Obama "acted stupidly"

...I have little doubt.

That, or it will be an angle on The Daily Show. :)

He is smarter than to make accusations like that, especially after he just finished admitting he didn't know the facts in the case.

I know that is a little complex an idea for a blind follower to comprehend.

TheObama was stupid for making such ignorant statements.

Gates was stupid for being the poor black victim instead of showing his ID when the police following proper procedure questioned him and who he was.

The cop for allowing Gates to piss him off.

if she had a reason.

When the police got there, the white trash ho was dismissed and sent packing while the calm, polite people were treated with respect and left to go their merry way with a "have a good night".

And pay attention, he REFUSED to provide ID when the police first got on the scene. He was NOT acting like you would expect an intelligent professor to act.

Stewart tries to get on the set, has to jimmy a door, black security officer shows up and pats him down, then drags him away as they bleep out every third word.

too difficult for a zealot to open their mind and see the man was saying what the police officer did was questionable.

I'm sure if it had been your mom that had been done to...or your son...you would question why too.

Wait...did you just say Obama is smarter than that? Was that a compliment?

Again, his right to question the motives of an officer are no more stupid than your right to question his motives with healthcare reform.

So if it was stupid...irresponsible...etc... then your comments have been too.

I think that if he had had the privilege of being white, he might have understood that anybody can be pushed around by a policeman for poor reasons. (Yet, a surprising number of white contributors to this discussion don't seem to get that point, either.) It simply does not behoove one to yak on about one's rights and police injustice, unless, as Mr. Gates has discovered, one wants to take a trip downtown. Keep it quiet and respectful, and don't make the man with the gun feel threatened.

What TheObama should have said is that the issue was being reviewed.

It was stupid of him to say he didn't know the facts of the case and then proceed to condemn the cops, based upon his lack of information.

"The police acted stupidly..." Well, I can't disagree with that. At least, one policeman did. He got annoyed with Gates, and probably did things to annoy Gates too (do you doubt that?), and then arrested him on charges that nobody could make stick, and embarassed his city and department. Fits the definition.

Obama didn't need to call attention to himself in this. He did make the implied distinction between stupid behavior and racially motivated behavior. However, it was unnecessary, and it costs Obama. So, if you're looking for an admission from me, I'd have to agree Obama was a little bit stupid in saying this.

Not that he called it wrong. It was just unnecessary.

what he was told by his friend.

And what you have (in essence) said to me is that if any of your friends tells you that the cops came in their house after they had to break a window to get in, they showed the cop ID, and still got arrested...your first question wouldn't be "Are you okay?" but "What did you do to them?".

I know you're a hardliner, but to treat your friends like that?

I trust my friends more than I do cops.

to see the papers this professor of African American studies has written.

And no, I would never start running my mouth on global television trashing the cops. It was stupid of TheObama to do so.

That he ADMITTED he didn't know the facts before running his mouth is simply ignored by his blind followers (you).

he showed his ID card from Harvard University. I didn't know that Harvard was considered to be a state.

;-)

In the spring I watched a very interesting series on PBS called "Looking for Lincoln" that was hosted by Mr. Gates. He wrote it, produced it and hosted it. He interviewed 2 former presidents(GW BUsh and Clinton), historians, academics and others.

He came across as a fair and balanced author, seeking to understand Lincoln in the context of his times rather than judging him to a modern standard.

I have also seen him promoting books on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

Now many people have differing personas off camera.

Or maybe after a long trip the guy was just tired and irritable.

Obama, on the other hand, had time to reflect, and was under no compunction to say anything about it. Saying; "I don't know all the particulars of the case and don't want to rush to judegment before we know the facts" would have been the more prudent thing to do.

James

For the prez to say so may not have been so bright, but this cop definitely left his brainpower worksheet at home that day.

It's one of the first things they teach you in investigations. I don't know about US cops but RCMP and city cops here are very focused on noting all details when in ANY situation, be it on the street, a roadside stop or in someone's home. Looking at every detail in such situations and being obsevrant that way is imperative.

In short, I must comply and show ID, beyond that I have no oligations to prove further evidence, listen to a single word they have to say. If ID is in question or the matter is to move any farther forward, they have to place me under arrest, read me my rights, explain exactly what I am under arrest for.

