This will get interesting
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
- Jun 11, 2007
- 4,564
- 3
- 0
Since when do you have to prove to someone where you live, WHEN YOU ARE STANDING IN YOUR HOUSE. The officer should of thunk or atleast maybe kept in mind, THIS INDIVIDUAL NOR DID HIS PARTNER IN CRIME OR ACCOMPLICE RUN FROM THE SCENE OR ATTEMPT TO so that should have relaxed the officer. And as for the professor showing ID...he did after asking the officer for HIS ID, he was standing on the professors' property wasnt he? From the link the report describes where the ID was shown, and that should of been it, IMO. Once confirmed it was over. But the officer IMO felt challenged when the professor continued to shout and remark. From the picture Ive seen the guy was being cuffed and escorted OUT OF HIS HOUSE, If he was IN HIS HOUSE the ENTIRE TIME, its sad to be able to be detained for yelling in your own house at whomever it is. Thats an issue if you think about it, wouldnt that fall into the BIG GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER FORMAT? Hmmmm. We will see if the officers report is accurate on how the event unfolded
Last edited:
The way I see it so far
--is we have every element there--including black and hispanic policemen-observers backing up officer.
Only ones siding with gates -Obama-Oglebee-sharpten and now jessie jacksons in the mix.
Funniest part is how they tried to look into officers backround for any little thing to show he was remotely racist and found just the contrary.
Huge mistake by O to comment and profile the ole police/blackmam bias.
He will have to aplogize at somepoint--has did everyting but say he was sorry--seems only thing he's been able to apoligize for- is our country at ever foreign stop he makes.
Interesting article from National Review on profiling.
Promoting Racial Paranoia
In his comments Wednesday, Obama recycled long-discredited anti-cop fictions.
By Heather Mac Donald
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD vAlign=top itxtvisited="1">Henry Louis Gates Jr. has threatened to make a documentary on ?racial profiling? in the wake of his highly publicized arrest for disorderly conduct on July 16. It?s going to be a very long film, given the Harvard professor?s exceedingly expansive definition of what counts as biased policing. Unfortunately, Pres. Barack Obama?s take on police work is no more reality-based than Gates?s. Obama?s ill-considered lecture on the Gates arrest controversy during his Wednesday prime-time press conference was replete with ACLU misinformation about policing, misinformation that has been repeatedly refuted by the federal government itself.
But whereas Gates?s rantings about police bias might ultimately be dismissed as standard ivory-tower posturing, Obama has now put the presidential imprimatur on a set of untruths that will only fuel disrespect for the law and impede the police in their efforts to protect inner-city residents from crime. His belated recognition Thursday night that the arresting officer in the Cambridge incident was performing his duty hardly undoes the damage from his previous distortions.
Let?s acknowledge up front that Gates endured a bizarre and humiliating experience. Being escorted out of your home in handcuffs for what you perceive as no offense at all would feel like a grotesque invasion of privacy, due process, and property rights. Gates?s anger is therefore understandable. But just because an incident is ? from one?s subjective perspective ? unjustified does not make it racial. Gates was almost certainly not arrested because he was black, but quite possibly because he committed ?contempt of cop,? an extralegal offense that can greatly affect the outcome of officer-civilian inGates, however, sees race and racism in every aspect of this unfortunate episode, thus exemplifying the racial paranoia that can make police work so difficult. He accuses the witness who called in a possible burglary incident of ?racial profiling? for merely describing what she saw. Here, in Gates?s own words, is what the caller observed: Gates and his ?regular driver? from his ?regular car service? were both on his front porch, ?fiddl[ing] with the door.? (The New York Times recasts this delicious nugget from Gates?s limousine-liberal lifestyle as an interaction with a mere ?taxi driver.?) Next, says Gates, ?[m]y driver hit the door [which was jammed] with his shoulder and the door popped open.?
