"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".

 

So then should'nt Obama have reserved judgement till he had all the facts before saying the officers "acted stupidly"?

Also, I'm sure I'm coming late into this discussion, but the poll is flawed.

 

It lists Latino as "Hispanic, non-black, non-white" which is an amazingly ignorant and incorrect statement. Latinos can be White, Black, Amerindian, or any possible mix thereof. People are most familiar with mestizos (some mix of Caucasian and Amerindian) because that's the predominant population of Mexico and Central America. However, I know Latinos who are 100% white, 100% black, 100% indian, and virtually everything in between.

Also, I'm sure I'm coming late into this discussion, but the poll is flawed.

 

It lists Latino as "Hispanic, non-black, non-white" which is an amazingly ignorant and incorrect statement. Latinos can be White, Black, Amerindian, or any possible mix thereof. People are most familiar with mestizos (some mix of Caucasian and Amerindian) because that's the predominant population of Mexico and Central America. However, I know Latinos who are 100% white, 100% black, 100% indian, and virtually everything in between.

 

I used the census listings.  As a black puerto rican, I'm well aware of the mixes.  ;)

Not only have a read the article, I've spoken to Dr. Gates.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

 

I asked if you read the police report. If you actually have access to speak with Henry Gates, you should ask him to address the contradictions between the police report and his lawyer's statements.

 

SOMEONE is lying.

 

If the police report is correct, there is no possible way to justify Gate's actions. At absolute worst, it means his neighbor was racist, but the police still did everything exactly as they should have. Meanwhile Gates' pitched an immature fit and broke the law by refusing to comply with the basic requests of a police officer ... I guess because of anger or ego ... but either way, NOTHING justifies the actions described in that police report.

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

 

The only logical way to support Gates is if you believe that police report is lying. Because it sure makes Gates look like an entitled rich college professor who just thinks he's too damn important to have to take orders from a lowly police officer.

Not only have a read the article, I've spoken to Dr. Gates.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

 

I asked if you read the police report. If you actually have access to speak with Henry Gates, you should ask him to address the contradictions between the police report and his lawyer's statements.

 

SOMEONE is lying.

If the police report is correct, there is no possible way to justify Gate's actions. At absolute worst, it means his neighbor was racist, but they police still did everything exactly as they should have. Meanwhile Gates' pitched an immature fit and broke the law by refusing to comply with the basic requests of a police officer ... I guess because of anger or ego ... but either way, NOTHING justifies the actions described in that police report.

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html

 

Exactly!  Why would Police/DA drop the charges?

Because the DA is a political office separate from the police and Cambridge is a community of left-wing academics.

 

Did you read the background of the arresting officer? EVERYONE loves him and describes him as a nice level-headed guy who never oversteps his authority. Even the criminal defense attorneys love him.

 

By calling this a race issue, race relations will never improve.  Who cares if the guy is black or not.  The police made a mistake, and lets forget about it.  Because this is a national news story, any strides made in racism yesterday are killed today by this story.  So if you don't want things to improve, lets keep making a big deal out of stupid stories like this.  It really isn't even an entertaining story.  It really isn't a big deal.

The police DIDN'T make a mistake.  That is the whole point.  The man refused to show identification to prove he was in his own house.  They should have cuffed him.

Well anyway, the one thing we obviously agree on is that SOMEONE IS LYING. Either the police are lying or Gates (through his lawyer) are lying. Whoever is lying is the one truly at fault and whoever is telling the truth is innocent.

 

So who is lying?

 

1) Officer Crowley

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/23/officer_at_eye_of_storm_says_he_wont_apologize/?page=1

 

"But people who know Crowley were skeptical or outright dismissive of allegations of racism. A prominent defense lawyer, a neighbor of Crowley’s, his union, and fellow officers described him yesterday as a respected, and respectful, officer who performs his job well and has led his colleagues in diversity training."

 

"it was not the first time he had a memorable encounter in the line of duty with a prominent black man. Nearly 16 years ago, as a Brandeis University police officer, Crowley desperately tried to save the life of Reggie Lewis after the Boston Celtics star collapsed while practicing in the school gym."

