Obama's accidental gift on race

[SonOfAGun]

Will he throw me in jail if I yell from my porch?

Did Gates get thrown in jail for yelling from his porch?

[SonOfAGun]

The election of Obama says absolutely nothing about any improvement in the perception of race with regards to the people who would not even consider voting for him because of his race. Actually, some of these people are even more anti-African American because he won.

When you are constantly trying to project oppression from another, they tend to develop a disgust/hate/amusement towards you.

[sam1617]

When you are constantly trying to project oppression from another, they tend to develop a disgust/hate/amusement towards you.

I will never forget being told by a dumb ass white chick I know that I was racist because I didn't approve of the way President Obama was handling himself.

I very rarely have been as angry as I was then.

[clambake]

how is he handling himself?

[sam1617]

how is he handling himself?

It depends on the situation...

I believe that we were discussing the Somalian pirates, I didn't approve of how long it took Mr. Obama to decide on his course of action.

[clambake]

so, fluid situations should be bull rushed, regardless of human life?

[sam1617]

so, fluid situations should be bull rushed, regardless of human life?

I don't think that opening a discussion about the Somalian pirates is particularly pertinent to this thread. If you want to discuss it, start your own thread and I will gladly participate.

I gave an example where disagreeing or expressing doubt with Obama's decisions was taken to be racist by some people. The situation shouldn't matter for this discussion.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Gates get thrown in jail for yelling from his porch?

No one ever said he did anything else, so yes -- one can only conclude he did get thrown in jail for yelling from his porch.

[Yonivore]

No one ever said he did anything else, so yes -- one can only conclude he did get thrown in jail for yelling from his porch.

Only and idiot would draw a definite conclusion over what we've had access to through the media.

[ChumpDumper]

So now -- from what you have access to through the media -- how do you explain the police report's saying there were two black men with backpacks when the 9/11 call said nothing of black men or backpacks?

[ploto]

Only and idiot would draw a definite conclusion over what we've had access to through the media.

We know he did not leave the porch and that the cop went back to the porch to arrest him.

[Yonivore]

So now -- from what you have access to through the media -- how do you explain the police report's saying there were two black men with backpacks when the 9/11 call said nothing of black men or backpacks?

The report isn't compiled from information just gleaned from the 911 call. It is a summary... Here, let Ms. Whalen's attorney and Chief Haas explain it for you:

The woman, identified in a police report on file in Cambridge District Court as 40-year-old Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.

In an interview last night, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas said it was ac curate that Whalen did not mention race in her 911 call. He acknowledged that a police report of the incident did include a race reference. The report says Whalen observed “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the front porch’’ of a Ware Street home on July 16.

That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions - like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

By the way, the media got the caller's race wrong, as well:

"Contrary to published reports that a 'white woman' called 911 and reported seeing 'two black men' trying to gain entry into Mr. Gates home, the woman, who has olive colored skin and is of Portuguese descent, told the 911 operator that she observed 'two men' at the home," Murphy's statement read.

But, unless you're trying to perpetuate the claim that, somehow, race was a factor in this police incident, all the nattering over race is irrelevant.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are just accusing the police of incompetence.

I can believe that.

[Yonivore]

So you are just accusing the police of incompetence.

I can believe that.

You'd believe anything if it supported your idiotic view of the world. As above, you love to create straw men and bait people into knocking them down. Okay, where did I accuse the police of being incompetent?

[ChumpDumper]

There is no straw man.

The police report is wrong.

You just said it's wrong because the police can't write a coherent report.

An old man got arrested for yelling from his porch -- there has been no other reason provided anywhere.

[Yonivore]

So, while ChumpDumper continues his rant, let's talk about the subject of the thread...Obama's up.

It's turning out that this may cost him more than it did Gates or the Cambridge Police Department:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/07/26/nr.comrade.in.arms.cnn

[ChumpDumper]

Are they going to arrest Obama now?

[Yonivore]

There is no straw man.

So you are just accusing the police of incompetence.

From wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The police report is wrong.

Were the two men black? Were you privy to the conversation between police and witnesses at the scene?

You just said it's wrong because the police can't write a coherent report.

Strawman.

An old man got arrested for yelling from his porch --

A asshole got arrested for disorderly conduct.

there has been no other reason provided anywhere.

You don't know that. The officer would have spelled out the elements of the crime in a criminal complaint that, now, will never be filed.

I think the statements of other police and witnesses -- who are saying they saw nothing inappropriate in the police actions -- could be construed as "reasons provided" somewhere but, you refuse to entertain the possibility.

It's okay if you want to stay ignorant. I understand.

[Yonivore]

Are they going to arrest Obama now?

Being stupid isn't a crime.

[ChumpDumper]

Were the two men black? Were you privy to the conversation between police and witnesses at the scene?

So you are making more up now.

Strawman.

It is absolutely what you said.

A asshole got arrested for disorderly conduct.

What disorderly conduct? No one has said anything that could have been prosecuted under Massachusetts law.

You don't know that. The officer would have spelled out the elements of the crime in a criminal complaint that, now, will never be filed.

He would have spelled it out in the report if it was at all important. The thought typing "tumultuous" a few times would do the trick. It didn't. He also had ample opportunity to give a complete recounting of what happened in his many interviews. Now you are accusing the police of hiding information from the press.

I think the statements of other police and witnesses -- who are saying they saw nothing inappropriate in the police actions -- could be construed as "reasons provided" somewhere but, you refuse to entertain the possibility.

