POTUS Obama Says Cops Who Arrested Gates "Acted Stupidly" Vs Nixon's "Manson Guilty" [Archive]

Cicero

23rd July 2009, 03:30 PM

applecorped

23rd July 2009, 03:57 PM

It's all Helter Skelter.

Marc39

23rd July 2009, 04:04 PM

Obama didn't have time to actually read the police report. He was too busy not reading his healthcare plan.

Cicero

23rd July 2009, 04:11 PM

It's all Helter Skelter.

More like "Fixing A Hole" in this case.

Safe-Keeper

23rd July 2009, 04:19 PM

Obama didn't have time to actually read the police report. He was too busy not reading his healthcare plan. Why, I wonder, do you keep repeating errors when facts have been pointed out to you?

slingblade

23rd July 2009, 04:24 PM

In other news, George W. Bush is still a moron.

boloboffin

23rd July 2009, 04:32 PM

BREAKING NEWS: Two POTUS's tell the truth.

I guess that is cause for alarm.

JoeTheJuggler

23rd July 2009, 04:39 PM

If Obama doesn't know all the facts, why is he making this statement in response to Lynn Sweet's question about race relations in America based on this incident?

He had enough facts to agree with the city of Cambridge that the arrest was "regrettable and unfortunate" (that's polite-speak for "stupid").

Further, Obama apparently is a personal friend of Gates. (That is, he knows the man is not someone who needs to be hauled away from his home in handcuffs.)

His seqway to discussing race relations was (emphasis added), "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."

linusrichard

23rd July 2009, 05:28 PM

Is it different if the POTUS makes a disparaging comment on law enforcement as opposed to making a proclamation on the guilt of the defendant in the middle of the trial?

Yes.

skeptical

23rd July 2009, 06:45 PM

If Obama doesn't know all the facts, why is he making this statement in response to Lynn Sweet's question about race relations in America based on this incident?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcANlpO8_70

Nixon got lambasted for commenting on the Manson trial. Is it different if the POTUS makes a disparaging comment on law enforcement as opposed to making a proclamation on the guilt of the defendant in the middle of the trial?

BTW: Gates did not forget his keys. His front door was stuck.

I don't really think its necessary to know more facts than are already present to say that arresting an elderly man (black or white) in front of their home for yelling and being irate about being asked to prove their identity in their own home (however lawful the request was) on what can charitably be called a lame disorderly conduct charge is "acting stupidly".

Having said that, I think Obama should have said something like "foolish" or "showed poor judgment" or something a little more diplomatic. But, since he knows the man personally, my guess is it was an initial (dare I say "gut") reaction to a question he may not have been expecting.

So yes, the police did act stupidly (even if it was technically legal which it may not have been), but Obama probably should have chosen his words better.

As to the Manson comparison, I would say it is worse to comment on an ongoing criminal trial that might alter the judicial process by influencing jurors. Of course, there might very well be a civil action out of all of this as well so maybe its more of a toss up.

Darth Rotor

23rd July 2009, 07:36 PM

Jeff Corey

23rd July 2009, 07:39 PM

Cambridge, not Boston. There have been a lot of complaints about the Cambridge police in the past.

Cavemonster

23rd July 2009, 08:00 PM

While I agree with the assessment of that the officer acted stupidly, I do think he should have refrained from giving his opinion without knowing the details of the case.

Jeff Corey

23rd July 2009, 08:11 PM

Jon Stewart just said, "I wasn't there and I don't know all the facts...but I think President Obama acted .....stupidly."
Damned liberal, left wing media!

Personal Grudge

23rd July 2009, 08:13 PM

Grizzly Bear

23rd July 2009, 09:02 PM

IMO, Obama was being a complete dick.

The Boston Police department has already taken step one: drop the charges. Obama decides to comment. For a guy as eloquent as he is, his choice of words is amazingly crude and low rent.

I think he should have been sly:

"I epxect the Boston Police department will look into this and resolve any problems that led to this mistaken arrest of my friend. "

Think about that as a way to say to the BPD that he's got his eyes on them ...
I agree, but he doesn't have to worry since he gets a free pass on a lot of things and looks like this one won't be any exception... He did say at the get go that he was biased in it, but he could have still worded it a lot better if he wasn't entirely aware of the details concerning the case...

MattusMaximus

23rd July 2009, 09:15 PM

Oh my. A public official screws up and sticks his foot in his mouth. I'm shocked, shocked to my core. :rolleyes:

It was inevitable - sooner or later, Obama would say something... stupid... in public. And he finally did. Whoopie.

Now, while I really find all of this interesting, seeing as how there's more important things to worry about, I think I'll be leaving...

ETA: Btw, just so you all know, the arresting officer - Sgt. James Crowley - in the Gates' case says that he's still an Obama supporter. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32113088/ns/politics-white_house/) So if he can get over this, then I think some other people should be able to as well...

... Crowley said he still supports the president, who attended Harvard Law School in Cambridge and garnered 88 percent of the vote there in last year's presidential election. ...

Personal Grudge

23rd July 2009, 09:18 PM

Oh my. A public official screws up and sticks his foot in his mouth. I'm shocked, shocked to my core. :rolleyes:

It was inevitable - sooner or later, Obama would say something... stupid... in public. And he finally did. Whoopie.

Now, while I really find all of this interesting, seeing as how there's more important things to worry about, I think I'll be leaving...

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), that's always going to be the nature of politics. If you are the currently elected leader of a country, you will be evaluated for every noun, verb, and adjective you say. (Don't get me started on the adverbs!)

I'm still just waiting on a US President to drop an F-bomb during a press conference. Now THAT will be a news day! ;)

MattusMaximus

23rd July 2009, 09:19 PM

Jon Stewart just said, "I wasn't there and I don't know all the facts...but I think President Obama acted .....stupidly."
Damned liberal, left wing media!

