Ashman, you have got to be joking.
Nothing Carl has stated shows he claims Crowley was correct. In fact, he stated it could go either way. What he has said is Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, are basic and prudent police actions. I do not see Carl protecting anybody or anything.
can you show where he is "protecting" Crowley? It is obvious that you have a desire simply to continue an argument, regardless of you being wrong.ashman:
This, quite simply, is a load of bs. It is clear that you are going to outright be deceptive to protect Crowley. Or, you haven't read any of the relevant paperwork. Or something. And I think it's funny that you seem to think that no one else here but you has the mental firepower to handle the awesome job of supreme intelligence that goes with being a police officer. It isn't mentally taxing, nor does it require deep thought.
They also taught me that not every black person opening the door to a house is a suspect. Pity you and Crowley didn't learn this lesson. Or, how to ask questions. I can imagine your cases require almost no time to resolve. Mine happened to take a little longer because I did actual police work. You know, collecting information, thinking a little about it. That kind of stuff
but since somebody that lives in the area believed the situation to be suspicious, the officer is going to enter the investigation with that fact as his basis for being there. Additionally, Crowley even states he believed Gates was the resident. He merely sought proof, which Gates initially refused (by Crowleys account).
You have to remember that the neighbor initiated the call. If the neighbor recognized it as Gates, we would not be discussing this.Yeah, taking the 30 seconds to ask the neighbor who lives there doesn't seem to cross your mind. Great police work there: have call, must respond to call, must ignore all I see and ask no question. Me see man, me approach. This is really not showing your police training in a positive light.
I suppose, in your opinion, Crowley should have walked around and question anybody in any house within a 1 block radius to see if maybe the guy that lived there was black or not, was on vacation, or not, and was seen sometime in the last week in this area.
where was that that Carl was lying? Ashman,I believe it is you that has the closed mind. You are the one that vilifies all who dare to disagree with you. You actually are the one that is arguing with no support and no facts yet you continue to insist Crowley is wrong.You say that like it's something noble, and that, again, you've handwaved away people who are cops and disagree with you. Or who have been cops and disagree with you. That's lovely. You've set up the condition, in typical Bush style, of for us or against us such that all people who disagree with you are on the other side of the thin blue line, and all people who agree with you (even when you are outright lying) are inside of it. That's cheap.
You have some serious problems ashman. Like before, with me, you claim to be holier than all and right in everything you say. Well, in this case, you are wrong. Show me a lie by Carl.ashman:
Awesome. This is a hard topic where we'd have to deal with the realities of law enforcement in the U.S. so you run off. I suppose that's better, on the other hand, than having you sit around and continually tell lies, make up evidence, ignore what is there and then use a personal testimony of some dubiously true story as your evidence.
Additionally, your position is the one making hard and fast conclusions using only the evidence you choose to see. I am not a cop. Never been a cop. Generally do not like cops but even I can see where Crowleys actions, absent the arrest, were simply prudent when faced with a suspect. As to the arrest; why do argue nobody had seen the statute? Look it up if you have a problem with connecting the statute with the actions. I have and the statute does support Crowleys actions if you do not have the Mass Supreme Court case that defined tumultuous a few years ago. As well, there is other case law that does tend to support Crowleys application of the law in cases previous to the Mass SC case.
and everybody needs to quit arguing "the elderly man of small stature that required a cane to walk"
Gates is not too small or too elderly to point and shoot a gun.
and to the need of a cane;
where was it when Gates followed Crowley outside? When arrested, all of a sudden he states he needs his cane to walk. The police, be respectful, went back into the house and retrieved it for Gates.
On top of that, Gates is crowing about his inability to raise his voice yet, have you heard of anybody disputing Crowleys claims of Gates actions the precipitated the arrest? The only statement I heard concerning such was in support of Crowley, but that was from a fellow officer so he must have been lying, right Ashman?