Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation, here is the Allegro from George Frideric Handel‘s Concerto Grosso #5 in D Minor, HWV 316, performed by the Vokalensemble NovoCanto Tiroler Barockinstrumentalisten at the Jesuitenkirche in Austria in 2004 (3:02).
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
Defending your family with a letter opener against yobs? Nanny says No.
What would Obama do?
…… wonder how I can stand to be so awesome day in and day out……
Via Instapundit
Guest Post by Barack Hussein Obama transcribed from the teleprompter by Moxie:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/moxie/2009/07/26/god-jr-on-his-incredible-humility/
I’ve spent the last three days flying my plane from Vancouver to Wisconsin, through the US. I’ve stayed in hotels and watched hours of the Weather Channel (pilots’ favourite channel). I can report that in all that time, “global warming” or “climate change” have never been mentioned or hinted at, which surprised me. This despite record setting (or near) heat in some areas, including Texas and the West Coast.
No wonder. Heidi Cullen was constantly held to account by The Weather Channel’s own commenters. The jig is up and the warmongers are slowly realizing it.
The oldest WWI veteran Henry Patch , died the day before yesterday, a few days after Harry Allingham .
Are there any Canadians still alive who served in this war? Just curious.
yobs?
don’t blame the beat cops for this thing. blame rests exclusively on the shoulders of the police chiefs and their political bosses seeking favour in politically correct ‘can’t-have-citizens-taking-the-law-in-their-own-hands’ mentality times.
everything is nuts now. all of it. muzzies rampaging with their bottles of acid and gasoline, trillions shelled out to industries in their death throes, and those truly ultimate alice-in-wonderland troglodites in the CHRC.
it’s going to be interesting when rational people are a minuscule minority, afraid to broach any topic whatsoever for fear of being subjected to something out of ‘invasion of the body snatchers’.
jeezuz jeezuz jeezuz.
Every day there’s further evidence that Great(?) Britain is finished as a civilized nation. Sad really. During the war, I used to grumble about arrogant “Limeys” but, now I feel truly sorry for those who have retained enough sanity to make them disgusted with that cesspool.
I should have said, the oldest veteran living in Britain.
I should have said, the oldest veteran living in Britain.
Sorry for the double-post.
Zog, we refer to it as “Cool Britannia” now.
Alan Caruba says that the best monicker for Obama is the “First Brat.”
The race-obsessed proprietor of Dawg’s Blawg has been having a miscarriage over those bad, bad policemen who answered a call to protect the property of a Harvard professor named Gates, and were greeted with a flurry of invective from the thankful professorial turd. It seems that Proessor Gates is black, and therefore, in Dawg’s world, excused from any obligation to display a modicum of civility to mere plebian cops.
Tonight, Dawg’s off on a tangent, attacking Mark Steyn for daring to write a column critical of the honoured academic, for the oafish behavior which ultimately bought him a trip to the station. Not only (according to Dawg) is classical liberal Steyn a racist shit disturber, but he can’t write very well! I guess that the editors and publishers who pay serious coin for Steyn’s stuff should, instead, be lining up for the pompous wit and wisdom of ol’John. Heh.
Black Mamba,
There is indeed one WWI Canadian veteran still with us. Or rather with our American friends as he has lived in Washington since the 1930s.
A spry, for 109! gent by the name of Jack Babcock.
Yeah, once GREAT Britain is no longer, she’s a mess. Stupid immigration and the politics of the Left will do that to any Nation, it’s a recipe for disaster.
Cool Britannia? More like ‘drool Britannia’.
Okay SDA regulars, slashdot has an article about the shenanigans and secrecy regarding the different temperature data sets and how some are being hidden to prevent scrutiny. Of course, there’s a good debate going on between the believers and the deniers. Many slashdot readers are non-political nerds, and believe whatever the MSM tells them, so here’s a chance to enlighten a few minds.
Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll
july 26/2009 -11
july 27/2009 -10
one point change since Sunday, Is that because he has invited the Cambridge,Mass police for a Beer?
The problem with an accusation, by such as Dawg or anyone else, of racism in the ‘Gates-Affair’ is that they are adamanatly focusing on an invalid, dust and moth-eaten template.
