I think he took steps to defuse the situation, not to diffuse it.

Ah yeah, the "both sides to blame" bullshit. Black guy arrested in own home -- shame on him!

Well, that's a climbdown I can live with. Obama said exactly what I was thinking, but given his position and the continuing media frenzy, he had to do something.

But shouldn't that be "defuse" rather than "diffuse"; as in, this is a potentially explosive situation rather than something which needs to be spread out? I know Mark Kleiman already gently tweaked you about "reign in" versus "rein in" a couple of days ago.

I've been a big fan since your Carpetbagger days, but I'm also a grammar pedant. Sorry!

NO! We must argue about this forever! We are going to start a race war over it! Rush Limbaugh will lead all the rich white men who are being oppressed!

Damn, Barack is such a good speaker considering he's an illegal alien. Does everyone in Kenya have such stellar command of the English language?

@ Go, Sestak: With appropriate caveats for limited information, I actually think he's right that there was an overreaction on both sides. Gates apparently was quite touchy with Crowley, who responded by arresting him for "contempt of cop," as they say. I can't say I blame Gates for getting pissed, but Crowley was just doing his job: seems to me it was the neighbor that Gates should be upset with.

Damn. I would hope this would go on much longer. It's kind of like a remake of the Schiavo case-- the MSM retains its role as trumpeter of the popularity of the harassment of private citizens, but this time the President is actually against the insanity. And I very much doubt that the public will buy into the MSM bullshit this time either.

Bonus benefit: a lot of racists have been outing themselves.

Go, Systak:

You think only black people get arrested in their own home? What world do you live in?

In many places in the US unfortunately he would have been Tasered by the cop, regardless of his race.

The fact is, cops arrest people all of the time for "Being an asshole to a cop". Hopefully this will open a dialogue about that, not a dialogue about race.

Give credit where it's due: Chrenson clearly has the President's ear.

This is as good an example as we are likely to get that our society would be much better off without "the media."

In NH a man was arrested because he videotaped a police officer without the officer's knowledge, and then tried to file a complaint with it. Apparently it was illegal to videotape somebody without telling them. And this guy was white.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/07/11/5963/

Amazingly enough, this didn't get near the coverage of the Gates arrest.

I can appreciate that Obama is taking the high road. I think it's admirable that he can admit that he might have used different words.

As a teacher, I would point out that he did not call the Cambridge police stupid, he called their "actions" in arresting Gates in his own home for disorderly conduct, when they knew he was in his own home, stupid. Teachers are trained to condemn behavior and actions, not children. I think Obama modeled that.

Last time I checked it was not a violation of any law to speak loudly to or accuse a white cop of bieng racist, especially in your own home.

There is a pretty famous police video of a white officer being screamed at, cursed and berated by a older white motorist for writting him a speeding ticket. The enraged motorist even rips up the ticket and throws it onto the road. The officer, clearly aware of his own dashboard camera, calmly tells the motorist to pick up the bits of paper or be cited for litering. At no point is the motorist handcuffed or threatened with arrest.

Contrast that with and elderly, travel weary (flew in from China), frustrated (front door is jammed), Professor Gates and tell me you don't see a something wrong with the outcome.

Steve, you know we're bound to keep pecking on you about these, so go ahead and save us all some effort. Make yourself a post-it of "defuse/diffuse, whose/who's, reign/rein" (with definitions) and stick it on your dang monitor until your brain develops the muscle-memory it needs. Yes?

Carry on.

God, I wish someone (other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert) would rip the "media stars" a new asshole the next time they make a big deal out of this. These idiots need to feel some pain, because reason is clearly not up to the job.

To echo lotus @3:35, please add:

there - a place, eg. "put it over there"

their - possessive, eg. "that is their house"

they're - contraction for "they are" or "they were", eg. "they're going to Europe for their vacation"

As a teacher, I would point out that he did not call the Cambridge police stupid, he called their "actions" in arresting Gates in his own home for disorderly conduct, when they knew he was in his own home, stupid.

Standard debate rule. You can say 'The affirmatives' plan is stupid', but you can't say 'The 1AC is stupid'. Similar rule in parliamentary procedure too. Something so widespread is probably pretty sound.

My first thought, though, was "Obama was in the Senate. He must have learned something about mollifying blowhards who were called out for being wrong and who pushed back."

The Gawker has an excellent takedown of the whole situation, based on statements from all sides. Crowley does not come off looking very good, even if you assume that his report of the incident is more trustworthy than the story Gates provided through his lawyer.

i appreciate obama's geniality -- i appreciate his peacework.

deep inside, it makes me ill that he and gates are the ones who must defuse the situation.

goddam honky press. whatever happened to the idea of "gettin' whitey" after obama got elected? who dropped the ball on that one?

shit.

Good for Obama. I entirely agree on the merits with the leftish view of the incident. But America elected Obama President to address (hopefully enact) a specific agenda, and minor, even racially-tainted, abuses of power by local police departments is not a high priority on that agenda. Time to move on.

I think Toad has everything right except the line about the cop just doing his job unless that was meant to refer to showing up in the first place. the bottom line is once his safety was assured, the cop should have done everything in his power to defuse the situation. Obviously that did not happen. I am outraged that the police would demnd an apology when the situation was not handled well regardless of gates' provocation. I want to live in a country where the police "protect and serve' not one where the cops are "feared and worshipped". I would think most cops feel the same way--anybody want to guess how this is playing in community relations between the police and African American community? Anybody want to guess whether that makes the cops' job easier or harder?

(patiently) You guys are still missing a major piece of the incident -- the witness.

Cops are constantly responding to incidents with witnesses to crimes that didn't happen, mistaken identity, and so on. It's very common for somebody like Gates to be pissed off to escape velocity -- but he wasn't arrested "in his own home", he was arrested cuz he wouldn't STFU after the cop was satisfied that he wasn't actually the burglar (with an accomplice) that the 911 caller reported.

In cases like that, once the initial reason for the call is resolved, viz. in this case, there wasn't a crime, in many others, there WAS, but the guy intially identified wasn't the one who did it, the cop's responsibilities shifts to the witness.

Most of the time, the witness is unknown and unidentifiable to the pissed off citizen. In this case, it is not clear whether the woman who called in the break-in to 911 was in the crowd that watched Gates make a fool of himself.

But is there anybody who thinks anything in Gates' behavior from beginning to end of this ugly little squabble rules out the possibility that he might have turned on the witness, especially without the cop present?

Well?

Ya this story just about died from overkill...20 effin minutes on Mourning Joe first 10 of the Today show...Faux must have been creaming their shorts. And all with the requisite "black" person to report the story as not to seem biased. The irony being that if they are black , they have experienced it. Infotainment...to an art form

Americanist, that's possibly the dumbest thing you've ever written here, and you're a veritable fount of stupid. Henry Louis Gates, a well-known scholar, 58 years old, walks with a cane, just flew in from China, then had a contentious encounter with a police officer, so probably pretty knackered from all that--is then going to chase down the lady who called the cops and beat her up (assuming he knows who made the call, a thing we don't know at all)?

