• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top scholar Gates arrested in Mass., claims racism

Catz Part Deux said:
Have you seen the transcript of the 911 call?

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan



For me, at least, it puts a different spin on things.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting this Catz. Yes this puts a totally new spin. The caller seemed to imply that the 2 might actually live there. She stated suitcases. So now this brings us back to the police report. The lady stated she didn't speak with the cop, the police report states she did and that she said there were two black men with backpacks. So now is the police report an error or did the cop who filed it make a false claim?

Also on Fox News, Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano had this to says that the law “allows an arrest for being disorderly if you are in public. … So if Professor Gates was arrested because of the words he used to police inside his house, on the front porch or on the front lawn, it was an improper arrest.”

"The law says, unless [a police officer] witnesses a felony…or unless he has a piece of paper from a judge—a search warrant or an arrest warrant—saying “you can go in that house,” he can’t go in the house. So when Professor Gates said “no you can’t come in,” and the police went in anyway [the police] violated the federal Constitution."

Raw Story Fox legal analyst: Gates arrest was improper

There is plenty of precedent in the supreme court regarding the castle doctrine. Without the officer witnessing a crime the officer would have needed permission to enter Gates' house. Once again the arrest was unlawful and even this judge has stated so.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
See above about how descriptions change from the 911 call to speaking with a person face to face.

:roll:

The description that the officer received and put in his report was the one obtained from the caller in a face to face meeting with her before he went to the home.
Click to expand...

Crowley never spoke with the caller face to face. Lucia Whalen has stated that she never had a conversation with Crowley at the scene. Meanwhile Crowley states that he did. Someone isn't telling the truth either Whalen or Crowley.

911 caller in Gates arrest never referred to 'black suspects' - CNN.com
 
WillRockwell said:
Problem is, in his police report Crowley claimed the witness said she saw "two black males with backpacks". She did not say that, so there is at least one instance of Crowley falsifying his report.
Click to expand...

I think is more of a mistake than a deliberate falsification. Crowley is not going off what the caller said to the dispatcher, he's going off what the dispatcher said to him. There could have been a disconnect there. I don't know.
 
Lerxst said:
I think is more of a mistake than a deliberate falsification. Crowley is not going off what the caller said to the dispatcher, he's going off what the dispatcher said to him. There could have been a disconnect there. I don't know.
Click to expand...

There's just a problem though Lerx the caller didn't mention to the dispatcher race she thought maybe hispanic. Somewhere between the dispatcher to Crowley to the report the information was inserted saying the caller spoke to Crowley on the scene and told Crowley two black men with backpacks were in the house. Whalen says she never spoke to Crowley. Crowley maintains that she did. Something is wrong here.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Problem is, in his police report Crowley claimed the witness said she saw "two black males with backpacks". She did not say that, so there is at least one instance of Crowley falsifying his report.
Click to expand...


Once again ignoring the difference between what was stated in the 911 call, and what was stated to Crowley's face when he met the witness at the scene BEFORE going over to Gate's residence.
 
Caine said:
Once again ignoring the difference between what was stated in the 911 call, and what was stated to Crowley's face when he met the witness at the scene BEFORE going over to Gate's residence.
Click to expand...

She claims she never said it.
 
WillRockwell said:
She claims she never said it.
Click to expand...

Afraid of being labeled a racist probably.

In today's PC world, even mentioning a suspects race while describing him, if he is black, is considered racist. :roll:
 
Caine said:
Afraid of being labeled a racist probably.

In today's PC world, even mentioning a suspects race while describing him, if he is black, is considered racist. :roll:
Click to expand...

Ms. Whalen’s statements contradict the police report filed by Sgt. James Crowley, who said Ms. Whalen told him outside Mr. Gates’s home that she had seen “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks” on the porch of the yellow single-family house.

Ms. Whalen said that the only words she exchanged with Sergeant Crowley in person were, “I was the 911 caller.”
Click to expand...
Lucia Whelan: 911 Caller in Gates Arrest Holds Press Conference | NowPublic News Coverage
 
WillRockwell said:
Ms. Whalen said that the only words she exchanged with Sergeant Crowley in person were, “I was the 911 caller.”
Click to expand...

That's not believable.

The statement requires one to assume the cop was soooo stupid that he would not take the time to get a clarification from the reporting witness before entering the building.

The statement also requires one to assume that the reporting witness would have nothing to add to the cops she called to the scene when they got there.

