Moving on, I've gotten a kick out of the assertion about this particular officer's being a departmental "instructor" in/on racial profiling, the unstated-by-the-media implication being that his status as such must mean he is incapable of it.  Being the cynic that I am, my initial reaction to the disclosure of his "instructor" status was that he taught his fellow officers how to do it and get away with it.

But, more seriously, this clown in a blue suit and badge is being used (or seeking to be used) by the same flavor of jack#sses who are circulating the Obama-as-witch-doctor photos.

   After that, it would seem the further publication of the incident was primarily the result of Crowley's own actions and those of his agency.

   It's at least a partial  defense to show that any injury to reputation was caused by the plaintiff further disseminating the alleged defmatory statements.

   Assuming the statement would be found defamatory can Crowley prove any injury to his reputation not the result of his conduct?

But for Obama's sticking his nose in where it really did not belong, Crowley would not now feel compelled to defend his actions now that they are a national story.  Are Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department just supposed to go away and let Gates - with Obama's help - continue to have sole possession of the microphone?

I had been wondering if there would come a day when I could listen to the news and NOT hear about Michael Freakin' Jackson, or Sarah $#@^*% Palin, but little did I know that they would be replaced by this ginned-up controversy that will now be covered to death.  

The main issue is tyranny.  The chaining and captivity of a human being.  

Is it SOP to call for backup and continue to be involved in the situation?

My guess is that it's not.

If not, the question is then why did Crowley continue to be involved in the situation.

Was it racism, or was it something else.

I think it was probably something else.

On this liberal leftie wingnut site, I see many lefties defending the officer, I got no prob wit dat.

But how come we see nary a single officer on record as saying maybe the officer might have overreacted?  Goes to the argument of brotherhood of the badge, no?

Gates was offended at not being recognized as the privileged and noted personage he is, Crowley was offended at being perceived as ignorant and racist and having his authority challenged.

Gates says he'll write a book, make a documentary to further publicize, defend and justify his personal outrage. Crowley is indulging in a lawsuit for the same reason.

The end result: The jerk with the badge foolishly arrested the jerk with the Harvard faculty card.  Who cares?  

Having said that, I think Obama should have ducked the question (like he did with actual substantive questions about important issue like governmental transparency and civil rights).  The preening Gates would have been a two-day story, at most.  Now, he's stepped all over the health care debate.

Obama made a huge mistake sticking his nose into this.  He has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

The comments are about 50/50 on this very liberal blog.

It doesn't matter what you or I think.  I just glanced through the hundreds of comments  on the Boston Globe and the New York Times (neither is exactly Fox News) and most people think Gates was a jerk (he was) and therefore deserved what he got.  I understand the arguments made here that the arrest was wrong and agree with them.   But this is not a court room.  In the court of public opinion, you rant and rave at a cop and verbally abuse him, you might get arrested.  Most people are fine with that.

Obama says he doesn't know the facts, sides with his friend, ties the arrest into racist behavior while carefully saying that those comments don't apply to this case (yeah, right) and to many appears to be coming off as an anti-cop "black" president.

If gates could take back his words bringing race into this issue, i could support any effort to punish any wrongdoing committed by crowely, if such wrongdoing did occur.

but because race was brought into this, i feel some sympathy for Crowely, and I do not think this situation is hilarious at all.

"Ogletree said Gates might sue the department and would bring forward witnesses who say they've had similar experiences with Crowley.

When asked for examples, Ogletree said only that they may come out in time depending on how the police department handles the situation moving forward.

at this point i cant blame either party for getting mad. both feel shamed and they have become media spectacles. of course gates traffics in that venue more than the cop does but the cop perhaps knew how to shame gates once he lost his self-control during the "break-in."

there is a picture of Gates walking out his front door handcuffed.

do you (or anyone else) have a link for that pic? this makes this whole scenario that officer crowley portrays even fishier smelling; if prof. gates was on his front porch when arrested, why bring him back inside the house first, prior to taking him to the station for booking?

i begin to suspect that part of the reason the case was dropped is because, upon reading officer crowley's official statement, the prosecutor didn't think it made sense either.

officer crowley is taking stupid to a whole new level, possibly an art form.

yes, prof. gates was apparently a jerk, this is not at issue. that said, nowhere in the criminal code is it an actionable offense to be simply a jerk.