Win :D

Cicero

23rd July 2009, 09:21 PM

MattusMaximus

23rd July 2009, 09:21 PM

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), that's always going to be the nature of politics. If you are the currently elected leader of a country, you will be evaluated for every noun, verb, and adjective you say. (Don't get me started on the adverbs!)

Too true. This stupid (ha ha) flap reminds me about the hubbub concerning Don Imus's "nappy headed ho's" comment. That was dumb then, this is dumb now :rolleyes:

I'm still just waiting on a US President to drop an F-bomb during a press conference. Now THAT will be a news day! ;)

When that day comes, I'm throwing a party, because that's the day the F-bomb can safely come out of the closet! :D

MattusMaximus

23rd July 2009, 09:23 PM

Apparently, VP Biden's hoof-and-mouth disease is an affliction that is contagious. It may be to late to quarantine Obama.

Well, some people have a greater susceptibility to foot-in-mouth disease. If this is Obama's first real gaffe like this, I think he's been pretty well inoculated against Biden :)

Personal Grudge

23rd July 2009, 09:29 PM

Apparently, VP Biden's hoof-and-mouth disease is an affliction that is contagious. It may be to late to quarantine Obama.

I generally see the "sticking foot in mouth" moments to be great entertainment, and I don't see this trend ending.

President Bush was, in my opinion, great at saying idiotic things that made great entertainment. My teeth would grind each and every time he said the word nuclear (Noo-kyoo-lurr). :D

At the same time, I hope that most of us do not associate the occasional gaffs with an "inability to govern". If I was punished for every stupid "foot in the mouth" moment I had, I'd be serving a life sentence.

MattusMaximus

23rd July 2009, 09:30 PM

I generally see the "sticking foot in mouth" moments to be great entertainment, and I don't see this trend ending.

President Bush was, in my opinion, great at saying idiotic things that made great entertainment. My teeth would grind each and every time he said the word nuclear (Noo-kyoo-lurr). :D

At the same time, I hope that most of us do not associate the occasional gaffs with an "inability to govern". If I was punished for every stupid "foot in the mouth" moment I had, I'd be serving a life sentence.

Excellent point, PG.

Cavemonster

23rd July 2009, 09:40 PM

I give the same advice to conservatives now that I did to liberals during Bush's reign.

Concentrate on the petty stuff at your peril. There was an awful lot of talk about how stupid Bush sounded, but he still won reelection in 04.

Emotionally charged bashing won't win those fence sitters and centrists. Oddly enough they actually pay attention to the large issues, but if you camp out on the petty stuff, you make your camp very unatractive.

Making fun of Bushisms and the smaller gaps in his judgement may have been cathartic during the first Bush term, but it largely served to distract from the more important issues and paint the opposition as shallow and elitist.

If you really disagree with Obama's positions, coming off as "Oooh! Everything your messiah does just makes me so mad!" won't win you any hearts and minds.

Personal Grudge

23rd July 2009, 09:51 PM

If you really disagree with Obama's positions, coming off as "Oooh! Everything your messiah does just makes me so mad!" won't win you any hearts and minds.

You don't know how much I want to agree with this. However, I'm not sure I really do.

I may be pessimistic, but I do think terms such as "Socialist" and "Tax and Spend Liberal" do influence a great many minds among American citizens. I don't want to sound haughty, but I'm not sure that most Americans have any idea what the real issues are, nor do they care to investigate and find out.

I'd like to say that President Obama won the election because he just had better ideas than John McCain. (And I personally think he did). However, how many votes did he gain just because George W. Bush was portrayed as such a total **** up?

When we look at healthcare, as an example... will the better idea win? Or will the best-spread propaganda win?

Either way, I think I've pretty much derailed this post from the original topic, so I think we should probably continue to discuss the actual issue presented in the original post.

shuize

24th July 2009, 02:06 AM

I give the same advice to conservatives now that I did to liberals during Bush's reign.

Concentrate on the petty stuff at your peril...

A lesson President Obama might do well to keep in mind himself.

In my opinion, jumping in on something that should be way below presidential comment just to call the police "stupid" makes him sound that much less presidential.

staunch

24th July 2009, 03:39 AM

Cambridge police union is now DEMANDING an apology From the President.

And the beat goes on.

Oliver

24th July 2009, 03:46 AM

Cambridge police union is now DEMANDING an apology From the President.

And the beat goes on.

How stupid can it get?

Darat

24th July 2009, 03:48 AM

Outbreak of severe bickeritus surgically excised and dumped in the surgical waste container. We are working on a vaccination but are having trouble obtaining sufficient mercury.

NoZed Avenger

24th July 2009, 07:10 AM

That wasn't bickering.

It was homeopathic kindness and love.

JoeTheJuggler

24th July 2009, 07:28 AM

JoeTheJuggler

24th July 2009, 07:48 AM

Nixon got lambasted for commenting on the Manson trial. Is it different if the POTUS makes a disparaging comment on law enforcement as opposed to making a proclamation on the guilt of the defendant in the middle of the trial?
Several distinctions spring to mind.
1) In the Gates incident, there is no trial.
2) In the Gates incident, there is no crime (and hence no question of "guilt" of any "defendant").
3) Gates is a personal friend of Obama's, while I don't think Nixon knew any of the parties in the Manson case as personal friends.

Denver

24th July 2009, 08:04 AM

I suppose Obama could have taken the opportunity of the question from the audience to comment in such as way as would 1) Allow him to comment on race relations status, and 2) guarantee the media and opposition lose focus and time over the next few days talking about this, rather than health insurance.

If so, it was a slick move.

ETA: I just tuned into Glen Beck's radio show this morning.
First topic: Health Insurance? Economy? Afghanistan?