On the merits, no; if my neighbor calls the police because he/she hears a noise in my house, and I blow my stack at the cop, but no actual crime was committed, he doesn't get to arrest me just because I saw him talk to the neighbor beforehand.

But is there anybody who thinks anything in Gates' behavior from beginning to end of this ugly little squabble rules out the possibility that he might have turned on the witness, especially without the cop present?

Sure theAmericanist. The cop honestly believed that Gates was going to explode and start killing people in the audience. He might have even stolen a gun, driven to the police station and started murdering cops Terminator style. Will you listen to yourself and stop being ridiculous?

This officer was not protecting anyone and even the most charitable interpretation of the officer's own ad hoc report doesn't suggest anything of the sort. He basically arrested a guy because he didn't like his attitude. For whatever reason, you feel like you need defend an officer using the color of authority to make someone he doesn't like shut up but as far as that goes, that just makes you a run of the mill authoritarian wanker. But this transparently idiotic attempt to argue that there was some sort of public menace involved is so embarrassingly stupid that not even the police officer involved would try to sell it.

Ah yeah, the "both sides to blame" bullshit. Black guy arrested in own home -- shame on him!

This is exactly the type of misrepresentation that cause the issue to get blown up.

You can bet the President, to have called Crowley himself has come to the conclusion that this was almost entirely Gates' doing. Crowley is looking quite different today. Years of volunteering with minority inner city kids, close African American members of his own family, and no record of any prior problems of this type.

Also disclosed today the fact that Gates and his limo driver, had been circling the house, checking windows and finally broken open his own door triggering a 911 call indicating a possible home invasion, kidnapping or burglary in progress -- something the president did not know yesterday.

Gates, in addition to being a bigot, and as a wealthy parasite, unconcerned with the safety of police officers, did not let the President know that he was a drama queen creating the incident that he called the white house to whine about.

Thankfully, Gates reputation is now in the toilet.

The cop honestly believed that Gates was going to explode and start killing people in the audience.

As a 15-year police officer, with seven years on the beat, and the Vice Presidency of our state's African American Law Enforcement Officer's Association, I would say the officer had every reason to believe that there was a chance Gates might have been a perpetrator of a violent ongoing crime.

You and the apologists for Gates are the ones assuming a crime and a criminal look a certain way.

There was a call that Gates generated by breaking into his own home. This is no different than responding to a burglary alarm.

The media may have to cuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct if they keep up this hysteria.

How different it is to have a thoughtful president.

Perhaps the most offensive expression surrounding this whole sordid incident is the notion that both men may have overreacted as if they both have an equivalent level of responsibility here. At the risk of sounding like Spiderman, people are given both power and responsibility when they are granted a badge and a gun. They are charged with using their power wisely and expeditiously. That did not happen in this case and all of the attempts to bring up a bunch of irrelevant crap about how wonderful the officer is to his mother or what a nice singing voice he has or what an asshole Gates was - the sort of red herring bullshit Dave spews in the comment above - doesn't change the basic reality that he restricted a man's liberty because he didn't like what he was saying to him. I have found it beyond creepy to find out over the past few days that so many of our citizens feel comfortable with the idea that police have some unspecified right to punish people who don't show them the proper respect. Its deeply disgusting to behold.

Well, it was nice to see Senator Obama while it lasted.

I would say the officer had every reason to believe that there was a chance Gates might have been a perpetrator of a violent ongoing crime.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Of course, this is nothing at all like what the officer said to justify his arrest but like I said, whatever you can use to justify using your authority to physically coerce people to pretend they respect you must be all good.

I would say the officer had every reason to believe that there was a chance Gates might have been a perpetrator of a violent ongoing crime.

That's great, except that in the police report, the arresting officer states that he believed Gates was who he said he was. And it's quite irrelevant whether Gates' reaction was disproportionate; the only relevant thing is that Gates had committed no crime, but the officer arrested him anyway (and not for burglary), luring him out of his house with the specific purpose of sticking him with a trumped-up charge of disorderly conduct ("maybe we could discuss this on my way out...oh, you're in 'public' now, I can arrest you for disorderly conduct").

Sigh.

kth tries his hand at logic. And falls down on his little bitty bum.

(Deep breath) kth, lemme talk louder, cuz you're plainly deaf, 'kay?

This black man was OUT OF CONTROL.

He could have taken out the whole neighborhood, and who here believes he wouldn't have? Raise your hands, boyz 'n' girlz. Lambs to the slaughter.

If you'd ever spent any time with academics of color, which I have, you'd know that they're the quickest to lose their tempers and the least likely to stop ranting once they've started. They are ENTITLED, 'kay?

But you don't know that, becuz you're too bizzy being offended to understand how to BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER.

I remember having a few drinks, just 12 or 13, with a very famous African American who knew how to handle cops. He told me, "Hands in the air, smile on your face, eyes on the prize."

That's how it's done, see? HE was never arrested.

You boneheadz know absolutely nuttin' about how to win friends and influence people. You'd rather fight all day about a stoopid principle cuz you can't see that goin' along to git along is a smarter strategy.

And Americans love cops, did you idjits but realize it. Dave up there has the 'tude that most people hearing this story have. If you lip off to a cop, expect to see the inside of the big howz.

But you righteous little pugilists never stop to think about Gates's neighbors' safety or the way this looks to REASONABLE people.

Do you?

Well good. As I've said before I think both sides are to blame. Altho I think the arrest itself was unwarranted, I don't believe screaming at a police officer is the right tactic. I don't care if you're black OR white. And the flip side is if they DIDN'T ask to see ID and just took Prof. Gates word for it and it wasn't HIM and the thieves just backed the van to the door, THEN the police would be guilty of not protecting Gates because after all he is black...

You and the apologists for Gates are the ones assuming a crime and a criminal look a certain way.

Well I have said nothing of the sort or anything that could be intrpreted that way. Indeed, given the actual issues in this dispute, this is easily the least relevant comment that I have read during this entire dispute. I honestly have no idea why you think its meaningful in the context of why the officer claimed he was arresting Gates.

LOL -- it'd help if you understood the point before you mock the person making it. (Honest, that even helps when you resort to ad hominem.)

The idea is that the cop should have simply left, having established that Gates was legitimately in the house. So far as it goes, that's true.

But what actually happened wasn't quite that simple -- Gates could have simply said "This is my house, but my key doesn't work cuz somebody evidently tried to break in while I was away. Come to think of it, that's probably why you're here, huh? But since you're the only cop on my porch, can you show ME some ID, while I go get mine? Thanks."

So what COULD have happened ain't the same as what DID happen.

Because Gates was abusing the cop, it made it harder for the cop to determine - -safely -- that there was no home invasion going on.

Because Gates CONTINUED to abuse the cop after he was sure that there was no break-in going on, it made it harder for the cop to be certain the situation was stabilized, before he left.

