The Historical Connection Between President Obama and Professor Gates
There is a strong social/cultural/political link or relationship between the refusal of these stupid people to accept the documentation presented as proof of President Obama's citizenship and his right to be were he is, and the refusal of a "stupid" police officer to accept the documentation presented by Professor Gates regarding his residency and hence his right to be where he was..........
During the period in which slavery was a central element of American social, cultural, economic, and political life, a "free" black man had to produce his "manumission" papers on demand or be subject to re-enslavement by virtually any white person who challenged the fact of his freedom. Even when such papers were produced, whites would more often than not uphold the challenge and force the unfortunate "free" man back into bondage....In some states it was illegal to free a slave.
The power to deny the legitimacy, validity or legality of such documents in the possession of blacks was routinely upheld and maintained by the legal system which was little more than a reflection of the white power structure that maintained the courts for their own purposes regarding matters of race....Not unlike what occurs today, particularly in the criminal justice system.....
"and the refusal of a "stupid" police officer to accept the documentation presented by Professor Gates regarding his residency and hence his right to be where he was"
- a police officer, responding to a 911 call on a potential break-in, is REQUIRED BY LAW to investigate - above and beyond verification of the ID.
In case your little brain is so full of inflamed historical connections that there is very little space left for common sense, let me emphasize: it is not enough to verify the ID, by law.
When an estranged husband breaks into his former wife's apartment and threatens domestic violence, he can easily produce an ID and verify his rights to the property. And he can still be engaged in criminal activity inside his own home.
http://www.criminaldefenseinsandiego.com/PracticeAreas/Domestic-Violence-FAQs.asp#myestranged
Yes, there is a connection between Obama and Gates. It's called personal friendship and racial solidarity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
What is wrong is a president standing up for a friend and indicting someone else on live TV, while admitting he doesn't know the facts. And, it seems, also not knowing the law - that his Government is required to enforce.
July 24, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Obama knew exactly what he was doing: Prime time audience on a national TV platform. Healthcare is a disaster. Lynn Sweet. Ambiguous racial incident involving the police.
Sounds like Rahm's idea to go there.
July 24, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama now regrets, according to Gibbs, the way that the media has reacted to his "a little biased" opinions that the police acted stupidly, while he stands up for a friend without knowing all the facts.
Cops are stupid and it's all media's fault. Got it?
July 24, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, Presidnet Obama was intellectually honest -- unlike you by omitting pertinent facts -- by admitting up front both his bias, and that he didn't know all the facts. However, based on the facts AS REPORTED BY THE MEDIA, he commented that the police -- he didn't engage in personalities -- had acted stupidly by -- as the media had reported -- arresting Gates in his own home AFTER determining who he was and that he belonged there.
Crowley, in a local interview, indicted HIMSELF by admitting that he arrested Gates becaue he diodn't like what Gates SAID -- even though Gates has the same protected right of free speech as you, and the content of his speech is ALSO protected by law. In other words, Crowely didn't arrest him for violating any law; he falsely arrested him for expressin a view Crowley didn't like.
Gates has a suit not only for violation of his civil rights, but also for malicious false arrest.
July 24, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying that Obama is just another anchorman, usurping prime time news and pontificating on the basis of "media reports".
I thought he was a president, but I guess I was wrong. Or maybe Keith Olbermann would be better than Obama.
As for the rest of your comment, Obama apparenly has more common sense than you do because he just admitted (again, on TV, obviously) that his comments rachted up the rhetoric.
July 24, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again you leave out pertinent facts, asshat:
TV anchors don't admit their biases, or that they haven't all the facts. The HONEST do -- as anyone who has been to college learns is the essence of scholarship. Idjits such as you will jump all over Sotomayor's statement that "everyone is biased" as true -- but will at the same time deny that YOU are biased.
President Obama clearly identifed (1) his bias, and (2) the source of his information. He didn't omit the fact of his bias, or pretend that he doesn't have it. And anyone with half a brain, and intellectually honest, will realize that whatever the source, it is likely to be limited, yet not entirely unreliable: as the media reported, and as Crowley has publicly admitted, he handcuffed and arrested Gates AFTER he had verified who Gates was, AND that Gates belonged there.
And as Crowley has also admitted publicly -- and this is Crowley's problem -- he arrested Gates for things Gates allegedly SAID. Under law, what Gates allegedly said -- and Crowley states what those comments are alleged to have been -- is PROTECTED SPEECH. That means there was no law broken, so no grounds for what was a FALSE arrest.
It further means that Crowley -- whether he knows it or not -- has publicly admitted that he violated Gates' first amendment rights.
July 24, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When an estranged husband breaks into his former wife's apartment and threatens domestic violence, he can easily produce an ID and verify his rights to the property. And he can still be engaged in criminal activity inside his own home."
The report was of a BURGLARY in progress, not "domestic violence".
As for San Diego "law": Cambridge, whereh the Gates incident occurred, is in Massachusetts, not in California.
Crowley handcuffed and arrested Gates AFTER Gates proved his identity and that he belonged there. Crowley didn't doubt the proof; and at that point he knew there was no crime in progress, and no laws being violated; thus he should have, at that point, apologized and left.
And what did he arrest Gates for? "Disorderly conduct". If there is a law against being "disorderly" in one's own home, you fail to cite to it.
And what was the nature of the "disorderly conductr"? However inadvertent, Crowley also admits publicly that is was Gates' exercise of his protected right of free speech by expressing speech which is protected as to content.
July 24, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once that authorities determined that Gates was the home-owner and there was no threat (even to a nonexistent endangered spouse), the incident was over. An individual can be upset that about officials of the city or state bothering him on his own property. Law enforcement should have walked away. Gates would have calmed down and gotten back on the phone to try to contact the chief of police. If Gates touched the officer with 5-6 other officers around, then off to the pokey.
The arrest was unwarranted. The charges were dropped.
July 24, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another connection: Harvard.
July 24, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you know nothing of Cambridge or the Cambridge PD vis-a-vis Harvard. The PD tends to have an attitude about PERCEIVED "condescension" by the Harvard "elitists" so on occasion like to "take them down a peg".
And Harvard itself has lost any number of professors -- African-American and women -- because of persistent racism and sexism.
July 24, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know nothing about what I know and what I don't know.
Here's something I don't know: How your comment relates to anything I said or to anything in the original post.
July 24, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You dragged in the Harvard "connection". I simply expanded on that with "Town and Gown" facts about the relationship between the PD and all them there librul elitists at Harvard.
July 27, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Posted by Lalo35adm: The only thing "little" here is your capacity to place this situation in a propoer context and your capacity to construct your opins on falsehoods and inaccuracies...The legal aspects of this are clearly beyond your capacity to comprehend...As an attorney, I can tell you that your faux legal analysis is so far off base it is laughable and dangerous....
However, I can tell you that the constitution does protect your right to be publicly stupid and openly ignorant. Usually this is referred to as freedom of speech...
July 24, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be one of those "lawyers" that keep filing birther suits, because your lengthy scholarly and surgically precise rebuttal to my point, complete with footnotes and pages of legal references, didn't leave me enlightened, educated and thoroughly convinced.
July 24, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're ineducable.
Gates violated no law -- except the unwritten law, "Never exercise your rights contrary to the attitudes of law enforcement."
July 24, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't bother with any of that because it wouldn't matter to you if I did and your "case" isn't worth the effort...Check yourself back in. You shouldn't have a difficult time finding your way back to the asylum since it's clear that you were just recently but prematurly released.......
July 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink