JokersWild24

Heck with it...

 

You don't know where the community is. If you know it's in a gated community, fine...but you don't seem to know. So it seems you are just making things up to help support your argument. Regardless of where it is...the Police Officer RECEIVED A COMPLAINT, that someone might be breaking in. What would you have him do? Ignore the call? If I were the homeowner, that would upset me more than him showing up and making sure I live there.

 

How did he make a mistake? Simple answer...he did not.

No offense, but I think it's more than fair to say that the neighborhood he lived in was an affluent part of Cambridge, which is an affluent town in and of itself.

Most are probably in agreement that a mistake was made to arrest a guy in his own house, especially when he and a colleague show ID. Sorry, but what lawful basis do you have to arrest someone in their own home?

Please... This shouldn't even be an argument. Gates made over $200K in base salary alone... in 1993. No bonuses, anything like that. He's one of the top professors at Harvard. He was previously named one of Time's 25 Most Influential Americans. I think he can afford to live in a gated community if he wants to.

By all means though, let's all say the cop was the voice of good reason though. It's really a pathetic stretch to act like he was in the right, but by all means, carry on. How dare anyone even question his judgement versus the word of two Harvard professors who are showing him ID, right?

Contrary to popular belief, making a police officer mad isn't an arrestable offense. I dunno... maybe he could have checked their ID's and moved on because one of them lived there? I mean, I'd think that's how things work, but who knows?

Dude wants to get the fat salary to roll around a nice neighborhood and do nothing, but can't handle the people who fund that daring to look at him wrong when he's basically harassing them? Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Don't want to be around entitled people? Don't take their fat salary to patrol a gated community full of rich people. Pretty simple. I'm sure the dude and all the wisdom everyone is importing on him is doing so much better off than Gates now though, so I'm sure he's fine.

Don't lose sleep over it. There are people who didn't know that using boy to an adult black man is racially insulting and don't get me started on the Cleveland anchor who used a word that apparently no one knew was a racially offensive word either. It'll be all right. I never knew low rent was a degrading term either. Oh well.......

Probably would have been more PC to call him "foolish", talk about a "quill in his cap of screwups", "have his temper tantrums, make bad decisions", "had a child like attitude"? Call a Senator a "tool"? Maybe some "hug a thug" policy?

How about if I just completely butchered an understanding of the separation of powers in an argument and got haughty when multiple people rightly corrected me?

Nah... it's acceptable to do that, but how dare you do the same when someone else doesn't agree with it. I'm cool. Didn't know the history of 'low rent', shoulda just called the guy a clown. My apologies.

Oh wait, I'm an elitist for saying the guys from Harvard are smarter than him. I don't have to apologize. That's what us elitists do.

He called one cop a low rent goof. Not all of them.

Just wanted to add, I really didn't know that 'low rent' was an older term with some pejorative connotations. That was not my intent at all. I was just trying to make the point that this was probably a country club, gated community that wasn't exactly known for violence, but a guy who probably didn't live there came in guns blazing and you have what you had.

Not an indictment of all officers either. I just think that given the whole ordeal, it would have been easy for the guy to realize he made a mistake and walk away with hurt pride instead of making it the storm it turned into.

I'd imagine that other people at the university or in the Cambridge community, many of them accomplished minorities themselves, probably weren't encouraged by the incident. When you work in an area with a wealthy tax base that funds you to protect their exclusive neighborhood, it probably isn't a good idea to ruffle the feathers of too many constituents.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life that those types of people can fund a new department quicker than the officer could replenish the tax base if it were to begin eroding.

Doesn't mean it isn't right or that it isn't petty, but I'm guessing that it's fairly well understood that it comes with the territory when you sign up to cash their township's checks, and that if they really had that much of a problem with it, they could probably part ways amicably and the people who live there could do what they could to find someone who didn't mind.

You just figured this out? This has been going on for years on liberal news stations sensationalizingg the negative even if it is in the minority of what everyone else thinks of the situation only so they can sensationalize for their own agendas.

 

This is nothing new at all

I've been onto the general sensationalism in the media for awhile now. Give me some credit, even if I am a butthole.

Rondo and Lin can both fade away. The Lakers need to focus on the future of Jordan Clarkson. Rondo is a headache and he's done. Kobe is just about done. Bringing in Rondo does nothing but ruin any chance at Westbrook in 2017. No way Rondo is going to pay attention to anything Randle says.