At that time I have no obligation to let them search my home, provide any bodily fliuds or anything else until I have spoken with a lawyer.

If they enter you home and you provide ID, you can say whatever the hell I want to them, certainly if I am later arrested for a crime anything I say can be used to demonstrate my character in court.

But as far as a properly trained cop is concerned, you can say whatever the hell you want to them and unless you have comitted a crime (such verbal altercation with police here is not a crime unless you are beligerant or impeding investigation) they can't act upon it. That's what their training teaches them, nobody likes cops and they will face such abuse, must deal with it and complete their duty without further altercation. Again that is unless you are violent, intoxicated in public, impeding an investigation etc., but those are crimes in themselves.

I was out for a drive, ran through three different drunk driving road blocks (that time of year). They all asked for ID which was quickly presented to them. I hadn't had a drop to drink and when asked if I had been drinking I always answered, "No, not a drop tonight". That was enough for two of them and I was waved on.

The third stop, when I said 'no' he again asked "are you SURE you haven't had anything to drink? Would you be willing to take afield sobriety test?"

I answered "No problem at all, and no, I have not had anything to drink whatsoever."

He asked me to pull aside his car and get out, which I did. He then asked AGAIN, "Before I do the test, are you sure there isn't anything you want to tell me?"

My response was "beyond just giving me the test and letting me prove it, no I don't want to say anything else."

He went and got the tester and AGAIN said "now's the time to come clean with me, it could save you a lot of trouble, are you sure you haven't had anythign to drink?" He is now going too far, so I got PO'd and said, "No, why don't you just let me take the f'in test already so we can all get on with our lives?"

He scowled but until I have comitted an offense He can't do anything.

I blew a clean test and he apologized for the misunderstanding, told me I could be on my way and that he would hold trafic while I pulled out.

I said "well, f**k you very much but you could have saved us both the hassle by just doing your job instead of playing your stupid games" then I got in my truck and drove away.

I upheld my legal obligations, he was just being a dick and he knew he was pushing it.

He can ask me, he can give me an opportunity to change my mind but once I agree to a field test he is obligated to do so without delay, and he knew it but thought he was catching me BS'ing him.

Even if that's the case though, there's one way to solve it, without further questions, let me blow the damn tester and get on my way or be arrested for drunk driving.

There's no reason to bow to police,they are just "public servants". Now go draw my bath and fetch my slippers, 'officer'.

The ONLY issue you have with this entire scene is that Obama commented on it. Otherwise you wouldn't have batted an eye and most likely would have defended the man for having his home invaded. i wouldn't be surprised if you had gone down the, enter my home and get shot, path; it echo's your normal defense anyway.

But when the first word of your title is "Obama" your following comments have zero crediblity afforded to thye as people know what your real game is. the fact that you said he acted stupidy just adds to that viewpoint.

Funny how your follow up comments are all focused on police and righful enforcement and not Obama though, as that was shown as the root for your post. If your problem is with the actions of the homeowner, keep it that way, "Homeowner acts stuipdly" if it is with the police response (as I think it normally would have been)then say "POlice acted stupidly" but you just can't help but have a shot at Obama, even though your real issue lays elswhere because He commented on it. Now of course you will have a shot at me, because I commented on it too.

Just far too predictable and sans credibility.

was it or was it not stupid of Obama to make an inflammatory statement after admitting he didn't know what he was talking about?

It is a simple yes or no.

without taking the test, there is the chance you were drinking but not enough to be breaking any laws? Just a guess.

Any time a cop says "it will go easier on you" is the perfect time to STFU.

Then again, being it is you we are talking about, all the time is a good time to STFU, huh? :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

[i]""I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently.""[/i]

Yeah, saying they acted stupidly DID malign them.

I was surprised that Obama came to that conclusion when he didn't know the facts. Usually he is more measured in his responses. I think the healthcare press conference was hijacked by something that should have been handled locally.

