Wowak wrote: there was no legitimate NEED to arrest Gates; it did not serve or protect the public in any way, shape or form. It made a cop who was accused by an angry black man of being a racist feel better. End of story.
+1, the officer stepped over the lines. The fact that they dropped the charges meant it wasn't really a offense that could have been found guilty in a court of law. I bet if Gates sued, he would have won.
foxtrapper wrote: What really sucks though, is most people think what the cop did is fine. Most folk believe you should submit to a cop, no matter what. That anything done to trash freedom in the name of safety is wonderfull.
That's what bothers me the most about this whole situation. Its caused me to run across many seemingly intelligent people who collectively have made the argument "So what? If you run your mouth to a cop, you go to jail!" without any apparent thought as to if that SHOULD be the way it is. Apparently the fact that this IS the way it is is enough for people. I understand that not everyone is going to share my distaste for the boys in blue, but I have the experiences to back up my feelings, and I understand that people who have never been on the receiving end of that special brand of "justice" simply don't understand that there is a problem. They think that cops only arrest bad people and its ok that jail is inhumane because only criminals go there. They believe that when you call 911 the cops who show up will help you, not fabricate a reason to arrest you. I understand all of this. I once felt that way myself. What I don't understand is apologists who see actual corruption but try to explain it away with the same tired old excuses, or those who make an ad hominem attack, even a cute one with a jpg.
Wowak, I posted the pic in reference to the fact that we've all heard your feelings toward the police ad nauseum.
Sorry, the cops that I've met have all been decent guys who are just doing their jobs. They've never given me any reason to have a hate for them like you seem to.
As for the whole situation? I think it was handled badly from all sides.
I have to agree with Strizzo and Poopshovel. Just be a civilized person and show a reasonable amount of respect for the police officer until he gives you reason to feel otherwise. It'll get you pretty far in this world.
Sure, there's crooked, E36 M3ty cops out there, just like there's crooked, E36 M3ty civillians.
Shawn
shuttlepilot wrote:Wowak wrote: there was no legitimate NEED to arrest Gates; it did not serve or protect the public in any way, shape or form. It made a cop who was accused by an angry black man of being a racist feel better. End of story.+1, the officer stepped over the lines. The fact that they dropped the charges meant it wasn't really a offense that could have been found guilty in a court of law. I bet if Gates sued, he would have won.
Not necessarily true.
If a President requests a local law enforcement agency to drop the charges, you can pretty much bet they'll be dropped, whether legit or not.
foxtrapper wrote: We have a hell of a problem when a man, IN HIS OWN HOME, gets jacked up by a cop who wants him to bow down a submit to him, lick his boots as it were. All because he's got a badge and a gun.
I think you'd have a REALLY hard time showing that to be the exact description of what actually happened.
Trans_Maro wrote: Sorry, the cops that I've met have all been decent guys who are just doing their jobs. They've never given me any reason to have a hate for them like you seem to.
I've met plenty of decent hardworking cops. I've met as many jackboot thugs. I really have no way of knowing which is the minority; my experience has been about 50/50.
But like I said.. UNTIL you've gone up against one of the bad ones, I really don't expect you to understand. I would expect you to be respectful of the fact that I have an opinion, just like you. I wouldn't belittle you for not seeing things my way. Honestly I hope you can live your entire life without coming to see things my way, at least not by the path I've taken to achieve my perspective.
Furthermore, let me dispel the implication (that you may or may not be making, but others may perceive) that I'm on some sort of witch hunt. My goal isn't to prove that all cops are bad, nor that they should all be fired, or that we should take some sort of vigilante action against them. My goal is to increase awareness and promote frank discussion about a real problem. I'd be surprised to find out that the majority of Americans condone Police abuse of authority, but if they do, I'd surely be interested to find out why. In the broader sense, its a bit of a personal goal of mine to challenge people to defend their opinions and worldviews; no one has ever been harmed by thinking through their opinions critically. You may find that some ideas you simply take for granted don't make a whole lot of sense when you examine them critically, or you may find renewed convictions in your beliefs. In either case, there's no harm in the debate.
HEY EVERYBODY! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT MY VICTORIOUS STRIDE! I'M A PEACEMAKER! MOUNT RUSHMORE HERE I COME!
Oh, and pay no attention to the "racist" I rode like a $50 pony for some PR helping a handicapped black man down the stairs.
Wowak wrote: Furthermore, let me dispel the implication (that you may or may not be making, but others may perceive) that I'm on some sort of witch hunt. My goal isn't to prove that all cops are bad, nor that they should all be fired, or that we should take some sort of vigilante action against them. My goal is to increase awareness and promote frank discussion about a real problem. I'd be surprised to find out that the majority of Americans condone Police abuse of authority, but if they do, I'd surely be interested to find out why. In the broader sense, its a bit of a personal goal of mine to challenge people to defend their opinions and worldviews; no one has ever been harmed by thinking through their opinions critically. You may find that some ideas you simply take for granted don't make a whole lot of sense when you examine them critically, or you may find renewed convictions in your beliefs. In either case, there's no harm in the debate.