The caller?s 911 report, according to Gates, ?said that that two big black men were trying to break in with backpacks on.? Such a description, provided undoubtedly under stress, is accurate enough under the circumstances. ?My driver,? acknowledges Gates, ?is a large black man.? But Gates calls it ?the worst racial profiling I?ve ever heard of in my life.? Why? Simply because Gates himself is not ?big.? But a rough description of individuals engaged in what to most observers would appear to be suspicious behavior, no matter the race of the individuals, is not ?racial profiling,? it is simply ordinary crime reporting. Gates undoubtedly means to imply that the 911 caller, in her timorous white racism, sees every black man as ?big,? but it is he who is engaged in racial stereotyping, not her.
Gates?s interpretation of the actions of the officer who answered the 911 call is just as narcissistic and deluded. As soon as the officer asked Gates to step onto the porch to speak with him, Gates started a long tirade against the officer?s racism, according to the police report. Nothing provides stronger corroboration of this allegation in the report than Gates?s own racially fevered account of the episode. There was nothing inappropriate, much less racist, in the officer?s request.
Confronting unknown suspects in dwellings and cars, where the officer cannot see the suspect?s full environment or hands, is the most dangerous activity that cops undertake. Six officers have been seriously wounded, two fatally, by suspects holed up in houses in Oakland and Jersey City this year; in 2007, an NYPD officer was shot dead by three thugs during a car stop. In the Cambridge burglary investigation, the officer was working by himself, without back-up. He had no idea whether he was confronting two armed suspects.
But Gates sees himself as the victim of police bias from the beginning of the interaction through its end. He shoehorns the incident into the standard racial-profiling narrative that the ACLU has honed to dishonest perfection over the years, in which the police allegedly grab any black man they can get their hands on just to make an arrest: ?You can?t just presume I?m guilty and arrest me. . . . He just presumed that I was guilty and he presumed that I was guilty because I was black. There was no doubt about that. . . . I would hope that the police wouldn?t arrest the first black man that they saw.
Gates seems not to understand that he was arrested for disorderly conduct, not for burglary. He was not ?the first black man that [the officers] saw? committing what they viewed as disorderly conduct; he was the only man they saw committing disorderly conduct. If arresting a man for an offense committed in the officer?s presence constitutes ?racial profiling,? then the most legally unimpeachable aspect of police work has been discredited.
It is certainly possible to debate whether Gates?s escalating verbal abuse of the investigating officer and refusal to cooperate with his requests rose to the level of criminal conduct. Most certainly, it lay within Sgt. James Crowley?s discretion not to make the arrest ? and in retrospect, it would have been preferable if he had thanked Gates for his cooperation and walked away from the provocation. I would guess that Sergeant Crowley simply snapped under Gates?s taunts and chose to teach him a lesson for the informal offense of contempt of cop ? an understandable, if less than ideal, reaction, but not a racist one. Crowley, even by Gates?s account, acted politely throughout the interaction.
Gates?s post-incident rantings were bad enough before President Obama made this otherwise trivial incident a matter of presidential attention. Obama does not seem to understand the power of his office. If he is going to weigh in on something as crucial to the health of cities as policing, he had better get his facts straight. But everything that he said about the Cambridge confrontation was untrue. He presents a highly telescoped version of the events that echoes Gates?s implication that he was arrested on the burglary charge: ?The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,? Obama intoned. But Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct; his being in his own home is irrelevant.
Obama then decided he was going to give us a history lesson: ?What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there?s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That?s just a fact.?
This statement has many possible meanings, all of them untrue.
The ACLU and other anti-police activists have alleged for years that blacks are the victims of disproportionate and unjustified traffic stops, a charge that has become received wisdom among large swathes of the population. It happens to be contradicted by drivers themselves. The Bureau of Justice Statistics regularly polls tens of thousands of civilians about their contacts with the police. Virtually identical proportions of white, black, and Hispanic drivers ? 9 percent ? report being stopped by the police, though in 2005, the self-reported black stop rate ? 8.1 percent ? was nearly a percentage point lower than the self-reported white stop rate (8.9 percent). The stop rate for blacks is lower during the day, when officers can more readily see a driver?s race.
