|
View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6) | |||
Great - above my expectations | 18 | 6.87% | |
Good - met most of my expectations | 66 | 25.19% | |
Average - so so, disappointed a little | 64 | 24.43% | |
Bad - sold us out | 101 | 38.55% | |
Trout - don't know yet | 13 | 4.96% | |
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
07-21-2009, 01:51 PM | #2451 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Why do you think they haven't been moved yet? I've heard the arguments for years about how nobody has ever escaped from supermax, etc. So why hasn't Obama moved them yet? Seems like it should be an easy decision, based on the arguments put forth for it. I know it's only been six months, but how long should such a thing take if it's such a slam-dunk decision that Bush should have made years ago? A year? 4 years? Last edited by molson : 07-21-2009 at 01:54 PM. |
|
07-21-2009, 01:55 PM | #2452 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Scalia's the guy who, as the War on Terror got going, said publicly that the public may have to expect somewhat less on the order of personal freedoms. Further, until Hamdi he often sided with the Administration on these issues. And unlike Thomas, Roberts and later Alito, Scalia gave much more explanation for his viewpoint. Which is why it's especially notable that even Scalia started to tell the Bush Administration that enough was enough. So if we're determining the "factual basis" of whether or not the issue on detainees was "resolved", I'd say that if someone like Scalia, who might be otherwise to say "it's war, the Executive Branch should do what's necessary," says it's not resolved, it's not resolved. |
07-21-2009, 02:00 PM | #2453 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
It's my understanding that one of the key roadblocks to convictions in civilian courts or even modified military tribunals is the way in which confessions and other evidence was gathered (i.e. torture, illegal wiretapping, etc...). If we make the assumption that another President (without the "aid" of Cheney, Yoo, Addington, et. al.) would not have authorized these activities, then surely the path to convictions would be that much easier. Again, to take an example, Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his 3 co-conspirators have been in custody for what, 7 years now? They admit guilt. They are not interested in a plea bargain. They're asking for the death penalty. Why, exactly, were they not tried, convicted and sent to join Terry Nichols, Jose Padilla, and the rest in Colorado years ago? |
|
07-21-2009, 02:01 PM | #2454 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Scalia is also someone who is not all that keen on administrative law and does not like that ursupation of legislative power. I know the left likes to portray Scalia in a certain way, but they appear to miss the point quite a bit with him. And considering that Scalia was far more anti-administration on detainees than, say, Justice Bryer, I think that doesn't bode well for your argument.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
07-21-2009, 02:11 PM | #2455 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
That's what I'm asking you. If it wasn't done under Bush because (insert liberal theory), then why hasn't Obama done it yet, and how long will it be before we all believe that maybe, there's something more complicated about it that Obama has learned only after he made his campaign promises? How long is it until Obama is equally as "guilty" as Bush for not doing these things? I don't have a great understanding of the reasons either, but assumed it wasn't as simple as the Bush critics contended over the last 8 years. And let's remember, all of the releases from GITMO took place under Bush. It took time. Critics have decided, I guess, that those things took too long, but what do we have to compare it to? Who knows the procedures involved? Is Obama taking too long to sort things out as well? Why is it that between the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the general public, it's the third one (the one that has the least actual information) that seems to claim the best understanding of how these things should progress? Last edited by molson : 07-21-2009 at 02:15 PM. |
|
07-21-2009, 02:13 PM | #2456 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
You're right. Antonin Scalia was a constant and effective check on Bush Administration abuses throughout despite the efforts of Breyer et. al. to come up with ad hoc justifications for these abuses. Furthermore, almost everyone agreed that by 2008 the Bush Administration had done everything it could to resolve the legal issue of the Gitmo detainees and had not, through previous actions, introduced any difficulties into the remaining legal actions against them.