 

"Crowley’s police union issued a statement saying it had reviewed the arrest of Gates and expressed “full and unqualified support’’ for his actions.

 

“Sergeant Crowley is a highly respected veteran supervisor with a distinguished record in the Cambridge Police Department,’’ said the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. “His actions at the scene of this matter were consistent with his training, with the informed policies and practices of the Department, and with applicable legal standards.’’

 

 

2) Prof. Henry Gates.

 

One of the nations foremost scholars on race and racism, who has made a career out of discussing the history of racism against blacks.

 

And who already plans to make a documentary about the incident

 

"Shagory said he was upset by the criticism leveled against the officer and questioned Gates’s statement that the confrontation had inspired the Harvard professor to consider making a documentary about racial profiling.

 

“I think the idea of him already planning a documentary is very premature, and a very unnecessary thing to say before all the facts are even in,’’ Shagory said."

 

So yeah ... who's lying .... gee .. I wonder ...

While I don’t doubt that racial profiling happens much too often with innocent (usually black) people as targets of unfounded suspicion, and it doesn’t seem plausible that the police in Cambridge, MA wouldn’t recognize such a high-profile person as Gates (he’s been a presence on TV as a pundit/talking head for ages); at the same time it was highly irresponsible for Obama to call the actions of any police department “stupid” so soon after the incident (but I would think especially in an extremely liberal place like Cambridge that cops would be thoroughly vetted to insure pc sensitivity) in such a public forum as a press conference without a thorough investigation which has yet to take place.

Oh great, even better, lets make a documentry about it.  That ought to help race relations. 

I know too many people like Gates, and no, race relations will never improve with people like him contributing to them. 

I know too many people like Gates, and no, race relations will never improve with people like him contributing to them. 

You know Dr. Gates?

So yeah ... who's lying .... gee .. I wonder ...

I'm going with neither is significantly lying. I'm assuming what's in the police report is the officer's view of what happened, and what Dr. Gates has said is his view of what happened. Some details are probably off, but I think they're both telling the truth as far as they can recall. Regardless of what was said before hand, when it was established that he was trying to get into his own home, the incident should have been over.

 

According to the report:

- He did NOT provide identification to the officers despite repeated requests

- He screamed at the officers and refused to calm down

- He threatened that the officers "didn't know who they were messing with"

- He refused to listen to the officers trying to explain that they were called out by a concerned neighbor

He did eventually provide ID. As for the rest of this, while impolite, none of it is completely unexpected, inappropriate, or illegal, with the possible exception of threatening the officers. And if his threat is in the context of "I'm important and will get you fired" rather than just "you don't know who you're messing with" implying violent retribution, that's not a decent reason to place the man under arrest.

 

The police DIDN'T make a mistake.  That is the whole point.  The man refused to show identification to prove he was in his own house.  They should have cuffed him.

Yes, they should have cuffed him.

 

But when he did provide ID, they should have removed those cuffs, told him to have a nice day, and been on their way.

I know too many people like Gates, and no, race relations will never improve with people like him contributing to them. 

You know Dr. Gates?

 

Dont we all? :roll:

I know too many people like Gates, and no, race relations will never improve with people like him contributing to them. 

You know Dr. Gates?

 

Dont we all? ::)

 

I'm being very serious, when I ask that.

I wonder how much of Gates's (alleged) behavior has to do more with the fact that he's a prominent national media darling than with the fact that he's black. How many times have we seen celebrities--regardless of race--play the "entitlement card" when caught in a compromising position? Just asking...

I wonder how much of Gates's (alleged) behavior has to do more with the fact that he's a prominent national media darling than with the fact that he's black. How many times have we seen celebrities--regardless of race--play the "entitlement card" when caught in a comprimising position? Just asking...

 

Too many, but I think this is a totally different situation.  Most celebs and wanna be celebs, blurt out CDM's line - DYKWIA?  I think this is a different situation.

 

 

I know too many people like Gates, and no, race relations will never improve with people like him contributing to them.

You know Dr. Gates?

 

You don't have to know him.  You know the behavior.