As for urban policing ? where the police have victim identifications and contextual and behavioral cues to work with ? blacks are stopped more, but only in comparison with their proportion of the entire population. Measured against their crime rate, they are understopped. New York City is perfectly typical of the black police-stop and crime rates. In the first three months of 2009, 52 percent of all people stopped for questioning by the police in New York City were black, though blacks are just 24 percent of the population. But according to the victims of and witnesses to crime, blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city. Blacks commit 82 percent of all shootings and 72 percent of all robberies, whereas whites, who make up 35 percent of the city's population, commit about 5 percent of all violent crimes, 1 percent of shootings, and about 4 percent of robberies.
These figures are not police-generated; they come from the overwhelmingly minority victims of crime in their reports to the police. Such crime reports mean that when the police respond to community demands for protection against crime, information-based police deployment will send officers to minority neighborhoods where crime is highest. When the police respond to a call about a shooting, they will almost never be told that the shooter was white, and thus will not be searching for a white suspect.
National crime patterns are the same. Black males between the ages of 18 and 24 commit homicide at ten times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. Such vastly disproportionate crime rates must lead, if the police are going after crime in a color-blind fashion, to disproportionate stop and arrest rates. To criticize the police for crime-determined enforcement activity is to </SPAN itxtvisited="1">blame the messenger.
Obama has no one around him who could disabuse him of his ignorance about the police. Attorney General Eric <NOBR style="FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_1_0>Holder
</NOBR> enthusiastically participated in the reign of unjustified federal consent decrees that the Justice <NOBR style="FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_2_0>Department
</NOBR> slapped on police departments during the Clinton administration. Worrisomely, Obama gestures towards those days when he says that ?we?re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we?re eliminating potential bias,? as if Justice Department lawyers know a thing about ?policing techniques.?
Obama?s prime-time recycling of advocate-generated myths about policing will only make inner-city neighborhoods more dangerous for their many law-abiding residents. No one benefits more from proactive policing than the poor, who have as much of a right to public safety as Cambridge residents. Officer Crowley was only doing his job, without any manifestation of racial bias. Now, if an officer investigates a 911 call in good faith, who knows if the president will say he acted ?stupidly?? Why bother putting your reputation on the line? The blow to police morale from Obama?s gratuitous remarks is enormous.
Worse, Obama has only increased the racial paranoia that Gates put so vividly on display. Officers of all races say that the first thing out of a black driver?s mouth during a traffic stop for speeding or running a red light is often: ?You only stopped me because I?m black,? a reaction ginned up by decades of anti-cop agitating and now bolstered by Obama?s recycled fictions. The advocate-fueled resentment of the police in inner-city neighborhoods makes crime fighting more difficult and more dangerous. Obama?s hope for reviving urban economies rests on a crucial precondition: that cities stay safe. He has just put that precondition in jeopardy.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
--is we have every element there--including black and hispanic policemen-observers backing up officer.
Only ones siding with gates -Obama-Oglebee-sharpten and now jessie jacksons in the mix.
Funniest part is how they tried to look into officers backround for any little thing to show he was remotely racist and found just the contrary.
Huge mistake by O to comment and profile the ole police/blackmam bias.
He will have to aplogize at somepoint--has did everyting but say he was sorry--seems only thing he's been able to apoligize for- is our country at ever foreign stop he makes.
Interesting article from National Review on profiling.
Promoting Racial Paranoia
In his comments Wednesday, Obama recycled long-discredited anti-cop fictions.
By Heather Mac Donald
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" itxtvisited="1"><TBODY itxtvisited="1"><TR itxtvisited="1"><TD vAlign=top itxtvisited="1">Henry Louis Gates Jr. has threatened to make a documentary on ?racial profiling? in the wake of his highly publicized arrest for disorderly conduct on July 16. It?s going to be a very long film, given the Harvard professor?s exceedingly expansive definition of what counts as biased policing. Unfortunately, Pres. Barack Obama?s take on police work is no more reality-based than Gates?s. Obama?s ill-considered lecture on the Gates arrest controversy during his Wednesday prime-time press conference was replete with ACLU misinformation about policing, misinformation that has been repeatedly refuted by the federal government itself.
