home

Thursday Open Thread

I'm busy at work today. For those of you interested in Obama's comments on the police action in arresting Professor Gates, here's the police report and some of the police officer's response to Obama's comments last night are here:

Crowley told WEEI sports radio network that it was "disappointing that (Obama) waded into what should be a local issue that plays out here."
Crowley told the radio station that he supports the president "to a point, I guess."

In other news, a U.S. citizen arrested in Pakistan for helping al Qaeda has pleaded guilty and is supplying information.

A new report is out on our overuse of life without parole. Sentencing Law and Policy has the details and links.

Here's an open thread to discuss whatever you would like.

Update: This thread is over 200 comments and now closed. A new one is up here.

< Racial Justice Act Advances in NC | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    That what is being downplayed in Obama's unfortunate comment during a health care press conference, is the fact that he himself said he was commenting without knowing all the facts.

    "I don't know - not having been there and not seeing all the facts - what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,"

    Gates, Obama allowed, "is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts."

    But Sgt. Crowley also said this:

    "I support the president of the United States 110 percent. I think he was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts as he himself stated before he made that comment," Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley told WEEI-AM today.



    I think Officer Crowley (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    needs to be quiet about all of this.

    I am shocked his superiors are letting him comment on the situation.

    If I was his superior, he would definitely be on a gag order right now.

    That's all the Cambridge police need now, to get into a pi**ing match with the President, a Harvard Law graduate no less.

    Yet again, Officer Crowley shows an appalling lack of judgment, as does the Cambridge Police Dep't letting him continue to comment and stoke the matter.

    This is incredible to me.


    Parent

    If I were the city attorney of Cambridge, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    I would have already called Sgt. Crowley, his superior, and Chief to say:  "no comment" please.

    Parent
    This incident seems to have inflamed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    a lot of people.  I haven't had time to keep up with all of it.

    Parent
    here are the quick takes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    Black man locked/stuck out of home.
    Neighbor calls cop.
    Cop shows up.
    Black man calls cop racist.
    Cop gets offended.
    Cop arrests man.

    Two parties just couldn't get along.

    Both sides of political spectrum using issue to get their partisan points across.

    Obama stupidly comments.  Cop stupidly comments back.

    Controversy becomes national instead of regional controversy and lives on longer then it should and overshawdows anythig relevant that Obama talked about last night.

    Parent

    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    this is quite a relevant national issue...even if the players are local to Mass.

    What is more important than being free from  warantless arrest?  It's about damn time the nation is talking about it, instead of just a couple knuckleheads like me on Talkleft.

    Parent

    Don't need a warrant (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    for a misdemeanor

    Parent
    Bad choice of words.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    I meant warrantless as in without just cause.

    Parent
    Inside a home--need a warrant to arrest (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    for a misdemeanour, at least in CA.

    Parent
    Arrested while black seems to be a (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    a frequent topic at Talk Left and in the media.  Not just the arrest of Prof. Gates.  

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    arrested while black is discussed some, point taken...I'd like to see our obsession with arrest in general, arrested for no reason, etc. get more play.

    It's a pet peeve of mine when people shrug off arrests as no big deal...placing chains on a human being is a very big deal, placing human beings in cages is a very big deal.  

    Parent

    Agreed. Here's another "big deal." (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    People who are present during the execution of a swearch warrant.   I've asked lots of jurors if they, their family, or close friends have had any contact with law enforcement they would characterize as unpleasant.  They have very strong feelings.

    Parent
    That's another biggie... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    no-knock home invasions is another biggie...few issues are as near and dear to my heart.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...I'll gladly die starving in a ditch with no health insurance as long as its not in a police state.

    Parent

    Knock and notice required in most (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    circumstances.  

    Parent
    Should be all circumstances... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    Several innocent people would still be alive today if no-knock home invasion warrants were totally disallowed.  No place for it in a free country...none.

    If we surrender the drug war so many of these problems go away or are greatly reduced.

    Parent

    Alfred Hitchcock famously said ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    he found police officers one the scariest things in the world.  Because they're the only people who can say "come with me" and you have to go.

    Parent
    That's a good line... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    I'm in 100% agreement with Mr. Hitchcock...nothing scares me more.

    Parent
    More (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    Crowley teaches about racial profiling for the police department (no, not HOW to do it) - he was chosen by the former police commissioner, who happens to be black.

    And, the conversation between Crowley and Gates was transmitted over the police radios, so many people heard what was really going on and Gates can be heard yelling.

    And, a neighbor backs up the police's story.

    And, usually nolle pros (the motion for the prosecutor to dismiss charges) are not usually filed without a court hearing. This was an unusual case where the average person would not have had this kind of treatment.

    Link

    Parent

    From someone not versed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    in all the details....this seems about right from where I'm standing :)

    Parent
    Passerby sees two men she doesn't recognize (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    shouldering the front door of a residence.  Passerby calls police, who respond.  

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    the passerby did not call the cops because Gates was standing in the yard saying 'Help, I'm locked out of my house'. He was, indeed, breaking in, albeit into his own house.

    Not saying Gates was doing anything wrong here. Just that the passerby wasn't either.

    Parent

    One time my cousin (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    came to visit me from out of state.  I knew I probably would not be home from work before him so I told him where I would hide a key.

    I told my next door neighbor he was coming because he sported an afro....sort of.  We are caucasian but Terry was one of those who had that tight curly hair that worked for a an afro.  It was in the early 70s...we wore old, holey jeans, you know, the hippie look.  One of my other neighbors, a male was passing by and immediately he became suspicious.  Luckily my other neighbor was outside and explained to the other.

    But seriously, sometimes people innocently get suspicious of the wrong person for many reasons.

    Parent

    It's because... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    we're so suspicious of each other in general...I blame tv.  It's no way to live.

    One time I was helping my brother move some stuff out of his mother-in-laws house...she was not with us, she gave us the key.  Her neighbor noticed us and did it the right way...came out and asked who we were and what was up, we explained and thanked her for looking out for the place.  If she did the wrong thing and called 911 we'd have had pistols in our faces.