The left has instantly, as usual, rejected that the ‘minority’ can do wrong, and moved into their traditional template of Evil Authority, Evil White Man, Patriarchy…You know their trusty buzzwords.
But if the left would move, just for a few brief oxygen and light filling minutes, out of the darkness of their Cave – and check out the facts, they’d see a reality that we all know they will refuse to accept.
The reality is that Prof. Gates is the racist; that he instantly started to yell and rant at the police, calling them racists, accusing them of being there only because he was black. The police said and did nothing racist; the culprit who is the clear racist – is Gates.
The police were merely answering a 911 call about a suspected break-in. The tape of the 911 call, now released in part, says nothing about skin colour; just ‘two men’. The caller, a Portuguese woman who works in the area, didn’t mention skin colour.
Gates could have, as an adult, when the police came, acknowledged that he and his driver were indeed ‘bashing’ the door. Because it was jammed. And he could have immediately shown them identification to prove he was the resident. Oh- and he could have then thanked them for their care and diligence in the safety of the area..which had had breakins in the previous weeks.
Did he do any of this?
No. Instead, he instantly, immediately, began to yell at the police, accusing them of racism, calling them names, deriding their families, taunting them with his superiority..and refusing to provide identification.
Who’s the racist in this situation? Gates.
bryanr – Obama’s invitation for a beer is as stupid and arrogant as his ‘stupid remark’. But it fits his self-image of superiority.
Just as Obama feels that all that is needed to solve the mindsets and agendas of the Middle East is for them to come and sit at his feet and listen to him…equally, to imagine that having a beer-with-Obama will solve all problems is the height of narcissistic arrogance.
We can rest assured that Gates will remain firm in his commitment to racial prejudice against whites and against any authority. And so will Obama. Neither will ‘learn’ anything – and Obama’s statement that this will be a ‘learning moment’ was patronizing and elitist, treating everyone (except himself) as wayward adolescents. As Juan Williams, who is black, said – you can’t have a teaching moment based on a lie.
It is only the white cop who began with no prejudice and remains without one – perhaps he’ll realize what a fraud, each in their own role, the two, Obama and Gates are.
Does it get any dumber than this?
(via David Thompson)
The expressions on the faces of the audience are priceless.
God (and Kate) forgive me but, throughout the rambling monologue, I had this vision of Sarah Palin’s encounter with Katie Couric.
probably posted somewhere in the archives . but worth a repost
http://www.thethirdjihad.com/debka_july09.php?utm_source=Debka+July
Mississauga_Matt at 10:56 AM, I believe you’ve discovered the future Governor of California.
matt that is hillarious
Glas:
Never mind Govenor, I think the Democrat Party just found a future Presidential Canidate!!
I want a vegetable tree for my unicorn. That would be like so kewl.
he could have immediately shown them identification to prove he was the resident
He did. Massachusetts driver’s licence and Harvard ID. Can’t you people ever, ever get your facts straight?
Here is an excellent comment by Victor Davis Hanson in the National Review entitled ‘What Happened to our Postracial president’?
An excerpt:
“And Barack Obama’s prior racialism, as evidenced by two decades of attendance in, and subsidies to, the Reverend Wright’s racist church, leaves indelible scars. And so to paraphrase the reverend, the chickens are now coming home to roost for America.
The president’s apologies abroad focused on supposed American felonies, from slavery to the conquest of Native America to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Since there were many such lamentations, and they were not balanced by citing the gallantry of Shiloh or Gettysburg in ending slavery, or Guadalcanal to stop Japanese brutality, or Chosin to save South Korea, the impression was left that Barack Obama sees America quite differently from many, if not most, of its citizens — who understand our own sins as those shared with mankind, but our singular efforts at correcting them as unmatched abroad.”
“None of us gets a pass once we evoke racial identity, not even the president of the United States, not even one of mixed racial heritage. Once we go down that road of racial self-aggrandizement, of seeing each other not by the content of our characters, but by the color of our skins, we invite nemesis — and there will be retribution. Because Barack Obama has consistently emphasized racial identity to further his own advantage, I fear others, both black and white, will be emboldened to follow his polarizing lead — in ways both novel and far more pernicious. We once trusted our uniquely qualified president to help lead us out of our racial morass, but so far he has only pushed us far deeper into it.”
