POTUS Weighs in on Harvard Prof Arrest

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by abc_123

The salient point here is that he didn't have all the facts but he had to respond anyway in a way that basically accused the LEO's of racisim. Nice job Mr. President. I wonder what other issues you are acting on that the facts don't really matter.

Nevermind.

Hey whatever happened to that "post-racial" thing ??

My take on his comments was that he accused the officers of being stupid for arresting a man in his own home. He then turned the discussion to the issue of racial profiling.

MOO, the president's decision to discuss this event so glibly is yet more evidence that the man is not really interested in discussing American race relations in a way that does not benefit him politically and personally.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

That was campaigning, now they are governing.

TR

That's right.


Silly me.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, the president's decision to discuss this event so glibly is yet more evidence that the man is not really interested in discussing American race relations in a way that does not benefit him politically and personally.

It's more evidence of a lot more than that...

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

That was campaigning, now they are governing.

TR

Coulda fooled me.

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by abc_123

It's more evidence of a lot more than that...

A consistent display of shallow thinking more akin to a "rock star" than a head of state, IMHO.

As someone said earlier, and we thought Biden was the dummy.

RF 1

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

A consistent display of shallow thinking more akin to a "rock star" than a head of state, IMHO.

See, now you're just being mean...to rock stars.

[Box]

...rock stars buy lyrics and then lip sync them
...politicians are handed speeches and then read them from a teleprompter
...both of them are usually different on stage than they are behind closed doors
...even a hit single gets annoying when the radio plays it over and over again
...just like a politicians voice
...rock stars (bono-and others) think they are politicians
...politicians behave like and want to be treated like rock stars


just a few rambling thoughts

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I don't see it as apples and oranges. In both instances, you are offering analysis of events to which we do not have access to all the documentation. In the shooting, you suggest that judgment should be reserved until all the available facts are collected. In the Gates arrest, you appear disinterested that the same standard level of due diligence be applied.

The reason is is Apples to Oranges is in one case all you have to go by is a grainy video of an untrained civilian who made a split second decision, those facts can be contested and will be in a court of law.

In this case you have two trained officers who documented what happened, whose accounts match the facts on the ground and my personal experiences and who would have been justified in placing cuffs on Mr. Gates as soon as he saw him. Since you are an academic and clearly don't understand LE I'll explain why too you.

You have a report from a citizen that 2 black males are trying to break into a house, an officer arrives on scene, see's his complainant who says he is in the correct place where the men were breaking in, upon approach he sees the evidence of forced entry as noted by Mr. Gates in the police report. Now the average officer has an eye witness saying she saw a break in in progress, gave a description that matched the signs on the ground. Further there is a black male on the premises who refuses to provide identification and is verbally abusive. (do you know how many criminals try this same behavior?) At that point the officer could have placed Mr. Gates in cuffs for the officer and Mr. Gates safety. These are the facts and they are not disputed.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You are suggesting that a police report is a document that perfectly (by the nature of it being exact) captures everything that happened in an incident.

I suggested no such thing, I simply said that willfully filing a false report is a crime and that the choices are between believing the good professor who runs a race based program at a school known for it's elitism was belligerent and an idiot to police officers or that a police detective/sergeant who knows the law completely and willfully falsified a report, and then got the second patrol officer to corroborate that report, all while the complainant or witness was undoubtedly watching and could sink their conspiracy in a heartbeat and they knew it, which would make the sergeant not only a criminal but also a complete moron. Hmm which is easier to believe?

Both officers’ also stated that Mr. Gates was being loud/belligerent and causing a scene which is all that is required in many states to prove disorderly conduct which is what Mr. Gates ie the idiot was charged with.

Originally Posted by Siga275235

If such is the case, then why are there ever follow up investigations?

Let me guess you either stayed in a holiday in last night or have been watching CSI Follow up investigations more often than not are for cases that require investigation, not because the officer made mistakes or missed info but to piece together complicated pictures with multiple witnesses that is too time consuming for a patrol officer to do at the time, not becaue they can't but because they've got to be there when the sheep call and need help, but I'll let this one go as it doesn't pertain to this argument.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Here you are presenting a fourth reason for the arrest: spite.