Not really saying that he's going to go to him for advice or anything, just that as two type-A's, they'd probably enjoy playing together. I really think Rondo wants to win above all else. Putting him in a backcourt with a ball-stopper like Monta Ellis probably wasn't a very good idea in hindsight.

Don't normally do this, but I thought it was worth sharing. An acquaintance from Undergrad posted this on Facebook. I know it's probably a shock to some, but the news on the area is a bit sensationalized and shows the worst. It's appealing to the lowest common denominator in so many ways.

Know that this probably won't stop much, if any, of the bashing, but the same news clips portraying the ugliest parts of all of this while a majority of the country without really offering anything proactive are the same kinds of things that Kentuckians, myself included, often get upset about when negative stereotypes about our own State are perpetuated in the media. Just food for thought.

Anyway, here's what he had posted a couple of days ago, and below is a post from today:

"I'm proud that students from the University of Maryland Baltimore and the University of Baltimore came together yesterday to support social justice. I'm heartened that so many are willing to lend their voices to a difficult conversation. As larger marches take place today, we have a responsibility to make sure protests remain peaceful though. Respectable police officers and protestors make up a majority of each group, and neither group can tolerate those in their ranks who use unnecessary violence. Coalitions are difficult to build, and necessary for change. We cannot allow fractious actions to splinter the push for social justice. ‪#‎freddiegray‬ ‪#‎march‬ ‪#‎peacefully‬"

Today:

For anyone looking to help out Baltimore in the coming days, this is a pretty inclusive list of ways you can do so, and how to get more information on the options listed. For those who school or work may prevent from being as active as they'd like to be, don't forget that even small donations are worthwhile. Please remember your efforts and attention are needed after today, after tomorrow, and after this week! This needs to be a lifelong effort, long after the spotlight has faded. ‪#‎baltimore‬ ‪#‎Bmore‬ ‪#‎prayforbaltimore‬ ‪#‎withyouractions‬"

How to help: Donation and volunteer opportunities in the aftermath of riots - Baltimore Sun

Lack of scoring is for the most part a product of poor officiating the other part is the volume of poor perimeter shooters.

When a good legal solid screen and a hard sharp cut are blown up by a big and strong forearm chucking the offense off their cut and no call is continually not made then that's a problem with officiating.Sadly the game has become one of brute strength over the utilization of fundamental skills

Shooting is work and becoming a really good shooter is even more work. Alot of kids want to play the game but not work on their game.

I also think that besides dropping the shot clock to 30 seconds they should consider dropping the 10 second backcourt violation basck to 8 seconds like the NBA

With all of the pressing in the collegiate game, that would probably exacerbate a lot of the "brute strength" and officiating concerns that you have with the current product. Lots more grabbing, holding, and hacking with a 20% reduction in getting it across the timeline.

It seems like such a grey area, and I do not like that. It seems to me that if you have someone leaving the party that was in attendance and they state there are under-age people drinking there, and all of these cars are piling out of the party then that is reasonable suspicion that people are drinking and driving. I just hope I am not picked to sit on this jury if it gets to that point as I would need a refresher on legal rules and rights.

If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, lots of those grey areas are decided by the Judge (and to some extent, each side's attorneys) at pre-trial long before things make it to the jury.

Definitely one of those things where there is lots of grey area, but at the same time, it's unlikely that you ever really see two identical cases.

According to how you frame the premise, things can change. Just a quick example based on what you've said about a report: you'll be more likely to have legally stopped a car or two that are the only ones there than you would be to stop fifty of them to catch one person. Post #469 in this thread kind of gets at that.

BBC article comparing Fergueson and Baltimore, and it specifically talks about the crowd control and some of the issues mentioned here:

Freddie Gray: How Baltimore differs from Ferguson - BBC News

The second and third are articles from The Atlantic, a publication based in nearby DC. The second talks about non-violence as compliance and deals with some of the undercurrents that have led to the riots:

As Riots Follow Freddie Gray's Death in Baltimore, Calls for Calm Ring Hollow - The Atlantic

The third details some of the civilian complaints against Baltimore police over the years and the amount of money that the city's had to pay out to settle those (some well-founded, others probably not so much):

Freddie Gray Is Only the Latest Apparent Victim of Baltimore Police Violence - The Atlantic

Take these with a grain of salt, as I know nothing about crowd control and apparently source Twitter and other non-professionals.