But whereas Gates?s rantings about police bias might ultimately be dismissed as standard ivory-tower posturing, Obama has now put the presidential imprimatur on a set of untruths that will only fuel disrespect for the law and impede the police in their efforts to protect inner-city residents from crime. His belated recognition Thursday night that the arresting officer in the Cambridge incident was performing his duty hardly undoes the damage from his previous distortions.
Let?s acknowledge up front that Gates endured a bizarre and humiliating experience. Being escorted out of your home in handcuffs for what you perceive as no offense at all would feel like a grotesque invasion of privacy, due process, and property rights. Gates?s anger is therefore understandable. But just because an incident is ? from one?s subjective perspective ? unjustified does not make it racial. Gates was almost certainly not arrested because he was black, but quite possibly because he committed ?contempt of cop,? an extralegal offense that can greatly affect the outcome of officer-civilian inGates, however, sees race and racism in every aspect of this unfortunate episode, thus exemplifying the racial paranoia that can make police work so difficult. He accuses the witness who called in a possible burglary incident of ?racial profiling? for merely describing what she saw. Here, in Gates?s own words, is what the caller observed: Gates and his ?regular driver? from his ?regular car service? were both on his front porch, ?fiddl[ing] with the door.? (The New York Times recasts this delicious nugget from Gates?s limousine-liberal lifestyle as an interaction with a mere ?taxi driver.?) Next, says Gates, ?[m]y driver hit the door [which was jammed] with his shoulder and the door popped open.?
The caller?s 911 report, according to Gates, ?said that that two big black men were trying to break in with backpacks on.? Such a description, provided undoubtedly under stress, is accurate enough under the circumstances. ?My driver,? acknowledges Gates, ?is a large black man.? But Gates calls it ?the worst racial profiling I?ve ever heard of in my life.? Why? Simply because Gates himself is not ?big.? But a rough description of individuals engaged in what to most observers would appear to be suspicious behavior, no matter the race of the individuals, is not ?racial profiling,? it is simply ordinary crime reporting. Gates undoubtedly means to imply that the 911 caller, in her timorous white racism, sees every black man as ?big,? but it is he who is engaged in racial stereotyping, not her.
Gates?s interpretation of the actions of the officer who answered the 911 call is just as narcissistic and deluded. As soon as the officer asked Gates to step onto the porch to speak with him, Gates started a long tirade against the officer?s racism, according to the police report. Nothing provides stronger corroboration of this allegation in the report than Gates?s own racially fevered account of the episode. There was nothing inappropriate, much less racist, in the officer?s request.
Confronting unknown suspects in dwellings and cars, where the officer cannot see the suspect?s full environment or hands, is the most dangerous activity that cops undertake. Six officers have been seriously wounded, two fatally, by suspects holed up in houses in Oakland and Jersey City this year; in 2007, an NYPD officer was shot dead by three thugs during a car stop. In the Cambridge burglary investigation, the officer was working by himself, without back-up. He had no idea whether he was confronting two armed suspects.
But Gates sees himself as the victim of police bias from the beginning of the interaction through its end. He shoehorns the incident into the standard racial-profiling narrative that the ACLU has honed to dishonest perfection over the years, in which the police allegedly grab any black man they can get their hands on just to make an arrest: ?You can?t just presume I?m guilty and arrest me. . . . He just presumed that I was guilty and he presumed that I was guilty because I was black. There was no doubt about that. . . . I would hope that the police wouldn?t arrest the first black man that they saw.
Gates seems not to understand that he was arrested for disorderly conduct, not for burglary. He was not ?the first black man that [the officers] saw? committing what they viewed as disorderly conduct; he was the only man they saw committing disorderly conduct. If arresting a man for an offense committed in the officer?s presence constitutes ?racial profiling,? then the most legally unimpeachable aspect of police work has been discredited.