    Parent

    Minor Problem with that (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    If you challenge somone, they might be real criminals who may decide to eliminate you as a witness. If I see something, there is no way I will directly challenge the activity. I would much rather call the police.


    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    You certainly can't have a potential defendant in a civil lawsuit making a 22-minute radio appearance, regardless of how "classy" he may have been.

    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#140)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    He like everyone else has free speech rights. If he is going to be sued in what is now, thanks to Obama's "stupidity", a national case then the officer would be "stupid" to not to make his case in public and get potential jurists on his side.

    Parent
    Thanks for chiming in (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    to offer what is perhaps the worst argument of the day.

    Parent
    P*ssing matches (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    require two parties. The president stooped to such a level.  It was a stupid thing to do and defintely below "his pay grade" more like exhibition of "third grade" behavior.

    Obama had the bully pulpit and used it to trash police.  Not good judgment on the part of someone who thinks he's competent to run this country.

    Parent

    Especially now (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    the police union is not happy with him at this moment.

    Parent
    The police union's unhappiness should be focused (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    on Officer Crowley.  He's the one making them look bad.

    Parent
    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    POTUS should never have commented on a situtaion where a) he didn't know all the facts, and b) a friend of his was involved.

    And he's going to want the police union come 2012....

    Parent

    I agree that he should have answered the question (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    more artfully if he was going to answer it at all; however, I don't see this as something the police union is going to get really angry about (at least not openly).  I don't see them demanding an apology on this one because they don't want to be associated with this mess and with this particular officer's actions.

    Parent
    Well, when Obama says or does something (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    stoopid, he prefers to call it something more cutsey, like a "boneheaded mistake", as in his land deal with Tony Rezko.

    Parent
    Sure (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    In the sense that the President has bigger fish to fry.

    But the Cambridge police and Crowley in particular are really demonstrating some serious lack of professionalism.

    At this point, I am doubting Crowley's story of what happened.

    Parent

    It appears (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Natal on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    from a photo taken that at least two officers (one black) witnessed the event. It should be interesting to hear what they have to say.

    Parent
    You're right BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    Like you said: "Obama has bigger fish to fry", meaning bigger issues to resolve in keeping with the public interest.

    However, this kerfuffle serves to conveniently divert our attention away from those "bigger fish"; the bigger fish that aren't actually being properly fried at all, but left to rot from the head down. What's that smell?

    Parent

    Rotting fish . . . (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    well, there goes my lunch idea. I had just settled on cooking up some scallops, but now it just doesn't sound so tasty.

    Parent
    Oh, scallops aren't fish (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    they're bivalve mollusks, so go ahead and enjoy. I love 'em too.

    Parent
    Well, the WH (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    is now qualifying the comment, which means it will be a story for at least another day.

    Parent
    Not much of a qualification (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    Saying Obama didn't say something that he didn't say?  Not sure that can really fill up a day's worth of news.

    Parent
    You obviously (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    haven't watched cable news in a while....

    Parent
    Sometimes I weep (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    remembering CNN's excellent coverage of the first Gulf War.

    Parent
    CNNI on your cable system? (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    I will never forget that first day (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    how somber my nation was.  We were going to war, it was very serious business. My daughter claims that even though she was a toddler she has ghostlike memories of it, of all my friends and I getting together that evening to watch CNN and have a few drinks while watching the bombing, and  the gravity of the situation that we all felt.

    Parent
    Most Americans don't watch much (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    cable news. And it's a good thing too.

    Parent
    You would think a Harvard (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    Law graduate would know better than to weigh in on national television about a situation for which he did not have all the facts.

    One womders whether, if Obama had simply passed on the question as (1) not being appropriate for him to comment on during a presser that was meant to focus on health system reform and (2) inappropriate because he did not have all the facts, the CPD and Crowley might not now feel obligated to defend themselves.

    [On the other hand, maybe Crowley should have  explained the whole thing in terms of "preventive detention."]

    Parent

    You'd also think a Harvard Professor, and (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    Scholar would stop calling the police officer names in public and stating that he knew what was motivating the officer when, in fact, he has never once been able to cite one word or action to support his claim that he was being profiled.

    He's 58 years old, and has worked in a classroom setting long enough to also know how to diffuse a situation when it appears to be getting out of control. His wisdom has disappeared as it relates to this incident.


    Parent

    Never Learn (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    Do you.

    Calling an act stupid is not calling someone a name. YOu seem to regularly get stuck on this point.

    Just like calling a comment stupid or silly is not calling a commenter a name.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    of course Obama positing that race might have had something to do with the arrest when he didn't have a clue what happened is A-OK. What a joke. Obama was way off base with his comment. But of course attacking the officer serves as cover to ignore Obama's supreme F-UP.

    And it only took him 6 months to inject himself as a Black president in such an ugly way instead of just The President. Very sad.


    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    The question was:

    What does is say about race relations in America?

    Obama said:

    Gates was in his house, showed ID proves it is his house and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

    I don't know what part race played in this incident.

    Race has been a factor, in arrest, well documented. Long history.  

    Even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact is that Blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and often time for no cause, cast suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why the more we are working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we are eliminating potential bias, the safer everyone is going to be.

    Parent

    Yes he should (4.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    As Obama should have demurred on the question.  

    Actually, I wish they would ALL shut-up and let the investigation run its course.

    Parent

    Investigation? (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    The charges were dropped. There is no investigation.

    You are starting to sound like Bush, with his most oft repeated comment, I can't comment on this due to an ongoing investigation,

    But then again I am sure that you would quote Abu Gonzo's most oft repeated statement in response to being called out for quoting Bush:

    I do not recall.

    Parent

    Perhaps Prof. Gates filed a citizen's (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    complaint against the arresting officer.  Which would trigger in investigation by the police department.  

    Disclaimer:  I wasn't there.

    Parent

    Perhaps? (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    Do you have any evidence of that? Or are you just throwing gasoline on the fire?

    Parent
    Why do you suppose I chose the word (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    "perhaps."  If I were a betting person, which I'm not, I would bet Prof. Gates has or will file a citizen's complaint.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    You think there won't be an internal investigation into this?  And of course, Gates said he'll probably sue (more 15 minutes of fame).