Nope. This Gates thing.

alfaniner

24th July 2009, 08:15 AM

What? No outrage from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson yet? It's only a matter of time.

doobiedoright

24th July 2009, 08:37 AM

While I agree that the President (or any politician) could have chosen a more neutral word than "stupid"...

I actually find it rather refreshing to hear our President refer so directly to the perceived violation of a citizen's Constitutional rights. He did state clearly that he was not there and did not have all the facts. But, from what we do know at this point... two individuals were involved in this situation. One of these individuals did violate Massachusetts law. And that individual was the police officer, by refusing to provide badge number and identity when requested.

By reading the link I am providing you will see your self to be wrong.The info was given to the whacked out nut job of a professor twice only he was so busy yelling that the cop was a racist he never heard it!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17612247/The-police-report-from-the-arrest-of-Henry-Louis-Gates-Jr?classic_ui=1

linusrichard

24th July 2009, 08:46 AM

By reading the link I am providing you will see your self to be wrong that the police report makes a contrary claim.

Fixed.

You clearly trust a police report as gospel, but there's nothing about it that makes it any more trustworthy than any other story someone might tell. There's a reason that a police report is generally inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 08:48 AM

Several distinctions spring to mind.
1) In the Gates incident, there is no trial.

Could be a civil trial as Gates may sue.

2) In the Gates incident, there is no crime (and hence no question of "guilt" of any "defendant").

So the whole incident is just a misunderstanding? OK

3) Gates is a personal friend of Obama's, while I don't think Nixon knew any of the parties in the Manson case as personal friends.

And that is why Obama should have refrained from making any comment on the matter. He has a personal interest in the arrest of his pal and should have had the legal sense to stay the Hell out of the fray.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 08:52 AM

Fixed.

You clearly trust a police report as gospel, but there's nothing about it that makes it any more trustworthy than any other story someone might tell. There's a reason that a police report is generally inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial.

"Cops cannot testify to what is in their police reports unless their original testimony is impeached in some way and the report can rehabilitate the testimony; or, if they cannot remember some detail which is otherwise admissible, they can use the report to refresh their recollection or to read from as a "past recollecton recorded".

linusrichard

24th July 2009, 09:08 AM

"Cops cannot testify to what is in their police reports unless their original testimony is impeached in some way and the report can rehabilitate the testimony; or, if they cannot remember some detail which is otherwise admissible, they can use the report to refresh their recollection or to read from as a "past recollecton recorded".

You're right. So I guess I shouldn't have said it's always inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial. Maybe I should have said it's generally inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial.

Oh, wait...

Cicero

24th July 2009, 09:39 AM

You're right. So I guess I shouldn't have said it's always inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial. Maybe I should have said it's generally inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial.

Oh, wait...

But the police report in this case, if it ever made it into criminal court before the case was dropped, would find its way into the courtroom since Gates' attorney would most assuredly attempt to impeach the cop's original testimony.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 10:39 AM

"Asked whether Obama regretted commenting on the matter, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that the president probably would regret distracting the media with "obsessions."

http://www.kirotv.com/politics/20164365/detail.html

That's rich. Candidate Obama enjoyed the lame stream media's "obsession" with him. Now as POTUS, his comments are a "distraction?

ponderingturtle

24th July 2009, 11:28 AM

IMO, Obama was being a complete dick.

The Boston Police department has already taken step one: drop the charges. Obama decides to comment. For a guy as eloquent as he is, his choice of words is amazingly crude and low rent.

So the decided not to press charges that they had no chance of winning? This is supposed to be significant?

Brainster

24th July 2009, 12:07 PM

Well, the conservative blogs have a new name for Obama: President Stupidly. It will be interesting to hear the police tapes; if they back up Crowley's story, that nick might stick.

quixotecoyote

24th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Well, the conservative blogs have a new name for Obama: President Stupidly.

Sounds about par for the conservative blogs.

Peephole

24th July 2009, 01:05 PM

If you consider people getting arrested for trying to enter their own home anything other than insane, you're an idiot.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 01:14 PM

Jon Stewart just said, "I wasn't there and I don't know all the facts...but I think President Obama acted .....stupidly."
Damned liberal, left wing media!

Does the liberal media now include comedians? I know Olbermann is a goof, but he isn't a comedian.

BTW: In the same segment, Stewart lampooned Republicans, Democrats, Fox News, CNN, Brian Williams, and health care reform. Why would Stewart turn away from comedic gold now, regardless of the source, when he couldn't resist "Snipery" Hillary's Sarajevo airport account or Camelot Caroline's fusillade of "you know's."

Cicero

24th July 2009, 01:16 PM

If you consider people getting arrested for trying to enter their own home anything other than insane, you're an idiot.

Sure. You would think Gate's neighbors would recognize him as the owner of the home and not call the cops on him for "breaking in."

JoeTheJuggler

24th July 2009, 01:21 PM

Could be a civil trial as Gates may sue.
There could be, but right now there's not.

So the whole incident is just a misunderstanding? OK
I think maybe that's a false dichotomy (either there's a court case or it was "just a misunderstanding").
I think the cop's behavior was wrong and he deserves a reprimand or at least compulsory training before he deals with the public again. That the cop was unprofessional or incompetent isn't the same thing as saying he was guilty of a crime.

I was answering this question which you asked in the OP : "Is it different if the POTUS makes a disparaging comment on law enforcement as opposed to making a proclamation on the guilt of the defendant in the middle of the trial?"

Answer: yes it's different.

And that is why Obama should have refrained from making any comment on the matter. He has a personal interest in the arrest of his pal and should have had the legal sense to stay the Hell out of the fray.
So the President doesn't have First Amendment rights? I'd think less of him if I knew Gates was his personal friend and he didn't stick up for him.

