Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by JBond, Jul 23, 2009.
Obama is backtracking.
Ogletree, Gates lawyer, is also a Harvard professor engaged in black activism of a sort. His 2005 History Makers (African American) biography states he was on the team that represented Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings. He currently actively supports the Sotomayor nomination.
He is apparently an adherent of the new liberal approach, redemptive constitutionalism, which is the warmed over “living constitution” idea of discarding the original meaning of the constitution and the amendment process in favor of judge-made law that reflects the current liberal view.
According to an editorial supporting Sotomayor published in the American Statesman, July 16, 2009, he taught both Barack and Michelle Oboma while they were at Harvard. Maybe that explains their readiness to disregard the constitution in favor of empathetic justice.
No where on the police report did it state that the police walked through the house. In addition, Gates initially refused to provide his ID. When he did, it was a Harvard University ID so the police had to call the university to verify Gates’ story. If it was all so easy and obvious, then there would be no need for the Harvard University Police to respond, which they did.
I guess anytime a black person in a nice neighborhood is questioned, whether legit or not the cops are racist or profiling.
Way to gather all the facts before spouting off, good job Obama.
And wisely so. I think his comments on Friday were very well spoken and well said. It took him a couple days to get there but I will give credit where credit is due: Obama came around and did the right thing. Now all we need to discuss is: What brand of beer? I'm thinking Schafer since it is the one beer to have when you're having more than one... or, of course, there's always...
Gates' legal team argues that authorities are misrepresenting the professor and the officer, and Gates has said he is determined to keep the issue alive despite the charges being dropped.
"This is not about me; this is about the vulnerability of black men in America," he said this week.
Ogletree said Gates may bring forward people who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.
When asked for examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.
"I think you will be hearing much more complex and different perspective on him [Crowley] in the coming days and weeks," Ogletree said, alleging that Crowley "is well-known among people, particularly young people, for some of his police practices."
:bang2: racist idiots should really not be given a public platform
I predicted on Thursday that Obama (or, I should say, a member of the Obama administration) was going to contact Gates behind the scenes to tell him to let it go since it was causing Obama a lot of embarassment.
Obviously, that prediction didn't exactly come true... but I think in a certain sense that might happen anyway. During the upcoming White House love fest, I wouldn't be surprised if one of Obama's handlers tells Gates "ok, you had your moment in the spotlight now, at the President's request, drop it."
Who hasnt been questioned by police at random for almost no reason? Let alone what this looked like pulling up. Any sane person can get them to help you in about a minute
Theres plenty of racism going on, choose your battles. Like that RB who didnt get to see his dying grandparent. Being questioned is nothing to cry about.
Every analogy is a poor one if one look past the author's meaning and intent.
The point of the analogy is that the one who is suppose to know better and who has authority and power on his side is held to the higher responsibility.
If you look at the analogy that way, it is a spot-on analogy.
Regardless of our disagreement, I think it could have been handled better by both Gates and Crowley.
Well, recent Supreme Court rulings disagree as to whether this should be the case. But because the police have the power and authority to arrest, you're right. They can arrest and use their authority whether it's justified or not. And that's part of the problem.
Nor has it prevented you from passing judgment that Crowley didn't abuse his authority. If you're going to use that argument against me, you've just condemned yourself - unless you were there.
Second, it's not a cop out, no pun intended. It's called being reasonable. I can assess a situation and say that even though one did not abuse one's authority, one didn't handle the situation as best as the situation could have been handled.
Because you view this as some cosmic morality plot where the "good guys" do everything the right way and the "bad guys" do everything the wrong way.
If you had no pictures of this incident, I'd assume you'd think the cops were wearing all white with nice white hats like the Cowboys wore in those old time Western movies.
Uh, no he didn't. He arrested Gates. When does arresting a person mean you're ignoring their rants?
A belligerent racist WHO WAS IN HIS OWN HOME!!!. Funny how you keep missing that point.
Second, I'm not saying the officer was racially profiling. What I'm saying is that an officer who is suppose to be an "expert" in helping avoid racial profiling doesn't understand why Gates might have reacted the way he did and then exacerbates the situation (one that turned into a racial conflict) by not ignoring Gates but arresting him.
And that educated man got arrested just like a homeless man would if he were urinating on a park bench he considers his home.
Again, you choose not to see the similarity. The police had all the power. If that were a citizen coming to his door, and he swore at said citizen and told said citizen to get away, that citizen wouldn't have the power to arrest him.
But the police do.
The fact you would compare knowledge to the authority bestowed by the state to arrest and detain people is laughable.
