Wowak wrote:Duke wrote: When you manage not to be emotionally charged about it, please let us know, and we'll be glad to discuss it.And when you and Bobzilla want to discuss the issue and not my personal bias, please let ME know.
i do believe it was you that brought up the personal bias, and are now trying to un-ring the bell now that it has been flipped back in your direction
DILYSI Dave wrote:Wowak wrote: Scenario 1: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, take tongue-lashing, leave. Life goes on. Scenario 2: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, DON'T take verbal tongue-lashing, arrest Gates. National scandal ensues. Scenario 3: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, take tongue lashing, leave. Gates incites riot. Dozens are injured, 2 die.Scenario 4: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner. Gates thanks them for responding quickly when they thought that his house was at risk. Everyone shakes hands and has a good day. Would that be so bad?
Scenario #5 as stated by someone calling in to a radio talk show. He is black, a neighbor called the cops when he lost his keys and climbed in a basement window.
Cops show up guns at the ready; the homeowner explained what happened, showed ID, handshakes all around.
Cops make the guy stand outside while they go through every room in his house, including closets and basement.
They explained later to the homeowner that he (the homeowner) could have a loved one inside held a gun or knife point until he played nice nice and made the cops go away.
My $.02 (no one asked) These things happen too often. Gates was wrong, the cop was within the letter of the law but interpreting a situation just by reading about it is not the same as being there; but there's no frikkin way, no way that Obama, a Massachusetts Senator, the Governor ANYBODY should be commenting on a local event without all the facts.
If Bush or Bubba made the same comment people would wonder why he's concerned and not straightening out the budget or something.
Oy.
Strizzo wrote: i do believe it was you that brought up the personal bias, and are now trying to un-ring the bell now that it has been flipped back in your direction
Don't bring facts into this argument. THey have no place here.
Ding-ding-ding Round 1 is over. Go to your corners and when the bell rings again come out swinging.
Who cares what the hell really happened. That doesn't make good news so we will probably never hear it. This whole situation is bull whipped up into a frenzy by a bunch of people who don't know when to keep their mouths shut.
Gates was arrested for breaking the law not for being black. If you don't like the law he was arrested under, then get it changed. That is why you vote for the people who write them.
Are there racist in this country, yes. But that goes both ways. Do I care, not really. I will never be able to change their minds and have no interest in trying. I only care what I think. Content of their character. No one involved in this had any except maybe the cop, and he was just doing his job.
The cop was doing his job of enforcing the law. You don't want cops around to do their jobs, move somewhere there aren't any. Personally I would rather bring back dueling. An armed population is a polite population. Being an ass just because you think it's your right should be punishable by death. Sentence to be carried out by the closest person with a gun.
The president was a jerk, even if the cop acted stupidly. You don't air out you dirty laundry on national TV. That is like reprimanding your child in front of their friends. Only an ass does that. If you don't like how O-damn-a handled the situation, don't vote for him next time around.
Toyman01 wrote: The President was a jerk, even if the cop acted stupidly. If you don't like how the President handled the situation, don't vote for him next time around.
The first quoted sentence is spot-on.
I fixed the second sentence for you.
However, I do agree (to quote a currently popular phrase) "that elections have consequences".
The President (and his sycophants) have badly mistaken the mood of the country. Yes, voters wanted a change from the politics-as-usual routine. Republicans screwed the pooch and were shunned as a result.
That wasn't exactly the mandate for radical change that Democrats want to believe.
Voter's remorse will reveal itself during the current Congressional "break" and at the polls in 2010.
Unless the President starts to drastically amend his agenda, he'll join Carter as a politician who over-estimated his abilities and thusly failed himself, his party, and most importantly, his country.
(fans the flames) 
Obama never should have opened his mouth. Period. The situation was already racially charged enough due to Gates running off at the mouth, both during the incident and in interviews afterward, it did NOT need any more help. But it was a local incident until he said the cops acted 'stupidly'.
So the tempest in a teapot turned into a media circus thanks to him flapping his gums. Obama (or more likely his handlers) decided the best fix for that ill considered idiocy was to appear as Joe Everyman instead of the government guy who decided he could fire the head of General Motors thus setting a precedent for government interference in a private corporation but did not do the same to the financial institutions on Wall Street which started the current economic E36 M3storm in the first place. Hence the beer party was born.
Did it fix anything? Hell, no. Blacks will still not trust the police, regardless of what race the cop is and will point to this case as a reason for that distrust. Thus black on black crime will have a high rate of non-resolution thanks to this law of omerta which keeps the police from catching criminals. It's pretty damn bad when there's a drive by shooting in the middle of the day and no one saw a thing. 
