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

















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.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/454282/skip_gates_and_the_post_racial_project?rel=emailNation
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
It is pretty clear from the report that Gates was acting like an idiot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet again facts elude you, POV. Try again.
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.
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?
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...
Followed by me:
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.
Why can't the officers just walk away while they are being yelled at, after it made clear that it was HIS OWN HOME!
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.
Nice try, dummy.
As far as the disorderly... may I direct you to read the entire thread.
So are you.
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.
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.
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.
Gates was asked by the office to follow him outside. Gates followed him outside.
Gates WAS following police directives.
POV=FAIL
You MUST be a 'student' of Limpjaw's to be able to come here and LIE like this.
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.
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?
Ask yourself why the mayor of Cambridge has apologized to Gates? Hmm?
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."
The only racist I WANT to see is Gates.
I fixed it for you.
Look in the mirror. See another one
"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.
Yeah, that happened.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So much for an 'investigation', huh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2. I am not your "friend," you condescending a**. I have better taste in friends than that.
That certainly wouldn't be slanted in his favor, would it?
Legally, one is not capable of starting a riot while home alone, which - again - is why the stupid charges were dropped.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Actually, the report was TWO African American men with backpacks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
LOL... you're funny. You know that for a fact?
Obama was ASKED about this. It wasn't a "political statement". He was ANSWERING a question.
Resume trolling.
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.
Jeez, man... really.
Now to you... what is this crap about 'canned' answers again...?
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.
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?
Matthews got it wrong, and so have you. Try reading it one more time, slowly. You know, for comprehension.
"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.
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.
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.
No, he didn't call it that exactly, but "basically" he did. Thanks for backing up Matthews' point.
So, -basically-, you've just agreed with me, and proven yourself and Matthews to be in error in your analysis. Well done.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
I don't know why this is so confusing for you.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now, why don't you try answering the two questions I asked, instead of dodging them?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You needn't say anymore. I got exactly where you're coming from now. It took you awhile.
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.
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.
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".
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."
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.
Why are African American professors elitist?
Sounds like YOU'VE got a few "uppity negro" issues.
Oh, the Police Union doesn't agree with your terminology.
Police Union condemns Obamas comments
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.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99K9Q001&show_article=1
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
THAT is insane.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8153681&page=1
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.
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.
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.
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?
Par for the course in the reichwinker universe though: Cop=Good. Citizen=Bad.
Instead you say F them. Absolutely incredible.
That seems to be the case now doesn't it. All the evidence points to Gates being a jerk and not cooperating.
Better luck next time scooty. Facts are a stubborn thing!
Of course it's all in the report you refuse to read.
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...
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?
Right?
The cop wouldn't talk to Gates unless he stepped outside. Sleazy... absolutely sleazy.
And Mark thinks we should just trust them. Wow, amazing!
Is your argument that police officers should be able to arrest people because they're offended? What kind of politically correct nonsense is that?
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?
Gates has no one to blame but himself and has shown if anything he is the racist in this situation.
Like I said:
And later:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
And remember that Obama was asked about the incident. He didn't make a statement out of the blue.
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.
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.
You're just grasping at those imaginary straws again... not gonna work buddy, sorry.
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.