Some people like to go fishing or play sports or video games to relax. Joes Place likes to pretend he’s the stupidest person on the internet.
Diner owner refuses SHS service on moral grounds
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
The officer DID act stupidly. Period. He had proof that Gates owned the home. That should have been the end of it. Why did he invite Gates to come outside knowing that there was no crime being committed? What is absolutely true is that he could only arrest Gates for "disorderly conduct" IF Gates came outside.
I’m curious to know what proof Crowley had that Gates owned the home. I’m especially curious given the fact that Gates did not own the home. Harvard University owned the home.
Ummm...his driver's license with the address on it. He also supplied his Harvard ID. Additionally, Officer Crowley has stated that he believed Gates was the lawful resident prior to asking him to step outside. Anything else?
I'm also curious as to your thoughts on why Officer Crowley...misrepresented...the information supplied by the 911 caller. In her call, Lucien Whalen says one of the men appeared to be possibly Hispanic and she didn't get a good enough look at the other one to know. When Officer Crowley filed his report HE claimed she identified them as two black men. Whalen denies ever making any such comment to him and her 911 call backs that up. Any idea why Crowley might do that?
So are you up to speed now on the fact that Gates was not the owner of the home?
Yes? Good. Now we don't have to deal with that common misconception anymore.
Harvard University owned the home. Gates was living there, presumably either renting or as part of his compensation package as a professor. Having a driver's license with an address on it doesn't make you the lawful owner of the property at that address.
Crowley was called to the home because someone witnessed the two men forcing their way into the home. Among other possible explanations it could mean they lost their key or the key wasn't working. It could mean they used to be authorized to be in the house but were no longer authorized and the locks had been changed.
Sgt Crowley believed that he most likely was authorized to be in the house but he still needed to verify that and he was in the process of contacting Harvard University authorities when Gates became belligerent and started accusing him of racism.
Can you supply some evidence that shows Crowley know this was a Harvard-owned residence? How would he know it? He was shown a valid ID that established it was Gates' legal residence. He was supplied a valid ID that Gates was a Harvard employee. Are you now going to claim that a valid ID proves nothing? Guess you're on board with not requiring one to vote, right?
Now...how about you get us "up to speed" on why Crowley fabricated the information supplied by the witness? TIA
I have no idea if/when/how Crowley knew Harvard owned the home. All I know for certain is Harvard owned the home. And a driver's license does not make you the owner of the home. All it means is that at the time the license was issued that was your legal residence. It's possible that he used to be authorized to be in the home but was no longer authorized. Which apparently is what Sgt Crowley was trying to discern when Gates started yelling about racism.
So when you present voter ID they'll have to check to make sure it's still your legal residence? Interesting. Seems like that'll slow things down a lot, huh?
BTW...none of that explains Crowley's fabrication in his report nor does it explain why he asked Gates to step outside...the only place where Gates could be arrested for "disorderly conduct".
Verifying your identity for purposes of voting is nowhere near the same as verifying your identity after you were just observed prying open a door and forcibly entering a home. I don't know why you think that point is even worth expending energy to emphasize.
I have no idea why Crowley asked him to step outside. My understanding is that Crowley asked Gates to come outside when he first arrived, presumably because a cop investigating a possible burglary would rather have the person step outside than deal with him inside where the cop is more vulnerable. And I don't know where you're getting your information that outside was the only place he could have arrested him for disorderly conduct. You can be arrested for the exact same charge for having a house party and playing your music too loud.
As for the Hispanic/black discrepancy, I don't know that either. And you don't know what Lucia Whalen said to Crowley as he arrived on the scene. You know only what she said to the 911 operator. It's possible she said one thing when she called and something else when the police arrived. And I don't know what point you think it makes that Crowley wrote in his report that Whalen identified the men as black, given that Gates actually is black.
I think both Gates and Crowley probably could have handled the situation a little better. And the President of the United States should not have spouted off about racial profiling when he admittedly did not know the facts of the case.
Ummm...I guess you missed the part where voting illegally is a federal offense...a felony. But I understand that doesn't fit your narrative so you just ignore it.