While not condoning rioting, I think that these are a bit higher brow and more rooted in a narrative of long term cause-and-effect as opposed to what I'm perceiving as the popular mantra here, which seems to be "busting heads the Western District way" (to borrow a phrase from Herc).

That isn't to say that I'm opposed to "busting heads", only that I think the ideal solution is a possibly a bit less archaic than some are presenting it. Busting too many heads on each side is most likely what's gotten Baltimore to this point, so I'm not really sure that going at that even harder is going to provide a sustainable solution.

I've avoided this and the other threads on this subject because I've already read most of what is being said on both sides a few months ago in the Ferguson threads...if these have been discussed I apologize that I've not read every post on this or the other threads.

 

A couple of questions that I have, Why hasn't the Mayor and Police Chief done something about the police issues that are going on in Baltimore that seem to be fueling the riots?

 

Aren't the police officers involved in this situation suspended and under investigation, if so then why are they rioting?

Tons of lawsuits have left the city hemorrhaging money, and there have likely been cuts associated with that. Those have probably only served to perpetuate things even further and it's just been a cyclic thing.

I think I'd seen a separate article about some of the new blood in office shifting toward policy of more aggressively defending the city against civil suits, and that's probably caused some factions to form as well.

Brutality lawsuits continue in Baltimore, site of Freddie Gray death - Baltimore Sun

Yep, I'd agree that you are elitist.

 

I think anytime you immediately rank one person above another based solely on the institution you graduated from, elitist would fit the bill.

Well thank you. If thinking that someone who works at Harvard is likely going to be smarter than someone who doesn't, then yes, I'm elitist to the core. Otherwise, someone's intrinsic worth is not what I was going for at all.

Regardless, the connotation is probably a nice fit and I would imagine that I'm viewed as such by plenty of people here, so we'll leave it there unless you'd like to tell me anything else.

You realize low rent is a degrading term by people who think they are superior to another person. There is no "fact" surronding calling someone low rent. The only "fact" is that it is a term to degrade someone else.

 

I think the problem is you don't realize the history with the term.

Apparently not. It's more of a Twitter slam than social commentary.

If you want to PM me with what it means, I'm actually interested in knowing and don't want to take away from the thread any more. Sorry for thread-jacking.

I'd saying calling an individual a name based on individual actions is a lot different than degrading an entire proffesion of hard working people. Although I wouldn't be in favor of calling the president any of the above either. But I may be guilty of the clueless word .

How did I degrade an entire profession of hard working people?

I called the officer who arrested him "low rent". I said that because he probably didn't seem to behave with the sophistication that most people in the neighborhood likely have.

Sorry, I'm not going to sit and say that I think the guy who has been on the beat since at least 1986 and is still there is as intelligent or uses the same judgment as the average homeowner in a neighborhood like the one Harvard professors live in.

Everyone can think what you will, but that's the reality that most of us are living in, and I don't see why saying that is so whatever.

Well, I ran into burning buildings and took care of the sick and injured for 20 plus years. I don't consider myself low rent.

 

Being Yale educated has nothing to do with whether one is low rent or not.

Ok, awesome, and I mean that. I'm not calling you low rent.

I'm low rent. I grew up in the sticks in Appalachia and have ate frozen pizza for the last two weeks. I've done a lot of good things for people in my profession too. Nothing I'm ashamed of, facts are facts.

Being Yale educated definitely means that you are NOT "low rent" unless you are maybe one of the very small percentage of students there who isn't affluent. That's just a fact.

The way I used it in the story was probably inflammatory, but I was just making the point that most of us who tried to put ourselves in Gates' shoes would be a little perplexed. When someone who I'm guessing doesn't live there comes to your place (likely in a gated community that hasn't had a burglary in years) and accuses you, as a Harvard professor and one of Time's 25 Most Influential Americans, of breaking in, then it's probably a bit frustrating.