It is certainly possible to debate whether Gates?s escalating verbal abuse of the investigating officer and refusal to cooperate with his requests rose to the level of criminal conduct. Most certainly, it lay within Sgt. James Crowley?s discretion not to make the arrest ? and in retrospect, it would have been preferable if he had thanked Gates for his cooperation and walked away from the provocation. I would guess that Sergeant Crowley simply snapped under Gates?s taunts and chose to teach him a lesson for the informal offense of contempt of cop ? an understandable, if less than ideal, reaction, but not a racist one. Crowley, even by Gates?s account, acted politely throughout the interaction.
Gates?s post-incident rantings were bad enough before President Obama made this otherwise trivial incident a matter of presidential attention. Obama does not seem to understand the power of his office. If he is going to weigh in on something as crucial to the health of cities as policing, he had better get his facts straight. But everything that he said about the Cambridge confrontation was untrue. He presents a highly telescoped version of the events that echoes Gates?s implication that he was arrested on the burglary charge: ?The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,? Obama intoned. But Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct; his being in his own home is irrelevant.
Obama then decided he was going to give us a history lesson: ?What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there?s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That?s just a fact.?
This statement has many possible meanings, all of them untrue.
The ACLU and other anti-police activists have alleged for years that blacks are the victims of disproportionate and unjustified traffic stops, a charge that has become received wisdom among large swathes of the population. It happens to be contradicted by drivers themselves. The Bureau of Justice Statistics regularly polls tens of thousands of civilians about their contacts with the police. Virtually identical proportions of white, black, and Hispanic drivers ? 9 percent ? report being stopped by the police, though in 2005, the self-reported black stop rate ? 8.1 percent ? was nearly a percentage point lower than the self-reported white stop rate (8.9 percent). The stop rate for blacks is lower during the day, when officers can more readily see a driver?s race.
As for urban policing ? where the police have victim identifications and contextual and behavioral cues to work with ? blacks are stopped more, but only in comparison with their proportion of the entire population. Measured against their crime rate, they are understopped. New York City is perfectly typical of the black police-stop and crime rates. In the first three months of 2009, 52 percent of all people stopped for questioning by the police in New York City were black, though blacks are just 24 percent of the population. But according to the victims of and witnesses to crime, blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city. Blacks commit 82 percent of all shootings and 72 percent of all robberies, whereas whites, who make up 35 percent of the city's population, commit about 5 percent of all violent crimes, 1 percent of shootings, and about 4 percent of robberies.
These figures are not police-generated; they come from the overwhelmingly minority victims of crime in their reports to the police. Such crime reports mean that when the police respond to community demands for protection against crime, information-based police deployment will send officers to minority neighborhoods where crime is highest. When the police respond to a call about a shooting, they will almost never be told that the shooter was white, and thus will not be searching for a white suspect.
National crime patterns are the same. Black males between the ages of 18 and 24 commit homicide at ten times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. Such vastly disproportionate crime rates must lead, if the police are going after crime in a color-blind fashion, to disproportionate stop and arrest rates. To criticize the police for crime-determined enforcement activity is to </SPAN itxtvisited="1">blame the messenger.
Obama has no one around him who could disabuse him of his ignorance about the police. Attorney General Eric <NOBR style="FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_1_0>Holder
</NOBR> enthusiastically participated in the reign of unjustified federal consent decrees that the Justice <NOBR style="FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_2_0>Department
</NOBR> slapped on police departments during the Clinton administration. Worrisomely, Obama gestures towards those days when he says that ?we?re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we?re eliminating potential bias,? as if Justice Department lawyers know a thing about ?policing techniques.? Obama?s prime-time recycling of advocate-generated myths about policing will only make inner-city neighborhoods more dangerous for their many law-abiding residents. No one benefits more from proactive policing than the poor, who have as much of a right to public safety as Cambridge residents. Officer Crowley was only doing his job, without any manifestation of racial bias. Now, if an officer investigates a 911 call in good faith, who knows if the president will say he acted ?stupidly?? Why bother putting your reputation on the line? The blow to police morale from Obama?s gratuitous remarks is enormous.
