About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews falsely claimed Obama called Gates arrest "an example of profiling, basically"

July 22, 2009 10:41 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Chris Matthews falsely claimed that President Obama said the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. "was an example of profiling, basically." In fact, Obama said of the arrest: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

372 Comments

Following President Obama's July 22 press conference, Chris Matthews falsely claimed that Obama said the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. "was an example of profiling, basically." Matthews asserted that in making this purported statement, Obama "may have stepped on his own headline tonight."

In fact, Obama did not assert that Gates' arrest was an "example of profiling." Rather, he said of the arrest: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that." Obama later added that "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately" [emphasis added].

From CNN.com's transcript of Obama's July 22 press conference:

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

Obama: Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts.

What's been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so...

(Laughter)

... it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago.

(Laughter)

Here, I'd get shot.

(Laughter)

But so far, so good. They're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate what happens.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house and, at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, 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's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement 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 often time 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 is going to be.

From MSNBC's July 22 post-press conference coverage:

MATTHEWS: Well, that was President Obama's press conference tonight, which, of course, focused on health care. I have Howard Fineman joining me here as well as Dr. Nancy Schneiderman.

I want to get to the health care issue, but first of all, let me go first to the news value. It seems like the president may have stepped on his own headline tonight, in the sense that what he just said about the Gates case up in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- saying it was an example of profiling, basically, is going to be a bigger story tomorrow.

FINEMAN: Well, I think so, because he didn't really make much news on health care. And on the emotional issue of race in America, there's no more important witness than Barack Obama, president of the United States. And for him to basically back Skip Gates, the professor from Harvard, and Skip Gates' view of what happened up there in Cambridge and to say that race still haunts us, even though he is proof of otherwise, I think was a deep moment, and the kind that people tune into Barack Obama expecting to see, as opposed to the previous 50 minutes that was a combination of the code of federal regulations and a three-card monte game.

MATTHEWS: Because I do believe that the matter of whether Mr. Gates, Professor Gates turned over his ID right away is in dispute. If that's the case, he has a much better case. But clearly, the president, as you said, took the side of his friend, as he called him, Skip Gates.

Let me go to the purpose of the evening tonight. Dr. Schneiderman, let me -- Nancy, let me ask you about this. You raised the question before that there is an element of what most people call rationing in any national health care plan because somebody has to decide how you do economize, how you do restrict the use of what the president called expensive treatments. What did you hear tonight?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mary59 (July 22, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
      3  
      I'd much rather hear Barak Obama speak than listen to Matthews try to interpret it. Cheez, Matthews steps all over himself sometimes, ruining a perfect response by Obama to that question.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 23, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
        2  
        President Obama's answers are always 100% spot on... at least until the RW (and other) hacks in the media get a hold of them. Then they're sliced up so bad he ends up sounding like a cross between Dennis Kicinich and James Trafficant.

        JUST PLAY THE TAPE, THE WHOLE TAPE AND NOTHING BUT THE TAPE.

        We don't need President Obama's remarks "explained" to us. We get it. He speaks plainly enough. To hear (and understand) one has only to LISTEN. Stick to "explaining" to us the positions of Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (July 23, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
          3 1
          300 comments on this so far. Tommy must be parsing up a storm further down the thread.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
               
            Tommy must be parsing up a storm further down the thread
            You should have put some money on it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (July 23, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
        2  
        Here's a thoughtful article (The Nation) from July 21st on Mr. Gates.

        http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/454282/skip_gates_and_the_post_racial_project?rel=emailNation

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
        1 4
        Read the Police Report

        http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

        It is pretty clear from the report that Gates was acting like an idiot.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
          3 2
          Whether he was or not, the issue remains as to what is appropriate conduct for police officers. Once the confusion is cleared up, they should leave. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your post reminds me of people who defended L.A. police after the Rodney King incident. He was driving drunk, he was belligerent, whatever else. The point was that once you have someone subdued, you don't beat them. That principle was firm no matter what King did.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
            2 4
            CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on racial profiling.
            Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class on racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
              2 2
              Zero relevance... just like the story that he tried to save a black man's life. Zero relevance. But no surprise - winkers will grasp at any straws to put the broom together.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
              3 1
              I don't see how that changes what's appropriate action here.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                1 4
                True, Gates was wrong, and should apologize for acting a fool and calling the officer a racist.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  That is your OPINION.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  I'm sorry, I forgot that you have no attention span. The context is appropriate conduct for police officers.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                    1 5
                    Again, read the report, the only person that was yelling, calling names and using the racist terms was Gates. Show me where the police were not acting inappropriately. They were investigating a possible break in. You know the house that had been broken into before! You have no attention span and no reading skills as well.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Again, read the report, the only person that was yelling, calling names and using the racist terms was Gates
                      Right. And the cop would have no motivation to lie about why he arrested a man in his own home for disorderly conduct. Uh huh.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      I can't show you where they were not acting inappropriately. Tell me about your writing skills, now.

                      If Gates was out of line, then the officer should have had no problem with providing his badge number to him, and leaving once the confusion was cleared up. I'm not saying they didn't have cause to come to the house. I'm saying that they didn't have cause to make the arrest.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
                      2
                    And what did the officer do in this case that was inappropriate?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
                      3  
                      From the sound of it, entering the home without permission. With or without that, once the identity is established, there's no reason to continue the encounter, much less make an arrest.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:17 pm ET)
              3
            This in no way compares to Rodney King. In this case, one man was being abusive to the officer, was warned, and was arrested. He was not hit or abused in any way by the officer. The officer, based on the report, did everything right and by the book. NONE of the Harvard officers who were on the scene have made any statements of anything improper either.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
              2 1
              The officer, based on the report, did everything right and by the book
              Nope. He should never have been arrested. There's no reason for it, no matter how "abusive" Gates' words were.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:38 pm ET)
                  3
                Scott

                You are totally wrong. Gates words and actions, and the way he was acting OUTSIDE his house completely supports a disorderly conduct charge. It is that simple.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
                     
                  Gates words and actions, and the way he was acting OUTSIDE his house completely supports a disorderly conduct charge
                  No. You are wrong.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
                      2
                    And you are basing that on what, your extensive knowledge of the law? It is clear you can not read and comprehend the police report or the disorderly conduct law on the books.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:10 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I don't believe the cop. And even if I did, he was clearly being capricious by not using better judgment.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
              1  
              I didn't say he was hit. Read my post again.

              If a police officer is out of line, you can talk back to them. He was in his own house. After arriving at a house and finding an older man in slacks, then being presented with school I.D., there is really no longer any cause to believe that there's a b&e going on. I'd be angry too, and I think you know you would be as well.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
                  2
                What you did was compare this case to Rodney King, which is totally out of line. From the report, Gates was not cooperative from the start. Following an officer outside, yelling at him, and ignoring his lawful order to stop is disorderly conduct.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (July 23, 2009 7:49 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The officer ASKED Gates to go outside, where he promply cuffed him.

                  Yet again facts elude you, POV. Try again.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
                      3
                    Fog. READ the report. Gates continued his behavior OUTSIDE the house and was warned TWICE before he was arrested. READ the report....take it slow, word by word, read left to right....you can do it. Maybe then you will learn the FACTS
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:03 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      READ the report.


                      The report is bunk. Cops are not saints. They can have vendettas and lie. I know, I've had it happen to me and I'm white. The cop's story doesn't make sense. I believe Gates over the cop. You can choose to do otherwise. We wouldn't expect anything else from you authoritarian types.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
                  2  
                  This was your comment:
                  It is pretty clear from the report that Gates was acting like an idiot.

                  My point is that is not a crime. It's not relevant. The comparison is that nobody ever defended King as a great guy, the point was that the police went too far. It was directly addressed to your "idiot" comment.

                  Got it?
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 11:34 pm ET)
              2
            The point was that once you have someone subdued, you don't beat them. That principle was firm no matter what King did.


            I know you're not comparing the two right? Gates was not "beaten" and he hasn't even made that charge as far as I can tell.

            There's always tomorrow though...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 12:08 am ET)
              2  
              Why is it so difficult to comprehend this? POV:
              It is pretty clear from the report that Gates was acting like an idiot.

              Followed by me:
              Whether he was or not, the issue remains as to what is appropriate conduct for police officers. Once the confusion is cleared up, they should leave.

              What I'm saying is that people would say that Rodney King behaved horribly, as if anyone was claiming otherwise. It's not relevant, because the issue was the excessive response by the police. I'm not saying Gates was beaten. I'm saying that "he was acting like an idiot" does not justify an arrest, whether true or not.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kydem09 (July 24, 2009 8:54 am ET)
                1 3
                Gates followed the officer outside and continued to harass him, yell at him, belittle him in front of a growing crowd of people. The way I see it, the officer had to take control of the situation to avoid further escalation. As such, I think the officer was acting reasonably in his arrest of Gates. And why isn't anyone calling for Gates to apologize? He's the one who was acting racist. He made an automatic assumption based on the color of the officer's skin that he was being unfairly targeted. Sounds like classic racism to me!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tman418 (July 24, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  Escalate? This is an old man who needs a cane to walk, being disturbed by police in his own home. I'd be rude too.

                  Why can't the officers just walk away while they are being yelled at, after it made clear that it was HIS OWN HOME!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  Gates did not have the badge number. He lawfully requested that. It was Crowley's job to provide that information however possible before leaving the house. Without doing that, not only did Gates have every reason to follow him outside, he's also justified in his agitation with the officer.

                  Also, why were there more cops there? What was the purpose of calling support, after Crowley believed Gates was legally in his own home?

                  And as everyone else refuses to answer, what exactly justified the continued presence after Crowley received identification? He not only didn't leave, which would have been an obvious way to avoid a situation, but he called more cops. There was nothing compelling him to stay there, so there's no need to control anything. It's not a crime scene, and he knew it by his own admission.

                  Also as noted multiple times, this isn't a sandbox. Whether Gates was out of line or not doesn't justify inappropriate behavior on Crowley's part. There is no "but he started it" principle in law enforcement.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
          2 3
          Acting like an 'idiot' is not an arrestable offense.

          Nice try, dummy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
            1 4
            Disorderly conduct is, and that is what Gates was doing. My question is, why did Gates give him a School ID not his drivers license? With a DL, it would have the address, your school ID does not!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
              2  
              Stop spreading misinformation. Gates produced TWO forms of ID - his DL and his Harvard ID. Nice try but BZZZ!

              As far as the disorderly... may I direct you to read the entire thread.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
                  3
                No, in the report he produced his School ID.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  Gates turned over both his DL and his school ID. The police report is wrong.

                  So are you.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                    1 3
                    Really, so you were there, you saw Gates produce two ID's? I think since the cop was there in person, I will trust him. That is your problem, you do not trust the police. I would like to hear the recording of the police radio, I am sure it will come out soon and we will show how much of a fool Gates is in this story.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
                      4 2
                      One things for sure, this won't happen again in Cambridge.

                      Police do lie. The guy was in his own home. The cop screwed up by arresting a personal friend of the President. Unfortunately, all the victims of profiling don't have such high connections. They have to suffer in anonymity.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
                        3 4
                        Oh so if your a friend of the President you get to be a fool. I guess the cop missed the sign in the yard that said, "Personnel friend of the President" while he was investigating a possible break in, second the man was arrested in his front yard, not his house. Third, Professor Gates I am sure lies as well. I will back the cop on this one, I ams sure he also did nto think it would have been blown out of the water like this, but since Gates is a friend of the president, is the only reason it is getting press.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
                          4 1
                          I will back the cop on this one
                          Of course you will. That's what racist authoritarian types do.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:13 pm ET)
                            2 4
                            And why are you placing all the blame on the cop just because he is white? Sounds pretty racist to me.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
                              1 3
                              And why are you placing all the blame on the cop just because he is white?
                              Straw man.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
                          3 1
                          See, it's exactly that simple-minded 'thinking' is why winkers are now the laughingstock of the world. But by all means please keep it up.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            Simple minded is what you are doing in saying that because Gates is black, he must be right.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
                              3 2
                              Simple minded is what you are doing in saying that because Gates is black, he must be right.
                              Straw man.
                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
                      2 2
                      Uh, Gates was there 'in person' too but you do not trust him. Why is that?