Both assumptions deny the reality of human nature.

Clearly it's a lie.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's not believable.

The statement requires one to assume the cop was soooo stupid that he would not take the time to get a clarification from the reporting witness before entering the building.

The statement also requires one to assume that the reporting witness would have nothing to add to the cops she called to the scene when they got there.

Both assumptions deny the reality of human nature.

Clearly it's a lie.
Click to expand...

You are really a piece of work :doh
 
Now, we have to ask ourselves why would someone lie about talking to the cops they themselves called for?

Well, after the incident, the media turned everything into a circus, and even the president of the United States put his racist oar in to stir things up. Possibly this woman didn't want the local chapter of the New Black Panthers burning her house down, since the Justice Department refuses to prosecute them for crimes committed.

The president of the United States, the Messiah His Holy Self, called the intervention by the cops "stupid", what does that say about the damned white-eye citizen that called it in? Why would she want to escalate her involvement by saying what actually happened, when all that's going to get her is grief?

This is how good neighbors are rewarded in this post-racism age.
 
PogueMoran said:
Thanks for posting this Catz. Yes this puts a totally new spin. The caller seemed to imply that the 2 might actually live there. She stated suitcases. So now this brings us back to the police report. The lady stated she didn't speak with the cop, the police report states she did and that she said there were two black men with backpacks. So now is the police report an error or did the cop who filed it make a false claim?

Also on Fox News, Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano had this to says that the law “allows an arrest for being disorderly if you are in public. … So if Professor Gates was arrested because of the words he used to police inside his house, on the front porch or on the front lawn, it was an improper arrest.”

"The law says, unless [a police officer] witnesses a felony…or unless he has a piece of paper from a judge—a search warrant or an arrest warrant—saying “you can go in that house,” he can’t go in the house. So when Professor Gates said “no you can’t come in,” and the police went in anyway [the police] violated the federal Constitution."

Raw Story Fox legal analyst: Gates arrest was improper

There is plenty of precedent in the supreme court regarding the castle doctrine. Without the officer witnessing a crime the officer would have needed permission to enter Gates' house. Once again the arrest was unlawful and even this judge has stated so.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting this stuff from?

The Constitution allows probable cause for action.

A broken door alone is probable cause, not to mention the call from the citizen witnessing the breaking of the door. So the police had more than enough cause to enter the building to investigate.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Where are you getting this stuff from?

The Constitution allows probable cause for action.

A broken door alone is probable cause, not to mention the call from the citizen witnessing the breaking of the door. So the police had more than enough cause to enter the building to investigate.
Click to expand...

I'm getting this from an actual judge who knows more about the law than either you or I. First off without him knowing all the details from the phone call the caller stated they had suitcases and could actually live there. The officer would have actually had to see the crime being committed to enter the house. In our country a person's home is on the highest pedestal in regards to searches. Once Gates was identified that should have been the end of it. Even a Fox Analyst sided with Gates. What's this world coming to?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Where are you getting this stuff from?

The Constitution allows probable cause for action.

A broken door alone is probable cause, not to mention the call from the citizen witnessing the breaking of the door. So the police had more than enough cause to enter the building to investigate.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that post you quoted earlier

But to that I have to wonder where their 'judge' got his legal training, and I have to be thankful that my already horrible judges aren't as bad as he is.

Maybe oneday a group of thugs will break into his house, tie him up and gag him and the cops will see a broken open door and not hear anything and have to shrug and walk away since they have no document while he gets strangled to death quietly.

I guess according to this judge we also aren't allowed to clear houses and businesses if we respond to a burglar alarm and observe a kicked in door, or other signs of forced entry. We shrug and say, "well, looks like someone really did break in, lets get out of here, go down and wake up a judge and come back in 5 hours with a warrant to go into the house."

Utterly stupid, this fool doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
I'm getting this from an actual judge who knows more about the law than either you or I.
Click to expand...

Looks like your judge needs to retire, since he's wrong.

PogueMoran said:
First off without him knowing all the details from the phone call the caller stated they had suitcases and could actually live there.
Click to expand...

Cool. Next time I break into a strangers house to steal things, I'll bring suitcases so the cops can't bother me.

PogueMoran said:
The officer would have actually had to see the crime being committed to enter the house.
Click to expand...

Not when he's got a witness calling the break-in to the po-leece.

