Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The hate for Obama
Options
Comments
-
Which could mean that their predictions were very optimistic.
And if he had done nothing, the unemployment rate could have been much much worse again. You haven't proved anything other than the prediction was optimistic. It doesn't follow that doing nothing, is the best answer.
In one of the links I provided, a person notes there are 4 pieces of information regarding the unemployment rate in the US.
1 - The rate predicted if the stimulus plan was not passed.
2 - The rate predicted if the stimulus plan was passed.
3 - The actual rate when the stimulus plan was passed.
4 - The actual rate had the stimulus plan not been passed.
1, 2 and 3 are all known. 4 only exists in an alternate reality where the stimulus plan was not passed.
1,2 and 3 show that the stimulus plan did not succeed by the measure of success cited by Obama in arguing for it - unemployment. Theres two conclusions here: Obamas team is directing economic policy based on faulty information and predictions, and Obamas policy is not successful by the mans own definition.
4 might have been much worse. 4 might have been much better. Nobody knows what it is. Nobody can know. Arguing that the stimulus plan is a success because 4 might be a terrible figure is not really a defence at all. You do not know what 4 is.
What you are basically saying is that the stimulus package can never be criticised or deemed to have failed because there will always be this unknown result if it had not been passed, and you are going to assume that it would always be worse.
Despite that assumption, doing something just to be seen to do something is not really helpful. Every decision is a trade off and has its costs, which might outweigh the benefits accrued from "doing something". The money spent on the stimulus plan did not spring from thin air - it was borrowed, at a time of tight liquidity, which impacts on everyones access to liquidity. Doing nothing, and leaving that money in system to ease liquidity might have done a lot more good than taking it and spending it on a plan that has failed by one of its primary measures of success.
This is even assuming that the money is wisely spent: Basically, huge numbers have been assigned to something called "Infrastructure". What that actually means in reality is decided later. It could end up with bridges to nowhere, with politicians spending the money on useless and otherwise pointless exercises simply because they do not wish to return the money and need to appease constituents - Id imagine returning the money might play well with fiscal conservitives, but not so well with unemployed fiscal conservitives let alone everyone else. This is especially true when the *speed* of delivering such stimulus is stressed - this money needs to be spent, it needs to be spent now, ASAP, we need to bypass anything that slows this spending...not exactly conditions for good oversight on the spending itself. Given that, the stimulus failing to protect unemployment might not be so surprising.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how Obamas stimulus plan affects economic theory. Up until now it has always been stressed that the government should act as a spender of last resort to keep the economy afloat during downturns.0 -
No, but we can draw conclusions based on other economic downturns, and since this one has eclipsed all the others in recent memory, but still not on par with the Great Depression, we are in uncharted territory. However we are obviously somewhere between those knowns.Arguing that the stimulus plan is a success because 4 might be a terrible figure is not really a defence at all. You do not know what 4 is.
What i've said, was that you cannot prove that the stimulus package has made the problem worse, because #4 is an unknown. And that stands. We have experience of a really bad scenario called the Great Depression in which we can use for comparitive purposes. I am NOT saying that Obama's stimulus plan is a success, nor am i saying it cannot be considered a failure. I'm saying that you cannot prove taht it's made the problem worse, as the economic downturn may have a momentum of it's own and regardles of what they try to throw at it, they cannot stop it from occuring.What you are basically saying is that the stimulus package can never be criticised or deemed to have failed because there will always be this unknown result if it had not been passed, and you are going to assume that it would always be worse.
Whatever the case, the Obama stimulus package has democratic legitamacy and the stamp of approval by the american electorate doesn't it? And it wasn't even done via referenda so you must be happy about that.
For my own part, i couldn't care if America is burdened by a massive national debt. Nor do i paricularly care if the US dollar tanks. I think they should address the huge elephant in the room (military budget) and out with the butchering knives. Use that as their next stimulus package.0 -
What i've said, was that you cannot prove that the stimulus package has made the problem worse, because #4 is an unknown. And that stands.
I don't need to prove the stimulus plan made the problem (unemployment rate?) worse. It is a vast outlay of cash, borrowed cash, where one of the primary arguments if not the primary argument was that it would reduce the impact on unemployment - it has failed by that measure, as unemployment has risen to a level in excess of that predicted if nothing had been done.
The onus would be on Obama and Co to demonstrate how the stimulus plan has helped keep unemployment down, as they argued for such spending on such a basis. But it has already failed by their measure of success on that front. It might not even be the best measure of success ( in a recession, steep unemployment is inescapable), perhaps the better measure of success is how quickly growth returns.
