Gee , it sure seems a bit dull for an officer to place himself as the victim in and out of a black mans house where he has trespassed on ancient feelings of resentment .
I do hope the "Victimised" Sergeant is mollified by the attention , and perhaps even directed to permit his sensitivities to recognise the legitimate overreactions of legitimate black folks .

Charles of LGF was and is still absolutely right: President Obama played the race card from the bottom of the deck, using the bully pulpit of the Oval Office in the most shameful manner.

Expect more of this manipulative "post-racial" demagoguery from the Socialist in Chief -- you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I wonder where this Obama plans to get drunk with his photo-op accomplices. In the Oval Office itself, with his feet up on the Resolute Desk, or on the White House lawn, sitting on milk crates and chain-smoking Marlboros.

Wonderful. Just wonderful.

-A

Well this story was a distraction from healthcare, after all the republicans would not want anyone to focus on the thousands waiting for free healthcare at Wise, Virginia, they are too busy lining their pockets with bribes from the insurance companies.With 1600 people treated in one day they still had to turn away 400 - this is the America the repubs want!

"And to that end, I look forward to studying the history of racial profiling in a new documentary for PBS."

Henry Louis Gates is the Joe Jackson of Harvard, always plugging his next money-making media project.

Obsessing news outlets moving on? Perhaps, but to what -- covering health care reform intrigues instead of the issue's nuts-and-bolts realities? Cable news is preoccupied with the Gates case's racial profiling angle because coverage involves so little work. A reporter or commentator talking about who reportedly said what to whom is a news "professional" unwilling to sacrifice the juicy for the dry. And face it: Showing working stiffs and retirees how much they really are paying for adequate health insurance (if indeed they have it) is an arid assignment. Projecting how much they will pay if the reform push collapses is equally unexciting -- initially at least.

Without a nudge from their bosses, newsroom workers and on-the-air stars will continue on the easy route.

Amazing what crawls out from under some rocks when you turn them over. Don't worry, Atanarjuat, no one will invite you to have a beer with the President. You can go on sitting on lawn chairs in your driveway, under the Confederate flag on the wall of your garage, having a self-pity party with your morbidly obese, semiliterate redneck friends about how the white man just can't get a break these days.

Distraction from what? Only the media worries about "distractions." Stuff happens, and the President deals or not. I would argue that if Obama is able to improve, through whatever means, race relations in the U.S., however slightly, that's not exactly minor.
"Controlling the agenda," "distractions," it's all the same old Beltway bullshit. If health care reform doesn't happen, it'll be for one reason only, the control organized wealth has over our political system. Gates and Crowley will have nothing to do with it.

Atanarjuat said:
Expect more of this manipulative "post-racial" demagoguery from the Socialist in Chief -- you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Why do I believe that Atanarjuat and his fellow Republicans would be calling for the police officer's badge (if not his hide) if Gates had been a white supremacist sitting on a hoard of illegal weapons?

SteveT mused:

Why do I believe that Atanarjuat and his fellow Republicans would be calling for the police officer's badge (if not his hide) if Gates had been a white supremacist sitting on a hoard of illegal weapons?

In that scenario, what would actually occur is that leftists would be overcome with ejaculatory glee that they could use yet another isolated example to trumpet the "right-wing extremist" smear against all conservatives.

In other words, your strawman comparison fails.

But keep defending President Teleprompter's shameless race card dealing.

Next.

-A

Atanarjuat is, apparently, upset that he or she is not invited to share some Samuel Adams. All of that fried chicken and water melon, to be brought as a gift for the President will go to waste. Plus, all of those hours spent learning as much of the Masai culture as possible at the nearest Community College. Not to mention those hours listening to Watusi so communicating would be easier. Well, A person, just forward your copy of "The Naked Prey" to the White House. Is that the one where Officer Crowley was played by Cornel Wilde?

he was clumsy in getting himself into the story on Wednesday

This is far more clumsy phrasing than you've characterized Obama's words to be. Obama didn't "get himself into the story." Whatever you think of his answer, and however the story came to be all about him (many of us would argue that it was destined to be so regardless of his answer), he responded to a direct question at his press conference.

ahhh! feel the hate, sickness and racism early in the morning!

whatta country!

Oh, don't be so sure that this narrative plays out the way the President would like: Gates is absolutely and very publicly certain that he did nothing wrong, and he has gleefully, spitefully volunteered to teach the cop all about the history of American racism and how it applies to this ugly little squabble.