    Parent
    It's unfair (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    to say Gates is seeking 15 mins of fame--he was already well known before this incident and has appeared on tv numerous times including for his own documentaries.  If he sues, there are a number of reasons he might do that.

    You may not have meant it this way, but saying that he is seeking 15 mins of fame makes it sound like he has nothing else to be famous for when he is a distinguished scholar.

    Parent

    More Than Unfair (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    Uppity black, is how I read it. Astounding ignorance, imo


    Parent
    Then, you just prove (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    you have no reading comprehension skills.

    Parent
    Gates Is Super Famous (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    Time mag named him one of the 25 most influential people in America in 1997.

    Parent
    And a telling description, no less... (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    Combine the braininess of the legendary black scholar W.E.B. DuBois and the chutzpah of P.T. Barnum, and the result is Henry Louis Gates Jr.


    Parent
    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    That's a good'un (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    BS (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    Please provide a link where Gates mentions anything about suing the Cambridge police.

    Because of his arrest, Gates said he plans to make racial profiling and prison reform central intellectual and political issues he wants to explore. He's also considering a new documentary on racial profiling.

    He is going to make it a subject of his academic work.


    Parent

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    In response to a question.  We'll see. I would highly doubt that Gates is going to sue anyone, imo.

    Parent
    Prediction: Prof. Gates will sue (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    the sgt. and the city.  False arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983.  

    Parent
    plus (none / 0) (#207)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    one for a lawsuit.
    it will be interesting to see how it goes.

    Parent
    I have to wonder . . . (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    if the neighbor would have called the police if it was 2 white dudes trying to bust he door open?

    This may actually be more of a gender issue than race.

    Parent

    It is my understanding (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    that it was a passer-by who called the police and not a neighbor.

    Parent
    Lets call the dime-dropper... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    a member of the community.  She worked right up the street, so I assume she walks that route 5 days a week twice a day going to and from work.  Not technically a neighbor, but not a random passerby either.

    Parent
    Unlikely IMO (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    This was in an upscale Cambridge neighborhood during the daytime. Most likely if it were a couple of white dudes, well dressed as gates was, someone would have asked if they needed help.

    The link from Peter G, does offer a case where gender clearly came into play. Two young white women were trying to break into their house in Cambridge and the police helped them find a ladder.

    No questions asked, no need for ID. Just unmitigated chivalrous help in that instance

    Parent

    That's why I was wondering if it was gender (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure someone would ask me if I needed help. I, otoh, may not ask 2 strange men what they are doing, no matter what color they are/how they are dressed, especially if I were alone.

    Parent
    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    If I saw two men trying to muscle in a door of a house in the neighborhood, and didn't know who they were, I woulnd't approach them - they could have a weapon, for goodness sake! That would be foolish.  

    I would, however, call the cops and consider myself a good neighbor.

    Parent

    as a 105lb woman (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    I tend to be a bit careful in certain situations!  ;)

    Parent
    Promise... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:56:20 PM EST
    you won't move to my 'hood jb:)

    I just don't get this irrational fear of strangers...is it just a better safe than sorry thing?  A woman thing?  

    Even if the spidey sense goes off and I detect shadiness in a random person, I still try and give the benfit of the doubt until I'm very sure they're up to no good...unless of course we're talking about politicians and/or authority figures:)

    Parent

    Aw, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    I was looking forward to the pool parties - I bet you throw great parties!

    Parent
    Women don't have the same option (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    as a man. We know what could happen to us.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    Ongoing investigation... well at least we know where you get your lines from..

    Parent
    He's unintentionally proving the President right (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    But isn't (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    the president dumb to get mired in this?

    How's he going to win on this?  What's the upside?

    You like to keep things at the political level.  This is dubm politicly.

    I agree by the way the officer should have said no comment as well.

    Everyone benefits from this moving off the front page.  The police and professor where both wrong IMHO but the professor could have prevented all of this by just co-operating.  

    This is just fodder for partisan wrangling.

    Parent

    The upside is that as black men (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    we get to feel for once that our government can speek from a position of power to stop these actions.  

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#133)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    I thought it was a mistake (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    I said so in the Live Blog thread in real time.

    Parent
    It's being downplayed because it's a silly (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    comment.

    Kind of like saying...I'm not racist, but...

    The first parts was right.  He didn't know anything so he should have kept his mouth shut.

    As BTD is fond of saying he's a pol.  Pol's shouldn't go after the police with zero facts.

    Did he need this controversy while he was selling his plan?  Nope.  He acted "stupidly".

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    Obama should have ducked the question.

    Health care is what he wanted for news today, not Gates.

    Parent

    totally agree (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    I was angry the last five minutes got taken up with Gates rather than more health care plan issues. It wasn't the time or the place. And, to top it off, he was so specific on the Gates issue while wishy-washy on some of the health care issues.

    Parent
    Though, I think it's important (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    that Obama's wishy-washiness on health care was exposed.  Certainly it would be have been better if that had been done through tough, incisive questions from reporters regarding health care.  However, we all know that tough, incisive questions are not going to be asked in a Presidential press conference.

    Parent
    Today's LAT has two articles (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    above the fold re Obama.  One:  health care.  Second:  Gates incident comment.  Also an editorial on the Gates incident.

    Parent
    I thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    pretty "stupid" for Obama to step on his own health reform headlines which is exactly what he did.
    as soon as it happened it was clear that was going to be the story today.
    not anything to do with the rest of the news conference.
    stupid.


    Parent
    Maybe it was staged (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    on purpose.

    You aren't seeing much discussion about the other 55 minutes of Obama's TV time, are you?

    Parent

    it was odd (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    how he insisted that Lynn Sweet be given the "last question".

    Parent
    Did Pres. Obama really state on TV (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    last night he hadn't read the pending legislation re health care?

    Parent
    I don't think that is completely accurate (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    I read the transcript of the Q&A and this is the only applicable comment that I found:

    Now there are -- you know, I have not yet seen what the Senate Finance Committee is producing. They've got a number of ideas, but we haven't seen a final draft.