In that case, seeing as you cite the Great Depression/New Deal you might also want to investigate the post WW1 recession in the US. It was worse than 1929, yet the US government did precisely nothing, and the economy came back out of it very quickly. Great Depression on the other hand...was effectively only ended by WW2 despite New Deals etc etc.
Again, I dont need to argue how it has made things worse. It might not have made unemployment worse. The spending may have been such that it had little or no effect on employment.
They would need to show how things have been made better by borrowing a lot of cash, and spending it in such a fashion that unemployment rises to levels beyond their worst predictions.Whatever the case, the Obama stimulus package has democratic legitamacy and the stamp of approval by the american electorate doesn't it? And it wasn't even done via referenda so you must be happy about that.
Is that even a point of debate? Of course the plan was introduced with a mandate.0 -
I stopped reading your post right there, after the 1st sentence.I don't need to prove the stimulus plan made the problem (unemployment rate?) worse.
Because the reason i took issue with JohnMc1, is because he was saying that the Obama stimulus package has made the problem worse. You've weighed-in on the debate with your own opinions but have missed the actual point.0 -
Obama said that if the Stimulus plan was passed the unemployment rate would be held at 8%. It is now over 9% and could be possibly 10% or more before the year is out.
If that does not count as making things worse then I don't think you or other Obamabots will ever see sense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ditto. Everything I was taught about Capitalism in Economics, has been thrown out the door here. He took risk out of the economy, and the National Budget is taking the hit. Bad businesses dont fail, they get to keep making stupid financial decisions. With my money.
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how Obamas stimulus plan affects economic theory. Up until now it has always been stressed that the government should act as a spender of last resort to keep the economy afloat during downturns.0 -
I stopped reading your post right there, after the 1st sentence.
Your loss...
For the record, I didnt get tagged in by JohnMC1, I just disagreed with your line of reasoning below:Because, how can anybody say for example that the unemployment rate wouldn't have been worse, if Obama had done nothing?
Anyhoo...If that does not count as making things worse then I don't think you or other Obamabots will ever see sense.
That assumes theres a clear and direct link between the stimulus plan and the unemployment rate. Obama claimed there was or would be such a direct link that this spending would directly affect the unemployment rate. That remains unproven, at the very least Obamas economists appear to have misjudged the link or the situation. It isnt playing out like they hoped.
Obama's plan could actually be considered successful in that even though its missed its target rates, its still below the worst of the worst case scenario predictions (that economics document I linked before, it notes that some private analysts predicted a rate of unemployment up to 11% - if you accept that viewpoint, then Obamas plan is doing awesome relative to that prediction as the rate is still 9.5%).
It could still be successful if it leaves the US with better infrastructure, education and technology for a recovery. Assuming of course the money is spent wisely...which I would doubt is possible for every bit of spending.Ditto. Everything I was taught about Capitalism in Economics, has been thrown out the door here. He took risk out of the economy, and the National Budget is taking the hit. Bad businesses dont fail, they get to keep making stupid financial decisions. With my money.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts regulation - if some corporations are too big too fail then perhaps they should be broken up by law? If some corporations are incapable of managing their own risk (with hollering for tax payer bailouts) then perhaps the tax payer ought to have a say in the risk/products they take on?
Goldman Sachs for example has apparently had an awesome year in terms of profitability. Repaid its government bailout and still made a huge profit. In the old days, thats great. In the current climate, if you assume the link between risk and profit holds true (its the basis of investment theory) then if theyre making huge profits, then they must be taking similar levels of risk...it worked out for them this time, but can they sustain that risk, politically? If the taxpayer is a stakeholder in every major corporation thats "too big to fail" by default, then the taxpayer has an interest in ensuring Goldman Sachs minimises its risk even if that hurts shareholder profitablity.0 -
Obama said that if the Stimulus plan was passed the unemployment rate would be held at 8%. It is now over 9% and could be possibly 10% or more before the year is out.
If that does not count as making things worse then I don't think you or other Obamabots will ever see sense.
No, it doesn't count as making things worse!
Obama's team was wrong about what the stimulus could accomplish. It is absurd to conclude from that that the stimulus made the situation worse.
You're arguing a logical fallacy.0 -
LostinKildare wrote: »No, it doesn't count as making things worse!