Obama has bought into that narrative: but why should the cop?

Sure, the President has invited the guy to the White House to have a beer and smooth it all out, Gates has agreed, so it's likely that he'll go.

But that will almost certainly mean that Gates will continue his attempt to lord it over the cop. Being a Harvard professor, Gates expects to "teach" the guy.

But just how much does Gates know about proper police procedure in home invasion cases? About handling pissed off citizens who have been hassled by cops doing their jobs based on mistaken witnesses, when the witnesses are still on the scene?

Is Gates likely to even listen to the cop, when the guy explains how precisely according to the book he acted: responding to a 911 call about a home invasion, asking the guy in the house to step outside and identify himself, warning Gates over and over again that he was going to be arrested if he didn't calm down -- and then finally arresting him, because he didn't?

Gates shows no sign of humility, now does he?

I dunno that the President is the guy to resolve this one up close and personal, either.

I wonder if Gates will recognize the name Jessica Nunez? Or Jason Ellcock? Or the Joe Clarke case? Anybody think he's likely to apologize to the cop? Cuz the cop sure as hell isn't going to apologize to Gates.

Perhaps Gates will simply respond, as he has already, by offering to show this obviously racist police instructor in race relations all about how police work should be done without regard to 911 calls and the responsibility of citizens to cooperate with the cops.

LOL -- I wouldn't be so sure this plays out the way the President, not to mention Gates, hopes: there is a racist in the story, but it ain't the cop.

And that's not the way the White House wants this conversation with a beer to play out.

I am reminded of quite a few years ago when the Irish section of Boston erupted violently over bussing of blacks into "their" schools. It looks like there hasn't been a whole lot of change in attitude or tactics. They just use their legal authority now rather than rioting.

Whether, the Irish in and around Boston do not like being bussed by any Black or having them bused into their White Irish schools, it goes much further back in time. Read Dennis Lehane's excellent "The Given Day" of the problems following the end of WW1. African-Americans, the Irish, the Police Strike are all included.

Anyway,

C-Street, or Youth With A Mission - Dec. 9, 2007 a shooting.

Remember in Colorado, at New Life Missionary training school where the student shot 4 staff members.

director Janice Roger said Youth With a Mission is victim of violents offender, homicides & other violent acts.

see http://ywampodcast.org/video/tabid/326/Default.aspx

apparently, this is not going to die, because this definitely has LEGS!

Janice Rogers said they get monthly complaints of brainwashing, financial dependence.....

A missionary in Australia said one guy was taken to an asylum.
see Dave Andrews, 1999 Lion Publishing, "Uniting Church Of Australia."

Gates is absolutely and very publicly certain that he did nothing wrong

That's probably because he did nothing wrong. Funny, that.

Obama has bought into that narrative: but why should the cop?

Well, since you're basically making shit up and this is *your* narrative, I don't think anyone is going to buy into it, but that's just me.

Is Gates likely to even listen to the cop, when the guy explains how precisely according to the book he acted

LOL.... Well, no, actually this wasn't even close to being "precisely according to the book."

responding to a 911 call about a home invasion, asking the guy in the house to step outside and identify himself

You really haven't read the police report, have you?

Gates shows no sign of humility, now does he?

Well, mostly because he doesn't need any "humility."

LOL -- I wouldn't be so sure this plays out the way the President, not to mention Gates, hopes: there is a racist in the story, but it ain't the cop.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it will. None of these guys is as dumb as you are or as committed to a completely made-up narrative.

Amazing what crawls out from under some rocks when you turn them over. Don't worry, Atanarjuat

Atanarjuat is a performance artist and troll. He doesn't believe or take seriously what he writes and neither should you.

Atanarjuat, take your meds! You're having a manic episode!

The surprisingly fantastic images of the professor as an iconic cipher neither interested or capable of peering over his pedants perch are a valuable reminder of the right wing superpower , Projection .
Faster than a speeding dyspeptic , more powerful than an old fashioned cliché , who , disguised as a mild mannered scold fights a never ending battle for misapplied logic , straw men , and promises that not only cannot be kept but have nothing to offer to anyone aside from the obfuscation mission .

