CNN: Black Officers Back Up Sgt. Crowley
John on July 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Here’s the clip. I’ll replace this with You Tube when it becomes available:
Kudos to CNN for getting the story instead of following the narrative.
Category: News |
Ratings & Visitors
Breaking: Schakowsky Video Suppressed
Just a quick post to let everyone know that the original video of Jan Schakowsky that I posted on April 27 was removed from YouTube tonight due to a copyright claim. I’ll have a lot more to say about who is behind this in the near future. For now I’ll just say that the motivation for suppressing this seems pretty obvious considering what Schakowsky had to say. Given that 90K+ [...]
Just a quick post to let everyone know that the original video of Jan Schakowsky that I posted on April 27 was removed from YouTube tonight due to a copyright claim. I’ll have a lot more to say about who is behind this in the near future. For now I’ll just say that the motivation for suppressing this seems pretty obvious considering what Schakowsky had to say. Given that 90K+ [...]Dems Continue Seeding “Racists” in Republican Crowds
They are so desperate for this narrative to be true. They’ll do almost anything to make it ture. This guy at a Rand Paul rally gets caught red handed. The tin foil hat was sort of a giveaway: What’s worrying is that someone a little smarter might play this game. It would only take one bogus incident to stoke the Dems racist Tea Party narrative back to life and, potentially, [...]
They are so desperate for this narrative to be true. They’ll do almost anything to make it ture. This guy at a Rand Paul rally gets caught red handed. The tin foil hat was sort of a giveaway: What’s worrying is that someone a little smarter might play this game. It would only take one bogus incident to stoke the Dems racist Tea Party narrative back to life and, potentially, [...]Does Goodwin Liu Support Reparations for Slavery? (Updated)
Media Matters continues to call this a “myth“. With Liu’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled for tomorrow, I’ll probably have more to say on this later. But for now I put together a new clip highlighting the most pertinent comments from Liu and the other panelist he was responding to. What do you think? An extended – and unedited – clip is available here, along with [...]
Media Matters continues to call this a “myth“. With Liu’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled for tomorrow, I’ll probably have more to say on this later. But for now I put together a new clip highlighting the most pertinent comments from Liu and the other panelist he was responding to. What do you think? An extended – and unedited – clip is available here, along with [...]
[...] I am sure that there are many who see POTUS for what he and Mr. Gates are. [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 3:37 pm[...] This post was Twitted by shiba36 [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 4:38 pm[...] This post was Twitted by EdDriscoll [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 4:40 pm[...] amazing clip via Verum Serum. God only knows how much heat she and Sgt. Lashley will take from the “authenticity” [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 4:48 pm[...] amazing clip via Verum Serum. God only knows how much heat she and Sgt. Lashley will take from the “authenticity” [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 4:48 pmGreat find.
As a conservative, I support intellectual property rights even if I don’t necessarily like the other fellow. It’s MY values on this is important.
In this particular case, you give CNN kudos for reporting this fairly (despite the reservations we both hold about CNN in the main).
So why, in this case especially, would you replace CNN’s version, which contains the links they intend to other content they offer, with an unauthorized and likely illegal YouTube version?
Sure, it’s got full screen controls and I prefer that. However.
Copyright law doesn’t merely protect the economic benefits accrued to the content creator, it also allows them to control how their content is distributed… subject to fair use.
Fair use doesn’t, in my opinion, mean taking whole clips available from CNN and using other versions instead so that Google/YouTube gets page views and ad revenue and CNN doesn’t.
Amazing clip. Thanks for posting it.
July 27, 2009 @ 5:05 pm“…and the President?”
“It’s unfortunate. I supported him, I voted for him. I will not again.”
Very telling.
When the character of a man of unimpeachable character is assaulted, the response of those he’s served beside is most telling.
July 27, 2009 @ 5:35 pmCan you conservative aces out there answer a few of this wise latina’s questions?
First of all, how did “two black males with backpacks” suddenly materialize on Prof. Gates’ porch? It appears that only Sgt. Crowley saw these two ghosts (or perhaps more appropriately, spooks), as they are mentioned for the first time in the police report.
Second, how and when did Prof. Gates’ porch suddenly transform into “a public place”? I have looked high and wide for legal authority that would support such an expansive reading of government power, but could not find any. I would expect good conservatives to be vehemently against this form of temporary “taking” as against the 14th Amendment. Since when have conservatives supported the willy nilly transformation of someone’s front porch into a public place?
Third, I thought that under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In other words, Gates could be arrested in his home (including, by the way, his front porch for purposes of the Fourth Amendment) if Crowley had a warrant (which we know he did not have) or, in an exception created by courts through common law, if Crowley witnessed exigent circumstances (such as the hot pursuit of a felon into a home). At the time of the arrest, Crowley admitted that there were no exigent circumstances as Crowley’s report indicates that Gates was “lawfully in the residence.” Today, Judge Napolitano on Fox News concluded that based on the Fourth Amendment alone, Gates’ arrest was illegal, as Crowley should not have entered Gates’ home in the first place, as he did not have a warrant or reasonable cause to believe that a felony was in progress, adding that reasonable cause cannot be based on double hearsay, as in this case. Do you agree with Judge Napolitano and Fox News?
I will leave it here for now. I look forward to your answers. I am curious to see if you conservatives are as intellectually shallow as I have been led to believe. Give it your best shot, lightweights. Bring your A game, because the word on the street is that white conservatives are afraid to compete, that is why they are against affirmative action and other programs that would level the playing field. They do not want to compete with the Tiger Woods of history, economics, philosophy, medicine, etc. Bring it boys, bring it.
July 27, 2009 @ 7:01 pm[...] click through and see Verum Serum’s video of non-white police officers standing by officer Crowley. (H/T Hot [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 7:02 pmAs I understand it that was the description given by the person who called 911, not he officer.
“Double hearsay”, what the heck does that mean, the reporting of two men breaking into the house? Besides, Gates was not arrested for breaking and entering was he.
July 27, 2009 @ 8:02 pmIris, I have previously noted on this blog that I thought it was unnecessary for the police to have arrested Gates. However, he was not arrested for suspicion of breaking and entering or any other felony. He was arrested for disorderly conduct based on the way he responded to the investigating officer(s). Crowley’s account of Gates’ behavior has been corroborated by the other officers and witnesses who were on the scene.
Gates was the one who injected the racial element into the whole affair. Would you expect the police to do anything other than ask for identification from a homeowner where a call had been made reporting a possible robbery attempt? Gates admitted in his own account that he felt he was “in danger” just by the presence of a (white) police officer at his door.
How ridiculous was this? Gates’ subsequent actions clearly demonstrate that he was the one acting from the racial profiling victim script. Again, while I do not think it was necessary to arrest him, he was acting like a complete jerk. And frankly I think his continued attempt to portay himself as an innocent victim is an attempt to divert attention from his own embarrassing behavior.
July 27, 2009 @ 8:09 pmOffense neither intended nor avoided, Iris Bittencourt, but you’re a dumb-ass.
Didn’t have probable cause? He received a report saying 2 men had pushed their way into the home after several-minutes’ attempt.
Double hearsay? Double dumb-ass, I’m thinking.
Okay, that last bit was meant to offend a bit.
;-)
July 27, 2009 @ 8:18 pmFor those who are interested, you can listen to the interaction between Prof. Gates and Police Sgt. Crowley as you click here.
Questions to ask yourself… who remains calm? Does Crowley exhibit racism? Whose words betray a bit of unrealism?
Whose subsequent statements betray an unrealistic understand of how police investigations are carried out?
And… is blowing up at the officer within just a few minutes of his beginning an investigation wise or warranted?
And… Gates claims to hold no ill-will toward the woman who called police. He claims to be grateful toward her. On that, I believe him.
Why doesn’t and didn’t he express the slightest bit of gratitude to the person who showed up — alone — and at risk to his personal safety — to protect Gates’ life and property on the chance the 911 burglary call report may have been real?