Again I said no such thing, I said I'd have made him give me a valid government issued id out of spite, last time I checked a Harvard Id is not an ID recognized by the US government, don't believe me try to get on a plane with one and see how far you get. Had Mr. Gates been reasonable I would have been reasonable in turn, you treat me like crap, guess how much slack you are going to get, sometimes Karma sucks.

I would have however arrested him on the same grounds of disorderly conduct, you see there is this thing called officer discretion and it allows officers to make that arrest or not as they see fit, felonies are a different story in most states but misdemeanors are up to the officer, and yes I want them to have that discretion, if they applied every law 100% of the time our jails would be so packed it would cost a fortune, don't like it then talk to your legislators and have them take the stupid laws off the books.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You are also suggesting that antagonizing a police officer is grounds enough for an arrest. Are these standards of conduct that you want?

No I am not suggesting any such thing, see below

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Moreover, you are saying that it would cross your mind to use your authority as a law enforcement officer to satisfy your affective state. :

Sigaba you're an academic, have you ever gotten the benefit of the doubt on a grade that wasn't black and white? Have you ever called a professor or teacher a prick? You call a professor a prick what do you think the likelihood of you getting the benefit of the doubt is? I would say it is going to go to 0, same goes with LE, you antagonize an LEO and guess what, he's likely to give you everything you deserve under the law, it's not illegal quite the contrary he's just enforcing the law, applying it as prescribed. Now is it right, well I would argue yes because it promotes a polite society and it doesn't clog the judicial system with people charged with stupid crimes that are on the books but that serve no purpose, and I can give you lots of examples from SC law.

Example #1, in SC cursing with 50 feet of a public street or within earshot of an female constitutes disorderly conduct, has since the early 1900's IIRC, do you want LEO's to enforce that 100% of the time?


Example #2 of a law you want to be used selectively is public intox, do you know how many people I could arrest on a given Saturday for having 2 beers and then for being in their own front yards, thousands, is there a reason to do so, I would argue most often there is not as they are not causing a problem, if they do cause a problem then the law may need to be applied to solve the problem, you see the law is a tool to keep society orderly, it is not nearly as black and white as most people would like to think and you don't want it to be I assure you.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In regard to your allegations of Professor Gates's racism, are you discounting entirely the findings of Northeastern University's study on racial and gender profiling by LEOs that was published in 2004? Do you also disagree with the concerns Harvard University has raised over the treatment of members of that school's community by members of the Cambridge PD (link)? Was Gov. Deval Patrick in error when he pointed out that these kinds of incidents have a huge financial impact on the state (link)?

Have you considered the officer in question was selected by a black supervisor to teach against Racial profiling for the past 10 years? You see acting like a jackass knows no race, I've had whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics and nearly every other race color and creed act like a moron in front of me so I lean towards people acting like idiots as a default.

I've also studied racial profiling and while pulling a guy over for being black is wrong it's also ineffective and in my experience rarely what happens purely because it's not effective, but the guy getting pulled over doesn't know what the LEO is seeing all he see's is a cop pulling him over and thinks it's because he's black.

I'll give you a perfect example. 2 years ago I was sitting outside of Wal-Mart with my sister in my father’s car off duty, he was in getting some medicine, a young black male rolled by in a 84 caprice classic and I offhandedly said anyone want to buy dope. My sister who lives in a liberal state up north began to chastise me for my racism. After about 20 seconds I told her I wasn’t racist I was a psychic and that the young man would be wearing black pants with a black hoody and a white t-shirt underneath. About 45 seconds later he parked and got out and low and behold guess what he was wearing, black hoody, white t-shirt and black jeans. Am I psychic, no what I saw was a guy wearing the top half of a thug uniform, with an air freshener on each corner of the car toting 3000 dollar rims on a 500 dollar car, and that all together tells me from my experience that the likelihood of him being a drug dealer is high, is it profiling yes, is it racial no, it's profiling based on experience.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Incidentally, you have an extraordinarily high standard for intelligence if you find a MacArthur Fellow and member of the Council on Foreign Relations an "idiot". (FWIW, Professor Gates's CV is available here.)