                      Gates produced two IDs. Google it.

                      The Cambridge PD is in damage control mode now. They just had a news conference. My feeling is that the charges were dropped because the report IS wrong and that if they went ahead with the prosecution they would have had to perjure themselves in court.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                        1 4
                        I read the report; I trust the report, not someone like Gates doing damage control. They were dropped because after Gates cooled off and being a professor, it would not look good on his record.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                          3 1
                          I read the report; I trust the report, not someone like Gates doing damage control.
                          Gates doesn't need damage control. He did nothing wrong. The charges were dropped. The police are the ones in the hot seat. Even the mayor thinks so.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            Gates did several things wrong. He refused to comply with the directives of a law enforcement officer. That is a crime.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 7:25 pm ET)
                              2 1
                              He refused to comply with the directives of a law enforcement officer.
                              What did he refuse? It's not a crime to refuse to "comply with the directives of a law enforcement officer". So if a policy officer told you to kill another human being you are supposed to do it? Ridiculous. Police have way too much power in this country and this cop even went beyond that.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
                                  3
                                That is absurd. You have to follow the lawful directive of a police officer. Your example of a police officer telling you to commit murder is a staw man and you know it.

                                The police do not have to much power. This cop did nothing wrong, and Nothing will happen to him. He was doing his job, and came across an individual who hates cops, and decided the law did not apply to him.

                                Thats why he produced a Harvard id. He was trying to pull rank on the officer and he failed. He should have been arrested, and the charges should not have been dropped.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by foghornleghorn (July 23, 2009 7:55 pm ET)
                                  3  
                                  Gates was asked by the officer to produce identification. He produced identification.

                                  Gates was asked by the office to follow him outside. Gates followed him outside.

                                  Gates WAS following police directives.

                                  POV=FAIL
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
                                      3
                                    Again, READ the report. Unless of course you enjoy being so wrong on every post when a simple 3 page document spells it all out in words even yu can understand.
                                    Report Abuse
                                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:05 pm ET)
                                  3  
                                  That is absurd. You have to follow the lawful directive of a police officer. Your example of a police officer telling you to commit murder is a staw man and you know it.

                                  The police do not have to much power. This cop did nothing wrong, and Nothing will happen to him. He was doing his job, and came across an individual who hates cops, and decided the law did not apply to him.

                                  Thats why he produced a Harvard id. He was trying to pull rank on the officer and he failed. He should have been arrested, and the charges should not have been dropped.
                                  This is all your opinion. Good luck with that.
                                  Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
                          2  
                          You are so full of it. You do not know why the charges were dropped.

                          You MUST be a 'student' of Limpjaw's to be able to come here and LIE like this.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            Calling people limpjaw and dummy. You are a wealth of intelligent discourse.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:06 pm ET)
                              2  
                              Calling people limpjaw and dummy. You are a wealth of intelligent discourse.
                              I know. I prefer Limpballs, myself. It's more appropriate.
                              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
                  2
                And may we direct you to the police report, in which he was clearly disorderly.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                  2  
                  And may we direct you to the police report, in which he was clearly disorderly.
                  Right. The police report. I'll be an elitist here and say that I'll take the word of a Harvard professor over a police officer. Why not? The cop has a lot more reasons to lie.

                  It comes down to this. You should not be arrested in this country for speaking your mind when being harassed by cops. The cop in this case probably thought he'd exact revenge on Gates by arresting him. Cops do this all the time. They can find a way to charge you with something in any circumstances. Thankfully, in this case, the cops did not win.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
                      3
                    So answer me this Scotty

                    Why have NONE of the Harvard officers, the other officer, the neighbors, and all the people who were watching this taken the side of Gates? Not ONE person has gone on record to say that the officer was out of line or abusive, or to claim that Gates was not screaming and yelling like and idiot. Not one. Why do you think that is?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
                      2  
                      So answer me this Scotty
                      I was wondering how long it would take for some con to add a y to my name and think it's funny. Why is that?
                      Why have NONE of the Harvard officers, the other officer, the neighbors, and all the people who were watching this taken the side of Gates?
                      Have they come out against Gates?

                      Ask yourself why the mayor of Cambridge has apologized to Gates? Hmm?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
                      3
                    And exactly how was Gates being harassed? He was asked to produce identification, which is more than reasonable when an officer is investigating a B&E
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
                      2  
                      And exactly how was Gates being harassed?
                      He provided ID and the cop didn't go away.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 8:10 pm ET)
                      3
                    Thats your opinion, good luck with it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 8:13 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Thats your opinion, good luck with it.
                      Yep. It looks like my opinion is winning out. The charges were dropped, the mayor apologized, and the forthcoming lawsuit will probably be successful. The icing on the cake would be if this ass of a cop was fired. Here's hoping for justice.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pointofview (July 23, 2009 8:48 pm ET)
                          3
                        The cop will in no way be disciplined, let alone fired. He did nothing wrong, and Nothing will happen to the cop. Justice would be to have the charges refiled against Gates.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 9:17 pm ET)
                          2  
                          He did nothing wrong, and Nothing will happen to the cop.
                          You opinion. That's not the opinion of the mayor of Cambridge or likely the majority of reasonable people. But, you do a good job of representing the authoritarian racist wing of your party. I'll give you that.
                          Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (July 22, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
      4  
      Ugh. So much for the health care "debate" ...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 23, 2009 8:30 am ET)
        4  
        I noticed the republicans taped their rebuttal before the press conference.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 23, 2009 9:58 am ET)
          6 4
          When was the last time the networks broadcast a Democratic rebuttal to a press conference from a GOP President? There are rebuttals to major policy speeches, but I don't think I've ever seen a network show a rebuttal to a press conference.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
            1 3
            Why not? Not like Obama said anything new last night, just more lies. I say this, when the Senate and the House agree to go onto the same plan, then it is crap. If they go on it, then maybe I will listen to what they have to say.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
              3 1
              Not like Obama said anything new last night, just more lie
              There were no lies. Snore.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 23, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
              3  
              Another post by markfoot nothing but stupid just like the last one, just like the next one, just like EVERY post from Markfoot
              Report Abuse
    • Author by dickdata417424 (July 22, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
      5 3
      I believe that President Obama implied, correctly, that although he did not have all of the facts, those that he did have implied racial profiling. Matthews makes a lot of mistakes. This was not one of them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (July 23, 2009 1:07 am ET)
        3  
        I believe that President Obama implied

        That's now I read it. I took it to say "I don't know if racial profiling was involved here but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility." Which is rather different than saying "what I do know suggests profiling."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (July 23, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
          1  
          You mean actual words mean something again? ;-) I agree LarryE. Well stated as usual.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
          2 5
          How can you do racial profiling when you are acting upon a call from a neighbor that someone is breaking into a house, they responded to a call of a break in. This guy was not pulled over. The office did not know Gates lived there period. So if I break into a house and the police come to the door, I should just say I live here? How about Gates thank the police for showing up, investigating, give the police your ID and it would have stopped there. No, Gates had to start calling the policemen names, because he was white. The only racist I see it Gates.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
            4 1
            ow about Gates thank the police for showing up, investigating, give the police your ID and it would have stopped there.
            He did. It was his own home. That is sacred. You know, it's the place you nuts stash your guns. Hypocritical racists, the lot of you.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 23, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
            4 1
            The only racist I see it Gates.


            The only racist I WANT to see is Gates.

            I fixed it for you.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (July 23, 2009 11:10 pm ET)
            4 2
            The only racist I see it Gates.


            Look in the mirror. See another one
            Report Abuse
    • Author by LarryE (July 23, 2009 1:09 am ET)
      4  
      I'm not surprised that this was regarded as the "news value" of the presser. Not when MSNBC advertised Matthews' show prior to the press conference as, quite literally, "the pre-game show."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TadekKorn (July 23, 2009 3:54 am ET)
      3 3
      Let me say at the outset that I've always found Matthews much more comfortable attacking liberals than conservatives. At times, I find his tone of voice and energy level remarkably similar to the likes of Hannity and O'Reilley. (Now, of course, Obermann also operates at an elevated energy level but is blessed with an intellect sharper than Matthews's.) In short, the perceptions that Chris brought to the encounter between the prof and the cop were distincly different from those expressed by the president. There were subtelties and nuances in his observations as well as an honest admission that he didn't know all the details. Subtlety is anything but Matthews's forte. He prefers pronouncements unencumbered by details.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HoboSpaceJunkie (July 23, 2009 5:21 am ET)
         
      Matthews was down on Obama from the beginning tonight. It was very strange. He did not say one positive or complimentary thing about the president's speech or press conference, and spent half of each segment with two pairs of guests on the Gates issue, which was serious overkill. Only Eugene Robinson got in a few words of support for Obama's statement on Gates. The rest of the show was spent talking about how Obama lacked energy, didn't help his cause tonight, wasn't clear about how health care would be paid for. The anti-Obama theme almost seemed planned. It was kind of weird. And didn't at all mirror others' perceptions I came across in left-leaning blogs or even the New York Times, nor from reading dozens of comments in the same blogs. Obviously Obama is not going to sparkle every time out but Matthews seemed intent on running with the "the president is struggling in the polls" theme no matter what.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (July 23, 2009 9:15 am ET)
      6 3
      How stupid do you have to be to work in the MSM? Read this quote from Fineman:
      "And for him to basically back Skip Gates, the professor from Harvard, and Skip Gates' view of what happened up there in Cambridge and to say that race still haunts us, even though he is proof of otherwise"

      Because Obama won the election race no longer haunts the US? Tell that to Obama's secret service Howard. Tell that to the birther conspiracy theorists Howard. Tell that to the family of the slain Holocaust Museum security guard. Tell that to Republican congressmen who state Obama and Clarence Thomas may have been aborted if the Federal government covered the costs of abortions for poor mothers. Tell that to the racist D-bag that I was paired up with playing golf last weekend. We were talking University of Alabama football and I mentioned how Nick Saban is trying to change the image of the University. I mentioned that alot of AA's in the south have a perception of the state of Alabama that hinders them from embracing the University and Saban is trying to change that(Saban is best friends of Dem WV GOV Joe Manchin). The racist responded, "I hope they remember it and never forget it" Yeah, Howard, Obama is proof that race does not haunt us. Us in the real world would argue that Obama's election shows HOW MUCH RACE STILL HAUNTS US.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 9:31 am ET)
        5 1
        Anytime someone in the MSM says what someone "basically said..." it almost always followed by a misstatement of what was said. I think what President Obama said regarding the Gates arrest was dead on the money. A black man was arrested IN HIS HOME for disorderly conduct. The Cambridge Police defined perfectly the meaning of "acted stupidly" - and Obama what being kind to them for couching it that way.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 9:32 am ET)
        5 1
        Love your post, seeryer. Mine was not meant as a reply to yours.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 23, 2009 9:53 am ET)
        4  
        Tell that to the people I used to work with who told me, in no uncertain terms, that even though they hated McCain, they were going to vote for him, because there was no WAY they were going to vote for a N*****!

        Yeah, that happened.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (July 23, 2009 9:54 am ET)
        3  
        That guy is hardcore, usually southern racists give it a rest for atheletes(football anyway). Getting a W at church on Saturday gets the milk of human kindness flowing and we all become brothers....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (July 24, 2009 1:44 am ET)
        2  
        this quote from Fineman

        I missed that; I caught just the tail end of the exchange among Matthews, Fineman, and Robinson. Enough to note the remarkable and revealing difference in perspective on the matter between the latter two.