AV

Are well known to open their mouths often sometimes what they say makes sense sometimes not, sometimes what they say is taken out of contex, sometimes what gets reported is only a small slice taken from a larger comment, intentionally to distort, by the media. Obsessing on every word spouted by a politician, or reported by the press is a poor way of judging a politician's performance. The only true way is to see if they make your country a better place to live in than it was before they came along, its not what they say that counts, it is what they achieve.

is that generally he doesn't act this stupid.
The previous moron president we could understand doing stupid things because he did them all the time and could not even pronounce words right or countries.

This was totally idiotic for Obama to state. As Brian Williams put in graphic with this, it is the 'Bully Pulpit', one name for figures in power stating their predetermined views on a case before they know jack sh*t about what actually happened.

Republicans politicians have done the same. My view is that politicians SHOULD NOT state opinions on police actions or arrests. They should LET THE JUSTiCE SYSTEM RUN ITS COURSE!

This would NOT be an infringements on politicians 1st amendment rights as they are in a position of power so it is inappropriate for them to state positions on current cases.

In this case, looks like the harvard prof either had a stick up his a**, or has his own prejudices about how the justice system always fails african americans, so his calcified brain got an infarct when the cop actually let him go.

Perhaps due to his apparent hate of cops and the 'white' justice system, he had 'setup' a case hoping to show his students how bad the justice system is, and it backfired on him.

You all know the 'facts'. He was breaking into his own home, someone called the cops. They asked him for his ID then let him go. He wasn't content with this and went into a pre-juvenile temper tantrum, which resulted in him being arrested.

Another possibility is that he is hypertensive. This afflicts african americans to a larger degree than other sectors of the population.

When in a situation the first thing you concentrate on is the person you're dealing with, especially if they are acting troublesome. Your partner is the one looking around for other threats while you deal with the initial possible threat. Once you're happy that is not, or no longer, a threat is when you have a good look at the surroundings.

In this case he would be concentrating on Gates until he provides ID he lives there. After that he'd look at the walls and photos.

At least, that was the way it was taught when I went through the NSW Police Academy.

citizens too, they don't give up any of their rights when they put the uniform on, although they do grow a thicker skin.

Being loudly abusive of anyone anywhere is breaking the law.

When he said "I don't know all the details."

Anything he could possibly have said after that (except perhaps "So I'll reserve judgment") would have been incendiary.

"I don't know all the details." should have been the end of the paragraph. Maybe it was a teleprompter malfunction :)

you DO watch.

The point is that the leader of the "less free than it used to be" world pulled the biggest boner since Gore's "Who are those guys" comment at Montecello!

[i] Is it against the law to raise your voice in your own home? [/i]

But doing it on your front porch makes you far more likely to be "Disturbing the peace".

And if the policeman told you to tone it down and you didn't, it can quickly become "Disorderly conduct" or "Failure to follow a lawful order"

When a police officer tells you to do something, you comply (unless compliance would clearly be illegal or dangerous...for example, a cop comes up behind you in a desolate area and turns on his lights... you are permitted to proceed slowly to a well lit area before pulling over). If you have a beef, take it up afterward using the proper procedures for such, but in the heat of the moment, compliance is expected.

[i]I don't know if [/i]

We don't know for sure what really went on... We may never know...

Attracts the June bugs.

0. "I don't know all the details".

Kinda detracts from the relevance of the others.

[i]To assume the white officer HAD to be wrong and say so to the world like that is poor judgment on his part.[/i]

Wouldn't that be "racial profiling"?

Harvard is the CAPITOL of racial profiling ... er...I mean... affirmative action :)

How?

Your Man-Crush on Obama is disturbing, yet adorable!

Every day, you sit on the edge or your seat waiting for every single word that issues from his ever so full lips. Just waiting for that little thing which gives you that little itch that is so delicious to scratch.

You are SHAMELESS!!!

You've got Gates mouth open and screaming about something, probably more abuse.

Two very bored looking white cops near him.

One extremely bored looking black cop about two metres in front of Gates and the officer holding Gates' arm.

From the way the hand is on the arm, you can see there is not much pressure or strength in the hold, more like a directing touch.

The whole scene gives an overall impression of three bored cops trying to calm down an extremely agitated person.

