Who's stupid now?

[HUGGY]

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

Like Bush cutting his vacation short to fly back to DC to sign a bill for a brain dead woman in Florida?

 

[ConHog]

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

Like Bush cutting his vacation short to fly back to DC to sign a bill for a brain dead woman in Florida?

What in the fuck does BOOSH have to do with Obama being a mental retard?

I swear to God, you're like a woman who defends her abusive husband because , well the last guy beat her to............

 

[Valerie]

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

That's not my list, it's the law and you just claimed he did none of those things. We've already been over this ad nauseum, as you know...The fact the charges were dropped does not prove he did none of those things.

Since there will be no trial, all we are left with is conjecture...There were witnesses at the scene who said he was being disorderly before, during and after the ID was given.

 

[Ravi]

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

That's not my list, it's the law and you just claimed he did none of those things. We've already been over this ad nauseum, as you know...The fact the charges were dropped does not prove he did none of those things.

Since there will be no trial, all we are left with is conjecture...There were witnesses at the scene who said he was being disorderly before, during and after the ID was given.

Not according to the police report.

The cop acted badly. That the guy was an idiotic loudmouthed jerk doesn't detract from that fact.

 

[ConHog]

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

That's not my list, it's the law and you just claimed he did none of those things. We've already been over this ad nauseum, as you know...The fact the charges were dropped does not prove he did none of those things.

Since there will be no trial, all we are left with is conjecture...There were witnesses at the scene who said he was being disorderly before, during and after the ID was given.

Not according to the police report.

The cop acted badly. That the guy was an idiotic loudmouthed jerk doesn't detract from that fact.

See, it's idiots like you who have encouraged our children to think it's perfectly acceptable to attack a LEO who is doing his job.

Why are you so violent Ravi?

 

[Valerie]

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

That's not my list, it's the law and you just claimed he did none of those things. We've already been over this ad nauseum, as you know...The fact the charges were dropped does not prove he did none of those things.

Since there will be no trial, all we are left with is conjecture...There were witnesses at the scene who said he was being disorderly before, during and after the ID was given.

Not according to the police report.

The cop acted badly. That the guy was an idiotic loudmouthed jerk doesn't detract from that fact.

According to the police report Professor Gate's conduct was disorderly.



And it's the race baiters who acted "badly"... (stupidly)

"Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him," the officer wrote.

He was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he "exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior." He was released later that day on his own recognizance. An arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26. Police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.

Gates, 58, also refused to speak publicly Monday, referring calls to his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree. [The guy who is now releasing a book!]

Ogletree said Gates gave the officer his driver's license and Harvard identification after being asked to prove he was a Harvard professor and lived at the home, but became upset when the officer continued to question him.

"He was shocked to find himself being questioned and shocked that the conversation continued after he showed his identification," Ogletree said.

Ogletree declined to say whether he believed the incident was racially motivated, saying "I think the incident speaks for itself."

Some of Gates' African-American colleagues say the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge.

Allen Counter, who has taught neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years, said he was stopped on campus by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect. They threatened to arrest him when he could not produce identification.

"We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white," Counter said. "It really has been very unsettling for African-Americans throughout Harvard and throughout Cambridge that this happened."

The Rev. Al Sharpton is vowing to attend Gates' arraignment.

"This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen," Sharpton said. "I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs."

Henry Louis Gates' Arrest Spurs Profiling Claims

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for proving my point. He yelled at the cop after his identity and right of residence was determined.

I think I'll send Crowley an extra large box of tissues.

 

[Valerie]

Thanks for proving my point. He yelled at the cop after his identity and right of residence was determined.

I think I'll send Crowley an extra large box of tissues.

Your point being that they had no right to arrest him for disorderly conduct based only on the fact that it was eventually identified as his home, and that he actually wasn't really disorderly based only on the fact the charges were dropped...???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I paid very close attention to this incident at the time and not one person has shown one shred of proof that any of the officers behaved like anything but officers following proper procedure. Everyone else has proven their own prejudices by such conjecture.

There is a difference between something that is lawful, and something that is right. Departmental procedures allow cops to use flimsy excuses for arresting people who do not like them, that is perfectly legal, and might even fit a lopsided definition of proper, but it is wrong. The police and sheriffs who arrrested Harriet Tubman for violating the fugitive slave act also followed proper procedure, but they were still wrong.

What prejudices am I proving by insisting that cops do not have the right to arrest people who are not breaking an illegal law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bull, it was not his "speech" it was his disorderly CONDUCT...pretty stupid for a Harvard professor, but it worked out well for him and his friend releasing that book...

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

me too! and based on all of the massachusetts supreme court rulings on this, it is likely gates would win, against the state...

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

Ditto. It would be even better of it went to SCOTUS, and they finally struck down this arbitrary abuse of power.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

Did President Obama say he didn't read the law you are referring to?