        What the incident does more than anything else, I think, is point up that fact that too many whites, after all this time, still do not get it. They remain blissfully unaware of (or indifferent to) the very different experience of blacks as opposed to whites in their dealings with authority.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 10:28 am ET)
      5 7
      "I don't know all the facts......the Cambridge police acted stupidly".

      Nice. So after admitting he didn't know everything, he is sure the Cambridge police were stupid. This is the guy we are trusting with healthcare?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 23, 2009 10:38 am ET)
        5  
        So you go with the Hannity school of quotes then? Chip it down till it seems to say something your comfortable with.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fishergirlusmc (July 23, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        3 5
        According to the Cambridge police, a concerned neighbor called because a man with a backpack was literally breaking the door down. When the police arrived the professor was already in the house. When they asked him for his ID he went crazy. There are pictures of him screaming at a BLACK office. How come the professor as smart as we hope he is, did not co-operate with the police who were doing there job? This does not just happen to black people.
        When I moved into my current apartment it had been empty for some time. The police came with guns drawn while me and two friends were in the apartment, it was around 11pm. The lady who lives downstairs thought kids had broken in and were having a party. I explained I was moving in, showed my ID and they checked me out and went on there way.
        For the president to call the police stupid is wrong.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 10:59 am ET)
          5  
          When they asked him for his ID he went crazy.


          That spin is what's crazy. Gates was arrested AFTER producing his ID. He was annoyed to have to produce his ID and he went "crazy" as you called it, AFTER he found out that his ID was not good enough. He was arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct and, JUST TO BE CLEAR, the arresting officer was white.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 11:16 am ET)
            3 1
            Makes no sense. If his ID was "not good enough", why was he not arrested for burglary? IMO, his ID was fine, he was just angry that the cops were at his house, and let them know it, probably loudly...thus the Discon. But since I wasn't there, I can't say for sure that the cops acted stupidly, unlike others can.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:25 am ET)
              1 3
              Good point. Seems to me rather than automatically defaulting to defend the professor, or the same with the police - it's best to wait until the investigation is thoroughly complete before passing judgment. Doing so prematurely is unfair to both.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:28 am ET)
                2  
                So why were the charges dropped, Mr. Select-O-Vision?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 11:35 am ET)
                  1 1
                  You got me? I wasn't there. I can speculate, though. Maybe because he's a personal friend of the president? Just a thought.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 11:40 am ET)
                    2 1
                    What is it that makes your speculation in general and with regard the fact that the charges were dropped so much better than the rest of us? Do you drink a lot of milk?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 11:47 am ET)
                        1
                      I never said that my speculations were better than anyone else's. I just said that they were mine. I love milk though. Thanks.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:50 am ET)
                          1
                        Great answer!
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                        2  
                        But your speculations are betterer and you do drink milk. Case closed.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                          2 3
                          Do you enjoy looking ridiculous, VICTOR?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                          2 2
                          If you think that my speculations are better, than I thank you for that. Made my day, Victor. You should see my views on healthcare, immigration, and taxation. They're good, too.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            Dave, we know you are a racist. You outed your self incontrovertibly with a comment on the Ricci case. So, excuse us if we approach the argument of a proven racist skeptically.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                    2  
                    What do you think the investigation is going to reveal? That the professor in question wasn't really in his own house? Give it a rest.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:36 am ET)
                  1 1
                  I had not seen that the charges were dropped, so I apologize for that.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:39 am ET)
                    2  
                    So doesn't that indicate that perhaps the cops WERE wrong?

                    So much for an 'investigation', huh?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:48 am ET)
                        3
                      No, that doesn't mean that at all. Just because charges were dropped doesn't mean the police acted improperly, where do you get that from? All that means is that there isn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 11:55 am ET)
                        4  
                        Parse powers ACTIVATE!
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                        2  
                        All that means is that there isn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.
                        ...and that implies that there was insufficient evidence to arrest in the first place.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:26 am ET)
              1  
              No law against being angry at cops, no law against expressing that anger ESPECIALLY while on your own property, however that's why he was arrested, hence the cops were stupid. Cops need to have thick skins otherwise they should find another occupation. End of story.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 11:42 am ET)
                2 3
                A disorderly person is defined as one who:

                with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
                recklessly creates a risk thereof
                engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
                creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
                Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.



                You do not know that this guy didn't do any of this.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:47 am ET)
                  2  
                  'Disorderly conduct' is a blanket catch-all 'charge' that is used when the cop really has nuthin and is angry that he was made to look like an idiot. It is simply a face-saving tactic.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:49 am ET)
                    1 4
                    How ridiculous. Disorderly conduct is exactly what it says it is.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                      2 1
                      Mr. Select-O-Vision, the criteria presented by 'dave' is subject to a wide latitude of interpretation. You cannot find a more subjective charge than 'disorderly conduct'. Basically, it means that if you do something the cop doesn't 'like' then you can be subject to arrest.

                      You could 'mouth off' to a cop and find yourself in jail. Why? Because cops do not 'like' to have their authority challanged. HOWEVER, there is NO law that states that an individual cannot challenge authority. I'm sure there may be some 'unwritten rules' out there that say otherwise but they do not matter squat.

                      Bottom line... no law against being a 'jerk' - not saying Gates was by any stretch either.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 11:55 am ET)
                        1 4
                        Sounds like you've had your issues with cops before? There is no law against being a jerk, but a cop doesn't have to stand there while you act out your aggression and act like an idiot. They have more important things to do.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
                          2  
                          So offering my opinion on DO somehow means I've had issues with cops before? Wow, good logic there!

                          You're absolutely right - the cop didn't have to stand there, he should have turned around and LEFT once Gates' ID was produced. Yes, the cop does have better things to do like going after criminals.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
                          3  
                          Right. Which is why, when they realize they screwed up and brought this outrage on themselves, they should walk away.

                          When they don't, and instead escalate the situation by arresting someone for being angry (someone who, btw, also has "more important things to do" than to deal with moronic cops who won't admit they screwed up) they should expect to be called on it. Because this is America, not some Fascist backwater where you are assumed to be guilty because the guy with the badge says you are.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
                          2  
                          ...a cop doesn't have to stand there while you act out your aggression and act like an idiot. They have more important things to do.
                          Then the cop should have left to do them after he was shown the ID.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by seeryer (July 23, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Disorderly conduct in your own home? Gates may be an elitist prick but the cops should have just apologized for the confusion and went their own way. Probably why the charges were dropped.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
                          1
                        I find it commendable when anyone apologizes for their misconduct, cops included. They are not above such a gesture, absolutely.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
                          1  
                          So when will we hear the apology from the cops?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
                              1
                            Not sure, I have asked them but they haven't returned my call yet.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
                              1  
                              Do you think they should apologize?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                                  1
                                If they were wrong, yes. If they weren't, no.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
                                    1
                                  If they were wrong, they won't have to apologize. They will be in court.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
                                      1
                                    You're absolutely right Dave, I was merely speaking on a personal level.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
                                      2  
                                      Thanks for sharing on such a personal level. I think they should only apologize if they were right and if they were wrong, they should arrest him again.
                                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
                        1 4
                        The person who should be apologizing is Gates for acting like a idiot. Show the man your DL, thank the cops for coming out. IF that would have happen, none of this would have happen. Instead Gates calles a White Officer a Racist because he asked for an ID, which Gates refused to show in the beginning.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
                  2  
                  A disorderly person is defined as one who:
                  ...in his own home. You cons are such hypocrites. The home is supposed to be sacred. I guess it only is if you are white and want to keep your guns there.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 11:28 am ET)
            2  
            Agreed, Victor. I'd also like to point out that this thread is really about Matthews falsely claiming that Obama said something that he did not in fact say, however much fishergirlusmc would like to change the topic.

            The problem is, the media find it much easier to attack Obama by misquoting him. He's very intelligent and articulate. Bush Jr. was much easier to attack with his own words. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... won't get fooled again!"
            Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
              3
            Produced a School ID, and was arrested for disorderly conduct. I am sure if anyone acts the way he did in public to the police would be taken in.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
              2  
              I am sure if anyone acts the way he did in public to the police would be taken in.
              He wasn't in public. He was in his own home. The cop was being capricious.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:12 am ET)
          2  
          Oh, knock it off. The police are capable of stupidity just like anyone. Quit putting them up on a pedestal, they aren't gods. Problem with you authoritarian types is that you are WAY too trusting. You should have learned that after your encounter.

          You mentioned pics of Gates 'screaming'. Post the links to them... I'm sure we would all like to take a peek at them and draw our own conclusions as to what they show.

          And if a cop pulls a gun on me like that when I have done absolutely nothing wrong I would do everything in my power to ensure that he/she would never be able to do that again. What if the gun had gone off?

          Oh, btw, it's THEIR, not there.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 11:30 am ET)
            2 1
            1. You mean you really BELIEVED fisher's story? Guns drawn and everything?

            2. Didn't you just KNOW that the right wing was going to have a field day with the "stupid" comment? I expect Hannity to pull out his old 9/11 clips and ask if Obama thinks that the Brave Firefighters and Cops active on That Fateful Day were "stupid." Because the right wing LOVES firefighters, police officers, and The Troops- liberals HATE them, right wingers LOVE them. Until it comes to funding them and giving them the best equipment to do their jobs, of course.

            I bet Hannity gives the Cambridge police a forum on his show, and free tickets to his next Freedom Concert, too.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:35 am ET)
              1  
              So let him. Do you really think Obama gives a flying F about Hannity, Limpjaw, and the entire terminally insane crowd? Hell, he's got a damn country to fix and he doesn't have time for this pooslinging.

              Honestly, I think the question at the end was a set-up - and not done to make Obama look bad. It was done to give the insane reich yet another reason to demnstrate that they are insane. You gotta think about how Obama thinks... he knows what he's doing. He is a master at giving his opponents the rope they need to hang themselves. A genius.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mr. l (July 23, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
                2  
                In fact, Obama specifically said in The Audacity to Hope that he doesn't give a horse's patootie about Hannity- he dismisses them as nothing more than part of America's landscape of hate.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 11:24 am ET)
          2  
          If I am in my own home, and a police officer shows up investigating a break-in, and I produce identification proving that I live there, if the officer still arrests me then yes, he is acting stupidly. Wouldn't the police have been stupid to arrest you after you showed your ID, fishergirlusmc?

          The arresting officer was white, and it is very telling that the charges were dropped later. It is absolutely not wrong for the President to call the police stupid if they behave in a stupid fashion.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 11:31 am ET)
            3 1
            Absolutely, it is STUPID. Fisher is just another one of those 'cops never do wrong' sycophants.

            Any cop that would be stupid enough to pull that crap on yours truly does so at his/her peril - and no, I don't mean I'm going to grab a gun and blow the cop away... THAT would be stupid, but I will sue the officer and the department to the point where they will wish they had never done it in the first place.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fishergirlusmc (July 23, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
                1
              No, I am not a sycophant for the police. I live in rockaway beach, which is a high crime are in certain parts. On the weekends instead of going after criminals they go after citizens who are sitting on the beach having a beer. They sit there with binoculars to give hard working citizens a ticket. If you bring your own it's illegal,but if you go to the boardwalk two feet away and buy it from a vendor it's legal. That is bullsnit. They also wait until 8:30 on the dot and then start writing parking tickets. This does not even include if you are white and drive thru a minority neighborhood where drugs are prevalent, they pull you over because they think you have bought drugs. So living here in NY we know all too well what s**m the police can be!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                3 1
                I get it. You are angry that the cops are enforcing a set of rules that you don't like, instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing- arresting black people in their own homes for being mouthy. Gotcha.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fishergirlusmc (July 23, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  You should not assume friend. It would be better for our community as a whole if they would seek out the gang bangers selling drugs and causing havoc. Do you think middle class blacks like the ones in my neighborhood should have to live with bars on their windows while the police are giving tickets to beer drinkers? Get your priorities straight.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Do you think middle class blacks like the ones in my neighborhood should have to live with bars on their windows while the police are giving tickets to beer drinkers?
                    Do you think a middle-aged black man in a polo and slacks looks like a gang banger?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 7:25 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    1. Thanks for proving my point.