Doing something while you're in authority that you'll regret later is human. Hell, doing something at home that you'll regret later is human too.
He made a mistake. I'm over it. What do you want, a perfect President? Not gonna happen in this lifetime.

offence under the telecommunications act, and they can trace the link.

It was not me that said he was a law professor, so not my mistake to correct. As the updates did come out, I tried to add them in.

Should I also apologize because Gates is pissed to not be born white? Not likely.

Racism is alive and real in the world today, and we hold no corner on the market. It should just never be excused when it is made public. A good start is people realizing a lot of the racism is a two way street.

did you hear his voice when he said it? He was pissed.

This goes back to people saying that he grew up surrounded by racists has no bearings on his thought. He sat and listened to anti-white, anti-American crap for 20 years, and it does effect you. And some reports list Gates as one of his mentors.

He took it personally and assumed that the white officer HAD to be racist for things to end up like they did.

because everyone knows you can't be racist if you are black.

HALF white man? I have heard that.

Mind you, not by anyone in his inner circle. I remember when he first stepped up, the fear was he was two black for the whites and to white for the blacks. Never heard anything about his white history or roots, and the only grandma pictures that surfaced were of his black grandma, NOT the white one that raised him.

All a bunch of crap that shouldn't have mattered. There were so many REAL issues with his stances that warned against electing this man.

I only pointed out he was not a law prof because some (not you) thought he was, and their posts seemed like that misapprehension was about to become a topic of discussion in itself.

Also, out of nowhere, you bring up this business about mutual racism. Are you worried that the end of prejudice in this society may bring about your subjugation? That your boys may wind up fetching coffee in the plantation halls of some black massa, or for some wise latina woman? You should carry a small paper bag you can puff into when you fall into this kind of hyperventilating despair. Get a Scotch, hug your boys, and remind yourself that the white non-latin folk (75% of the country) are still masters of everybody's destiny.

About the only unlawful order a cop can give is like, "Give me $20, now!" Do you feel obliged to follow orders whenever a man with a badge shouts at you? Like, "Get back inside and stop watching. This is police business." What if the cop's wife wouldn't be pushed around and now he wants to make YOU go the extra mile? You go nuts about govenment intrusion whenever any body wants to tax you for something or create a social program, but don't you see police commands as an intrusion upon civil life? Your front yard is not a war zone, you know. Neither was Gates's.

I think racism is stupid, and is carried on by stupid people.

I am willing to accept people as my equal regardless of race or gender. Why would that be a problem?

I realize old people have lived through things I never had to, but the longer they hold on to it, the longer it takes for the rest of the world to become more civil and get beyond it.

to "get back inside", I would assume he had a good reason to do so (in fact, there was such an instance a couple of years ago here... when a man who had shot and killed a local police officer escaped from jail You might remember... John Parsons... Made the national news). If I discovered that wasn't the case, I'd complain appropriately.

My beef with the tax system would probably need a book to explain, but the (really really) short version is that it robs everyone but those at the top of most of the political influence they have over how their country is run.

Taxes, like every other business cost, is passed down to consumers. That means that only those who can't pass it onto someone else are really paying it.

Like it or not, those who pay a lot of taxes have a lot of influence on legislation in this country, and that would hold true regardless of the tax system, even one without loopholes and shelters. But the insidious thing about the current system is that it allows those who pay a lot of taxes to not only have their own influence, but the influence of those lower than they on the economic mountain whose taxes they pay due to the progressiveness of the system. Not only that, they then turn around and recoup that tax money paid in the form of higher prices for their goods and services!

In essence they're sitting on top of the mountain, chucking boulders down at anyone who dares try to climb it. Personally, I'd rather pay more taxes, have lower prices (which will effectively cancel each other out) and retain all of the influence my work entitles me to. A side effect of this will be the removal of a lot of barriers that keep a lot of people down. There will still be boulders chucked down the mountain, but not nearly as many, and they won't have been bought with other people's money.