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

Okay, that was good.

 

[Valerie]

I paid very close attention to this incident at the time and not one person has shown one shred of proof that any of the officers behaved like anything but officers following proper procedure. Everyone else has proven their own prejudices by such conjecture.

There is a difference between something that is lawful, and something that is right. Departmental procedures allow cops to use flimsy excuses for arresting people who do not like them, that is perfectly legal, and might even fit a lopsided definition of proper, but it is wrong. The police and sheriffs who arrrested Harriet Tubman for violating the fugitive slave act also followed proper procedure, but they were still wrong.

What prejudices am I proving by insisting that cops do not have the right to arrest people who are not breaking an illegal law?

You said the officer acted like a macho prick...That's conjecture on your part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama is right. He said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates. They smartened up when the charges were dropped.

Obama is right... Is that even possible?

I remember when Obama said he didn't have all the facts, but the cops acted 'stupidly'. Well alrighty then!

Listen mister, if Obama can ascertain the constitutionality of a law without even reading it, he can surely decide whether a cop is acted stupidly without knowing the facts of the case.

Is there a post of the month contest here? This one is my nomination.

 

[Valerie]

Since we've already beat this topic like a dead horse a year ago, I think I'd be acting stupidly if I wasted one more post on it at this point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I paid very close attention to this incident at the time and not one person has shown one shred of proof that any of the officers behaved like anything but officers following proper procedure. Everyone else has proven their own prejudices by such conjecture.

There is a difference between something that is lawful, and something that is right. Departmental procedures allow cops to use flimsy excuses for arresting people who do not like them, that is perfectly legal, and might even fit a lopsided definition of proper, but it is wrong. The police and sheriffs who arrrested Harriet Tubman for violating the fugitive slave act also followed proper procedure, but they were still wrong.

What prejudices am I proving by insisting that cops do not have the right to arrest people who are not breaking an illegal law?

You said the officer acted like a macho prick...That's conjecture on your part.

No, it is an expert opinion. I know a lot of macho pricks, and Crowley acted just like them.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for proving my point. He yelled at the cop after his identity and right of residence was determined.

I think I'll send Crowley an extra large box of tissues.

Your point being that they had no right to arrest him for disorderly conduct based only on the fact that it was eventually identified as his home, and that he actually wasn't really disorderly based only on the fact the charges were dropped...???

No, but do keep putting words in my mouth.



It was identified as his home before the cop got offended and arrested him. Pathetic cop, imo.

 

[Care4all]

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

That's not my list, it's the law and you just claimed he did none of those things. We've already been over this ad nauseum, as you know...The fact the charges were dropped does not prove he did none of those things.

Since there will be no trial, all we are left with is conjecture...There were witnesses at the scene who said he was being disorderly before, during and after the ID was given.

As recognized in the commentaries to the Model Penal Code, behavior that has an impact only upon members of the police force is significantly different from that affecting other citizens in at least two respects: it is an unfortunate but inherent part of a police officer's job to be in the presence of distraught individuals; and, to the extent that the theory behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the tendency of the actor's conduct to provoke violence in others, "one must suppose that [police officers], employed and trained to maintain order, would be least likely to be provoked to disorderly responses."

To successfully prosecute Gates for disorderly conduct and withstand a First Amendment challenge, the Middlesex County district attorney would have had to show that civilian onlookers were on the verge of violence as a result of the professor's comments.

Harvey Silverglate on Disorderly Conduct As 'Fighting Words' - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[del]

He did none of those things.

I really wish this had gone to trial.

Link? (disorderly charges get dropped ALL the time)


They had no intention of taking him to trial...He left them with no choice but to remove him from the scene in order to diffuse his disorderly conduct...And it worked, didn't it? They were all playing kissy face on the White house lawn the following week pretending like race had anything to do with it.

He did none of the things you listed. And it isn't up to me to prove he did. Presumption of innocence and all that.

He yelled at the cop after his identity was verified.

no, he repeatedly accused the cop of being a racist both before and after he (gates) had identified himself. as i recall, his exact words were "why, because i'm a black man in america?" the usual idiots, sharpton et al, were quick to accuse him of racial bias as well. gates did his drama queen bit (there are 1.000.000 black men in jail in america and yesterday i was one of them) and ogletree wrote a book about it, even though as the study i linked to proves, an independent 3rd party found no proof of racial profiling by the CPD.

the person who called in to the police and later changed her story, IIRC, works for harvard. hmmmm, no way she was pressured i bet.

all in all, pretty amusing stuff.












and stupid

 

[del]

the(Massachusetts) Court held that speech could be restricted only in the event that it was "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Justice Douglas wrote, "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Ms. Torres' Page: Free Speech and Disturbing the Peace

Maybe the danger was that the cops were going to look stupid.

good thing obama doesn't have arrest powers then, or we'd all be in the hoosegow.