Obama's team was wrong about what the stimulus could accomplish. It is absurd to conclude from that that the stimulus made the situation worse.
You're arguing a logical fallacy.
It hasn't made it better. Nothing has improved. That's not a fallacy. So I don't know how anybody with common sense can justify a second one.0 -
Well they see that the jobs created from the 10% that has already been spent have not been able to offset the jobs lost in the downturn.It hasn't made it better. Nothing has improved. That's not a fallacy. So I don't know how anybody with common sense can justify a second one.
So with common sense they might judge that the economy was worse than anticipated, that more spending is needed and it needs to be pumped in at a faster rate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well they see that the jobs created from the 10% that has already been spent have not been able to offset the jobs lost in the downturn.
So with common sense they might judge that the economy was worse than anticipated, that more spending is needed and it needs to be pumped in at a faster rate.
This assumes there is a proven link between the two.
Primitive peoples used to dance to encourage rain to fall. When it didnt fall, using common sense they might have judged the drought was worse than anticipated, that more dancing was needed and it needs to be danced at a faster rate.
See how that does not work?
Its a recession. There is no magic ratio that if Obama spends X amount of dollars that Y amount of jobs will be saved/created. Or at least, the ratio predicted by Obamas economists has been shown to be wrong. Badly wrong.0 -
Ruskie4Rent wrote: »Well they see that the jobs created from the 10% that has already been spent have not been able to offset the jobs lost in the downturn.
So with common sense they might judge that the economy was worse than anticipated, that more spending is needed and it needs to be pumped in at a faster rate.
Are you serious? I could never fathom that logic. That's like saying you'll pay off your credit card bill and your mortgage by spending more money like buying HD tvs and blu-ray DVD players.0 -
Well they were obviously wrong somewhere.This assumes there is a proven link between the two.
Primitive peoples used to dance to encourage rain to fall. When it didnt fall, using common sense they might have judged the drought was worse than anticipated, that more dancing was needed and it needs to be danced at a faster rate.
See how that does not work?
Its a recession. There is no magic ratio that if Obama spends X amount of dollars that Y amount of jobs will be saved/created. Or at least, the ratio predicted by Obamas economists has been shown to be wrong. Badly wrong.
BTW, i'm not making any assumptions. I'm just pointing out how the policy makers might justify extra stimulus.0 -
Well they were obviously wrong somewhere.
BTW, i'm not making any assumptions. I'm just pointing out how the policy makers might justify extra stimulus.
Fair enough, you might be right. Its quite possible that Obamas plan is helping unemployment - its just unproven there is any link, and obviously his political enemies are going to stick the boot in. Certainly he would be claiming the credit if things were playing out as his economists planned.0 -
But it will! Because you work in a deadend job at walmart. They make a margin on the electronics, and so do the manufacturers. and so does the geek squad people who have to fix the stupid crap you buy when you arent paying off your mortage, who are too poor to shop anywhere else but walmart. So walmart keeps paying you to sell stupid crap, and you can keep paying off your mortage by buying stupid crapAre you serious? I could never fathom that logic. That's like saying you'll pay off your credit card bill and your mortgage by spending more money like buying HD tvs and blu-ray DVD players.
/queue applause
you have to love spaghetti logic.0 -
It's all so feudal
for the record I don't hate Obama
just needs to look toward a future
that may not have so many automobiles0 -
I'd like to correct a few false statements, if I may.Him opening his mouth was the problem. He's an American Foggy Dewherst. His war stories are so made up its ridiculous [He was in 'Nam for 4 weeks with a camera crew conveniantly following him. Sustained no serious life threatening injuries and somehow left with 3 purple hearts and some other medals] His service was a joke.
The fact he was rightfully dubbed The King of Flip-Flops also didn't help either.
Now I know a lot was put out about Kerry back during the 2004 election period, and perhaps it is difficult to separate fact from fiction -- especially if a person is anti-Kerry to start with.
First of all, as another poster has pointed out, Kerry was in VN longer than four weeks. He was there a little over four months. And for most of those four months, he was performing a job that had him in combat. That is something that only about 10%-15% of guys who were there can claim. Most never fired their weapon in anger.
His "war stories" were not made up. If they were, then the 11-12 guys who served on the same boat with him would have all kinds of stories to disparage the awards he received for valor and/or his purple hearts. None of them -- not a one -- has done so.