July 27, 2009 @ 8:27 pm*understanding
July 27, 2009 @ 8:32 pmEasy,
You are incorrect, and like I thought, none of your other fellow conservatives have corrected you. Ms. Whalen expressly stated that she could not make out the race of the suspects. Listen to the 911 tape. That is why she hired a lawyer. Her lawyer was interviewed by Greta van Sustern this evening on Faux News. Inform thyself. It is easy, except for pinheads who are not patriots.
In addition, none of you conservative lightweights has answered my questions. Come on boys, you are disappointing me. Take on each of my questions one by one. Who is up to the challenge, rethugs?
July 27, 2009 @ 8:45 pmIris,
So your argument is that because Crowley stated the caller said there were “two black males” on the porch that somehow this proves he’s a racist?
Gates porch is not a public place, but under the circumstances the police had every right to approach the door and ask Gates for ID. They didn’t know he was the homeowner at the time.
I think the arrest was questionable and probably based on the fact that Gates was a making racial remarks at the officer and refused to calm down once outside.
Are you suggesting that a white man screaming at a black officer wouldn’t get the same treatment? Based on what? I’m no lawyer, but I’ve watched enough episodes of COPS to know that yelling at the police usually leads to trouble.
Oh and the “thug” comment. You don’t have to talk like Henry Gates here. We’re not secretly out to get you.
July 27, 2009 @ 9:27 pmNo. It proves that Crowley lied and used a classic racial profile to cover up his unlawful arrest. Charles Stuart with a badge.
The arrest did not occur when Crowley approached the door and asked Gates for ID. It occurred after Crowley left Mr. Gates’ house and after Crowley knew definitively that Mr. Gates owned the house. So again I ask, how did Gates’ front porch turn into a public place and how does that exercise of state authority jibe with traditional conservative values and policies?
How about Judge Napolitano’s reading of the 4th Amendment? Any view on that?
I see that all you rethuglicans can do is act cute and smile. You are lacking in substance and live in a place where a little midget runs around screaming “de plane, de plane.”
Unplug from the Matrix, rethug tools.
I say “thugs” purposefully, because most of you white conservatives are not different than your average racist criminal that lynched blacks in the early part of the last century and claim reverse racism now. Thug life for mediocre, mentally challenged white boys, who got their positions through affirmative action in the form of racism that impedes blacks from competing effectively against them. Well, I have thrown down the gauntlet on you pencil neck geeks, and you have shown that you are the inferior type that I first thought. You guys are going to have to bring out the big guns, because your pee shooters ain’t doing the trick.
How about
July 27, 2009 @ 10:09 pmIris,
How did Crowley cover up anything. The facts about when the arrest happened are right there in his own report?
Gates porch is not a public place (I said that once already but apparently you weren’t listening). However, under the circumstances, the police certainly had cause to approach the door and ask Gates for ID. According to the report, it was at this point — before he’d even opened the door — that Gates started making racial comments.
Again, I’ve said I don’t think the arrest can be justified (and again, you weren’t listening — you might try that some time). I still don’t think it would have happened without the racial instigation of Henry Gates. He’s the one that made this about race.
As far as lynching, that’s a pretty sick way to view the world. Claiming someone is a would-be murderer because they’re white and conservative. Seriously, you do know that it was the Democrats running things in the bad old days of the south, right?
You haven’t thrown down anything but any chance you might have had at mutual respect.
July 27, 2009 @ 10:28 pmLoL. Yeah, I’m sure he wrote down in his report “2 black males with backpacks” in an attempt to “cover up his unlawful arrest”. Considering that Gates was screaming about racial profiling throughout the whole ordeal, this was certain to do the trick.
Do you put any thought or analysis into your crazed opinions at all?
Frankly, I don’t think this whole episode is deserving of the attention it’s received. These types of incidents occur without controvery every hour of the day. The fact that it happened to involve a prominent African American scholar who happened to be an acquaintance of the President’s is not justification for all this silly race baiting.
July 27, 2009 @ 10:39 pm[...] This post was Twitted by southsalem [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 10:44 pm[...] This post was Twitted by skyeofblue [...]
July 27, 2009 @ 10:57 pm[...] NoQuarter writer Ani, who found the video at SerumVerum blog, via Hot Air’s “Must see: Cambridge cop says she won’t vote for Obama again after [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 12:00 am[...] damn day in this country and by some officers who happen to be black. Is that racism? Here are some people that work with the officer in question and passionately defend him and wow, they [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 12:44 amIris,
First let me address the public place question you pose in your lengthy and bitter diatribe against “whitey”. It has been determined in numerous court decisions that while outside your home and even though you may be on private property, creating a scene that disturbs neighbors or causes alarm can be classfied as a public nusiance and annoyance. While on his porch Mr. Gates yelling obscene and loud statements caused citizens and passerbys to take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed. Under numerous city ordinances, and state laws that can be classified as a public disturbance. And yes it has been upheld numerous times in Federal Courts.
July 28, 2009 @ 1:22 amSecondly double hearsay did not occur in this instance because the witness themselves told the officer she witnessed men trying to force their way into the door….that DOES qualify as probable cause.
Finally your first statement is very misleading, which I suppose you intended because you state plainly that the two black males comment just appears as if he made it up. He stated that the witness told HIM that after arriving on scene, not that it was from dispatch or expressed in the 911 call.
Furthermore while you obviously have excellent verbal skills intertwined with the ability to twist them into whatever way you can to further your agenda, you obviously lack the intelligence to debate intellectually and have decided that vitriol and insults are the way to go, rather than facts and civility. You have demonstrated this on numerous postings I have seen by you on several other sites as well. Having said that this is the only time I will bother wasting on you and you’re words as you have shown me you cannot debate substance without hate and personal attacks. Good day.
[...] click through and see Verum Serum’s video of non-white police officers standing by officer Crowley. (H/T Hot [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 2:08 am[...] 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment Verum Serum has the video. I am glad that not only is Crowley refusing to back down, but his fellow men and women in uniform are standing by him. Kelly [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 2:30 am[...] Verum Serum and Hot Air. For anyone who wants to see it, here’s the real face of post-racial America. Two [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 3:35 amTo Iris Bittencourt
I am not a conservative and I am a person of color. I believe it was Gates that caused all this mess.
The reason the police on the 9-1-1 call asked what the persons looked like was they were approaching the residence and needed to know what the suspects look like. The woman said she could not see the person that well.
Also the person who filled out the police report was the Latino policeman named Figueroa, not Crowley.
So are you saying that the Latino cop was a racist? He was the one who filled out the police report.
July 28, 2009 @ 4:18 amAlso Lisa Bittencourt you showed yourself to be a racist and no better than those you attack on here. Anytime you interject race and generalize by race to make your argument invalid about race. That makes you a racist and you lose your argument.
I am not white, nor do I watch Fox News. I am not a conservative. I also voted for Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama. I regret that Barack Obama put himself into a situation without knowing all the facts.
Lisa, you are the one showing yourself to be a racist, yet you call others racists. That is a contradiction.
Sorry to disappoint your “racist profiling” Lisa of the ‘white’ cop, but the person who filled out the police report that mentioned race was not Sgt. Crowley, but the Latino policeman. The same Latino policeman who said that Sgt. Crowley acted correctly just like his fellow officers of color who looked beyond race and stood by their fellow officer.
The Police have a hard job and there might be some bad policemen, but Sgt. Crowley was not one of them. People are saying that the police are supposed to act with professionalism, what about educated university professors? Prof. Gates did not act like a professional.
July 28, 2009 @ 4:42 amAlso regarding the report.
The 9-1-1 telephone is not the same as when Officer Crowley arrived at the scene and talked to the witnesses.
When Crowley arrived one of the witnesses described the men. The 9-1-1 call is not the same as when he arrived at the scene.
There were two witnesses the elder neighbor and the woman who made the call. The woman who made the 9-1-1 call was only one of two witnesses.