I can't believe I overlooked so much. Mea culpa. |
07-21-2009, 02:17 PM | #2457 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
*yawn* Your strawmen are cute, but I hope you haven't fooled yourself into believing them.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
07-21-2009, 02:25 PM | #2458 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
Quote:
Would housing these criminals and trying them in the US be as politically infeasible if it had been done as soon as they were captured and could reasonably be tried?
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think |
|
07-21-2009, 02:50 PM | #2459 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
In some ways, I think it would be harder at the start. You're in the middle of a war, do you really want to send military personnel back and forth to the US to serve as witnesses? After all, in a domestic trial, you have the right to confront your accusers. That might impact your decisions on who to utilize when you're capturing prisoners - you don't want to lose your best people to civilian witness commitments. Not the kind of decisions you want to make in a war. The big problem to me, at the end of the day (as I've explained here in previous threads), is that the civilian criminal justice system and any system to deal with POWs have completely different purposes. We're totally OK with releasing domestic criminals, because we decided, hundreds of years ago, that we'd rather have thousands of criminals go free rather than have one innnocent person punished. With prisoners of foreign war, that has never been the ideal. Why do we take prisoners? It's not to hold them accountable for their "crimes", it's not for "justice", it's to take them off the battlefield so we don't have to fight them anymore. The domestic criminal justice system just isn't setup to achieve that purpose. The question we should ask when dealing with a POW is not "guilty or innocent?" but "Is this person dangerous to the United States?". It's a round peg in a square hole to try to answer that question in a US civilian court. There are terrorists that we can NEVER release, even if, for whatever reason, they could never be found guilty in a civilian court. I'm not just talking about admissions by torture, there's plenty of other reason guilty people walk free every day - prosecutorial error, a wacky juror or two, dead or otherwise unavailable witnesses, accidently tainted evidence. It happens, and we accept it even for domestic murderers. We shouldn't accept it for terrorists. And what if there's no domestic crime that a terrorist is even guilty of? If we're fighting the Taliban, and we capture someone with a gun, we should hold onto him, even if we don't know who he is, and we don't know what he's done or where he's been. What do you charge him with? Why should he even be subject to an AMERICAN domestic crime? Is it even fair to apply american crimes to his actions? That's like the Saudi government charging an American citizen with premarital sex that occurred in the U.S. Imagine facing a criminal trial in a foreign country you'd never even been to! You'd be like, "what the hell?" And there's so many complications with the rules of evidence. If the right to a trial applies, does the 4th amendment apply too? Do army personnel need arrest and search warrants? Do they have to read prisoners Miranda rights? If an 18-year-old private screws up the arrest somehow, is the whole case thrown out (such as is often the case if a civilian police officer makes a mistake). The federal government should have a transparent, organized system of how to deal with these people, and how to, as practicality permits, weed out the ones who aren't dangerous to the country. But civilian courts aren't the answer. And my gut reaction is just always complete disblief that people think that non-citizens, in foreign countries, whose only connection to the U.S. is that they want to kill the people here, should have Constitutional rights. That's so bizzare to me. Ours is apparently the only universal constitution. Last edited by molson : 07-21-2009 at 03:38 PM. |
|
07-21-2009, 08:37 PM | #2460 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The State of Insanity
|
Nice to see the Obama Administration actually stuck to its guns in its.. well.. request to cut the F-22 funding (a move fully endorsed by the Department of Defense), that looked to see special interests derail it (areas that built F-22 parts, etcetera).