 

There was clearly a dispute between the officer and Dr. Gates as well as differing perspectives on what actually happened.  The fact that Dr. Gates is indicating the "dispute" exclusively took place BECASUE he is black is the problem.  Why does he think race had anything to do with it?  Because the cop was white?  That inherently is THE problem...that if/when two people of differeing races have a dispute, it's because they are of different races rather than simply, they don't agree.

 

Why the dispute took place and why it escalated to this point is anyone's guess.  But based on my experience with A) police offices and B) high ranking, well known, eldery professionals (in any field) the fact that it escalated to this level is not at all surprising. 

 

 

Why the dispute took place and why it escalated to this point is anyone's guess.  But based on my experience with A) police offices and B) high ranking, well known, eldery professionals (in any field) the fact that it escalated to this level is not at all surprising. 

 

Bingo.

 

 

 

Without the race card, the president had no business mentioning it.  Without the race card, it does not have the presidents attention.  That being said, he least he should have said, is that the police deserve the respect of the people whether in their own home or not.  Authority needs to be respected.  Period.

I guarantee you everyone would act differently if it was in their own home. I wouldn't give this cop a free pass.

No, I don't believe they would.  Someone of that age would not have been yelling, they would appreciate the police for looking out for the neighborhood, they would have gladly produced an ID appropriate for legal identification, not a school ID which is meaningless, and it would have ended.  It called for a little "yes sir, no sir"

A very similar incident happend to me.  I was moving out of one of my apartments in Chicago's Roscoe Village neighborhood.  I did not have my keys with me on this run because I had a rental van and left my car keys as well as my door keys at the new place.

So, I had to jimmy a window open reach in, and unlock the back door to let myself in.  About 2 minutes later "CHICAGO POLICE" was forcefully spoken.  A bit startled I said something dumb like "Hello" and walked to the back door.  The officer had opened the unlocked door, and was standing near it displaying his badge.  To be honest, I can't remember if he was just inside or outside of the door.

He explained that he saw the way I entered and suspected I was breaking in, and he asked me if I lived here and if I had ID.  I said that I did, and produced my drivers license. 

He said thank you and left.

 

All I could think about was how awesome the neighborhood I was in.

I bragged about the story for a while to fellow Chicagoans, and my family.  How great it was to have a cop that would care enough to investigate what probably wasn't a break in, but could be.

 

I just read the Cambridge police report, and if what the office says is true (I am sure it will be investigated) the Professor said the front door did not open properly because of a previous break in attempt.  If that is true, that guy is an a**hole, and the President stepped into a pile of poo because of him.

This reminds me a bit of that old Monty Python movie, Monte Python & The Holy Grail:  "Help, Im being repressed!"

 

King Arthur: Old woman.

Dennis: Man.

King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?

Dennis: I'm 37.

King Arthur: What?

Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.

King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".

Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".

King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.

Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?

King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...

Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.

King Arthur: Well I am king.

Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

King Arthur: I am your king.

Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?

[Angelic music plays... ]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

Here's the police report.  Source: The Smoking Gun

 

Here's the police report.  Source: The Smoking Gun

 

 

Sounds about exactly what I would expect.  Gates is being a d#ck because, he feels, a man of his stature should be treated with extended courtesy at all times.  He probably expects the cops to know who he is and, upon seeing him, just say "Oh, Dr. Gates, we heard a report that someone was trying to break into your house...is everything OK"?

 

Meanwhile, the cop with his "respect the badge, respect my authority" mantra, will never, under any circumstances, just walk away from that kind of language.  I mean, these types of things - maybe to a lesser extent - happen between two regular people all the time.  Most of the time, one person usually just walks away and lets the other just run his/her mouth (unless they're drunk or something, then a fight breaks out).  But a cop?  Yeah right - no cop is walking away from that.  Not to mention I'm sure he was probably testing him some.  I doubt he was attempting to calm him down as much as the report indicates...unless trying to calm him down involves saying something like "I'm responding to a call and doing my job.  You're acting unruly."  Someone is getting arressted in that situation regardless of race.