As I said, it's refreshing that he didn't describe the arrest in PC-speech "regrettable and unfortunate", as if there was no agency involved, as if the arrest was a fluke of the weather or something.

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 01:22 PM

Sure. You would think Gate's neighbors would recognize him as the owner of the home and not call the cops on him for "breaking in."

The woman who made the call did not live in the neighborhood.

Brainster

24th July 2009, 01:32 PM

If you consider people getting arrested for trying to enter their own home anything other than insane, you're an idiot.

Yes, I do think that Gates acted like a nut.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 01:34 PM

So the President doesn't have First Amendment rights? I'd think less of him if I knew Gates was his personal friend and he didn't stick up for him.

As I said, it's refreshing that he didn't describe the arrest in PC-speech "regrettable and unfortunate", as if there was no agency involved, as if the arrest was a fluke of the weather or something.

Refreshing? Had Obama been more circumspect, he wouldn't now be inviting the "racist" cop to the White House. The POTUS needs to exercise caution when exercising his 1st Amendment rights, especially when speaking as POTUS about an incident that involves a personal friend. The Executive doesn't have authority over the police department.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 01:51 PM

The woman who made the call did not live in the neighborhood.

The women who called 911, Lucia Whalen, is circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, a news and alumni magazine affiliated with the school. Amazing that she didn't recognize her colleague Gates in broad daylight, even if she didn't know whose house was supposedly being broken into.

Brainster

24th July 2009, 02:01 PM

Kudos to President Obama for backtracking (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html):

Obama said he spoke to James Crowley, the sergeant who arrested Gates, "and I have to tell you that, as I said yesterday, my impression of him is that he was an outstanding police officer...and that was confirmed in the phone conversation."

"In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," Obama said, walking back his sharpest criticism.

But, the president said: "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Prof. Gates out of his home and to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Prof. Gates probably overreacted as well."

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:03 PM

The women who called 911, Lucia Whalen, is circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, a news and alumni magazine affiliated with the school. Amazing that she didn't recognize her colleague Gates in broad daylight, even if she didn't know whose house was supposedly being broken into.

1) I don't think you have a sense of how large an institution Harvard is.

2) Soooo, what does that mean to you? That Gates is not really a professor and was actually breaking inso a house? That Gates is so unpleasant that his colleagues and neighbors do not know him? What exactly are you trying to show here that has any relevance?

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:12 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/crowley_pleaded.html

And here's an account of the President's phone conversation with Officer Crowley. This is a big part of why I respect Obama. Every President in history has made some judgement calls wrongly, prematurely and even stupidly. Not all of them have been ready to publicly revise their position and admit a mistake when new information comes to them.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:17 PM

1) I don't think you have a sense of how large an institution Harvard is.

2) Soooo, what does that mean to you? That Gates is not really a professor and was actually breaking inso a house? That Gates is so unpleasant that his colleagues and neighbors do not know him? What exactly are you trying to show here that has any relevance?

You are the one who said the women who made the call did not live in the neighborhood. What did that mean to you? That she had zero connection to the guy who was breaking into his own house? You were wrong.

Come on. I've been on the campus. The rap on the cops is how could they not recognize Gates since he is supposedly this high profile, widely known professor. Yet the circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine couldn't identify the guy in broad daylight.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:21 PM

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:22 PM

You are the one who said the women who made the call did not live in the neighborhood. What did that mean to you? That she had zero connection to the guy who was breaking into his own house? You were wrong.

Come on. I've been on the campus. The rap on the cops is how could they not recognize Gates since he is supposedly this high profile, widely known professor. Yet the circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine couldn't identify the guy in broad daylight.

What the devil are you talking about? Who here is faulting the cops for not recognizing him?

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:24 PM

I wonder if the JREFer posters who cheered POTUS Obama for his initial remarks will be "ready to publicly revise their position?"

I don't know, but if you read this thread, you'll see I thought his statement was inappropriate and said so immediately.

JoeTheJuggler

24th July 2009, 02:24 PM

Refreshing? Had Obama been more circumspect, he wouldn't now be inviting the "racist" cop to the White House.

Who are you quoting that called the cop "racist"? You do know that Obama didn't call him racist, don't you?

JoeTheJuggler

24th July 2009, 02:26 PM

I wonder if the JREFer posters who cheered POTUS Obama for his initial remarks will be "ready to publicly revise their position?"

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that Obama revised his remarks to be more politic.

I still think it was refreshing to get a straight answer in plain (even blunt) language on his reaction to the story. But, yeah, he's still a politician and has to try to keep everyone happy.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:27 PM

Who are you quoting that called the cop "racist"? You do know that Obama didn't call him racist, don't you?

But his good friend Gates did.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:28 PM

What the devil are you talking about? Who here is faulting the cops for not recognizing him?

Here? Well, Gates faults the cops for not recognizing him and so does the lame stream media.

Brainster

24th July 2009, 02:32 PM

I wonder if the JREFer posters who cheered POTUS Obama for his initial remarks will be "ready to publicly revise their position?"

Do you mean to say that Obama threw them under the bus?

:D

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:35 PM

Do you mean to say that Obama threw them under the bus?

:D

I doubt the Greyhound driver even noticed.

joobz

24th July 2009, 02:37 PM

Do you mean to say that Obama threw them under the bus?

:D
I think the phrase should be "Arrested them on the porch."

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:37 PM

Here? Well, Gates faults the cops for not recognizing him and so does the lame stream media.

Really? The campus police did recognize him. I don't know what every media outlet said, but I never heard them say that the arresting officer should have. Do you have a quote?

FlamingMoe

24th July 2009, 02:46 PM

If you consider people getting arrested for trying to enter their own home anything other than insane, you're an idiot.
Well it's a good thing no one has put forth the notion that it isn't insane, since that's not what Mr. Gates was arrested for, isn't it?