Sorry for my sniveling arrogance and stupidity. In truth I am nothing but a Repiglican automaton who, like my fellow delusionists, the REPIGLICANS, have no ability to actually think. We are so stupid and ignorant that we simply snivel that which is programmed into us to snivel about. We need to be victims at all costs because we are unable to accept the responsibility in our own actions. Being victims we always need to find something or someone else to blame so that we never have to look at ourselves. Are delusions tell us that we are right, all the time. And anyone who disagrees with our delusions we will attack at all costs. I love being an automaton and hate all of you that are part of the 'reality based community'. Fuck you and your actual facts.

The Henry Louis Gates situation is mainly a distraction, where the media has decided to document a sideshow instead of the hundreds of millions of people struggling every day with substandard health care coverage.

This was the first paragraph on post at Crooks and Liars. Read the words: "where the media has decided"............

And there you have it. THE MEDIA DECIDED. For those of us who have been reading and participating with the Washington Monthly we all know of the repeated posts by SECULAR ANIMIST pointing out over and over what the role and job is of the CORPORATE MEDIA. He COULD NOT BE MORE FUCKING RIGHT...........THE MEDIA DECIDED.

The moron who wrote the 10:15 post and does the same thing for every parody troll he falls for really needs to keep his day job.

(snicker) Being as how, PaulB, I suggested that Obama would call Crowley the day before he did, I dunno how 'made up' my understanding of the case really is.

You guys have talked yourself into believing Gates' version. That's your privilege, but oddly enough that's not how public disputes of this necessarily go. It's generally a very good idea to understand how other folks see it.

It is also generally a good idea, in a multiple witness example like this, to see if ANYBODY else backs the loudmouth's version. Every person who saw the incident backs the cop, not Gates. Kinda thing that counts for something, particularly in the West Wing.

But this is more than political calculation: there are some folks who believe, as a matter of principle, that cops are owed no respect. Some of 'em post here.

That view is NOT remotely close to a majority amongst the public as a whole, although certainly there is a not entirely unfounded prejudice that this anti-civic attitude is much more common, say, among Ivy League professors and folks who post on lefty blogs.

Gates did not show the cop any respect. For racial reasons, many of you applaud that -- sticking it to The Man, except of course, GATES is The Man in this case, the privileged professor at an elite school, insulting and defying the working stiff cop.

Gates challenged the cop's authority immediately and he has not wavered from that version of the story at all: right? (just so you guys don't keep buying into the idea that this is a "made up" version of the story.)

So it seems reasonable to me that Gates will continue to insist on his version of the story -- which, as noted, is not backed up by the police report, nor any of the witnesses.

It also seems reasonable to me that the cop will continue the principled stand that he will NOT apologize for the way he did his job. Anybody think I'm wrong about that? (continuing to probe PaulB's notion that I'm making it up.)

Unfortunately for folks who continue to buy Gates' bullshit (which apparently no longer includes the President, thank God), there is actually another side to this mess, based on two VERY popular principles:

First, cops should be allowed to investigate reports of crimes.

Second, people who aren't cops are required to cooperate while they're doing it.

Gates' version begins and ends with the presumption that the cop was racist, for which there is NO evidence at all. There are no racist incidents in his career. In fact, he teaches a class about handling sensitive situations. Hell, Gates himself has grudgingly agreed that the cop was right to show up at his house and ask Gates to identify himself. What Gates objected to was that the cop told him to come outside, to do it -- which is also, as it happens, precisely what the cop SHOULD have done, because he was there to investigate a possible home invasion.

So it seems damned likely that the President is gonna sit down with a friend of his, who happens to have just demonstrated quite publicly that he makes racist presumptions about folks whom he regards as ignorant (cuz why? what could possibly cause Gates to conclude that a cop on his porch , whom he had never seen before, was racist?), and a cop that the President's friend has accused of being a racist who doesn't know how to do his job.

Hope it works out.

It just seems particularly likely that, over a beer, invited by his friend, the Harvard professor may follow up on his threat to "teach" the cop How It's Done. Anybody think the cop will stand for more arrogance from this asshole?

Seems to me the cop just might take the opportunity to demonstrate just how ignorant the Harvard professor is of the relevant examples from contemporary police work in the greater Boston area: arrests of the loudmouth in a parking lot pushing match; mistaken witnesses beaten up by the victim of the mistake -- who then winds up with serious assault charges; and so on. How familiar do you suppose Gates is with those examples?

Which one of 'em is ignorant?

As I noted in the other threads, you guys don't seem to know how cops work in disorderly arrest situations: it's generally NOT about getting a conviction, months and months later. It's primarily about defusing a situation that just might get out of hand right then.

And what are the indicators for such a situation, which warrant an arrest?

The first, and most definitive, is that somebody refuses to obey the cop.

You guys don't seem to understand why that makes sense -- and Gates, in particular, seems quite likely to get his educated ass handed to him, in the White House, on the subject.

When a situation starts to escalate, as this one did, because somebody refuses to obey a cop's sensible order -- like telling a guy to step outside of the home that might have a burglar in it, so the cop can safely identify that he ain't the burglar -- the tell is whether the guy CONTINUES to defy the cop, loudly, in front of other people who might get swept up in the incident.

It's just that simple. You guys want to believe that cops are owed neither individual cooperation nor public respect -- which is neither substantively nor politically smart.

Honest, have you never seen a bar fight? A parking lot pushing match?

When a guy is all by himself and defies a cop for some slight, without a crowd, that's one thing. Then -- as Mnemosyne and others have confused with this situation -- it is simply a matter of whether the guy is guilty of anything; if not, proper police work is over.

But when a homeowner injects race into a situation, as Gates' did, loudly and publicly in front of a crowd WHICH INCLUDES THE 911 CALLER, the fact that Gates continued to reject the cop's authority is precisely sufficient "probable cause" for Gates' arrest.

Which is doubtless what Ogletree is telling Gates right now, unless he's also dumb enough to imagine that telling a privileged client what he wants to hear is a smart move here.

I keep reminding you guys that in a situation like this -- a pissed off loudmouth (especially with a good REASON, since after all Gates was in his own home when he was challenged to prove it) who is hollering about racism and threatening the cop's career, a bunch of bystanders, the witness who called it in in the first place, the cop is doubtless still wondering who the other guy was and where he is (and if he is going to show up and join Gate's 'you're a racist' chorus), the usual sort of taking sides that is always a serious potential in such a mess -- that's precisely when a police officer is SUPPOSED to consider a disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace arrest.

He "lured" Gates outside? He "provoked" Gates by warning him if he didn't shut up, he'd be arrested? He "showed the handcuffs", which set Gates off even more, which is somehow supposed to show the arrest was unnecessary?

Any experienced cop will tell you (and in fact, at least two HAVE, in these threads) that this incident is all about elitist prejudice against the police, and not race at all. Any experienced cop knows that in a case like this, the loudmouth who is focused on the cop is having an effect on the crowd -- which it is precisely the cop's responsibility to control, so that nobody throws the first punch.

That's why Gates was arrested -- to prevent that. Anybody who thinks what this loudmouth was doing was NOT tending that way needs to get out more.

So, yeah -- it does seem likely to me that this 'let's chat over a beer' scenario won't play out the way the President hopes, because I see no evidence that Gates feels like he has anything to learn about what an asshole he was. Gates is absolutely convinced that the only way to perceive his behavior is the way HE perceived it -- and the only way to understand the cop, as Gates himself has said, is to project racist motives on the guy.

He's wrong -- and he may just find that out at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

1,421 words because theAmericanist couldn't back down from the totally comical and completely unsupported by the record argument that the cop arrested Gates because the neighbors were endangered by him.

There's something seriously wrong with this poster.

Just shows that the whites do not want to hear even the slightest intimations of the country's racist past and definitely not anything about the possibility of racism currently playing any role in the treatment of blacks.

Imagine the furor if a white professor at Harvard had been handcuffed by a black cop in similar circumstances. The deafening noises from Rush Hannity Beck Savage that Obama has turned the country into a fascist police state would have drowned out everything else.

In looking at other's opinions on this topic, I came across a police blog site and it is clear that a large segment of the law enforcement community think the the black man didn't show proper respect to the officer and should have been arrested. It seems that this opinion may apply to all the black men involved in this story!

You can check it out here: http://www.policelink.com/content/gates-obama-news-and-editorial?&utm_content=frontbanner

Holy cow, the Americanist, start writing a novel. Your talent is wasted here.

Holy cow, the Americanist, start writing a novel. Your talent is wasted here.

And by "talent," we mean "pathology."

(snicker) Being as how, PaulB, I suggested that Obama would call Crowley the day before he did, I dunno how 'made up' my understanding of the case really is.

Well, mostly because you're making shit up, particularly with this so-called "narrative" of yours. As for predicting the telephone call, well, duh....