Obama didn’t spend 20 years in the Rev. Wright’s anti-American, anti-white, anti-wealth congregation for nothing. His wife, Michelle, is openly disdainful of America. Obama’s insistence on apologizing for America in every foreign trip, his insistence on moral equivalence, reveal his ignorance of, his rejection of and his disdain for American scientific, financial and moral accomplishments.
My dear MsMew – he didn’t immediately show his identification. He at first refused. He did that only after his long racist rant. Gates was the only one behaving in a racist manner.
I suggest you actually focus on the facts. Read the police report.
Posted by: Mississauga_Matt at July 27, 2009 10:56 AM
Watched that last week on some site or another )collegehumor???).
Took me three or four attempts to get through it, but it was more than worth it to learn there is slavery on the east coast.
Wrong again, ET.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/cambridge_polic_4.html
The tapes don’t lie. No yelling or ranting. Gates showed his ID and the officer wouldn’t leave.
As for the police report, it’s riddled with, ah, factual inaccuracies:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/crime_control_/2009/07/nightmare_on_ware_street.php
Read Crowley’s report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates’s Harvard photo ID. I don’t care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates’ right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates’ home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.
But for the sake of education, let’s watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He’s staying put in Gates’ home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he’ll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: “I’m sorry for disturbing you,” and “I’m glad you’re all right.”
I know you find it hard to believe that a kindly white police officer could ever bring himself to lie, but…it happens.
Second-last paragraph was part of the quotation.
Here is a very good outline of the HOnduras situation, from the Wall Street Journal, which sees Zeylaya’s removal as “a triumph for the rule of law”.
Removal of Zelaya was lawful
A few excerpts:
“ The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him”.
“Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military. ”
“ The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.”
“ Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.”
“ The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.”
“Read Crowley’s report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates’s Harvard photo ID. I don’t care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave.” Not so fast MsMew,Does this Harvard I.D. have an address on it? If not,then the cop has the right to detain him. A Harvard I.D. does not put one above the law(unless elected,I think).Also,the second sentence you quote is an opinion from a columnist. Don’t you ever,EVER think before you post?
“Does it get any dumber than this?”—from MM.— Too funny, Frank Zappa’s Valley Girl is all grown up ,and she is stunning.
The mere “columnist” is a lawyer with experience in police misconduct cases in Massachusetts.
Gates also showed his Massachusetts driver’s licence:
Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor who is representing Mr. Gates, said his client found his front door jammed, but was able to force it open with the help of his limo driver.
The police report on the incident says a white female caller notified police shortly before 1 p.m. that two black men were on the porch of Mr. Gates’s home, and that one was “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”
According to Mr. Ogletree, when an investigating officer arrived and asked for proof that he lived there, Mr. Gates provided both his Harvard University identification and his Massachusetts driver’s licence.
Do you ever do any research before you spout?
My dear Ms Mew – the facts remain, as in the police report. Have you read it? From the sounds of it, you haven’t. Again – base your conclusions on the facts. Go read the report. There are two, one by Crowley, and one by another officer who was with him.
Both affirm that Gates refused to provide ID; that he taunted the officer with racist slurs. Both affirm that Gates was yelling at the officer. Even after Gates provided his ID, and the officer was preparing to leave, Gates continued to rant at him, accuse him of racism, and taunt him. Do you approve of such behaviour?
As for Ms Whalen, who called in the 911 alarm, her call only referred to two men, but she referred to them to Sgt. Crowley, when he arrived as two black men. This, by the way, is totally irrelevant to the issue of racism. To describe someone’s skin colour is an act of description not of racism.
It is impossible for you to declare that the police report is ‘riddled with factual inaccuracies’.
No, according to the police report, he had provided Prof. Gates with his name FOUR times, and yet, Prof. Gates kept demanding it.