July 28, 2009 @ 5:18 amSo all “white conservatives” are akin to lynch mobs of the south back in the day. So says Iris, the typical loving, tolerant, liberal. Your commentary here is three thousand times more racist than anything Sgt. Crowley could have dreamed of doing. But I’m just a Native American Indian conservative. Does that make me “red” Iris? Be honest, in your tiny mind all conservatives are racists. I’d bet even Democrats who disagree with you are relagated to your racist column. And what are black conservatives, hmmm Iris? Do you have a cute label for them? Who’s the racist here, Iris? This discussion isn’t about Crowley, it’s about your pathetic need to blame someone for your supposed hardships. Now go ahead, call me names and call me racist, because that’s all you’ve got left. Pobrecito, your life has not been all sweetness and light, so let’s blame everyone around us for things that you’ve brought upon yourself. *sniff* You bore me. Next.
July 28, 2009 @ 5:51 am[...] Verum Serum notes, “Kudos to CNN for getting the story instead of following the [...]
July 28, 2009 @ 6:08 amYou rethugs are a bunch of mediocre, nimwits. None of you deal with Judge Napolitano’s conclusion on Faux News that the arrest was a clear violation of Gates’ 4th Amendment rights.
Like I said before, the arrest did not occur at the time that Crowley approached the door, so again it is not a relevant nor a dispositive fact in support of your specious arguments. No one’s porch is public property because the 4th Amendment says so. Does Crowley have the authority to overturn the 4th Amendment willy nilly? If so, how does that jibe with your sacred conservative principles of small government?
Yet, you pinheads cling blindly to your guns, religion and racism, and ignore glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in your thinking. That is the beauty of racism: it is a shapeshifter that conforms itself to new circumstances as they arise, rewriting itself and history in the process.
For example, I imagine that you boys agree with Pat Buchanan that “white people built this country.” Only people who live in the Matrix of racism can insulate themselves from reality to such an extent. Did I hear someone yelling, “de plane, de plane” again?
It is tough to leave Fantasy Island, but until you do, keep your internally inconsistent and incoherent racist comments to yourselves.
And you guys are the “best and the brightest”? America is in trouble if the likes of you pinheads is the measure of our future. We cannot compete, because YOU CANNOT compete. Critical analysis and thinking is beyond you. However, rote memorization of spoon fed lines from Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly go down quite smoothly in your pencil necks.
I laugh at you mediocre white people. You are a walking joke. Look in the mirror some day, and you will know that deep down you fear true competition with blacks. Blacks, if given an equal chance, will remove many of you from your positions that you obtained due to racism. Today, you have to compete against other mediocre white students. The Asians already showed that you guys are third rate. Just wait until blacks have equal opportunity. Your butts are going to be out on the streets looking for a handout. The only way you pinheads have “risen to the top” is because the truly talented have been excluded. Enjoy it while it lasts, you mediocre fools.
My challenge still stands to you geeks. No one is up to the task (I already knew that), but I wanted to see just how shallow and insipid your thoughts really are. Frankly, I thought you guys were going to come with your A game. Now, I realize that none of you have an A game. You do not know history, law, economics, philosophy. What do you pinheads know? How to take viagra so that you can fantasize on what it is like everyday to be a black male (except for the size, of course. Medicine has not found a cure for that yet). Like I said, your entire life is a fantasy island. Keep sleeping, because when you wake up, you are going to have a rude awakening, realizing that you are mediocre (blame it on dyslexia, right?).
Pinheads, I am waiting. Send out more of your mental midgets to take me on. You guys need some reinforcements, because you are being dominated and humiliated. What else is new? Just like Sara Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama. Only on the fantasy island of white racism.
July 28, 2009 @ 6:40 amIris, you wouldn’t happen to be Professor Gates’s sockpuppet, would you?
July 28, 2009 @ 7:09 amIris,
Just to be clear for those just joining this circus, I never said the arrest came when Sgt. Crowley approached the door. Sgt. Crowley never said that either. It’s all there in his report. Iris keeps banging away on this point that no one has made as if it proves something.
FYI, I don’t own a gun and I’m not a big Pat Buchanan fan. If that’s what he said, he’s wrong.
The only thing you’re dominating is the “troll-of-the-month” competition. You know what a troll is, right?
July 28, 2009 @ 8:38 am*cough*
*cough*
…sockpuppet…
*cough*
*cough*
Classic, Anna.
July 28, 2009 @ 8:47 amAnswer my basic question: how did the two black spooks end up in the police report? Can someone answer that question for me?
July 28, 2009 @ 8:48 amMr. Black Conservative,
First of all, what are you trying to conserve? I always had difficulty with the concept of a black man yearning for the good ole days of the forefathers when blacks were 3/5 of a person. Makes sense that you would want to conserve that status. What else are you trying to conserve, superstar?
Now, legally, you go off on a limb that is quite thin indeed. You inartfully use the doctrine of public nuisance (you should have said “private nuissance,” but such fundamental distinctions are apparently beyond you). However, what Gates did was neither a public nor a private nuisance by any stretch of the imagination, and Gates was not charged with public or private nuisance. Cite one federal or state case that would support your tortured reading of public nuissance, private nuissance or public disturbance legislation. I am waiting.
Facts are stubborn things for you conservative pinheads. If you listen to the 911 call (which I highly recommend), you will note that Ms. Whalen expressed uncertainty as to whether the two were suspects or residence, describing the fact that she saw two suitcases on the front porch. That uncertainty in and of itself does not support probable cause. But it is compounded by the fact that Ms. Whalen admits that she only called 911 because an elderly lady caught her attention and implied that someone may be breaking into the home. So, the witness who actually saw the two people was not Ms. Whalen, but an elderly women. Now for you legal geniuses out there, hearsay is nothing more than an out of court statement introduced to prove the veracity of the claim. This is double hearsay, because the “witness” did not witness the so-called event, but rather relied on a third party. I know that this is a bit complex for you pinheads, but bear with me.
Quimbo, you should also listen to the 911 tape again, as well as the comments of Ms. Whalen’s lawyer. Ms. Whalen did not talk to Sgt. Crowley at the scene. This is a fact. What is written in the police report to the contrary is a lie. I will help you with the difficult concepts here.
And last thing, there Sambo. You have been wasting your entire life. The best thing for you would be to listen carefully what I am saying and reflect upon it. The truth just may set you free in the end, my incogNegro!!!
July 28, 2009 @ 9:23 amMessage to Iris Bittencourt, unwise Latina woman;
As with all polemics, you start with your mind made up, and then begin justifying your position. You have your facts messed up, and your interpretations are flawed. Please, use scientific thought, not emotion.
First, the two black males with backpacks is attributed to the woman who called 911, not Crowley. I have listened to her comments and she didn’t say this,so this appears to be a fiction, and urban legend in the making.
Second, verbally abusing an officer of the law does not have to happen in a public place to subject one to arrest. If you think you can curse or abuse someone in the privacy of your (or any ones) own home and not be held accountable is absurd.
Third, there was probably cause. They had the 911 call and there was evidence of a forced door. Therefore, the police were fully within their rights to enter. It would appear that, in your interpretation of the law for your 2nd and 3rd point, that you are violating rules of logic – injecting your own point of view into empiricism. A fact is a fact and emotionalism and opinion do not change it. Nor does faulty interpretation.
No one, except the officers and Professor Gates, know what was said. We do know that Prof. Gates is a bit of a hot head, brilliant though he is. He had just returned from a long trip and was probably tired and just wanted to rest and gather himself. He had to force his way into his own house. Then, he was called to account for something that, in his mind (and most reasonable people), was totally unreasonable.
Officer Crowley appears, based on evidence provided to this point, to be a responsible policeman. However, we do not know what his state of mind was, and never will.
We do know that most police are honorable men but have feet of clay, as we all do. If he was a rocket scientist, he wouldn’t be a cop. He has to do the best he can with what he has. He appears to be someone of average intelligence (having heard and read his comments) and psychological makeup. He may have over-reacted. If you object to police on universal grounds, call a crook next time you have a break in.
It appears fairly obvious that they both over-reacted.