    Parent
    I more or less (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    watched the whole thing and I dont remember him saying exactly that.

    Parent
    Congressional Black Caucus weighing in (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    on health insurance legislation.

    On Thursday, leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus said they requested a meeting with Obama after watching the president negotiate with the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

    "We felt it was important that more than one voice be heard," said Donna Christensen, the congressional delegate for the U.S. Virgin Islands who is leading the caucus' health care efforts. "When we hear phrases like squeezing more savings out of the system ... we're concerned that what may be taken out will be provisions that are critical to our communities."

    The mostly liberal black caucus wants to make sure that any reform retains core provisions such as a public health insurance option that guarantees coverage for everyone.

    "We don't want to see them negotiated or eroded away," said Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill. ink



    Who took my "L"? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    Link not ink.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    the D-ILL took it...you meant D-IL right? :)

    Parent
    You are so right (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    Hope it's not too late after the blue dogs have already been running the show.

    Parent
    Interesting information on Blue Dogs (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    So far this year, the political action committee attached to the fiscally conservative House Democratic voting bloc is on track to shatter all its fundraising records, raising more in the first six months of 2009 -- more than $1.1 million -- than it did in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle.

    Nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC's haul this year comes from the energy, financial services and health care industries, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to analysis of CQ MoneyLine data by the Center for Public Integrity. Think Progress




    Parent
    Obama got a lot (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    of health insurance company money for his campaign too, right?

    Parent
    Next To Hillary in 2006 (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:56:23 PM EST
     Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

    nyt

    In the 2008 election cycle:

    Obama More than double the contributions of anyone from Health Professionals. Health Services/HMO's

    More than triple from Hospitals/Nursing Homes and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products,

    Slightly below McCain from Insurance

    Lobbyists went twice as much for Hillary and McCain over Obama

    Oil & Gas McCain 3 to 1

    Retired, Real Estate, Securities & Investment, Telephone/Utilities, TV/Movies/Music all went to Obama.

    Tobacco 2 to 1 GOP

    Parent

    So Obama did get a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    money from insurance companies.  Thanks for the links.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    Relative to McCain he got less money from insurance cos. Which was abberent compared to all categories.

    Obama got more than anyone else in contributions from every category, except insurance companies, tobacco, oil & gas, and lobbyists.

    Parent

    My comment said nothing (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    about Obama's source of funding relative to McCain, or Hillary, or anyone.  I simply said that Obama got a lot of money from insurance.  And he did.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#182)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    I see, well in that case Obama got a lot of money from tobacco too.

    Not sure why you are interested in meaningless numbers.

    Where is starts to mean something is when you compare who got what, imo.

    But whatever turns you on.

    Parent

    Why is it meaningless? (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    What IS meaningless is comparing the numbers to Hillary, McCain or anyone else who is not the president and who will not be making decisions and pushing (and signing) legislation ragarding Americans' health care.

    It matters a great deal how much money he took from the health insurance industry because it will be worth watching to see how much influence they wield over the process and his decision making.

    Parent

    Well, perhaps it was (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    because the comment I replied to had to do with contributions from insurance, and not from tobacco?  I guess staying on topic "turns me on."  So sue me.

    Parent
    Do you know who I admire (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    the most on confronting Blue Dogs?  Mike Stark who is so crazy that instead of just talking about needed confrontations he goes and does them with a camera rolling.  I've always loved that guy and my love is renewed, but he scares most people.  He goes and does things most of us are too afraid to go and do....get face to face with these people who stand in the way of serving the people of this nation first while a camera is rolling.  And when he called Dana Bash a lapdog and told her that they were both "press" and she was no better than he was I didn't know whether to laugh or cry with joy!

    Parent
    I have been following this (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    The blue dogs only seem to run the show because the media can't help looking for a fight....any fight...to draw viewers in with.  Seems to be a consistent journalistic problem at the moment.  They'll even allow pundits to go on the air repeating falsities that they know to be false and they won't correct them on until they get a news cycle out of the controversy.  They literally create the controversies they then report on.

    Parent
    Excellent evaluation (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    But I do think the blue dogs also represent the points of view of most of the media. they are happy to put forward the views of others who are a)corporate owned and b)claim to want bipartisanship above all else.

    Parent
    True, and that reason (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    (i.e. that the blue dogs also represent the points of view of most of the media) also helps to explain why the criticisms of Obama's health care policy from the left are being ignored.

    Parent
    Well we have always been out of our (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    minds, screeching overeducated bleeding heart liberals and DFHs.  

    Parent
    True, though what is (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by dk on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    interesting is that now most of the "progressive" blogs that used to pride themselves on being called DFHs are now ignoring the left-wing criticisms of Obama's plan just as much as the MSM are.  Very telling, I think.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    It is only hip and cool to be a DFH when you have a conservative tyrant in the oval office :)

    Parent
    No vote before August (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    I agree that the media does focus (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    on the blue dogs because it is "looking for a fight....any fight...to draw viewers in with."

    OTOH, quite a bit of legislation has been weakened substantially to pacify the blue dogs.

    Parent

    I blame that mostly on (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    how Obama entered office working his a$$ off to appease Conservatives.  I think we have now come to a fork in the road though where he has to "change" that philosophy up because it was junk to begin with.  I think he can do this too if he wants to and I think he has the ability to make this look like he's gliding in.  Nobody is going to be able to say he crashed into a reality and I don't want to deal with all the spin that an obvious crash would bring about for the damn media.  I hope I don't have to kill and eat this optimism pony too in order to survive :)

    Parent
    Not to worry (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hookfan on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    the well heeled will continue to be appeased. . .

    Parent
    It's enough to make you go (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    Mike Stark mad :)

    Parent
    If it were possible, I'd suspend (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    their taxpayer funded health benefits until they fixed this problem. I'll bet that would get em off their collective do-nothing a**es fairly quick.  

    Parent
    We ought to but that's not playing nice (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    Just like racism in the South, much is never directly confronted in the name of exercising good manners.

