<p>Well. I am perfectly willing now to stand aside and watch with horror the moral train-wreck that now ensues, as you corrupt yourselves to defend this wickedness.</p>
<p>So, the witness statement that she didn’t even speak to Crowley is false. She (of course) MUST be lying, because cops can not be liars. You are right, the witness is completely clueless of her actions and the fact that she knows whether or not she spoke to someone is completely false. EVERYONE must be making this up to make the poor upstanding (non-lying) cop look bad. I apologize, surely she must be entirely mistaken.</p>
<p>I’m a facilitator in a program that, among other things, teaches conflict resolution. One of the exercises involves reading a brief crime report to people and having them then tell others the facts without looking at the report. It’s amazing how much the facts change as the story gets retold. What particularly is interesting is that people will add information that wasn’t included in the original report, and they have no idea they’ve embellished the report.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might be an opinion, but it is Whalen and her lawyer’s opinion that Crawley lied on police report.</p>
<p>While I would think that would be okay for small things, northstarmom. Imagining that you talked to someone when in fact you didn’t ever speak to them is beyond the scope of imagination in my opinion, and enters the realm of a bald face lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one said that, although she certainly has motive given the incendiary media behavior. The point is that the statement is in question, and since all of the tape supports Crawley except on that point, and he would have nothing to gain by lying on that point, the evidence is at worst inconclusive and at best leans to the officer’s favor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hehe. Yes. And the implications of this as it pertains to Crowley’s particular brand of “embellishment” are quite horrific, and a threat to every single black man in America regardless of his innocence and socio-economic status.</p>
<p>But I must get back to the train-wreck…</p>
<p>“It gives the impression that Crowley is justified in suspecting the black inhabitant of the home, and giving him the third, fourth, and fifth degree despite that he lives there, and walks with a cane.”</p>
<p>Even Gates himself does not claim that he was subjected to any kind of coercive or extended interrogation. His claim (as I understand it) is that a) that Crowley refused to provide him with his badge number and that b) Crowley arrested him for (I guess) asking for the badge (forcefully?) and calling Crowley a racist.</p>
<p>Now, how does deliberately misstating what Whelan said held Crowley’s defense to either of these charges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what world you live in or what school you went to but in everyone’s common sense. When a police report includes something that didn’t happen it is clear that the officer is lying. The reason it matters, is that if the perps were black men then Crawley would have reason to question Gates beyond a normal ID. But to assume that the house is not his after being informed of that Gates was the homeowner means that Crawley questioned it because Gates was black which is…racial profiling. Crawley got called on it by Gates and therefore attempted to cover his mistake by arresting the officer and then fabricating a police report to make him appear justified in doubting Gates.</p>
<p>Will you just admit that the officer lied? Really, even if you don’t think the officer acted in a racist or improper manner you can not seriously still deny that the officer either: a)lied, or b)was mistaken in his police report.</p>
<p>Crowley has been willing to tell his side of the story before. When asked about this latest revelation, the line is that he stands by his report. That seems like a considerable difference in openness and response now.</p>
<p>I would expect Crowley to provide a detailed account of his encounter with the witness - how he walked down from the porch, her demeanor, what she was wearing, how tall she is, what she said, how she said it, etc. Instead, only a brushoff was provided.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Gates is very clear that the cop kept asking him questions even after learning he was the homeowner. Gates says he just decided not to answer him at that point. </p>
<p>But keep on wrecking that moral train…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He didn’t mistake what Whelan said, he did not even TALK to her. He lied. Point blank, and I don’t understand why people are trying to defend him. If the lie was not pertinent to the situation then there is no reason that you should have a problem conceding the fact that what officer crowley wrote in the police report was a lie.</p>
<p>One other issue: the other officers were already on the scene before Crowley came out of the house to “talk to Whelan”. If Whelan talked to her, then they should have witnessed it. I assume that there was probably a crowd watching given the number of police cars then blocking the road on this busy road with a lot of pedestrian traffic.</p>
<p>There was in fact a crowd BCEagle and several officers because Gates was being “disorderly” so surely someone would have seen Crowley talking to Whelan, but they didn’t. Hmmm I wonder why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would I admit something neither known nor proven?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it is because he’s white - and Gates is black, and they just cannot STAND the fact that their fantasies about the righteous white cop are revealed here as nothing more than fantasies. That is the unvarnished truth of it.</p>
<p>Now, let us sugarcoat it:</p>
<p>They defend him because they do not yet have all of the facts (and they never will get all of the facts, if they can help it).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>1) Okay, try this: either Whelan is lying or Crowley is lying. Can we agree to that?
2) If Whelan spoke to Crowley, then it is very likely that other Police Officers and members of the crowd observed it. If one of those people observed it, then they would come forward to say that they observed the two talking together. Can we agree to that? We therefore only need to wait for a short time to see if that happens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, so now the witness is wrong. All the people on the scene are wrong (as noone else stated they saw Crowley speak to Whalen). And Whalen’s attorney is mistaken. I am going to leave you in this fantasy world you live in, where we people CLEARLY lie it is really “neither known nor proven” because you know Whalen obviously must have simply forgotten that she talked to Officer Crawley, just like she forget that she really said two black men as opposed to two men, one of whom could be Hispanic.</p>
<p>Yes MBA Grad, the officer is not in the wrong at all. All those facts are just there to make him look bad. Perhaps his hand simply slipped when writing the police report. Yes that it is that is how all those bad lies got in there. Good. The officer did nothing wrong and you can return to your fantasy world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t get, Dross, why broad-brush stererotyping is offensive when done against blacks (“they’re all criminals / they’re all violent / they couldn’t get into good schools without affirmative action”) but it’s perfectly ok for you to engage in broad-brush stereotyping (“cops lie / whites always treat blacks as being under suspicion.”</p>
<p>Take the plank out of your own eye. You do nothing to perpetuate harmony with your continued insistence that everyone is against blacks. </p>
<p>BTW, I’m still waiting for the apology in which you linked me with “ancestors who had slaves.” I am not descended from slaveowners, my ancestors never participated in that, and I will not have you lay guilt on me for treatment that I and my ancestors never showed black people.</p>
<p>Okay pizza girl, do you think the officer lied in this case?</p>