We have all over-reacted, including Pres. Obama. He admitted he didn’t know all the facts. He never will. To use the terminology that he did runs counter to his proven intelligence, but does show his intermittent willingness to express emotion to the detriment of reason. It may have something to do with the impetuosity of age (he is still a kid).
So, we have an unhappy confluence of events, some known and some surmised. What we all need to do is back off. They is far too much emotion and far too little logic and reason being applied.
There are real, important events happening in the world. Children are starving, disease is rampant, and people are dying on our streets.
Get some balance and common sense!!!
July 28, 2009 @ 9:26 amOh, and Iris, name calling shows a lack of intellect and vocabulary, not humor.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:33 amMaria, Maria,
First of all, I am going to shatter one of your cherished myths: Hispanics are not a separate race, but rather are an ethnic group like Irish, Italians, Greeks, Poles, etc. In fact, over 50% of Mexicans self-classify as white, and nearly 100% of Cubans do so. Only in America can you be third in line for the Spanish or Portuguese crown and qualify for affirmative action to redress past and ongoing racial discrimination. The inclusion of “Hispanics” as a minority was one of the biggest boondogles in recent history. Talk about claiming a victim status. Noboby plays a better false victim than Hispanics. In fact, every year, your organizations sweat bullets trying to come up with enough material to compare yourselves to blacks. It is becoming harder and harder, and to do so, you have to eliminate anyone from the second generation on, because they outpace blacks in nearly every category, except of course in educational achievement. Even many newly arrived outpace blacks in salary, etc.
The “minority” myth is the biggest scam in America today. But I digress.
Ms. Whalen’s lawyer clearly stated that Ms. Whalen DID NOT TALK TO SGT. CROWLEY AT THE SCENE. Maria, está mirando fantasmas, como Crowley?
Sarah, how would you feel if I called you a dirty Indian squaw? Think about that in the context over the dispute to change the name of Squaw Mountain in Arizona in honor of a fallen female soldier of Indian heritage. Would you also want to preserve the name “Squaw Mountain”? What are you trying to conserve? The Trail of Tears? Please help me understand this insanity.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:35 amIris,
First of all, the racial language is yours, not Crowley’s. Second, Crowley got a report of two men forcing their way into a house. After the whole incident was over and he knew who the men were (Gates and his driver – both black), he sat down to write his report and added what he knew after the fact to what he knew beforehand.
That’s one way it could have happened. If true, it’s an error, but a pretty minor one. The fact is, two black men did force their way into the house. We know that. So I don’t see how saying that makes Sgt. Crowley a racist.
But you’re the expert so why don’t you explain it to us. What is the significance of this statement in the report? How does it demonstrate that Crowley is secretly a bigot? And how is it that you know him better than the black cops who work with him?
July 28, 2009 @ 9:36 amJohn,
You are a conservative. You ignore the facts. First of all, Ms. Whalen identified one of the men as Hispanic. Secondly, the driver had left by the time the police arrived. Third, the driver is Pakistani, not black. Fourth, Ms. Whalen’s lawyer confirmed that Ms. Whalen did not talk to Crowley at the scene.
Conclusion: You failed; try again if you have the courage.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:39 amGates in The Root (his own publication):
Not that you had any credibility left anyway…
July 28, 2009 @ 9:43 amIris,
Ms. Whalen did identify one of the men as “possibly” hispanic. Nevertheless, after the incident is when the police report was written. Crowley knew the race of one of the people seen forcing their way into the house because he’d arrested him. Gates admitted forcing his way in. So again, where is the mystery here. When Crowley sat down to write the report he projected what he knew (or believed if the driver is Pakistani not black) onto the report.
Again, how does this change the fact that a) at least one black man did force his way into the house and b) the racial language was initiated by Gates at the scene, not Crowley?
You keep trying to distract from the key fact here: Gates is the one injecting race. You keep trying and you keep failing. But by all means, try again.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:47 amDadlivonia,
You admit that Sgt. Crowley invented the two black males with a backpack? I think that we may be making progress here, after all.
With respect to the privacy of your own home, please see the 4th Amendment. The police can only come into your home if they have a warrant, exigent circumstances or you invite them in. Otherwise, the police cannot come into your home, and Crowley had not right to enter Prof. Gates’ home in the first place. Why won’t any of you deal with Judge Napolitano’s conclusion on Faux News that the arrest was clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment and of Massachusetts law. Judge Napolitano, the Italian-American tool that works for Faux. Do you disagree with him as to his reading of the law? If so, on what basis (other than emotion or racist ideology)?
President Obama is a constitutional legal scholar. He knew that it was at least stupid for this arrest to occur. You do not need all of the facts to come to that conclusion. Was there a warrant? No. Were there exigent circumstances? No. The 911 call was hedged ten ways to Sunday and was double hearsay. And, when Crowley arrived, Gates told him that he was the owner of the house. Did Gates invite Crowley into his home? No. End of story. We have a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. I do not need to know anything else, nor did Pres. Obama, nor did Judge Napolitano of Faux News.
Those who disagree with these noncontroversial conclusions lack common sense. Even Justice Scalia would so hold. Are you calling Scalia a fool?
July 28, 2009 @ 9:50 amThanks, Morgen. Should have checked that myself.
So where are you getting that the driver is Pakistani, Iris?
July 28, 2009 @ 9:50 amBTW, the original 911 call did mention two men with suitcases on the porch. It’s likely that is where the two men with backpacks came from. Where did the “black” part come from? From the fact that the two men were black. It’s that simple.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:52 amIris,
Don’t you have anything else to do. Get a job.
You are proving the saw that conservatives have to pay for liberals to sit on their butts and pray for increased socialism to further enable them.
So, get off yours and do something, not sit around and respond in blogs. It is OK to spend a few minutes doing this, but you have just spent all morning.
I feel bad that you are proving the stereotype.
sad, sad
July 28, 2009 @ 9:53 amProf. Gates told the world that in his various interviews (which all of you have obviously not taken the time to listen to). How is it that you can come to a conclusion without all of the facts?
Look, what I am saying is really not controversial. What is controversial is how whites continue to cling to lies, falsehoods and mischaracterizations to support their absurd position. Why do you do this? It is like cogntitive dissonance to me.
The teachable moment here is that racism is an all-pervasive ideology. That is why white racists either cannot or refuse to see evidence that contradicts their worldview. Like cognitive dissonance, racism explains away inconsistent facts with contorted logic that is internally inconsistent and incoherent. Racism rewrites history and itself on a daily basis, such that, renaming Squaw Mountain in honor of a fallen female soldier of Indian heritage is an insult to whites (who feign ignorance of the fact that squaw basically means the “b” word). I have heard of witch mountain, but that is a bit much. But, not for whites. The world is as they say it is, period. That is the essence of racism, and always has been. Racism is based on a fundamental lie.
Accordingly, over time, the complexity of the lies underlying racism has also increased. For example, we know scientifically today that “race” does not even exist, yet society continues to use terms like “white,” “black” etc. to describe fictitious categories.
Truth be told, all whites are descendants of blacks, as white skin comes from black skin (albinos), but not vice versa. White skin is actually a genetic defect, in that it lacks melanin, which has crucial thermal and protective properties against the sun. Yet, whites avoid seeking the truth, perhaps because they know that it will reveal the extent of their crimes: whites are Cain and blacks are Abel. Will whites say to God, I am not my black brother’s keeper?
July 28, 2009 @ 9:53 amIris,
That you use gross generalization (whites continue……) is the argument of the weak.
That you could read my comments and say what you said is astounding. Do you know what urban legend is???
That you don’t know what “probable cause” is is unfortunate.
You do not have sufficient intellect for me to waste my time.
Bye to all
July 28, 2009 @ 9:57 amJust so you know big daddy livonia, I am independently wealthy. I took half from my deadbeat husband, who was probably a lot like you.
We women are still a protected class. Isn’t life grand!!!
July 28, 2009 @ 10:05 amIris,
Was the driver black or Pakistani? Sources please.
Again, how does the inclusion of the fact that two black men forced their way into the house in Crowley’s report prove him to be racist?
Who introduced race at the scene, Gates or Crowley?