Cicero

24th July 2009, 02:50 PM

Really? The campus police did recognize him. I don't know what every media outlet said, but I never heard them say that the arresting officer should have. Do you have a quote?

DYSON: "This man got a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in English. He was one of the first four people awarded a MacArthur Genius Award. He was a stringer for "TIME" magazine. He was named one of the 100 most influential people by "TIME" magazine a few years ago, and he's been all over PBS and all over America. So, he is one of the most prominent members of our collegiality, as it were. He's a professor of extraordinary prominence."

DYSON: "And then the fact that, in this neighborhood, his own neighbors call the police, and, when the police come, they can't distinguish between a very prominent professor and a common everyday so-called thief."

BLITZER: "And I think it is important to note, he is not only one of the most prominent African-American professor in the United States. He is one of the most prominent professors in the United States."

DYSON: "Absolutely, widely regarded as one of the greatest intellectuals of his generation. And I think that we need to pay attention to the fact that, if it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us. And I think that is the message we need to hear."

http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=423107&section=Newest

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 02:59 PM

DYSON: "This man got a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in English. He was one of the first four people awarded a MacArthur Genius Award. He was a stringer for "TIME" magazine. He was named one of the 100 most influential people by "TIME" magazine a few years ago, and he's been all over PBS and all over America. So, he is one of the most prominent members of our collegiality, as it were. He's a professor of extraordinary prominence."

DYSON: "And then the fact that, in this neighborhood, his own neighbors call the police, and, when the police come, they can't distinguish between a very prominent professor and a common everyday so-called thief."

BLITZER: "And I think it is important to note, he is not only one of the most prominent African-American professor in the United States. He is one of the most prominent professors in the United States."

DYSON: "Absolutely, widely regarded as one of the greatest intellectuals of his generation. And I think that we need to pay attention to the fact that, if it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us. And I think that is the message we need to hear."

http://www.blackplanet.com/your_page/blog/view_posting.html?pid=423107&section=Newest

Yes? None of these quotes say the police should have recognized him as an individual.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 03:54 PM

Yes? None of these quotes say the police should have recognized him as an individual.

So in your world the word "prominent" (never mind "extraordinary prominence") means anonymity? Of course they are saying that the Cambridge cops should have recognized this -readily noticeable, conspicuous, widely and popularly known, leading- professor.

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 04:07 PM

So in your world the word "prominent" (never mind "extraordinary prominence") means anonymity? Of course they are saying that the Cambridge cops should have recognized this -readily noticeable, conspicuous, widely and popularly known, leading- professor.

A) Dyson is not a member of the media.

B) His awkwardly made point (which I disagree with) is that the officer should have made the distinction between an elderly, distinguished academic man and his view of a theif which would be a young, low class man apparently in his mind.

I disagree with his assesment that the age or appearance of Gates should have colored the officer's judgement too much and I think his statement is a bit class-ist. However, reading the entire interview, no one there is suggesting that the officer should have know who Gates was, but that they should have known what Gates was, a position I disagree with.

Cicero

24th July 2009, 04:23 PM

A) Dyson is not a member of the media.

B) His awkwardly made point (which I disagree with) is that the officer should have made the distinction between an elderly, distinguished academic man and his view of a theif which would be a young, low class man apparently in his mind.

I disagree with his assesment that the age or appearance of Gates should have colored the officer's judgement too much and I think his statement is a bit class-ist. However, reading the entire interview, no one there is suggesting that the officer should have know who Gates was, but that they should have known what Gates was, a position I disagree with.

Dyson is a CNN pundit. Does Wolf Blitzer qualify as a member of the media? He said Gates is, "one of the most prominent professors in the United States."

That is absurd. Of course they are saying "who" not "what." Gates isn't wearing a uniform, unless fashion faux pas are confined to college professors.

Cavemonster

24th July 2009, 04:27 PM

Dyson is a CNN pundit. Does Wolf Blitzer qualify as a member of the media? He said Gates is, "one of the most prominent professors in the United States."

That is absurd. Of course they are saying "who" not "what." Gates isn't wearing a uniform, unless fashion faux pas are confined to college professors.

Okay then, if you think that's a valid reading :rolleyes:

linusrichard

24th July 2009, 07:11 PM

But the police report in this case, if it ever made it into criminal court before the case was dropped, would find its way into the courtroom since Gates' attorney would most assuredly attempt to impeach the cop's original testimony.

Let's reread what you posted:

unless their original testimony is impeached in some way and the report can rehabilitate the testimony

The police report doesn't rehabilitate the testimony just because it says the same thing. If the cop testifies to something, and then the defense suggests that, for example, this is a recent fabrication, the police report can come in to show that the cop isn't changing his story, he's been saying this from day one. But if the cop testifies to something, and the defense suggests that he has a motivation to lie that existed all along, then the police report proves nothing at all, and wouldn't be admissible for rehabilitation or anything.

Tricky

24th July 2009, 09:07 PM

I need to pull out my old copy of Amos and Andrew.

Brainster

24th July 2009, 10:15 PM

I need to pull out my old copy of Amos and Andrew.

Al Sharpton has to be the Kingfisher!

gtc

24th July 2009, 11:06 PM

I'll add the same point I made in the other thread on this topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148959): I find it refreshing that Obama gave a straight, and un-PC answer to the question. He could easily have hidden behind a vague statement about the "unfortunate incident" or said "mistakes were made" or some such, but instead he gave a straight answer when asked about his thoughts on the incident.

That is a good point.

Contrast the forthrightness of his initial statement to his waffling clarification:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-backs-off-from-race-row-20090725-dwiq.html

US President Barack Obama said his remarks about the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. should have been "calibrated" differently as he sought to tamp down a growing controversy overshadowing his agenda.

The fact that it has garnered so much attention, I think, is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America," Obama said today. "My hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other."

Is it better to have a leader who says the right thing in a waffling manner or the wrong thing in a forthright manner? In Obama you seem to have both.

gtc

24th July 2009, 11:14 PM

Who are you quoting that called the cop "racist"? You do know that Obama didn't call him racist, don't you?

He did insinuate that the officers were racist:

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

If he did really believe that it was 'seperate and apart from this incident' then he wouldn't have brought it up in response to the case.

Cicero

25th July 2009, 09:30 AM

Let's reread what you posted:

The police report doesn't rehabilitate the testimony just because it says the same thing. If the cop testifies to something, and then the defense suggests that, for example, this is a recent fabrication, the police report can come in to show that the cop isn't changing his story, he's been saying this from day one. But if the cop testifies to something, and the defense suggests that he has a motivation to lie that existed all along, then the police report proves nothing at all, and wouldn't be admissible for rehabilitation or anything.

1) The police report would be admissible to a grand jury
2) The hilited portion is a way for the report to come in, and mostly likely would have occurred.
3) Now that we have audio tapes of the incident, the report is moot.

linusrichard

25th July 2009, 09:47 AM

1) The police report would be admissible to a grand jury
Which is not relevant to what I said, since I said trial.
2) The hilited portion is a way for the report to come in, and mostly likely would have occurred.
And I say it most likely would not have occurred. But either way, the fact remains that police reports are generally not admissible in a criminal trial.
3) Now that we have audio tapes of the incident, the report is moot.
The report is moot, but my original point, which is that the police report is just one person's account of what happened, and not necessarily any more trustworthy than any other, and, you know, there's a reason they aren't generally admissible in a criminal trial, still stands.

Thanks for chatting about it, though.

Cicero

25th July 2009, 11:05 AM

Which is not relevant to what I said, since I said trial.

And I say it most likely would not have occurred. But either way, the fact remains that police reports are generally not admissible in a criminal trial.

The report is moot, but my original point, which is that the police report is just one person's account of what happened, and not necessarily any more trustworthy than any other, and, you know, there's a reason they aren't generally admissible in a criminal trial, still stands.

Thanks for chatting about it, though.

If you have gone to trial for a moving violation, you would see that the judge does indeed place a great deal of trust in the police officer and their personal account. If you believe that in a criminal court this is any less true of the judge and, or, jury, whether the report is admitted as evidence or not, then you have seen too many LA trials.

linusrichard

25th July 2009, 11:10 AM

If you have gone to trial for a moving violation, you would see that the judge does indeed place a great deal of trust in the police officer and their personal account.
I know this is true from experience (not as a defendant, fortunately!). But I wonder what it has to do with police reports...

If you believe that in a criminal court this is any less true of the judge and, or, jury, whether the report is admitted as evidence or not, then you have seen too many LA trials.

You seem to be thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not saying.

Cicero

25th July 2009, 11:34 AM

I know this is true from experience (not as a defendant, fortunately!). But I wonder what it has to do with police reports...

A ticket is a police report.

You seem to be thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not saying.

If you didn't say that a cop's powers of observation as recorded in his official report and related from memory are NOT given superior credence as opposed to a citizen's account, then maybe I did.

Tricky

25th July 2009, 11:41 AM

I need to pull out my old copy of Amos and Andrew.

Al Sharpton has to be the Kingfisher!
No, not the old radio/tv show. This one (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amos_and_andrew/). It didn't get great reviews, but I always thought it was very funny, and now, prophetic.

Cicero

25th July 2009, 11:59 AM

No, not the old radio/tv show. This one (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amos_and_andrew/). It didn't get great reviews, but I always thought it was very funny, and now, prophetic.

Prophetic? How does Lucia Whale, the circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, remind you of a "biggoted police chief" from a flick that grossed $6 mil?

JoeTheJuggler

25th July 2009, 01:06 PM

But his good friend Gates did.

You're confusing the issue (or simply being evasive). I thought we were talking about Obama's comments:

Refreshing? Had Obama been more circumspect, he wouldn't now be inviting the "racist" cop to the White House. The POTUS needs to exercise caution when exercising his 1st Amendment rights, especially when speaking as POTUS about an incident that involves a personal friend. The Executive doesn't have authority over the police department.

Cicero

25th July 2009, 01:57 PM

You're confusing the issue (or simply being evasive). I thought we were talking about Obama's comments:

No confusion. The POTUS invited to the White House a police officer who is considered to be a racist by his good friend Gates. When Obama gave what you believed to be the non PC "acted stupidly" comment, was Obama not sempatico with his friend's version of the event?

Cicero

26th July 2009, 09:01 PM

slingblade

26th July 2009, 11:54 PM

Why did POTUS Obama choose to comment on racial profiling when it was Lucia Whalen, is circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, who called the police about the supposed break-in, and she never even mention the race of the guys she saw?

The Gates quagmire began shortly after lunch on July 16 when Whalen, a 40-year-old fund-raiser for Harvard magazine, saw from her office window what appeared to be two suspicious men trying to break in to Gates' house.

According to the police report, Whalen said she "observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch" about 12:45 p.m.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_she_called_cops__now_shes_lying_low.html

I bolded the pertinent part, so you couldn't miss it this time.
How inconvenient for your argument.

Cicero

27th July 2009, 08:06 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_she_called_cops__now_shes_lying_low.html

I bolded the pertinent part, so you couldn't miss it this time.
How inconvenient for your argument.

Really? All of sudden you find Crowley credible when the Daily News quotes him?

"The 911 caller who reported a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. did not mention race in the call, according to a statement issued by her attorney and backed up by Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas."

Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed 'two men' at the home," Murphy's statement read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/national/main5190309.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32169213/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

When the 911 tapes are released in a few days one of us will be sporting an omelet on their mug.

linusrichard

27th July 2009, 08:28 AM

When the 911 tapes are released in a few days one of us will be sporting an omelet on their mug.

Why don't you read the police report? Nobody's saying she said they were black on the 911 tapes, so obviously the 911 tapes aren't going to place egg anywhere.

Cicero

27th July 2009, 08:39 AM

Why don't you read the police report? Nobody's saying she said they were black on the 911 tapes, so obviously the 911 tapes aren't going to place egg anywhere.

Perhaps you should talk to Slingblade. I said Whalen never mentioned race when she CALLED the police. Slingblade then swings in on a knotted rope to save the day by posting the Daily News story that neglects this salient fact from the article. Where did I mention police report in my post that Slingblade failed to undermine?

BTW: By the time the cops took the report, they already knew Gates was black. So how does what she says at the scene makes this a case of police racial profiling?

linusrichard

27th July 2009, 08:51 AM

Perhaps you should talk to Slingblade. I said Whalen never mentioned race when she CALLED the police.
No you didn't. Maybe that's what you meant, but you said she never mentioned race.
Slingblade then swings in on a knotted rope to save the day by posting the Daily News story that neglects this salient fact from the article. Where did I mention police report in my post that Slingblade failed to undermine?
You didn't mention police report. You said "Why did POTUS Obama choose to comment on racial profiling when it was Lucia Whalen, is circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, who called the police about the supposed break-in, and she never even mention the race of the guys she saw?"
Now, if you meant that she didn't mention it in the 911 call, and were just being careless, that's fine. But don't blame me or Slingblade for thinking you meant what you said.
BTW: By the time the cops took the report, they already knew Gates was black. So how does what she says at the scene makes this a case of police racial profiling?
Because in the police report (if you trust the police report, and you've indicated that you think police reports are trustworthy), she tells the cop the race of the guy before they make contact with him. Which is why I said, "Why don't you read the police report?"

I'm not saying this was racial profiling. But you seem to be saying that it can't be racial profiling because the cops didn't know the guy's race before they saw him, and they did.

Cicero

27th July 2009, 09:11 AM

No you didn't. Maybe that's what you meant, but you said she never mentioned race.

You didn't mention police report. You said "Why did POTUS Obama choose to comment on racial profiling when it was Lucia Whalen, is circulation and fundraising manager at Harvard Magazine, who called the police about the supposed break-in, and she never even mention the race of the guys she saw?"
Now, if you meant that she didn't mention it in the 911 call, and were just being careless, that's fine. But don't blame me or Slingblade for thinking you meant what you said.

Because in the police report (if you trust the police report, and you've indicated that you think police reports are trustworthy), she tells the cop the race of the guy before they make contact with him. Which is why I said, "Why don't you read the police report?"

I'm not saying this was racial profiling. But you seem to be saying that it can't be racial profiling because the cops didn't know the guy's race before they saw him, and they did.

So why did POTUS Obama use this incident to bring up racial profiling?

Crowley was already at Gate's front door when Whalen signaled him to come over. He would have discovered that Gate's was black when Gates answered the door. So the cop is already on the scene and on his way into the house with no knowledge of Gate's race before Whalen, according to the police report, gives the description as "two black males with backpacks."

Skeptic

27th July 2009, 10:51 AM

Gates made a stupid mistake by acting like an ass. Obama made a stupid mistake by noting this incident at all, let alone declaring the police were "wrong" -- even if he had know all the facts it is just not the POTUS' job to comment on such issues, certainly not if he doesn't, as he admitted. The police officer acted like an ass for throwing the book at Gates instead of ignoring his idiotic comments.

However, Obama did a cool thing thing by inviting both Gates and the officer for a beer in the white house to smooth things over, and both the officer and Gates did the right thing in accepting and, with all probability, willing to make up and put this incident behind them.

If you're going to eat crow, as all three seem to need, it's best to eat it while it's fresh; the older it is, the harder it gets to swallow.

critterrice

27th July 2009, 10:57 AM

Nixon??? People lambasted Nixon because he was a criminal!
Let me tell you something, come closer... closer... WATERGATE!
I hate it when people try to compare Apples and A-holes.

Cicero

27th July 2009, 11:14 AM

Nixon??? People lambasted Nixon because he was a criminal!
Let me tell you something, come closer... closer... WATERGATE!
I hate it when people try to compare Apples and A-holes.

Watergate was two years after Nixon's comment on Manson's guilt while the trial was in progress. It turns out that both POTUS Obama and Nixon were criticized for their comments. While Nixon was correct that Manson was indeed guilty, Obama was incorrect that the Crowley/Gates incident had anything to do with racial profiling.

JoeTheJuggler

27th July 2009, 12:01 PM

He did insinuate that the officers were racist:

If he did really believe that it was 'seperate and apart from this incident' then he wouldn't have brought it up in response to the case.

That doesn't follow. The accusation of racism or racial profiling came from Gates. I think it's reasonable for Obama to use the incident as a segway to the topic of racial profiling.

By the way, in case it hasn't been mentioned, there is a study on racial and gender profiling in Massachussetts (http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/IRJsite_docs/finalexecutive.pdf). The Cambridge police don't come off so well, even though the report phrases its conclusions carefully:

Although the Massachusetts data does not allow for definitive findings of racial profiling on the part of individual officers orwithin a department, it does identify those jurisdictions with substantial racial or gender disparities in traffic citations.

JoeTheJuggler

27th July 2009, 12:03 PM

However, Obama did a cool thing thing by inviting both Gates and the officer for a beer in the white house to smooth things over, and both the officer and Gates did the right thing in accepting and, with all probability, willing to make up and put this incident behind them.