 

Either way it's clear, at least to me, race had nothing to do with it...until someone pulled out the race card.

I think the mistake Obama has made is to give carte blanche to the next unruly minority to rail against a white policeman, and before you know it, there will be an all out racial incident.

If what was written in the above police report is true then the police did the right thing in the handling Dr. Gates. Had he provided his ID upon the first request and cooperated everything would have been fine and this whole situation could have been avoided. Any other individual in this same situation would have been arrested as well, regardless of race.

Henry Louis Gates' arrest in Cambridge, Mass., creates platform for another look at racism: Phillip Morris

 

by Phillip Morris/Plain Dealer columnist

Wednesday July 22, 2009, 7:22 PM

 

I tried to break into a house a few days ago.

 

My keys were on one side of the door. I was on the other.

 

More at cleveland.com:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2009/07/henry_louis_gates_arrest_in_ca.html

People, people, people.....

 

Do you ever LISTEN to what the President actually says?  Or do you just take the right-wing spin at face value?

 

He was asked a question about the Gates arrest at a news conference.

 

First, he admits that "Skip" is a friend and outright acknowledges the potential for bias.

 

He starts out his commment with "I don't know all the facts" of the arrest or what role race played in it.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

Generally, a cop cannot arrest someone in his own home without a warrant.  Cops know this, so I have some suspicions about the cop wanting to take the 'conversation' outside.... he probably was already pissed and just wanted to get Gates out of the house so he could make the arrest.  This tactic is not uncommon at all in law enforcement - "sir, do you mind stepping outside to speak with us?"

 

That said and IF the police report is accurate (we'll see...), Gates acted out of order and disrespectful towards the officer.  I don't condone that type of behavoir at all.  However, I just don't see any cause for an arrest even assuming the police report is completely truthful.  The cop should have been the bigger man and walked away.  Now, the City better hope the witness testimony is favorable and Gates really was completely beligerant/disorderly (under whatever standard the local/state law applies for the crime alleged).  Otherwise, it better be ready to pony up some $$$ in a civil suit.

 

Bottom line to me is that the President's "acted stupidly" comment has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the 4th Amendment.

 

 

^I'm no lawyer, but I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the 4th Ammendment and how it applies. The police had every right to enter his home, as they had reason to believe that a crime (burglary) was in progress. Once inside the home, if they witnessed Dr. Gates commit a crime, in this case disorderly conduct, they have the right to arrest him. Based on what I've seen I think it was wrong of the officer to arrest Dr. Gates, but I think it was a judgement call and I just disagree with his judgement.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

 

 

whether or not this comment had any "connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice" is beside the point. Law enforcement officials, whether on a federal, state or local level, are placed there by society to enforce the rule of law, and until all the facts are in and one is proven to be corrupt or derelict in performing his/her duties according to the Constitution, it was unseemly and highly irresponsible for the President of the United States to prejudge this incident by smearing the police in this manner.

^I'm no lawyer, but I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the 4th Ammendment and how it applies. The police had every right to enter his home, as they had reason to believe that a crime (burglary) was in progress. Once inside the home, if they witnessed Dr. Gates commit a crime, in this case disorderly conduct, they have the right to arrest him. Based on what I've seen I think it was wrong of the officer to arrest Dr. Gates, but I think it was a judgement call and I just disagree with his judgement.

 

Absent exigent circumstances, the law presumes that warrantless arrests in one's home are unreasonable.  What was the emergency in this situation?

 

Additionally, disorderly conduct within one's own home is a bit of a reach, no?  Even the most radical right-wingers would probably agree with me on that one.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice. Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law. He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

 

 

whether or not this comment had any "connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice" is beside the point. Law enforcement officials, whether on a federal, state or local level, are placed there by society to enforce the rule of law, and until all the facts are in and one is proven to be corrupt or derelict in performing his/her duties according to the Constitution, it was unseemly and highly irresponsible for the President of the United States to prejudge this incident by smearing the police in this manner.

 

But you love that he did EVD I am sure.  Just gives you one more reason to bite into your waaaamburger.  Face it, no matter how the President answered the question posed, you would have criticized him for it.  The next seven years are really going to take their toll on you.

