Kamakazie Sith wrote:
That's not the point the officer is making and you should know that. It's quite clear the officer is talking about persons who interfer with officers during investigations. Now in this case the investigation was concluded but Gates choose to pursue the officer can continue causing a scene which met the elements of disorderly conduct. After being warned twice Gates doesn't calm down.
I hope that knowing how to de-escalate a situation is one of the qualities trained for in a police officer, something I'd throw into the rubric of "tolerance". I can envision exceptions to that where police work needs to be done NOW for public safety, but tom wrote more generally, about how the police where he lives "never back down" and how they'd never tolerate the same rhetorical bullshit from Hispanic women that he just brushes off.
OMG. Some of you are fucking retarded. HE WAS NOT IN HIS OWN HOME WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY. HE WAS OUTSIDE AND WARNED TWICE. Read the damn report.
Furthermore, the officer asking Gates to come outside is not entrapment because he didn't force Gates to continue acting like a fucking retard. Also, if I were Sgt. Crowley I'd want citizens as witnesses just in case force had to be used which isn't something that can not happen if you're inside his home.
I didn't mean to endorse the entrapment theory, you dealt with it a long ways back. I quoted the second of Nitram's posts because it brought up the interesting point (for me, at least) of whether or not
asshole behavior on your outdoor porch (private property) counts as a public space for the purposes of disorderly conduct. (Separate from, say, doing it in unambiguously public spaces like the sidewalk or street) First I think I could have written much clearer, and after re-reading the thread closer it turns out I'm an idiot and SanchezTheWhaler/Ossus asserted it on page 2, and it's even backed up by a part of my own link I didn't quote the first time from the appellate lawyer:
In a 2008 case, the state's Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated "[t]he "public" element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant's action affects or is 'likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'"
I.E, Gates affecting people on the street. Ugh. Conceeded.
I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. I think it's fair to say, no. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And No. 3 – 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, and that's just a fact.
Basically, white officer+black dude=racist, stupid cops.
Here's a
link to a transcript, I've quoted and bolded the relevant parts.
Now, I've -- 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 enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.
He
specifically says he has no idea what role race played in this. Then Obama goes on to address some important historical background/context for this controversy -and this is the important part- relates that context to the present day by pointing out how this racial history can taint
even completely color-blind police actions. I understand why someone would object to Obama's criticism of the police officer's
action as uninformed, foot in the mouth, you need to know local statutes, whatever. But there's no way to read that and come away with the accusation of racism. "I don't know if there was racism involved, but obviously there's a history involved that makes everyone jumpy even if it's completely color-blind. Let's try and fix that."
Personally I think I'd be very grateful to the officer, because on reflection what I had just done really would look suspicious. A "Thanks for checking up on us, but everything's fine" seems to be in order, at that point.
I was sitting in a parking lot overnight last week when I accidentally set off my car alarm. I had no idea how to turn it off, so I started leafing through the owners manual but made sure to take out my drivers license, registration, and insurance and put them on the dash, and got ready to put my hands on my head because if a cop drove up I imagine that would have looked awfully suspicious....
Or do most carjackers just run away if it goes off?
What? No....they need to be MORE tolerant, because they have the power to legally hurt and even kill someone. This strikes me as totally, completely wrong.
