Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 291 To 300 Of 657 Comments
A FEW RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON THE GATES AFFAIR
@doorhold:
I linked to the Mass. statute above for DC. As I understand it, the police report indicates that the arrest was for yelling -- no indication that anybody was disturbed (except for Crowley).
"the officer was unable to deal with the offender in a manner that might defuse the situation and therefore HAD to arrest the offender to end the confrontation"
He could have left. He had IDd gates as the homeowner. He confirmed that there was no break-in. The call was over. He could have said "sorry for the confusion". gotten into his cruiser, and left. That's what he's supposed to when he's finished.
"The fact is you DON’T have the right to treat an officer investigating a possible crime as your own personal whipping boy for whatever issues you might have."
Actually, that's not true. You have a right to be rude to a cop. It's called freedom of speech. It is rude, boorish, demeaning, and indicates that Gates is certainly quite an asshole . . . but its legal.
Crowley, in uniform, represents the government. All citizens have a right to mouth off at the government. Threaten? No. Insult? Yes. People can tell Obama to his face that he's a foreign-born, American-hating, Zebra Socialist that is the living incarnatino of pure evil. That would be extremely dickish . . . but totally legal.Think of the consequences otherwise. What's "rude"? Gates clearly was rude, but what about a more diluted situation? You ask the cop that's giving you a speeding ticket if they ran out of donuts. Rude? A bit. So they drag you out of your car and take you to jail. Now, you're not being arrested for a crime . . . you're being arrested because the cop wanted some payback. That is a VERY dangerous standard to allow.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2009 @ 13:40
Hey JS:
I'm so glad you can see through the racism. It's clearly something you don't focus on too much. Odd how all them black folks are so racist, though. Truly, only a non-racist can expound on how damn racist those blacks are. "chip-on-their-shoulder", sucka-playin', gamin, NAA*colored*P-callin'themselves-and-I-cant-call-them-coloreds-colored, blacks. Way to really make your point. You've seen through the Great Black Scam, how they're all out being hypocritical. Well, not all. You've even got a friend who's a black (Clarence Thomas), so clearly you don't hate blacks. Most of the rest of the negros sure . . . but not all of them. That would be racist, which you're clearly not.
Out of curiosity . . .
"a great man like Clarence Thomas"
Really? What made/makes him a great man?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.07.2009 @ 23:04
@lionheart:
"My understanding is that Gates followed Crowley out of his house"
This is where the lack of determinied facts makes the situation fuzzy. The version I heard has the officer requesting Gates accompany him outside, which becomes an issue since its virtually impossible to Disorderly Conduct in private. Suspicious people see the request (if it happened that way) as a form of entrapment -- moving an insulting citizen into a position where the sop can "retaliate" for the insults by arresting him.
Regardless of the version, somebody other than the cop actually has to be disturbed or likely to be disturbed to make a DC charge. Additionally, if the disturbance is because of the cop's presence, and the officer's official work is done (confirmed Gates is homeowner, no break-in), then the officer shoud be the bigger man and walk away from the insults.
"I would not at all be surprised or outraged if I were arrested for disturbance for following a cop outside, insulting his mother, and in general, creating a disturbance."
Well, that's a few different things, isn't it? Let's seperate them out. You wouldn't be outraged if you wer earrested for "creating a disturbance." Would you be outraged to get arrested for "insulting his mother"? Or is being rude to a cop automatically "creating a disturbance"?
Again, take the race away. Crowley isn't racist. Do you support a cop arresting citizens solely because they pissed the cop off? If there's no issue of racism, and there's no issue of Disorderly Conduct . . . what else was the arrest about?
I'd expect to get my ass kicked if I mouthed off to a cop. That doesn't make it acceptable, legal or correct behavior. If I was sitting in a dive and insulted the guy's mom sitting right next to me, I'd expect to get popped. Does that mean that the guy didn't commit Assault?
I can't tell you how many times I heard that excuse from civilians -- he pissed me off! Sumbitch got mouthy! My wife pissed me off, that's why I hit her! It's not like I just walked up and hit her for no reason!
Having a "reason" to lash out at someone means you are not sociopathic . . . it doesn't mean you're right.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.07.2009 @ 16:59
@Justice:
"Bad judgement by both parties does not constitute racial profiling."
But it does constitute bad judgement. And Law Enforcement making bad judgements is a subject that should be of concern to citizens. It happens, no moral accusations against the officer, understandable action, no real harm . . . but its still a bad decision, as is Gate's harassing the cop who came to investigate the report that someone was breaking into your home. Wouldn't you be happy that somebody jimmies your door and the cops roll up minutes later? I'm glad they're so prompt in protecting my stuff. Given the circumstances, the cop should be wary of the situation until they get more info. Gates was wrong to holler, and it certainly does reflect on him badly in regards to character and reasonableness.
But a cop arresting someone, or locking the cuffs "accidentally" 1 notch too sharp, that's a bad decision that harms citizens. The reaction of conservatives shouldn't be "God Bless the armed hand of the Government siezing citizens and violating their freedoms! If only Gates had a gun in his house, then the cop could have really shown him something by blasting the crap out of him!"
I 100% agree that there's no real reason to think this is a racist thing. I agree 100% the homeowner, regardless of if they are black, white, purple, should not be suprised when acting that way to a cop ends poorly. But none of that means that the cop didn't do wrong (as you said, "bad judgement by both parties").
If the issue of racism is dismissed, does the matter as a topic become irrevelant? Or is there still something to talk about here -- cops making bad decisions?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.07.2009 @ 17:07
@JS:
Great!
So . . . without mentioning race, what was Gates arrested for?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.07.2009 @ 14:30
@49erDweet:
" my experience was that persons choosing to respond to an on-duty officer with assertive or challenging rhetoric or action were invariably temporarily impaired - for some reason."
Let's assume that's a true statement . . . so what? What's he being arrested for then? Being intoxicated, or pissing the cop off?
"It is quite telling that even black officers on the scene agreed with the arrest."
As ex-Blue, surely you've encountered the (completely understandable and commendable) Blue Line. Doesn't really matter whether the officers support it or not -- you back up a brother or sister in front of others. Disagreements are private, not public. Especially when the suspect is screaming harassment, you sure as hell aren't get into a discussion in front of the suspect about whether or not the arrest is justified.@Nik:
"Because Crowley is the CPD expert on racial profiling, he KNEW that HE was being profiled by the arrogant Harvard professor. He did what he had to do to force the story so much into the public that the FACTS had to be investigated/revealed."So its your opinion that the arrest was for the purpose of leting the public finally know how hard it is for cops, being yelled at. He knew he had to arrest Gates to let the world see that people are rude to cops. In your opinion, the arrest wasn't for Disorderly Conduct, but was intentionally a cop flexing his muscle and correcting an upity civilian . . . and you approve of that. How Republican of you.
@CZ:
"sue Gates for all he’s worth"
Yes . . . sue Gates because you arrested him. The claim would be what, "forcing me to show you who the man is around here"? "Not kissing my ass"?
Seriously, what do you think Crowley has a claim for?@the people supporting the arrest:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.07.2009 @ 11:50
What crime do think was occuring? I think this is the relevant statute:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-53.htm
What's the arrest for now? For a moment, set aside how bad Gates is, how he deserved what he got, etc. What CRIME was being committed?
@11B40:
"I know that if I were a police officer, I would not be able to put up with it."
Neither would or could I. If I had to take lip all day (and they do), and I could get away with "bruise-worthy" behavior (and they can), then damn straight I'd accidentally be bouncing suspects off my roof, or making arrests on what they called BANAL in my jurisdiction (Being and A$$hole wihout a No A$$hole License).
I'd do it. You'd do it. That's why we aren't cops, and that's why we shouldn't be cops. That's why I call a good cop "sir" -- they are better human beings than I am.
"Mr. Coates seems to suggest a 'right to sass'"
Yes. You have a right to sass. Is it rude? yes. Is it illegal? No. Should you sass a cop? No. Should a cop arrest you (or provide a corrective bruise) because they got annoyed at you? Hell no! You are being a jerk when you get mouthy with the person at the counter of the DMV, or the meter reader giving you a parking ticket. Should they therefore get your car towed, or cancel your license, just because they have the ability to? Do you think that's a good idea?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.07.2009 @ 00:58
@mike reynolds:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.07.2009 @ 20:30
I'll admit your comparison is valid . . . but if there was the slightest possibility somebody from the LandOfRed was going to re-evaluate their position that example pretty much nailed the door shut on it.
