Obama "acted stupidly"

If it were me in the same position as Professor Gates, I would have been just as irritated. He provided, on demand, legal identification as proof that he belonged in the house. It was demanded that he step out onto the porch of his house- the place the officer retreated to after being given legal identification by the home owner. The moment he did so, Professor Gates was arrested. Frankly, I think the cop acted stupidly. I have said exactly this much repeatedly and don't care who likes or doesn't like it. If it had been me in Professor Gates' position, I would not be asking for an apology, I would be speaking with my attorneys. Period.

I don't give a rip one way or another about the current sitting President where this is concerned. What I DO care about is the rush to judgement on both sides. What no one seems to be looking at is that Professor Gates could easily have turned the whole thing very ugly for Cambridge and it's African American mayor as well as costing the taxpayers a ton of money. He didn't go there. What he HAS done is talk about what the core issues are and what he personally is willing to do to help get to a better place.

Incidentally, I know several officers who are "certified" racial profiling "experts". They are also members in good standing with the KKK. Not saying, just saying.

Gee, what else would jd do with all that spare time ???

I don';t think you can suggest that, j-mart: you'd be taking away that sweet little kid's favourite toy.

...[b]you[/b] haven't even attempted to demonstrate any flaw in his points, and this speaks loudly of your own blind bias and ignorance.

In a couple of reports I've read - yours included - there are three specific points raised by Obama.

I'll address them:

1. Surely, in America of ALL places, a man's right to be protected in his own home is paramount. Any reasonable person would be VERY p'd off.

2. The man had ALREADY proved he lived in the house. Any officer arresting an older man in that instance is stupid. Look at the negative publicity that act has brought upon the officer and the force. If you need more proof of the stupidity or shortsightedness of this act, then you're an idiot yourself.

3. YOUR OWN ARTICLE gives detailed example of racist racial profiling by that very same police force.

Obama's points are relevant and have basis in fact.

Your hysteria lacks both relevance and fact.

Good shot dirkhead.

I think he made a big mistake by getting in the middle of the argument. I can't believe that the question wasn't disallowed. It wasn't about healthcare.

Mr. Gates decided to play the race card and Obama shouldn't have commented on the issue one way or another during the healthcare speech.

AV

1. First you have to prove it is your won home, and not that of an estranged or ex spouse or children.

2. Regardless of where you are, when asked by police for identification you are required to provide it.

3. You don't abuse the police for doing their job.

From the reports I've seen the case goes like this:

a. Call of possible break and enter.

b. Police arrive to find a man in the house.

c. Police ask for ID, man gives them an argument, and eventually produces ID.

d. Police turn to leave and man follows them hurling verbal abuse.

e. Police arrest him for the verbal abuse and language.

f. Man bitches about it.

It seems to me the man had a chip on his shoulder about the police and, despite his knowledge and better judgement, went about making life hard for them to the extent of being very abusive. At that point he stepped over the line and got arrested.

To me, the reported behaviour would have seen an arrest regardless of the person's ID, positions in the community, racial background, ethnic background, or employment.

Obama was wrong to comment until he investigated it fully. The fact he did comment shows his lack of understanding of the importance of his positions and how to handle it right. The fact the question got asked and answered also shows Obama's midners slipped up as they should have butted in and not let him answer.

That's how I see it from several reports on it - and I haven't a dog in this fight, so it matters not, to me, how it goes.

If you can't see the fundamental difference of a man reacting in the strength and assumed safety of his own home, then I suggest you're simply missing the point.

You act how you choose to act, as he is free to do so as well, especially where his behaviour isn't physically threatening.

His right/privilege to respect was DUE prior to asking for any ID. He isn't required to prove anything prior to being treated with respect.

The above is more based upon individual choice in how to react. You do it your way and I'll do it mine, so to speak.

But this is where you are simply wrong ...

In Australia there is NO requirement for a citizen inside his home (acually, in any place!) to provide ID or proof of ownership. He/she is required to provide an officer with their name, address, date of birth but very few other details are legally required of a citizen.

"Show me your ID" requires either acceptance by the person (as in your case, which is fine and your choice) or a court order on the side of the policeman if the person disagrees.