I'm not a Republican, and I fully support Obama.  I don't think he should've said anything on the subject - period.

Gates had a right to be upset but as any citizen should do, when a officer of the law makes a reasonable request for you to do something, you do it. Gates should've done as was requested of him and then once the situation was over, if he was still miffed, went and got a lawyer and then protested and or sued.

 

Agreed.  But do you agree that (given he reacted poorly) the arrest was justified?  I am very interested to read the witness accounts.

 

 

Generally, a cop cannot arrest someone in his own home without a warrant.  Cops know this,

 

 

 

That may be the most incorrect statement I ever read on this site.

 

The base of racism is ignorance. The statement Obama made was nothing more than ignorant.. He admitted not knowing the facts and still called the officer's actions "stupidly." There is no proof that the officer is ignorant, but Obama's satatement is.

 

Wonder why this self proclaimed victim was not happy his neighbors were looking out for his best interest? They called the police for him/for his property. I'm sure if the caller did not make the call to report this activity, he/she would be deemed a racist for not calling when a black man's home is getting burglarized......... "Burglarized" in the eyes of the caller. I'm well aware that the home was not being burglarized.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

 

 

whether or not this comment had any "connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice" is beside the point. Law enforcement officials, whether on a federal, state or local level, are placed there by society to enforce the rule of law, and until all the facts are in and one is proven to be corrupt or derelict in performing his/her duties according to the Constitution, it was unseemly and highly irresponsible for the President of the United States to prejudge this incident by smearing the police in this manner.

 

But you love that he did EVD I am sure.  Just gives you one more reason to bite into your waaaamburger.  Face it, no matter how the President answered the question posed, you would have criticized him for it.  The next seven years three and a half years are really going to take their toll on you.

 

well, you may be right, but just one minor edit to your reply^ (small mistake, you're forgiven!)

 

Generally, a cop cannot arrest someone in his own home without a warrant.  Cops know this,

 

That may be the most incorrect statement I ever read on this site.

 

Feel free to educate yourself on the subject then -

 

Payton V. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639

Welsh V. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732, 52 U.S.L.W. 4581

Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734, 81 S. Ct. 679 (1961)

 

In case you do not know how to download the decisions cited above, here is a quick reference - http://www.answers.com/topic/warrantless-arrest

 

Repeadtedly, the Court has recognized, as "a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law[,]' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable."

 

The rule is not absolute, hence my use of the word "generally."

 

If you have authority that says otherwise, I would love to know what it is.

 

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

How does it not?  Gates is accusing the police of racial profiling and Obama is saying the police acted stupidly.  He mentioned nothing about the 4th Amendment.  That is just you assuming that is what he meant to deflect any crticism from him.

 

This isn't about politics.  Obama just underminded law enforecement officials across the country who are now going to have to be second guessing themselves when making arrests, wondering if they are going to get called out by the President for acting stupidly should the person involved pull out the race card.

 

The people who are most upset about his remarks are those in Cambridge (88% voted for Obama) and police unions (typically supportive of Democrats).

 

 

^I'm pretty sure search and seizure only refers to evidence. A police officer with reasonable suspicion can arrest you anytime, anywhere within jurisdiction.

 

That's absolutely correct.

^I'm pretty sure search and seizure only refers to evidence. A police officer with reasonable suspicion can arrest you anytime, anywhere within jurisdiction.

 

Go ahead and read up on the 4th Amendment and the caselaw (cites given above).  When a person has been arrested and taken into police custody, that person has been "seized" as that term is used in the Constitution.

 

^I'm pretty sure search and seizure only refers to evidence. A police officer with reasonable suspicion can arrest you anytime, anywhere within jurisdiction.

 

That's absolutely correct.

 

That's absolutely incorrect.  Please cite your authority.  I already did above.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

How does it not?  Gates is accusing the police of racial profiling and Obama is saying the police acted stupidly.  He mentioned nothing about the 4th Amendment.  That is just you assuming that is what he meant to deflect any crticism from him.