@Dennis:
The "investigation" was over -- officer had ID'd him as the homeowner. There's no OOB.
Now, if the officer had said "I think that's there's a burglar in the house, so I'm going to do a protective sweep of the building" and Gates said "hell no", then you're treading into possible OOB situations.@Bob:
You're right . . . that's what he should have done. He got mouthy, which is friggin stupid.
Ther cop should have said "sorry to bother you" and left . . . but no, he went off. He also acted stupidly. The difference is that what the cop did is illegal.Everybody attacking the homeowner for being a dick . . . so what? The issue here is was the cop justified? I'm hearing two seperate and incompatable views. First, the cop was the very model of a modern major general, and second the homeowner not only asked for it, but should be thankful he didn't get tazered.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.07.2009 @ 20:29
If the cop was cool, then the dick suspect is irrevelant. Focusing on how the homeowner was a dick justifies the cop flexing some muscle (it's amazing how many mouthy suspects have trouble getting in the back of a squad car, accidentally slamming their forehead on the lip of the roof. Clumsy).
Maybe the cop had a reason to flex some muscle. He's got good reason to flex muscle (don't let a situation slide out of control, noise makes it difficult to detect and observe, situation might get violent, etc.). Hell, he's trained when and how to flex his muscle.
But he shouldn't have done it in these circumstances, with what's been released so far about it. He's held to a higher standard than the dickhead citizen . . . that's why we let them carry guns and shoot people.
The only race-issues I see are the homeowner jumping the gun, so lets assume he was dead wrong in how he reacted. What’s the arrest for again? A cop that’ll arrest you “because you deserved it” will arrest you “because I felt like it”. It is a serious problem, and a serious issue. The cop may be a great officer, but this is one of the inherent dangers with policework. A great soldier, after 4 tours of combat, is going to suffer some effect. A great cop, after decades dealing with thousands and thousands of criminals and crimes (and amirably is still going on B+E calls instead of sitting behind a desk), is GOING to be effected.
IT'S PAST TIME TO INOCULATE CONSERVATISM AGAINST THE BIRTHERS
@ Earl:
"That’s why it’s called a “Certification” and bears the legend that is “prima facie” evidence, i.e. the information contained on it, is a rebuttable presumption."
Yes, it is a rebuttable presumption . . . but that means unless you rebut it, it is presumed to be correct.
"I don't believe it" isn't rebutting the evidence. "I want to see something else" isn't rebutting the evidence. Its denying the prima facie evidence.
Lets go with your distinction. The Birth Cert does contain a space for the doctor's name, the Live Birth Statement does not. The Live Birth Announcement is valid without the Doctor's name, isn't it? The Live Birth Statement is still prima facie evidence that he was born in America. You're not attacking the legitimacy of the Live Birth Cert, you're ignoring it.
Why would you want to know the Doctor's name? The only reason I can imagine is to find the doctor (presuming he's still alive) and ask them if they remember delivering Obama . . . four decades ago. I don't remember what I had for breakfast last week -- do you think they are going to remember every baby they delivered decades later?
As you said, the evidence release so far is prima facie evidence, meaning unless someone can discredit that evidence the debate is (legally, at least) over. You said you've seen the FactCheck photos -- what about them do you doubt?
you said you just want to see the Dr.'s name and the hospital. But when the first document was released, the Birthers said all they wanted to see was the raised seal, the cert. number, and the absence of a watermark. They got all that . . . and now they want to see something else. If the doctor's name and the hospital are provided, why should I think that the Birthers will be satisfied?
There is no evidence that Obama WASN'T born in America. There is substantial and pursuasive evidence that he WAS born in America. At this point, the question seems to be one of faith, not fact. If the Birther belief is faith-based, then no amount of evidence will satisfy it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.07.2009 @ 14:08
