How did this assholery prevent the cop from performing his duty? He found out Gates was the homeowner. That was his duty. Job done. Go away.
What duty was harmed in any way? I don’t see Crowley’s ego as a duty. If you think teaching citizens that cops have the power to fuck with them , then even that was accomplished.
How about you address what I wrote. You implied Crowley’s actions were extralegal. That’s simply, factually, clearly incorrect. And he was arrested for disturbing the peace. and Crowley was within the law and the parameters of his job to make that jusdgment.
So, my little mongoose, no, his actions were not extralegal. They were 100% legal. THAT is not a judgement call. So, you may want to stop perpetuating this, uh… untruth.
HA! Hon—you give yourself waaay too much credit. Unless to you “prickly” is synonymous with “boring”, “tiresome”, “trite”.
I’d ask for a cite that goes to me providing, or attempting to provide, the names of “every prominent black academic in America that * could think of”, but I just don’t care enough to shine a light on your dishonesty. So I won’t.
You’re in a bit of a logical pickle, Mags. If you are going to say the arrest was justified, then you pretty much have to say Gates was guilty of a crime. Nonetheless, he was released without charge. Other than the sworn word of the cops, you got nothin’. Have you any complaints lodged by the neighbors? Any other evidence at all?
Now, if you want to make the leap of faith and believe what the police tell you, that’s your business. But that doesn’t make it a fact, that makes a fiercely held opinion.
Not necessarily.
An arrest can be justified without the arrestee being guilty of a crime.
Arrest requires probable cause, while guilt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
So, while I take no side on whether magellan01 is right or wrong, he can properly argue that the arrest was justified without gates being guilty.
You can’t remember your own post of a few days ago, where you lumped Cornel West and Skip Gates in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and said you assumed they were all racist in their hearts? But couldn’t answer a simple question about who Cornel West even is? And I am the one who’s dishonest? No, you’re just racist in your heart. I feel free to assume that based on your actions.
Let me help you out with logic. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. A police officer has the power to exercise his judgement in making such an arrest. It is, by definition, a judgement call. These judgements are made every day by cops across the country. In this case, we also have cops on the scene at the time of the arrest, witnessing the very behavior that led to the arrest. They both thought Gates was belligerent.
And given that the cops were there while Gates got bellligerent, how in the world would you expect there to be a complaint by a neighbor calling it in. There were a bunch of cops there already! This may be the dumbest argument you’ve offered so far. And that’s no small feat.
Nice try. Actually, no, not nice: lame. Lame try. YOU made the claim that Crowley’s arresting of Gates was “extralegal”. That’s simply bullshit. If it is not, please cite the law that Crowley broke. Of course, you didn’t have the balls to say “illegal”. So, here are your two options: retract the claim and admit you were wrong. Or cite the specific law that he broke.
It provided further yuks for you to say my case is thin because I only have “the sworn word of cops”. When you, my ridiculous friend, have ZERO to back you up your position. Even those who might not agree with the judgement Crowley made in arresting the belligerent professor for disorderly conduct should be able to see that Crowley acted within the law. Assuming they chose to be honest, of course.
I remember the post just fine. If you do, I’m surprised that you would choose to mischaracterize it the way you did. And do now. On second though, no, I’m not surprised at all you would do that.
And you can feel free to assume anything you like, toots. It’ll just add to the long list of things your soft head is wrong about.
Crowley acted within the law? Then charges were quickly dropped. If Crowley had anything ,it would have been pursued. It was obviously a cop being petty. It is legal for a cop to be a prick. But the state does not have to waste any more tax dollars on it.
Huh? You seem to doubt Crowley acted legally, then imply that he was just being a prick and that being a prick is legal. Whether you know it or not, you answered your own question.
Thanks for your support in showing Elucidator that he is wrong.
Frankly – and as much as I hate to say it – I’m beginning to doubt Gates’ honesty and integrity, at least to a minor degree. I hate to say it because I’ve grown to admire and like the guy based on videos I’ve seen and his body of work.
In every descripton of the event that I’ve seen in which Gates explains what happened, he makes himself sound calm and reasonable. He says all he did was keep repeating [in an apparently respectful and dispassionate way] that he wanted Crowley’s name and badge number. He uses phrasing that sounds unlikely: “Are you not responding to me because you are a white officer and I am a black man?”, etc. He says he only spoke with one officer, and that after he was arrested all he said was, “So this is how you treat a black man in America?”
But in an interview with Oprah (Cite) she says she saw a neighbor on TV who said Gates was extremely belligerent and uncooperative. Gates’ response again, was an innocent-sounding “All I said was I want your name and badge number,” and then once I was arrested I asked “So this is how you treat a black man in America?”
He also (in my opinion, admittedly) seems not to give a straight answer to Oprah’s question about his having said “Yeah, I’ll speak to yo mama outside!” He jokingly asks what black man in this day and age says things like that, and suggests that they watched old episodes of Good Times to come up with it. She seems to try to press it a little and finally says, “So they made it up?”, and he says, amidst the laughter, “Yeah.”
All in all, it sounds like he’s playing the race card big time; portraying himself in a calm and reasonable way when he was anything but; seems evasive or at least to be dancing on the head of a pin in some of his answers; and denies certain aspects of the police report that witnesses (other officers and at least one neighbor) substantiate.
Again, it truly does not please me to have to report these things because I have come to respect and admire him. Just last night I found myself making notes on a few of his books I want to read. And while my concerns and observations about him have taken a bit of the sheen off, I do still hold him in high regard and I do still look forward to reading some of his work.
