Not seeing it, Dio. How does this materially change the situation?
Why do you ask? Is there some law that prescribes the proper circumstances under which a teacher should grant an extension?
It doesn’t really, except that it marginally supports Gates’ contention that they contnued to harrass him after he’d already proven he lived in the house. The tape indicates that the police knew he was and called for more cars and a paddy wagon anyway.
It further exonerates Lucia Whalen, who even when pressed could not identify the two men by race. She’s actually conveying the message on behalf of an older woman. She clearly states that she thinks that might live or work in the house. In fact, she states “I don’t know if they live there” twice.
You also can hear Gates in the background on the Crowley transmission. At about -1:15 you can hear “I want-” which might be him asking for Crowley’s badge number. But no yelling and screaming.
I’m not sure it does more then confirm that they cops weren’t going there just because there were two black men around a house.
Personally, I’m of the view that Gates was annoyed at having locked himself out of his house and doubly pissed at an officious cop (who probably should have used a modicum of common sense when he saw a small, preppy man with a Harvard ID, who didn’t try to run and cosidered that maybe there is more to it than meets the eyy). Gates lashed out at the cop, the cop decided to get even more officious and further infuriate Gates.
A President who shouldn’t have opened his mouth, and who wisely backed off, and shite load of conservative commentators who think any of this actually means anything.
I might would “take” it depending on the student’s particular objection and the attendant evidence.
I might not.
The decision would be entirely dependent on the reason cited and the evidence, much as it was when I was a cop.
I’m sorry, are you illiterate? It would seem that under your question, you’ve displayed a complete inability to read and understand. Should you care to in the future ask a question, try to make it sound less retarded. Do better.
Look. There’s a difference between yelling at a cop and creating a public nuisance. You’re not allowed to be the latter and the cops are allowed to put a stop to it. Despite the ruling that the huffers found, if that ruling doesn’t translate into law, there’s nothing for the cop to enforce but the law itself. The discussion that the nation needs to have is this one; do we let the people we entrust with the safety of the public use some discretion in dealing with the public or do we have an absolute order of rules for dealing with every possible situation.
I have to believe that no matter who Mr. Gates was or who his friends were, that he should be treated the exact same way as anyone else who acted like a braying jackass in the middle of the afternoon in the middle of a busy neighborhood.
Please define “busy neighborhood” and provide a cite that Dr. Gates’ neighborhood was “busy”.
Then show me that Dr. Gates’ has a proclivity to act that way without provocation.
Thanks.
Even under this rubric the officer displayed poor discretion. Given the tenor of your post I assume you don’t mean that officers should arrest on a whim, but should show some judgment.
The officer was the target of the tirade. The officer was leaving. Hence, it was within his power, and even was his intent, to remove the stimulus from the situation. Instead, he chose not to leave, chose to exercise his discretion in shutting up someone that was bothering him.
He could have just left.
He could have said his name one last time and just left.
He could have handed Gates a business card and just left.
He could have placed a business card on the ground and just left.
Gates would have still been on his front porch. End of scene.
Well, I suppose a ‘busy’ neighborhood would be one of those that had a few people walking around, enough to take notice, say, “the caller and at least seven unidentified passers-by” could be construed as busy.
Mr. Gates has shown his own proclivity to act in such a manner by, well, acting in such a manner, hence the arrest.
You don’t read well, do you?
I asked you to
All you did was refer to the incident in question, which was clearly not without provocation. Please try again. Thanks.
Also, acting a certain way one time does not show a predisposition, a proclivity, or a pattern. Most people understand that already, but in light of your reply, it seems prudent to point that out.
Yes, that’s the message I intend to convey.
Yes, the officer was the target of the tirade.
Yes, it’s true the officer was leaving, which is the problem in my opinion.
Gates could have stayed inside.
He could have made a call to the watch commander
He could have made a call to the Chief of the Cambridge Police
He could have contacted the Chief of the Harvard police (as I’m sure there’s a congenial relationship between the two)
Hell, he could have sent an email to any number of people, maybe even the President and had, right through the back channels, Crowley working the midnight parking detail at the local mall for the next 8 months. He wanted the attention, he wanted to show who he was and who his friends were. All he ended up doing was showing his ass.
Gates controlled from the beginning the outcome of this incident. The cop was leaving, Gates stoked the fire again. If Gates had gone from mildly agitated in the house to frantic and highly agitated outside of the house, Crowley did exactly as he should have done. How does Crowley know this chap is not violent (should he guess?). How does Crowley know that the guy he left in his home in a snit wasn’t going to go completely batshit when he left? Answer? He doesn’t. That’s the primary reason for discretion in the first place. A couple hours in processing has a way of cooling ones’ heels. The fact that Gates is a harvard professor is ancillary to any point, if it means anything at all, it means that Crowley uses LESS discretion and relies MORE on procedure than anything else.
On preview though, Lochdale’s last post is spot-on.
It seems like in this whole thread there has been only one post that references Dr. Gates point of view of the story. Among the completely different account of what happened, he states that he has proof that the he had a sickness that would limit his ability to mouth off to the cop in a fashion that would make him need to leave the house to hear his radio (a doctor’s note). And in addition to that we have a recording where you can hear Dr. Gates talking but in no way raising his voice. Yet with all this info we still have a large portion of the SDMB (thinking people here would be of higher intelligence then your run of the mill message board) almost completely ignoring what a black man says happened and only focusing on what the white police officer states happened in his police report. Taking this into consideration, I don’t understand why people think it’s so hard for minorities to have some amount of mistrust for the authorities. Adding to it all the stories that occur in which innocent people are beaten, tasered, and killed by the police should heighten the interests in which police profile. But it seems with the majority of a subset of the population they continue to deny its existence. This continues to baffle me.
Well, perhaps it’s because your question was pointless and not answerable, chiefly because I don’t follow Mr. Gates around and watch his every move. What I know is that he acted that way once, and that’s all it took to haul him in.
No, but if I walk up to you and punch you in the face for no reason at all, wouldn’t you be the tiniest bit worried that I’d do it again? That shows a proclivity for violent behavior, even if it doesn’t show one for punching you in the face.
Not sure about that, simply because you make a wretchedly lame analogy once, that doesn’t show a trend.
I’m sorry, I’m a bit out of the loop on this one. Do you have a cite, or at least, a link you can post?
No, it doesn’t. Proclivity is
There is nothing habitual about a one-time incident. Also, You keep failing to acknowledge that Dr. Gates had some provocation that helps explain his behaviour. Your scenario
isn’t even close to equivalent to a man being confronted by multiple armed policemen in his own home.
Or are you unable to understand that Dr. Gates didn’t just start yelling without provocation? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that there was provocation?
Have we heard from any of the neighbors, as to the extent that their peace was disturbed? Perhaps the officers prompt action prevented a crime from being commited? Is there a crime “Conspiracy to lurk with intent to commit a disturbance”?
Seconded.