Maybe you should share that with Professor Gates. I don’t think he got the memo. And considering all the race baiting and claims of white inferiority you’ve made here this morning, you sure don’t behave as if that’s what you believe either.
July 28, 2009 @ 10:06 amThere is only one person on this entire thread spewing racist vitriol. Look in the mirror, Iris. Do you like what you see?
July 28, 2009 @ 10:08 amDear Judge Sotomayor: Really, this exhibition is most undignified, if exactly what everyone expected. You didn’t think the “Iris Bittencourt” pseudonym would fool anyone, did you? The transparent efforts to build this hollow shell or this one don’t fool anyone. I suppose we can all feel fortunate that instead of writing your dreadful opinions stuffing all VERUM SERUM readers in the jug at Guantanamo, you are slugging it out on the blogs, while your clerks call their law professors so they can write your opinions. The horror, though, of trillions of electrons trapped forever in your posts is sobering, worthy of Amnesty International.
Well, it’s done now. Don’t hit Justice Scalia too hard when he bawls Hey toots, bring me a cuppa coffee, at the first Supreme Court Conference you attend. And don’t pull a knife out of your bra and try to slash him. That’s so stereotypical, even for a “wise Latina,” and any knife in your bra will be too small to do any real damage.
Sincerely yours,
July 28, 2009 @ 10:30 amGregory Koster
Iris,
It was southern democrats that were lynching the blacks, genius. I think you left your Robert Byrd, commemorative grand-dragon phone off the hook.
-R
July 28, 2009 @ 10:50 amI misspoke. The driver is from Morocco, not Pakistan. As Prof. Gates indicated in his interview with Gayle King on Oprah radio at the link below, neither he nor Gayle King would consider the driver as black. Listen at 4:40 of the interview and beyond.
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=BackStageAsset&cid=1247755338023
July 28, 2009 @ 11:10 amAccording to the 911 tape, the woman who called the cops never mentioned the word ‘Black’ or ‘backpacks’. She said she thought one was Hispanic and was not sure about the other. Also according to latest news, Ms. Whalen DID NOT speak to the officer at the scene about any backpacks. Seems even the police report has holes in it…
Imaginations running wild…
July 28, 2009 @ 11:44 amIris,
Check this link again (the same one Morgen pointed out). Gates says:
So, apparently Gates story is changing by the day. I wonder why that might be.
But again, even if the driver is Moroccan how does this prove that Crowley is a racist? Still waiting on that one…
July 28, 2009 @ 12:17 pmTemi,
Listen to the 911 call again. She says “I noticed two suitcases” which could easily be the backpacks in the report.
July 28, 2009 @ 12:23 pmOnly in the world of racist double speak and illogic can two suitcases innocently transform into backpacks and two unidentified men innocently transform into two black males. No racial profiling going on here, no. Imagine that. It was just a typographical error.
July 28, 2009 @ 12:39 pmJohn,
I saw the link. It is obvious that in the interview in question, Gates did not go into detail. In the interview on Oprah radio, the interviewer was a black woman, and so Gates explained that his driver is really not “black,” but would be considered “black” by many whites. Thus, the distinction.
Moreover, for you scientifically minded racial classifiers, Moroccans are considered “berber” people and are classified as Caucasian. So, according to the discredited science of racism, the driver is a Caucasian.
July 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pmWhat does it say about this story (and this thread) that the only actual racism displayed is on the part of those making accusations of racial profiling?
And am I missing something as to the significance of backpacks vs. suitcases? A “black man with a backpack” doesn’t exactly conjure up a threatening image.
July 28, 2009 @ 1:04 pmIris Bittercourt,
Get a life.
After reading all of the tripe you have posted you are exhibiting all of the feature you claim Conservatives and Republicans exhibit.
Let me guess, Liberal and white and suffer from racial guilt.
As an African American I would point out you aren’t helping our cause any by your vitriol.
July 28, 2009 @ 1:24 pmSo Crowley’s report didn’t delve deeply into the driver’s race. So what?
Again, the person who introduced racism wasn’t Crowley, it was Gates. No one, including Gates, has suggested that Crowley made a racist comment of any kind.
Thanks for saying so. That’s how it seems to me as well.
July 28, 2009 @ 2:01 pmBTW, here’s where self-described “wise Latina” Iris gets her talking points.
Like Iris, the Times story suggests a conspiracy where none is needed.
July 28, 2009 @ 3:03 pmFrom the Daily Kos, my pinhead friends and admirers:
A Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano believes that the arrest of Henry Louis Gates was improper. That’s right someone on Fox News which likes black people as much as the KKK does has studied the case and came to the conclusion the arrest was improper.
Judge Napolitano believes that if officer Crowley’s police report is to be believed and that he arrested Gates on his own property that the arrest was improper. Under Massachusetts law Sgt. Crowley had no legal right to arrest Gates. Mr. Gates was on his own property which means he was not causing a public disturbance.
Also under federal law Crowley had no right to enter Gates house without his permission. That stands even if Crowley believed something was wrong. According to Judge Napolitano the police officer has to actually see a crime being committed or have a serach warrant to enter the house. If the police report is correct Crowley violated Mr. Gates Fourth Amendment Rights
Whether or not you believe race played a part in this situation it is obvious that the officer did not react properly.
Now I have a question for the talking heads and political pundits on the right. You know the ones ranting and raving about how their constitutional rights and personal liberties are under attack by President Obama.?
I want to know that in light of the fact that Mr. Gates 4th Amendment rights have been violated will they rush to his defense? Will they demand that the Cambridge Police apologize?
Will those same talking heads question the fact that the words black and backpack appear in Sgt. Crowley’s police report although the 911 caller never mentions those words in her call? The caller says at no time did she even use the word black.
We all believe we know the answers to those questions. Let’s hope we are wrong.
July 28, 2009 @ 3:52 pmFrom the esteemed black Republican, Colin Powell:
KING: Were you ever racially profiled?
POWELL: Yes, many times.
KING: And didn’t you ever bring anger to it?
POWELL: Of course. But, you know, anger is best controlled. And sure I got mad.
I got mad when I, as a national security adviser to the president of the United States, I went down to meet somebody at Reagan National Airport and nobody recognized — nobody thought I could possibly be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy at Reagan National Airport.
And it was only when I went up to the counter and said, “Is my guest here who’s waiting for me?” did somebody say, “Oh, you’re General Powell.” It was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser.
KING: How do you deal with things like that?
POWELL: You just suck it up. What are you going to do? It was a teaching point for him. Yes, I’m the national security adviser, I’m black. And watch, I can do the job. So, you have this kind of — there is no African-American in this country who has not been exposed to this kind of situation.
July 28, 2009 @ 4:33 pmYou do realize that the report was written after the incident, right?
This means that Crowley knew the identity and race of at least one of the persons seen forcing his way into the house, i.e. he knew Gates was black. And since Gates is on record saying his driver is a “big black man” it’s probably that Crowley knew the other man seen at the door was also black. So he went to write his report and he says “two black men.” It’s true he didn’t know this at the time, but he did know it by the time he wrote the report. And it is accurate. Two men, who were in fact black, did force their way into the house.
Second, the 911 caller said she was “suitcases.” Crowley’s report says “backpacks.” So what? What is the sinister difference you seem to see between a suitcase and a backpack? I don’t get it. Maybe they really were backpacks and the caller got it wrong. Who knows and why does it matter?!
As for Gates 4th amendment right, maybe they were violated in a technical sense. But again that doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with race. A white guy screaming the same crap at a black officer would also be more likely to find himself in cuffs and I’d be all for it.
Do I care about Gates violated rights? Yeah, I care about rights, but not so much about Gates. If he’d been treated badly despite acting appropriately, I’d be all for Gates. I’m aware there really are racists out there and I have no sympathy for them.
In this case, Gates is the one injecting race in this situation and I’m certain that if a white professor had made comments toward black officers identical to what Gates uttered, he’d be out of a job.
Gates, meanwhile, gets tons of favorable media attention and a sit down with his buddy the President at the White House. And he’s supposed to be the victim? Poor guy.