But of course the leaders of the black communities say the high rate of non-resolution is actually because the police don't pay enough attention to those communities because they are generally poor and, well, black. 
Recently here in Chucktown there was such an incident. In an unusual twist, neighbors told the police what they saw and within 24 hours the shooters were in custody. (Of course the arresting police were corrupt and interested in nothing other than slamming minorities, right Wowak? 
) That type of public cooperation will go much further towards fixing race relations in this country than anything else I can think of. It will do a lot more than any beer party on the White House lawn.
Channel surfing last night I ran across this:
http://www.otpvideo.com/
It reminded me of the movie Back to the Future when they ran into the alternate 1985 and some talking head was giving the story of how Biff made his fortune. You can shine anything.
Disclaimer:
This is a personal opinion expressed by 914Driver and does not necessarily reflect those of GRM, its management, sponsors or contributors. Dissenting points of view may be expressed in writing to your mama, anyone in a flame suit or the Congressional Budget Office.
DILYSI Dave wrote:Wowak wrote: Scenario 1: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, take tongue-lashing, leave. Life goes on. Scenario 2: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, DON'T take verbal tongue-lashing, arrest Gates. National scandal ensues. Scenario 3: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, take tongue lashing, leave. Gates incites riot. Dozens are injured, 2 die.Scenario 4: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner. Gates thanks them for responding quickly when they thought that his house was at risk. Everyone shakes hands and has a good day. Would that be so bad?
Scenario 5: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner. Inside the house, Gates is upset and abusive. Cop thinks "Holy crap, this guy is off the hook, I better get him outside before something happens or he decides to accuse me of something that didn't happen. I think I need witnesses to this." Once outside, Gates continues to be disruptive and gets arrested.
Not entirely implausible, is it?
Duke wrote: Cop thinks "Holy crap, this guy is off the hook, I better get him outside before something happens or he decides to accuse me of something that didn't happen.
Wait, why does the cop need Gates outside? Why not just LEAVE? Are you really telling me that cops are afraid that a civilian can accuse a cop of something and have it stand up in court? Do you understand how the court system views an officer's testimony?
Furthermore, if you don't EXPECT to be wrongfully accused of racism by a few angry black men, then maybe you didn't really understand what comes with the territory of being a cop. Just like its reasonable to assume that if you run your mouth to the cops you will get arrested, its reasonable to assume that if you're a cop, somebody is going to accuse you of racism. Again, its not right, but THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, no?
I think the point, sir, was that your scenarios were biased and limited in scope and failed to recognize other perfectly reasonable approaches.
It's not that the officer NEEDS Gates outside, just another very reasonable possibility which is more plausible than some of the options you gave.
Wowak wrote: Wait, why does the cop need Gates outside? Why not just LEAVE?
Because then there are no witnesses to Gates's behaviour. If Gates stays in the house, Gates can claim that he politely offered the cop a nice warm cup of coffee and was making small talk, when suddenly, with no provocation (other than the sheer testosterone-fueled joy of being a Tool of Fascism), the racist cop decided haul his black ass into jail for a dose of correction.
Ain't that the truth.
Not really related but the same general idea: way back when a neighbor had 2 young daughters who were very interested in my mechanical shenanigans. They would come down and watch me for hours (must not have had lives ). When I would go inside to cool off, wash my hands, whatever, they wanted to come in too. Not just no but HELL NO. I was a single guy living in an apartment, the last thing I needed was a nosy neighbor with a filthy mind deciding I was showing them my willy or worse. It would be my word against whoever's.
My question is why didn't the neighbor recognize Gates?
That's the reason he had to show his ID, and why he was treated like a criminal at first, because he never took the time to get to know his neighbor and she didn't recognize him. When the police got there they already had one witness saying he wasn't the owner of the house, so of course he had to prove he was. Profiling or not, if there's someone in my house the neighbors don't recognize when the cops get here they better ask whoever it is for an ID and a story. I really don't care how they do it either.
See, I would rather whoever it was in my house when I wasn't there got a little roughed up. If it's me I'll show an ID right quick and stop the beatings, if it's not me, abuse away just as long as the carpet doesn't get blood on it.