PogueMoran said:
In our country a person's home is on the highest pedestal in regards to searches.
Click to expand...

My home sits on a slab, is that different?

PogueMoran said:
Once Gates was identified that should have been the end of it.
Click to expand...

Would have been, if Gates wasnt such a racist dick.

Don't forget that part. The instigating person in all this circus was Gates, not the police officer.
 
Caine said:
I didn't see that post you quoted earlier

But to that I have to wonder where their 'judge' got his legal training, and I have to be thankful that my already horrible judges aren't as bad as he is.

Maybe oneday a group of thugs will break into his house, tie him up and gag him and the cops will see a broken open door and not hear anything and have to shrug and walk away since they have no document while he gets strangled to death quietly.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano]Andrew Napolitano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You miss the point after that whole situation Gates still didn't warrant arrest as being on ones own property does not count as a public place and he caused no harm to those around him or himself. He was no threat.
 
PogueMoran said:
Andrew Napolitano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You miss the point after that whole situation Gates still didn't warrant arrest as being on ones own property does not count as a public place and he caused no harm to those around him or himself. He was no threat.
Click to expand...

I'll take note of that next time I feel like walking outside and swinging my dick around on my own porch, in plain view of everyone.


:roll:
 
Caine said:
I didn't see that post you quoted earlier

But to that I have to wonder where their 'judge' got his legal training, and I have to be thankful that my already horrible judges aren't as bad as he is.

Maybe oneday a group of thugs will break into his house, tie him up and gag him and the cops will see a broken open door and not hear anything and have to shrug and walk away since they have no document while he gets strangled to death quietly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, where's the sense in that? A broken door isn't probable cause to investigate? What planet is that guy from?

The cop had EVERY reason to investigate a broken door, since that's evidence of a possible burglary, or worse, a possible violent assualt.

Not only that, since he did have probable cause to enter on that alone, I believe that if he'd seen a bag of white powder on the counter, he'd have been authorized to seize that as possible drugs and arrest Gates for possession of a controlled substance.

This isn't real complicated here. All that Gates had to do was be respectful to a man who was only doing his job of protecting Gates and his property.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Looks like your judge needs to retire, since he's wrong.
Click to expand...

He's not my judge. He seems to know more about you than case law just because you say it doesn't make it so. I usually don't agree with Fox Analysts and its rare to see them side that way.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Cool. Next time I break into a strangers house to steal things, I'll bring suitcases so the cops can't bother me.
Click to expand...

Other than the fact that the caller said they might even live there. The cop could have knocked on the door IDed himself had his gun ready any number of things other than coming in the house and following Gates around. There wasn't enough suspicion to know if a crime was committed.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not when he's got a witness calling the break-in to the po-leece.
Click to expand...
A concerned neighbor who isn't sure if its a break-in or not.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
My home sits on a slab, is that different?
Click to expand...
Your porch, your yard, your home is still private property.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Would have been, if Gates wasnt such a racist dick.

Don't forget that part. The instigating person in all this circus was Gates, not the police officer.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if he was a dick or called him a son of a bitch on private property without any threat to anyone is still not a crime. You can swear up a storm to a cop in your home as long as you don't assault the guy you're breaking no laws.
 
PogueMoran said:
There's just a problem though Lerx the caller didn't mention to the dispatcher race she thought maybe hispanic. Somewhere between the dispatcher to Crowley to the report the information was inserted saying the caller spoke to Crowley on the scene and told Crowley two black men with backpacks were in the house. Whalen says she never spoke to Crowley. Crowley maintains that she did. Something is wrong here.
Click to expand...

Okay thank you for the clarification, I've not been keeping up with all the latest on this I guess. But, now who are we to believe? This is a seemingly minor discrepancy. One would have to find further import to race playing a role in the case for this to mean anything other than Crowley and the caller disagreeing on what was said.

Had Crowley actually engaged in racist conduct, maybe this discrepancy would seem more salient. The bottom line is this, the incident was not racial at all. It was stupid in my opinion, but not at all racial.
 
Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest
"A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting "I hate the police" near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C."




:rofl

Stupid is as stupid does.

"D.C.'s disorderly conduct statute bars citizens from breaching the peace by doing anything "in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others" or by shouting or making noise "either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons."


He accomplished his dream of emulating Gates.

Now was this arrest motivated by racial issues or was he just a jackass in public like the last guy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom