<p>
</p>
<p>Crawley and Gates apparently had a short exchange within these 22 seconds. </p>
<p>If the police report is truth, then Crawley must have had a very short conversation with Whalen on the sidewalk, then walked to the front door, and then had a confrontation with Gates, all within 22 seconds.</p>
<p>^Oh, I dunno. They were, after all, talking about black guys. When that is the subject, people can speak volumes in very little time, even if they do not speak it verbally.</p>
<p>Now we are talking all of this in 22 seconds - ANYTHING to keep from seeing the obvious truth. Just keep wrecking the moral train, folks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it must be terrible logical. Hmmm…maybe Crawley was a supercop. Yeah that’s it, that is how he was able to talk to both of them and cross that distance. See he never lied, he is just REALLY good at his job.</p>
<p>My wife used to type way faster than 60 WPM when she was a secretary. I would find it rather difficult to speak at more than one word per second. Holding a two way conversation implies pauses of a few seconds between who speaks. I would assume that the officer would ask for her name or other identifying information first. He would then wait for her response and then he’d have to ask for a description. Then she would give the two black guys with backpacks answer. Try that out with a script and a timer and see if you can squeeze it into 22 seconds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, I wonder how long until they give up and just leave.</p>
<p>What is really ironic is that when people first heard this story they were quick to vilify Gates as being arrogant and rude to cops. But when it is revealed that the cop was a liar they are doing everything they can to deny it. Hmm…I bet there is nothing racist about that at all.</p>
<p>Sorry, Dbate - I can make it work. It takes me 5 seconds to say, “I’m the caller. I saw two men push inside, and they are still in there.”</p>
<p>No no no. Let them keep corrupting themselves. And we can just watch it. Study it. I am printing it for my kids so that they too can see to what lengths people will go to hold onto an obvious lie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please give it up you are just making yourself look pathetic.</p>
<p>Really. Just totally forget about the actual police report. LOL</p>
<p>I’m not going to participate in this thread anymore, because the tone has gotten downright offensive. I readily admit that everything doesn’t add up here perfectly. For all I know, maybe Crowley was too quick to put Gates in cuffs. He might even be insane enough to deliberately pick a fight with a black man with a Harvard ID. We do know for sure that there was a report of a possible burglary, that Crowley went to the door, and that at some point Gates lost his temper and spoke inappropriately to Crowley (Gates essentially admitted that much). You want to find a racist plot here–well, I’m sure there’s something in your experience that tells you that that is what happened.</p>
<p>And on that note–merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.</p>
<p>^ <strong>Translation</strong></p>
<p>I still believe Crowley, or at least I do publicly. I just cannot bring myself to accept the obvious truth. Doggonnit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice and in that summary you still couldn’t admit that Crowley was a liar, and painted Gates as the one who was in the wrong. If this is how the average white person takes incidents of police abuse of power then the nation still has some serious “growing up” to do. </p>
<p>Sad. Pathetic. Blind. I am not exactly sure which adjective best describes some of the posters on this board. And to that I bid adieu.</p>
<p>I’ll follow your lead, EMM1. I have not passed any judgement on anyone yet; I’m only trying to play out some possibly scenarios. Some posters here aren’t interested in discussion, only accusation. If you don’t agree with them, you’re on the opposite side, regardless of not having taken a side.</p>
<p>CC has some of the best and brightest people I know, and I thought I could get some good info here. I’m sorry I was wrong.</p>
<p>Post after post several people assigned the racist tag to the woman who made the 911 call simply because it was reported that she saw two black men on a front porch trying to push through the front door. Now that it’s clear that wasn’t the case, and she didn’t know the race of the men, wouldn’t it be prudent to give the police officer the benefit of the doubt? Had the woman identified the two men as black, would any of you ever doubted yourselves that her 911 call was based on a racist view?</p>
<p>Again, not to confuse anyone, but in his interview, Crowley said he walked directly from his car in the driveway up the side steps onto the porch. He didn’t see the woman on the sidewalk until he was walking up onto the porch – the sidewalk is only a few feet away, the house sits very close to the street. He did not know who the lady with the cellphone was at that point. When he was told that the “intruders” had not come out of the house, he did not want to continue talking with his back to the front door. He turned around and Gates was standing at the front door. It really doesn’t matter what race he thought the intruders (if any) because 15 seconds later he had reached the tentative conclusion and reported it over the radio that Gates was the owner/occupant, even though Gates had refused to talk to him. We have a recording that he thought Gates was the lawful occupant within 30 second of his arrival. So any “profiling” that occured was a conclusion based on dress, age, and demeanor that Gates belonged in the house. He was still concerned because the man’s behavior (yelling at him and refusing to answer even basic questions) was so strange.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, someone (presumably Gates) can be heard tallking loudly in this very first radio call and in both subsequent radio calls – the point where Crowley could not even complete a conversation with his dispatcher givng the homeowners name and trying to stop additional units.</p>
<p>I’ve been lurking and also feel like this thread has stopped being instructive/constructive.</p>
<p>And for the record, I would tend to side with Gates on this one, but both men behaved poorly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. All of this false sanctimony when there sits Occam’s Razor right here before us. Rather than consider it, we instead have humans babbling large descriptions, and having multiple conversations with multiple people, all in a matter of seconds. Anything to avoid the obvious.</p>
<p>Ridiculous.</p>
<p>And there were no “loud” conversations on those tapes. We MAY be able to hear something in the background. But it was mere talking, nothing that would hurt any cop’s ears (which is yet another transparent lie in the report).</p>
<p>So in the end all those people who were defending officer Crowley left in the face of evidence of his lies rather than just admit that the man was a liar. Classy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you here. But in this incident, one side is a private citizen in his own home, while the other side represents my government.</p>