Worse, Obama has only increased the racial paranoia that Gates put so vividly on display. Officers of all races say that the first thing out of a black driver?s mouth during a traffic stop for speeding or running a red light is often: ?You only stopped me because I?m black,? a reaction ginned up by decades of anti-cop agitating and now bolstered by Obama?s recycled fictions. The advocate-fueled resentment of the police in inner-city neighborhoods makes crime fighting more difficult and more dangerous. Obama?s hope for reviving urban economies rests on a crucial precondition: that cities stay safe. He has just put that precondition in jeopardy.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I love my country, I hate that a President automatically takes the side of a BLACK douchebag professor and says the WHITE cop was wrong without knowing all the facts, that is RACISM, plain and simple. bottom line here the cop was right and Obama and the douchebag Professor was wrong. I want to see the tape to show the public the cop is right.
and for your derogatory comments toward me:mj04:
I love my country, I hate that Hedgehog automatically takes the side of a WHITE douchebag cop and says the BLACK professor was wrong without knowing all the facts, that is RACISM, plain and simple. bottom line here the professor was right and Hedgehog and the douchebag cop was wrong. I want to see the tape to show the public the professor is right.
Q: What's the difference between the 1st statement and the 2nd?
A: Nothing. They're equally offensive and mind-numbingly stupid.
Trench...... In the wrong hands they are mind -numbingly stupid.
Can you yell movie in a firehouse?
Rush Limbo runs his man pleasee all day under the protection of the 1st, but knowing his LACK of ability to play golf, I don't want him to carry a weapon. SHit I can make money playin that portly turd in Gawf
I think the best answer to this DOTFA is to acknowledge that they were both partially wrong in this situation, because it this goes any further, the talking heads are going to keep throwing gas on the fire enraging both sides..
Yes, I love my country too, 15 + years of service, blood, injuries BLACK OUT 201 files.
I wake up every morning to Jimi Hendrix Star Spangled Banner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2bGUeDnqPY
I would bet hog, you don't run your cake hole in public the way you do here
...........................................The way I see it so far
--is we have every element there--including black and hispanic policemen-observers backing up officer.
What? Police officers closing ranks? This is outrageous! This never happens! Oh wait... it ALWAYS happens.
Only ones siding with gates -Obama-Oglebee-sharpten and now jessie jacksons in the mix.
I agree. There seems to be a growing trend where a small number of (self-appointed) spokesmen for the black community attempt to use white guilt and the media to play the race card.
Funniest part is how they tried to look into officers backround for any little thing to show he was remotely racist and found just the contrary.
That's the gotcha game the media plays now and they do it to EVERYONE. Get used to it.
Huge mistake by O to comment and profile the ole police/blackmam bias.
Yes, it was a mistake for Obama to comment on this before all the facts were out. The "ole police/blackman bias"? Riddle me this Batman... If there's no police bias against black men in this country, why do officers like Sargent Crowley teach courses on racial profiling in police academys all across the country? It's an unfortunate result of our society and it does exist.
He will have to aplogize at somepoint--has did everyting but say he was sorry--seems only thing he's been able to apoligize for- is our country at ever foreign stop he makes.
He DID apologize to Sargent Crowley and to the Cambridge Police Dept. for speaking out on the incident before he had all the facts. What more do you want?
Hedgehog: we have an out of control racist non citizen as President
Hedgehog: Obama is just proving that he hates white people.
Hedgehog: (responding to bigotry being all over this site) whats wrong with that? The biggest racist is our President, he abandoned the white race as he is 1/2 white.