    Parent
    Yes, it is playing nasty, MT (none / 0) (#121)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    But playing nice just doesn't seem to get us anywhere, except maybe the other cheek slapped. Now that I think about it, that's sort of what you were saying, in a more scholarly way.  

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure the CA May ballot measures (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    included one barring state legislatures from getting a raise if there wasn't a timely budget.

    Parent
    pay until the budget was fixed. Ratchet up the leverage, I say.

    Parent
    Rock and Roll CA (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    You must be proud?  Just a little?

    Parent
    Uh oh, what if they start (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    putting in a full days work?  Rush will probably go on the air and claim that he is responsible for them actually showing up to work now.

    Parent
    On the whole, I'm usually pleased with (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    the work that the CBC does. We would be much better off if other members of Congress (names too numerous to mention) did not show up for work at all.

    BTW, my snark detector was working on your comment but couldn't resist adding this.

    Parent

    except.......................... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    He didn't know anything so he should have kept his mouth shut.

    what we all do know is that prof. gates was arrested, in his own house, for...........well, being in his own house and yelling at the police. hence, the dropping, nearly immediately, of the "disorderly conduct" charges stupidly leveled against him, by a police officer who is apparently not very bright, and doesn't know when to just STFU.

    the last time i checked, yelling at a cop, while in your own house, having committed no obvious crime, is not a crime itself. this guy basically got ticked, because prof. gates, for whatever reason, wasn't being sufficiently deferential.

    the cop, his attorney, his union president and his fellows would do themselves, and the city, a huge favor, by zipping their lips.

    that they haven't, i think, makes pres. obama's comments even more self-evidentally true.

    When I first read about this incident, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    the arrest took place outside Prof. Gates house.  Now, he was "arrested in his own house."  Wonder which is correct?

    Parent
    Cuffed on his porch (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    from what I read and saw in the picture. On the property, but not in the house.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    I learned the cops aren't allowed to arrest someone in their own home without a warrant?  This was a misdemeanor charge.

    Parent
    That doesn't answer the question though. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    Where was Prof. Gates when law enforcement officer placed Gates under arrest?

    Parent
    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    Just pointing out (badly, I guess) that he couldn't have been arrested in his home, as some keep mistakenly repeating here.

    Parent
    Arrest outside has morphed into arrest (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    inside.  

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    "arrested in his own house" and "arrested on his front porch" kind of seems like a hair-splitting distinction to me... particularly when it was the police officer, by his own admission, who asked him to step outside the house.  Surely there are more important aspects of the situation we could quibble about.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    Despite my best efforts (no Lexis/Nexis (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    access), I haven't located the precise wording of the statute which was the basis for the arrest.  But I suspect Prof. Gates could have yelled to his heart's content from inside the residence and not violated the statute.  

    Parent
    According to a Slate link: (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    Seeing as this is a criminal defense blog, this is something I would think a criminal defense attorney would love to argue to death - was it a justified arrest, so, in an academic discussion (since the charges were dropped), yes it does matter what the facts are as to where he was arrested.

    Parent
    Has Prof. Gates indicated whether, (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    at the time the officer requested Gates gome outside, Prof. Gates was aware he had the right to refuse this request?  

    Parent
    Refusing the request of a cop (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    would be hard to do....he has the gun....

    I remember talking to someone who had been in the FBI for many years.  I said to him I would never talk to the FBI willingly--get me a subpoena, and then I take the Fifth in front of the grand jury until they immunize me.  The FBI agent told me that he never had any problem having witnesses and suspects talk to him.  He said the desire to talk to the police was "overwhelming."  

    People are conditioned to obey authority figures and fear the police.   They comply out of fear.  

    Parent

    Anyone (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    who watches any cop show knows that (plus, you never drink something they offer you, unless you can take the cup or pop can with you).

    Parent
    Why oh why did I waste all that money (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    on going to law school when I coulda just watched TV?

    Parent
    Typical Police Lying (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:50:28 PM EST
    Crowley asked Gates to step outside becuase the acoustics in the house made it difficult to talk.

    This was clearly a lie, Crowley's only intention at that point was to get Gates outside so that he could claim disorderly conduct.

    Crowley asked one of the people in the crowd to calm down and used the key word tumultuous in his arrest report.

    It was a setup, and Gates fell for it. It is foolish to ever believe a cop, as they are professional liars.

    The lesson most (MA) cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

    [snip]

    By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. [with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm]

    [snip]

    If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates. [emphasis added]

    link


    Parent

    i believe he was arrested (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    either on his front porch or front walkway.

    Parent
    "What we all know" (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    and "arrested in his own house."  I sure hope we don't all "know" that since it's false.

    Parent
    Inside, outside, it's IRRELEVANT (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    People may get all lawerly and legal on me and talk about misdemeanors and warrants and all kinds of crap, but that's just what it is - crap.  The man broke no law!  That folks don't like the way he talked to the police officer - and are using that as some sort of justification that the P.O. is not the one who's wrong here, is to me, astounding ignorance.  The cop asked him to come outside (per the police report) because the cop couldn't hear his radio over Gates' yelling (no comment as to whether this was true or not.)  He was arrested outside.  Again, does this make any difference when there was no crime committed?  Are people seriously OK w/cops arresting you because you yell at them - in front of your own house?  Are these the same folks who got all hissified when the subject was warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding?  I suggest folks try to consider that they may not have walked in others shoes before they start condemning behavior.  Sounds to me like folks don't think Gates deserved any consideration for how he may have felt.  And we wonder why we still need anti-discrimination laws.

    Parent
    I wouldn't exactly equate it to waterboarding... (none / 0) (#149)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    ...but other than that, I agree with your post.  Last I checked, we are (supposedly) not in a totalitarian state and outside of limited circumstances, such as a verbal threat, we should not be subjected to arrest on our front porches because we say something rude to a police officer, if he in fact said any such thing.

    Parent
    Lost Opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    The point seems to be that Obama's prime time  national address on health care has been totally derailed. Even on the blogs, the topic of Gates has totally overshadows the health care issue.

    I would have preferred that he put off the address until he had something concrete to sell to the American people. Everyone already knows our system is trashed. We've known that for years. What I want to know is what positive steps Washington is going to take to fix it.