It was thought that the Obama administration was going to have to climb down (which was going to be a major loss of face for the administration), but Obama managed to rally enough Democrats to defeat the measure. President Obama's agenda gets a lift with F-22 win - David Rogers and Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com
__________________
Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com |
07-21-2009, 08:49 PM | #2461 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
LOL Whatever, look, I clearly haven't articulated my point very well, and that's on me. Let's let the Scalia tangent go and get back to the original point. On a daily basis people are posting to this thread claiming Obama has broken yet another campaign promise and asking why Democrats aren't marching on the White House in response. The latest is this Gitmo campaign promise, which I feel I have to remind people isn't "due" for another 6 months. As an Obama supporter, I offer the following responses (and I'm - hopefully - just going to do this once, since I'm a little tired of this meme): 1. Believing in campaign promises is for the naive. The only people who get wound up about broken campaign promises are the extremists on each end of the spectrum. Just as Bush not turning American into a theocratic state pissed off the fundies, Obama not undoing every single act by the Bush Administration in his first 100 days put the panties of the DailyKos/MoveOn crowd in a bunch. The rest of us could give a crap. We elected the guy because a) we thought he'd do a good job, b) he wasn't the other guy and/or c) it would make JiMGA despair (OK, the third one is just me). 2. These endless "gotcha" posts about Obama are nothing more than cheap partisan politics, and/or concern trolls. I'd like to note that people in this very thread (or maybe the election one, I can't remember) have been making posts about how Obama wasn't doing enough even before he was actually President. And I find it wonderfully ironic that many of the same posters who openly mocked Obama's campaign promises as bullshit flights of fancy now think he's doing a shitty job because he hasn't delivered on them. Really, guys? But honestly, I don't mind. Those of you on the right side of the fence have lived with 8 years of us on the left side of the fence lambasting your guy so I think you've earned the right to some payback. 3. So what if Obama sets goals that may be too aggressive to be realized (Iraq, Gitmo, health care reform)? To me, it's a sign of strong leadership: challenge the people who work for you to achieve and attain more. You don't think Apple's board sits around and tells Steve Jobs "dude, no one needs a new cellphone, why don't you just take it easy and work half time or something" do you? In fact, I seem to recall it being said of a certain President that at least you knew he believed in something and that he was willing to fight for it, nevermind the wailing of his detractors. Now, which President was that again? Let me slip into Bucc-mode for this next part.... None of you should fool yourself that this is anything new. Reagan's first couple of years sucked and people were all over him. Bush I broke his taxes pledge. Clinton's presidency was touted as DOA 1 week after inauguration because of his botching of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and really dead by the summer when HillaryCare failed). Coming out of Bucc-mode now.... So anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Hope that helps. |
|
07-22-2009, 10:54 PM | #2462 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
For those that missed it Culture of Truth ha a transcript of the press conference:
Quote:
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
07-22-2009, 11:29 PM | #2463 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
I can't believe I read that whole, awful thing.
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross |
07-22-2009, 11:32 PM | #2464 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
Dola.
Most overused word in threads like these??? Strawman. It's the "paradigm" of political debate. (no offense to those that use it )
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross Last edited by Schmidty : 07-22-2009 at 11:33 PM. |
07-23-2009, 12:30 AM | #2465 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
|
07-23-2009, 12:53 AM | #2466 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
Quote:
True, but maybe we can create a new term. I'd come up with something clever, but I'm about to fall asleep at my keyboard. My wife's watching a girl movie (Sydney White), and I can't focus on any kind of game. So someone people come up with something. I beg of you.
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross |
|
07-23-2009, 07:02 AM | #2467 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Someone want to tell me why the hell the President felt the need to comment on the local case involving the arrest of a Harvard professor at his home? While I'm not interested in arguing who was right and wrong in the situation, I REALLY don't think we need a president who feels the need to pull a Jesse Jackson and interjects himself into every small flare-up that allows him to gain more attention. Leave that to Jesse Jackson and his 'Rainbow Coalition' podium that follows him everywhere he goes.
By the way, the president didn't have a lunchtime conference yesterday, likely because he had an hour of primetime TV that night. 2/3. Last edited by Mizzou B-ball fan : 07-23-2009 at 07:03 AM. |
07-23-2009, 08:06 AM | #2468 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
I 100% agree with you on this by the way. Just saw this in the paper on the way to work and was like "ummm...wtf is Obama doing making a statement about this?" I mean I suppose I can see it if he was asked a question about it by a reporter, but i think even then the best answer would be something like: "that's a local matter and it's not my place to comment."