Wowak:
I agree that there is a real problem.
But I have seen no evidence to suggest that THIS event has anything to do with THAT problem. Sure it happens, sure it should be dealt with. But did it happen this time?
If not, then it does begin to look like you are on a witch hunt. If we don't stop to ask what really happened (which was my point of this thread), then we don't know, and we can easily miss the entire issue at hand while we get our panties in a knot over what happens to be our own personal pet peeve.
I've seen no evidence that the police acting in any way incorrectly THIS TIME. In fact, from all the reports I've seen, their performance looks rather stellar. I could be wrong. How 'bout a few facts?
I understand you've had life experiences that influence your perspective. Me too. But I'd like a media that would make some sort of effort to provide a balanced view of the facts without trying to prove how wonderful their favored side is while making the other appear badly without reason.
SVreX wrote: I've seen no evidence that the police acting in any way incorrectly THIS TIME. In fact, from all the reports I've seen, their performance looks rather stellar. I could be wrong. How 'bout a few facts?
Personally, I see an arrest that didn't need to happen. Gates' conduct was not a danger to anyone or anything except one man's ego. I think the media reporting has done us a great disservice by focusing on this as an issue of race, which it clearly was not. My issue is also not if Crowley had the legal right and authority to arrest Gates, clearly he did, as "disorderly conduct" is very ambiguously defined. My issue is with Crowley's real reason for arresting Gates, and it is my belief that he is among those who consider "contempt of cop" a prosecutable offense.
I guess it boils down to this: How did arresting Gates serve and protect the public any more than saying "thank you, sir" and walking away would have? How did arresting Gates serve Crowley any more than saying "Thank you, Sir" and walking away would have?
There is also the small issue that Crowley did indeed violate Mass. state law by failing to provide Gates with his ID card upon a lawful request for identification. Displaying a badge and verbally identifying himself do not satisfy the statute: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm
Wowak wrote: My issue is with Crowley's real reason for arresting Gates, and it is my belief that he is among those who consider "contempt of cop" a prosecutable offense.
So, our real issue with Officer Crawley (and his co-officers) is that we somehow have an understanding of their INTENT, right?
Did you hear anyone testify that anything happened that would indicate such an intent? I did not.
Do we know the real reason? Are you sure that it affected no one else? What about the woman who called this in- could she have been at risk?
If in fact the officer went into the house with a "boot-licking" episode like foxtrapper imagined, then I might agree with you. But what if this all happened on the porch? What if he threatened the officer? What if a crowd was forming, what if a mob mentality was forming? We simply don't have enough information to make the judgements about intent that you are making.
I hope I never get arrested for something I thought about...
SVreX wrote: But what if this all happened on the porch? What if he threatened the officer? What if a crowd was forming, what if a mob mentality was forming?
I suspect that all would have been in Crowley's report, to further justify the arrest. Furthermore, the quickness with which the charges were dropped lead me to believe that none of those circumstances existed. However, obviously its much easier for you to defend an imaginary position than it is to discuss the relevant FACTS.
Wowak wrote: However, obviously its much easier for you to defend an imaginary position than it is to discuss the relevant FACTS.
Unless, of course one was there to actually witness ALL the relevant facts - those observed by the police, the accused and witnesses.
Were you there in any capacity?
Trans_Maro wrote: Sorry, the cops that I've met have all been decent guys who are just doing their jobs. They've never given me any reason to have a hate for them like you seem to.
then i'd say you've been fortunate.
Trans_Maro wrote: As for the whole situation? I think it was handled badly from all sides.
agreed.
Trans_Maro wrote: I have to agree with Strizzo and Poopshovel. Just be a civilized person and show a reasonable amount of respect for the police officer until he gives you reason to feel otherwise. It'll get you pretty far in this world.
and what happens then? what happens when he does give you a reason to feel otherwise? according to most people, you suck it up and take it b/c that's how it is. and that's berkeleyed up.
SVreX wrote: Honestly, would it have been OK with the media if George Bush had reversed the tables? If he had offered a beer to a black officer who had arrested a white friend of his for disorderly conduct, would anyone have thought it to be a grand gesture? Of course not. The NAACP would have screamed bloody murder, the media would have shredded him, and Congress would have called for his impeachment.
now you're getting silly. if had wasn't impeached for some of the stuff he really pulled, i feel confident in guessing he'd be safe under your hypothetical. 
So I guess the consensus is that calling someone's mom a whore, callingthe race card, being a dick and expecting people to bow down to you is all reasonable, acceptible behavior?