There's more, like how the Federal Reserve makes Bernie Madoff look like a kid stealing a candy bar, and how they're cooking the books for the 'Old Money People' to make the current situation look much less dire than it actually is, but you'll have to wait for the book :)

I don't necessarily trash talk officials online but people in my living room hear it all when I'm faced with political BS on TV or in the news. No laws against that, as far as I know.
Once I was in public talking about the Bush administration to one man and my voice carried over to the waiting crowd at the Secretary of State office. A man's voice in the crowd said, "That's dangerous talk,boy." I almost laughed right out loud. Dangerous talk? Who decides that? I hardly said anything threatening towards the then President but I was harshly critical of some things that happened during his Administration. What's next? Loss of the right to talk to someone else? It's sad that some people think they have that control over others.

it's the use of certain words that's unlawful, and it doesn't matter the context you use them in.

Kind of like this forum, certain words are banned.
I might swear like a trooper in private but I rarely swear in public, so the "dangerous talk" dude was objecting to my saying that waterboarding is torture, among other things, all explained quietly and calmly to a like-minded man.
I'm not sure which of us the "dangerous talk" dude was referring to but I usually assume that it's me. I'm a freak magnet.

After all, I keep reading, don't I? :D

because he can usually create more trouble for you than you can for him. And, usually, he's just doing a job, and you show him what he wants, he's satisfied, he goes away. For example, if you're stopped in Virginia and the patrolman wants to search your truck for a radar detector (detectors are illegal there,) you're supposed to be able to say no, show me a search warrant or you don't get in there. However, if you do that, you discover he has great freedom to detain you for any number of reasons, and make you and your load at least 24 hours late, so you'd better let him just go ahead.

However, it's not the law that you do it just like that. Sometimes the dignity of your person or your property requires that you object. So you pick your moments carefully.

Canada was once protected by the British Imperial Army, which later developed into the RCMP. Canadian police and Scotland Yard are joined ta the hip.

That aside, think about what I had said and what you had said for just one second.

You first stated that the attending officers would not have taken in the surroundings in a suspected crime scene as they need to focus on the man in question, which is simply ridiculous; their surroundings are checked right away. I explained that such observation is the basis of their training. Your only retort is that the officer speaking with the suspect is more focused on the suspect and that his partner would be looking at other things around the scene.

So what? Hi partner is a mute or the investigating officer is deaf? They both have a clear duty to ensure each other's safety and work together to resolve the situation but are not to communicate what they notice?

Are you saying that just one of the cops was stupid for not notifying his partner that the pictures on the wall were of the man he was suspecting of a crime?

Yeah, that makes sense, great defense of an incorrect assertion.

The evil, racist, hatemonger who is hell bent on purposely destroying America as we know it today has addressed his earlier comments himself.

Though he has not apologized for his reaction and in most minds has no reason to, Obama has accepted that he used a poor choice of words.

"At an impromptu appearance at the daily white House briefing, Obama said he spoke with Crowley over the phone, and said he wanted to share a beer with Crowley and Gates at the White House."

""Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."

"My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve it the way the wanted to resolve it," Obama added."

That's a hell of a lot more than Lord Bush would have offered.

I've many photos of many people on my wall. When I was first divorced, before I moved house, there were many photos on the wall with my ex it, but she had no legal right to be in the house at that time.

From the report the guy Gates was belligerent from the outset, so the cop dealing with him would concentrate on him and his partner would be checking the surroundings - it's that simple. As to the partner getting a word in edgewise while Gates is mouthing off and the first cop is asking for ID again - pretty hard. Also, he wouldn't interrupt his partner unless he thought he was going off track or there was another danger.

The first cop had a task of getting ID while the other cop is watching his back. Failure by either could, and has, resulted in dead officers from threats on the periphery.

[i]It's generally smart policy to suck up to the policeman because he can usually create more trouble for you than you can for him.[/i]

On the other hand, if I choose to ignore the cop, and I am killed because of whatever was going on, I won't be asserting any more rights.

I've been thinking about this possible scenario:

A Cop gets a call to check out a reported break-in. He goes to the address and finds evidence of a break-in and someone in the house. The person in the house shows his id and there are pictures of him in the house. So the cop decides that's good enough, apologizes to the man and leaves.

The next day cops get a call to investigate a dead body found at that same address. An investigation reveals that the dead body is the estranged wife of the man that had broken into the house the night before. Furthermore, she had a restraining order against her husband and had changed the locks on the house so that he couldn't enter.