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
07-23-2009, 08:08 AM | #2469 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
dola
guess he should have stopped after he said this in response to the question: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," Obama said Wednesday night while taking questions after a White House news conference. and he certainly should have stopped after this: "But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home;" and not gone on to: "and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. Last edited by DaddyTorgo : 07-23-2009 at 08:09 AM. |
07-23-2009, 08:29 AM | #2470 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
07-23-2009, 08:55 AM | #2471 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Really? This is offensive?
Quote:
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
07-23-2009, 09:01 AM | #2472 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
I don't think I find it offensive. Just think it's somewhat...beneath him.
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
07-23-2009, 09:03 AM | #2473 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Can I assume this is simply a rhetorical question, since it's pretty obvious to anyone with even one eye why he stuck his nose in the middle of it.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
07-23-2009, 09:10 AM | #2474 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
07-23-2009, 09:11 AM | #2475 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
I think it's poor form for him to call out the CPD from his position and the amount of information he has. The rest of it I'm fine with, it's not like racial profiling has never been a national issue before. I'm not sure why the President's opinion on something like that is either irrelevant or beneath the office.
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think |
07-23-2009, 09:21 AM | #2476 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Also it appears to me that the CPD didn't do anything wrong. I mean a guy is attempting to break into a house and refuses to show identification (which would have proven it was his address). WTF do you want them to do?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-23-2009, 09:28 AM | #2477 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I'm confused about what part is "racial profiling". Is it the woman who called it in when she saw two black men breaking into a house? Is it the fact the police came and demanded identication? Or is it the part where he was arrested at the end for yelling and everyone and calling everyone racist? The officers should have walked away, even though the guy was clearly guilty of the crime he was being arrested for (or they should have cited him). But this guy sounds obnoxious. The police report indicates a, "Can we see some identification?" "WHY, BECAUSE I'M BLACK!!!" kind of scene. Hopefully there's an audio out there. If I'm a black guy in Boston, I might try to break into this house soon, everyone will be afraid to respond or call it in. Intersting trivia that this cop performed CPR (unsuccessfully) on Reggie Lewis 15 years ago. Obama ranting about this, and calling someone stupid without all the facts is definitely beneath the office. A president using that kind of language at all, even with the facts, is kind of beneath the office. Last edited by molson : 07-23-2009 at 09:30 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 09:32 AM | #2478 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
I'm not really interested in getting into all the details, but since this happened like a block away from where I work I've read more about it than I wish to.
The police report and Professor Gates do not agree on the facts of what was said. I guess we can all make our own opinions on who is more credible. He did show his ID, he didn't refuse to show it. He showed both his Harvard ID and his driver's license.
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think |
07-23-2009, 09:36 AM | #2479 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
As someone mentioned previously, his opening sentence was just fine. State that you don't know all the facts in the case and that you are sure that the parties involved will come to a correct conclusion on the matter. Leave the rest for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. No president should have ever commented to the level he did on the matter, especially passing judgment on either party. |
|
07-23-2009, 09:37 AM | #2480 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
They arrested him even after he showed identification. They didn't do anything wrong up to that point, and that's the only thing Obama called them out on.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
07-23-2009, 09:40 AM | #2481 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
They didn't arrest him for breaking and entering. One can definitely argue they should have utilized their discretion to not arrest someone in this kind of circumstance, and just take the verbal abuse, but it's not like they figured out that he lived there, and then decided to arrest him for breaking into the house anyway. Legislatures all over the country should really revise these disorderly conduct statutes, maybe narrow the conduct that falls under them. If you're yelling at police officers (or anyone), in public, that's a crime under these statutes, but it does obviously create drama, depending on what the yelling is about. And when these statutes are too broad, it definitely invites very arbitrary enforcement. Last edited by molson : 07-23-2009 at 09:42 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 09:40 AM | #2482 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Regardless of race, I'd think most police departments would consider it a failure to arrest a guy after you mistakenly think he's breaking into his own house. I'm sure Gates got heated and escalated the confrontation, but after the ID was shown the officer should have gotten out of there ASAP. His need to show who's boss has made this event a nightmare for the CPD.
