Dr. Henry Louis Gates Arrested

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Good post, I agree with basically everything you've said here - I still think it's important to point out where our platitudes fail, and anecdotal evidence sucks, but I like the explanation you've given here.

Really?

Even about what Gates was doing? Isn't that pretty significant in evaluating the overall event and how racially motivated it was?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really?

Even about what Gates was doing? Isn't that pretty significant in evaluating the overall event and how racially motivated it was?

I meant to edit out the first paragraph, which I don't agree with (but actually has some analytic thought, instead of direct-to-video posturing and platitudes, so at least it's contributing to the discussion).

I guess here's my bottom line: __________ is likely to act like an entitled, arrogant asshole when they feel disrespected and challenged without cause.

Fill in the blanks: Cop? Harvard professor? Both seem to fit well for me.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I meant to edit out the first paragraph, which I don't agree with (but actually has some analytic thought, instead of direct-to-video posturing and platitudes, so at least it's contributing to the discussion).

I guess here's my bottom line: __________ is likely to act like an entitled, arrogant asshole when they feel disrespected and challenged without cause.

Fill in the blanks: Cop? Harvard professor? Both seem to fit well for me.

Or you could fill it in with any GreekChat poster's name.

This seems stupid though: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8163051&page=1

It would seem like both would be eager to put the specific incident behind them. I found it admirable that Gates didn't make any noise about a false arrest suit.

Assuming the police office did stupidly sue, could he name Obama as well?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Or you could fill it in with any GreekChat poster's name.

This seems stupid though: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8163051&page=1

It would seem like both would be eager to put the specific incident behind them. I found it admirable that Gates didn't make any noise about a false arrest suit.

Assuming the police office did stupidly sue, could he name Obama as well?

It's illegal to sue the President.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

It's illegal to sue the President.

Really? I'd expect him to have immunity for most official actions, but I wouldn't think he could defame or slander with impunity.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really?

Naw...not rearlly.

Just don't see anyone doing it and being successful. Heh!

I wonder how far citizens and groups have gotten with filing lawsuits against Presidents past and present.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

It's illegal to sue the President.

Executive privilege is a very squishy, grey, untested area.

Here, my feeling on the subject is that in theory, if the alleged slander arose from the President's duties since he was commenting on a matter of public concern during a Presidential press conference. That should probably be a privileged statement.

Even if the statement wasn't privileged, I don't know if it'd be actionable anyhow for a few reasons. 1) The police officer is a limited purpose public figure -- he's famous, of public concern, etc. 2) since the President's statements weren't made with malice (he didn't know the statement was false or wasn't necessarily reckless with regard to the truth), and even if he did that it's hard to say that the President's words would have the tendency to lower the police officer's standing in the community. The whole story is out there and the President's remarks are a mere sideshow.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Executive privilege is a very squishy, grey, untested area.

Here, my feeling on the subject is that in theory, if the alleged slander arose from the President's duties since he was commenting on a matter of public concern during a Presidential press conference. That should probably be a privileged statement.

Even if the statement wasn't privileged, I don't know if it'd be actionable anyhow for a few reasons. 1) The police officer is a limited purpose public figure -- he's famous, of public concern, etc. 2) since the President's statements weren't made with malice (he didn't know the statement was false or wasn't necessarily reckless with regard to the truth), and even if he did that it's hard to say that the President's words would have the tendency to lower the police officer's standing in the community. The whole story is out there and the President's remarks are a mere sideshow.

Having the President say on national TV that your actions were stupid does seem to me to be likely to lower the police officer's standing in the community. That's actually the only thing that would make me wonder if he could be included in the defamation. The damage likely to be done to the cop's reputation was magnified greatly, I think, by the President commenting on it.

And since it was a health care address, I think it's a little less clear that he was responding to an issue of national concern. Had "Skip" not been a personal friend, which I think is how he put it, I think he would been a lot more reticent to speak up without knowing all the facts.

But as I said before, I think it would foolish for the cop to try to sue Gates, much less Obama.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Having the President say on national TV that your actions were stupid does seem to me to be likely to lower the police officer's standing in the community. That's actually the only thing that would make me wonder if he could be included in the defamation. The damage likely to be done to the cop's reputation was magnified greatly, I think, by the President commenting on it.

And since it was a health care address, I think it's a little less clear that he was responding to an issue of national concern. Had "Skip" not been a personal friend, which I think is how he put it, I think he would been a lot more reticent to speak up without knowing all the facts.

But as I said before, I think it would foolish for the cop to try to sue Gates, much less Obama.

I understand and agree with what both of you are saying...the basic problem is, and it's just not Cambridge, unfortunately police officers in general has an established history of being of wrong side of profiling. Just look at how many articles that have been written, filmed and even posted here on GC.

Some of us even have personal experiences.

However, that does NOT MEAN ALL COPS are bad.

Fact: All police officers are not bad. All citizens that have mistaken run ins with police officers are not always innocent.

But the issue is simply, when you have one that messes up, it makes all of the rest look bad. If anyone up to and including the President had commented directly to the officer in question to whose name I don't even remember or know, then the burden of blame is on him and him alone but because he was lumped into a whole group, that whole group is being stereotyped based on that officer's action.

Just like on the flipside, we are discussing this whole race thing because Gates is Black and raised holy hell in his house because he perceived that because he is part of a minority group he recieved undue action because of that. Like someone asked earlier, suppose Gates was White? Suppose the officer was Black? Would there even be a story? Probably not.

BTW...here is an update on this: Obama calls policeman

Good move BTW.