<p>Perhaps I am being naive, but quite frankly, I never did see this as a black/white issue. I saw this as a Harvard professor who thought he was so much better than a lowly cop. This was class bias, more than anything else. While Gates was in his own home, there was no major problem - his being obnoxious was just that. However, when he left his house and followed the police officer out and kept it up, with others there, he greatly exceeded mere frustration and being tired.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Crowley trampled on the Constitution! This little document gets a lot of abuse across America on any given day then.</p>
<p>“No. Gates acted obnoxiously.”</p>
<p>Then why is so much of a support for an obnoxious jerk? Because he was Harvard Prof? or because he was black?</p>
<p>Gates cooked up the whole thing to be on the national news. No one knew him before and now more than half the country knows about him. Is he writing a book?</p>
<p>It has never ceased to amaze me how “elastic” the sanctity of our constitution has become in the wake of the Gates arrest. Here we have an instance in which a man’s constitutional rights were clearly violated, but because they find the very fact of this man “offensive”, people who often otherwise choke up with emotion when speaking of that sacred document, suddenly seem quite comfortable with it becoming as disposable as toilet paper. Hey, he acted “like a jerk”, so “got was he deserved”—Constitution be damned. Civil Rights should only be reserved for those whom we deem “polite enough” to warrant their protections. Freedom of speech, indeed the right to speak freely in one’s own home, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure—all minor technicalities if you are seen to have offended the sensibilities of “true patriots”----or the local PD. Yes indeed, this incident has again reminded me of just how fragile our defining documents can be, just how willingly a populus will dismiss their importance when a uppity #$@^&%, whom they see to be an undeserving and ungrateful beneficiary of Affirmative Action, dares to make accusations of racism.</p>
<p>And razor, you can twist this scenario into a tight little pretzel in as many ways as you please, but you know and I know that there was absolutely no danger of Prof. Gate’s words “inciting a riot” that would “endanger police officers” that day. None. Once it was well established that a burglary had not taken place, and that the rightful home owner was in residence, there was no reason for the responding officer to remain on his property, much less for the assembly of a veritable phalanx of law enforcement on his front lawn. The “crowd” assembled that day was mostly comprised of law enforcement, and the civilians who had gathered were merely curious on-lookers. This was no neighborhood in Watts whereby the police were surrounded by angry and vocal black citizens whipped up into a volatile lather. This was a suburban street in tony Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the middle of the day. A handicapped, middle aged homeowner had been handcuffed within moments of stepping beyond the threshold of his front door, as he stood on his porch addressing the crowd of cops on his lawn to complain about how their colleague had refused to identify himself as proscribed by law.</p>
<p>This is supposed to be America, whose much worshiped Founding Fathers had composed a Nation Defining document, that among other things, is supposed to guard against governmental persecution of its citizens. But then again, I keep forgetting (though God only knows how I do it) that those Founders did not have the likes of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in mind when crafting the Constitution. Apparently though, no small number of modern day “Patriots” do indeed remember this, and thereby feel perfectly comfortable with the suspension of its application where the likes of such are concerned.</p>
<p>Gates has the right to be obnoxious under our Constitution. Being likable or polite is not a citizen’s duty. </p>
<p>I am not supporting Gates. I am supporting the Constitution and the right of citizens not to be arrested for merely exasperating a cop. And yes, the Constitution is trampled on very often. Surprised? Just because something happens often does not make it any more Constitutional, legal or ethical.</p>
<p>And Simba, I don’t like the protesters who disrupt townhall meetings. But that does not mean I want them arrested or would want them denied the right to protest. Supporting their right is different from liking them or approving of their behavior. I hope everyone could make that distinction.</p>
<p>Yeah and my human rights were trampled when my neighbor gave me a dirty look this morning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And of course, no one is questioning their right to protest or express their dissatisfaction with the Health Care Reforms being hashed out in Congress—but, then again, when looking at the footage of town hall meeting after town hall meeting, one can easily see that such as these are the very type of citizen the Gods of Democracy had in mind when drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can be as loud, and “obnoxious” as they want to be (even in these public venues), knowing that their rights are without question…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, crescent. Don’t say asinine and irrelevant things and then somehow expect to be taken seriously.</p>
<p>Crescent:</p>
<p>Did you get handcuffed and hauled to the police station?</p>
<p>Why would you ask that? There was no claim of any state or local laws broken. Simply the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why is it irrelevant or asinine? The trampling of the Constitution is a very serious issue. We’re talking major rights here and a trampled Constitution wouldn’t look so good at the National Archives. Same goes for human rights. These are debated quite often at the United Nations and taken to major corrective action at places like the International Criminal Court (Hague).</p>
<p>You should get your historical documents straight, crescent22; the Constitution doesn’t mention the pursuit of happiness.</p>
<p>Where did I say the Constitution mentioned a pursuit of happiness?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are both wrong it is plainly stated in the Induction:</p>
<p>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</p>
<p>[The</a> Declaration of Independence - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net](<a href=“http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html]The”>The Declaration of Independence - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net)</p>
<p>thats the Declaration of Independence, dummy</p>
<p>Toblin - are you saying “pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution?</p>
<p>toblin; what are you talking about? That’s in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. I was entirely correct.</p>
<p>Crescent22, you brought up the pursuit of happiness in the context of a discussion about trampling on Constitutional rights, in an attempt to justify your comment about your neighbor giving you a dirty look. Pardon me for pointing out that the straw you grasped was from the wrong container.</p>
<p>So your neighbor did not break any law in giving you the dirty eye, and your Constitutional rights were not trampled on.</p>
<p>So what was that post about?</p>
<p>Say it with me now: “Asinine and irrelevant!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because he is black. There is an entire segment of our society that wants to believe racial profiling occurs ALL the time. It is one way they can try to excuse having a disproporinate number of African Americans in prison. They are predisposed to believe Gate’s allegation because it fits into their view of the world.</p>
<p>Yes, racial profiling occurs in America but it occurs far less frequently then many people believe. Crowley did not engage in racial profiling. He engaged in a-hole profiling and most cops do that all the time. </p>
<p>Saying it is not unlawful to be obnoxious is not a justification for being obnoxious to a police officer. Gates owes Crowley an apology.</p>