Wow, that’s quite a leap. You jumped about a mile over the excluded middle, not even coming close to touching it. No, a “full investigation” like what you described is not called for. Cops know this. That’s why they have certain procedures they’re supposed to follow. It’s steps they’ve deemed are prudent. Cops are supposed to follow them, no?
Untrue. See the first paragraph.
You mean for the whole three seconds it took to form the words “May I see your state ID?”, he gave him the benefit of the doubt? And in precisely those three seconds, he was on the radio describing Gates as the “resident”? You want to stick with that one?
You get so few opportunities to crow and gloat, it would be mean-spirited to begrudge you this one.
Sneaky little Dickens, aren’t you? You offer support you candidly admit doesn’t prove anything, then offer us the information that support was also offered by someone who wasn’t there - “showed up afterwards”. Do you think that two handfuls of nothing is more than one handful of nothing?
The first paragraph says only that Figueroa arrived at 12:44 pm, and that Crowley was already there. Period.
My mockery of the term “full investigation” is justified by Rands attempt to make some sort of hay out of Gate’s “hindrance”, he used the term to lend substance to an argument woefully lacking, I didn’t buy it.
And what about those onlookers? Were they questioned, there is no mention of it. If they were in some doubt about Gates legitimate residency, why, there was a perfect opportunity! Which, for some reason, they did not avail themselves.
Rather odd, don’t you think?
Huh? Read Bricker’s transcript. You’re pulling this “three seconds” out of your butt.
Credit where credit is due: not bad. Which means A+ for you.
There’s a difference between evidence that supports a position and proof. Sorry, I though most people who might participate in a debate board would realize that. And the black officer was on the scene, just not inside the home.
That strikes me as a pretty dishonest thing to say. Gates was upset at being asked for ID, and you “don’t know” how he would have reacted to being asked to open his own personal suitcases inside his own home?
Suuure you don’t know.
You have made (accidentally, no doubt) a valid point here.
I will address it after getting rid of your ridiculous points.
You know this… how? Where were the neighbors?
Yes, genius. The transcript said that Gates was the resident. But look at WHO said it.
Now, your one valid point: if an ID doesn’t prove anything, why ask for it?
The lack of an ID means you definitely continue investigating, and I think any reasonable observer would agree with that. When a neighbor reports a possible break-in, and you arrive to find an unidentified man in the home in question, you cannot simply take his word. So you ask for ID. If he has ID, you seek some other confirmation that he’s in the right place. Dispatchers can confirm phone listings. Crowley asked for Harvard’s police to be contacted; they could have confirmed that Gates was a member of the faculty – which, while not proving anything, certainly dials the suspicion way back.
This discussion is intended to address the idea that “the ID should have ended it.”
Wrong again! It also says he “stepped inside”, thereby showing tumbledown’s assertion that Crowley was the ONLY officer to enter the home to be false. As was my intent.
Man, this isn’t going well for you…
No, I’m addressing the idea that “the ID should have ended it.” I think the “phony ID” business is highly unlikely.
Yup. Unless it turns out that Gates had a collection of Goyas and Picassos and 12-carat diamonds in the house, the idea that someone who craft a fake ID to commit a burglary is not credible.
Well, no. If an additional five minutes can provide some validation that he’s the correct CURRENT resident, then the officer is probably entitled to continue investigating; he is not required to immediately accept the ID and vacate the premises.
So you leaped to some ridiculous notion. I’ll look to ignore such nonsense in the future. And you didn’t answer the question I asked. Do you think cops should follow police procedure or not?
The questions about his ID were asked inside the house. The onlookers were outside, at the curb. At the point they went outside, evidently the question of who Gates was was satisfied and Crowley was walking down the steps to the sidewalk. That is when Gates got arrested for disorderly conduct.
OK, then, how long does it take you to form the words in your mind and shuffle them down to your mouth?
And when Crowley refers to Gates as the “resident”, do you think he means “resident”, or is that code for “possible suspect who claims to live here”?
Like hell you will. If you think you can score a point, no power on God’s green Earth gonna stop you, short of a .38 caliber lobotomy. You’re no better than the rest of us girls, communion dress notwithstanding.
Gee, looks like a trap. Big pile of leaves right in the middle of the path, and it looks like someone has done some digging, but I don’t see a hole. And that smell. Is that Acme Bear Trap grease? C’mon, Mags, get real! You knew my answer before you hit the submit button, I support police procedures that foster justice, otherwise, no. Duh.
And the good citizens of Cambridge were thus protected. That was the sole motivation?
If you believed, as I do, that the motivation for the arrest was a bit of informal police discipline, would you still support it? Do you regard that sort of police discretion as desirable?
Aren’t you talking about the time from when he was handed the Harvard ID until when he spoke those words. I don’t know how much time passed. I don’t know at what points he was dealing with the radio, or trying to calm down the asshole racist professor.
I don’t think you do either.
Already answered. He was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of a doubt means that you think A, but still allow that its antithesis, B, might yet be possible. Hence, you are saying that Crowley had good reason to believe that Gates was not the legal resident, but still considered it possible he might be.
With you, its not always obvious whether you have misspoken or are attempting sleight of word.
Clarify?
YOu’re ignoring the fact that I’ve let you slide on 143 instances of abject nonsense already—and that’s just in this thread!
Oh, give me a break. Like I wouldn’t use the New and Improved Acme Bear Trap grease with the Fabreeze added. (But, that might have been one of your funniest ones yet. Twice in one thread? The odds for another are mindblowing.)
As far as the procedure, Crowley followed procedure. If Gates didn’t choose to be an ass, guess what? No arrest. Imagine that.
I think that’s often the case with disorderly conduct. Like I’ve said numerous times, it’s a judgement call. I see the sense in them. Even though I was on the unfortunate end of a ridiculous one myself once.
I’d flip it. Having been handed the Harvard ID with his picture on it, he worked on the assumption that Gates was the resident, then attempted to follow through using police procedure. Benefit of the doubt means you’re willing to err on the side of the other person for the time being. Again, one of those things I’d assume most people know.
The nub. I do not agree that an officer should have the discretion to apply discipline to a citizen. You agree, then, that the cause of the arrest was not any illegal action on Gate’s part, but simply that he was disrespectful?
The law is there for a reason, that reason is not to offer protection for Sgt Gates sensibilities, or even his dignity. And he has no discretion to use the law for his own ends.
He means he wants to give the Harvard police the name of the individual so they can confirm his bona fides.
And part of the law allows for a cop to use discretion in arresting someone for disorderly conduct. So you support it! Excellent!!! He was belligerent. He was accusing someone of racism. There was a crowd gathering. He was warned. My God, man, turn on Cops this afternoon.
Not the same thing at all. I’d be willing to bet you already know that. To review:
Not even if its Pledge Week.
Aside to the Galleria du Peanuit: these people gathered outside, I don’t know that anyone has interviewed them. With such media attention, that seems odd. Anybody know anything about that? Just curious.