Incident I almost forgot: when I was in college, I came home about midday (parent's house) to find 3 cop cars in the drive with the blues twirling and weapons drawn everywhere. The neighbor across the street saw someone moving around inside the house but there were no cars to indicate someone was home and thus called the police. So I ID'd myself as a resident of the house, showed my drivers' license and unlocked the front door. It turns out my younger brother was cutting school, the dumbass saw the police cars and hid in the attic. The cops heard someone up there and lowered the attic stairs with guns out. BTW, all involved were honkies, er, Caucasians.
SVreX wrote: Scenario A: Police show up, determine Gates is the homeowner, and apologize for the misunderstanding when Mr. Gates acts in an appropriate manner. Life goes on. If the officers respond in any other way, Mr. gates certainly has a case against them, and has 7 corroborating witnesses. If someone in MY neighborhood (including ME) acts like Mr. Gates allegedly acted in the police report, I WANT the police to arrest the offender. No questions asked.
Twice since I've been living at this address, I've locked my keys inside my house with no one home. I've gained entry through a certain opening, but I had to invert a recycling tub to reach the undisclosed opening, visible from two streets since we live on a corner. Should a neighbor have called the police and the cops showed up, my ID would have broken the sound barrier getting out of my wallet. I would have then thanked both the officer and the neighbor.
BTW, I live in a diverse neighborhood served by an equally diverse police force.
OTOH, why is the neighbor who called the police getting threats?
mel_horn wrote: OTOH, why is the neighbor who called the police getting threats?
because Gates is an $ss..??
Duke wrote:Wowak wrote: Wait, why does the cop need Gates outside? Why not just LEAVE?Because then there are no witnesses to Gates's behaviour. If Gates stays in the house, Gates can claim that he politely offered the cop a nice warm cup of coffee and was making small talk, when suddenly, with no provocation (other than the sheer testosterone-fueled joy of being a Tool of Fascism), the racist cop decided haul his black ass into jail for a dose of correction.
Uh... if hes not arresting Gates, he doesn't need witnesses to his reasons. (He doesn't need witnesses anyway, his word is TRUTH in a court of law.) Arguably, Gates can't by guilty of disorderly conduct inside his own home, the DC charge was only legitimate once Gates was outside. So I ask again: WHY DID CROWLEY NEED GATES TO STEP OUTSIDE? His investigation was over when he determined Gates to be the homeowner.
oldopelguy wrote: My question is why didn't the neighbor recognize Gates?
Shes a neighbor in the broader sense, she was walking by Gates' on her way home. She did not live immediately next door to Gates or across the street. Just nearby.
Bobzilla wrote: You've made your point that it is OK to be an elitist, racist bastard and get away with it. Then yes, you are correct.
Its also ok to be a stupid redneck and get away with it..... whatever that means.
Whats an elitist anyways and why is the word suddenly being thrown around so much? Is it on Fox news's checklist of things you should be mad about or something?
GlennS wrote:Bobzilla wrote: You've made your point that it is OK to be an elitist, racist bastard and get away with it. Then yes, you are correct.Its also ok to be a stupid redneck and get away with it..... whatever that means. Whats an elitist anyways and why is the word suddenly being thrown around so much? Is it on Fox news's checklist of things you should be mad about or something?
Stupid rednecks are everywhere and often get away with "things", unless it's posted on YouTube.
Infusing the "elitist" reference to Fox infers you dismiss anyone who may share the same ideology as the opinionists who have shows on the network.
BTW, there's far more to Fox than just opinion, but don't accuse me for inflating the ratings of the network's "opinion programming"; I rarely watch said broadcasts.
If you cannot figure that out, perhaps that explains your confusion.
Apply your observations to all the other media outlets and let us know what their checklists say one should be pissed-off about.
Get back to us, we're curious.
Wowak wrote:Duke wrote:Uh... if hes not arresting Gates, he doesn't need witnesses to his reasons. (He doesn't need witnesses anyway, his word is TRUTH in a court of law.) Arguably, Gates can't by guilty of disorderly conduct inside his own home, the DC charge was only legitimate once Gates was outside. So I ask again: WHY DID CROWLEY NEED GATES TO STEP OUTSIDE? His investigation was over when he determined Gates to be the homeowner.Wowak wrote: Wait, why does the cop need Gates outside? Why not just LEAVE?Because then there are no witnesses to Gates's behaviour. If Gates stays in the house, Gates can claim that he politely offered the cop a nice warm cup of coffee and was making small talk, when suddenly, with no provocation (other than the sheer testosterone-fueled joy of being a Tool of Fascism), the racist cop decided haul his black ass into jail for a dose of correction.