Smart people are often dumbasses, I judge people on their actions not by what board they sit on or what academic achievement they have. So yes to me it appears that Mr. Gates acted like a dumbass by talking his way into cuffs, and thus in my book that makes him an idiot, I'd rather have a guy who can play well with others with a little common sense than a guy who has lots of book smarts but then acts like a moron to others.

Oh by the way Mr. Gates runs a race based program at Harvard, so do I think he has a predisposition on race.... yes I absolutely do.

And so you don't think I'm just some southern hillbilly my closest friend, and who I consider my brother, who was in my wedding and I have the pictures to prove it, is black.

[incarcerated]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...33241196183178


Remarks by the President of the United States:

"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."



Video: Obama stands by anti-police remarks in Nightline interview:

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/20...emarks-in.html

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Defender968

The reason is is Apples to Oranges

I believe you misunderstood or misread my comment. I am not comparing the two incidents. I'm comparing your analyses of the two incidents. In one, you invest a considerable amount of time getting into the defendant's state of mind to afford him the benefit of every doubt. In the other, you do not. One wonders why.

Originally Posted by Defender968

I suggested no such thing....

With respect, you did. You wrote "...this [man] did exactly what was in the report...." At issue is your use of the word "exactly." If any report conveys "exactly" what was done or said, it would cover the event "in every respect." Words mean things.

Originally Posted by Defender968

Since you are an academic and clearly don't understand LE I'll explain why too you....Let me guess you either stayed in a holiday in last night or have been watching CSI

Originally Posted by Defender968

...when the sheep call and need help....

Personally, I find it problematic that you refer to the people whom LEOs protect as "sheep," and not just because I like lamb chops. MOO, your tone and your use of the term suggest that you do not respect civilians. That is your prerogative. But is this frame of mind a sustainable practice?

Originally Posted by Defender968

Again I said no such thing....No I am not suggesting any such thing....

I am confident in my reading of your comments.

Originally Posted by Defender968

Sigaba you're an academic, have you ever gotten the benefit of the doubt on a grade that wasn't black and white? Have you ever called a professor or teacher a prick? You call a professor a prick what do you think the likelihood of you getting the benefit of the doubt is?

The answers to your first two questions are "no." In reply to your third question, I have learned that those few academics with whom I've butted heads or unintentionally insulted later came to see me in a positive light.

Originally Posted by Defender968

I would say it is going to go to 0, same goes with LE, you antagonize an LEO and guess what, he's likely to give you everything you deserve under the law, it's not illegal quite the contrary he's just enforcing the law, applying it as prescribed. Now is it right, well I would argue yes because it promotes a polite society....[Y]ou see the law is a tool to keep society orderly, it is not nearly as black and white as most people would like to think and you don't want it to be I assure you.

Originally Posted by Defender968

Had Mr. Gates been reasonable I would have been reasonable in turn, you treat me like crap, guess how much slack you are going to get, sometimes Karma sucks.....You see acting like a jackass knows no race, I've had whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics and nearly every other race color and creed act like a moron in front of me so I lean towards people acting like idiots as a default....Smart people are often dumbasses, I judge people on their actions not by what board they sit on or what academic achievement they have. So yes to me it appears that Mr. Gates acted like a dumbass by talking his way into cuffs, and thus in my book that makes him an idiot, I'd rather have a guy who can play well with others with a little common sense than a guy who has lots of book smarts but then acts like a moron to others.

In sum, you view part of your role as a police officer is to use the law to promote a "polite" society and to keep society "orderly." If a person, or to use your word, "sheep," acts in a way you find unintelligent or cannot "play well with others" you will "selectively" enforce the law.

Parenthetically, I have noticed the extent to which you have personalized the arrest of Mr. Gates. You comment on what you wish the Cambridge PD had done or what you would have done. MOO, this practice is a very subtle form of second guessing. It implies that you do not hold the officers in question in high regard relative to your judgment and your experience.

Originally Posted by Defender968

My sister who lives in a liberal state up north began to chastise me for my racism....Oh by the way Mr. Gates runs a race based program at Harvard, so do I think he has a predisposition on race.... yes I absolutely do.