Please, Ms Mew, provide proof that the ‘white police officer’ as well as the ‘coloured police officer’ were both lying about Prof. Gates’ behaviour. Please provide proof, that although both declare that Prof. Gates refused to provide identification and yelled at and taunted Sgt Crowley with racist slurs.. that both were lying.
It may be hard for you to believe, but it is possible that a leftist, an elitist who taunted the police ‘Don’t you know who I am!’, could lie. And that such lying is irrelevant to his skin colour.
What was racist, were the taunts and yells of Prof. Gates. It may be hard for you to believe, but a black man can be racist.
Oh, and by the way, Ms Mew, your reference to ‘the columnist’ as a lawyer with experience in police misconduct cases is an example of fallacious argumentation.
First, it is an example of Argumentum ad Verecundiam – trying to validate your opinion by aligning it with some Authority (the lawyer).
Second, it is an example of a False Analogy – trying to validate your argument by a false correlation. Because this writer is a lawyer dealing with police misconduct does not empirically or logically mean that this case represents police misconduct.
MsMew: I suggest that if you ever find yourself involved in some sort of contretemps with a policeman, and you feel that you’re being misused, avoid taunting the cop with: “Yo Mama!”
I don’t know whether you’re black, white or tabby, but you’ll get yourself in trouble.
ET prefers to believe the police account, which my “columnist” demolished on internal evidence alone. That’s his/her right. S/he can fantasize all s/he wants about the factual accuracy of police reports.
But s/he should at least check the links I provided. The tapes of the encounter have now been released. No yelling is to be heard. Whose story does that back up?
Then ET retreats into this pretentious nonsense:
Oh, and by the way, Ms Mew, your reference to ‘the columnist’ as a lawyer with experience in police misconduct cases is an example of fallacious argumentation.
First, it is an example of Argumentum ad Verecundiam – trying to validate your opinion by aligning it with some Authority (the lawyer).
I was doing nothing of the sort. I had originally merely linked to his piece, and another commenter dismissed it as nothing but the opinion of a “columnist.” That wasn’t the whole story. Saying so is not fallacious reasoning.
But what of the other commenter? Why didn’t ET raise the same objection? He/she is evidently dishonest.
This wasn’t just some guy spouting off, but an attorney from the state who knows how to read a police report. But this isn’t an appeal to authority, merely a recognition of expertise in the area. By analogy, it is not argumentum ad vericundiam (why the capital letters, btw?) to point to an oncologist’s credentials when he offers an opinion about cancer.
Second, it is an example of a False Analogy – trying to validate your argument by a false correlation. Because this writer is a lawyer dealing with police misconduct does not empirically or logically mean that this case represents police misconduct.
Again, nonsense. If he has expertise in the area, he’s worth a listen. And I note that ET hasn’t refuted a word that he said–which explains the stamping of his/her little foot and the mantra, “But the police report! The police report! The poleeece report!” And then vanishing in a cloud of Latin.
S/he’s a lady, MsMew. It’s a catfight.
Ms Mew – an opinion of a columnist is an opinion. To insert, as you did, that the columnist is a lawyer dealing in police misconduct, is clearly a statement meant to influence we readers into accepting the veracity of his opinion. As I said, it’s a fallacious argumentation.
What the heck does expertise in police misconduct have to do with this case? Here you are, again, using a fallacious argument. ..petitio principii..or ‘begging the question’. Because the columnist is an ‘expert’ in police misconduct does NOT mean that one must assume that this case is about police misconduct! The facticity of police misconduct has to, first, be proven! Don’t you understand that? Obviously not.
Might I suggest that knowing when your argument is valid – or fallacious – is important when trying to make your argument? There’s nothing pretentious or nonsensical about knowing the difference between a valid and invalid claim of argumentation.
One uses capital letters when referring to the name of a fallacious argument.
You are quite right; it is not an Argument ad Verecundiam if an oncologist, who deals in cancerous tumours, is writing an article dealing with cancerous tumours.
It IS an Argument ad Verecundiam if YOU are trying to validate YOUR opinion on the Gates-Crowley incident by referring to an article written by a lawyer who deals in police misconduct, who is NOT writing about police misconduct, but is writing about the Gates-Crowley case. And he’s ‘not worth a listen’ if he doesn’t deal with the facts of the case but merely opines..as did Obama.