It turns out that after the cop left the night before, the man in the house hid out and waited on his estranged wife to return home and then killed her.

Now, instead of everyone saying the cop over-stepped boundries and was harassing the man the night before, they will be complaining that the cop did a half-a$$ed job of investigating and due to that a woman lost her life. It seems the cop just can't win huh?

edited to add:
posted at the wrong level, this was in response to https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=313898&messageID=3126262

it would require some honesty in approaching this discussion.

People saying the cop was out of line are either defending TheObama, or are making the assumption the cop was a racist, harrassing the poor black man in his home for no reason.

Gates had the opportunity to clear up the legitimate investigation, but made the poor choice of pulling out the race card instead.
[i]
?Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!?

If a policeman sees ID on demand, and then doubts the validity of the ID and the home owner presenting it, and then asks him about his relationship with his wife or if he has any personal history of run-ins with the law, and is entitled to go on until he runs out of doubts or gets bored, then where are the citizen's rights? If he can be detained in his home by an agent of the state with nothing more to go on than a suspicious mind and an active imagination, if he has presented ID that proves he is at his home address, then how is a citizen ever to be secure in his property?

If you get stopped in your car because you left a bar, and the registration is in your wife's name, would you happily sit for an hour answering questions while the policeman made up scenarios that challenged your right to drive your car?

Do you think that police are some kind of super-citizens, with more rights than you?

We had a revolution to address issues like this, you know.

Is it's own country (or most the people there act like it) :^0

Point I was trying to make:

What I'd heard when it first came out was that Gates showed the officer ID to prove who he was.

Guess it's my fault for assuming that people know what a proper means of identification is.

[i]And no, I would never start running my mouth on global television trashing the cops. It was stupid of TheObama to do so.[/i]

But, you trashed Obama on here long ago, an internationally available website, and you didn't know everything about him. Much as he didn't know everything about the cop.

Nice. Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle.

It's part of an investigation, as well as the cops holding it in case Gates tries to sue.

As I said, I'd heard that he provided ID to the officer proving who he was and that it was his residence. To me, that should have been enough for the officer (uniformed or not) to end questioning of Gates.

Gates does have a right not to allow the officer to search his home. Period. The officer then has the option to gain a warrant if he so thinks there's any malintent of not allowing him to do so.

But, I also heard that when the officer told Gates he wanted to speak to him outside that Gates replied "Yo mama will talk to you outside". That, in itself, lends enough evidence that Gates was definitely in the wrong.

You can have an attitude with a cop if the cop gives you an attitude.

You can refuse to let a cop search your house if he asks.

You can get upset with the cop if he doesn't stop questioning why you are in your own home after you present him with ID showing it's your residence.

However, that would be when (if the cop is pursuing things he has no reason to...like questioning you after showing such ID) you ask to have the officer's supervisor come down...not tell him about "yo mama".

That is where Gates was definitely in the wrong. That shows his lack of integrity...tired or not.

And obviously, Obama had not been made aware of that piece of info.

And evidently, a man like Gates isn't someone I would call my friend anymore if he could not tell me the entire truth about circumstances that happened.

Gates is evidently not smart enough not to say those things to a cop, as well as not have the ability to hold his tongue.

I doubt they will pursue charges against Gates for disorderly. I think Delbert is right. The cop probably said or did things that didn't make the situation any easier.

Did Obama handle it poorly? Maybe. But, it wouldn't be the first time anyone in politics got picked on because he didn't use the politically correct words to say something.

Biden, Bush, McCain, Palin, Lott, Gingrich, etc. They've all been picked at for their words. It won't end, because they will always have their detractors. And, there is always the media to spin news stories.

Delbert I would agree with you if the cop just showed up at the house without cause or randomnly stopped the guy on the street. Since the cop was responding to a reported break in, my opinion is that it was his duty to make sure everything was on the up and up before he left the scene.

saying he could have chosen his words differently is NOT apologizing. That would be like me saying something offensive and then following it up with "sorry you were offended". Not the same as "sorry I said that".

He only "backed away" from his stronger language of "stupid", but never apologized for it.