I can believe the witnesses were as ignorant of the law as you are.

It's okay if you want to stay ignorant. I understand.

Sorry dude, you can't say that after I educated you on the disorderly conduct laws in Massachusetts and Texas -- of which you were completely ignorant when you were actually claiming to enforce them.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

now i don't know all the facts, but as a wise latino, the prez acted stupidly. thank you and good night.

[Yonivore]

So you are making more up now.

I asked you two questions. How's that making up? You can accuse Chief Haas of making more up, if you like. I based my statement on his.

It is absolutely what you said.

You, obviously, do not understand the meaning of the word "absolute," but, for grins...point to my statement that absolutely claims the police were incompetent.

What disorderly conduct? No one has said anything that could have been prosecuted under Massachusetts law.

I didn't witness the offense. I base my opinion on what those, who were, have said...and not Eugene Volokh's blog.

He would have spelled it out in the report if it was at all important. The thought typing "tumultuous" a few times would do the trick. It didn't. He also had ample opportunity to give a complete recounting of what happened in his many interviews. Now you are accusing the police of hiding information from the press.

You have no concept of police work so, surmising what police would or wouldn't do, is meaningless in this context.

I do believe, however, the press isn't asking the right questions. The first question I would ask, if I were a reporter, is the one you seem to be stuck on; what made Mr. Gates' actions disorderly conduct.

I can believe the witnesses were as ignorant of the law as you are.

By the same mechanism President Obama used to declare the police acted stupidly; ignorance.

Sorry dude, you can't say that after I educated you on the disorderly conduct laws in Massachusetts and Texas -- of which you were completely ignorant when you were actually claiming to enforce them.

Again, your grasp of vocabulary is severely lacking; "completely" implies an absolute that isn't true. But, aside from that, you schooled no one. You cut a pasted an opinion from a blog. There are a whole host of opinions out there...and they cover the gamut from the police were justified, to they were wrong. I've yet to see any legal scholars (with the exception of Obama) say the police acted "stupidly."

[Yonivore]

now i don't know all the facts, but as a wise latino, the prez acted stupidly. thank you and good night.

He's here all week, try the veal.

[ChumpDumper]

I asked you two questions. How's that making up? You can accuse Chief Haas of making more up, if you like. I based my statement on his.

I said the report is wrong.

You, obviously, do not understand the meaning of the word "absolute," but, for grins...point to my statement that absolutely claims the police were incompetent.

They can't write a coherent report.

I didn't witness the offense. I base my opinion on what those, who were, have said...and not Eugene Volokh's blog.

So they said and old man was yelling from his porch. I am basing their reason for arresting him on what those who were there said.

You have no concept of police work so, surmising what police would or wouldn't do, is meaningless in this context.

You proved they can work while being ignorant of the law. That's quite meaningful.

I do believe, however, the press isn't asking the right questions. The first question I would ask, if I were a reporter, is the one you seem to be stuck on; what made Mr. Gates' actions disorderly conduct.

I believe that yelling from the porch is all they have ever said, and they have been given every opportunity to add to that.

By the same mechanism President Obama used to declare the police acted stupidly; ignorance.

Turns out when the facts came out, he was right -- it was a stupid arrest.

Again, your grasp of vocabulary is severely lacking; "completely" implies an absolute that isn't true. But, aside from that, you schooled no one. You cut a pasted an opinion from a blog. There are a whole host of opinions out there...and they cover the gamut from the police were justified, to they were wrong. I've yet to see any legal scholars (with the exception of Obama) say the police acted "stupidly."

I've read police and former police saying it was a stupid arrest.

You said it was an awesome arrest, but you proved you are ignorant of the law. Once that ignorance was proven you tried to make Gates' out to be a physical threat to the multiple cops and onloookers there. It was pretty pathetic.

An old man was arrested for yelling from his porch.

It was a stupid arrest.

[Yonivore]

I said the report is wrong.

You said I absolutely accused the police of incompetence. Quit changing the argument.

They can't write a coherent report.

No, you can't read a competent report and put it in context with the known facts.

So they said and old man was yelling from his porch. I am basing their reason for arresting him on what those who were there said.

No, you seem to be basing your opinion on only that fact. You keep omitting the facts that ever other officer on the scene supports the arrest and that witnesses don't find the police actions inappropriate. I would suggest you write your favorite Cambridge news personality and see if you can get them to ask the all-important question of the police; "Why was what Professor Gates did disorderly conduct." I bet you'd get an illuminating lesson.

You proved they can work while being ignorant of the law. That's quite meaning ful.

Strawman.

I believe that yelling from the porch is all they have ever said, and they have been given every opportunity to add to that.

Police Departments...indeed, government in general...isn't wont to volunteer information. If they did, Professor Gates would probably throw another shoe. I think they've chosen to just let sleeping dogs lie. But, I would really like to see the question asked.

Turns out when the facts came out, he was right -- it was a stupid arrest.

I don't think all the facts are out and your opinion isn't of much value here, anyway.

I've read police and former police saying it was a stupid arrest.

Link or cite.

You said it was an awesome arrest, but you proved you are ignorant of the law.

Another hyperbolized strawman. I've never described the arrest as awesome. I even allow it may have been unnecessary. I just argue it wasn't stupid and that the police did nothing wrong in arresting Gates. That's my position, please refer to it accurately in future posts.

An old man was arrested for yelling from his porch.

Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct.

It was a stupid arrest.

You're stupid, as was Obama, for making that declaration from a position of ignorance.