He did not have a camera crew with him. Furthermore (not that this was claimed in the post I'm quoting, but is is frequently part and parcel of the same falsehood), he didn't go back to film re-enactments. This was specifically claimed regarding the place where he received the Silver Star. It just didn't happen. No film crew, no re-enactments.
"Life threatening" injuries are not, by any stretch of the imagination (or, more importantly, regulations) necessary for a person to earn/be awarded a Purple Heart. Bob Dole's first PH, for example, not only was a minor wound, but self-inflicted. That PH was quite valid, as were Kerry's.
Doug Reese0 -
Obama has been in power for what 6 almost 7 months?
And you think that that is ample time for him to turn the economy around?
Don't you think that this recession is rather, um bigger than that?
Isn't this the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?
If that is the case, then shouldn't we expect it to take a number of years before things improve?
I think that the recession/depression is like a blackhole, and no matter what sort of goodies you throw at it, they just get swallowed right up in a big sh*t storm. Obama is damned if he does nothing, and damned if he throws money at it.
At least by throwing money at the problem it may soften some of the fall out. But the recession really has to run it's course.
It's pretty much what they all say.
Now that doesn't mean we should just throw are hands up and pretend there's nothing constructive to do.
Hard decisions have to be made.
But Obama's presidency is too young to say he's made the problem worse.
Because, how can anybody say for example that the unemployment rate wouldn't have been worse, if Obama had done nothing?
And lets remember that George W Bush was puzzled that the downturn of the economy happen to occur on his clock.0 -
Obama seems to have swerved into oncoming traffic with his unnecessary and uninformed intervention on the Gates drama there."I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three – what I think we know separate and apart from this incident – is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."
From calling the police "stupid" hes been forced to admit the police officer in question was "outstanding" and clarify that he was not calling the officer stupid."From what I can tell, the sergeant who was involved is an outstanding police officer, but my suspicion is probably that it would have been better if cooler heads had prevailed."
Obama has been forced into this U-turn as it becomes clear that whatever happened between Gates and Crowely, Crowely is not a cookie cutter out-of-control racist rogue cop as portrayed by Gates in his account. He actually teaches his departments racial sensitivity courses and has been hailed by his police department as being a "stellar" policeman.
If anything, the police officer in his response to Obama comes across as rather impressive - cool, professional, and calm."I support the president of the United States 110 percent," he told WBZ-AM. "I think he was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts, as he himself stated before he made that comment."
The sergeant added: "I guess a friend of mine would support my position, too."
He has also confirmed that he will not apologise to Gates, and that he did nothing wrong.
It is a fair bit of a stumble for Obama to barge into something he doesnt need to, based on what he himself admitted was little or no information, make bad assumptions and now he needs to extricate himself with the minimum of fuss. Certainly wont help his popularity ratings.
It probably didnt help that theres been a startling amount of assumption and poor fact checking in the reporting of the incident. It long ago stopped being about the incident and instead has become a rallying point for other causes to superimpose their own views and interpretations over. This hasnt been helped by Gates who has seemingly channelled the entire historical suffering of the African-American people into his personage as some sort of avatar - the man himself is a noted academic specialising in African-American issues/history so his attitude might be explained by a mixture of jet lag ( Flying from China probably isnt fun), intellectual snobbery ( do you know who I am?) and chip on the shoulder (Gates has claimed Crowely "couldn't understand a black man standing up for his rights, right in his face.")
Apparently Gates was fairly aggressive right from the off, accusing Crowely of being a racist (Gates seemed annoyed that he was being questioned as to his ownership of the house) and yelled and shouted at Crowely, trying to pull rank on him, apparently making ( I **** you not) a "Yore Ma!" style comment to Crowely. Regardless of the rights and wrong of that, making "Yore Ma!" comments to a police officer...in any country...is the quickest way to a jail cell.
I reckon Obama was sympathetic to his friend but its not played well for him. His personal popularity remains decent ( though it is apparently less than George Bush's popularity at the same point in his presidency ?!?!) but hes encountering difficulties with his legislative program and hes not winning friends with stumbles like the above.0 -
I reckon Obama was sympathetic to his friend but its not played well for him. His personal popularity remains decent ( though it is apparently less than George Bush's popularity at the same point in his presidency ?!?!)
At this point in George W's presidency they weren't involved in any wars, had a massive budget surplus and were experiencing robust economic growth. I think those factors might explain that!0 -
Advertisement
-
At this point in George W's presidency they weren't involved in any wars, had a massive budget surplus and were experiencing robust economic growth. I think those factors might explain that!