As for changing topic, it was still about TheObama. He went around the world apologizing for America in the past (not him), and will NOT step up now and apologize for himself.

Relations between the police and the black community was not on good terms before this, and to have him do what he did only makes REAL problems worse.

When did Obama come out directly and say he was at war with police? Show me a quote. Please. I [b]beg[/b] you.

BTW, Bush's actions were not entirely sensitive to the non-radical muslim world...from the fact he didn't get the nod from most Muslim nations to do what he did...to the naming of operations approved by his administration and the military under [b]his[/b] command that had to be renamed because of his administration's cultural insensitivity.

He slapped the Muslim world in the face a few times. Just because it got swept under the rug doesn't mean he didn't need to apologize for it.

BTW, I've heard lots of Muslim people from various factions state that Muslim is a religion of kindness and understanding. Then the next day, radical muslims blow up more innocent people.

Saying one thing, and then the actions of your own doing a polar opposite...makes you seem ungenuine and insincere.

Whether you're Bush...or a Muslim.

when the police are on the scene investigating a reported crime, they do NOT need a warrant to come in and confirm the reported crime.

If Gates would have simply shown his ID, explained his door was jammed, and THANKED the police for having quick response in the reporting of a breaking of his house, (which is protecting him and his racist arrogant ass), things would have been defused within minutes. Instead, the arrogant HAVad professor only saw "the man" hassling a black man. HE was wrong from the word go.

TheObama was wrong from the second he voiced his opinion using the word stupid, which he has not and will not apologize for.

It was all a big pile on, to see who could make the situation worse.

The report I heard about the recordings show the professors story was a fabrication (lie).

It is also said Gates DID make comments both racist and against the officers mother, but I haven't really heard confirmation or direct quotes.

[i]when the police are on the scene investigating a reported crime, they do NOT need a warrant to come in and confirm the reported crime.[/i]

Once the resident of the domicile establishes his/her residency, you can no longer consider them a "suspect" to a break-in of their own home. Period.

That's like saying you can convict someone of theft when they never stole.

Besides, the reports say Gates used a key to get in a back door...so, there was no break-in.

[i]If Gates would have simply shown his ID, explained his door was jammed, and THANKED the police for having quick response in the reporting of a breaking of his house, (which is protecting him and his racist arrogant ass), things would have been defused within minutes. Instead, the arrogant HAVad professor only saw "the man" hassling a black man. HE was wrong from the word go.[/i]

If the Officer would have simply taken the ID, checked it, and confirmed his identity and THANKED him and left...it never would have happened either.

BTW, BOTH accounts (the police report and Gates' own statement) said he produced ID to the officer. So, that has been settled. Gates said he gave the MA license, the officer said he gave a Harvard ID and that he radioed Harvard police.

Either way, the cop knew he lived there. Period. So why did he continue to question Gates? Doesn't sound weird at all? Nothing out of the ordinary?

[i]TheObama was wrong from the second he voiced his opinion using the word stupid, which he has not and will not apologize for.[/i]

Oh well. Others haven't apologized for things they've said or done that were wrong too.

Let's start with dead people owning slaves apologizing and then we can move to white man forcing Native Americans at gunpoint across the Trail of Tears. Then, we can go with the US government giving Japanese Americans reparations for having imprisoned them during WWII.

[i]It was all a big pile on, to see who could make the situation worse.[/i]

Yep. Everyone's out to get the white man. Boohoo.

We need us another good ole boy in the White House to load up the shotgun and run this country like it should be.

[i]The report I heard about the recordings show the professors story was a fabrication (lie).[/i]

Evidently, Gates has someone to back up his testimony of how he got in his house. The driver that brought him back from the airport apparently helped him try to open his front door.

[i]It is also said Gates DID make comments both racist and against the officers mother, but I haven't really heard confirmation or direct quotes.[/i]

I never have seen where Gates used a racial epithet or derrogatory slander against the officer's race. Just the "yo mama" comment, which is a moot point...that was wrong...and his questioning of his motive of continuing to question him about why he was there in his own house.

I don't blame him. If a cop was asking me about being in my own home, I'd not thank him and in fact would ask to speak to his supervisor or shift commander immediately.