He was done dealing with Gates. He said so. He was satisfied that Gates was the legal resident.
From the state of Massachusetts:
The defendant is charged with disorderly conduct. In order to prove
the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant involved
himself (herself) in at least one of the following actions: he (she) either
engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous
behavior or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose of the defendant’s;
You'll likely argue for "tumultuous behavior" but...nope.
Second: The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public; and
Third: The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience,
annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
It was necessary, in order to effect an arrest, that the behavior be public...because:
For the defendant to be found guilty, his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
Ms. Whalen has vehemently denied saying any such thing and has pointed to her 911 call as evidence that she didn't know the race of the people she observed so she couldn't have identified them to Officer Crowley as "two black men". I have no idea what point it makes either...except it demonstrates that Crowley's report is suspect as to the facts. Make of that what you will - though in your case, it will be nothing at all.
Everyone involved could have handled the situation better...which buttresses the claim that the officer did act stupidly. Thanks.
So you’re okay with President Obama publicly accusing a private citizen of racial profiling even though he admittedly did not know all the facts of the case?
What narrative is that? The narrative that Gates was not the owner of the home? You got called out on a factual mistake and now you’re desperately trying to turn it into a voter ID issue. Talk about classic whataboutism.
You declared that Crowley arrested Gates even though Gates had already proven he owned the home. I asked how Gates had proven that he owned the home since Gates DIDN’T OWN THE HOME and you replied that his driver’s license proved he was the homeowner. That’s mind-numbing stupidity on your part and now you’re trying to deflect by claiming that if a driver’s license doesn’t prove you own the home listed as your address then it can’t possibly verify your identity for voting purposes.
Please take a step back for a moment and think about what you’re claiming before you embarrass yourself further.
LOL...all I said was the officer acted stupidly. Go back and check. And you appear to have agreed. The rest is you projecting an argument you think you can win.
More LOL...I don't need to step anywhere. Your desperation is showing and the embarrassment is yours. The license established that it was his legal residence. Officer Crowley stated that he accepted that. Your whining is now over semantics. And if your license DOESN'T establish the address listed as your legal residence, it CAN'T be used to verify your voting status - which depends on voting in the precinct in which you live. It either does or does not establish where you legally reside. You don't get to have it both ways. Pick a side.
It is nice, I suppose, to see you concede everything else.
The license established that it had been his legal residence at one time. If Gates was the owner then the story ends right there. The fact that he was not the homeowner and was observed forcibly entering the home meant it was reasonable for the cop to contact the actual owner to verify he was still authorized to be there.
The fact that he was not the owner is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a critical fact that cannot be summarily dismissed.
I hate to go backwards, but is this branch of the argument still based on the premise that Obama calling out a municipal department is exactly like calling out an individual by name because "everyone" already knew the name of the arresting officer anyway?
Because the average American is just so incredibly well informed...
When NEWSWEEK asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.
Obama already apologized, but it isn't exactly the same as naming the person. That would have been a lot worse.
Because the average American is just so incredibly well informed...
When NEWSWEEK asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.
Obama already apologized, but it isn't exactly the same as naming the person. That would have been a lot worse.
What the hell is wrong with your brain? You keep insisting his driver’s license proved he was authorized to be in the house. It most definitely did not prove he was. If he was the owner of the home then obviously he’s authorized to be there. But he was not the owner of the home and he was observed forcing the door open to get in. For all the cop knew, he could have been evicted the week before and was trying to break back in to get his stuff.
When someone is observed breaking into a home they don’t own, it is reasonable to make a phone call to verify their status.
So if only 10 million people knew the cop’s name then it’s okay? What’s the threshhold for acceptability? 20 million? 50 million?
How many people have heard of the Red Hen restaurant?
I'm glad you've conceded that it's not the same. It's unknowable how many people who heard Obama's statement already knew the man's name, but it doesn't really matter because Obama gave his take, even if inappropriate, without increasing that number. Even if he shouldn't have made the statement at all, it was much better to not name the individual. I can't fathom how anyone could possibly disagree with that fact.