We don't accept jackbooted officers goose-walking around saying "show me your ID" in Australia and I hope we never do.

There is no legal requirement for me or anyone to walk around in Australia with "their ID".

provide ID when asked to by police. If they pull you up and ask for it without giving any reason, then your comments are right, but, if they say they are investigating a crime or possible crime, then you are obliged to provide valid ID, regardless of where you are. If you do not have valid ID with you, as you aren't required to carry it, you are required to provide sufficient details to enable them to properly ID you or to accompany them to a place where such identification can be done - be that home to get ID or to a friend who can vouch for you. Failure to assist them can see you arrested and charged with 'obstructing and investigation' if they choose to go that route.

The laws about verbally abusing people and police are still on the books - some in the Crimes Act and some in the Summary Offences Act - and still punished by some magistrates - despite one particular Sydney magistrate with a major racial discrimination problem claiming people can abuse the police. That same magistrate who dismissed that charge by police against people who abused them later upheld a charge under the same law when some police gave some abuse back instead of arresting people in a similar situation.

From the NSW Crimes Act:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+40+1900+FIRST+0+N/

60 Assault and other actions against police officers

(1) A person who assaults, throws a missile at, stalks, harasses or intimidates a police officer while in the execution of the officer?s duty, although no actual bodily harm is occasioned to the officer, is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

................

This covers the harassment and abuse.

reviewed for appeal by various parties. The magistrate who threw out of court the case of a person arrested for abusing a police officer later upheld a charge, under the same law, against a police officer for saying the same things back. Both cases were decided by the races of the magistrate involved.

There is an offence under the summary offences act, and also one under the crimes act

rom the NSW Crimes Act:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+40+1900+FIRST+0+N/

60 Assault and other actions against police officers

(1) A person who assaults, throws a missile at, stalks, harasses or intimidates a police officer while in the execution of the officer?s duty, although no actual bodily harm is occasioned to the officer, is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

................

This covers the harassment and abuse.

An older gentleman, standing inside his own home, throwing abuse at a police officer ..

.. would that class as intimidation to you?

Doesn't to me. Sounds like a grumpy old man. Do you think an averagely-intelligent police officer has an onus to tell the difference? I do.

As you and I both know there are LOTS of things on the statutes that have been superseded by case or circumstance or just sometimes because.

In the particular report that was posted, the specific issue of Mr Gates was:

[i]He said the white officer walked into his home without his permission and only arrested him as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment[/i].

Last thing I knew is that it is absolutely the responsibility of a police officer to provide their own identification when asked by a member of the public, especially where that i.d. is in order to present a complaint or issue. And I also know the general attitude of the police to doing so, anywhere in the world !!!

You seem to take a more aggressive stance anti-Gates from what you have read, and so be it. Personally, given the guy's standing and background, I'd actually take his word over the cops, but that's just me.

I think the most telling comment, and I assume it to be accurate as it doesn't appear to be the subject of any claims otherwise, is:

[i]Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons, who also is black, has said she spoke with Gates and apologized on behalf of the city, and a statement from the city called the July 16 incident "regrettable and unfortunate."[/i]

Regrettable and unfortunate strike me as poli-babble for stupid and dumb.

But that's just me.

He's fit enough to hurt when he hits someone, and following an officer for some metres hurling verbal abuse is harassment. A lot would also depend upon the actual words said as to what other charges could be laid.

There is a difference between being a grumpy posterior and being excessively abusive - the reports available indicate the later of the two. Grump doesn't usually involve following people while yelling abuse.

BTW Case law does NOT supersede statute law, it can fine tune it, but that's all. Only change of the statute can supersede or replace a statute law.

Also, a single magistrate kicking a case out of court does NOT invalidate the law - if there's evidence the offence occured, it invalidates the magistrate. most cases get kicked out for lack of evidence.

... is neither arrogant nor stupid.

That is why it is called a right.

people think and assume they have rights that do not exist in law. they get very upset when they find that out while standing before a judge saying "Sentence is three years imprisonment."

You have no right to be abusive to anyone.
You have no right to be a complete posterior.
You have no right to follow anyone yelling at them.

They're just a few of what gates thought he had and didn't have.

case law in Australia means nothing outside of Australia.