There was a small crowd of people there, yanno. Every single one of 'em backs the cop, not Gates. And one of those people was the woman who made the call.

The cop had already spoken with her. He know who she was -- but he also knew that Gates did not.

Still feel so fucking confident that the cop had no reason to take a few more moments to see if the bitchy old professor insulting him might be able to dial it down a little?

Have YOU ever been in a situation like that? I have -- more than twice. It's not like it's unusual for a guy who was already pissed off that a cop showed up on his property and demanded to know who he was, to finally catch on that SOMEBODY made the call... and no, the cop doesn't have to (and shouldn't) assume that Gates was going to start waving his crabby old man arms and beating her with his cane.

But he DOES have the responsibility to resolve the situation as a police matter, and that is precisely what Gates was unwilling to let him do.

As I've said before I think both sides are to blame.

And as I've said before, this is nonsense. Gates doesn't bear a responsibility to not be an asshole, stipulating for the moment that that was the case. The police offer does bear a responsibility to avoid using his power capriciously. If it was wrong to arrest Gates, as I clearly believe it was, it was wrong no matter how impolite Gates may have been.

The authoritarian ego of these officers is so over inflated. What ever happened to 'diffusing" the situation...being bigger than the players...like cops used to do

Why don't they just start with "Let everyone kiss my ass before we begin."

In such an affluent neighborhood the cops often forget their place but "I'll be damned if a Ni**er is gonna' talk to me like that, I don't care if he does live here". Cops are never wrong even when you have a video tape of their actions...they are just 'doing their jobs'.

To be given so much power demands a greater responsibility with no place for pettiness.

But is there anybody who thinks anything in Gates' behavior from beginning to end of this ugly little squabble rules out the possibility that he might have turned on the witness, especially without the cop present?

That's almost as stupid as the people who've been pushing the line that if Gates had been committing another crime (like domestic violence) it would have been bad for the cop to walk away, so therefore the cop couldn't walk away even though there was zero evidence that any crime at all had been committed.

Out of curiosity, where is your evidence that Skip Gates is such a hothead that if the cop hadn't arrested him, he would have gone out into the crowd and started clubbing people? Oh, wait, you have none? Not even someone who once saw him get testy with an undergrad who turned in a late paper? Gee, what a shock.

Basically, the cop and the professor got into a dick-swinging contest, and the cop just had to go and prove he had the biggest dick by escalating to an arrest. Now he looks like an ass in front of the entire nation because he just had to prove he had more power than Gates at that moment.

Frankly, I'm more than a little worried about this cop's self-control since he's apparently unable to appropriately handle a challenge from an elderly homeowner in a quiet neighborhood in Cambridge in the middle of the afternoon.

Okay, I've seen similar posts from "theamericanist" and "theamericanass", and I'm having a hard time telling if one of them is a parody, or the person posting must mis-typed on one of the comments.

It's so hard to tell, these days.

Because Gates CONTINUED to abuse the cop after he was sure that there was no break-in going on, it made it harder for the cop to be certain the situation was stabilized, before he left.

One more time, this is not why the cop arrested Gates. You are making shit up. This is a fantasy that you have invented inside your head. Read the arrest report.

Still feel so fucking confident that the cop had no reason to take a few more moments to see if the bitchy old professor insulting him might be able to dial it down a little?

I feel confident that it was none of the cop's business whether Gates decided to "dial it down a little." Being angry in public is not a crime no matter what colorful anecdotes you have to bring to bear.

Some points of interest. First, Obama didn't say the cop was stupid, but that "they" (spreading blame so as not to pick on an individual) acted stupidly. That means, something done and not the whole person. Obama was a lot more polite about it than 99% of Republicans talking about someone they disapprove of.

Second, Gates was in his own home and not on the sidewalk etc. where "disorderly conduct" might make some sense. You have to be really awful in your own house to rightly be arrested. I do think Gates was being an asshole if the report is correct, but the cop could have kept on walking out the door as he said he was doing, when he got irritated and decided to go back in and arrest Gates.

See this post by Ed Brayton, good analysis and comments:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/07/cops_are_just_such_sensitive_c.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

Here's hoping the matter has been, can be, will be put to rest.

With the best twittering press corpse Corporate America can buy? Not likely.

"I feel confident that it was none of the cop's business whether Gates decided to "dial it down a little...."

Then you obviously have no experience with street crime, particularly those involving witnesses to a crime that didn't happen, like "how was I supposed to know that was your car, motherfucker?", or mistaken identity cases, e.g., "Oh, I thought that was you..." "Why, cuz I'm black, you ..."

Mnemosyne is even dumber, though: "where is your evidence that Skip Gates is such a hothead..."

Um, the police report? Gates's own statements about the incident?

Look, in situations like this, cops aren't just peacemakers -- they're enforcers. You guys seem to think that recognizing authority is somehow submitting to authoritarian rule, and that's not even close.

I'm just observing that there WAS a witness, the woman who made the 911 call, and she WAS present at the time that Gates keeps yelling at the cop. Until I pointed it out, none of you thought that was important -- but the cop certainly did.

We already know that Gates was only too eager to accuse the cop of racism -- why? Because he responded to a break in (which really happened, btw, Gates did break in, it was just into his own house), by investigating whether the guy IN the house was legit.

So the cop being accused of racism just might be excused for thinking this Harvard professor is not the most rational, nor calmest person on the block at that moment.

He doesn't know if the guy is off his meds. He doesn't know if the guy has some ally who is going to show up at any moment -- remember, the call said TWO guys were breaking in -- and the only reality check he has on the situation, which really ought to have been resolved easily, is Gates himself: who is making a mountain out of a molehill and keeps escalating the situation from where it should have stayed "it's my home, officer, but I know why you're here, I had to break in" to "no, I'm not coming out and the only reason you're asking is because I'm black" and all the way up to "i'm gonna get you fired, and even "your momma".

Mnemosyne: I don't care if YOU think Gates was no threat to anyone, and certainly not to the witness. You're not the cop.

You wouldn't have been in Gates' house, trying to deal with the poor bastard bleeding on the floor when two guys (maybe the two who had broken the lock in the first place?) invaded his home, busted his head, and found his wallet in time to pretend one was him when the cop showed up on the porch.

And you wouldn't have been the cop walking away, only to hear the not at all unlikely attempt at an apology "I called 911 because..." with the nasty response "because you don't think a black man could own a house like this?"

Never heard of a guy -- maybe even a WHITE guy, in Boston, imagine -- stepping up to defend a woman in a situation like that? On the street?

Hothouse flowers, in a cold and windy world.

And evidently, you've never seen nor read police reports of cases like that where it doesn't end this well. There is a REASON why cops are required to remain on a scene like this until everybody is calm -- or else somebody gets the chance to calm down with cuffs on.

And, ya know what? It works without a conviction, or even a formal charge. Marvelous dynamic, time and handcuffs.