 

 

Don't take my word for it -

 

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.

 

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.

 

"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."

 

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."

 

^I'm pretty sure search and seizure only refers to evidence. A police officer with reasonable suspicion can arrest you anytime, anywhere within jurisdiction.

 

Go ahead and read up on the 4th Amendment and the caselaw (cites given above). When a person has been arrested and taken into police custody, that person has been "seized" as that term is used in the Constitution.

 

Once arrested, if the police cannot provide sufficient evidence for 'seizing' they cannot hold you and you are free to go, yes. But like I said, you can be arrested per the conditions I stated above. However, being held is a different matter.

 

So then clarify for me this.  Suppose my neighbor calls the cops and says that he just saw me selling drugs on my front porch.  The cop shows up and the story is confirmed by two other neighbors, so the cop certainly has reasonable suspicion that I committed a crime.  Are you saying that the cop can then enter my home without a warrant and arrest me?

^for selling drugs, my vote would be no

 

Now, if three neighbors told me there was a home invasion going on, or an immediate threat to people inside the building, then they could go in.

 

As I see it, the immediacy of the potential harm is the measure of whether or not someone can enter.

 

For this episode, it was possibly a home invasion.  The officer asked Prof. Gates for an ID and if anyone else was in the building.  If this was the Prof. and he was alone, there could be a possibility that he was unaware of the break in, or that the criminals were in the house holding a member of his family hostage.  I admit it is unlikely, but it was something the officer had eliminate as a possibility.

 

The "acted stupidly" comment had no connection to any allegation of racial profiling/prejudice.  Remember, Obama is a legal scholar with a focus on constitutional law.  He was simply speaking to the standards of the 4th Amendment for search and seizure and warrantless arrests.

 

 

How does it not?  Gates is accusing the police of racial profiling and Obama is saying the police acted stupidly.  He mentioned nothing about the 4th Amendment.  That is just you assuming that is what he meant to deflect any crticism from him.

 

 

Don't take my word for it -

 

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.

 

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.

 

"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."

 

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."

 

 

I've seen that video footage...still no mention of anything in regards to the 4th amendment, nor do I think based on what he said that's what he's implying.  Obama knows Gates and knows he's a reasonable person.  the Police Officer doesn't.  So when confronted with an odd situation, officers are trained to take the utmost precaution...or else they could end up as a headline for a completely different reason:  they're dead.  See the officer in Twinsburg on a routine traffic stop last summer.

 

 

Now, if three neighbors told me there was a home invasion going on, or an immediate threat to people inside the building, then they could go in.

 

Absolutely.  Those are "exigent" circumstances.  However, the officer here had already confirmed that Gates was the home owner and no burglarly was in progress.  There were no safety concerns... the officer was just pissed off and, depending on whose account you believe, rightfully so.

 

But there are always two sides to the story.  Here is what Gates said happened -

 

“I said, ‘This is my house, I’m a Harvard professor. I live here,’ ” Gates said. “He said, ‘Can you prove it?’ I said, ‘Just a minute.’ And I turned my back, I walked into the kitchen to get my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license. He followed me without permission. I gave him the 2 IDs and I demanded to know his name and badge number. He wouldn’t say anything. He was just very upset and I said, ‘Why are you not responding to me? Are you not responding to me because you’re a white officer and I’m a black man?’ ”

 

Gates said Crowley turned and walked outside onto the porch with the professor following. Outside, Gates said he found the porch filled with police officers. “It looked like a police convention, there were so many policemen outside,” Gates said. “I stepped out on my porch and said, ‘I want to know your colleague’s name and his badge number.’ This officer said, ‘Thank you for accommodating my earlier request. You are under arrest.’ ”

 

Sounds pretty unreasonable to me if true.  I am not in a position to judge the credibility of either man.  I just know that, either way, no one was in danger and the officer should have presented his case to a magistrate, who could have objectively ruled whether an arrest was warranted.  He did not and the prosecutor ended up not charging Gates with any crime.  Nothing good came out of this.

"Are you not responding to me because you’re a white officer and I’m a black man?’ ”

 

That's why racism will always be around.