Not so fast Wowack: if a cop's word is the TRUTH, why have a trial for the accused anyway? If the jury automatically agrees with the prosecution, there would be no reason for a trial, only an information-sharing session between the prosecution and the jury. Spend a little time in court; the jury is a hard group to swing (influence) even if you are a cop. People CAN still think for themselves (well, some can anyway), so I think that your assumption that a jury, which is made up of your neighbors and my neighbors, would automatically apply the cop's testimony as fact is ludicrous. However, I do think you are right in that there are some bad seeds. I try not add the water to intiate these bad SEEDS into GROWING into asshats who want to put me into jail (and it has happened). As a badge-wearing person who was formerly employed by a county law enforcement agency, I can tell you that cops are people too. They have emotions and egos. They ALL should leave these personal traits at the door when they clock in, but some (hell, maybe MOST) don't. They are people. People have faults. The easiest way for me to steer clear of the ones that don't is to not be an ass. Maybe if I am not an ass they, in return, will not be an ass. Nothing good ever came from being an ass........to anyone. THAT is the way it is. BTW, I am not telling anyone to kiss anyone's ass. I am simply suggesting that people practice the Golden Rule. Had Gates practiced this, he could have drank his beer at home that night. Had the cop practiced this, maybe he wouldn't have arrested Gates, maybe he would have..........dunno. I have been called every name in the book and left the scene unescorted. Less paperwork for me...............and no one was harmed by the sure-to-happen scuffle that would ensue when screaming-angry people are taken against their will, nor did I ever think that leaving one of these model citizens would result in any harm to the public (or I would have taken corrective action). All cops don't suck, dude. And their testimony is ABSOLUTELY not taken for truth in the courts.
POOPSHOVEL FOR PRESIDENT!
-Les
Bobzilla wrote: You've made your point that it is OK to be an elitist, racist bastard and get away with it. Then yes, you are correct.
This quote implies that a person gets away with "being an elitist". As it has not been clearly defined ill just assume it means in this context " person who works for a college" or "person who knows Obama". The idea that a person "gets away" with either of these things, avoiding punishment, and casting it as a negative character trait i find objectionable. Its as objectionable as saying a person "gets away" with being a redneck.
Maybe elitist has some other definition, i asked what it might be.
oldsaw wrote: Infusing the "elitist" reference to Fox infers you dismiss anyone who may share the same ideology as the opinionists who have shows on the network.
No it doesnt
oldsaw wrote: BTW, there's far more to Fox than just opinion, but don't accuse me for inflating the ratings of the network's "opinion programming"; I rarely watch said broadcasts.
Ok, i wont
oldsaw wrote: If you cannot figure that out, perhaps that explains your confusion.
You made no attempt to answer my question and kinda ran off on a tangent that had nothing to do with it. How could my confusion possible be clarified.
oldsaw wrote: Apply your observations to all the other media outlets and let us know what their checklists say one should be pissed-off about. Get back to us, we're curious.
All other news outlets is a bit of a tall order. I listened to a BBC world news podcast today. I think they might have mentioned green house gas emitions or something like that recently. That means they are getting away with being biased dirty hippies.
Unlike this chick who did not get away with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAfkluSxSgQ&feature=PlayList&p=82A96CF137425054&index=0
Wowak wrote: Uh... if hes not arresting Gates, he doesn't need witnesses to his reasons.
He needs witnesses so that Gates doesn't later accuse him of doing something that may or may not have actually happened, while they were alone inside Gates's house.
Say Gates feels like being an shiny happy person (which, judging by his actions, he apparently did) even if he doesn't get arrested. He can then report Crowley as having done something inappropriate inside the house: threatened Gates, made racist or insulting comments, exposed himself, etc. - anything.
That's going to cause trouble for Crowley - an investigation, possible disciplinary action, at the very least temporary suspension or desk duty while the investigation is going on. No matter what the outcome, that incident will be on Crowley's record whether he deserves it or not.
I know you love to feel that all cops have a Get Out Of Jail Free card permanently tattooed on, and can use the Secret Fascist Tool Handshake to put the fix in for anything they need. But no matter what you think, an allegation against the cop would result in an IA investigation and difficulty for the cop, no matter how unfounded.
So it is in the cop's best interest to have witnesses to Gates's behaviour and to whatever events occur, particularly if Gates is upset and already throwing down the racism card.
Please tell me you're capable of seeing this point.
^ Agreed. By mr gate's actions before/during/after it looks to me like he would have launched a complaint of racism, then if it did not end how he wanted it would have then made a large commotion over the ordeal, making him a prominent figure in the fight against "racism".
That's my opinion.
You'll need to log in to post.