The 911 tapes released by the police reveal nothing of what you claim – that Gates was not shouting. The tapes reveal that Ms Whalen only said ‘two men’ and did not know their colour though she said one might be hispanic (kind of hispanic).
Another ‘individual can be heard in the background issuing what seems to be a protestation at some point in time’..though one cannot be sure this was Gates.
That’s it.
Again, read the police report. Both attest to the yelling and the racial slurs and the refusal to provide identification. Are you seriously going to claim that these two reports are false? I’ve asked you to provide some proof that both officers were lying.
Ms Mew – an opinion of a columnist is an opinion. To insert, as you did, that the columnist is a lawyer dealing in police misconduct, is clearly a statement meant to influence we readers into accepting the veracity of his opinion. As I said, it’s a fallacious argumentation.
And to dismiss his opinion as merely that of some “columnist” isn’t? Just listen to yourself.
In any case, your dogmatic insistence that expertise cannot confer authority is utterly bogus. Whom would you trust to deliver a lecture on string theory? A theoretical physicist or a journalist?
The argumentum ad vericundiam is fallacious if, for instance, one argues that because someone is the Pope, he knows more string theory than you. But there can indeed be legitimate authority that lends weight to an opinion.
What the heck does expertise in police misconduct have to do with this case?
You’re kidding, right? Such expertise also helps to determine that various events are not police misconduct. Expertise doesn’t mean that only one conclusion is ever reached.
You are quite right; it is not an Argument ad Verecundiam if an oncologist, who deals in cancerous tumours, is writing an article dealing with cancerous tumours.
By the same token, it is not argumentum ad vericundiam if I quote an oncologist’s opinion about cancer and point out that he’s an oncologist, not a journalist.
That’s it.
You obviously didn’t read the link I provided:
Sergeant James Crowley, the Cambridge police officer who ignited a national debate on racial profiling when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home, can be heard on a recording of radio transmissions to his dispatcher during the incident describing Gates as “uncooperative” and asking for more backup.
—
One thing the tapes didn’t show: any clear background sound that indicated Gates was shouting during the incident. Another voice can be heard in the background of at least three transmissions, but what the person is saying isn’t intelligible.
I read the poleeece report!! several times before even getting into this discussion. And I read the demolition of it by the aforesaid…columnist, whose arguments you have still, oddly, failed to address.
Finally, it seems to me that the onus is on you to prove that Crowley’s report is true in its particulars, rather than referring to it as though it came down from the mountain on two stone tablets. Alternatively, you might want to provide proof that Gates was lying. Fair’s fair.
And to dismiss his opinion as merely that of some “columnist” isn’t?
Read: “isn’t doing the exact-same thing in reverse?”
“We are pleased to announce that we have expanded our Health Care Law Practice. Attorney Lowry Heussler, formerly of the Board of Registration of Medicine”—,also,—“Do you ever do any research before you spout?” from Ms. Mew. I was wrong in labelling Lowry Heussler as a mere ‘columnist’. It appears that she is actually a mere medical malpractice lawyer. I googled the name and besides the article that the cat lady referenced,I could not find any other mention of ‘police misconduct’.Possibly,Heussler having just joined a law firm in the Boston area is looking to get her name out,or possibly she is just another twit along the lines of Sharpton,Jackson,Gates,etc.
phew, ms mew – you really need to take a course in basic logic and critical thinking.
Of course I can dismiss the lawyer’s opinion if I feel that it is not based on facts. That’s a valid conclusion on my part – because, there is no reason for me to accept his opinion. The ‘article’ by Mr. Ogletree is an ‘edited’ timeline outline of the events. It totally leaves out the rants and racist accusations of Prof. Gates which were heard by the other police; it ignores that the police officer gave his ID four times – and leaves one in a total blank as to why the officer arrested Prof. Gates.
After all, if the scenario were as idyllic and peaceful as Mr. Ogletree outlines, there would be no grounds for an arrest or for backup to be called in. So – I find the article empty and specious.