Just to be clear, I'll take his word that in his mind race had nothing to do with it, but he still acted unprofessionally.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
07-23-2009, 09:43 AM | #2483 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
This is a serious question, though: Is being disrespectful to a police officer an arrestable offense?
edit: In your own home. He was arrested in the foyer of his own home, not in public. edit2: Actually, he was arrested on the porch. I guess that does make it public, though the process of getting him to come outside in order to arrest him seems to me to be about the same thing.
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think Last edited by Ronnie Dobbs2 : 07-23-2009 at 09:51 AM. |
07-23-2009, 09:45 AM | #2484 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
No, but yelling in public definitely is. And the people that get arrested for that tend to be yelling at police officers, because an officer has to be there to hear it for there to be an arrest. Last edited by molson : 07-23-2009 at 09:45 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 09:48 AM | #2485 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I really hope we get more info, or an audio. With the threat of lawsuits neither will probably happen though. I'm sure there was yelling before the ID was shown. I'd be curious about the sequence of events. What exactly were the officers doing after identify was established. If they were just questioning him, then ya, bad form. If they were trying to verify that this identified person actually lives here (maybe some kind of radio call could confirm that), and the yelling continued, I see how an arrest might be warranted. There was something I read about the officers being unable to hear each other, or their radios, because of the yelling. Showing an ID alone isn't the end of the story - you still have to establish that this is a real ID, that this person is the person depicted on the ID, and that that person actually lives at the house. That probably required some time and radio calls, and Gates wasn't going have any patience for that. Police are going to hear this story and think, "shit, if I come across a black guy breaking into a black house, I'm going to take his word for it and get the hell out of there". These guys really aren't looking for to be in the middle of controveries in the media. Last edited by molson : 07-23-2009 at 09:53 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 09:52 AM | #2486 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
I think anyone who considers either party without blame in this matter is highly naive.
With that said, the primary topic is the president's comments. He should have never made the statement he did outside of saying he didn't have enough information to make any judgment on the situation. I expect better judgment from the leader of our country. Last edited by Mizzou B-ball fan : 07-23-2009 at 09:53 AM. |
07-23-2009, 09:57 AM | #2487 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
I agree that both sides could have easily defused the situation and neither did. If you believe the police report is completely accurate, then Gates is pretty much at fault. If you believe Gates, then the police are pretty much at fault. I would guess that would raise the more general question of in a situation like this, is the onus on the citizen or the police officer to be the bigger man and not escalate the situation? There was no real need to arrest Gates, he was no danger to himself nor anyone else, and I'm sure people yell in public all the time (I can confirm this is true in Cambridge) and not get arrested for it.
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think |
07-23-2009, 10:00 AM | #2488 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
The racial issues don't exists with the cops. They were just doing their job, and Gates was wrong to yell at them for it. They were wrong for for arresting him for disorderly conduct, which just smells like they reacted emotionally to the situation and found a way to get back at him. I do think there is some prejudice (maybe not overt, but just internal) involved with this situation being reported to the police. If the guy is white, it is definitely less likely that the CPD even gets called.