Did these factors hurt him as much a few months ago?0 -
Hi,
First I heard of this was on the Michael Graham slot of the George Hook show this evening, I've been trawling the net since getting snippets of info and differing views.
I can't believe Obama could have been that careless not knowing the facts and shouting his mouth off, makes me wonder whose pulling his strings!
Bush was a ........ but even he wouldn't have denounced the authorities like that for whatever reason especially the atrocities that came out of Guantanamo and I-Raq!
I definetly think Obama was under massive pressure from prominent supporters to make this attack - Foolish and unwarranted!
There have been calls for this to be put to bed and move on but I think Sgt crowley deserves a public apology even if he doesn't look for it as he was wrongfully slated on national TV.
CS
PS I liked Obama and if I had had a vote i would have voted for him, no I'm not racist!0 -
Regardless of the rights and wrong of that, making "Yore Ma!" comments to a police officer...in any country...is the quickest way to a jail cell.
That's the crux of the matter.
Whether Gates was angrily haranguing Crowley (Crowley's version of events), or righteously defending himself against racial profiling (Gates's version), doesn't matter. You have the right to free speech, especially in your own home, but also in public. It's not illegal to yell at or even curse at a cop (though cursing doesn't enter into this episode, afaik), and in fact if Gates was going on about racial profiling, that's political speech, which is recognized in law as particularly worthy of protection."[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
...
No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510.
From Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990)
Cops generally expect deference; so does H-L Gates, who is a proud and revered figure in American academia. So what you have is a p*ssing contest between two egos. As a trained, professional policeman, Crowley should have withdrawn, but instead he did what cops do -- arrest the person on a trumped-up "disorderly conduct" charge. Disorderly conduct involves disrupting lawful activities of other members of the public, or inciting others to unlawful actions. Not challenging the authority of a policeman. Thus the charges against Gates were dropped immediately.
So why does Crowley deserve an apology? Gates should get one. He might (or might not) have acted like an *sshole, but his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional. I hope he sues.0 -
It's not illegal to yell at or even curse at a cop (though cursing doesn't enter into this episode, afaik)
It is illegal to create a public disorder doing so though. While there is scope for criticism of police action you would have to demonstrate that Gates was actually criticising police action, as opposed to refusing to co-operate with a lawful police investigation (of the suspected break in).As a trained, professional policeman, Crowley should have withdrawn, but instead he did what cops do -- arrest the person on a trumped-up "disorderly conduct" charge. Disorderly conduct involves disrupting lawful activities of other members of the public, or inciting others to unlawful actions. Not challenging the authority of a policeman. Thus the charges against Gates were dropped immediately.
Crowley did withdraw, Gates pursued him continuing to shout and abuse him. Crowely warned him was creating a public disorder. Gates ( who clearly was on a power trip) continued to abuse the police officer and was arrested for creating a public disorder. Gates probably imagined that because he was a Harvard professor that he was above the law, that no one would dare arrest him, a friend of the US President. He was wrong, thankfully.
Crowley didnt do anything wrong, and nothing that would be unpredictable if youre making remarks about a police officers mother. On the other hand, Gates acted in a completely irrational fashion - as Crowley said himself later you dont expect a Harvard professor to be screaming and shouting, insulting your mother.
Gates has attempted to paint the issue as a race issue - but more obviously its a class issue. A rich intellectual, friend of the president, enraged that some blue collar nobody thinks he can question him or tell him to calm down.Thus the charges against Gates were dropped immediately.
The charges were dropped because Gates is a friend of the US president and it had become a political issue. Local politicians and the police department probably didnt need the hassle.
Plenty of people are arrested for public disorder and worse, thrown in a jail cell to cool off and then released with a warning. By doing so police nip a potential problem in the bud ( aggressive drunks wandering the streets for example) and dont waste court time on minor offences. It doesnt imply that the arrest was unlawful or wrong, just that prosecutors have bigger problems to deal with.So why does Crowley deserve an apology? Gates should get one. He might (or might not) have acted like an *sshole, but his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional. I hope he sues.
Crowley deserves an apology because hes still a human being, and deserves a bit of respect and dignity even when he is in uniform. His mother also deserves an apology from Gates.
Now Gates doesnt have to give either of them an apology - he may remain convinced that police officers ought to be insulted, belittled and abused or that it actually reflects well on him to do so. But he ought to apologise.
