harvard professor breaks into his own house, gets arrested, cites racism

#54
#54
This is why there will be a lawsuit. The guy has so backed himself into a corner that he would lose all credibility if he just chalked it up to the misunderstanding it was on the front end. But now he has put himself out there and so he'll have to sue the police department and the officer.

He'll lose, but he'll claim victory for having shed light on the issue.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
This is why there will be a lawsuit. The guy has so backed himself into a corner that he would lose all credibility if he just chalked it up to the misunderstanding it was on the front end. But now he has put himself out there and so he'll have to sue the police department and the officer.

He'll lose, but he'll claim victory for having shed light on the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this professor but both the people interviewed as well as the writers of these columns really seem to buy into the racism angle here. I am not black but I surely don't see anything this officer did as racism, it really has me perplexed.
 
#56
#56
KB5252 said:
I don't know about this professor but both the people interviewed as well as the writers of these columns really seem to buy into the racism angle here. I am not black but I surely don't see anything this officer did as racism, it really has me perplexed.
Click to expand...


Its really not all that complicated, in my mind. Black people will see this as racist, not because the cop treated him badly, but because 1) the assumption was that a black man going into a house like this must be breaking in as opposed to being the owner; and 2) he got arrested for basically resisting the officer without violence (that is what it is called here anyway -- some might call it resisting arrest).

The first one is an issue of what the passer-by thought. They saw someone climbing into a window and called the police. On its face, that malkes perfect sense. But black people will contend that the passer-by just assumed it was a crime in part because it was a black person going through the window.

Might there be an element of that? I suppose. But it isn't the police's fault. Dispatch is going to send an officer. There is no allegation he mistreated the guy as he investigated.

The second issue is one of purely objective facts. Did the guy refuse to cooperate in the investigation? It doesn't matter whether he was right. It doesn't matter whether his motive was honest and his subjective outrage genuine.

What matters is whether the man's conduct, viewed by an objective and reasonable officer, violated whatever statute or ordinance applies in terms of resisting the officer.

The reality is that those charges are frequently leveled for the police to gain control of a situation. They are almost always dropped absent some sort of violence towards the officer. Black people will see it as a means to let them know who's in charge, but police officers use the charge as a means to gain control of a situation often, and without regard to race. At least that is so in my experience.
 
#57
#57
exactly. MAYBE it doesnt' get reported if it's a white guy, but the police certainly have an obligation to a) respond to the report and b) not just take the word of the guy inside that he owns the place.
 
#58
#58
droski said:
exactly. MAYBE it doesnt' get reported if it's a white guy, but the police certainly have an obligation to a) respond to the report and b) not just take the word of the guy inside that he owns the place.
Click to expand...


Correct. And you notice now on CNN its the black leadership saying how bad they felt when they saw his mug shot. That's going to be the fous of the civil claim, mark my words -- that he was arrested and thereby humiliated when all he did was insist on exercising his constitutional rights when he was surprised as the innocent homeowner. The mistake at the outset won't be the focus, it will be the arrest after that which will be the focus of the lawsuit.

The irony is that the arrest for resisting the officer literally has nothing to do with race from the perspective of the officer.
 
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
I gather the police/prosecutor dropped the charges, which was to be expected. The problem now is that the man has backed himself into a corner. He has to sue to save face after the police report came out and it appears as though he simply jumped to the conclusion that he was being confronted based on race, rather than an underlying report of a possible crime.

Given his demeanor towards the police, he's going to have a tough road with it.
Click to expand...

Good lord...

Hasnt this gotten out of control enough?
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
You must be talking about the fact that I agree completely with LG in this thread...:)
Click to expand...


I appreciate the rarity of that event, just like you do. But based on what's been reported this is just not what the professor imagines it to be. Hopefully he will get some sound, objective legal advice, from someone without an agenda, and get talked out of doing anything about it.
 
#65
#65
droski said:
may this day never happen again
Click to expand...


Unfortunatley, I suspect its going to be two in a row......

I see that Obama said that the police acted "stupidly" in arresting the guy because he had produced proof he was in his own home. And then went on to speak in terms that linked the arrest to race.

This is what I was talking about yesterday -- the initial encounter was because he was breaking into the house and a person reported it, but the arrest was because the man was hostile and uncooperative. Without passing judgment on whether he should have been upset, he simply cannot react that way to the incident.

Obama knows this is not something he should be commenting on and that there's two sides to the story and further that the issue of the intial encounter and then the arrest are separate. He should have declined comment or said simply that it was unfortunate and obviously based on a misunderstanding initially of what was going on and hoping that the parties could sit down and work through it.

But he should not have taken sides.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
Unfortunatley, I suspect its going to be two in a row......

I see that Obama said that the police acted "stupidly" in arresting the guy because he had produced proof he was in his own home. And then went on to speak in terms that linked the arrest to race.

This is what I was talking about yesterday -- the initial encounter was because he was breaking into the house and a person reported it, but the arrest was because the man was hostile and uncooperative. Without passing judgment on whether he should have been upset, he simply cannot react that way to the incident.