July 28, 2009 @ 4:35 pmIris,
Now you’re moving the goalposts.
No one ever said there was no such thing as racism. I said that the only racism in this particular case was coming from Gates, not from Crowley.
Not every case of a black man being pulled over is a racial incident. Sometimes, most of the time, he deserved to be pulled over, just like the white guy who got pulled over probably deserved it as well.
July 28, 2009 @ 4:38 pmJohn,
You are not obtuse. Would a burglar show up to the front door with two suitcases? Does that even make any sense to you? Had Crowley stated the facts — that there were two suitcases on the porch, would you conclude that the person trying to enter the home was a burglar, or the resident coming home from a trip?
Moreover, do not time travel. At the time that Crowley wrote the report, he had no idea who the driver was, as you learned this information yourself from an interview posted AFTER GATES WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON. I assume that we can agree that the police report was prepared BEFORE GATES LEFT PRISON.
So you admit that Gates’ 4th Amendment rights were violated, but you care more about Gates alleged statements to the police (found in the same report that you now admit is false and that Gates has denied ever saying) than about a violation of our Constitution? What Gates did is not against the law in any state, and yet you believe that this non-violation (or better yet, this exercise of free speech) is somehow more pernicious than a violation of Constitutional rights? I find your conclusion troubling and absurd, and it shows the extent to which race has warped your worldview.
I feel sorry for you. You guys do cling to your guns, religion and racism, until your dying breath. God help us.
July 28, 2009 @ 5:03 pmExactly
July 28, 2009 @ 5:34 pmI have some theories about Iris (ad hominem attack approaches.) Maybe I’m wrong.
Iris is not angry that white people are racist. She is angry when white people try to say that they are not racist. She fully embraces racism herself; it’s a well worn tool in her repetoire. She is pissed because white people pretend that there is no racism involved with what goes on in their thoughts and lives. Maybe she is also pissed because white people are inferior (see her comments above about genetic mutation and biological inferiority) and that they deny it.
To many people there are mainly two reasons to even bring up race in a conversation:
1- because something involving race happened or comes up
2- because they constantly use race as a lens to view the world.
My theory involves that Iris is of the second type, the kind that never stops considering race when looking at the world around her. She’s obsessed. She can spontaneously spew forth factoids and details about demographics and racial success and the race of various obscure or side-note people. Then she’ll turn around and say that there is only one human race and we are all the same, or something in that vein; just plain lip-service. I wonder which type of approach to the race issue is most conducive to being tolerant and respectful of other races?
Last theory: they say that crazy people are called crazy unless they’re wealthy- then they’re called eclectic. But I’ll stick to calling Iris crazy.
Now I fully realize that Iris does not like to use labels like “white people” and black people and hispanic people, but the problem with her taste in rhetoric is that most people self identify in to these various groups, so it is useful sometimes to engage in this kind of labeling. And she’d probably tip her hat to the psychological work that’s been done to “prove” that humans are racist by default and cannot escape this very human condition of theirs.
July 28, 2009 @ 6:08 pmIris, let me ask you this (although for some reason you keep ignoring my questions). Wouldn’t YOU want the police to investigate if someone reported that 2 males with suitcases may be breaking into your house? What difference does it make whether the initial caller reported seeing suitecases rather than backpacks?
Are you saying that the police in this case should deduce that it must actually be the homeowner locked out of their own house, and not even bother showing up?
Because if the answer is no, then I don’t see how the officer could have or should have handled the situation any differently as he approached the house.
Most if not all of us on this thread have acknowledged that it was unnecessary or even a mistake for the officers to have ultimately arrested Gates. But he wasn’t arrested because he was racially profiled. He was arrested because he thought he was being racially profiled and chose to act like an arrogant jerk.
The police dropped the charges almost immediately so it doesn’t matter from a criminal standpoint whether there were any due process violations. And if Gates thinks he has a civil claim, then it’s his prerogative to file a complaint. But this is all very petty, and frankly I think all the attention drawn to this is doing no favors for the President or Professor Gates.
July 28, 2009 @ 6:23 pmMorgen,
I appreciate your respoonse. However, the fundamental issue is why did the police grossly distort the facts in the police report? One would assume that if they had nothing to hide, they would have stated the facts as they were, not invent fictitious black suspects and put those words in the mouth of a woman who has disavowed such statements.
The racial profile is the police report. In this case, the racial profile was for people like you, who would get riled up over fictitious racial slights, and not focus on the underlying constitutional violation. The US Constitution was violated!!! Conservatives should be up in arms about this.
To the Duke of Earl,
You, as many whites, have the luxury of pretending that race does not exist. That is part and parcel of white privilege. Whites in this country are without race; they are the norm. Begin to read carefully how the press describes whites and others. When they are referring to a white person, they do not indicate the race of the person (but everyone understands, anyway). However, when they refer to a “person of color,” they indicate the race. Thus, whiteness is the default position, and your statements reflect your white privilege (although perhaps you do not know this).
Now, we do know definitively from the human genome project that there are not human races, but just one human race. In fact, the difference between white and black skin is one letter out of 3.6 billion. So immaterial as to be irrelevant. That is why “race” does not exist.
However, to say that race does not exist is the beginning of the analysis, and not the end. Most conservatives would like to conclude that since race does not exist, we should not have any race-based programs. But, this argument fails to recognize that although race does not exist, racialization does. Accordingly, darkskinned people have been racialized as “black” in this country. It is this racialization that we must combat. The Gates case is a good illustration of racialization. Gates considers himself more white than black, was married to a white woman and has two daughters that are much more white than black (in the colloquial sense of the word). Yet, Gates has been racialized as a black “thug” on this very blog.
In other words, everything that has been done in the name of race has been based on a lie, and we need to remedy the grave injustices that have occurred due to the racialization of dark-skinned people in America.
July 28, 2009 @ 7:28 pmI count 8 uses of the word “thug” on this thread (including “rethug”), and they are all by you, Iris.
July 28, 2009 @ 7:36 pmIris,
Are you really this dense? It’s true that you and I didn’t learn about the facts until after the papers wrote about it. Do you think, just maybe, the officers involved might have asked Gates who the second guy was who was seen helping him force the door? Or do you think they were talking about the Dodgers on the ride to the station and during booking? Since Crowley’s own report shows him asking Gates if there was anyone else inside, I’m guessing that at some point he got an answer to who the second man was.
That, or it could all be part of a conspiracy! I know this is the option you’re going to go with…What can I do?
For my money, the best thing revealed here today is that suitcases = racism but backpacks do not. This is so completely and utterly beyond parody…I don’t know what else to say about it. I’ll just repeat it so the crazy can sink in:
In the end, your whole claim of racism against Crowley has just two little problems:
1) Gates was the only person talking like a racist.
2) Crowley’s report that two black men were seen forcing open Gates’ door is accurate.
Except for those two things, you might have a case. As it is, not so much.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are people who believe what you’re selling just as there are still people who believe we never walked on the moon or that there was a man on the grassy knoll or that Trig isn’t Sarah Palin’s son or that Obama was born in Nigeria instead of Hawaii. Generally it’s not worthwhile arguing with such people. And frankly, I’m pretty convinced you’re one of those people.
July 28, 2009 @ 7:42 pmJohn,
You base your entire response of wild conjecture. What makes you believe that Gates (who was informed enough legally to know not to step out of his house because he could be arrested for suspicion of burglary) is going to volunteer statements to the police regarding his driver, who was not at the scene at the time of the arrest. Certainly, he would not have said that his driver was a black male with a backpack. That defies logic.
Crowley’s report that Ms. Whalen said that she saw “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks standing on the porch” is not accurate, as Ms. Whalen’s lawyer has clearly stated.
In your view Gates was talking like a racist, but he did not draft the police report, which is a work of art in racial profiling, replete with black spooks and stereotypical statements that sound reasonable to uninformed whites. The police report is theater written for whites like you. Good thing that Crowley taught racial profiling. I can see that his training was used to good effect in crafting a story that even Charles Stuart would envy. But like any mediocre criminal, Crowley slipped up, and you watch, he is going to pay BIG TIME. But with the likes of people like you, he should have his own show on Faux News after writing a book entitled: “Reverse Discrimination by a Black Perp on a Noble White Police Officer.”