Gates doesnt deserve an apology. Simply because hes a respected academic and friend of the President of the US it doesnt give him the right to feel he is above the law. Nor should it. The concept that it is outrageous for a Harvard professor to be arrested is in itself dangerous.
I mean, look at the chain of events?
1 - A passerby spots two men forcing the door of a house. She reports this.
2 - Crowley is nearby and investigates. He approaches the house where he suspects there are 2 men inside, possibly thieves, possibly armed.
3 - He encounter Gates who from the start is abusive and unco-operative, refusing to even confirm there is a second person in the house or where.
4 - With great difficulty, he eventually confirms Gates identity and leaves having been abused and shouted at by Gates throughout, who also abuses his mother.
5 - Gates follows him outside continuing the abuse, hes warned to stop, and then arrested.
Now here is how it could have gone down.
1 - A passerby spots two men forcing the door of a house. She reports this.
2 - Crowley is nearby and investigates. He approaches the house where he suspects there are 2 men inside, possibly thieves, possibly armed.
3 - He encounters Gates who is polite, explains the situation, provides his ID and thanks the police for their concern over his property.
4 - Police officer leaves. Everyone lives happily ever after.
The guy at fault here is Gates. He seems to be a drama queen and ought to apologise. Not that he will of course.
Certainly, I hope Gates sues too. He will be destroyed in court.0 -
Great post Sand. Its pretty obvious from some of the responses her who is following this and who isn't.0
-
Thus the charges against Gates were dropped immediately.
A decision to prosecute or not is not reliant purely on the validity of an arrest.
You logic would be akin to my saying that since Gates is not planning on sueing the police for false arrest, that this is because he knew it was not legally a false arrest and he would thus lose.
NTM0 -
It is illegal to create a public disorder doing so though.
Yes, but Gates's behavior -- even if it was as described in the police report, though this is in dispute -- did not rise to the level of public disorder.What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?
Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. . .
The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.
http://www.slate.com/id/2223379/
No, the speech doesn't have to be criticism of police action to be protected, it's just that if it is, then it is even more strenuously protected than ordinary speech.While there is scope for criticism of police action you would have to demonstrate that Gates was actually criticising police action, . . .as opposed to refusing to co-operate with a lawful police investigation (of the suspected break in).
As the police report indicates, he wasn't arrested for refusing to cooperate with a lawful police investigation. The investigation was done. He was arrested for yelling at the policeman. As you say,Crowley did withdraw, Gates pursued him continuing to shout and abuse him. Crowely warned him was creating a public disorder. Gates ( who clearly was on a power trip) continued to abuse the police officer and was arrested for creating a public disorder.
Verbally abusing a police officer is not a public disorder per Massachusetts law, and Crowley's warning doesn't make it so. Possibly Gates did think he was "above the law," as you say, or possibly he was aware of his rights and knew he wasn't breaking the law. There's no law against acting the maggot.Crowley didnt do anything wrong, and nothing that would be unpredictable if youre making remarks about a police officers mother.
I agree that it's not unpredictable. Most people who have lived in a large U.S. city know that cops might arrest you if you make them angry. That doesn't make it legal, though.The charges were dropped because Gates is a friend of the US president and it had become a political issue.
Hm. Believe that if you want, but I think it's pretty clear that there was no case. The statute under which Gates was arrested has been interpreted very narrowly to permit arrest based on disorderly conduct only where the actions went beyond merely speech (such as a threat of physical violence or other physical threat) or the speech amounts to "fight words" (which basically means that he words themselves are so offensive that we would not expect a reasonable person to be able to control himself or herself from attacking the person--or the words otherwise are an incitement to violence). Any other speech is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, and an arrest for that speech is a civil rights violation under federal law.
I'm not saying Gates behaved well, or that policemen aren't deserving of human kindness and dignity. It would have been MUCH BETTER if everyone had kept their heads. But if you think that the police are LEGALLY entitled to personal respect, then you are wrong.
Here is another case, in which a person was arrested under the same Mass. statute Crowley arrested Gates under:Levine v. Clement, 333 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004). A man had been yelling at a parade about the Canadian flag (reportedly including the F-word to describe Canada and its flag). A police officer asked him to change the manner in which he was expressing himself. He yelled at the police officer, refusing to change his manner, and reportedly challenged the officer to arrest him. The officer arrested him for disorderly conduct. The court held that disorderly conduct can only be applied against speech that is not constitutionally protected, and that "neither a provocative nor a foul mouth" can be deemed disorderly conduct and that there must be conduct that "disturbs through acts other than speech." The court ruled on summary judgment that the officer violated the man's civil rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have believed that the man's behavior was not constitutionally protected.Certainly, I hope Gates sues too. He will be destroyed in court.