Obama knows this is not something he should be commenting on and that there's two sides to the story and further that the issue of the intial encounter and then the arrest are separate. He should have declined comment or said simply that it was unfortunate and obviously based on a misunderstanding initially of what was going on and hoping that the parties could sit down and work through it.

But he should not have taken sides.
Click to expand...

I agree, the professor and elements of the media are not going to let this go away. I believe Obama will have to backtrack on this to some extent and present a more neutral statement on the matter.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
Unfortunatley, I suspect its going to be two in a row......

I see that Obama said that the police acted "stupidly" in arresting the guy because he had produced proof he was in his own home. And then went on to speak in terms that linked the arrest to race.

This is what I was talking about yesterday -- the initial encounter was because he was breaking into the house and a person reported it, but the arrest was because the man was hostile and uncooperative. Without passing judgment on whether he should have been upset, he simply cannot react that way to the incident.

Obama knows this is not something he should be commenting on and that there's two sides to the story and further that the issue of the intial encounter and then the arrest are separate. He should have declined comment or said simply that it was unfortunate and obviously based on a misunderstanding initially of what was going on and hoping that the parties could sit down and work through it.

But he should not have taken sides.
Click to expand...

Not only 2 in a row but 2 days in a row...yikes!

What's nuts is the Obama stated several times that he doesn't know the facts of the situation but still the police were stupidly wrong. :shakehead:
 
#68
#68
So, I agree with everyone for the most part in here. But, I can't help but laugh a bit at LG being a homer for the cops.
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
Not only 2 in a row but 2 days in a row...yikes!

What's nuts is the Obama stated several times that he doesn't know the facts of the situation but still the police were stupidly wrong. :shakehead:
Click to expand...


This is why people like Sharpton have no credibility. They simply ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY side with the African-American as the victim. They don't wait to learn the facts.

Sometimes no doubt the black person has been victimized. But not always. And that's why Obama should have said something much more neutral while acknolwedging the situation began with a misunderstanding of what was going on at the home, which appearnely everyone would agree to.





TennTradition said:
So, I agree with everyone for the most part in here. But, I can't help but laugh a bit at LG being a homer for the cops.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
Does seem a bit out of character.
Click to expand...

I represent law enforcement officers who get sued for these types of things. Have been for about 12 years now. I see people overclaiming police abuse every day, either because they think it will give them a leg up in a criminal case, because they want some money, because they have found a sympathetic ear with a lawyer who will represent them, or because they genuinely just misperceive everything through a racial lens.

Some people that overclaim these things do it in a calculated way. Some manipulate it for their own ends (see Sharpton). Some are simply so jaded that they cannot be objective.
 
#71
#71
why in the world did that idiot hussein accuse this policeman of acting stupidly. especially after saying he doesn't know the fact. you hussein sheep who support this guy, how can you defend this moron.

this man is a joke to the presidency. he's a racist fool.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
I represent law enforcement officers who get sued for these types of things. Have been for about 12 years now. I see people overclaiming police abuse every day, either because they think it will give them a leg up in a criminal case, because they want some money, because they have found a sympathetic ear with a lawyer who will represent them, or because they genuinely just misperceive everything through a racial lens.

Some people that overclaim these things do it in a calculated way. Some manipulate it for their own ends (see Sharpton). Some are simply so jaded that they cannot be objective.
Click to expand...

I know you represent the police...that's why I'm laughing...you have your biases...and the world is seen through those glasses....I find it quite consistent, actually. I happen to agree with you in this instance, but seriously, true to form....
 
#73
#73
joevol320 said:
why in the world did that idiot hussein accuse this policeman of acting stupidly. especially after saying he doesn't know the fact. you hussein sheep who support this guy, how can you defend this moron.

this man is a joke to the presidency. he's a racist fool.
Click to expand...

lulz. Did you even look up at LG's posts before you even posted? He's one of Obama's biggest supporters on here and he's already said he disagrees with him here.
Reading is fun!
 
#74
#74
Voodoomonkey said:
lulz. Did you even look up at LG's posts before you even posted? He's one of Obama's biggest supporters on here and he's already said he disagrees with him here.
Reading is fun!
Click to expand...

i'm not talking about everyone on here. i'm just talking in general. it is so telling of what kind of the lack character this man has. i just hope America can see through this nice teleprompter speaches and see what kind of guy they elected.

it sickens me to hear him insinuate such racist remarks. he's going plant more hate in black's mind toward policmen with those comments
 
#75
#75
Gibbs: Obama 'not calling officer stupid' - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com


Quote:
But this morning after several major police unions expressed outrage over the remarks, White House spokesman Robert L. Gibbs told reporters that Obama does not regret what the president said about the Cambridge Police Department, but he had not meant to specifically criticize James M. Crowley, the Cambridge police sergeant who made the arrest.

"Let me be clear,” Gibbs said. “ He was not calling the officer stupid, okay? He was denoting that . . . at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that."

:rolleyes:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top