this is a great point. one thing we have seen throughout this thread is that nighttimer was careful to examine the facts as they came in and withhold judgment.
there was absolutely no implication in his subject title—so carefully couched as a hypothetical—or in his initial analogy to the absurdist potentiality of "barack obama busted for loitering on the white house lawn"
the fact that it might draw readers to the conclusion that it is a transparent comparison of two upstanding black men being persecuted solely on the basis of race is a mere coincidence and, if one looks hard enough, such a perception will probably reveal the racism in oneself. that's how these "teachable moments" sometimes work.
finally, there is absolutely no truth to the speculation that nighttimer is rapidly descending into self-parody.
Haskins, as you really haven't contributed much to the debate except whine for the second or third time (I haven't counted) about the title of it, I'm a loss to figure out what you want to do here except parachute in, take a dump on it, and then scurry off to open your 40th or 50th (I haven't counted) Obama-bashing topic.
Accusations of self-parody from a guy who
manufactures quotes by inarticulate hip-hop artists so he can get his phony outrage on really isn't someone whose criticism means much.
Saying that someone is ignorant about something (in this case, police procedures on a suspected breaking and entering scenario) is *not* a personal slur, nighttimer.
Calling someone "ignorant" in a debate is a bit different than saying they are in error or don't have full possession of the facts.
It is a personal attack to belittle another poster by telling them they are not qualified to express their opinion and attack their intelligence.
It
IS a personal slur, Cranky.
cranky said:
It may be an incorrect statement, but it's not insulting in and of itself.
That's your opinion. Mine is that it is insulting in and of itself.
cranky said:
Hell, I was ignorant of what the procedure is in a situation like that until POPASMOKE and someone else (I can't recall who, sorry!) filled us in. So apparently, just giving your ID and having your residence verified is *not* the end of the story, from a police standpoint. They have other things they have to check first, otherwise they are being negligent in their duties if they simply accept that and walk out.
Unless POPASMOKE was a police officer employed in the jurisdiction of Cambridge, Mass., I would say his knowledge base is confined to the jurisdiction he was employed in. This one-size-fits-all appeal to authority is not inclusivie of every locality and every possible police/citizen scenario.
Nonsense. These are legitimate issues that must be considered by the officer that responds to a call. If you recall, Gates went to the kitchen and was peeved that the officer followed him "without permission." The officer followed Gates for reasons of safety, both that of Gates and the officer.
Now you're trying to read Crowley's mind. You 're projecting your beliefs upon the situation and rewriting the sequence of events to fit it.
You do not
know Crowley followed Gates "for reasons of safety." You might believe that to be the reason, but stating it as it were fact is a total misrepresentation.
I'm not "conjuring" up scenarios. I'm just pointing out that there is more to it--for an officer responding to a break-in call--then an ID check. You don't seem to understand this, hence you are ignorant of this.
Did you or did you not say:
It does, however, include verifying that Gates is not breaking a restraining order or the like by being in the home. It does include verifying that Gates is not actually in any danger, that there's not a robber in the next room that told Gates to "get rid of the cop, or else."
There is nothing in Crowley's report about restraining orders, or Gates being in danger or a robber in the next room telling Gates to "get rid of the cop, or else."
That's just you conjuring up scenarios to justify your statement, "the officer was duty-bound to do more."
Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't work for lawyers and it doesn't work any better when you try to manufacture fanciful fantasies to support what isn't supported by the facts.
robeiae said:
Grow up. It's not a slur. It's a very clear statement. And I offered it as a potential. Based on your reply, I think I was correct, with regard to you. You are ignorant of proper police procedures for this kind of situation.
...and you're provided absolutely
nothing regarding what
are "proper police procedures for this kind of situation." All you've done is pull some silly situations out of thin air and then expect as if that's to be taken as gospel.
What
would be "ignorant" would be for me to accept you have the slightest idea of what "proper police procedures" are when you're not a cop or have demonstrated any understanding of law enforcement procedures. You are not an authority on police procedure.
Don't tell me to "grow up" robeiae. You haven't produced one shred of supporting documentation but then want to take offense when you're called on it. That indicates to me it's you that needs to grow up.
robeiae said:
I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm pointing out something that you obviously DON'T KNOW. Gates? Well, he may or may not be aware of these things. I only suggested that his ignorance on these matters was, again, a potential.
You are insulting my intelligence when you try to point out something that
you obviously DON'T KNOW anything about.
Gates' ignorance on these matters may be a potential, but until demonstrated otherwise, your own far surpasses his or mine.