Basically, you guys want to find any excuse (and if necessary, you'll invent some) to fit this into a black/white template, instead of what the facts obviously indicate: a privileged academic who disrespected the working stiff risking his life to save Gates' ungrateful scholarly ass -- and putting up with racial slurs to do it.

Why does everyone keep claiming Gates 'broke in'? I thought it was established that he used his key to enter through the back door and was mistaken for a burglar for trying to unstick with the front door AFTER he had already gained access to his house. In any event, by the time the cops showed up, he was already inside his house with the door closed.

And not to the main topic, but I wish people would stop referring to a 58-year-old as 'elderly'. I'm not THAT much younger than Gates and I'M not 'elderly' or anything near it.

"Why does everyone keep claiming Gates 'broke in'?"

Cuz that's what breaking in means: "trying to unstick with the front door..."

Honest, are you really that dumb? The woman saw two people trying to force open the door. She called 911. A cop showed up, talked to her, she indicated the door and the house, and the cop saw a guy inside the house.

How is the cop supposed to know Gates got in the back door with a key... without, you know, ASKING him who he is?

How is the cop supposed to do that safely, having been called for what could have been a home invasion in progress, without asking Gates to step OUTSIDE the house?

(crickets)

Gates was out of control. Verbally assailing a cop who came to help HIM and a cop who exhibited not one shred of racial profiling -- while Gates showed himself to be a bigot.

Guy breaks the lock to his own door, after he and his driver circle the house on foot trying to lift windows and pushing at other doors, and then whines like a baby when the cops come and ask for ID!

Honest, are you really that dumb? The woman saw two people trying to force open the door. She called 911. A cop showed up, talked to her, she indicated the door and the house, and the cop saw a guy inside the house.

No one is blaming the witness for misunderstanding what she saw. No one is blaming the cops for showing up in response to her misunderstanding what she saw. But Gates did NOT 'break into' his house, however much it may have looked like it. Because he had already entered through the backdoor.

The issue remains, once the cop knew the legitimate resident was the person the witness saw and he states in his report that he did know that, it no longer mattered WHAT the original witness thought she saw or what the cops originally believed they were responding to.

the Americanist wrote:

And, ya know what? It works without a conviction, or even a formal charge. Marvelous dynamic, time and handcuffs.

You write a tremendous amount of nonsense in your latest but this, I think, distills your point nicely and illustrates precisely why it is essentially pointless to continue this conversation. What you are defending here is an extralegal system of justice where police officers decide, entirely irrespective of what may be legal, and based entirely on their own whims, to restrict the liberty of law abiding citizens because they have some vague idea that they might break a law. This is, manifestly, the defining characteristic of an authoritarian mindset and societal framework. I think we can leave this discussion with the fact that, all of your bizarre concocted theories about the potential menace of Gates aside, you simply don't have a very strong belief in the basic principles of a free society and so the use of arrest as punishment for lack of respect doesn't concern you. Good luck with that.

Shouldn't a police officer be able to deal with an irritated middle aged man without arresting him?

Brent, perhaps you should learn up on the practice of "prosecutorial discretion": cops are SUPPOSED to be the arresting part, but somebody else does, yanno, the rest of it?

Next time you want to lecture somebody on the principles of a free society, perhaps you might think about what it means: that somebody is arrested does NOT mean that they're convicted of anything.

Going too fast for you?

Cops aren't supposed to avoid arresting somebody UNLESS they're sure that the guy is going to be prosecuted, much less convicted -- especially in a street situation like this.

LOL -- honest, haven't any of you guys ever seen a bar fight? Or ANY D&D arrests at all?

Fercrysakes, haven't you ever been to a good after hours club?

Cops are SUPPOSED to have discretion, when they are called in,m to look at a situation that might (or might not) go the wrong way, and decide -- hell, I put the cuffs on this guy, take him out of here, it all blows over. Let him bitch about it later, when nobody's hurt.

Going too fast for you?

Cops aren't supposed to avoid arresting somebody UNLESS they're sure that the guy is going to be prosecuted, much less convicted -- especially in a street situation like this.

Nice of you to further establish your authoritarian bona fides for us. I have heard that there is an obscure principle in American law the Americanist that is relevant to this. Its called "probable cause." It is described in some amendment or other of a mysterious document called "the U.S. Constitution." References to this little known document may be difficult to find but a person of your sterling intelligence will probably have the extensive resources required to access it somehow. When you do, check it out and let me know what it says about the standard for arrest. I hear its is listed somewhere between the third and fifth amendments.

Is this officer still employed? Isn't the department spokesperson supposed to address the media, or an attorney?

This is a no-no for officers to address the media in this case, which may or may not be a potential lawsuit.

If the officer keeps talking, like he has, and a lawsuit is filed, will the department still stand behind this officer for things he said to the media?

How is the cop supposed to know Gates got in the back door with a key... without, you know, ASKING him who he is?

He did ask. Prof. Gates showed him two forms of ID. At that point, the cop knew he wasn't dealing with a burglar anymore, especially since Gates had let himself in the back door with the key and turned off the alarm.

Though I suppose now you're going to say that the cops should never assume that someone lives in a house just because they have identification with the address, a set of keys, and the alarm codes. Better run 'em downtown just to be sure. Maybe they'll need a birth certificate.

How is the cop supposed to do that safely, having been called for what could have been a home invasion in progress, without asking Gates to step OUTSIDE the house?

You mean this cop talked to Gates for 20 minutes and still couldn't figure out if he was the legitimate resident of the house even after being shown ID and keys? What kind of investigational skills are those that the cop can't even figure out who lives in the house so he'd better arrest everyone there just in case?

Again, you're arguing that cops should be allowed to arrest any citizen, at any time, and not worry themselves about any ol' Constitution. And it's funny that you keep constructing more and more baroque scenarios about what could maybe might have possibly happened if the situation had been completely different and involved completely different people to try to come up with a desperate excuse for why this cop was right to call for 5 backup cars to arrest one 58-year-old man with a cane.

Face it -- the cop screwed up. He lost his temper and lured Gates outside so he would have an excuse to arrest him because Gates had pissed him off. It's right in the police report that Gates was inside the house and the officer asked him to come outside to talk, and then told him he was being "disorderly." He got his 10-minute jollies for getting to haul the professor down to the station, but he's in a world of hurt now, because everyone knows he's a thin-skinned baby who can't even handle dealing with a middle-aged man in an upper-class neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon. He's incompetent, and now the whole country knows how incompetent he is.

I sent the prez an email stating that he has no need to apologize because he didn't call Crowley or the Cambridge PD stupid or racist, only their actions.

LOL -- man, you guys are pitiful.

Try to read this slowly, cuz yer comprehension skills are lacking: even Gates has acknowledged that the witness was right to call 911, and the cop was right to show up on his porch, and even that the cop was right to ask who he was.

What Gates DID, though, was refuse to step outside.

Mnemosyne -- ever investigate a murder? Ever actually see a crime scene, stand in blood? Witness a crime of any kind?

It's really easy to say what the cop had to KNOW, and when -- but that's not how it presented at the time.