                    2. I am not your "friend," you condescending a**. I have better taste in friends than that.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
            2 1
            You obviously didn't read the story. The professor was arrested for D.O. not B&E. The officer was leaving when confronted by an angry elitist.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
              2  
              Have you read Gates' account? The cop would not say anything to Gates concerning his 'outbursts' unless Gates stepped outside. Sounds like a case of entrapment to me.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                1 1
                Have you read Gates' account? RABBITLUVR

                That certainly wouldn't be slanted in his favor, would it?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Possibly. His side of the story deserves consideration.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                      1
                    Of course it does.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Then why haven't you considered it?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
                          1
                        I have considered it. But BO has not. He said without knowing all the facts, the dept acted stupidly. They may have, but without knowing all the facts, how can you know? So he's the dope, not me.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
                          3 1
                          Arresting a prominent Harvard Professor in his own home for behavior that might cause a riot (presumably his living room furniture was also starting to act uppity) is the definition "acted stupidly". That is why the stupid charges were dropped.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
                              1
                            And since you were there and had a first hand account, I will apologize. You must have all of the facts, too.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
                              2  
                              Are you suggesting that a prominent Harvard Professor was not arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
                                  2
                                Not at all. He was. What I'm arguing is that the cops may not have acted "stupidly" as I was not there. I doubt you were, but BO advised us all that they did. Now he may be a "prominent Harvard professor", and he may have been in his own home, but it makes no difference legally whether he teaches at Harvard, digs ditches or does internet porn.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  He may have been in his own home? Right, he may also have been at Arby's.

                                  Legally, one is not capable of starting a riot while home alone, which - again - is why the stupid charges were dropped.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
                                      2
                                    He was not arrested for rioting. He was arrested for disorderly conduct. And if you have absolute proof as to why the charges were dropped, my guess is as good as yours. Speculation on both of our parts. My guess is that he was a personal friend of the president, and mentioned the incident during a live press conference. None one of us, including BO, were there.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
                                      2  
                                      From the tenor of President Obama's comments, it's clear he did not know that Gates had been arrested on disorderly conduct.

                                      Therefore, the story as he understood it was that a man had been arrested for breaking and entering in his own home. That is certainly deserving of being called stupid!
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                                          3
                                        Then a retraction from the president is in order.
                                        Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
                                      2  
                                      Disorderly conduct is behavior that might cause a riot. Gates was essential charged with creating a physically offensive condition to cause public annoyance or alarm. Since he was IN HIS HOME the charges were dropped.
                                      Report Abuse
                          • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Apparently right wingers believe that a man's home is his castle unless that man is black and there are white cops involved- in which case, a man's home is his refuge subject to the whim of the white cops.

                            Seriously- how can you be arrested for being "disorderly" in your own home? The MOMENT the cops realized they screwed up, they should have apologized and left. Period. Looks to me like Professor Gates wasn't apologetic enough in taking up so much of the police officer's time.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by pongotwistleton (July 23, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
                              1 1
                              The cop responded to a call of black males breaking into a home. He arrived at the address, saw a black male in the home, and asked him to come outside. According to the cop, the black male refused, and flipped his lid. Do you think a black cop would have handled the situation differently? If so, how?

                              If the prof reacted the way he did, then it is he, not the cop, who is the halfwit. If a cop erroneously received information that I was burglarizing my own home, my first reaction wouldn't be to lambast the cop for reacting on the bad info. The cop did his job, plain and simple, and in no way violated this guy's rights. Any decent citizen would understand that, and wouldn't be so quick to pull out his ever-handy race card.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 12:21 am ET)
                                2  
                                According to the cop, right. Of course, if the cop was out of line, and an argument ensued, then of course the cop might not say so in his report.

                                The issue really isn't the call. Nobody's saying the police shouldn't have shown up. The issue is what happened after that. Looking at it from the cop's perspective, if an older man with a cane opened the door, that would be a strong signal that there was no B&E. So at the very least, the tone should change to reflect that. After finding out that the man is a Harvard professor, it becomes extremely difficult to believe that there's a crime going on. So what's the problem at this point?

                                And the bottom line is that policemen are supposed to be trained to handle all sorts of different situations. Was he being physically threatened? Outside of that, there's no need for an arrest here. That's not how to handle it. Even if Gates lashed out irrationally, the cop should try to diffuse the situation. Once the confusion is cleared up, he should leave, instead of telling Gates to go outside and then arresting him for doing exactly that.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:43 am ET)
                                1  
                                If the prof reacted the way he did, then it is he, not the cop, who is the halfwit.
                                Um, that makes no sense.
                                The cop did his job, plain and simple, and in no way violated this guy's rights.
                                Ever heard of false arrest?
                                Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 23, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
          3  
          According to the Cambridge police, a concerned neighbor called because a man with a backpack was literally breaking the door down.


          Actually, the report was TWO African American men with backpacks.

          When the police arrived the professor was already in the house. When they asked him for his ID he went crazy.


          Actually Professor Gates was on the phone with Harvard Real Estate, who does maintenance on the home, when the police officers knocked on the door.

          The police officer ask Professor Gates to step out on the the porch and the Professor Gates ask the officer why.

          The officer informed Professor Gates that he was investigating a B&E and again, ask Professor Gates to step out of the house. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived her, this was his house, he was a Harvard professor.

          The police officer asked Professor Gates if he could prove it.

          By the way, the police report said two Black men with backpacks and Professor Gates is a 5'7", 150 pound disabled man, who walks with a cane.

          Professor Gates went back into the house to get his Harvard ID and driver's license. The officer followed Professor Gates into his home, WITHOUT his permission, which is illegal and upset Professor Gates. After providing the officer with valid identification, Professor Gates became frustrated that the officer continued to question whether this was his home and demanded the officers name and badge number. When the officer didn't answer, Professor Gates asked the officer why he wasn't responding to him and if it was because Professor Gates was a Black man.

          The officer left the house and Professor Gates followed him on to his porch where he was surprised to find a mini police convention. Professor Gates asked another officer for first officers name and badge number, at which time the first officer told Professor Gates "thank you for accommodating my earlier request, you are under arrest".

          And the reason for the arrest? "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space."

          A 5'7", 150 pound disabled man, who walks with a cane, arrested for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public space" in his own d*mn home!

          The police could have simply apologized to Professor Gates for the confusion, given him his name and badge number, since the officer did enter the house illegally and left.

          It's what they would have done if Professor Gates had been White.


          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
            2  
            The police could have simply apologized to Professor Gates for the confusion, given him his name and badge number, since the officer did enter the house illegally and left.

            Exactly. If the officer didn't feel he was out of bounds, he should have had no problem giving his badge number and just leaving. This can't be overstated.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 8:35 pm ET)
              2
            since the officer did enter the house illegally...

            An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

            In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

            An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

            So I doubt he would have a case for illegal entry. Kind of like the cops responding to a domestic when the husband meets them at the door ans says everything is fine...go away. You bet they will come in. I would think a burglary would fit into this, but I'm not a lawyer, Pearlene.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
              2  
              It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
              None of which applied here.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
                  2
                I think Gates at the time was a suspect...I think it would apply. But I was not there and therefore will not call the cops "stupid".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 9:40 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I think Gates at the time was a suspect...I think it would apply
                  Gates gave him his ID. The cop either A) Didn't use common sense. He should have known by the looks of Gates that his story rang true. B) Decided that he'd make an example of Gates. You can argue A if you want. But that would mean that this cop doesn't have very good investigative powers. After all, the whole concept of profiling in general is to focus on suspects that have a higher probability than others of committing a crime. The converse of that is to use your wits to eliminate people that have aren't likely to have committed the crime. A middle-aged fellow in yuppie clothes sporting a cane should have been eliminated as a suspect almost immediately. If you want to argue the cop wasn't a racist, you have to argue that he was incompetent and divorced from common sense.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
                      2
                    Or I can argue that A) criminals look like all of us, that there is no predetermined look of a criminal. B) Gates went into his home to retrieve a shotgun, which is why the cops followed him in legally, for their own safety. C) the burglars had a gun to his head when he answered the door, or D)These cops absolutely hate black people. I know you want D to be true, but wait until the facts come out...BO didn't but you still have time. You and I were not there. The cops were there legally, entered his home legally, and conducted an investigation legally. If there is any wrongdoing on their part, it will be in a lawsuit, but to sit there and advise me of what happened when you don't know is pointless.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 10:24 pm ET)
                      1  
                      The cops were there legally, entered his home legally, and conducted an investigation legally
                      No. You have to ask permission to enter a house. We've been over this ground already.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by dave (July 23, 2009 10:39 pm ET)
                        1 2
                        Actually you don't.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:45 am ET)
                          1  
                          Actually you don't.
                          Actually you do. I'm sure when a cop showed up at your gated mansion, he'd have to ask to come in unless there was imminent danger.
                          Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 24, 2009 5:08 am ET)
              3  
              It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.


              The police responded to a call of two Black men, carrying backpacks, trying to break into a house.

              I assume that when the police arrived they searched around the home, checking to see if a window was broken or if they could see movement through a window, before knocking on the door

              When they knocked, the door was answered by a 59 year old, 5'7", 150 pound Black man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery.


              Imminent danger to life or serious damage to property.

              No gun, no knife and a 59 year old, 5'7", 150 pound Black man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery? Can't see it.

              To forestall the imminent escape of a suspect.

              I gotta say again, a 59 year old, 5'7", 150 pound Black man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery? Even if he tried to run, seriously, how far do you think he'd get?

              Destruction of evidence.

              Why destroy what you came to steal. And really, how much could a 59 year old, 5'7", 150 pound Black man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery,destroy with the front door wide open?

              An emergency situation requiring swift action

              A possible robbery might qualify as an emergency situation, but one look at Professor Gates, 59 years old, 5'7", 150 pound Black man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery, should have quelled any emergency, unless it was Professor Gates was screaming he was being robbed.

              Now I'm not lawyer either, but I'd bet if police officer found a home with no signs of forced entry, no broken windows, and a door answered by a 59 year old, 5'7", 150 pound White man who must use a cane to walk due to hip replacement surgery, he think Professor Gates posed absolutely ZERO chance of "imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape."

              That police officer would ask Professor Gates, IF he could accompany him to get his identification, since his original call was for a possible burglary.


              Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 11:56 am ET)
        3 6
        I think it was a kneejerk reaction from the president to suggest the arresting officer acted "stupidly". From the reports I read, Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, not B&E. The arresting officer had responded, accordingly, to a 911 call. It was incumbant upon the officer to verify I.D. Once that was done, the officer was leaving the property. According to all reports, Professor Gates followed the officer out of the house yelling at him and the disorderly arrest was made. I think this is a case of an indignant elitist (professor Gates)who feels he is above reproach and a president using the incident, wrongly, as a political statement.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
          1  
          So, according to you, Obama was just a big bad meanie for calling the cops out and he was 'out of line'.

          That's it? That's all you have? Is Sarah Palin gonna use that as part of her platform in '12, that Obama is a big bad meanie when it comes to stupid cops?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
              5
            Not a 'meanie', just wrong. Were they 'stupid cops' as you say or are you just parroting President Obama? Making an arrest is the last thing an officer wants to do, but it is their job. This story makes the arresting officer out as some kind of dummy for performing his duties. This is political correctness out of control.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
              1  
              "Making an arrest is the last thing an officer wants to do..."

