X. Benedict

It was a groundless arrest. The guy was yelling...sure....but to argue he was yelling for no legitimate purpose like a vagrant was STUPID..... His purpose in yelling was to complain to HIM... That isn't a crime. That's protected speech. You might wish it were a crime.....but it was a STUPID arrest nonetheless, and had to be dropped. The policeman returns to the porch to arrest a guy yelling. Nice work.

Do you think he should have said the arrest for disorderly conduct was "unstupid" ? C'mon. Yelling in the middle of the day in Boston? It's like a civic pastime there.

This could be a script for American Roshomon.

I lived just outside Davis square years ago. I don't claim to know the man but I met him very briefly. I thought he was warm and generous and funny.

Yes. In a Billy Dee Williams voice.

The police officer by his own description says early on that he believed Gates to be "lawfully in his own house" and then proceeded to ask for ID. The officer doesn't describe how he got into the kitchen or how he followed him in there.

Gates had a lawful request for identification himself. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm Officer did not show badge. (I'm bored and having a little fun with this)

Massachussets has no stop and identify statute. Maybe there was a reasonable belief that Gates had committed a crime. But I doubt it.

They seemed to enter the man's house without permission or warrant..........smart move?

stupidly is an adverb. No joke.

I think it was the Hilbell (sp?) Cattle Rancher ruling from about 5 years ago ..... you are required to identify yourself by name if there is a reasonable suspicion. Not produce ID unless you are operating under a license.

He didn't see above

The arrest seems to based on the officers interpretation of "tumultuous" behavior. A stupid arrest. Not a surprising one. But a stupid one.

Okay, but we aren't talking about labor law here.

No. Only the quickest. There is a 4th amendment. .... . and the probable is a phone call........and nobody was fleeing. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since when is calling someone a racist a crime? (as you just did) Pretty narrow Constitution you have there.

Reports: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...3092gates1.html

FWIW, I understand it to be close to that..... this is from some lawyers page, but I think it sums it pretty well. A disorderly person is defined as one who: * with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or * recklessly creates a risk thereof * engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or * creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months. http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly.htm

The police determined that there was no merit to the original complaint. Now shouldn't libertarians be saying that he has every right to be a mad ranting douchebag from his own porch? This is the middle of the afternoon. He's not keeping anybody awake or inciting a riot. Calling a policeman a racist really shouldn't get much of a rise out him. I don't recommend doing it, but they are professionals.

He could of dodged the question, but there is nothing particularly inflammatory about what he said. Police dropped the charges. Why was that? Probably because it WAS a stupid arrest.

Transcript.... " Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house, there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place -- so far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're reporting -- the police are doing what they should. There's a call, they go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in, I'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct -- charges which are later dropped. Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; 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. That's just a fact. " Can't say I disagree.....I worked/lived in Cambridge/Boston quite some time ago.....there are more invisible lines in that city than an outsider can fathom. Obama lived there too.

I think his point was whether or not said companies were a client of Google's technology. But it would be nothing new for the Chinese to steal proprietary technology.

I don't think they do.

It is always easy to over-estimate or under-estimate the power of university presidents. No defense of Summers, but usually they are following a strategic plan that is already in place and is agreed upon by University constituencies. I believe that Summers left in 2006....but since then most University endowments in the country have gotten killed. Harvard's probably outperformed most. Harvard is not in trouble......but they may have budget squabbles...that's how it always goes. It seems to me to fault Summers for a strategic plan that has failed due to endowment difficulties since he left has very little to do with him. His job was basically oversight of any strategic plan (often in place to limit Presidential power at Universities), and it was his job to question what was happening with endowment management not to manage it himself. In the end, he was weaker than the faculty. Thanks for the link.

65% of a market is a monopoly? In China, Baidu is market leader. Naver is market leader in S. Korea Yandex in Russia Yahoo is market leader in Japan. Google is 60% worldwide..... That's a dominant and powerful position, but it is no monopoly.