And everybody knows -- and I do mean everybody, including you guys -- that this would all have been resolved very easily and quickly, if Gates hadn't been an asshole about it.

It wasn't the cop who prolonged the incident, nor did he "lure" Gates outside. Get a grip.

Gates escalated the incident when he refused to cooperate. He escalated it again when he insulted the cop -- and yet again, when he brought in "the chief".

Meanwhile, the cop, having established that there was no home invasion in progress, had gone outside, where there was a small crowd, which includes the woman who called in what turned out to be a false alarm...

You know, the one that Gates insists could only have been investigated by a racist cop, the proof being as how the cop didn't know Gates owned the house he was seen breaking into.

Honest, you guys really are just hothouse flowers: the cop was trying to end the incident. Gates was yelling at him. If Gates had shut up, gone back in or stayed in his house, end of story.

But, you see (hell, you want to enable the asshole), Gates had a Point To Make. He "knows" all about cases like this -- I wonder if he's ever witnessed a home invasion? Maybe even of a black family, interviewed a victim who will never look at her kitchen floor the same way again? Gates was sure as hell willing to offer to teach the cop all about it, so, hey: he's a Harvard professor, he must know all about proper police procedure in a case like this.

As opposed to, yanno, the guy who TEACHES the subject.

So Gates is outside, yelling at the cop -- who knows the person who made the call is there, who can't seem to get Gates to dial it down, who warns Gates he will be arrested, who shows Gates the handcuffs, and yet...

Gates keeps escalating it, to the point the freakin' President of the United States is involved.

While not a single eyewitness -- not one -- backs Gates' version of how reasonable he was, and how unreasonable the cop. Not one.

And you guys STILL think it was inappropriate in any way for the cop to remain there -- outside Gates' home -- until the poor fool showed that he was either calm enough to leave, or he had to be taken into custody before somebody blew a gasket?

Hothouse flowers.

Remember -- cops deal with threatening situations for a living. Harvard professors don't. The fact that from the very beginning Gates refused to accept the cop's reasonable -- hell, call 'em orders if it makes you feel better, does not suggest the guy was rational.

It really is SOP in a situation like that for the cop to be responsible to ascertain that the incident will end when he leaves, not escalate when the (however understandably) pissed off citizen turns to the person who called it in when the cops are gone.

In this case, that was a woman. I suppose you figure it was impossible that Gates, who had already called the cop a racist, wouldn't have said something to the woman? I suppose, despite the arrest report and Gates' own account, you figure it is impossible that in Boston, of all places, some guy might have defended her?

That's why cops want people to calm down -- or go downtown, to end situations like this.

LOL -- that you guys think you're seeing some major Constitutional case in this reflects racist, bone-deep ignorance.

I am only going to tell you this one more time theAmericanist and then I give up because you seem to be unable to absorb the information. However, the reiteration might serve as some sort of small corrective to your buffoonish misinformation campaign.

The police officer gave his reasons for the arrest in his report. They are completely unconvincing but they have the advantage over yours of having some relationship to reality. Your reasons for the arrest, that the officer feared that Gates might actually accost a 911 caller whom he didn't know existed, are imagined. They are not claimed by the arresting officer and that is most likely because he is intelligent enough to understand that no one would believe him if he tried it.

that you guys think you're seeing some major Constitutional case in this reflects racist, bone-deep ignorance.

See for authoritarians like yourself, police officers should not be required to operate within the boundaries of the any legal framework anyway. So we know that whether this is a "minor" or "major" Constitutional case is essentially irrelevant to your particular frame of thinking. In your ideal world, police officers arrest people who they don't like irrespective of whatever it may require in any Constitutional document and instead use their authority to restrict the liberty of law abiding citizens however they see fit. So while you have bothered to create this implausible fantasy of what happened in this case, we know that it doesn't really matter to you whether your fanciful justification is right or not. A police officer didn't like what someone was doing so he arrested him. As you have explained to us, in your world, that is enough and really, that is all that anyone needs to know about your assessment of this matter. For anyone who actually cares about the limits of police or indeed any State authority in any context, you have made it quite clear that you have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion of such issues.

How is the cop supposed to know Gates got in the back door with a key... without, you know, ASKING him who he is?

He did ask and Gates refused repeatedly. Gates had broken the front door lock and doorjamb, but let himself in the back, making it look like he was a robber.

When the cop called for backup at that point Gates showed ID (about ten minutes after being asked), but still refused to step out of the home.

How is the cop supposed to do that safely, having been called for what could have been a home invasion in progress, without asking Gates to step OUTSIDE the house?

It isn't possible for the cop to do it safely without Gates stepping outside.

Its called "probable cause." It is described in some amendment or other of a mysterious document called "the U.S. Constitution."

You don't need probable cause to execute a restraint and handcuffing or search of person for weapons, you need reasonable suspicion. Gates already met the reasonable suspicion based on the radio call according to case law.

In terms of the arrest itself you will not see Gates file for false arrest on disorderly because there was probable cause of disorderly. Probable cause is not the same as a conviction.

Obama's narcissism prevents him from recognizing that he made a fool of himself in commenting on a police matter the facts of which were unknown to him.

Except that he didn't comment on facts that were unknown to him. He commented on facts that were known to him and specifically refrained from commenting on facts that were unknown. His comments on those known facts were entirely correct in their substance and he has not suggested otherwise. He has suggested that he could have used better language and perhaps that is true although I really have no opinion on that. What isn't true however, despite the mad scrambling of so many recently converted State power advocates to the contrary, is that there are any facts in this case that justify the arrest of Gates. This is confirmed by the extraordinary lameness of the arrest report itself and by the Cambridge PD immediately releasing him, dropping all charges and expressing regret that the arrest occurred. But nice try.

JeanVA, plenty of people think Gates acted like an asshole but question whether the cop really had to arrest him. Maybe he should have just "eaten it" and walked and driven away. He even could have deprecated Gates' behavior w/o an arrest.

You don't need probable cause to execute a restraint and handcuffing or search of person for weapons, you need reasonable suspicion.

This is both incorrect and irrelevant.

1. Probable cause for purposes of search or seizure is defined by reasonable suspicion. In that circumstance, they are effectively the same thing.

2. No one is arguing about whether the officer had probable cause to ascertain the situation so I have no idea why you bring this up as an issue.

3. The issue here and the one that I was arguing with theAmericanist did not concern probable cause for a search but probable cause for an arrest. the Americanist seems not to believe one needs such probable cause that a crime has been committed or that one is being committed in order to arrest someone. theAmericanist in this, as with everything else, is incorrect.

4. In any case, I have no doubt that the police can find pretext enough to arrest someone on a vague charge of disorderly conduct because the person loudly expresses disagreement with them. The fact that anyone finds this use of authority defensible is deeply disturbing to me.

He did ask and Gates refused repeatedly. Gates had broken the front door lock and doorjamb, but let himself in the back, making it look like he was a robber.