I have no idea why you're asking me how many people have heard of the Red Hen, I don't know, but a lot more people have now.
So you're saying no one heard about the situation by way of listening to Obama's comments and then subsequently read about the case and easily learned his name?
At least you acknowledge his take was inappropriate. That's the most sensible thing I've read in this thread so far.
There's nothing the hell wrong with my brain. I understand your desperation, however. Crowley had already called for the Harvard PD. That was over. He wasn't trying to determine whether Gates was the legal resident of the home. That was over. If he had any further questions concerning Gates, he could have handled that from his car. All Crowley had to do was leave. He had no probable cause at that time to suspect any crime had been committed. Instead he told Crowley - who was still asking for an ID from the officer - to come outside and they would talk. Once he had Gates outside, according to his police report, he noted Gates "tumultuous" behavior twice "outside the residence and in view of the public". What do you think Crowley is trying to establish with that language? Go back and read post #412. He then makes a determination that the onlookers "appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates' outburst". Time to put the cuffs on. For...what?
Not that you'll ever admit it but the most likely explanation is that Crowley was pissed off and decided to humiliate Gates. He manufactured a disorderly conduct charge so he could arrest Gates. He acted stupidly. That Gates also acted stupidly doesn't change that. That Obama may have acted stupidly doesn't change that.
You crammed an awful lot of supposition into two paragraphs there. I might be more inclined to entertain those thoughts if you weren't so fantastically wrong about who owned the home.
LOL...that comes from Crowley's own police report...including the quotes. But it's just like you to ignore all of that and go back to your idiotic semantics argument given it's all you've got at this point.
Crowley’s report states that he was pissed off and decided to humiliate Gates by manufacturing a disorderly conduct charge?
You must be reading a different copy than the one I saw.
Ah, and you said two paragraphs despite the first being lifted directly from Crowley's report - with quotes. And you refused to address every single point raised. You simply misidentified it so you could avoid dealing with them...as is your habit.
You also missed that part about "the most likely explanation" in the second. It was clearly identified as "supposition" so I'm not sure what you think you uncovered. You certainly made no discernible point. You're embarrassing yourself here - and that's not supposition.
Of course that could have happened. Much different that calling out the individual by name which would have been much worse. That was the point, sounds as if you finally got it, yay!
There was a fair amount of supposition in your first paragraph as well:
“That was over. He wasn't trying to determine whether Gates was the legal resident of the home. That was over. If he had any further questions concerning Gates, he could have handled that from his car. All Crowley had to do was leave.”
You don’t really know how much of that is true. You’re just assuming it’s true, much like you assumed Gates owned the home.
If you say so. So I guess we’ve established here that it’s fine for the President of the United States to publicly accuse a private citizen of racism so long as he only refers to that individual in specific, easily identifiable terms and does not mention his name.
Anyway, this has been fun but I’ve got a big day ahead of me tomorrow. I’m going to rent a house and then get a driver’s license with that address so that I will become the legal owner of the house. So much easier than making monthly mortgage payments for 15 years.
LOL...if Crowley was trying to determine if Gates was the legal resident...well...he would have said so in his report. He describes his actions quite specifically. That he could have handled any further inquiries from his car is a simple statement of fact. There's zero "supposition" there no matter how much you wish it were so. This isn't that hard...except for you. And your embarrassment continues. Best that you run off to bed and let this thread slip away.
Yep. But that burns ToolJob8869's strawman to the ground....so we CANNOT admit THAT!!
Did the Starbucks employees who were later forced to take diversity training make the arrest?
Nope.
The difference there is that the two dudes at Starbucks refused to leave when asked by the manager and again when asked by police. I wonder what would have happened if SHS and her family refused to get up from their table and remained there even when police arrived and asked them multiple times to leave.
The answer to your question is the same as the answer to my question of whether the Starbucks employees who were forced to take diversity training arrested the two men in Philadelphia.
Wait until it gets to 19 pages and Raglefant is just about to bust a nut.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Hawkeyes Host Fast-Rising 2025 Three-Star DB, Graceson Littleton
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-