And so you don't think I'm just some southern hillbilly my closest friend, and who I consider my brother, who was in my wedding and I have the pictures to prove it, is
black.

I think your comments speak for themselves.

FWIW, I have antagonized police officers during two separate interviews. In each case, they realized that area residents had manipulated them for one reason <<LINK>>. While I was much quieter than Professor Gates, the tone of my questions, the questions themselves, and my naturally cheerful (never bitter) disposition made my point. In both cases, the interviews concluded without incident. I suppose police trained in Santa Barbara and at the Los Angeles Police Academy have different professional sensibilities.

[incarcerated]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/72378.html

Obama, police group clash over black scholar's arrest

By William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The nation's largest law enforcement organization chastised President Barack Obama Thursday for saying the Cambridge, Mass., police "acted stupidly" for arresting prominent African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates at his home last week.
The criticism by the 325,000-member Fraternal Order of Police came as White House officials tried to clarify Obama's caustic characterization of Cambridge police's handling of the Gates situation during a prime-time televised news conference Wednesday.
Chuck Canterbury, the FOP's national president, said Obama's comments were "made without the facts" and "do little to narrow the void of distrust that too often separates the community from the men and women who work to keep it safe." ….

[JAGO]

I was not there. But, I have been there before (as a police officer) and I spent a couple years at FLETC (07-09) teaching federal LEOs. A few points:

1. All officers are taught to respect the 4th Amend and are cautious not to enter a person's home without a warrant, or a valid exception to the warrant requriement. Investigating a report of a burglary in progress, given the facts presented, probably rose to the level of an exigent circumstance which would have allowed him warrantless entry. This officer exercised great restraint and obviously respects people's rights.

2. We don't require cops to be right, we require cops to be resonable under an objective standard (Graham v. Connor). It is based upon the facts.

3. Did the officer have probable cause?- he had a call to the ECC (911) - the courts have held such calls are reliable. He didn't have an anonymous tip, he had an eye- witness who remained on scene and met him face to face eye. Under Ill v. Gates (the totatlity of the circumstances) he was on firm ground. The Prez and everybody else who criticize the cop might coniser a little more.

4. So, the officer respects the 4th, asks to verify the man is who he says and asks to go back outside. Smart action from both a legal standpoint as well as tactical (I think given the facts the officer could have done a protective sweep of the entire house under (MD v Buie)) tactically he doesn't get surprised by the "second burglar" inside. I don't know, but suspect he was following the old rule "Trust but verify". Given the report of forced entry, his job was to ID the parties, get with dispatch and verify not only that he says who he is, but verify he in fact is supposed to be in the house. Every officer knows the danger of accepting at face value an ipse dixit assertion, only to find out later the guy didn't have any business being there (I remember a couple of DV injunction cases where the guy showed me a d/l and records matched it was his house, only to find out later the Judge had ordered him to stay away). Both sides agree that Gates was yelling and radios work a lot better without back ground noise. All in all, the officers decision to ask him outside was proper tactically as well as showed great respect for the Right to Privacy within the home.

5. I've read both sides, Prof Gates demanding the officers ID and the officer reporting that Gates talked over his answers.

6. From everything I've read the arrest tookplace outside the house in front of the assembled crowd.

7. Again, I wasn't there but everything the cop did was consistent with his duty to protect and serve. It's not a simple matter of saying "this is my house, get out of here". Under the objective facts, the officer had a duty to investigate and apparently did so with a great deal of restraint and respect for the Right to Privacy.

v/r
phil

[Utah Bob]

FWIW, I have antagonized police officers

I have too. They worked for me. I called it training.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I believe you misunderstood or misread my comment. I am not comparing the two incidents. I'm comparing your analyses of the two incidents. In one, you invest a considerable amount of time getting into the defendant's state of mind to afford him the benefit of every doubt. In the other, you do not. One wonders why.

Sigaba what you don't seem to be getting here is that in the first case the entire question is what the pharmacist was thinking, in this case it is what Mr. Gates did there is a world of difference in the facts that we know. My analysis is based on the facts as well as my REAL world experience.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

With respect, you did. You wrote "...this [man] did exactly what was in the report...." At issue is your use of the word "exactly." If any report conveys "exactly" what was done or said, it would cover the event "in every respect." Words mean things.