     

    If the incident report is complete and accurate (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    I find some irony in a man shouting "You don't know who you're messin' with" to someone asking that man for identification, you know, to, uh, find out who he is.

    Until there's proof of this cop doing anything other than asking this man for indentification, then my opinion on this will remain outrageously politically incorrect.

    So I won't share it with anyone at all.


    Obama's other line about Gates... (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    ...that is getting no play, which surprises me, was when he said if a Gates-like incident happened to him, Obama (prior to being president obviously), in Washington, well, he'd have gotten shot.  Got a decent laugh as I recall.

    Obviously, on this issue, we have a President who, for the first time in our history, has a real and lived perspective on racial profiling and this kind of thing.  That, to many, is what is really shocking it seems.  It was fine when we had uptight white guys as Prez, who never had to face it, talking about it like it never happened to anyone, but to have a black guy talking about from the POV of firsthand experience, well, it's just not polite.  Now, he probably should have ducked the question, but he didn't, and the answer he gave was the first of its type EVER given by a president on such a topic.

    History of an inadvertent sort.

    I think he said (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    if he was breaking into the White House, he'd get shot, which is true and would have nothing to do with his race.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    Obama's clever double entendre about getting shot, was in the context of the White House.

    If Obama had tried to break into the WH he would have been shot.

    I say double entendre because clearly anyone would be shot, regardless of race, if trying to break into the WH, yet guilty of being black, is just cause for shooting someone of color who looks suspicious.

    A friend of mine grew up in DC while being black. Five or six kids in the family. His mother, wisely, insisted early on that the children never run while on a public street. The reason being, was they would be a fair chance that they would get shot.

    That really impressed me as what it would be like growing up as a perpetual suspect of crime just for being black.

    Parent

    H/C by end of year (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:00:48 PM EST
    risky move considering that nearly every president loses ground in approval ratings by the end of their first year and with the economy expected to slog along the bottom for the next six months will the care about healthcare be sustained?

    Jobs, jobs, jobs. I think I recall O saying that on the campaign trail.  He better hope it is a daschund nipping at his heels come November and not a Vick trained Pit Bull....

    From my reading of the police report (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    it sure don't take much to get arrested in Mass.

    for some reason the (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Bemused on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    "reply to this" button is not showing, but this is directed to those criticizing Obama's comment.

      First, I think his comment only says he doesn't have enough facts to determine whether racism was involved. He does seem to suggest that he knows enough facts to conclude it was stupid for police to arrest a man for being upset the cops were hassling him in his own home when he had done noting wrong. That would mean to me that obama thinks it is stupid for police to arrest any person of any background for such behavior under such circumstances.

       Second. I appreciate a President (or any otyher pol) who will speak his mind in plain, direct language and have no problem with his stating the cops acted stupidly.

     

    The criticism (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    is that it was not appropriate for the President to make such a comment at all - ESPECIALLY after admitting one of the players involved was a friend and the fact that he didn't have all the facts of this particular case.

    Again-- (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by Bemused on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:44:17 PM EST
      He said he didn't have the facts needed to decide whether racism was involved. He did not say he didn't have the facts to conclude what the police did was stupid.

      Why should he not comment on something making national headlines which involves what is viewed as a pervasive problem simply because in this particular instance a friend of his was involved?

      What's wrong with the President saying he doesn't think police shoulfd trump up charges if they anger someone by invading his home and demanding he provide information he is under no obligation to provide.

       

    The first time (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    he said he didn't have all the facts was related to race being the factor in the case.  He said it again when he said

    Gates, Obama allowed, "is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts."

    And neither does anyone else except the people involved.  You don't know the charges were "trumped up" any more than you know the only reason the police wanted to arrest him was because he's black.

    And it's still bad form for the President to comment on something like this, especially when Gates may file suit.  I can see Gates' attorney now, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury - see - even the President of the United States thinks the cops acted stupidly!"

    I gotta tip my cap.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    to these dudes...though I wish it was a principled civil disobedience theft, and not junkies stealing for a fix...but at least they chose the best of targets....well played sirs, good luck at plea negotiations or trial.  

    lol (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    Well junkies intentions sometimes overlap with civil disobedience.

    Two birds with one stone?

    Parent

    Probably... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    easier things to steal than red-light cameras right?

    I'd like to treat 'em to any fix of their choice...they've earned it fighting tyranny one red-light camera at a time:)

    Parent

    Can't help but wonder if Mr. Vinas (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    looked around him and realized the gig was up and started taking, or did he require a little waterboarding?  I suppose we don't waterboard U.S. citizens because we are born less evil and we inherently know when to be afraid and when it is time to talk.

    Guy grew up... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    couple towns over from where I live...crazy.

    What I don't get is this...supposedly "we" fight "them" there so "we" don't have to fight "them" here, and the "thems" that are here have to go over there to fight "us" fighting "them"...this is not an eco-friendly way to kill each other with all the flights and warships back and forth and such...maybe we should just fight here if we insist on killing each other and give mother nature a break.

    Parent

    You crack me up (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    Kdog, we haven't lobbied for the Xbox 360.  I suppose we've been slackers.  Mankind can be all over the world and show up whenever any of us like to kill each other.  And you can do it over and over and over again, what a patriotic or jihading rush.

    Parent
    Now we learn the cop was a hero (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    Cop

    Obama picked on the wrong guy.

    Hero? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    Boy has that word been devalued recently.

    Parent
    Hero is a bad choice of words (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    just puts him in a good light and more of a problem for Obama.

    By the way did you see Gibbs lame retort.

    I think a blogger in the original post played this all out exactly as it is happening.

    Dumb comment.
    Outrage.
    WH retort - denying the obvious.
    Further outrage
    Sunday morning roundup

    It's all so predictable.

    Parent

    Nobody said... (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    the guy was pure evil, just that he f8cked up and abused his power when he arrested Gates.

    Did Obama pick on the guy, or did he condemn the actions of the guy...there is a difference.

    Parent

    Does it matter now? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    When you wade into the debate you wade into the debate.