              LOL... you're funny. You know that for a fact?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
            2  
            Want to bet that the reich wing has just found it's new Joe the Plumber?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
              1  
              Let's see... how long will it be when Crowley signs a book deal - preferably with Regnery - cut a record, show up on Faux Snooze, etc.? A week from now? Two days from now? Tonight?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                  2
                I would say about two weeks behind Gates.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I would say about two weeks behind Gates.
                  Gates will just sue them, and rightfully so.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (July 23, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
          3  
          Pup -

          Obama was ASKED about this. It wasn't a "political statement". He was ANSWERING a question.

          Resume trolling.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
            1 4
            He was asked but not forced to answer the way he did. His comments were contentious. Any competent president would have either refrained from answering or would have deferred the question to a day when the investigation was complete. Now, finish your kool-aid.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
              1  
              Why, because YOU say so? Obama doesn't have to follow some insane script you winkers have devised. He's his own man and he can think for himself, he certainly doesn't need YOUR help. Your side's busy enough as it is cannibalizing itself... you may wanna concentrate on that instead of this.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
                  1
                I'm multi-tasking.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Well, hurry on back to your party and its cannibalizing. That seems to be much more pressing that this story unless you want to remain relegated in the minority column for all eternity - not that I have any problems with that.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
                3
              .....and besides, this was a press conference about health care. Why was the question asked at this forum?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
                1  
                So now you are saying the question was 'inappropriate'? Wow, you reichies never fail to amaze me.

                It's OBAMA'S press conference! He has the right to decide what is and isn't appropriate at HIS conference. HE is in charge. HE is the boss. Deal with it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
                    2
                  So why bother with a facade of a press conference then if it's nothing more than carefully picking your questions so you can have canned answers ready? Just give a speech.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                    1  
                    How do you know the answers were 'canned', Mr. Select-O-Vision? If they were, wouldn't Obama use his much-vaunted Teleprompter (R) during the Q&A instead of just during his prepared speech? Why not, just have all the Q&A on the prompter, right?!

                    Jeez, man... really.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      You're the one who ranted that it is HIS press conference, HE decides what's appropriate, HE is in charge, HE is the boss. What the hell did you mean then?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
                          1
                        Exactly!
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Did you not read the rant. The rant was directed at 'puppy' who was whining about the Gates issue being brought up because, according to him/her, the PC was ONLY supposed to be about health care and absolutely nothing else. As if 'puppy' gets to be the arbiter of what is or isn't appropriate at a PC that is not even his/hers.

                        Now to you... what is this crap about 'canned' answers again...?
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
          1  
          A district attorney is investigating the arrest, after charges have been dropped against Gates himself.

          You -think- it was a kneejerk reaction by the President, puppienrainbows? Well, absent any actual evidence, I guess it will just have to remain your opinion.

          The point of this thread is that Chris Matthews falsely claimed that Obama said something that he did not in fact say. If you wish to discuss race relations and the average local police force, fine. Perhaps you could start a forum somewhere?

          You don't actually know professor Gates, but have no trouble calling him an indignant elitist who feels he is above reproach? More opinion. Not particularly interesting, and not at all relevant.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
              1
            It will, indeed, remain nothing more than my opinion. But it's a good bet, after all testimony is documented, that Professor Gates followed the officer out onto the porch and was yelling at him! Why? Contrived outrage from an elitist. As for Chris Matthews 'false' statement, according to MMFA, Mr. Matthews was paraphrasing the statement by President Obama by using the word, "basically".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
              1  
              Obama: "Now, 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's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

              Matthews: "It seems like the president may have stepped on his own headline tonight, in the sense that what he just said about the Gates case up in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- saying it was an example of profiling, basically, is going to be a bigger story tomorrow."

              Now, there are two direct quote from above. Obama's first quote in bold and Matthews' quote in bold. See, Matthews actually got it completely wrong.

              From the second bold portion of Obama's quote, it's clear he thought the police had ID'd Gates, realized he was trying to get into his own home, and arrested him anyway. Which would be -stupid-. Have I cut it into small enough bites for you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
                  1
                Yes, and immediately after that Obama went on to claify his disproportionate remark specifically by talking about a racial profiling bill in Illinois he worked on, so he BASICALLY said this was an example of that. Matthews summed it up correctly.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Incorrect, right ON. Immediately after saying he didn't know what part race played in the arrest of professor Gates, he went on to make a larger point about the history of racism in law enforcement, and steps he took at the state level to change that.

                  Matthews got it wrong, and so have you. Try reading it one more time, slowly. You know, for comprehension.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
                      1
                    Well, that's your opinion, not mine. If you read or listen to Obama's remarks in totality, he brought up "profiling", the questioner did not, then he was saying that basically this was an example of that. Matthews is absolutely correct.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
                      1  
                      And he, like, basically, prefaced his remarks by basically kinda saying "separate and apart from this incident".
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
                          1
                        Then why did he mention it all?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
                            1
                          Once again, EXACTLY.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Just to p!ss you off, Mr. Select-O-Vision. You, and Limpjaw and, I'm sure, Hannity and Levin when they come on. Limpjaw's still steamed over it... 2.15 PM and he's STILL whining over it.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Yes, he did bring up profiling, in the context of a larger idea about racism in law enforcement -in general-, and -not- in this specific case. It is not about opinion. It is simply what Obama actually said.

                      "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

                      Where in that quote does he claim the police were profiling professor Gates, right ON?

                      Matthews can perhaps be forgiven if he did not have a transcript available, as it is unlikely his memory is photographic. However, I have directly quoted President Obama, so you do not have that luxury. Either you lack a basic grasp of the language, or you are too dedicated propaganda to discern what objective reality actually is.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
                          1
                        Obama was asked a specific direct question about this specific case and what this specific case says about race relations. Included in his answer was how he worked on a racial profiling bill in Illinois. Now you can try and separate that from his answer but it doesn't make it so. Otherwise there would be absolutely no need for him to mention something that isn't relevant to the case he is being specifically asked about. But you are rare right in telling me how I don't understand or grasp language, liberal parsing double speak language that is, No, I don't understand that. Nor do I care too.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
                          1  
                          According to Obama, he very clearly states that his comments about law enforcement disproportionately targeting minorities was separate and apart from the Gates incident. Your choice to not believe him is not fact based.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                              1
                            I never said I didn't believe Obama, there is nothing to disbelieve and that is not the discussion here. I said that Matthews' statements are correct.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Isn't mentioning profiling simply stating that it could be what happened here?

                          and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.


                          It also seems like that comment leaves open the interpretation that many police officers are racist. The point about racial profiling would clarify that, identifying the problem as one of policy instead of individual action.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Since you have not provided evidence within the above Obama quote pointing out where he called the actions of the police during the Gates arrest profiling, I take it you have conceded the point.

                          Obama himself said that he did not know what part race played in this arrest. If he is unaware that race played a factor, how can he call it profiling? It is a on sequitur.

                          Since it seems that you do not understand the rhetorical device of expanding on a though or idea that arises from a simple answer to a simple question, perhaps this would be a fruitful area of study for you. Might I also suggest logic, paying special attention to logical fallacies.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
                            1  
                            'on sequitur' should of course be 'non sequitur'
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                              1
                            "Since you have not provided evidence within the above Obama quote pointing out where he called the actions of the police during the Gates arrest profiling"

                            No, he didn't call it that exactly, but "basically" he did. Thanks for backing up Matthews' point.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
                              1  
                              'No, he didn't call it that'

                              So, -basically-, you've just agreed with me, and proven yourself and Matthews to be in error in your analysis. Well done.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
                                  1
                                Let me help you a little, Which of the following did Matthews say?

                                1) "was an example of profiling".

                                2) "was an example of profiling, basically."

                                If you don't think there is a difference between the two, then you are the one who needs a language lesson.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  Number 2 is a fuller quote, of course. How about this:

                                  "I want to get to the health care issue, but first of all, let me go first to the news value. It seems like the president may have stepped on his own headline tonight, in the sense that what he just said about the Gates case up in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- saying it was an example of profiling, basically, is going to be a bigger story tomorrow."

                                  Now, how about a definition of basically:

                                  1a: at a basic level: in fundamental disposition or nature; b: for the most part

                                  Matthews said that the nature of Obama's remarks were fundamentally about profiling. Were they?

                                  "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

                                  If he doesn't know what role race played, how is the focus of his comment focused on profiling?

                                  As for mentioning race relations at all, it was part of the question he was asked:

                                  "What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?"

                                  Do you still not understand?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
                                      1
                                    A "fuller" quote, how about the exact quote?

                                    Matthews inserted the word "basically" for a reason, I have no problem with it, his analysis is reasonable. If you can't accept it, too bad.
                                    Report Abuse
                                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  The difference would be whether he was claiming to use Obama's actual words or paraphrasing. Either way, Obama said that he didn't know what the circumstances were, and he separated the discussion about proportion of arrests from this specific instance. In either case that would make Matthews' statement misleading.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                                      1
                                    There is no separation, for if there was there would have been no reason for Obama to mention it whatsoever. He brought it up as having some contextual connection to this case, otherwise it makes no sense.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                                      1  
                                      So, right ON, you still haven't read the actual question asked of President Obama, which means you didn't fully read my last reply. That would make you a troll, I suspect.

                                      Let's try again:

                                      Reporter: "What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?"

                                      Obama: "Now, 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's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

                                      Now, number one and two are responses to the first part of the question, and number three addresses the second part.

                                      Now I have a question: How many more times will you need it explained before you understand, right ON?

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
                                          1
                                        Yes, and number three addresses the second part where the questioner specifically said "and what does it say about race relations in America?"

                                        I don't know why this is so confusing for you.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
                                          1  
                                          But "separate and apart" means that he is not asserting that there was profiling in this specific case. Nobody knows why that is so confusing for you, either.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                                              1
                                            Then why didn't he bring up global warming or some other "separate and apart" item in his answer? It would have as much sense.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
                                              1  
                                              The question was about this incident and race. Obviously racial profiling is more relevant to race than global warming is.
                                              Report Abuse
                                        • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
                                          1  
                                          Obama: "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

                                          This is President Obama stating that he does not know at the moment what this incident says about race relations in America. In point number three, he goes on to make a general statement about race relations and law enforcement, but that is completely separate from this specific incident since he is not aware of what role race played according to his own words.

                                          Matthews paraphrased his words and, whether intentional or not, changed the meanings. Therefore, he was misleading.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
                                              1
                                            "In point number three, he goes on to make a general statement about race relations and law enforcement, but that is completely separate from this specific incident since he is not aware of what role race played according to his own words"

                                            Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that including the words "racial profiling" in a direct question about the case of a white police officer's conduct with a black man is somehow "separate and apart" from that case? That is ridiculous.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
                                              1  
                                              Okay, right ON, explain this logical inconsistency:

                                              President Obama stated that he didn't know what role race played in the arrest of professor Gates.

                                              'Profiling' is generally accepted to be at least partly about race.

                                              How can he be calling this an incident of profiling when 1) he never said that it -was- profiling, and 2) he said he did not know what role race played?
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                                                  1
                                                If he didn't know what role race played, then I ask again, why did he bring up racial profiling at all. There is no reason to do so.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                                                  1  
                                                  Because profiling is a possibility.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                                                      1
                                                    So your argument is over a certainty or a possibility and that is what has you saying Matthews is misleading? Seriously, that's it?
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
                                                      1  
                                                      Yes. If Matthews had said that Obama had said that it might be a case of profiling, that would be true. When he says that Obama called it a case of profiling, whether "basically" or not, that is misleading. It is absolutely inconsistent with the context of the response.

                                                      Not long ago, you made a point about how there's a difference between whether he said "basically" or not. Are you now going to claim that there's no significant difference in whether someone says that something is possible or that it is a matter of fact? I hope not.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                                                          1
                                                        Absolutely. Because when someone says something such as racial profiling is even a possibility that carries a whole lot more weight and should be spoken with caution. It isn't a throwaway concept.
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
                                                          1  
                                                          How is it not spoken with caution? Are university professors routinely arrested in their own homes for this sort of thing, or is the case more clearly that something went wrong here?