Sigaba what I said was I have no doubt that Mr. Gates did exactly what was in the report, you can try to play with words as much as you want, in the end either he acted the way that was in the report or he didn't, you appear to be taking the side that 2 LEO's blatantly lied for no apparent reason except their own bias, which in turn shows your bias. I will reject that idea as I personally have worked with hundreds of LEO's and I have real world experience in these matters, I'm not quoting theories or studies which are only as good as the bias of those producing them.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Personally, I find it problematic that you refer to the people whom LEOs protect as "sheep," and not just because I like lamb chops. MOO, your tone and your use of the term suggest that you do not respect civilians. That is your prerogative. But is this frame of mind a sustainable practice?

Not nearly as well read as you think I guess, I suggest you look up "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" by LTC Dave Grossman, and then you will understand my statement. As for my respect of the sheep I respect most people, but there are many people who have become so helpless that they call the Police when the next door neighbor’s dog is barking, or when their air conditioner breaks, or other nonsensical reasons which annoy me greatly and yes does make me not respect them. I don't expect you to understand you've never walked in those shoes, but that is a reality of the LEO's job, all the while then being questioned by people like Mr. Gates and yourself.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I am confident in my reading of your comments.

Wow so you know what I think better than I do, ok

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The answers to your first two questions are "no." In reply to your third question, I have learned that those few academics with whom I've butted heads or unintentionally insulted later came to see me in a positive light.

Oh so it must happen that way everywhere then my mistake there aren't unreasonable illogical, people out there I apologize for questioning your infallible and complete experience in life.
So basically you’re like the guy who’s never been in a fight trying to explain what it’s like to get hit in the face, got it.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In sum, you view part of your role as a police officer is to use the law to promote a "polite" society and to keep society "orderly." If a person, or to use your word, "sheep," acts in a way you find unintelligent or cannot "play well with others" you will "selectively" enforce the law.

You really can't see the forest for the trees can you, what do you think LE is for? I would argue it is to keep society orderly as well as to protect people, the polite part is just a side effect, you disagree I can tell, then tell me why do we enforce noise ordinances?

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You comment on what you wish the Cambridge PD had done or what you would have done. MOO, this practice is a very subtle form of second guessing. It implies that you do not hold the officers in question in high regard relative to your judgment and your experience.

Sigaba you ignorance in matters of LE shows in your flawed assessment, what I am second guessing is the Departments decision to drop the charges, not the officers, I have no doubt that came from above the officers involved, I know that because I've lived in that world not just seen it on TV. I question the PD’s judgment because it was based on political expediency the same way I questioned my departments decision to routinely pay 10K to anyone who raised a law suit no matter how frivolous against an officer and/or the department just to make things go away in the interest of expediency.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, I have antagonized police officers during two separate interviews. In each case, they realized that area residents had manipulated them for one reason <<LINK>>. While I was much quieter than Professor Gates, the tone of my questions, the questions themselves, and my naturally cheerful (never bitter) disposition made my point. In both cases, the interviews concluded without incident. I suppose police trained in Santa Barbara and at the Los Angeles Police Academy have different professional sensibilities.

You prove my point, you were polite, and the officer dealt with you accordingly, you don't like the idea that an officer has the power to take away your freedom, and I understand that, officers have teeth, they're supposed to, they're not the cuddly sheep, read of sheep and wolves and maybe you'll understand a little.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Defender968

......You really can't see the forest for the trees can you, what do you think LE is for? I would argue it is to keep society orderly as well as to protect people, the polite part is just a side effect, you disagree I can tell, then tell me why do we enforce noise ordinances? .....

I would argue that it is not LE's role to keep "society orderly" . It is LE's job to enforce the law. I would think there is a big diference between those two.

Also I think the Courts of the Land have ruled there is no "protect people" in Law Enforcement, just enforce laws and sweep up the results of a crime. The average citizen has no right of protection.

"why do we enforce noise ordinances?" Because it is the law, not because some LEO has sensitive ears.