or beaten relentlessly, etc.. Jesus this conversation reminds me of the Rodney King beating.. THAT guy was a fucking douchebag who was going down, for evading arrest, but the fucking cops still used EXCESSIVE force on him, and he deserved every penny he got from the lawsuit! This is no different in concept!

 

[JD_2B]

What a great job of spinning and deflecting the facts there Willy. You have got to be a liberal. You've got the SOP down pat. You are the one that is patently WRONG here. But you keep right on spinning away. Simple fact.........there are many laws that state you MUST have an I.D. to do certain things in your life. To sit and try to say that there is NO law saying a person has to have an I.D. when there are in FACT many that cover the NORMAL day to day existance of the majority of this country is not just wrong it's a blatant lie. There is no MAYBE about having to have a photo I.D. to be employed. The only way you'd get around it is to work for yourself or work for someone illegally. Even working for yourself the Fed. Govt. can require you show a completed I-9 if you pay yourself a salary out of your business.

So if I am self employed, I am required to show myself an ID? That's cool. I need to verify to myself who I am on occassion.

There is no US law requiring anyone to have an ID.

You are right in a practical sense but in a legal sense, you are wrong. You are touting the socialist idea here. People who recognize freedom understand that free people are not required to carry "papers".

That's right- If we were under federal law to carry photo ID, then our pictures would be affixed to our social security cards and birth certificates..