July 28, 2009 @ 8:00 pmRACISM!
July 28, 2009 @ 8:06 pmIris, I understood the insane argument you were trying to make about “spooks” and “backpacks” since your first post on this. But couldn’t you much more plausibly argue that if Sgt. Crowley was not aware of the race of the potential perpetrators PRIOR to making the call, he had no reason to prejudge anyone at the scene based on race or anything else?
Not only does this seem much more plausible, it also happens to coincide with the reporting of Sgt. Crowley and other witnesses on the scene.
Frankly, even Professor Gates’ account does not deviate much from Crowley’s report. In that Root article I linked earlier, Gates stated that he felt he was “in danger” just based on the presence of a white police officer on his porch asking him if he could step outside to speak with him. By his own account, Gates is the one who prejudged the intentions of the officer. As a result he turned what should have been a routine police follow-up into a worldwide media event.
July 28, 2009 @ 8:16 pmListen to the dispatch tapes.
In the first dispatch, the women mentions the suitcases. In the second dispatch, the woman mentions that she does not know the race of the suspects, although one of them may be Hispanic. In the third dispatch, she then clarifies that it is not an apartment building, but a single family yellow house. Crowley then requests the caller to meet him at the front door. The dispatcher clarifies that the caller is a witness and that she does not live in the residence. Crowley then clarifies that he is with a gentleman that says that he resides in the home, but is uncooperative and asks to keep the cars coming. He then ask for the Harvard police to come. He then states that he has the ID of a Henry Louis Gates.
Then a number of units state that they have arrived on the scene. Crowley then states again that the name of the person is Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that it is a Harvard property.
Then Crowley is called several times without responding. Then someone asks if a wagon is coming to the location, and the dispatcher clarifies the address. The wagon driver copies. End of tape.
So, Sgt. Crowley was aware that they were two suitcases on the front porch and that at least one of the suspects could be Hispanic. He also knew that it was a single family house and that the caller was not the resident, but a potential witness. No one mentioned two black males with backpacks at any time during the recordings. The first time this reference is made is after the arrest in the police report.
Crowley then clarifies that he is with a gentleman that says that he resides in the home, but is uncooperative and asks to keep the cars coming. At this point, Crowley no longer has probable cause that a felony is being committed. He then asks for the Harvard police to come, which is directly contrary to his prior transmission. He then states that he has the ID of a Henry Louis Gates. At that point, an honest cop would have called dispatch and told them to cancel the backup, which had not yet arrived.
Then a number of units state that they have arrived on the scene. Crowley then states again that the name of the person is Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that it is a Harvard property. At this point, what more does Crowley need.
Then Crowley is called several times without responding. Where was our noble Sgt. at this time, and why didn’t he respond to the various calls made to him. Then someone asks if a wagon is coming to the location, and the dispatcher clarifies the address. The wagon driver copies. Presumably, the wagon was coming to take Gates to jail. But, Crowley no longer had any reasonable semblance of legal authority to arrest Prof. Gates.
After the arrest, the police report is drafted with the factual distortions that I mentioned previously. When you put all of the pieces together, you have a false imprisonment, an abuse of authority, a false police report and racial profiling. There is no other reasonable conclusion to make based on the facts.
July 28, 2009 @ 8:54 pmYou possess a remarkable degree of certainty for someone who did not witness these events directly. By contrast, there were a number of direct witnesses to most of the exchange which occurred between Gates and Crowley. If a report is available where one of these witnesses refutes Crowley’s version I would like to see it.
So your entire claim rests on the fact that the police report states that the 911 caller on site told Crowley that she had observed “2 black males with backpacks on the porch”. And she is now claiming that this was not the case.
I tried making this argument earlier: given that Crowley was being directly accused of racism by Gates on site, wouldn’t it have been crazy for him to intentionally fabricate this detail? Far from trying to “cover up” his behavior, it would play right into this accusation from couch detectives everywhere. (And I have also questioned how a “black male with a backpack” conjures up any sort of racial stereotype. Is he going to the library?)
Your most recent posts at least were rationally argued and worthy of a respectful response. But let’s move on. I’m going to anyway.
July 28, 2009 @ 9:28 pmThese house negroes are like the ones when slavery ended the boss aka slaveholder ain’t that bad. The female officers position that she wont support Obama because he spoke against her white friend is typical of a house Negro. Do not speak against the boss because they gave me a job.
Miss bojangles needs to tap dance to complete the skit.
Pitiful
July 29, 2009 @ 9:28 amJeffrey,
So let’s just break this down.
You think people should identify with fellow members of their particular race over and above any friendships they might have with people outside the race. In other words, race trumps friendship.
And the difference between that and straight-up racism is…?
July 29, 2009 @ 10:45 amDearest Iris Bitterhurt,
I want to thank you for your outstanding response to my theories. They were well thought out and good attempts at civil discussion as well as good attempts to discern my various cultural identities. So thanks to you, or your perscriptions, you’ve contributed the valuables.
I thought you asked a good question, “what are conservatives trying to conserve?” Are we conserving old fashioned values? Conserving money? Conserving our freedoms so that we don’t abuse them? Conserving the foundation and heritage of our nation? Conserving ammunition? Or is it a term that runs in the other direction of “progressivism?”
What are progressives progressing toward? Utopia? Forced equality? Government control of everything? Total freedom without consequence?
July 29, 2009 @ 10:53 amAs the resident lowlife on VS who most people find reprehensible, I feel it’s time for me to weigh in on the hilarity provided by this Iris person. As a honky Iris, the best recommendation I can give you is to adjust your medication.
Now excuse me, I have to clean my gun and keep a vigilant watch for any black person that might wander onto my block. Of course, I’ll shoot them dead in a New York minute. They’re obviously a criminal.
July 29, 2009 @ 11:05 amJim, where were you yesterday? I had my popcorn all ready to go waiting for the fireworks to start. ; )
July 29, 2009 @ 11:06 amI couldn’t get onto the site. I figured you guys had wised up and were banning me.
July 29, 2009 @ 11:35 am[...] Links CNN: Black Officers Back Up Sgt. Crowley Plastic Surgery Tax Eyed As Revenue Raiser Nancy Pelosi on being unpopular: ‘I don’t [...]
July 29, 2009 @ 12:11 pmWHY DID CROWLEY LIE IN THE POLICE REPORT?
1. WHY DID THE POLICE REPORT SAY THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS DISORDERLY IN A PUBLIC PLACE? WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPEN AT HIS PRIVATE RESIDENCE?
2. WHY DID THE POLICE REPORT SAY THAT OFFICER CROWLEY TALKED TO THE WHALEN WOMAN AND SHE SAID THERE WERE TWO LARGE BLACK MEN BREAKING INTO THE HOME? WHALEN’S STATEMENT WAS RELEASED AND SHE SAID SHE NEVER SAID THERE WERE TWO LARGE BLACK MEN IN HER 911 CALL OR ANY OTHER TIME.
3. WHY DID OFFICER CROWLEY SAY THAT HE TALKED TO THE CALLER (WHALEN) IN PERSON AT THE SCENE OF THE INCIDENT WHEN SHE STATED IN A STATEMENT SHE HAD NOT TALKED TO HIM?
THE ABOVE VIDEO BY THE BLACK OFFICERS MEANS NO MORE THAN A STATEMENT ISSUED BY CLARENCE THOMAS.
IF OFFICER CROWLEY WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO LIE IN THE POLICE REPORT.
IN AN INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR GATES, HE STATED THAT THE POLICE REPORT IS FULL OF LIES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE POLICE REPORT IS INDEED FULL OF LIES.
IF OFFICER CROWLEY HAD TAKEN OR TAUGHT RACIAL PROFILING COURSES WHY DIDN’T HE JUST LEAVE THE RESIDENCE AFTER THE TWO FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION WERE COMPLIED WITH?