You guys have talked yourself into believing Gates' version.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Gee, moron, I could just as easily, and more accurately, have written that "you have talked yourself into believing Crowley's version." But, see, here's the thing: I'm condemning Crowley *on the basis of the arrest report and Crowley's version of events*, not on Gates'.

That's your privilege, but oddly enough that's not how public disputes of this necessarily go.

No shit, Sherlock.

It's generally a very good idea to understand how other folks see it.

And, again, no shit, Sherlock. Got anything to offer other than drivel and mindless platitudes?

It is also generally a good idea, in a multiple witness example like this, to see if ANYBODY else backs the loudmouth's version. Every person who saw the incident backs the cop, not Gates.

Moron, the key events took place in the house during the first few minutes of the encounter and *there were no witnesses*! The stuff that took place outside the house is not in contention. Moreover, it is simply false to assert to claim that "every person who saw the incident backs the cop" when almost none of the witnesses present has made a statement. Basically, you're just making shit up.

But this is more than political calculation: there are some folks who believe, as a matter of principle, that cops are owed no respect. Some of 'em post here.

Ah, yes, those mythical "some people." Go on, name names. I'll be right here waiting. This should be easy, right, because some of them "post here." I'll not be holding my breath, though.

That view is NOT remotely close to a majority amongst the public as a whole

Free clue: your lovely little made-up strawman argument impresses no one and needs no refutation.

Gates did not show the cop any respect.

a) it's irrelevant, and b) you have no way to determine the truthfulness of that statement.

Gates challenged the cop's authority immediately and he has not wavered from that version of the story at all: right? (just so you guys don't keep buying into the idea that this is a "made up" version of the story.)

Just as it's clear that you haven't really read the arrest report, it's also quite clear that you haven't read the deposition prepared by Gates' lawyer.

So it seems reasonable to me that Gates will continue to insist on his version of the story -- which, as noted, is not backed up by the police report, nor any of the witnesses.

So it seems reasonable to me that Crowley will continue to insist on his version of the story -- which, as noted, is not backed up by any of the witnesses and is only backed up by the police report, which, hey, guess what, he wrote. Get the point, moron?

It also seems reasonable to me that the cop will continue the principled stand that he will NOT apologize for the way he did his job. Anybody think I'm wrong about that? (continuing to probe PaulB's notion that I'm making it up.)

Moron, you're making up a "narrative." Just acknowledge this incontrovertible truth and move on.

First, cops should be allowed to investigate reports of crimes.

No shit, Sherlock.

Second, people who aren't cops are required to cooperate while they're doing it.

Really? Do please tell me what you mean by "cooperate" and what statute(s) and/or Constitutional principle you are using.

Hope it works out.

Oh, it will. Not everyone is as dumb as you are or as wedded to a made-up "narrative."

It just seems particularly likely that, over a beer, invited by his friend, the Harvard professor may follow up on his threat to "teach" the cop How It's Done. Anybody think the cop will stand for more arrogance from this asshole?

ROFLMAO... Like I said, making shit up. You really are funny.

As I noted in the other threads, you guys don't seem to know how cops work in disorderly arrest situationsM

This wasn't a "disorderly arrest" situation.

The first, and most definitive, is that somebody refuses to obey the cop.

ROFL.... You don't know anything about the relevant case law, do you? Hint: Mallahan.

When a situation starts to escalate, as this one did, because somebody refuses to obey a cop's sensible order -- like telling a guy to step outside of the home that might have a burglar in it

You are so proud of this part of the report. But, see, here's the thing: you're not only wrong, you're stupidly wrong. Gates' refusal to step outside was a) correct and b) not relevant to this discussion or to his arrest. It is a non-issue, which is why the cop didn't make a big deal out of it or arrest him for it.

It's just that simple.

Well, no, actually, it isn't, which is why I'm having so much fun with you.

But when a homeowner injects race into a situation, as Gates' did, loudly and publicly in front of a crowd WHICH INCLUDES THE 911 CALLER, the fact that Gates continued to reject the cop's authority is precisely sufficient "probable cause" for Gates' arrest.

LOL.... Like I said, you know nothing about the relevant case law. You are simply wrong, flatly incorrect. Is any of this sinking in yet?

That's why Gates was arrested -- to prevent that. Anybody who thinks what this loudmouth was doing was NOT tending that way needs to get out more.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Too bad your assertions aren't backed up by the available evidence, the police report, or the relevant case law. Nice try, though. Got any more "narratives" you want to play with?