    Parent
    I will reserve judgment until I discover (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    what the officer meant when he wrote Prof. Gates was behaving in a "tumultous" manner.  Immed. thought:  rock tumbler.  

    Parent
    Doing his job (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by coast on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    I wouldn't call him a hero.  I would say that he was doing his job, just as he was doing when he arrested Mr. Gates.  No more no less.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    the guy died (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    the cop seems like a decent person from the reports but the guy did die.

    I guess he could be given A for effort.

    Parent

    Reggie needed a doctor, but even then (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    the rate of reviving a heart is very low. Crowley is/and was a police officer who showed no bias in administering CPR.

    You guess he deserves a high mark for effort. I think we can give him some honest credit for trying to save a dying man without adding diminishing touches.

    Parent

    the comment called him a hero (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    whatever he did it seems a stretch since he died.
    unless now a white cop is a hero who is willing to do cpr on a person of color?

    fwiw - I think the cop is getting a bad rap.  just because a person is a harvard professor in no way prohibits them from being a jacka$$.
    if you want to talk about the racial aspect of the whole thing it might be worth wondering if the charges would have been dropped if it was "anyone else".

    Parent

    I made no reference at all to the hero (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    part of someone else's comment. Never said I thought it was a proper description. fwiw - I think hero is inappropriate for the circumstance.

    But, he did deserve an A for effort, no guessing about it. It was not pleasant to read the part of the article that said people started referring to him as the "man who killed Reggie Lewis".

    Parent

    "man who killed Reggie Lewis" (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    I didnt see that.  thats terrible.

    Parent
    It is terrible (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    go back and read the entire article. Crowley seems to be a pretty decent guy. He has high character marks from people who know him, and he didn't speak out about this until well after Gates had been given center stage calling him a "rogue cop", "disturbed man" and accused him of racism.

    But, there is a gold lining in this media blitz for Gates:

    Because of his arrest, Gates said he plans to make racial profiling and prison reform central intellectual and political issues he wants to explore. He's also considering a new documentary on racial profiling.

    "Because of the capricious whim of one disturbed person . . . I am now a black man with a prison record," Gates said.




    Parent
    Love his spin (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    Um...no, Mr. Gates...unles there's something else we don't know, you do not have a prison record.

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    And, since he seems incapable of grasping the reality of what isn't racial profiling, I doubt I'll be going out of my way to see any documentary he creates on the topic.


    Parent
    Cop an expert on racial profiling (none / 0) (#196)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    Cop who arrested Gates an expert on racial profiling:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly

    Parent

    Just in case anyone cares, a (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    state court trial judge in San Diego stayed his order the City of San Diego disperse the seals from the Children's Pool beach in La Jolla.  Reason:  the Governor just signed a bill permitting the seals to remain.  Problem is the beachfront was a gift to the city by a charitable trust with condition it remain a beach for children.  Seals have taken over and they are snappish when humans, including kids, get too close.  This is an ongoing battle.  AP even includes pronunction for "La Jolla."

    Oh Jesus (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    I could never be a lawyer.  I have no patience for such things.  The seals are much more endangered than my kids.  My kids can go to any beach.  I say give the damn thing to the seals and be done with it!

    Parent
    Or maybe I've finally found a use (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    for all the helmets and pads I can slap on my kid :)

    Parent
    Anecdotal evidence the Children's Pool (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    may not be the safest beach for children:  young child paddling small inflatable boat which is being washed outside the breakwater.  Older child swims out and pulls boat to safety.  Parents reading Sunday paper on beach.  Lifeguards on duty.

    Parent
    What about the squid? (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    aren't they also raising a stink?

    Parent
    I don't know which beach(es) the giant (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    squid invaded.  Too busy watching the Pads lose four straight.

    Parent
    There ya go (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    It isn't very child friendly even without the seals.

    Parent
    I care (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    and I would like to offer you my apology (if you live in CA) because I stupidly supported the Govanator.

    This is too silly to be believed.

    Parent

    I think the Governor would rather (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    be making movies at this point than being Governor.  LA Fire Dept. says they will have to implement rolling brownouts due to budget cuts coming down the pike.  

    Parent
    Actually, my brother told me about this story (none / 0) (#94)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    I use to live there too and my brother was telling me about the battle between the seals and the lawyers. He usually is so stiff about these things but he said it has gotten so out of hand and this time he is rooting for the seals. They have tried to move them in other California locations and it doesn't work. In fact, he said if you take down the wall, they would probably leave. Instead you have tourist feeding them too.
    One of the plans mentioned was to eliminate the seals but there are State and Federal laws protecting the seals. Keep us informed although I suspect I will hear more about it on our weekly call.

    Parent
    The city's plan was to broadcast (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    dog barking to persuade the seals to leave the beach.  Quasi-Noriega plan.  But would it work or would the seals just bark back?  The seals are a big tourist attraction at present.

    Parent
    Yep, I heard about that plan (none / 0) (#213)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    Seems the neighborhood did not want constant fake dog barking. That would be a hoot. I mean arf.

    Parent
    So, yet another sweep of corrupt pols in (none / 0) (#65)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    New Jersey. A year or two ago they arrested just about every Mayor and council member there was in that state. Now I guess they're coming back for the few they missed.

    OK: here's the scoop. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    The feds arrested basically 3 groups of people in an interconnected investigation.

    Group 1.  Lots of rabbis and members of the Jewish community in central Jersey.  Most of this has to do with money laundering.  One of the defendants in this group was brokering human kidneys for transplant.  Allegedly, he would persuade desperate people to part with one of their kidneys for $10k, then sell it to the person who needed it for $160k.

    Group 2.  Officials in Jersey City.  All sorts of officials in Jersey City who were collecting cash in return for favors in helping development projects move forward.  Often, the cash was in the form of campaign contributions which were moved through straw donors.

    GRoup 3.  The mayors of Hoboken and Secaucus and a couple other officials. Again, this was campaign cash in return for the promise of future consideration, including fast-tracking changes in zoning and zoning approvals for development projects.