As for Obama's comments, they were all 100% correct. I can understand thinking he should have refused to comment, but to say he acted like Sharpton or Jackson is ridiculous. He never called the cops racist, and didn't attack them for showing up at the home, only for arresting him after the ID was shown.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
07-23-2009, 10:04 AM | #2489 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I agree with all that. It's a real fine line about what to do when people are relentlessly yelling at officers, calling them racist. Obviously in America, we want some freedom to do that. It doesn't feel right to be arrested after you are verbally criticizing an officer. I can definitely see how one would feel wronged in that scenerio. And officers do need to have patience and let a lot of that stuff go (and believe me, they let 99.9% of it go). But at the same time, you can't really have it out there, as a "street law", that you can yell and scream and police and call them whatever you want and they just have to take it. They would never be able to do their jobs. There has to be SOME check, some small possibility in people's minds that they could be arrested if they cross some line, otherwise it would just be out of control. If people decided that they were going to just relentlessly yell at shoe salesmen wherever they went, call them racist, etc, that would eventually become a legal issue, something that people would get arrested for. With police, the threshold is WAY higher, you have to do far more, just because of this possibility of political backlash. Last edited by molson : 07-23-2009 at 10:07 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:08 AM | #2490 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
So the job of our president is now to comment on each ethnic community flare-up that results in some form of controversy? Answer: no. It's ludicrous to suggest such a thing. He acted EXACTLY like Sharpton or Jackson, passing judgment on a racially sensitive topic without fully knowing the information behind the incident. Of course, this doesn't even matter because this isn't a topic that the President should be addressing. It's somewhat insulting that the media feels that because there's a black president that he suddenly needs to pass judgment on any race incident that occurs. He should have said as much and dismissed the question IMO. He should be far above that. They would have never asked this question of a white president in a similar situation. It's a form of bias that this question was even asked of this president. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:13 AM | #2491 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
I largely agree, except I think from very early on the assumption should have been that he was indeed who he said he was. There's nothing about him or the initial situation that should have screamed liar, especially if his initial response was something like, "You're racist, this is my own damn house." Where I think this officer messed up is in presuming, or at least giving the appearance of presuming Gates was guilty throughout the encounter. The other part that disturbs me, but seems to be a little in dispute, is that the officer entered the house without permission. I think most of us, regardless of race, would have a problem with a policeman without a warrant entering the house uninvited.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
07-23-2009, 10:22 AM | #2492 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
awww jeeezus i agree with you again
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:23 AM | #2493 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
if the officer didn't know it was gates' house then he was just "pursuing a suspect in the act of committing a crime"
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:30 AM | #2494 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
07-23-2009, 10:31 AM | #2495 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Except by the time he entered the house he had heard Gates' side of the story, had seen the "suspect", and had no other reason to believe a break in was occurring. In those circumstances I don't think the police have a right to enter your home.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
07-23-2009, 10:31 AM | #2496 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wisconsin
|
If it appears I'm breaking into my house (crawling through a window, shouldering the door, etc), I hope someone calls the cops.
If that happens, I expect the following to happen - Show up, ask for an explanation, ask for my id, run my id through their computer to see if it comes up with any warrants, give me back my id, leave. If at any time I start to become a belligerent asshat, I expect a warning. If I continue, I would then expect them to give me another warning with the threat of being hauled in. If I then continue, I would think I'd be hauled in. Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing 'They are professionals, they should defuse the situation.' At some point, we need to hold society to that standard. I don't see why we somehow think it is ok to berate the police (or anyone) and not expect some type of consequence to our actions.
__________________
You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its... |
07-23-2009, 10:37 AM | #2497 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
hmm
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:38 AM | #2498 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
I agree. Although I question the neighbor that was calling the cops also - I'm not familiar with the neighborhood itself, but if they're standalone houses - don't you usually know your neighbors? At least by sight? I dunno, maybe the neighbor was new or something...
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:41 AM | #2499 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I thought I read 2 versions. One where it was the neighbor and the 2nd where it wasn't the neighbor. (and the news story was edited to reflect this)
__________________
You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its... Last edited by Mustang : 07-23-2009 at 10:41 AM. |
|
07-23-2009, 10:42 AM | #2500 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bahston Mass
|
The person who called police works in a building close to the residence. Her name is in the police report.
__________________
There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 26 (0 members and 26 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|