Once you know I am the [b]rightful[/b] person to be in the domicile, your investigation of a break-in is moot. Period.

is what it's all about. From the reports it goes:

Cop arrives to see slightly damaged door and man inside.

Cop asks for ID and proof of residence.

Gates shows Harvard ID - now I could be wrong here, but if it's like any of the University IDs I've seen it does NOT have his home address.

Having gotten proof who Gates is, he now asks for ID with an address that shows why he's in this house.

Eventually he gets it and goes to leave.

Somewhere in there Gates refused to show ID, was reluctant to show more (a common thing if flashing fake ID), and was abusive to the officer.

When the officer left he followed him and started in with more abuse.

Now the picture taken by a neighbour shows the cops in full uniform and the cop's partner is a black cop who looks extremely bored with Gates' BS.

However you try to cut this, Gates screwed up big time. Should the cop have let Gates get away with being extremely verbally abusive for several minutes or only a few, that's another issue and a lot will depend upon what is said - that we do not know.

One, the number of people that get the messages I post.

Two, the credibility of the position is just a little bit different.

I speak for myself, TheObama speaks for the Government, and the country.

[i]"Did Obama handle it poorly? Maybe."[/i]

There is NO "maybe" about it, even for a devout supporter such as yourself.

I don't believe that the police officer was a total angel.

As well, the actual police report (Crowley's own written statement) says:

[i]"I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at -marked out- Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card."[/i]

So, the officer had gotten ID and had called the University police to verify it.

As for what a Harvard University ID looks like, I'm not sure. My university ID did have my name, student #, address, and photo on it.

One thing I didn't see in the officer's report is his apologizing to Gates for the confusion and thanking him for his time.

I guess that's too much to ask of a police officer to do...be polite.

If government officials were the only people we had to worry about representing our country, we'd have it easy.

Being you post here in front of people from well over 20 nations, you represent America whether you like it or not.

Just like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are seen doing on TV and in magazines, what you say here is seen by others...and whether it's you giving someone the impression of what Americans are like to several hundred...or Paris to millions...you do have an influence.

Just remember that.

So stop just making crap up to defend a nonexistet point. Face it, you said they shouldn't be focused on surroundings, this is completely wrong and NO police deparment, even in Australia, will help you defend that point.

However you actuyally feel it is an important point worth defending, by making up other stuff in defense. Grow up.

I never implied it was ID but putting two and two together is what smart police do. The guy SAYS he lives there, has ID with the address and his picture on it, there are pictures all over with him and his grandkids, a big salmon or whatever on them, putting the links together it just MAY e that he lives there!

Fortunately the police seem to be a little quicker to the draw than you, I am not sure [i](nor do I care to hear about)[/i] why you didn't choose to continue with such a career but it was most likely a good choice on your part regardless of why. Your past demontrated understanding of law, is one where the defendant begs to represent himself instead, your current description of police work and inability to see more than one line of action on a house call is one that would leave fellow cops in the car, also begging for backup.

The world came out lucky on that one and Australian's can rest assured that you won't be trying to warp justice with your own misguided understanding of investigations anytime soon.

Did Bush handle things poorly? Maybe. Depends on your stance.

Did Clinton handle things poorly? Maybe. Depends on your stance.

I don't criticize Obama's questioning of their intent. That's freedom of speech. And yes, Gates did some REALLY stupid things. But, it sounds like the officer did too.

Hell, I think the cop was not the most polite person he could be. He refused to show ID to the Gates. That in itself is usually a no-no. Civil servants are usually required to show ID upon request by the public. He only stated in his own written brief that he told Gates his name. He never said he showed Gates ID.

That officer could have very well apologized to Gates after explaining why he was there and confirming his identity and residence, apologized for the misunderstanding, and left the residency (by shutting the door behind him when he went outside). It said that Figueroa (the other officer on scene) had talked to the complainant (Ms. Whalen). So, Crowley didn't need to stay to do that.

And, I wouldn't bet my life that Crowley had been an angel or been absolutely polite about things.

You're giving the policeman all the benefit of the doubt rather than trying to derive what happened by listening to both parts of the story.