I don’t assert that expertise doesn’t confer validity. I do assert that claiming that one is an expert in one field does not confer validity in another field.
Expertise in police misconduct is irrelevant in this case, because there is no evidence of police misconduct!
No, the police tapes of the 911 call are not tapes of Crowley interrogating Gates. The lawyer columnist did not demolish the police report. It is quite different from the police report – and I therefore have to ask – what is the data base of this lawyer-columnist? Where does his data come from – and how can he substantiate it being different from the two police reports?
And the onus is most definitely NOT on me to prove that the police reports are untruthful. Gates has not provided an alternative statement and his lawyer’s statement is a carefully edited outline only of actions – with an obvious function of avoiding any debate. The outline is so different from the police report that one must question it. And again, wonder why an arrest was made.
You don’t explain why you reject the truth of the two police reports and why you accept the outline by Mr. Ogletree – who wasn’t there.
I didn’t say at any point that Heussler was a specialist in police misconduct; I said that she had dealt with a number of cases in Massachusetts. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
To suggest that she is playing some kind of race card here is, in itself, racist.
But enough of this. Will either you or ET address the arguments actually made in the article? Funny that I was accused of argumentum ad vericundiam, yet all you and ET have done since I originally put up the link (with no mention of her credentials) is play that self-same game. Address the arguments!
And, just for clarification, if appeal to authority is fallacious, so is its opposite (claiming or suggesting that an argument is false because the presenter is a “columnist,” for example).
Heussler isn’t playing a race card, MsMew, she’s playing a lawyer card. Either way, you can’t wave her defense-lawyerly “breakdown” of events, as a veritable truth weapon that the rest of us don’t get.
You wrote
“The tapes don’t lie. No yelling or ranting. Gates showed his ID and the officer wouldn’t leave. As for the police report, it’s riddled with…factual inaccuracies.”
Whoa. Let’s start with “The tapes don’t lie. No yelling or ranting.”
First off, you’ll note that the police transmission serially cuts off, throughout — in audio terms, a “gate”, as soon as the dispatcher and officer stop speaking. In other words, what you’re hearing is not a recording of events, like, say, a videotape would be, but rather an audio recording of communications between the dispatcher and the officer, with some background noise occasionally audible, but only when one of the two communicating parties are speaking — which, you’ll notice, isn’t exactly all the time.
Secondly — again, this pertains to “the tapes don’t lie. No yelling or ranting” — the police report describes that Gates was yelling and abusive and uncooperative, and that he THEN picked up the phone and dialed someone. The officer wrote in his report “As he did so..” (i.e. as Gates made his phone call) “… I radioed on channel 1” etc. In other words, Ms. Mew, the first radio communication from officer Officer Crowley after he arrived at the residence came when Gates began speaking to someone on his phone. So of *course* Gates wouldn’t be be yelling at/ranting/abusive towards officer Crowley while he’s making a phone call in order to — supposedly — find out who the chief of police is in order to register a complaint against the officer. Don’t you think?
2. “Gates showed his ID and the officer wouldn’t leave.”
If you yell at and abuse and refuse to cooperate with an officer by refusing to show him your ID, the fact that you — eventually, later — show your ID quite simply does not obviate your behaviour prior to that point.
3. “As for the police report, it’s riddled with factual inaccuracies.”
Name them, Ms. Mew. And we’ll all bear in mind that you weren’t actually there, so hopefully your source of “facts” will be someone other than the defense lawyer “expert” you cited.
My last post on this subject. “If he has expertise in the area, he’s worth a listen.” “I didn’t say at any point that Heussler was a specialist in police misconduct.” My favourite,”To suggest that she is playing some kind of race card here is, in itself, racist.” That defies rational thought.
MsMew — you’re clearly out of your class here. Maybe you can fool some of your fellow race-baiters with your quoted columns (which show nothing other than careful omission to try to prove certain “lies” or inaccuracies) but it’s not going to fly here.
I suggest a critical thinking class may be in order if you’re serious with the crap you’re trying to float here, or maybe just letting the door hit you on the behind if you’re only trying to spin the argument of a life-long race hustler like Gates.