I agree with this. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at this meeting!

I do hope they all manage to be friends for real by the time this is done with.

JoeTheJuggler

27th July 2009, 12:05 PM

So why did POTUS Obama use this incident to bring up racial profiling?

I think because Gates raised the issue of racial profiling, and Obama was probably more comfortable talking about that issue in general which is a very real problem and about which he has some knowledge.

JoeTheJuggler

27th July 2009, 12:12 PM

It turns out that both POTUS Obama and Nixon were criticized for their comments. While Nixon was correct that Manson was indeed guilty, Obama was incorrect that the Crowley/Gates incident had anything to do with racial profiling.

First, the incident certainly did have to do with racial profiling, since those were the accusations Gates made that Crowley responded to. I'd have to check again, but I'm pretty sure the term "racial profiling" appears in Crowley's report.

Second, Obama didn't say it had anything more to do with racial profiling than the fact that the issue was raised (and it undeniably was--Crowley mentions it in his report). He said "separate and apart from" this incident.

Finally, the difference between Nixon's remarks and Obama's remarks still have to do with there being an on-going criminal trial in Manson's case and nothing remotely like that in the Crowley/Gates incident. Nixon was criticized for making remarks about an on-going criminal trial. As you point out, his position on Manson's guilt reflected that of the vast majority of Americans, so he wasn't criticized for the side he was taking--just that it was inappropriate for him to take any side when the trial was still going on.

Cicero

27th July 2009, 12:33 PM

I think because Gates raised the issue of racial profiling, and Obama was probably more comfortable talking about that issue in general which is a very real problem and about which he has some knowledge.

But the cops didn't pull over Gates' car because he was black. They didn't enter his house because he was black. They didn't respond to the home break in because of racial profiling since the caller didn't describe the two men as black, and only offered her opinion that one might be Hispanic because the operater asked her to chose from a list of Caucasian, Black or Hispanic.

Had POTUS Obama deigned to become familiar with the facts of the case before deciding that this was an opportune time to make a statement on racial profiling, we wouldn't be into the second week of discussing this local incident.

Obama realizes he screwed the pooch with his comment, so why are you still clinging to this racial profiling nonsense when the facts do not support Gates' mischaracterization of the incident then or now?

JoeTheJuggler

27th July 2009, 12:53 PM

But the cops didn't pull over Gates' car because he was black. They didn't enter his house because he was black. They didn't respond to the home break in because of racial profiling since the caller didn't describe the two men as black, and only offered her opinion that one might be Hispanic because the operater asked her to chose from a list of Caucasian, Black or Hispanic.

Had POTUS Obama deigned to become familiar with the facts of the case before deciding that this was an opportune time to make a statement on racial profiling, we wouldn't be into the second week of discussing this local incident.

Obama realizes he screwed the pooch with his comment, so why are you still clinging to this racial profiling nonsense when the facts do not support Gates' mischaracterization of the incident then or now?

I don't think Obama's remarks were so bad since most everyone agrees that Gates shouldn't have been arrested. Even the city of Cambridge and the Cambridge police officially said it was "regrettable and unfortunate".

To the issue of racial profiling, I still think Obama was all right in using the incident (which undeniably raised allegations of racial profiling) to address the issue "separate and apart" from this incident. That is, that Obama talked about the larger topic of racial profiling does not mean he necessarily agreed with Gates that this was a case of racial profiling.

slingblade

27th July 2009, 01:37 PM

Really? All of sudden you find Crowley credible when the Daily News quotes him?

"All of a sudden?" Have I said a word yet about Crowley's credibility?
You can show me where I made this comment? Otherwise, I can't imagine how you'd know what I think about Crowley.

"The 911 caller who reported a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. did not mention race in the call, according to a statement issued by her attorney and backed up by Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas."

Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed 'two men' at the home," Murphy's statement read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/27/national/main5190309.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32169213/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

When the 911 tapes are released in a few days one of us will be sporting an omelet on their mug.

If Crowley lied in his police report, that egg won't be on my face, will it?

I found a quote in a story that quoted the police report. Citing that article here doesn't indicate how I feel about the incident.

It could speak to Crowley's credibility, you're right about that. If it is established that the caller didn't mention race, we'd have to ask why it was in the police report, or why the paper claims it was in the police report. If she didn't say it, the tapes will prove that someone wasn't being honest.

At any rate, I haven't offered any opinion about the officer's credibility, one way or another. I won't be wearing any egg, regardless, no matter how much you might like to see it there.

gtc

27th July 2009, 09:30 PM

I think because Gates raised the issue of racial profiling, and Obama was probably more comfortable talking about that issue in general which is a very real problem and about which he has some knowledge.

I can give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a clumsy segue but it certainly sounded like 'dog whistle' politics - saying something in a way that makes it sound like you believe the opposite of what you are saying.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_she_called_cops__now_shes_lying_low.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_she_called_cops__now_shes_lying_low.html)

I bolded the pertinent part, so you couldn't miss it this time.
How inconvenient for your argument.

Murphy said Whalen, who works nearby, called because she had been aware of recent break-ins in the area and was "personally devastated" by suggestions that she placed the call because the men on the porch were black.
Murphy said Whalen was 100 per cent certain that she never said she saw two black men.
"It was very clear that she wasn't sure what the men's race was," Haas said in an interview with The Boston Globe on Sunday night.
Haas said Whalen, after questioning by the dispatcher during the call, speculated that one of the men - who turned out to be Gates and a black car service driver - may have been Hispanic.
The emergency call tapes have now been made public.
The commissioner acknowledged that in the police report the caller is said to have observed "what appeared to be two black males" on the porch, but he said the report was a summary and not necessarily based on the initial call.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/devastated-caller-caught-in-obama-harvard-race-row-20090728-dz3b.html