                                                          There's still a difference in whether Obama presented it as a possibility, which would mean that he is not jumping to any conclusions, or whether he stated it as a certainty. I don't see how you can get around that.
                                                          Report Abuse
                                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
                                                              1
                                                            Because to even bring it up as a possibility when he just said he doesn't know if race played a role or not makes no sense, why do it?
                                                            Report Abuse
                                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
                                                              1  
                                                              Because he was asked a question about race. Besides, I don't know what you think is inconsistent between not knowing if it played a role and discussing it as a possibility.
                                                              Report Abuse
                                                • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                                                  1  
                                                  Again, since you cannot reconcile the logical inconsistency, my argument stands. As to why he brought up profiling at all, I refer you, for the third time, to the second part of the reporter's question. Since the reporter did ask Obama about race in this case, Obama went on to speak in a general way about race and law enforcement.

                                                  The word 'profiling' does not appear until he talks about legislation he worked on in Illinois. Not once. Not at all. The word 'profiling' was not part of his comments about the Gates arrest. Just a guess, but this still isn't clear to you, is it, right ON?
                                                  Report Abuse
                                              • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
                                                1  
                                                How can he be calling this an incident of profiling when 1) he never said that it -was- profiling, and 2) he said he did not know what role race played?

                                                Because context is important right up until the moment where it interferes with righton's emotional argument. Then, it doesn't matter what Obama actually said.
                                                Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
                                      1  
                                      As I said above:
                                      It also seems like that comment leaves open the interpretation that many police officers are racist. The point about racial profiling would clarify that, identifying the problem as one of policy instead of individual action.


                                      And also as mentioned, there's nothing to say that bringing it up is done to assert a certainty, as opposed to the more obvious interpretation of a possibility. Even by your "contextual connection" argument, that doesn't justify Matthews' comment.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                                          1
                                        I never said anything about a certainty, nor did Matthews. Obama brought up profiling in his answer to this specific incident. It was not some broad discussion on race, it was about one specific incident. Matthews is not misleading at all.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                                          1  
                                          Emphasis mine:
                                          ...what he just said about the Gates case up in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- saying it was an example of profiling, basically, is going to be a bigger story tomorrow.

                                          It was an example of profiling, not that it might be or probably is or anything of the sort. How the hell is he not claiming that Obama said it as a matter of fact?
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
                                              1
                                            Because Obama basically said that this was an example of profiling, because by his own inclusion of that word in his answer, that is what he did. I don't care whether he said separate and apart at all, if he had wanted it to be separate and apart then he shouldn't have inserted that word into his answer. It's that simple.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
                                              1  
                                              So there's absolutely no way of discussing something as a possibility without asserting that it's a certainty? And after all your talk about "context", you want to throw aside the phrase "separate and apart" as if it has no meaning?
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                                                  1
                                                I will just repeat what I just posted above.

                                                Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that including the words "racial profiling" in a direct question about the case of a white police officer's conduct with a black man is somehow "separate and apart" from that case? That is ridiculous.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
                                                  1  
                                                  Yes, because the context shows that he wasn't asserting that this case had anything to do with profiling.

                                                  Now, why don't you try answering the two questions I asked, instead of dodging them?
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
                                                      1
                                                    Of course he wasn't asserting anything deliberately, he is not stupid, but there is absolutely no reason for Obama to bring up racial profiling if this case had nothing to do with it. That is the part that nobody, including you, can provide an answer to that makes sense.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                                                      1  
                                                      You haven't addressed the idea that Obama was bringing it up as a possibility because the question specified race to begin with. Why is that not sensible?
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
                                                          1
                                                        Seems to me that if profiling was only a possibility then I still don't know why he even brought it up. It's an emotionally charged word, much like saying "racism" is a possibility. One just doesn't throw words like that around to jumpstart discussion or toss out ideas. That is why I think Matthews was correct in saying that Obama basically said this was an example of profiling. You can think whatever you'd like.
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
                                                          1  
                                                          It's an emotionally-charged case. Are you kidding me?
                                                          Report Abuse
                                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                                                              1
                                                            Can you read? I said that to use the term "racial profiling" that is an emotionally charged word, yes. To include it, as Obama did, directly after having said he has no idea if race played a role or not is a bit of a head scratcher to me. Possibility or not.
                                                            Report Abuse
                                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                                                              1  
                                                              Yes, I read that it was an emotionally-charged word, and this is an emotionally-charged case.

                                                              This is hilarious. You keep going back to the conclusion that he called it profiling, no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's inconsistent with what he said about how he didn't know if race played a part or not. So now it's a "head scratcher" because you're stuck on that conclusion, and it's inconsistent with what he said.

                                                              What a mystery, indeed.
                                                              Report Abuse
                                                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
                                                                  1
                                                                You're just irritated because your point is irrelevant and you haven't made your case as to why someone who first says they have no idea if race played a role, but then follows that with some racial profiling case that he worked on years earlier. It makes no sense, you know it. But then again, neither do you at this point.
                                                                Report Abuse
                                                                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
                                                                  1  
                                                                  I just think you should use the context to come to your conclusion. Your dismissal of "separate and apart" would suggest you think differently.

                                                                  I never did see you address the point about how it clarified what he said so that it couldn't be taken as a comment about police officers being racist, either.
                                                                  Report Abuse
                                                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                                                                      1
                                                                    Because Obama wanted to have it both ways. First he said he had no idea if race played a role. If that is the case, then why not leave it at that and not mention race again, since he had no idea of it's relevance. But No, he wanted to inject it so he talked about disproportion and racial profiling. I don't care if he used the term "separate and apart", that was intentional to give defenders like you wiggle room to parse your way around it. It's what liberals do when they don't want to be blurry and not say what they really mean.

                                                                    I must say, I love these threads the most. When liberals actually have to defend what they say and what they really mean, not only do they get the most nasty and hurt the most insults, all the troops are called in for reinforcement. Now they have more ammunition and can call me Tommy to distract. As if. Thanks for the consistency.
                                                                    Report Abuse
                                                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                                                                      1  
                                                                      Of course, now that everything else is gone, we get the lesson in mind-reading. Obama wanted to have it both ways. He says "separate and apart", but that doesn't mean anything. The only reason he said it is to create the illusion that he actually meant "separate and apart". That was his intent while making these extemporaneous remarks, so that people would be able to defend them.

                                                                      And it was just a matter of pure convenience that he was asked a question about race. Obviously, Obama thought that the question was solely about the incident. Right?
                                                                      Report Abuse
                                                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                                                                          1
                                                                        Sorry, the only way to get the full story from those who play shifty word games is to engage in a little common sense mind reading. Well not mind reading so much, as reading between the lines, because that is where so many of you live. If you didn't, and moved residence to clear and direct communication, then all these threads by MMfA wouldn't be necessary to try and say "no, they didn't say that, or they didn't mean that". There would be no doubt. Don't blame me for that.
                                                                        Report Abuse
                                                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                                                                          1  
                                                                          If you ignore enough phrases and context, you can make a "common sense" argument that he meant just about anything.

                                                                          Think about what you're saying here. You say you want "direct communication", but all you're doing is discounting what was said because it doesn't match up with your argument.
                                                                          Report Abuse
                                                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                                                                              1
                                                                            No, because it doesn't match up with common sense. You don't say you have no idea if race plays a role, and then do a complete 180 and talk about how blacks are disproportionately stopped by law enforcement and how you worked on racial profiling cases years back.
                                                                            Report Abuse
                                                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                                                                              1  
                                                                              You're being inconsistent. You already admitted that we're talking about a question of possibility, not certainty. So it's not a "180" to say that you don't know if race plays a role and then talk about the possibility of there being profiling involved.
                                                                              Report Abuse
                                                                              • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                                                                                  1
                                                                                If you have no idea if race plays a role, then you have no business inflaming the conversation by talking about disproportionate stops by police against blacks and racial profiling. Because that is all you are doing.
                                                                                Report Abuse
                                                                                • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                                                                                  1  
                                                                                  The whole reason this is a story is because it appears to be inappropriate action on the part of the police. There's no "inflaming" to be done here by discussing obvious possibilities.
                                                                                  Report Abuse
                                                                                  • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                                                                                      1
                                                                                    So even if you have no evidence that race plays a role it is perfectly appropriate to discuss racial profiling, because that is obvious to you?

                                                                                    You needn't say anymore. I got exactly where you're coming from now. It took you awhile.
                                                                                    Report Abuse
                                                                                    • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
                                                                                      1  
                                                                                      As a possibility, yes, it is obvious. And the question was about race, so that makes it especially understandable.

                                                                                      Race is the entire theme of the discussion. That's the clear question when talking about an incident like this, whether it was done based on race or not. You're acting as if it's some inexplicable tangent that he went off on for an unknown reason.
                                                                                      Report Abuse
                                                                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 6:48 pm ET)
                                                                                          1
                                                                                        That's where you and I are different, I guess. I believe unless there is clear and precise evidence that race has played a role, then to suggest it as even a possibility is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. As I said, it only inflames the discussion to a raw emotional level when there is no direct evidence of a racial component. Just because one person is white and the other is black is not automatic default evidence by itself that race played a role. I know that drives many liberals nuts because they often charge racism to cut off their opponents knees in that discussion. That is reprehensible. It is being done in this Lou Dobbs stuff over Obama's birth certificate, where there is no evidence race is a factor here, that's all politics. And in this case, there is no evidence either. It's the liberal media that loves this stuff and wants to make it so, like the questioner who asked this last night of Obama - "how does it play into race relations?"
                                                                                        Report Abuse
                                                                                        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
                                                                                          1  
                                                                                          Regarding the birth certificate issue, I agree. I've said many times that if it was a white candidate, they'd be making political hay out of it as well.

                                                                                          Here, it is a little bit harder to imagine that a white man would be arrested for "disorderly conduct" in their own home. As an example, consider that Gates gave them his school I.D. That would say that he's a professor, surely. Now, is it really likely that a professor is breaking into a house? Did the officer doubt the credentials, and why would it seem unlikely that a black man holds such a prominent position? Personally, I would think that would lead most people to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation.

                                                                                          It may be that the cop just wasn't able to handle things, but the suspicion that it involved race one way or another is going to be there. That's not unreasonable. The idea that there can't be a discussion about it unless there's "clear and precise evidence" is ludicrous.
                                                                                          Report Abuse
                                                                          • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                                                                            1 1
                                                                            Also, because you want to leave the implied connection that this is about race, that this is racial profiling, that is basically what you are saying. Matthews is correct.
                                                                            Report Abuse
                                                                            • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                                                                              1 1
                                                                              "Leave" what? If you mean "leave out", that makes no sense, considering how many times you've had to be told that the question involved race.

                                                                              Again, Matthews said that Obama drew a conclusion about the case. He did not. Your confusion about how you can express uncertainty about the nature of the incident and then talk about the possibility of profiling does not make Matthews "correct".
                                                                              Report Abuse
                                • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  Well, I don't think I need a language lesson (and certainly not one from you) but I would argue that there is NO difference between those two quotes. "Basically" is essentially a "cover-my-butt," throwaway word that means nothing until the speaker is challenged, and then he can lamely argue "hey, I said BASICALLY." The word "basically" does NOTHING to change the statement- NOTHING.