Wow. Looks like I need to move. If this is what we've let our country slump to, then it is not a place I want to be. If it's perfectly acceptible to have someone of such moral degredation teaching our countries youth, we are only going to get worse.
I don't give two craps about the arrest. What I care about is the fact taht we as a society ALLOW people like Gates to have "power" in hte community and accept their behavior. That is what truly saddens me.
Bobzilla wrote: So I guess the consensus is that calling someone's mom a whore, callingthe race card, being a dick and expecting people to bow down to you is all reasonable, acceptible behavior?
Not acceptable by a long shot, but not illegal.
GameboyRMH wrote:Bobzilla wrote: So I guess the consensus is that calling someone's mom a whore, callingthe race card, being a dick and expecting people to bow down to you is all reasonable, acceptible behavior?Not acceptable by a long shot, but not illegal.
Yes it is, as already described. I can't believe people are defending the actions of this guy.
I have never (and will never) hassle an RCMP officer here in Canada, as I can only imagine the bullE36 M3 (like this case) that police have to put up with EVERY DAY. Like I said, I am a little astonished some people are defending the guy who clearly was causing a raucus. 
I've always lived by the rule that "if you aren't doing anything illegal, there will be no problems". And I've never had a problem, go figure.
The argument is that he wasn't doing anything illegal and there was a problem. Then the raucus /ruckus started.
Bobzilla wrote: So I guess the consensus is that calling someone's mom a whore, callingthe race card, being a dick and expecting people to bow down to you is all reasonable, acceptible behavior?
Well, I read the police report, and I sure missed the part about calling his mom a whore. What he said (according to the report, which is under fire from the listed witness for inconsistencies, ) is "I'll speak with your momma outside." A childish taunt is not exactly the same as accusing someone of being a whore.
And as I've clearly stated, I believe there is a difference between rude and boorish and what should be illegal. People are rude and boorish to each other all the time on this stupid little rock, but when you're rude and boorish to a bully with a badge, only then are there consequences?
"I'll meet your momma outside" sounds awfully close to "your momma's a slut". But regardless, it's Acceptible to call a cop Racist and to yell and scream about how you're being picked on by these big bad mean cops for them doing there job? You find that acceptible? How would you respond to him doing the same thing to YOU?
FACT: There was a 911 call of a suspected burglary. Police responded and found a person inside the home. He was asked to show identification and initially refused callingthe cops racist and made a scene. Both sides agreed to that much.
I don't give a F who you are, if you are a public figure you need to show RESPECT and restraint. What he did, and continues to do (Race is his only pony) is despicable.
Elitist educated minority professor expecting others to put up with his inappropriate antics= abuse of authority
Police officer utilizing racial profiling= abuse of authority.
Journalists betraying their public trust and twisting their story to advance an agenda= abuse of authority.
President of the United States getting into local law enforcement issue to defend his friend who cannot apparently control either his alcohol consumption nor his tongue= priceless.
Guess it's just a matter or who you want to blame.
BUT...
...to him who much is given, much is expected. I think the office of the President of the United States is a rather high and mighty trust, and when a person is given that much, much should be expected of them. Just a thought.
You had 3 very powerful people involved:
An officer of the law who can permanently change a life with a decision.
A professor who shapes the views of thousands in classrooms and beyond
The leader of the free world.
And I guess I can't forget the 4th thing involved was the media. Probably more powerful than all of the above.
Lots of power behaving badly.
Wowak wrote: They believe that when you call 911 the cops who show up will help you, not fabricate a reason to arrest you. I understand all of this.
Care to share your story?
Wowak wrote: However, obviously its much easier for you to defend an imaginary position than it is to discuss the relevant FACTS.
Hold on there, chief - that sounds an awful lot like Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle a racist epithet. You've constructed your own imaginary position and you are interpreting the reported version of events in light of that, just as much as you're accusing SVreX of doing.
Thank you, Duke.
Cotton wrote: Care to share your story?
Actually that time I called for a girl who called ME because her male roommate had just beat the crap out of her. It ended with HER being carted off to jail while a sheriff laughed at her. I went to jail because some moron county employee can't read or write, but that's another story. Then again the first time I was detained by the law I was 15 and also not breaking any actual laws. Not to mention the time I dated a cop's sister and his idea of dinner entertainment was regaling us with tales of abusing his authority, beating people in handcuffs, tasing people who got "mouthy," etc. Not to mention the time I pissed off a guy who knew a cop and the cop came to my house and tried to intimidate me, not to mention the time I swerved to avoid a guy making an illegal left turn and the cop told me to my face I was lying and there wasn't a second car, not to mention... Oh you get the idea. I mean there was that one time that a cop let me off with a warning when I really was speeding... I guess I should forgive the rest. You know, because they have a HARD JOB.
You'll need to log in to post.