He's wrong -- and he may just find that out at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sorry, but you are demonstrably and stupidly wrong, as you will find out when your lovely little "narrative" simply withers away. I do so love reading good fiction, though. Got anything else?

I give obama credit for being a good politician. Everyone has to accept the invitation or they then become the bad guys.

Still doesn't really change the fact that obama and gates are the racists in this story.

Still doesn't really change the fact that obama and gates are the racists in this story.

You really should look up the word "fact." Free clue: it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Two questions.

First, anyone know the penal code of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for "Refused to shut the Fuck Up".

Secondly, When will Dick Wolf announce his new show "Law and Order - Americanist Style"?

First, anyone know the penal code of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for "Refused to shut the Fuck Up".

The Mallahan case in Massachusetts pretty definitively ruled that there is no such code. Mallahan's conviction for conduct far more egregious than Gates was overturned, decisively. Here are the relevant passages:

Following his arrest for assault and battery arising out of a domestic violence incident, the defendant launched a screaming tirade at the arresting police officers. The defendant’s loud yelling continued for some ten minutes, as the officers walked the defendant, in handcuffs, from an apartment toward the police cruiser. The defendant’s rantings included warnings that he would sue the officers, as well as loud protestations interlaced with profanities that he had done nothing wrong, including that he never ‘fucking touched that bitch.’ When they reached the cruiser, the defendant stiffened his body upright. One officer placed his hand on the defendant’s head in order to move the defendant into the cruiser. The defendant sat on the cruiser’s seat but left his feet outside. The defendant, who recently had neck surgery, yelled that the police had hurt his neck. The officers removed the handcuffs and called the fire department. An ambulance transported the defendant to South Shore Hospital and then to Massachusetts General Hospital.

During the originating domestic violence incident, approximately six people in the housing complex had emerged from their apartments and gathered outside. As the cruisers arrived with sirens on, additional residents emerged or peered out their apartment windows. At one point, it was estimated ten persons were outside.

The defendant was charged with assault and battery for the originating domestic violence incident and with disorderly conduct for what transpired during his arrest. The defendant was acquitted of the assault and battery, but was convicted of disorderly conduct. G. L. c. 272, § 53. …

While acknowledging the constitutional protections that surround speech, the Commonwealth asserts that the defendant’s loud and angry verbal tirade rose to the criminal level of tumultuous disorderly conduct … The Commonwealth argues that tumultuous behavior, ‘while perhaps not physically violent, may nevertheless be characterized as involving riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise so as to constitute a public nuisance.’ We conclude, however, that on the evidence presented, the defendant’s loud tirade could not be prosecuted as tumultuous behavior under this definition.

The Commonwealth concedes that ‘there was absolutely no evidentiary support for the hazardous or physically offensive condition prong of the statute. There was essentially no live issue at trial concerning a hazardous or physically offensive condition.’ Instead, the evidence (including the testimony of the two arresting officers) showed only that the defendant verbally protested his arrest, taunted the officers with possible legal action, and railed about the officers’ hurting his neck. Words alone are not sufficient to establish tumultuous conduct. The only exception for a word-predicated offense under G. L. c. 272, § 53, is for ‘fighting words,’ that is, words, ‘which by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’ The Commonwealth does not contend, nor could it, that the defendant’s speech in this case constitutes fighting words. That the defendant’s language was vulgar and unpleasant did not translate the speech into tumultuous, disorderly conduct. ‘To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute.’ ‘[T]he mere use of obscenities in public does not make out the crime of disorderly conduct. . . .’

The Commonwealth further argues that the defendant’s nighttime eruption outside the apartment complex was noisy enough to cause people to gather and neighbors to look out their apartment windows and, as such, was extreme enough to constitute disorderly conduct. However, the mere fact that persons may be drawn to a scene because of noise and ‘verbal cacophony’ does not mean that a defendant has engaged in criminally tumultuous disorderly conduct. On this issue, we note that in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, ‘a crowd of approximately 100 shoppers gathered’ to watch the episode. That level of crowd gathering did not qualify the juvenile’s verbal tirade as tumultuous, disorderly conduct under that prong of the definition; nor did the lesser assemblage of the estimated ten or so persons who gathered outside the apartments in the instant case. (Moreover, in this case the evidence was mixed concerning the timing of onlookers gathering because certain of the onlookers came outside during the originating domestic violence incident and with the arrival of the cruisers—both of which events preceded the defendant’s arrest and loud verbal protest.)