                                  You are the one who needs the language lesson. Matthews might as well have said "sort of" or just cleared his throat rather than add the meaningless "basically."
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 23, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                                    1  
                                    "Basically" is a way of acting like you're paraphrasing someone when what you're really doing is putting words in his mouth, like Matthews is doing here.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                                      1  
                                      If there were any doubt that right On is Tommy, this exchange should put them to rest. Only Tommy is insistent on parsing to that degree. Brabantino is a saint for not letting him get away with, though it's debatable whether getting into a death spiral with an idiot is personally advisable. I used to get into such repetitive back and fourths with Tommy but now consider it a waste of time.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
                                          1
                                        You can think or surmise or speculate or obsess over my identity all you'd like, as long as that keeps you from responding to me and prevents me from having to interact with your inanity, I am anyone you want me to be. LOL!
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
                                          1  
                                          You can think or surmise or speculate or obsess over my identity
                                          It's for informational purposes only, so that posters can take your history of shenanigans into account when tempering their response. I don't care that you're hiding behind this new moniker. You do have a lot to be ashamed of, and I can understand the desire for a fresh start.
                                          Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
                                          1  
                                          Some may dislike your knuckle blowing chest swipe word parsing at the caged bosom of liberal like-mindedness. I, however, mind not.
                                          Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
              1  
              Professor Gates was accused of breaking into his own home, and required to show an ID, which he did. How is that "contrived outrage?" Seems to me that that's more like "Justified outrage," unless you think that only white people are allowed to feel put-upon for no reason by the government.

              And what's with this "elitist" crap? What makes Gates an "elitist?" That he has an education? When are you knuckle-dragging morons going to get past your envy of anyone who actually worked hard and learned enough to get an advanced degree?

              Seriously- the grownups are trying to run the country. I'm sure there's something good on tv, you non-elitist, you. Go check.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 23, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
          2  
          elitist (professor Gates)


          Why are African American professors elitist?

          Sounds like YOU'VE got a few "uppity negro" issues.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
        1 3
        So a cop in left wing Utopia is a racist? Can't be. Nice choice of words Barry. Way to slag the people protecting us commoners.

        Oh, the Police Union doesn't agree with your terminology.

        Police Union condemns Obamas comments

        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
          2 1
          President Obama did not call the cops involved in the arrest of professor Gates racists. He did point out, and quite correctly, that there is a history of racism and it's negative effect on law enforcement in this country.

          But, hey, don't let the -facts- get in the way, Tbone Slickens. You haven't yet, and I'd hate to see such a fabulous fail streak broken.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 25, 2009 10:00 am ET)
               
            I guess that's why Barry called the Sgt. Crowley and apologized?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 25, 2009 9:27 pm ET)
                 
              I guess that's why Barry called the Sgt. Crowley and apologized?
              He didn't apologize. However, there is a little thing called politics that requires our politicians to sometimes be contrite about things in public even though they simply stated the truth. This is one of those times.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
        1 1
        So after admitting he didn't know everything, he is sure the Cambridge police were stupid
        He didn't know enough facts to determine if it was racial profiling. He did know enough facts to determine the police acted stupidly.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by flash528 (July 23, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        1
      Mr Matthews should be embarrassed by this one.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jinglejam (July 23, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
        1
      Well, it was an example of profiling. Tweety got that much right, even if he falsely attributed it to Obama.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (July 23, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
      1 1
      The police may very well have been stupid in this case. I don't know. But I don't think it was a good idea for Obama to characterize them as being stupid. There were other ways to make his point besides saying it that way.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (July 23, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
        1 1
        The Obama camp has issued a "clarification" on his terminology which proves my point.

        http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99K9Q001&show_article=1
        Report Abuse
        • Author by JoeSixpack (July 23, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
          3 1
          You think that proves something? That it validates you somehow? Really? Maybe you should try to wrap your head around this concept: a person or organization need not be stupid to behave stupidly on occasion. Obama never said they were stupid, he said they acted stupidly. Not the same thing. I know a lot of smart people who behave stupidly sometimes.

          Here's what I don't understand: the cop knew Gates's identity. He knew Gates was legally inside his own residence. He then "ordered" Gates to step outside. What's the justification for that order? If a man is legally on his own property, not comitting any crimes, why would a cop be ordering him to do anything at all?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
        1 1
        You reichies are a bunch of thinskinned wimps. Really.

        I mean... look at this. Just LOOK at it. You guys are all worked up over the word 'stupid'. Good god... you act as if Obama called the cops MFers.

        Get over yourselves. This is quickly becoming a non-issue just like the birth certificate, Mustardgate, etc.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (July 23, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
          1 1
          I agree it's only a poor choice of words, nothing more. I'm really not worked up about it at all, since you were including me in with "you guys". I'm an Obama supporter, in point of fact.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
            1 1
            Why is it a poor choice of words? Why not call a spade a spade? It WAS stupid, period. No need to sugarcoat it and be PC over it. This isn't Romper Room for godsakes. We are dealing with adults, not infants.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bruce1ace (July 23, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
                1
              It was a poor choice of words for two reasons: it elicited a negative emotional response from some people which means that they will not remember what else he said during the PC and will only focus on this small portion. That's not effective communication when the main topic is supposed to be health care reform.

              Also he drew a conclusion that is at least somewhat in dispute depite your insistence that we should just put a period after his comment as if it were completely factual.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                1  
                "It was a poor choice of words for two reasons: it elicited a negative emotional response from some people..."

                Not Obama's problem. Those who were affected by it in that way need to develop thicker skins and quit being so soft. 'Stupid' is not a dirty word.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
                    1
                  Obviously the White House disagrees with you and agrees with bruce1ace. They are qualifying his remarks as we speak, if they thought they weren't poor, they wouldn't bother.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                    3  
                    This from the guy who's not sure why on earth the charges against Gates were dropped. Awesome!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
                        1
                      You are such a shameless liar. I said specifically they were dropped because there must not be enough evidence to prosecute.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
                        1  
                        "Just because charges were dropped doesn't mean the police acted improperly, where do you get that from?"

                        You can't see the parallel. How cute.

                        Just because white people's sensibilities are getting hurt and the White House is issuing fluffier, cuddlier words about Gates' arrest, doesn't mean Obama acted improperly, where do you get that from?
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    So the Dems are being spineless once again... what a surprise. All because a few double-digitted IQ winkers freaked out over the word 'stupid' and so they must be mollified. Unbelievable.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jjamele2880 (July 23, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Are you surprised? Democrats can always be counted on to fold like lawn chairs as soon as they are called out by the right-wing morons, accomplishing nothing at all except giving them another notch to put in their belts.

                      Remember, it took Obama less than 24 hours to "re-do" his inauguration oath to appease a handful of drooling morons who screamed that his first one was not legit. I expect to see copies of his birth certificate mailed to every taxpayer before the end of the year, with an apology for the "confusion caused" by the "delay" in releasing it.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
                        1  
                        No, I am not surprised. And what is galling about it is that they have absolutely no reason to fold. The winkers are in the minority but apparently they still haven't been defeated.

                        THAT is insane.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Are you sure?

                    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8153681&page=1
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
                      1  
                      The site's busy now so here's the scoop: Obama's not backing down from his comments.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                1  
                Politically, I understand the problem. Not that there's any real merit to it, but as a matter of appearance there is an issue.

                We are talking about someone Obama knows, though. I think it's fair to say that Obama couldn't very well picture anything that Gates would have done to genuinely justify being arrested in his own home. And the bottom line is that once the confusion is straightened out, it's over. If Gates didn't have a valid complaint, then the officer should have given him his badge number and told him to take his best shot, then left. Anything beyond that is pretty hard to justify as intelligent police work.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bruce1ace (July 23, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                    1
                  I'm not defending the police, just disagreeing with Obama's word choice. He is a fantastic communicator overall I just think he made an error here.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
                    1  
                    I understand. I'm just saying that apart from the politics of it, "stupid" seems like a pretty fair conclusion. There may be some dispute, but I don't really see how any theory makes the "stupid" comment unreasonable.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (July 23, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
        1
      Everything you need to know in a nutshell from Obama right here. Forget profiling.

      the Cambridge police acted stupidly

      To make this story even more fantastic, the officer stands by what he did. Even if you believed that, saying it to the media is even more stupid.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
        2  
        Whatever he stands by, he'll never again arrest a man in his own home for disorderly conduct

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
          1 1
          Good catch. So let's have the usual suspects come here and try to shoot that one down.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
          1 3
          Read the arrest report. Seems like Gates was confrontational from the beginning. The officer was alone and his initial report was two men breaking and entering.

          Arrest report of H.L. Gates

          I wonder if Gates will help, not hinder, a police officer in the line of duty next time? Tells us more about Gates than anything.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
            2  
            The charges were dropped. That report is not worth the paper it was printed on.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
              1 3
              Charges dropped mean nothing. It doesn't change the fact Gates went berserk and called the Sergeant names and wouldn't calm down. In fact the Sergeant was HAND PICKED by a BLACK Superior Officer to teach racial profiling.

              Sergeant racial profiling instructor

              Looks like Barry's friend picked the wrong cop to try and intimidate. Next time he should shut his yapper and just cooperate. If he had just done that it would never have been elevated to an arrest.

              Funny how the cops back up and the lady next door who called the cops in the first place, haven't given any credence to Gates side of the story. Are they all racists? Including the black Campus cop who is in the picture of Gates and the Sergeant?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:49 am ET)
                   
                Charges dropped mean nothing.
                It means everything. It means they couldn't prove their case, even with supposedly a plethora of witnesses.
                ooks like Barry's friend picked the wrong cop to try and intimidate.
                You have it backwards, the cop picked the wrong guy to harass.
                Next time he should shut his yapper and just cooperate.
                I bet you think, so you racist.
                Funny how the cops back up and the lady next door who called the cops in the first place, haven't given any credence to Gates side of the story. Are they all racists? Including the black Campus cop who is in the picture of Gates and the Sergeant?
                Proof? Ah, I didn't think so.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 25, 2009 10:03 am ET)
                  1 1
                  Yeah Barry was on the phone yesterday apologizing to the slandered cop. Seems our president wants this one to go away...I wonder why? You keep up the good fight defending the indefensible...I bet Barry will appreciate it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 25, 2009 9:29 pm ET)
                      1
                    Yeah Barry was on the phone yesterday apologizing to the slandered cop.
                    There was no apology.
                    Seems our president wants this one to go away...I wonder why?
                    It's called politics.
                    You keep up the good fight defending the indefensible...
                    It's indefensible to yell at a cop? I didn't know that.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
            1 1
            So you take the cops solely at their word with ZERO consideration of Gates' account? You do not think for a single instant that cops do lie, do commit perjury on the witness stand, are involved in corruption, etc.? Not a single instant?

            Par for the course in the reichwinker universe though: Cop=Good. Citizen=Bad.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
              1 4
              Rabbit, you need to go back and see some of the interviews with the neighbors, they all said Gates was the one that was wrong, loud and confrontational. I guess the are racist also? I guessing in the future not many neighbors are going to be helping out Mr. Gates. Sounds like to me he is very ungrateful.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                1 2
                F the neighbors. Especially the one who called the cops. She didn't know that it was her neighbor, Gates, who was trying to get into his own house??? What sort of a neighborhood is this exactly?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                  2 3
                  If I was not home, and I came back unexpectedly and was trying to jimmy my way into my house, and a neighbor, who wasn't sure who I was, had the common decency and the neighborly courtesy to call the police, I would most definitely have the decency to go over to their house and thank them over and over for what they just did.

                  Instead you say F them. Absolutely incredible.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    She didn't know who her own neighbor was? If so, THAT is what's absolutely incredible.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
                      2 2
                      You don't know the circumstances. Gates could have been obscured by trees or shrubs in the lawn, maybe the neighbor didn't have their glasses on?, who knows. That is not the point. The point is the neighbor did the right thing and should not be told to F off.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
                        1  
                        The point is the neighbor did the right thing
                        Gates thanked the neighbor. I bet when she called she didn't know the police were going to harass her neighbor. I bet she feels bad but she shouldn't. The blame rests squarely on the capricious police who overstepped their authority.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
                3
              Cop=Good. Citizen=Bad.