And yet Crowley says in his own report that he knew Prof. Gates was the house's resident when he asked him to step out on the porch. He didn't still think Gates was a burglar. He knew he Gates there legally. So what was the point in insisting that Gates continue their conversation outside? Remember, according to Crowley's report, the main part of the conversation took place while Crowley was inside Gates' house where Gates satisfied Crowley on the question of whether he was the legal resident. Gates didn't come out onto the porch until Crowley asked him to.

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with another excuse for Crowley's behavior, because his own report contradicts you.

They're fascists, brent, pure and simple. TheAmericanist and JeanVA belong to the approximately 49% of American citizens (figures based on the last three presidential elections) who would be perfectly happy to live under a dictatorship if (a) they believed that the dictator shared their social and ethnic backgrounds and (b) was minimally competent. McCain/Palin failed so badly on the second part of that equation that Obama was able to sheer off 2-3% of the people who would normally be happy to see him swinging from a noose (whether for his skin color or his politics makes no difference).

No foreign terrorist hates us for our freedoms as much as a "patriot" like TheAmericanist does.

theAmericanist

Let's not fool ourselves. The officer did not know how to defuse the situation and his feelings were hurt by a 59 year old black man - so he arrested him. But the law is pretty clear; You cannot commit the crime of disorderly conduct in your own home. At least this kind of 'disorderly conduct'. And yeah your porch is your own home. That is why the case was dropped.

Gates overreacted and so did the officer. If he was a better officer he would have realized that he was in fact speaking to Mr Gates [the owner of the home] and he would have walked away.
Unfortunately, the police are the only ones who are allowed to overreact in almost all situations.

Let me make a minor correction to my above comment:

If he was a better officer he would have realized that SINCE he was in fact speaking to Mr Gates [the owner of the home] he would have walked away.

I have to say, Americanist has quite an imagination. It sounds like he spends a lot of time reading Patricia Cornwell novels to get all of his expertise.

Remember -- cops deal with threatening situations for a living. Harvard professors don't.

Yes. Exactly. That's why we're holding the cop to a higher standard of behavior than the Harvard professor. It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove to the cop that he's not guilty of anything. It's the cop's responsibility to assess the situation and figure out what's going on. It's the cop's responsibility to defuse the situation, not to make it worse.

It's funny that you admit that Gates doesn't know police work as well as Crowley purportedly does, and then immediately insist that Gates has to be held to a higher standard even though he knows less about the subject.

Crowley failed at his job. Embarrassingly. Publicly. You can defend him all you want with your made-up fantasies of what maybe possibly might have happened under completely different circumstances, but it doesn't negate the fact that Crowley failed at his job.

Gates made a Class-A ASS of himself. Even so he was reportedly "stunned" that the President of the United States of his own volition jumped into the tank with him.

So much for flushing your "post-racial" cred down the crapper, Barry.

Crowley did his job perfectly.

Gates did everything he could to make Crowley's dangerous job more difficult.

Gates is an embarrassment and the small minority of people who think otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

Gates was the one with the knowledge of why Crowley was there and why he was asking for ID. Gates had been prying at his own doors. He repeated refused to show ID and only did after becoming disorderly and interfering with Crowley's sworn job.

Even the President is embarrassed he initially supported the bigoted Gates.

Gates did everything he could to make Crowley's dangerous job more difficult.

Certainly a contentious claim but this is relevant how?

Gates was the one with the knowledge of why Crowley was there and why he was asking for ID. Gates had been prying at his own doors. He repeated refused to show ID and only did after becoming disorderly and interfering with Crowley's sworn job.

Again a contentious claim and one which conflicts with the police officers own report but more importantly, this is relevant to what exactly?

Even the President is embarrassed he initially supported the bigoted Gates.

The President called and told you this, did he? How nice for you. I will be interested when he expresses anything of the sort to the rest of us.

Diogenese, Soozie Q and theAmericanist are all idiots. You guys should stop wasting your time on them. It's like trying to clean a pig playing in the mud, you know it's not gonna end well.

This is sad, people are standing up for a cop, who obviously has a bit of a temper, emotional problem, stress, or whatever.

Police are paid to keep cooler heads, and not get personally involved, that's why they have psychological exams to see if they are mentally fit.

Either way, it is cases like this when inner-cities prefer to not call the police and deal with their own problems.

It is cases like this that cause even more mistrust within inner-cities of the police. This attitude tends to make their jobs even harder.

Apparently this officer has a problem with "control."

The difference between the officer here, and those in London - a lot of the officers don't have teeth in London due to "disorderly conduct."

That's right, suspects have kicked out the officers teeth.

Sounds to me, this state is becoming more and more of a police state.

And this officer should use the skills that he claim he was given to do his job.

You can't always say the police "do no wrong." In San Diego county, there was a cop that raped women in his patrol car.

Oh, yeah, look at Drew Peterson, killing his wives.

What about the scandal that plague the Rampart area in Los Angeles - yeah, those police officers are doing time in prison.

Every now and then, you get a bad cop.

However, with the racial divide this country is going through due to the GOP and the cable tv - of course, this may have some influence on this officer. He knows that the extreme right will come to his defense.

Brent, thank you for bringing intelligent thought to this discussion. Of course, you, obviously, are not one of the common folk, in that, you do not use "Cuz, or learn up". You must be one of those enlightened elitists "cuz folk rant about".

Unfortunately, this type of forgeting to say "Yes, Massa or No, Massa" happens a great deal on the inner city streets of Portland, OR. It has even led to being shot while Black. Of course, "Being Black" equals probable and reasonable cause and justifiable homicide, I presume. Why is Head Start so slow to teach (or "learn up" in Americanitch's version) the proper "Massas"?

Crowley did his job perfectly.

Well, no, actually he didn't. You see, if he had done his job "perfectly," the city wouldn't have immediately dropped the bogus charges and apologized.

The big issue here to me is that in the future rogue like cops will arrest you in your home for "sassing". This situation with Gates gives them license to do so. This is what was frightening to me. I feel Crowley only arrested Prof. Gates to humiliate him. Nothing was served by doing this. With all the criminal activities going on, there was no point in arresting Gates, it was like we are here, so we have to do something.

So much for flushing your "post-racial" cred down the crapper, Barry.

ROFL.... I do so love it when a mindless partisan and/or bigot posts the drivel that so clearly identifies them.

annjell:

"This is sad, people are standing up for a cop, who obviously has a bit of a temper, emotional problem, stress, or whatever.

Police are paid to keep cooler heads, and not get personally involved, that's why they have psychological exams to see if they are mentally fit.

Either way, it is cases like this when inner-cities prefer to not call the police and deal with their own problems.

It is cases like this that cause even more mistrust within inner-cities of the police. This attitude tends to make their jobs even harder.

Apparently this officer has a problem with "control."

The difference between the officer here, and those in London - a lot of the officers don't have teeth in London due to "disorderly conduct."

That's right, suspects have kicked out the officers teeth.

Sounds to me, this state is becoming more and more of a police state."

The other cops at the scene, including a black and a hispanic, apparently think the arrest was fully justified, not an expression of temper or an emotional problem on the part of the arresting officer.

If the choice in society is between cops' routinely getting their front teeth kicked out by disorderly suspects or a "police state", I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

annjell: a trustworthy cop is a toothless one?

LOL -- man, you guys are pitiful.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

What Gates DID, though, was refuse to step outside.

Um, did you, perchance, actually read the arrest report?

And everybody knows -- and I do mean everybody, including you guys -- that this would all have been resolved very easily and quickly, if Gates hadn't been an asshole about it.

And everybody knows -- and I do mean everybody, including you -- that this would all have been resolved very easily and quickly, if Crowley hadn't been an asshole about it.

It wasn't the cop who prolonged the incident, nor did he "lure" Gates outside.

Um, actually, he did. You did read the arrest report, right?

Gates escalated the incident when he refused to cooperate. He escalated it again when he insulted the cop -- and yet again, when he brought in "the chief".

ROFL.... "Bringing in 'the chief'" is "escalating?" Man, you really are a hoot.

Honest, you guys really are just hothouse flowers: the cop was trying to end the incident. Gates was yelling at him. If Gates had shut up, gone back in or stayed in his house, end of story.

Honest, you really are just a hothouse flower: Gates was trying to end the incident. Crowley was yelling at him and refusing to answer his questions. If Crowley had responded calmly and professionally, providing the information that he is legally required to provide, and apologizing for bothering the homeowner, end of story.

But, you see (hell, you want to enable the asshole), Gates had a Point To Make.

But, you see (hell, you want to enable the asshole), Crowley had a Point To Make.

As opposed to, yanno, the guy who TEACHES the subject.

As opposed to, yanno, the guy who LIVES the subject every day.

While not a single eyewitness -- not one -- backs Gates' version of how reasonable he was, and how unreasonable the cop. Not one.

While not a single eyewitness -- not one -- backs Crowley's version of how reasonable he was, and how unreasonable Gates was. Not one.

And you guys STILL think it was inappropriate in any way for the cop to remain there -- outside Gates' home -- until the poor fool showed that he was either calm enough to leave, or he had to be taken into custody before somebody blew a gasket?

And you STILL think it was appropriate for Crowley to escalate the encounter.

Hothouse flowers.

If the shoe fits....

Remember -- cops deal with threatening situations for a living.

Um, that's kind of the point, moron! Too bad Crowley wasn't better at it.

Wow ... you managed to write an entire post that was basically fiction from start to finish, and made not one valid point along the way. Not bad for all of that verbiage.

The other cops at the scene, including a black and a hispanic, apparently think the arrest was fully justified

Too bad that the city and its attorneys don't agree. See, here's the thing: cops almost always back each other up, so the opinions of the other officers aren't worth spit.

PaulB,

What then besides racial fidelity with Gates motivated our extemely, caution, measured, legalistic President to impulsively opine in a bright public spotlight about a local case before he was fully aware of the facts?

And later had to endure the political embarrasment of a walk-back from such.

Tell us what motivated such an impulsive statement from a politician who is anything but impulsive.

If Gates was a White man this would not be an issue. Period. End of story.

Steve Benen:

"Here's hoping the matter has been, can be, will be put to rest."

What's interesting about Steve's language here (besides his vain hope that the matter has been put to rest) is his implicit admission of the possibility that that the matter CAN'T be put to rest. That this has legs.

That is telling. Accurate, I think, as well.

Soozie Q, I will take it that you just happened to stumble on this site after leaving the site "nukeisrael."

You are what is wrong with America.

Yet, glad to know that you think you own America. By the way, isn't that why the Europeans came to the shores - to get away from the 'so-called' theocracies faced in Europe! Wasn't this supposed to be the free land?

You know, Texas A&M just received a $1.4 million federal grant to get rats addicted to cocaine - maybe you should volunteer yourself for the experiment.

BTW, Soozie Q

A Border Patrol Agent was shot and killed in San Diego County yesterday.

He was shot in the head trying to protect this country from the drug/human trafficking entering this country. He was Latino - yet, he died for this country trying to save your sorry A**.

There's a difference between danger and disrespecting the people to the point you leave a legacy of putting future officers in danger.

Legs Soozie? Seriously? This will be forgotten in a month, maybe two. But by all means, see if you can keep this faux-controversy alive until 2010...remember, "it's the police, stupid(ly)"...it's definitely a political winner; just like Rev. Wright, just like Ayers...you GOP folks have been spot on with your political analyses...

annjell, the moderators of this site may not be disturbed with your last comment, but I urge you to seek professional help.

What then besides racial fidelity with Gates motivated our extemely, caution, measured, legalistic President to impulsively opine in a bright public spotlight about a local case before he was fully aware of the facts?

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain this again, because the plain meaning of his words is not especially complicated to interpret, but Obama did not opine on matters for which he needed further information. He specifically declined to do so. He did offer an opinion on what we did know. That opinion stands. What he said today was that he might have chosen different words to express that opinion because it obviously escalated the situation, which is not what he wanted to do. Now, you may believe that he is lying about every single part of that if you like but none of it is especially difficult to understand unless one is being willfully obtuse which I suspect is precisely what you are doing.

Soozie Q,

Yes, this punk of an officer can stand his ground and not apologize - send this tough guy to L.A. to work the "gang detail unit."

Mike, that "post-racial" narrative that was central to Obama's being elected in the first place is very possibly in serious jeopardy.

If a tape from Crowley's chest-mike documenting the whole altercation can be and is released, and it supports his and not Gates'narrative, Obama has put himself in long-term political trouble.

Soozie Q, you came to this site spreading your crap and attacking the regulars here.

I doubt if anyone here has come to your regular site and attacked your comments. You know why, we don't go out actively seeking to cause chaos - it's you and the other wing-nuts that pick on everyone, then when people stand up you get scared.

BTW, Soozie Q. I am not your psychiatrist. I will no longer bite into your psychobabble.

And I hope you know, that the statements you are writing now can be construed as treasonous.

You are suggesting the overthrow of the U.S. government!

Saying the police "acted stupidly" will ruin Obama's "post racial narrative"? Seriously? First and foremost, attributing any type of racial animus to Obama's remark requires a tremendous leap in logic.

Ever hear of the negligence doctrine "last clear chance"? It basically states that if Party A is negligent, but Party B had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, then Party B is still liable.

In this instance, who had the last clear chance to avoid the problem? Certainly not Gates. Let's be clear, Gates did himself no favors. BUT, arresting a 50+ man, who uses a cane for being lippy was not appropriate. The officer had his ego bruised and/or there was simply too much testosterone in the room. In either event, the officer was acting stupidly when he arrested Gates. He could've walked away, but needed to teach Gates a lesson for the audience.

The idea that any of this will do long term damage is laughable. Obama will learn from this--it was dumb for him to get involved in any way--and he'll move on. There is one and one issue alone that determines Obama's long term success--the economy. This manufactured outrage, a GOP tm, won't make the slightest dent.