Finally, the Commonwealth’s depiction of an extreme, tumultuous event is not persuasive. In this respect, Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 723 (2004), is instructive. In that case, the police came upon Lopiano fighting with his girlfriend in a car and ordered him to exit. Lopiano approached the police officer yelling and flailing his arms, protesting that the police were violating his civil rights. The court held this episode did not ‘support a reasonable inference that ‘the noise and commotion caused by the [defendant’s] behavior was . . . extreme.”

Don't go to this photo op, Officer Crowley; if you do, your former friends like Americanist will resent you so much that you might get yourself killed. Not worth the risk.

When the President orders me to drink a beer, I say 'How much?'

Don't go to this photo op, Officer Crowley; if you do, your former friends like Americanist will resent you so much that you might get yourself killed.

Nah, theAmericanist will just make up another "narrative" of what *really* happened in the meeting, not what the participants said happened.

I'm prepared to stipulate that Gates lost his temper, and probably shouldn't have. We all know the rules when dealing with a police officer; keep your voice down, use polite language, don't make any sudden moves or reach for anything that could give him reason to believe you're reaching for a weapon (and that includes your license and registration; wait till he asks for it, don't grab for it). But are any of you also aware of the "straw that broke the camel's back" syndrome? Sometimes, after you've been pulled over in your own car again and again by someone who checked your license plate and found that it was registered to someone in a white neighborhood, or have seen people look at you apprehensively when you walk up to an ATM machine, you just can't tolerate one more dis.

I've heard from a black colleague as well as a white colleague whose wife is black, and whose son obviously therefore also is a person of color, that any dark-skinned young man who gets his driver's license becomes intimately acquainted with every member of the police department within the next year. What's more, my black colleague observes that it's the black police officers who are likely to give him the hardest time, by way of proving their "cred" to their colleagues. Around here, if he's driving after dark, he's likely to get the inquiry "What you doin' so far north of 8 mile, boy?" My white colleague's son often gets very skeptical responses when he explains that he's just going home. Professor Gates has been driving a car for several decades now, and has probably been pulled over for a DWB many, many times. Compound that with jet lag and fatigue (going through customs, especially if the person behind you in line has an Attitude, will make anyone near homicidal) and you get a perfect storm.

Obama was not clumsy in the way he got into the Crowley story- he was stupid. The man is said to be a lawyer. Law schools teach the primacy of facts. Clearly Barack was absent the day his class covered that material. But then to a narcissist the story is always about him.

you just can't tolerate one more dis.

And in Gates' case, it started quite early in his life. Look up the story of why he needs a cane.

What strikes me in this "discourse" as that nobody who has contributed seems to want to learn anything. There are two sides to every story, & it appears in this particular story, both sides behaved badly. (How I'd love to hear those police tapes!)

Gates had a reason for misbehaving because he was tired from a long trip & PO'd at an inanimate object (his jammed door), but that's a reason, not an excuse. Reportedly, he made remarks impugning the rep of the sergeant's mother (as the papers nicely put it) & he's been on the teevee, after he had time to calm down & behave decently, calling Sgt. Crowley a "rogue cop." He's also been on the radio (I heard him) saying "I thought everybody knew me in Cambridge." What made him mad was the cop's failure to recognize such a fine fellow & certified celebrity genius (he got a MacCarthur grant!).

In general, it's probably not very useful to arrest a guy for being an arrogant snob (tho who wouldn't like to!?), so the police seem to have erred, too. They're probably too accustomed to having folks like me treat them really, really nicely when they get stopped for moving violations or whatever. They should have thicker skin & let remarks from jerks like Gates roll off their backs. That said, Gates is an expert at getting his points across, & obviously he succeeded in "outsmarting" the law here.

There are too many instances of actual mistreatment of minorities & racial profiling for me to get my dander up on behalf of poor, beleaguered Skip Gates. Lucky for him, he has so many of you -- and the President, too! -- on his side.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Another blow to theAmericanist's "narrative." Crowley himself now says that he "regrets that I put the police department and the city in the position where they have to defend something like this." So if Crowley acted "precisely according to the book," what does he regret? And is he really going to behave at the White House as theAmericanist clearly hopes he will?