And, no, I'm not excusing his conduct. What part of "I think Gates was totally out of line" do you not understand?
That's not an excuse. That's a condemnation of Gates' behavior. But the difference between you and I is that I don't suggest that because one is unruly that gives the police the right to beat him to a pulp to subdue him. (I know that's an extreme example, but my point is just because the police may be right in responding to a potential crime, doesn't give them the right to do whatever they want or not use a monicum of restraint when it could be applied to a situation.)
Faux comparison. Desparate grasp at straws. See above.
And with all due respect, the system and the police have to share some of that blame. You don't like it. Tough.
The old "we elected a black president. See, racial prejudice, racism doesn't exist."
You know it's interesting that this (our discussion) has turned into a white-black issue? When did I mention anything about this being a white-black issue?
I thought I was focusing on "abuse of authority" or the police possibly not handling the matter as well as they could have? I thought I was dealing with the fact that the police arrested someone in his own home?
I thought I was talking about how Gates' ranting didn't equate to "fighting words."
I believe the only time I evoked race had to do with acknowledging Gates was playing the race card and the officer's background in racial profiling and how that experience should have helped in this situation.
In short, Gates acted like uppity professor trying to throw down the race card. But the officer was on his property and should have ignored his rants. He probably got pissed and said, "I'll show this uppity professor who I am."
Good post, sans the beer of course. I'm not a beer drinker.
Saying the right thing days later because of scrutiny doesnt mean jack sheet in my opinion. His first statement is more indicative of his true feelings and character in my opinion.
agree........those 1st statement are what he thinks instinctivly and from years of pondering on that issue. It indicitive of what he fundamentaly beleives.....
.....probably from 20 years of Rev.Wright & Ayers associations, boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis
No, it still isn't "spot on". There is nothing "spot on" about comparing a Harvard professor with a smark-aleck 7 year old (even though that's exactly how Gates was behaving). Gates is an intelligent, educated man. You cannot use the defense that he "didn't know better" as far as arguing with a policeman goes.
Easy to say with 20/20 hindsight posting on the internet from the safety of your home office. I recommend you read the Boston Globe article I linked to in here that discusses how policeman, even in the most mundane of circumstance, can easily find themselves in life-and-death situations.
Maybe, but I don't see that as being part of the problem with regards to this specific incident. I don't think Crowley did anything inappropriate whatsoever.
NOTE: I am basing my opinion on info that has come to light thus far. I am certainly open minded enough to revise my opinions if new evidence comes forward. But in the meantime, I stand by the above.
Yes. Obama is slicker that Slick Willie, and trickier than Tricky Dick. His verbalizations cannot be trusted.
His are not mistakes. They are lies. Hidden lies.
If every statement you make is perfect the first time and always understood and clear as to what your intention was, encapsulates all your thoughts as a human being flawlessly then why do you keep posting in threads? I'd think you'd make one post and be done.
Because some people are exceedingly obtuse.
Ain't that the truth.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Robert Gibbs on FNS [Jack Dunphy]
On today’s Fox News Sunday, presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted President Obama had been prepared to answer questions about the Henry Louis Gates arrest at his press conference last week. Bret Baier, filling in for regular host Chris Wallace, asked Gibbs, “Before Wednesday’s news conference, did you prepare [the president] for a question about Henry Gates’s arrest in Cambridge?”
“Well, look,” said Gibbs, “Let’s just say it’s safe to say we went over a whole lot of topics that we thought might come up, and certainly this was a topic that was, has been in the news . . .” He then went on to try to un-ring the bell by repeating the line that the president “hadn’t calibrated his words well,” and blah, blah, blah, beer at the White House, blah, blah, blah.
So now we know that President Obama didn’t properly “calculate” his words about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” even after being prepared for such a question in advance. Thus is revealed the president’s tone deafness in failing to anticipate the backlash such an answer might provoke.
And now we are told, in a further attempt at damage control, that the Gates arrest can serve to educate all those mouth-breathing cops out there who may yet stumble into an unpleasant encounter with some other Ivy Leaguer. It’s our hope, said Gibbs, invoking that insufferable locution that one hopes will soon fade from common usage, that the Gates arrest can be “part of a teachable moment.”
So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
When the officer has satisfied himself that it was not you and your Hupmobile that were involved in the Piggly Wiggly heist, he owes you an explanation for the stop and an apology for the inconvenience, but if you’re running your mouth about your rights and your history of oppression and what have you, you’re likely to get neither.
— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. “Jack Dunphy” is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
That is an excellent piece of advice right there. I wish more folks would realize that.