Saying the police "acted stupidly" will ruin Obama's "post racial narrative"? Seriously? First and foremost, attributing any type of racial animus to Obama's remark requires a tremendous leap in logic.

Ever hear of the negligence doctrine "last clear chance"? It basically states that if Party A is negligent, but Party B had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, then Party B is still liable.

In this instance, who had the last clear chance to avoid the problem? Certainly not Gates. Let's be clear, Gates did himself no favors. BUT, arresting a 50+ man, who uses a cane for being lippy was not appropriate. The officer had his ego bruised and/or there was simply too much testosterone in the room. In either event, the officer was acting stupidly when he arrested Gates. He could've walked away, but needed to teach Gates a lesson for the audience.

The idea that any of this will do long term damage is laughable. Obama will learn from this--it was dumb for him to get involved in any way--and he'll move on. There is one and one issue alone that determines Obama's long term success--the economy. This manufactured outrage, a GOP tm, won't make the slightest dent.

"The idea that any of this will do long term damage is laughable. Obama will learn from this--it was dumb for him to get involved in any way--and he'll move on."

That very well may be the case.

My point is Obama himself injected the presidency into this issue, needlessly. This is no longer just a legal issue, it's now a political issue involving the hot-button issues of race, the possible abuse of power by police, and the President. He should not have touched this with a ten-foot pole.

Because once public opinion is involved, all bets are off.

Mike, perhaps you should ask Steve why he implicitly admitted that this episode may well have legs.

Mike Lamb, you are sooo right.

Besides, the issue should really be focused on the untrained journalist. If they have the privilege of getting an invite to the White House, they should respect and represent their employer/editor.

With Boy George, he made it clear that he would answer only certain questions.

This President is trying to have "transparency," but, you get these untrained papparazi like journalists trying to make a name for themselves.

I would say it's about time we have the of tabloid agency, and why their companies are hiring these type of journalists to act as professional political journalists. Also, why did decided to venture into an area that had nothing to do with the press conference.

This will be the last comment I make on this issue, because, this just really show the world how "ignorant, disrespectful, racists" we are as a nation (these are the word's of the British -UK Guardian news).

Besides, the issue should really be focused on the untrained journalist. If they have the privilege of getting an invite to the White House, they should respect and represent their employer/editor.

The reporter who asked the question is Lynn Sweet, the DC Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times. She is neither untrained nor a paparazzi, and she knows Obama, Emmanuel, and Axelrod quite well. There is a reason that Obama called on her for the final question of the presser, and although Sweet denies it, I'd be surprised if Obama didn't have foreknowledge of the nature of her question.

In any case, the only people that continue to set back race relations in this country more than the bigots are all the ignorant white libs who don't think it's an appropriate subject of discussion in polite society. It's a good thing for our country that Sweet asked the question, and it's a good thing for our country that Obama answered it honestly and openly. That white fools don't understand this is to be expected.

Disputo, while I will refrain from commenting on this particular case.

I have blacks in my family, I have friends that have suffered injustice from the police.

What I have noticed, it's always one extreme or the other.

Example, the 5-year-old black girl arrested in Florida for acting out in class.

The black man in New Orleans beaten to a pulp by the police.

What is the real problem? Are they trying to use fear tactics? Are they afraid of all black people? Are they trying to make sure all black people end up in the system? What about the black girl sent to prison for 10 years for pushing a white girl - I think this case is in Texas!

The problem, as I said, creates more problems than it's worth.

We've all seen on the news how blacks and latinos run from the police, saying they were scared. I know, deep down inside they are not going to get away. Yet, you see car chases throughout the country, endangering the lives of others. I think it's stupid when they run, yet, I'm not in their shoes. How am I supposed to know if they are really scared or not? But, the more this comes to light, maybe they are scared.

Yet, this can sometimes open the door to more problems. Sometimes they are shot and/or killed because they ran from the police. But, the flip side, in some cases they were going to be shot anyway.

There are guys coming out of prison that look like Ving Rhames, huge, body-builder like bodies, what's the police going to do then, call swat, or just shoot them down?

The end result, this country has a history of locking people up as a means of punishment.

This in itself creates more problems than it's worth.

When you lock people up, they harbor anger and resentment, they are lock up the other criminals that share the trade of survival.

These people get out, and because they have a record, they can't get a job. This causes most to resort to crime just to survive, or they join gangs.

On the other hand, you have people that have spent so much time behind bars, they can't function on the outside, so they go back.

Then you have a small fraction that go to prison because they can make more money in prison than in society.

Either way it goes, when that small few come out, they can become dangerous to their neighbors.

Example, the child molestors, rapists that come out needs somewhere to go, it may in your neighborhood, or in the motel/hotel that you or someone you know go to on vacation.

There are reports of hotels/motels housing released prisoners among the guests. I've seen it on the news.

If some are identified as child molestors and rapists, I can only imagine what the crimes are of some of the others are accused of.

Good lord Soozie, the reason this will have "legs" (a month's worth at best), is because of GOP mock outrage and the "liberal" press's fascination with enabling the mock outrage. In terms of the public at large? It won't even make a dent.

Moreover, what you describe as Steve implicitly admitting that the story has legs, is just as equally characterized as Steve's oft-expressed frustration with how political discourse gets bogged down in BS minutia.

Mike, that "post-racial" narrative that was central to Obama's being elected in the first place is very possibly in serious jeopardy.

a. There is no such thing as a "post-racial narrative." It's nonsensical psychobabble.

b. There is no evidence that any such psychobabble was "central to Obama's being elected in the first place."

c. There is no evidence that this will be anything more than a flash in the pan and every reason to believe that it is precisely that.

d. In short, this is a tempest in the teapot and nothing is going to change for Obama. Sorry that bothers you but that's reality for you. Deal with it.

If a tape from Crowley's chest-mike documenting the whole altercation can be and is released, and it supports his and not Gates'narrative, Obama has put himself in long-term political trouble.

ROFLMAO... The only people who will be bothered are the people who already don't like Obama. In short, this changes nothing. Moreover, if any such "chest-mike" tape existed, it would have already been reviewed and noted. Sorry, but you're just going to have to live with the fact that Obama will be unaffected by this.

That is telling.

That says far more about you than it does about Steve.

Accurate, I think, as well.

Not even close, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

What then besides racial fidelity with Gates motivated our extemely, caution, measured, legalistic President to impulsively opine in a bright public spotlight about a local case before he was fully aware of the facts?

ROFL.... Experience, dear? His personal knowledge of one of the participants in the encounter? Oh, and guess what, his initial "caution" [sic], "legalistic," and "measured" opinion happened to be correct. It doesn't take "racial fidelity" to know that.

And later had to endure the political embarrasment of a walk-back from such.

Gee, I must have missed that "walk-back" and the "political embarrassment." Maybe you can point me to those things?

Tell us what motivated such an impulsive statement from a politician who is anything but impulsive.

Reality. Deal with it.