There are two sides to every story, & it appears in this particular story, both sides behaved badly.

Probably true, but so what? Only one of those people was on the job and acting in his professional capacity. That's why Gates gets a pass and Crowley does not. He is held, appropriately, to a higher standard.

As most of the prior comments here have demonstrated (once again), leftists despise authority, especially the uniformed variety that wears a badge.

Of course Crowley should have absorbed all the undeserved abuse that Gates heaped on him. Being insulted and abused with vulgar language is the proper thanks to give to a police officer who has assured that your home has not been broken into.

You know, because all cops are pigs, right lefties?

Furthermore, if the cops is white he's automatically racist if he dares to address a cantankerous old black man -- whose first instinct is to spit venom at an individual who only tried to help, not hurt him.

All that being said, I can't wait to hear about the kegger that 0bama will host at the White House. I just bet zero can really chug down the malt liquor while being held upside down by Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs.

Welcome to the Trailer Park Presidency!

-A

Of course Crowley should have absorbed all the undeserved abuse that Gates heaped on him. Being insulted and abused with vulgar language is the proper thanks to give to a police officer who has assured that your home has not been broken into.

As others have pointed out, verbal assault, even with vulgar language, is not a legitimate cause for arrest.

That's the main argument here, and your tirades and blatantly racist remarks do not do anything to counter it in any substantial manner.

FRP,

"Gee , it sure seems a bit dull for an officer to place himself as the victim in and out of a black mans house where he has trespassed on ancient feelings of resentment ."

You can't begin to comprehend the long history of oppression and discrimination we White males have been subjected to, as you will never be able to appreciate the White Experience. The pressure is even worse as White cop, being "under the color of authority".

According to theAmericanist, police routinely knowingly wrongfully arrest people when no crime has been committed.

Why do you hate the police, theAmericanist?

I came across a police blog site and it is clear that a large segment of the law enforcement community think the the black man didn't show proper respect to the officer

You don't say? Wow. I came across a Red Sox fan site and it is clear that a large segment of the Red Sox Nation think that Derek Jeter sucks wicked hard.

I see Obama's comments from a totally different angle. I see him as someone who undermines people in authority, and that's something of a problem, because sometimes he is the one in authority.

Three instances.

1. Rev. Wright. I don't have one problem with Rev. Wright saying what he said and I don't have any problem with people listening to what he said and even agreeing with Rev. Wright. I do have a problem with a US Senator being one of those people. I pay my US Senator to stick up for my country. Obama's role changed when he wasn't just any parishoner, and he didn't seem to know it.

2. The Mayor's conference in Providence. Why Obama decided his staff shouldn't cross an informational picket line that dealt with COLAs on firemen's pensions at the Mayors conference was beyond me. These Mayors and Governors are struggling with budgets across the country and the public is increasingly aware that Public Employee Pension benefits are outrageous and nothing remotely like them is available in the private sector. Yet the President goes out of his way to undermine the Mayors. At least thats the way I saw it.

3. Professor Gate's story is not the most compelling story of racial injustice I've ever heard, yet the President decides to say the the police acted stupidly on nationwide TV, stepping on his own health care headline.

The President needs to find a way to support authority or at least not undermine it if he doesn't want to look weak. If you are a manager, you give your people the benefit of the doubt, at least until all the facts come in. I sure hope he supports the US in an international incident.

I swear there is a murder every day in Obama's old legislative district. More resentment against the police won't be helpful in lowering the murder rate there. It is a serious and disturbing problem. Yeah, let's talk about racial profiling and let's talk about the crime rate that drives it.

Like every profession, police are comprised of the good, bad, and ugly. By far and away, most cops are decent people who do their level best in what (I believe) is the toughest job society has to offer up. I know I couldn't do it, and God bless those who do it well.

But King Shit cops will always be part of the deal. That's just the way it is.

Oh, poor theAmericanist. All of his elegant theories completely blown out of the water by the release of the 911 tape and dispatch tapes.

Every person who saw the incident backs the cop, not Gates.

What was hilarious about this statement by the poor chap is that none of the witnesses to the incident had given any statements, meaning that he was basically making shit up. And now Whalen has spoken up, through her attorney:

Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene. And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period." I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color.

And all that yelling and screaming? Is nothing more than unintelligible conversation on the dispatch transcripts.

Oh, well ... maybe next time he can have the "narrative" he so clearly wants.