              That seems to be the case now doesn't it. All the evidence points to Gates being a jerk and not cooperating.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:52 am ET)
                1  
                All the evidence points to Gates being a jerk and not cooperating.
                No, it doesn't.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 25, 2009 10:05 am ET)
                     
                  Well post the evidence that suggests otherwise Scotty! You can't because there isn't anything there. Even the black cop at the scene agreed with Sgt Crowley. Black cop supports Sgt Crowley

                  Better luck next time scooty. Facts are a stubborn thing!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 25, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
                       
                    Well post the evidence that suggests otherwise Scotty!
                    Gates own account disputes the cop's report.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
          1 4
          Maybe next time Mr. Gates will just do what the officer asked, but instead Mr. Gates turned it into a problem.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
            1  
            So Gates being angry over the situation and the cop not providing his name and number is a 'problem'? Enlighten us, please.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 24, 2009 12:13 am ET)
                3
              The officer doesn't have to give name or badge number. He called all information back to his dispatcher and that is all he is required to do.

              Of course it's all in the report you refuse to read.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:52 am ET)
                1  
                The officer doesn't have to give name or badge number
                Yes, he does. In fact, the officer contends that he did.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 24, 2009 5:34 am ET)
                2  
                The officer doesn't have to give name or badge number. He called all information back to his dispatcher and that is all he is required to do.


                WRONG!

                The General Laws of Massachusetts
                PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
                TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

                CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

                POLICE OFFICERS

                Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards

                Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

                Badge numbers are assigned for a reason, and Massachusetts requires its cops to carry ID cards for a reason: Cops can lie about their names, making it difficult or impossible for citizens to file complaints about their behavior after they've departed a scene.

                This account is based on the police report, a statement from Gates' lawyer , interviews by Gates given after the arrest , and a radio interview that the arresting officer gave this morning...
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
            2 1
            Maybe next time Mr. Gates will just do what the officer asked
            Translation: "If only uppity blacks would just lay down and obey their masters, we could all get along."
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 23, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      2  
      How can you be accused of disorderly conduct in your own home? I thought disorderly conduct could only happen in public?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (July 23, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
        1  
        You are CORRECT.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (July 23, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
          2
        It depends on the municipality, you can be charged with disorderly conduct in some jurisdictions if you're actions are loud enough or disruptive enough within your own home. I don't know about Mass.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 23, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
        1 2
        The arrest was in public. Read the report.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
      2 4
      Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. I think he should have stopped there. What Gates should have done is thank the police for coming out, showed his drivers license to prove he lived there. He also may have asked him to stop out, that way if someone was in the house pointing a gun at him he could get away with the police. Gates is the issue here, not the police. I am sure if someone had really be braking into his house and the police did not get there in time, he would be yelling even more. Gates is a A$$.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
        1  
        He showed two forms of ID, including his DL. Gates was angry that the cop apparently did not believe him AFTER the IDs were produced. After the IDs were produced and verfied the police simply should have left the residence. Period.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
            2
          Rabbit, read the report, the first ID he showed was his School ID, even refused to show ID in the beginning, so even at this point the officer has no idea who this person is, and why he will not cooperate. Once he showed his School ID, the officer then calls the Harvard Police to follow up. Again, why did Gates just not produce a DL from the beginning and thank the cop for investigating a possible break in?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
            1 1
            The report is wrong. Gates produced both forms of ID. Stop spreading misinformation... you're not changing any minds here. We aren't stupid, unlike Limpjaw's audience.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 24, 2009 12:05 am ET)
              1 3
              How is the report wrong? NO ONE HAS BACKED UP GATES CLAIM. The officer has witnesses on record that Gates was using abusive language. There is NO defense of him. The more the left rallies around this idiot the crazier you look.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 24, 2009 5:43 am ET)
                2  
                How is the report wrong? NO ONE HAS BACKED UP GATES CLAIM.


                When Crowley asked Professor Gates for his ID, there was no one in the room but Crowley and Professor Gates, so there is NO proof that Professor Gates didn't provide two forms of identification, like he said.

                And it seems that Crowley was convinced very early on that Gates was not a burglar. Shortly after he entered the house, his report says, he "was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence."

                If Crowley knew early on that, why not tell Professor Gates?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 24, 2009 5:36 am ET)
            1  
            Crowley was convinced very early on that Gates was not a burglar. Shortly after he entered the house, his report says, he "was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence."
            Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (July 23, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
          3
        Let's hope Professor Gates never has his house burglarized or has a gun pointed at him by a burglar in his home and I mean that. The flip side is, what police officer will make a timely response of a break-in at that address. I, for one, would be hesitant.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
          1  
          Why would you be hesitant? After all, the cops didn't do anything wrong, right?

          Right?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
            1 3
            Right, they did not do anything wrong. They were following up on a possible break in, what would you have them do, ignore the call? What the office does not know everyone in town and where they live? How about Gates just show is ID, step outside talk to the officer, not instead calls him a racist, trys calling the Chief, uses the term, "messing with the wrong guy". Only person here in the wrong is Gates.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 23, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
              1 1
              How about Gates just show is ID, step outside talk to the officer
              He did show his ID. Stepping outside was Gates' mistake. That allowed the cop to arrest him for disorderly conduct. Gates should have stayed inside his house. I guess he didn't realize how despicable this cop was.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                1 1
                Entrapment.

                The cop wouldn't talk to Gates unless he stepped outside. Sleazy... absolutely sleazy.

                And Mark thinks we should just trust them. Wow, amazing!
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
          2  
          If you really think that ignoring a call for help after this incident is a good idea, you're nuts. Heads would roll simply because it would appear to be done as a form of revenge.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
        2 1
        As above, you're not providing any compelling argument that he deserved to be arrested. Once the confusion is straightened out, there's no need for them to stick around. Talking back to a police officer is not a crime.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
          1 3
          So it is ok to call cops names, be disorderly in public, and over all belligerent and uncooperative with the Police. Is say go out and try it yourself.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (July 23, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
            2  
            Does this man live in the supermarket? It was his house. That's not "public".

            Is your argument that police officers should be able to arrest people because they're offended? What kind of politically correct nonsense is that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (July 23, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                3
              The man was in the front yard when arrested, he even followed the officer out of his house so he could continue to yell at him. SO he was not in his house. Read the report.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                1  
                You are lying again. He was on his porch... there is a photo showing him in cuffs standing ON THE PORCH. Google it.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 24, 2009 12:08 am ET)
            1
          Talking back to a police officer is not a crime.


          Not a crime until the talking back becomes abusive, then it can be a crime.

          It is also disrespectful. I wonder if Gates would put with abusive language in his classroom?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 12:30 am ET)
               
            And again, once the confusion is resolved, then there's no need to further the encounter. Telling Gates to go outside and then arresting him for it is utterly unnecessary. All he had to do was leave, and there was no reason not to do so.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 24, 2009 1:10 am ET)
              1 2
              Read the report. The officer asked Gates to come outside because he (Gates) was YELLING at him and he could not communicate with his dispatcher. At this time he was under the assumption that there were TWO burglars and he only saw one man. He continued YELLING at the Sergeant until they were outside and was given a couple more chances to calm down. When he did not he was arrested. Again, all in the report and EVERYTHING BACKED UP BY WITNESSESS INCLUDING A BLACK CAMPUS COP.

              Gates has no one to blame but himself and has shown if anything he is the racist in this situation.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 1:34 am ET)
                1  
                What in blue blazes are you talking about? At what point in your story is the identification presented? After the identification was presented, there is no way to think "there's another burglar around" because there's no first burglar in the picture.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 8:38 am ET)
                  1  
                  The officer asked Gates to come outside because he (Gates) was YELLING at him and he could not communicate with his dispatcher. At this time he was under the assumption that there were TWO burglars and he only saw one man.

                  Like I said:
                  While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence...

                  And later:
                  My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud...

                  What's more, the admission that he believed he was lawfully in the home came before he requested identification. So that was to verify what he already suspected.

                  Maybe you should read the report. It doesn't provide any rationale for this extended confrontation.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 25, 2009 10:11 am ET)
                    2
                  The cop received a call that there were TWO men B&E a house. It can't be any clearer than that.

                  Also there is some speculation that Gates gave Sgt Crowley a Harvard ID. Campus ID's don't have addresses, at least mine never did. Maybe they do it differently up there?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (July 25, 2009 11:43 am ET)
                       
                    The cop received a call that there were TWO men B&E a house.

                    What's the theory, that Gates helped a burglar break into his own house? Once it was clear that the man lived there, and he was one of the people that was breaking in, the other person is not a major concern.
                    Campus ID's don't have addresses, at least mine never did.

                    Is a 59 year-old Harvard professor really a serious suspect on a breaking and entering call? Come on, now. In fact, if you think about it, the only plausible explanation there is that he was confused and entered the wrong house. If that was the case, who the hell would be helping him do it? The repeated point about there being two men actually discredits the only reasonable theory as to why a Harvard professor would be breaking into someone else's house.

                    I believe the report also said that Crowley saw Gates in the house before he even went up to the door. Was his activity of walking around the house somehow suspicious, as opposed to pulling out drawers, putting valuables in a bag, etc? How is what Crowley witnessed before he approached the house consistent with a breaking and entering, whether you're talking about one, two, or twelve suspects?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Scotty Johnson (July 24, 2009 1:56 am ET)
                1 1
                Read the report.
                We don't believe the cops. Their story doesn't make sense. Gates story makes perfect sense to us. Stop saying to read the report. Cops do lie to cover their asses.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 24, 2009 8:46 am ET)
                  1 3
                  What you're not getting through thick skull is that the cop has witnesses. One of the campus cops called was AA. If there was any way this Sergeant was out of line, he would have been reported by now.

                  I know you're factually challenged even when it smacks you in the face. This cop has a stellar record and was even hand picked for a racial profiling class by a superior officer who happens to be black. That officer, the police union and his fellow co-workers have all come to his defense. The only ones slandering this Sergeant are Gates and morons on left wing blogs who can't see the woods for the trees.

                  Keep crying wolf on this one. When a real case happens that needs attention comes along...

                  What Barry said is stupid. Funny how there was no outrage over this until Bumbling Barry waded out of the shallow end and got involved.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (July 24, 2009 9:09 am ET)
                    1  
                    What was the purpose for the campus police to be called, exactly?

                    And remember that Obama was asked about the incident. He didn't make a statement out of the blue.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 25, 2009 10:14 am ET)
                      1 2
                      I've posted the report. I suggest a cursory glance before dumb questions.

                      Obama was "asked". I can't agree more. That was a planned question from the get go. Did you see how he jumped and perked up for the home run ball at the end of the presser!

                      That one backfired Rahm.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (July 25, 2009 11:50 am ET)
                          1
                        I've read the report. I suggest you either demonstrate how the question is dumb, or shut the hell up.

                        Why was there a need for more officers? If he felt physically threatened, then he could have arrested him in the house. Two officers can't handle a 59 year-old man? It was just an argument, and the report doesn't suggest anything else.

                        Any amount of forethought would suggest that the "stupidly" comment was not politically wise. Why that would be "planned" is a mystery. It has nothing to do with policy or an agenda, so I have no idea what the motivation is supposed to be.

                        Your assumption is baseless, clearly driven by partisanship instead of rational thought.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 24, 2009 10:18 am ET)
                    1 1
                    So one of the cops there was African-American... what does that prove? You don't think that AA officers lie? Ever hear of the 'blue wall of silence'?

                    You're just grasping at those imaginary straws again... not gonna work buddy, sorry.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (July 24, 2009 10:22 am ET)
            1 1
            Disrespectful is NOT illegal. When are you going to get that concept into your brain? You CANNOT LEGALLY arrest someone for being 'disrespectful'. If that was the case then 90% or so of the population would be in jail. Is that the sort of society you want?

            On second thought, don't answer that... I think I already know your answer.

            Y'know... I really do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
            Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.