WHY DID OFFICER CROWLEY MAKE A CALL FOR BACK UP AND SAY KEEP THE CARS COMING?….WHEN THERE WAS NO INDICATION WHAT SO EVER THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS MAKING ANY THREATS TO OFFICER CROWLEY?
KEEP THE CARS COMING….HOW MANY CARS DOES IT TAKE TO ARREST A MAN OVER 50 WITH A CANE AT HIS OWN HOME WHO JUST CAME BACK TO TOWN FROM A FLIGHT OVERSEAS?
WHEN PROFESSOR GATES EXITED HIS HOME HE SAID THERE WERE A SEA OF POLICE CARS. WHY WOULD AN OFFICER WHO HAS HAD RACIAL PROFILING COURSES INSIST ON HAVING A SEA OF OFFICERS OUTSIDE OF PROFESSOR GATES RESIDENCE CAUSING A SCENE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THE FACT THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS ASKING CROWLEY TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF?
I BELIEVE CROWLEY WAS ACTING LIKE THE ROGUE COP THAT PROFESSOR GATES SAID HE WAS. ONCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS INDEED A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD WHO RESIDED IN THE RESIDENCE AND WHO RECOGNIZED CROWLEY’S BEHAVIOR WAS LESS THAN PROFESSIONAL AND PROFESSOR GATES QUESTIONED IT, CROWLEY HAD TO FIND A WAY TO SHIFT THE FACTS. PROFESSOR GATES ASKED FOR CROWLEY’S NAME AND BADGE NUMBER AND CROWLEY REFUSED. WHY? CROWLEY HAD RACIAL PROFILING TRAINING WHY NOT GIVE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION TO THE MAN YOU ARE QUESTIONING?
CROWLEY HAD TO THINK FAST, BECAUSE HE WAS AWARE THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS GOING TO REPORT HIM FOR HIS ACTIONS. THIS IS WHY CROWLEY TRUMPED UP THE CHARGES OF PROFESSOR GATES BEING DISORDERLY AND WHY THE POLICE REPORT IS FULL OF LIES.
BASED ON READING THE POLICE REPORT, STATEMENTS BY CROWLEY, GATES AND WHALEN. IT IS EVIDENT THAT CROWLEY IS NOT CREDIBLE. PROFESSOR GATES TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCIDENT.
AND WHY ARE THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE POLICE UNION BACKING AN OFFICER’S REPORT THAT HAS LIES IN IT?
July 29, 2009 @ 8:54 pmTHERE ARE LIES IN THE POLICE REPORT. THERE ARE EVEN SCENARIOS THAT ARE LIES. CROWLEY DESCRIBES HOW A FEMALE VOICE CALLS OUT TO HIM WHICH IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE VOICE OF WHALEN THE 911 CALLER. CROWLEY GOES INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE WOMAN HE NEVER SPOKE TO.
THE POLICE REPORT IS FABRICATED.
July 29, 2009 @ 9:12 pmFrom Wikipedia:
Piestewa Peak (formerly Squaw Peak), at 2608 feet (795 meters) is the second highest point in the Phoenix Mountains, after Camelback Mountain, and the third highest in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. It is located in the Phoenix Mountains Preserve. Piestewa Peak is named in honor of Army Spc. Lori Ann Piestewa, the first Native American woman to die in combat in the US military, [1] and the first woman soldier to be killed in action in the 2003 Iraq Conflict.[2] Piestewa was born in Tuba City, Arizona on December 14, 1979. She was killed in Iraq on March 23, 2003, after the convoy in which she was driving was ambushed in Nasiriyah, Iraq after making a wrong turn.[3] The geological feature had been officially known as Squaw Peak until it was renamed by Governor Janet Napolitano.[4] Ultimately the name change was officially if unceremoniously [5] approved at the federal level on April 10, 2008 by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.[6][7]
Piestewa Peak has been designated as a Phoenix Point of Pride
July 30, 2009 @ 1:47 amI got tired of reading Iris’ unfounded and skewed arguments, and those responding to her with valid points only to be berated in a childish, defensive, name-calling manner. So I apologize if I missed any important points in the last few posts, I skipped over them.
Iris- You claim to have done your homework. It is probably not the smartest thing to portray oneself as an expert on a given subject unless you know ALL aspects of it. You throw out large, broadsword style comments about the 4th amendment. So far, it seems you have overlooked another important part of Sgt. Crowley’s job- Massachusetts General Laws. Let me give you a few things to ponder, and I’ll let you come up with another ill-tempered and uneducated response.
1. Probable Cause- N. Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed; and that the person at hand is responsible.
-This is one of the things that police officers base their investigations on. They had probable cause to believe that someone was breaking into a house. They are sworn (Trust me, if it was your house and it was an actual burglar, you would want them to) to investigate the incident until it is proven that there is no crime being committed. This is why Crowley and other officers went to the house, were on the porch, etc. They had every right to enter the porch and the dwelling (Since entry had been made by one of the involved parties) to identify the subjects and stop any criminal behavior. Would you rather have them arrive, see that entry had been made, and then turn around and leave because they didn’t want to violate Iris Bettencourt’s skewed interpretation of search and seizure laws? No- If it was your house and it was a real burglar, you would want the police to go in and get them. But all was well, because the men inside were the homeowner and his driver. So at this point, Gates should have thanked the officers for doing their job, checking to be sure that his property was ok, and then said goodnight. We all know he didn’t do that.
2-Curtillage- I’ll let you look that one up. What you’ll find is that areas like a driveway, front lawn, porch, etc. are not considered part of your dwelling in certain circumstances. You seem to have a big problem with the fact that Gates was arrested on his front porch. Well, the police were lawfully there- they had just finished investigating the B&E incident. I suppose you would rather the police just stand out on the street and try to call out to any intruders and ask them to walk right out to the street so they can be placed under arrest? Criminals just don’t seem to do that sort of thing, go figure.
3- Try reading the MGL elements for disorderly conduct. What you will find are phrases like ‘recklessly creating a physically hazardous or offensive condition… for not legitimate purpose of the actor…’ etc. What you will not find, however, is a requirement that this occur on a public way, public place, etc. Hate to break it to you and Dr. Gates who seem to be the only two people who believe you can yell, scream, swear, etc. at a police officer while upsetting and annoying your neighbors on your front porch and not get arrested… but yes, this is arrestable. And justified. And legal.
I’m pretty sure someone already threw this one out there, but would you (And Dr. Gates) be this upset if Sgt. Crowley was black?
Ok, go ahead, call me names and come up with another set of uneducated arguments… I’ll wait
July 31, 2009 @ 7:28 amFrom Wikipedia:
In law, curtilage is the enclosed area of land around a dwelling.[1] It is distinct from the dwelling by virtue of lacking a roof, but distinct from the area outside the enclosure in that it is enclosed within a wall or barrier of some sort.
It is typically treated as being legally coupled with the dwelling it surrounds despite the fact that it might commonly be considered “outdoors”.
This distinction is important under US law for cases dealing with burglary and with self defense under the Castle Doctrine. Under Florida law, burglary encompasses the English common-law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, a homeowner does not have to retreat within the curtilage under Florida’s Castle Doctrine.
The curtilage (like the home) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence (in the US) is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Open fields doctrine for how courts distinguish curtilage and “open fields”, with the latter not providing privacy.
NOW FOR YOU LEGAL GURUS OUT THERE, LET ME TURN UP THE VOLUME SO YOU CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS JUST SAID: THE CURTILAGE (LIKE THE HOME) PROVIDES A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AND HENCE (IN THE US) IS PROTECTED FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
You guys are truly pathetic. I am actually amazed out how inane and baseless your arguments are. No one has dealth with Judge Napolitano’s conclusion from Faux News. TAKE ON JUDGE NAPOLITANO’S CONCLUSION, PLEASE. IS ANY OUT THERE SMART ENOUGH TO DO THIS? I DIDN’T THINK SO.
July 31, 2009 @ 1:19 pm