In the investigation of a reported break-in, the police were doing their job by investigating.

I had that in mind, and my own near-death experiences, when I posted.

The other expression is, "Unclear on the concept."

although I would have thought that, since I mentioned it was Australian case law, by definition it would have been reasonably clear not to influence US law.

I hope I've clarified it now.

I'm guessing you'd probably have to have seen/heard it right there.

My interpretation of the black-and-white printed material is clearly different to yours.

And I obviously don't share your blind faith in the spoken word of a policemen.

Don't read too much into it - Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, not assault nor threatening harm. Any deeper interpretation would be akin to taking a guess.

Well, maybe not completely with him, but Obama's words were poorly chosen. As the president noted himself, he didn't have all the details.

I also blame the press. If the people involved had both been of the same race, Obama would not have been asked about it. Those 24-hour news channels have got to fill all that time somehow.

However, j-mart, you do have a point that jd does seem obsessed with Obama's every move, more so than he was Bush. I suspect it isn't Obama per se, and that jd would behave the same way toward any Democratic president.

.. in his own house. The problem is that instead of coming out and explaining the situation to the police, his first reaction was to angrily reply "why, because I'm black?".

Because the bosses and DA never said any such thing. they just realize the political backlash would be more trouble than it is worth, and some fights are not worth winning.

that reported the break-in.

you first talked vaguely about the case and then went into a discussion about why it shouldn't be allowed, citing your case law.

It was phrased in a way that WE understandably misunderstood as you using your case law as a reason for how you think this case should have gone.

Text communication is easy for that to happen in.

What the report I read said was the person that reported the crime worked in the area, but lived elswhere. No recognition expected. Just suspiscioous activity. I would have done the same.

Fix the dam door and this never happened.

[i]I think the most disgusting part of the whole incident is one neighbor not recognizing another. [/i]

That's a sad, sad, thing.

I actually had a very similar experience happen to me a couple of years ago when I moved into my new home.

I decided to take a walk in my new neighborhood. So I just grabbed a key and went out the door.

Well, the key I took with me didn't actually work on the front door, and I didn't have the garage door opener setup yet. So, I had to jimmy a window to get into the house.

I had just gotten a home security system (that morning it was installed), and the long story short is that I tripped the alarm, but because of some issue with using VoIP and the system (had to get the motherboard replaced in the control unit afterwards), I wasn't able to cancel the alarm or speak with the customer service people.

Additionally,one of the new neighbors called the police to report suspicious activity.

So, I got a visit from the police.

When they got to the door, I let them in, let them look around, and was able to produce the home purchase papers as well as two forms of photo ID. I explained to them the situation (perfect storm of new home ownership & Murphy's Law), they laughed, and said have a good night. I thanked them for their quick response, and wished them a good and safe night, as well.

End of story.

Had I followed them out the door yelling about getting a visit, I have no doubt I probably would have gotten arrested for disorderly conduct. I would have deserved it, too.

The photo listed on Yahoo says a lot, I think. First, there is an African-American officer standing right there, so if you're going to cry racism, you're implying that he's a "sell-out". Second, Gates is either yelling, or laughing hysterically---given that his mouth is opened rather wide. Seeing how he has not had anything particularly funny to say about the situation, I'm going to assume he was yelling (hence---disorderly conduct). Finally, the cops don't appear to be 'man-handling' him. They seem to be leading him away carefully. I'd take this to mean that they didn't perceive him as a threat, nor held any sort of personal ill will. They all seem to have a very 'just doing the job' look about them.

I've seen cops that were pissed to the Nth degree. None of these officers in the photo look like that, in my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I am getting the vibe that a professor saw an opportunity for a great book/lecture series, and took it.

The cop was given the ID (two forms, with pictures), yet hung around inside the house asking questions, like he doubted the homeowner had a right to be in his home. I don't know how you can prove any better that you have a right to be in a house than what Gates showed him. Gates, 58 years old, an African-American Studies professor, did not fit the profile of a housbreaker. The officer apparently didn't like Gates getting short tempered with him, and didn't like that Gates wouldn't step outside the house when he came to the door. Once Gates did leave the house and told (probably louly and angrily) the police to leave his yard, he was arrested.

Now, Gates was stupid because he got the cop angry. Policemen often get a swollen sense of importance about themselves; it's just human nature, when you have the authority of force, to be like that. They will ignore right and wrong, a little, if they think you're a jerk who needs a lesson taught. Gates was by his own account carrying on about being a Harvard professor, and that is another way to alienate the affections of a working class guy, which is what most police are.

The arrest was stupid because it was not valid. You can't arrest a man for raising his voice in his own house. You can't even do it for a man raising his voice in his own front yard. Maybe if his neighbors were trying to sleep, but this was the middle of the day. Nope, the officer figured he'd had enough of this loudmouth, and he was going to show he could create more trouble for the him Gates expected. And he did, which is why Gates was dumb.

Obama, on the other hand, nailed it.

This, to me, doesn't sound like racial profiling. It's just the way police are. They do a difficult job, making things pleasant for establishement types who don't get their hands dirty; they don't like friction, and a lot of them don't really respect anyone who isn't a cop.

FYI, the cops have way more discretion to snatch you if you're outside of your private residence. And, they have considerable discretion, in a criminal investigation, to look at stuff and act on assumptions once they are in your house. (Is that a bong I see through the bedroom door? Cuff him, Danno.) So, it is in your interest to talk to them from inside your house, and to not let them in, if you don't know what's up and are not sure if you are a suspect.

I'm speaking as a middle aged white male who's never had any interaction with the police beyond license checks. I probably would have thanked the officer for checking out the situation, and agreed completely it looked like I was breaking in.

I also would have notified him that my ID is in my fanny pack, that it's a fanny pack and NOT a holster, and ask if he'd like to 'pat it down'. That's the same thing I do on the license checks, especially if I've tossed it under the car seat before exercising, going to sporting event, etc. No sense in alarming him.

On the other hand, that same fanny pack contains a spare house key. That whole Boy Scout 'Be Prepared' thing, don't cha kno?

Anybody else?

Maybe Obama meant something else entirely???

"stupid

can be used to amplify positive words, also can be used in conjunction with 'mad' or 'hella'
Dude, that hot dog was stupid good!

Your mom is mad stupid hot,yo! "

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stupid&page=2

;)

Gates annoyed a policeman. I don't know if the first words out of his mouth were "I'm black and you're a bigot," or if some discussion preceded it. You seem to be sure that's the case. It doesn't justify an arrest, though. Nothing justified the arrest. That's why charges were dropped.

If you can't speak your mind on your own turf, even to a policeman, what rights have you got? Of course, Gates should have just kept quiet, because he got a lousy end to his day for the pleasure of shooting off his mouth.

You say,
"You have no right to be abusive to anyone.
You have no right to be a complete posterior.
You have no right to follow anyone yelling at them."

Actually, in your own home and on your own front yard, you do have those rights. This is America. It doesn't make you the finest person in the land, but being less than perfect is a right, too. Breaking actual laws is the issue.

abusive words at someone and see what rights the police, neighbours, and judge allow you.

No one has the right, anywhere, to be screaming abuse at anyone.

It's your perfect right (in this English-speaking country) to dislike what a policeman is doing, especially when you are in your home. Everything that has been presented as justification for this policeman is just a "So, what?" non-sequitur.

And, I don't in any news account see that Gates objected about racial prejudice before getting his I.D. But if he did, so what? Is there a law broken?

There are property rights and personal rights. There's a human characteristic to be outraged when you're being ordered around in your own home, or when you've done nothing wrong. The cop had a job to do; he should be able to do it in the face of people who complain. If he needs to let off steam he should go home and kick his dog, like everybody else, and not arrest someone.

Who has the first rights in this country? The citizens, or the police? Conservatives should pay close attention to the question.

...and not rock music.

The 'Behind the Music' episode detailing the McCain-Palin ticket (and the reports of infighting) would have been pretty entertaining!

"He's a respected, maverick senator from Arizona
She's an unknown governor from Alaska
More proof that sun and snow don't mix
Next, on Behind the Music: the Failing of McCain-Palin"

Yeah, but man is she HOT! ]:)

what did you do to set them off?

Yes, it was stupid of TheObama to make that statement, which is exactly why is isn't saying it anymore.