I'm sure that as an attorney he knew his rights, and that probably made the guy even madder, even if Gates was right. I just don't see why he wouldn't take the identification of he or his colleague or do something to confirm that they lived there, which I think we can all agree would have been the sensible thing to do. Remember, this wasn't just Gates, it was he and a colleague. If it were just one of them, I'd be more inclined to side with the guy.

So he took Gates to jail. It means he was a guy who got to have his minute where he was right and later had to deal with having more than a few eyebrows raised at it. All of that doesn't mean that I'd like to hand over the power to invest or diversify the economy to him or will sit and say he used great judgment.

I'm not really sure that Gates was a picture of respect (possibly even at first), but I don't think it's very likely that the officer was either. Stuff happens, and call me elitist or whatever, but I'll give the benefit of the "who used good judgment" doubt to the guy with the credentials standing in his own home, and I don't really know what's so hard to understand about that.

Yup. Cincinnati will haold a few teams in the 30s this year. If the way the game is called isn't fixed the rest is lipstick on a really fat pig...

Asking because I really respect your opinion: what would you change and what would you leave as is?

Are we all in agreement that in general, this is probably an advantage for the more talented team?

Running from police unprovoked in a high crime area can be considered reasonable suspicion for police to stop someone and investigate.

 

So him running was a form of resisting. Again, we don't know what happened when they caught him...

Yep, Illinois v. Wardlow.

No sense in beating a dead horse.

Maybe to you, but to me... well...

I guess I've probably been known to once or twice.

The full complaint is of interest to me, and I am no lawyer but there is clearly reasonable suspicion to stop any car that comes out of that party as the deputy had a confirmed account of drinking and illegal drugs at this party. Am I wrong that this gives the officer reasonable suspicion to question anyone driving that is leaving the party Guru?

Not Guru but the best answer is "it depends".

Reasonable suspicion is generally based on a totality of the circumstances (U.S. v. Sokolow).

If it's an informant's tip, then you'll probably need an indica of reliability (US v. Hensley; Alabama v. White; Florida v. JL).

Once you've got the stop, there's duration and scope of your stop that comes into play.

Those are just general and not exhaustive cases and that's not legal advice.

The best answer is usually "it depends" though. Sorry if that's not very helpful, but so, so much would depend on circumstances.

For those of us who haven't been keeping up the past few days, what's changed so suddenly that's pushed Kentucky and Kansas back up in the predictions?

KSR was naming a source that'd said UK and KU were the front runners.

The CATSPYs? Monday Night News and Views | Kentucky Sports Radio

Proposal on the table is aimed at reducing the shot clock.

You buying or selling?

Personally, I'm a fan.

Edit. Too far off topic

Let it rip, everyone else is.

I'll believe the truth! Which it seems you agree with, that gangs did meet up to have a meeting, a feet in itself that there was no violence at the meeting, and why?

 

Yes it was three gangs, bloods, crips, and the black guerilla family, all met to discuss targeting police officers. This came from the mouth of the black police spokesman.

Well there's no way I'd believe it if a white guy said it. Latino, ehhhh... maybe.

But that's not what we're talking about, so I guess he's extra credible, right? I mean, he's black after all.

Am I right???

AmIRight???

Am?... I?... Right???

Instead of saying she misspoke, the mayor is saying she didn't say this at all and that her words shouldn't be twisted.

Probably not the best PR and/or campaign move, but I'm not the one running for re-election either.

Promoting these gangs as being peace loving is an oxymoron in the first place.

 

You condemn police officers yet you praise gang members whose entire life is to encourage lawlessness.

 

That alone tells me all I need to know about your beliefs. It's ok to be thugs and hurt and kill people as long as you wear colors.

Uh....sure. Okay. :lol2:

C'mon man, you know some of those gang members that I've represented pro bono once they've went straight and got jobs, that's just a front, right? I'm actually recruiting. Bloods, Crips, Aryan Nation, Latin Kings, Bandidos, it doesn't matter, just so long as I get them back into that life.

In all seriousness, someone asked a question as to how you knew the people in the pictures were gang members. I was just stating the obvious.

I don't know how any of that was importing any kind of belief of my own, but whatever. I think anyone who really knew me would laugh their butt off at the thought of me as some banger.

Disagreeing with what I say is fine and I can take it all day, but saying that I'm promoting gang life is the height of absurdity if you really knew me. You can come up with better than that.