    The Hoboken mayor (Cammarano) was, supposedly, the head of the election law department in the state's largest election law firm.  That did not stop him from saying this, on tape as related in the complaint against him:

    14.  On or about May 19, 2009, the Consultant and JC Official 1 met the CW at a diner in Hoboken, New Jersey where they were joined by defendants Cammarano and Schaffer. During this meeting, defendant Cammarano discussed the prospects of winning the runoff election between himself and the other remaining candidate on June 9, 2009, and stated that "[r]ight now, the Italians, the Hispanics, the seniors are locked down. Nothing can change that now... . I could be, uh, indicted, and I'm still gonna win 85 to 95 percent of those populations."

    nor did it prevent him from saying this:

    Defendant Cammarano then stated "this is the way Mr. Schaffer and I both see the world through the same lens, right. In this election, hopefully, we, we, we, you know, we get to the point where I'm sworn in on July 1st, and we're breaking down the world into three categories at that point. There's the people who were with us, and that's you guys. There's the people who climbed on board in the runoff. They can get in line... And then there are the people who were against us the whole way. They get ground ... They get ground into powder." The CW remarked that the latter group would have to wait for approvals on their projects for "[t]hree years," and that they would be consigned to the "[b]ottom of the pile."

    Nor did his election law expertise prevent his campaign from bouncing $19,000 in checks for paying "street money", which then compelled him to seek out a quick $20k bridge loan to cover those checks.

    Mayor Cammarano was sworn into office on July 1, 2009 and has been in office three and a half weeks.  He is a lawyer.  He is 32 years old. One of the people he would grind into powder is the city council president, whom he beat in the June 9 runoff by a couple hundred votes and who passed on a recount after 97 absentee ballots suddenly appeared under a desk in the county election offices.  That city council president is likely to be the new mayor.

    Lots more coverage here.

    Parent

    And a rabbi or two, per AP. Something about (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    obtaining kidneys from Israel?  Sounds pretty far fetched.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    obtaining something from a distant location sounds a lot like the dictionary definition of "far fetched," 'tis true!

    Parent
    I tried to read about this (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    but it hurt my head.  I have to let the story evolve more and get fleshed out before I wade into rabbis and black market human transplant organs.  I have to know this is for real before I'm willing to go there.

    Parent
    That's why I just read the headline and (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    first paragraph. First Steve Jobs goes to Tennessee.  Now this.  

    Parent
    Wheres MileHi... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    see where I get my anti-govt prejudice from bro?

    I'm an East Coast guy...NY, NJ...government corruption is all we know!  It's the norm:)

    Parent

    Having computer problems today. (none / 0) (#187)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    I'm much, much more concerned about the whole kidney thing.  Pis@es me off to no end.  

    Elected officials are a very different animal from those who choose to serve of our own accord.  Corruption is the norm everywhere, my friend.  Power corrupts--whether you're in Jersey or the Governor of the Land of the Midnight Sun.  

    Parent

    A friend from (none / 0) (#205)
    by eric on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    college just ran for Mayor of Hoboken.  Too bad she didn't win.  Maybe there will be another election now.

    Parent
    Hey DWTS fans! (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    "Dancing With the Stars" won the ratings battle last night for FOX - even going up against the Very Important Press Conference.

    President Obama's primetime press conference on health care attracted 16.5 million viewers across ABC, NBC, and CBS, the three broadcast networks that covered the even live Wednesday, according to Fast Nationals which are subject to change. It was the least-watched of Obama's three primetime press conferences to date-18.8 million tuned into his Apr. 29 presser while 29.4 million watched his first in late March.

    As expected, Fox's So You Think You Can Dance topped the press conference's rating on any one network, with viewers spread out across NBC, ABC and CBS. Dance averaged a 2.8/10 and 7.3 million viewers.



    Proud To Be An American (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    Yeah, people care about health care reform.

    Parent
    Obama's Cleveland Speech one if the best (none / 0) (#147)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    Is better than last night's news conference.  I think this speech is really is one of his best.  

    No legalized pot (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    says Obama's drug czar

    The federal government is not going to pull back on its efforts to curtail marijuana farming operations, Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said Wednesday in Fresno.

    The nation's drug czar, who viewed a foothill marijuana farm on U.S. Forest Service land with state and local officials earlier Wednesday, said the federal government will not support legalizing marijuana.

    "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine," he said.

    Kerlikowske said he can understand why legislators are talking about taxing marijuana cultivation to help cash-strapped government agencies in California. But the federal government views marijuana as a harmful and addictive drug, he said.

    "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS -- Save Our Sierra -- a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County.



    ah, the good old days (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    9 reasons why there wasn't stress in the good old days

    Parent
    thought this was cool (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    What surprises me is that (none / 0) (#170)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    Gates, after being out of the country for a week, comes home to find his front door jammed (from a possible B&E??).

    So why wasn't Gates more interested in clearing up any misconception that he was the culprit and provide information to the police re the purported B&E (at least for insurance purposes, if nothing else)

    Maybe he's like me... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    and doesn't want any "help" from the police, and just wants to be left alone.

    My crib was robbed...the last thing I wanted to do after that was sit down with a cop for an hour in my kitchen reporting it.

    Parent

    The difference would be is (none / 0) (#183)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    in Gate's case the B&E already was reported

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    But he would still need to give a statement and what not...not everybody is comfortable around cops for obvious reasons....like Hitchcock said they are the scariest people on earth (Thanks Robo!)

    Parent
    Let The Right One In (none / 0) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    if you have not seen this movie you should consider it.  it is excellent.

    but even better is the book.  I am about half way through and totally hooked.

    before the (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:25:19 PM EST
    must share (none / 0) (#197)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    this horrific childrens dental fail from failblog.

    the horror fan in me loves it.


    "Jobs, jobs, jobs." (none / 0) (#214)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    Isn't one of the goals of the H/C plan to reduce costs? And aren't a lot of those costs "unnecessary and duplicative" jobs?

    Thread closing new one up (none / 0) (#221)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    This thread is over 200 comments and now closed. A new one is up here.

    Jeralyn, the link to the police report ... (none / 0) (#222)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    at the top of the page doesn't appear to have Crowley's section of the report.  You can find that here.