<p>Right dbate, post 1197. But this isn’t racial profiling if you read the rest of my post.</p>
<p>Thank you kluge, for stating where the rubber meets the road here. It’s what I’ve been saying for a long time. The fact that illegal police action is being defended and upheld because people don’t like the attitude and words of the person whose rights were violated speaks volumes about where people really stand on the issue of our “sacred” Constitution and Bill Of Rights. In a nutshell, it’s: Their protections should apply fully only to the individual whom most of society deems in the moment to be worthy of them. Thus, we have people twisting themselves into pretzels in an attempt to elevate the police officers involved to the level of unerring sainthood, while utterly vilifying the person whose rights were violated, claiming that his behavior alone warranted his arrest on bogus charges. It really is quite a discouraging sight to witness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The argument that any report of suspicious activity or B&E should automatically give the responding officer the right, and even the duty, to enter a house when the homeowner doesn’t want him would be the biggest loophole in the Constitution. </p>
<p>This is why the police can only enter a house on “probable” cause - not “possible” cause. Much less “there’s no evidence, and I have no reasonable belief there are kidnappers in the house, but since it’s vaguely in the realm of possibility, I can ignore the homeowner” cause.</p>
<p>I’d like to know what the officer said and what his tone was when he approached
the door. I suspect that if a local officer came to my house under the same
conditions, he would probably see a middle aged harmless looking guy and respond
respectfully. Now if the cop came to my door and banged on it with a flashlight and
demanded I come out to the porch and show him id, I might well respond the way
Gates did. It’s my home, and regardless of why you are here, I expect respect in
my own home. Tread lightly officer. So I’d like to know exactly how the cop
approached the situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, Kluge. Now that we have your legal and constitutional conclusion, can we further conclude that there is no link whatsover to the egregious accusations of … racism that have been made here and elsewhere? </p>
<p>Since you mentioned the word disheartening, perhaps you could see how some have no problem considering the arrest of Prof. Gates quite disheartening, but not as much as the utterly repulsive attempt to pretend this was an issue of a black citizen versus the white police.</p>
<p>Does your introductory paragraph intimates that the people who engaged in “accusations of racism and attention-seeking and predictable political potshots” are as a whole … ignorants?</p>
<p>Or was this really a case of racism?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for summing it up, kluge. </p>
<p>I know people look at that photo of Gates handcuffed on the porch and see different versions of the same event. Some focus on Gates’ angry expression, that his mouth is open, presumably still railing at the police and take this as reason enough for his arrest. Others, myself included, see the incongruous sight of older man, a distinguished professor, neatly dressed in his chinos and polo shirt about to be led away in handcuffs. It’s disturbing. That he is angry and berated or yelled at the police officer does not justify that scene and the rest of the four-hour booking and jailing that followed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re setting up a straw man, though. I for one have NOT said that the officers were saints or that Gates’ behavior warranted his arrest.</p>
<p>Let me ask the question a different way. I agree that the arrest was an overreaction on the part of the officer. However, does that overreaction make the officer necessarily racist? It’s quite possible that this is a story of obnoxious-but-within-his-rights-homeowner combined with overly-aggressive-cop. In which case, does it need to follow a race storyline?</p>
<p>i’ll bet what happened here is that the cop came to the door, saw a black guy
inside and responded aggressively. That probably set the Professor off and
things went downhill from there. But without a camera at the door I guess we’ll
probably never know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was that before of after he entered the house of Prof. Gates illegally and became a trespasser? Was that after he was asked by Prof. Gates to leave the premises and refused? Repeatedly? Was that after Porf. Gates showed his ID through the screened entry? </p>
<p>Just filling the blanks for the constitutional experts. After all, they know all the facts!</p>
<p>1208 posts and a week later and people are still speculating (without any ability to know for sure) what these two people meant every second of this encounter. Oops, 3-6 people - we have to include the possibly racist caller and the possibly racist backup officers too.</p>
<p>What the hell, I’ll give my opinion and tick off some people here too:</p>
<p>Playing the race card isn’t as effective when you don’t have anything other than speculation. The officer isn’t racist just because he stretches the definition of probable cause or disorderly conduct. Gates is racist.</p>
<p>I don’t think the cop was a trespasser, just doing his job, but probably
a little heavy handedly. Just set the guy off and then didn’t have the sense
to get out of there when he showed id.</p>
<p>But Gates never fabricated a police report, adding that a witness saw two black men, when that witness said she never said any such thing. Crowley did this, either by “mistake”, or intentionally. Say what you must say to help maintain dishonor, but we all know, every single one of us here, that the officer leaned on racism to help himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh but this just could not be so!</p>
<p>First of all, Crowley is an eleven year veteran. Secondly, he is an expert on profiling. And lastly, lest we forget the most important thing, he is white, and wrote an Official Gospel Report that is obviously unquestionable. It is therefore impossible that he broke the law and that he is therefore at fault here. Impossible, I tell you.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Gates is black. Nuff said.</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>But did Gates ever asked Crowley to leave the house? Why would a legal expert among experts such as Ogletree not have jumped al over the “illegal” entry and trespassing of the police officer instead of issuing the rather benign original press release? After all a cop entering a house without probable cause, remaining inside after being told to leave by the owner should have a lot more teeth than the violations reported by our resident legal eagles. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or could it be that Prof. Gates has others things on his mind?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier posted:
“…but we all know, every single one of us here, that the officer leaned on racism to help himself.”</p>
<p>Speak for yourself. It is my right to speak for myself, and I don’t believe that at all.</p>
<p>“”…but we all know, every single one of us here, that the officer leaned on racism to help himself."</p>
<p>No, Drosselmeier only deaf/blinds and true racists do.</p>
<p>Let’s face it - a black guy shouldn’t really have a house in that neighborhood,
shouldn’t really be a professor at H for that matter, and of course when approached
by a white cop, should have laid down on the ground and held his hand out for the
cuffs. imagine the nerve, to question what a cop was doing in his own house,
It’s a perfectly legit arrest - sitting in your own house while black!</p>
<p>Hmm, that account seems to differ greatly from others I’ve read. Where did you get it from?</p>
<p>Say what you think you must, but you know the nasty truth about this report, and must now corrupt yourselves to avoid it. I am happy with that.</p>
<p>From Fish to Speedo … how interesting!</p>