I don't think it'll go to court because either Gates won't pursue it, for whatever reason (preferring instead to have a conciliatory beer with Crowley?), or if he stays angry because the Cambridge PD will settle out of court (it'd be interesting to know how much they pay out per year in wrongful arrests; most police depts. get hammered by civil rights violations). If it does end up in court, I'll bet you a beer that Gates wins.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »A decision to prosecute or not is not reliant purely on the validity of an arrest.
You logic would be akin to my saying that since Gates is not planning on sueing the police for false arrest, that this is because he knew it was not legally a false arrest and he would thus lose.
NTM
Valid point. I don't know why the charges were dropped, but will you read the posts I've made and comment on whether you think the charges were legally valid?0 -
Yes, but Gates's behavior -- even if it was as described in the police report, though this is in dispute -- did not rise to the level of public disorder.
In fairness:
- Your source is not a court of law, though maybe they have taken advice from lawyers in the writing of the article. Gates's activity has not been tested in a court of law. No determination has been made other than what the police officers on the scene determined.
- Crowely claims Gates was causing a public disorder through his shouting and yelling. None of the other police officers there disagreed. They are not lawyers, but they didnt seem to have any issue with Crowelys interpretation or application of the law. His police department, despite the political pressure, is backing him to the hilt on the validity of the arrest.No, the speech doesn't have to be criticism of police action to be protected, it's just that if it is, then it is even more strenuously protected than ordinary speech.
Then why raise it if it is irrelevant? Its apparently completely legal to shout and scream abuse at people in a public space? Regardless of cause. Id imagine so long as you dont use hate speech, you can stand in a street screaming abuse at random people and its all totally legal?
I really, really, really, really, really ****ing doubt that if the police caught those guys in the act that they wouldnt find *something* to charge them under. Even if they had to go back to the 17th century.As the police report indicates, he wasn't arrested for refusing to cooperate with a lawful police investigation. The investigation was done. He was arrested for yelling at the policeman. As you say,
So again, the political/criticism of police action angle is irrelevant, hes just some guy standing in a public space screaming and yelling abuse at people?
Thats not causing a public disorder?Verbally abusing a police officer is not a public disorder per Massachusetts law, and Crowley's warning doesn't make it so. Possibly Gates did think he was "above the law," as you say, or possibly he was aware of his rights and knew he wasn't breaking the law. There's no law against acting the maggot.
Gates wasnt arrested for abusing a police officer. He was arrested for causing a public disorder, after having been warned to calm down.Hm. Believe that if you want, but I think it's pretty clear that there was no case.
You have the President of the United States of America in a national ( and by repetition international) press conference criticising the arrest of a friend of his. You think that doesnt have an effect on people looking to climb the political ladder? Come on.
Gates was trying to call contacts of his from the moment Crowely asked him for ID - he and his circle of friends were probably drumming up every political and legal contact they had inside the first hour of his arrest. Id imagine the police department chief got more than few furious phonecalls from various local politicians over their friend being arrested.But if you think that the police are LEGALLY entitled to personal respect, then you are wrong.
This is tricky to explain.
I dont think Crowely is legally entitled to any more personal respect by virtue of his office as a police officer than any other citizen would expect. Though he remains a human being and deserves the same level of respect we would expect ourselves all other things being equal.
I do believe that police officers, by virtue of their role in enforcing the law and protecting citizens deserve at least the same respect in the professional role as we would expect when carrying out our own professional roles. Perhaps more, because Crowely is not a delivery boy, nor is he a retail store manager or a media consultant.
He is an officer of the law.
Charged with enforcing the laws passed by the legislature and protecting the citizens of the state. There is a certain level of expectation in that office. We dont expect delivery boys to tackle armed thugs. We dont expect delivery boys to protect us from criminals. We dont expect delivery boys to patrol endlessly at all hours of day and night to discourage criminals.
There is a certain level of respect that such an office should receive. Gates wasnt required to bow down before Crowely - there is not the slightest indication in any account that Crowely was ever rude or uncivil towards Gates despite the provocation offered by Gates. But Gates ought to at least be civil and polite to Crowely, both on a personal level and taking into account his role as an agent of the law.