Looks like Hedge is leading in the "attaboy" game. :SIB
uh,no..respectfully,that`s wrong...
a good friend of mine was a police officer in baltimore and is now a bail bondsman in florida....
he said to me that,"rowov" (resisting officer without violence) can be charged anytime a person does not follow an officer?s directive..... if you are told to ?stand over there? and do not, you are subject to arrest....
he said it`s a misdemeanor in florida...and a $250 bond....these types are charges are dropped later in most cases...
it does, however, allow the defendant the opportunity to reflect on the error of his ways as he is cuffed, transported to jail, processed in, and bailed out....
he said that usually they have 6-8 hours to reflect....bock said this was a "teachable moment"...he was right about that...as far as gates is concerned...
rowov charges are usually not prosecuted,according to my bud....
only in cases where the officer is injured, or the defendant has other charges will the charge not be dropped at some point.....
you can`t have police officers debating suspects who don`t obey their commands....they didn`t know who this yo-yo was until after the shit hit the fan...you don`t deny giving your i.d. to an officer that requests it....that`s nuts...
case closed..
as far as obama is concerned,he was wrong to make a comment before he had his facts straight...plain and simple...
that`s why he`s backtracking like a mofo...
apparently the exchange between gates and the officer was recorded because the officer's open mike was on....and, according to abc, gates was yelling ,carrying on and disobeying an officer`s commands... ....
if that's the case, i sure hope the cambridge pd releases it, though i think that gates, dear leader, and the others trying to make this about racism and not about the fact that gates acted like a total a-hole will do everything in their power to make sure it never sees the light of day....
"I should not as President have stepped into it."
well ,duh.......
Last edited:
Ask anyone that knows me, I am the same on here as in real life, I have an opinion I express it, everyone knows my stance on everything.
My take...
This professor is an asshole, and he gave the police no other option than to take him in.
It's not profiling if 2 people are trying to break in a house and they are reported by a citizen to the police. This is especially true with all the recent crime in the area as I'm sure that has heightened all of the area residents' attention.
Obama should have never made a comment about this incident.
Dogs That Bark is not a racist.
I find it very interesting that a left-winger (StevieD) thinks the actions were justified, and in the past, one of the most maligned right-wingers on the site (Wilson) thinks the professor should not have been arrested. That shows that people here can and do think for themselves and along with several other comments from other posters, I think this is a good thread.
This professor is an asshole, and he gave the police no other option than to take him in.
It's not profiling if 2 people are trying to break in a house and they are reported by a citizen to the police. This is especially true with all the recent crime in the area as I'm sure that has heightened all of the area residents' attention.
Obama should have never made a comment about this incident.
Dogs That Bark is not a racist.
I find it very interesting that a left-winger (StevieD) thinks the actions were justified, and in the past, one of the most maligned right-wingers on the site (Wilson) thinks the professor should not have been arrested. That shows that people here can and do think for themselves and along with several other comments from other posters, I think this is a good thread.
you really are a boot licking asshole, gw.
I have been arrested on my land for nothing other then responding to an asshole dipship cop (some little dickwad that we all fucked with in highschool because he was, and is, a tool like you)
I called Harry Shorstein's (the current state atty then in fla) son's friend and it was thrown out.
I was lucky and I am sure that most are thrown out. But some result in peoples lives being severely impacted.
The idea that grown up patrol boys can arrest any citizen at anytime for anything is disgusting and absurd.
Keep selling out you little boot licking puss.
"you can`t have police officers debating suspects who don`t obey their commands"
all of those gay pics you post are really starting to make alot of sense.
all of those gay pics you post are really starting to make alot of sense.
Their lives were in danger. They had no choice but to pull him from the HOUSE THAT HE OWNS and take him to jail. No other option, other than to leave his premises.
But if the old colored man was getting upidity, well then they had no choice.
:mj07:
Last edited:
Let's suppose that the nutty professor convinced them it was his house despite not providing any identification. Turned out he was NOT thenutty professor and cleaned the house out. How do you think the police would have been looked at if that had happened?
It's interesting that those on this thread who are mocking the President for speaking out on this before all the facts are out are the same ones who are convinced ALL fault lies with Professor Gates. You guys are doing the very same thing you're mocking the President for doing. Are you hypocrites or were you at the scene of the incident? :shrug:
