He made his mistake by criticizing the incident and then speaking broadly. Even if he had no intention of making any connection everyone who hears the statement would read a connection into it.
This happened in Cambridge (at Harvard), so the D.C. police were not involved.
Even if he’s an asshole, it’s still pretty dumb to arrest somebody you know is not guilty of any crimes. It’s not illegal to break into your own house with a crowbar - and they knew it was his house.
Seriously, I’m frankly astonished that people are defending the actions of the police. Seriously - how could he have possibly justified them arresting him? Well, let’s think about this. He could have hit the cop, or shot them. He could have been smoking a joint when he answered the door. He could have had a dead body on his parlor floor behind him when he came out.
So, did any of that happen? Does anybody think it’s possible that any of that happened, or anything like it? Because if not, it boggles the mind that people could thing this arrest was justified. I mean, last I checked we didn’t live in a police state where people can be dragged out of their houses and arrested for no reason. And it’s simply not illegal to verbally abuse a cop. (Stupid, perhaps, but not illegal.)
So yeah. I can agree that Obama saying “stupid” was a poor choice of words - he was basically making up a soundbyte, placing it on a silver platter, wrapping it up in shiny paper with a large bow, and delivering it by hand to his political enemies. But defending the cops in this matter? How big of blinders do you people have on?
Indeed. Thank you for the correction.
What, stating that this particular cop fucked up is more important in your mind than the race relations of the cops generally? Even if the Pres doesn’t, by his own admission, know whether it is true?
Seems to me that once you admit you are biased and don’t know the facts, you should not go on to comment.
The article you posted demonstrates that the Pres now thinks the same:
Though I guess you could spin it as evidence that Obama’s an “empty suit” if it so pleases you. 
Well - I think that a pretty strong case for “stupid” can be made from the police report itself.
First - Police arrive, see Gates through the front door, and enter his house.
Second - they talk (Gates mostly yells) in the foyer.
Third - The officer tells Gates, who is already yelling, that if Gates wants to continue discussions - that he will have to come outside.
Fourth - Once outside, Gates continues yelling just like he was inside.
Fifth - Now that Gates is yelling outside, the officer arrests him for making a “loud and tumultuous behaviour, in a public place”.
Now - assuming that those are even legitimate charges - he was only being loud and tumultuous in a public place, because the Police Officer told him to come out into a public place. I mean - isn’t that pretty stupid? If yellling in a public place is a crime, then why did the officer tell Gates to come out of his private residence?
And finally - I think one other key point from the police report:
So - after learning that Gates was in his own house (as evidenced by the Harvard ID he presented) and that no crime had been committed, the police officer then requested that additional police get involved??? Why?
All the above comes from the police report. Assuming that it is completely correct and unbiased, the bottom line is - Gates was being an ass. Even more bottom line - Gates had a great reason to be one. At any point, the officer could have realized this and worked to diffuse the situation. He didn’t. Cooler heads later prevailed - but only after the damage had been done.
Look - if a cop comes to my house investigating a suspected break in - that’s fine. If he asks for proof that I’m in my own house - that’s fine too. But - if I provide the proof - and the officer doesn’t immediately appologize and leave, then that’s NOT fine. At that point, the cop is in the wrong - and anything he does that isn’t working to immediately diffuse the situation - only makes it worse.
They didn’t arrest him for that. Basically, they arrested him for “annoying a cop”. Walk up to a cop who’s standing on a street corner and start yelling at him, you’ve just increased your chances of being arrested by 10000%.
Why? Because Law Enforcement Officers are two very different things wrapped up in a single package.
First, they are the physical embodiment of the law, they are the only thing that gives the law teeth. For all the judges, lawyers and legislators, if there isn’t a guy with the power to enforce those laws, you’ll have anarchy. In the field they decide what is and isn’t a crime, and who does and doesn’t get arrested, in real time. They don’t have weeks to mull over the decision, or 12 people designated to decide the person’s fate, the LEO decides right then and there if an arrestable offense has occurred, and are given the power to make good on that decision.
Second, they’re people. Very much fallible, ego driven, emotional, stupid at times and if you make their day difficult, they can choose to make your day difficult, even if it’s a stupid choice.
Apologize? For what?
What “situation” is there to “defuse”?
If a cop is investigating a suspected break in, he (or she) is just doing their job.
Gates did not break into his house. He used a key. He then tried to fix the jammed door AFTER he was already in the house.
Gates did provide identification when the cops showed up, but the cops still refused to fuck off, even though, by their own admission, they understood pretty much from the start that he was in his own house.
They arrested him for mouthing off. That’s the long and short of it. He might have been wrong about them having racist motives (they probably did not), but that’s not illegal.
The arrest was stupid because Gates had committed no crime.
Conceded that he was arrested for annoying the cop - and conceded that that yelling at cops is not the best way to ensure a trouble-free existence, even if the yelling is justified. In fact, I might even call yelling at a cop “stupid”.
However, that doesn’t make it any less stupid to arrest an innocent man, even if he is an annoying asshole. This fact is not lessened by the fact that cops are fallible humans - the fact it’s possible that this can happen does not make it a good idea.
No, that’s precisely the thing which separates Obama from previous Presidents, who would have been wiser than to call the police stupid, especially while not being in possession of the full facts. It’s not sack, it’s called common decency.
What discussion was there that Gates needed to continue?
After getting Gates’ ID, the cop did leave, and Gates followed. At that point, who is continuing the situation, and who is defusing it? The guy who leaves, or the guy who follows?
There’s plenty of stupid to go around. As you said, it should be fine for a cop to properly investigate a reported break in. The cop showing up and asking for ID is the picture of a man doing his job, may as well scream at the mailman for dropping off your mail.
Very true - the cop is doing his job, up until he determines that no crime has been committed. Once I prove that I live there, then there is no longer any suspected break in and no crime to investigate. The cop now has proof that not only am I innocent, but that no crime was committed in the first point. At that point (again - after seeing proof that no crime was committed), I expect the LEO to say “Sorry for your time, have a good afternoon” and walk away. Instead - this guy called for more police.
What facts was Obama not in possession of?
Most politicians don’t just refrain from commenting on the cops, they make kneejerk defenses of anything and everything they do, whether they know all the facts or not.
There is no factual question as to whether the cops acted inappropriately (i.e. “stupidly”). They made an arrest they had no basis for making. The end.
First - Gates was being an ass and certainly continuing to make the situation worse. I agree. However - I don’t think he should be arrested for that.
Second - after getting Gates’ ID, the cop didn’t leave. He called for more cops - and that’s what I don’t understand. After being shown proof that no crime had been committed, he decided that he should call for more police?
While I agree in the case of this Prof the cops should have just walked away, what you said doesn’t necessarily follow. If the home-owner does genuinely “create a public disturbance” as a result of being insulted by the cops having the temerity to do their job, an arrest would be warranted. While there was no “crime” initially, the act of creating a public disturbance is, in itself, an offence.
The difference here is that the elderly Prof, while acting like an entitled dick (assuming the police report is accurate) wasn’t doing anything that comes close to “creating a public disturbance”.
He wanted to get the officers name and badge number so that he could file a complaint, which he had a right to do.
It’s completely unprofessional for a President to weigh in on a racially charged incident without knowing the facts. He of all people should know this. He was smart enough to throw the caveat out that he didn’t know the facts but that just means he may have to publicly pull his foot out of his mouth down the road.
Beyond the fact that he could be throwing gas on a smoldering ember he will look stupid if he’s wrong. At best he’s sticking up for a friend. At worst, he’s going to lose votes over it.
Heh, you still arguing this? Obama himself evidently disagrees with you about the appropriateness of making the remark.
Was he wrong then, or is he wrong now?
You’d have to ask the cops that. They could have simply fucked off like they were supposed to do.
Because they asked him to, but following the cops outside is not illegal anyway.
The cops who refuse to leave after they’ve assertained that no crime has been committed, then goad a guy into following them outside just so they can say they arrested him in public.
We don’t know that he screamed at them until they refused to leave after he had already proven his idenity.
What was the point of calling the campus cops, if they already KNEW he was on the Harvard faculty?