Obviously some people hold different views. Some might say academics/intellectuals like Gates might have a inbuilt hostility towards officers of the law, that they feel to be polite and civil to an officer might be mistaken for servility or inferiority. They might feel that to protect and advance their own civil rights ( ironically protected and enforced by police officers) that they need to be at best uncooperative and at worst downright abusive towards police.
Now thats fine. But lets remember that police officers remain human. If you are civil and polite, theyll ignore you when you do something technically illegal but overall harmless. They have real criminals to catch. However if you motivate them by pissing them off, they will take a different view of technically illegal actions - they wont see any reason to do you a favour in letting you off.
Gates thought he could scream and shout in the street at a police officer and it would be totally legal. Maybe he consulted an internet lawyer. Maybe he thought that because he was a Harvard professor that he had some right to abuse the "little" people. Unfortunately, he was wrong. He was arrested, warned, and sent on his way.
Hopefully the next police officer who calls to investigate a break in at the Gates household ( that will be a fun duty ) will get at least some basic level of respect thats owed to all human beings.
This is something everyone knows - if you try to belittle a police officer, fine. You can do that legally, probably. He can also look for any excuse to arrest you legally (and lets not forget, Crowely warned Gates beforehand that he would be arrested - Gates just could not conceive that a man on his salary could be arrested). Thats widely known and tolerated because respect for the office is important.
Now, maybe it would be a better world if police officers were not treated with any additional respect. Perhaps it would be a better world if Crowely, having recognised that Gates was an intellectual, a harvard professor, one of the elite...that he should have doffed his cap, cast his eyes to the floor and stammered out a desperate apology for daring to question a friend of the US President and beat a retreat as fast as his flatfeet would let him. Perhaps.
But I would think its still better to live in a world where people, for whatever reason, give the office at least basic dignity and respect. Where police officers dont feel the need to back down and retreat from confrontation with "connected" people.I don't think it'll go to court because either Gates won't pursue it, for whatever reason (preferring instead to have a conciliatory beer with Crowley?), or if he stays angry because the Cambridge PD will settle out of court (it'd be interesting to know how much they pay out per year in wrongful arrests; most police depts. get hammered by civil rights violations). If it does end up in court, I'll bet you a beer that Gates wins.
From what I have seen of Gates, I would very much doubt he would have a drink with anyone who earns significantly less than he does.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think I should clarify the above slightly - I think Gates is a hard person to defend. Hes clearly a bit of an asshole/drama queen and so on. People taking his side wont be defending him as a person as such, or defending his conduct...they will be defending the rights of any citizen from random harrassement by a police officer.
Thats fair enough. I understand and respect that. A directed, premeditated abuse of powers by police officers to arrest people just for the giggles or because some guy is sleeping with a cops ex wife...grand. Thats over the line. Police officers are granted powers by citizens with certain conditions, the primary one being not to abuse those powers for personal ends.
Nobody complains about police abusing powers when they ignore minor offences or let you off with a warning when you do something technically illegal. Legally, they should haul you up to the courts, throw you in jail. In practise, they exercise some judgement to "ignore" the crime. Everyone knows this. If you are halfway polite and civil with the police and dont have dead hookers in your boot, you probably wont get much more than a warning for breaking the speed limit by a few miles.
By the same logic, they can decide not to go easy on you and instead enforce the law to the letter if they so judge it appropriate. I.E. if you start insulting their mother. Everyone knows this. Again, people tend to trust the police to exercise their judgement wisely and nobody likes assholes so **** them? Right?
Gates isnt being targeted by the police. He wasnt a victim of racial profiling. He isnt the victim of systematic campaign of intimidation. His civil rights are fairly safe. He did something that was techncially, theoretically illegal in the opinion of the police, and he did everything possible to ensure the police didnt feel any reason to let it slide.
Consider it a character building life experience. Theres absolutely no indication Crowely is anything other than an outstanding police officer, as Obama was forced to admit himself in an attempt to get out of the quicksand he rather foolishly waded into.
The white working class male constituency isnt prime Obama territory. Its probably not prime Democrat terroritory in general. Its probably less so after the anger caused by comments made regarding Obamas stimulus plan, and even less again when Obama starts criticising an "outstanding" officer and implies a racial context to the arrest.
As many commentators have noted, Obama was smart enough not to wade into race politics before this, and this is a bit of debacle for him, implying racism where its more clearly self important asshole (Gates) versus a cop not inclined to take **** ( Crowely).0
Advertisement