We are all pleased to note your lurching progress from the paths of political error, and accord our influence no more credit than is due. But a small point.
As noted previously, the reports contradict themselves and each other. As well as the witnesses/neighbors, also covered herein. You blow right past these noted points, as though they had not been made, or you were not aware. To grant validity to one form of hearsay and refuse it to another, you need a good reason. You haven’t provided one.
Mags: While it is true that we give policemen discretion in matters of enforcement that makes their decisions “legal”, that discretion does not extend to charging a citizen with a crime simply as a disciplinary measure. Disciplining a citizen is for the law and the courts. We entrust the policeman with a gun, that does not mean that any use of it that may enter his head is therefore legal.
Well, oh slithery one, show me the cite of a statute that indicates that Crowley broke the law. and we’re not talking about guns, are we? No, we’re talking about a cop that made a judgment call, as cops are empowered to do and do every day, and arrested someone for disorderly conduct. You claim that it was illegal in this instance. I’ve asked you for proof of that charge. Fuck, even evidence of this conjured illegality, and you come back with more obfuscation.
Let’s recap, shall we? You said Crowley’s actions were “extralegal”. I told you that you were full of shit, and asked you to substantiate your claim. You come back with more bullshit again and again. You insist, based on ZERO evidence other then your interstate mind-reading powers, that Crowley was simply punishing him for a disciplinary measure and NOT for disorderly conduct. Yet, there were two cops who have backed that up. More clips were there and NONE have offered a conflicting opinion. And now, according to Starving, evidently, even a neighbor.
Thanks for that cite. I agree that this incident has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever merit his scholarship may have. I also agree that this interview shows him to be a liar.
And Luci may be interested to hear that one of the neighbors also corroborated the opinion of the three police officers. as if facts might suddenly penetrate that thick rind.
luci, luci, luci! How you do go on. It’s most amusing to see how you so cleverly attempt to take credit for my alleged “progress” while humbly denying it at the same time.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that I’ve never been ON the path of political error in the first place. 
I am aware of discrepancies between backpacks and suitcases; whether or not the men appeared to be breaking in; words that were or were not spoken on both sides; and surmises as to the cops covering for each other. I am not aware of witnesses’ disagreement as to whether Gates was behaving belligerently or calmly.
In fact, I believe one of the touchstones of your position in this thread has been that his aggressive belligerence toward the police is not only understandable (for a black man) and admirable (“questioning authority,” as I believe you put it), it is not grounds for arrest. In other words, your stance has been that even though Gates was behaving like a jerk, it was 1) understandable, and 2) not sufficient reason enough to arrest him. But now that Gates is trying to portray himself in a less aggressive light, you begin to call into question the very belligerence you have been defending all along.
You’re welcome. I’ve truly been disappointed at the version of events that Gates has been describing in the interviews I’ve seen. I believe that most if not all of them took place before the White House meeting though, so hopefully he gained a little insight which has caused him to back off from his knee-jerk reaction that Crowley’s behavior was all about race. He seems much more amenable toward Crowley now and he seems to want to put this all behind him.
Yelling at a cop or showing disrespect is not a crime in Mass. Not a crime. That means he should not have arrested Gates. The courts have held that the first amendment rights are abridged when a person is arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. fir yelling Gates was wrongly arrested, even if he yelled his head off. Which did he did not. Gates was trying to get Crowley’s badge number and his name. That pissed him off.
It was dropped because it was not a crime.
It isn’t ground for arrest, certainly not within the confines of his own home. Whether Gates was belligerant, condescending, or sweet as pie, is of no consequence. “Understandable” doesn’t enter into it. “Not sufficient reason” is all there is. The police are not empowered to defend their personal dignity with the force of law.
And even if I were totally hypocritical in my attitude to his alleged belligerance, that wouldn’t affect the substance in the slightest.
And I told you why they were “extralegal”, an opinion in concurrence with our esteemed counsel, friend Bricker, noted legal scholar and wise latino. In response, you keep crying “bullshit” as though your very word were evidence. Sadly, no. Yes, you did say “bullshit” several times, in that regard your testimony is entirely accurate.
In his haste to return to pressing wildflowers, he neglected the cite. We’ll just wait on that one, shall we, before we press it as evidence?
Disorderly conduct is a crime in Mass., and that’s what Gates was arrested for. IMO, he could have also been arrested for interfering with a police investigation because of his refusal to step out onto the porch, and also for turning his back and walking away from the officer and for hectoring him over his name and badge number while the officer was trying to verify his identity.
The charges were dropped because Gates is famous, influential and well-connected, and because the arrest became a political football. I’m sure word came down from the mayor, the police chief, etc. to drop it like a hot potato. His “innocence” had nothing to do with why the charges were dropped.
Do you feel that the “protesters” at the Democratic townhall meetings should be arrested as well? They are not in their own homes, but at a public event, and are being far more beligerent and disruptive than Gates was (again, in his own home.)
Drivel. Hes not under arrest and within his own home, he can wander wherever he damned well pleases. He can step onto the porch, he can go to the bathroom and take a dump, or he can refuse to step on the porch. Your charge that he is “interfering” with an investigation of a crime that didn’t even happen is balloon juice.
May we assume that this is based on nothing more than you encyclopedic knowledge of Massachussets, its laws and police procedures? You have an unfortunate habit of dropping stunning revelations without citation. Still waiting on that neighbor citation, as noted above.