[trailhacker]

No, it was the casual way you turned the actual events... which was this:

Come outside and I'll give you my name. (Which Crowley never did do when he was outside, according to the report)

Into this:

the arresting officer did an outstanding job of trying to quell the disturbance by simply walking outside, off of gate's property but gates followed and continued to cause a scene.

You don't even notice you do it, do you? Crowley never got off the property, nor did he attempt to. He also didn't try to quell the disturbance, which he apparently could have done by providing a citizen who was asking for information he is justified to ask for in his own house.

Speaking of casually turning events:

"I told Gates I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding this matter, I would speak with him outside his residence."

Now who's twisting words to fit their argument?

Seems everywhere I read about this, the Gates supporters (or more accurately the anti-police) say that as soon as the officer ascertained his identity, he should have left. I guess they are glossing over this part of the report where he says HE WAS LEAVING?
If Gates would have slammed the door behind him it would have been over. But no, he followed him out into his front yard and created a disturbance.
It really had nothing to do with anything that happened when the officer showed up, or went into the house.
He was arrested for what he did in his front yard AFTER the officer had exited his residence.

Crowley never got off the property, nor did he attempt to. He also didn't try to quell the disturbance, which he apparently could have done by providing a citizen who was asking for information he is justified to ask for in his own house.

Silver, I am curious; are you saying you feel the police report isn't factual (he was lying)? Seems he didn't get a chance to get off the property (even though that really has nothing to do with anything).
He warned him THREE times he was going to be arrested and Gates didn't back off one bit.
And lastly, according to the report, he tried more than once to give his name which Gates disregarded. Do you honestly think if the officer would have given him his name and badge number (clearly visible on his uniform) that gates would have been satisfied? Do you think he would have let it go?


I have been reading the reports on this on The Grio and on The Root. The black officer that was on the scene backs the officers conduct "100%". The comments there seem to overwhelming say that the black officer was a Sambo or Uncle Tom because he backs the white officer. Won't even acknowledge that it maybe might have been Gates' fault that this even happened.

PS; just because you are talking about politics doesn't give you a get of jail free card when you are being disorderly. Its about the conduct, not the subject matter.

 

[dante]

If I'm downtown walking up to people and screaming in their faces about how races shouldn't mix (which I do all the time here in central Africa, lemme tell ya), I'm disorderly (among many other things), despite the fact that I happen to be spouting political content while doing so.

Let me guess, you've never been to NYC... If the NYPD arrested everyone that was standing on a street corner yelling about something or other, they'd need about 6 more jails just to hold everyone.

 

[stevew]

common sense tells me not to be a asshole in front of a cop, in my home or in public.

 

[manimal]

Let me guess, you've never been to NYC... If the NYPD arrested everyone that was standing on a street corner yelling about something or other, they'd need about 6 more jails just to hold everyone.

um...it's NYC...isn't it a requirement for everyone to act like a douchebag?

 

[MikeD]

Let me guess, you've never been to NYC... If the NYPD arrested everyone that was standing on a street corner yelling about something or other, they'd need about 6 more jails just to hold everyone.

My hometown, actually.

Just because police in NY don't arrest people doesn't mean they couldn't do it if they saw reason. It was also a hypothetical example of the form of speech (becoming disorderly, not protected) vs the content of speech (politically protected).

And being an NYC native, I also have to say that if (when) a crazy person is getting hostile and in peoples' faces, the NYPD is NOT shy about correcting the situation if a cop does in fact decide to take action about it.

And what police do in NYC has nothing to do with the fact that Gates' conduct was, indeed, disorderly by the letter of the law in Cambridge.

 

[Silver]

C'mon, you're smarter than that. Political content *alone* can't make speech disorderly, true. But this had nothing to do with the content of the speech, it had to do with the form.

Not according to MA case law: This case keeps coming up, Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 475, which also pops up as precedent in later cases, specifically this one. Then there is COMMONWEALTH vs. HERTZL SINAI, where Feigenbaum pops up again. Seems like the judge there would disagree with you on content and form:

The judge further specifically instructed the jury that "you cannot convict on speech alone. No matter how coarse, how offensive, or how abusive that speech may be. For speech alone, as a matter of law, does not and cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless it is your determination that they are fighting words or threats."

Another question now, specifically for you: Everytime an issue comes up where a cop blows away a citizen or a dog that happens to be in his own yard, you tell us that as long as the officer felt threatened, he's justified in his actions. You're not willing to extend the same courtesy to a citizen in his own home whose actions consisted solely of words?

 

[Silver]

Speaking of casually turning events:

"As I began walking toward the foyer to the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates I would speak with him outside."

Was the sentence I paraphrased...how do you read that?

 

[Silver]

Seems everywhere I read about this, the Gates supporters (or more accurately the anti-police) say that as soon as the officer ascertained his identity, he should have left. I guess they are glossing over this part of the report where he says HE WAS LEAVING?
If Gates would have slammed the door behind him it would have been over. But no, he followed him out into his front yard and created a disturbance.
It really had nothing to do with anything that happened when the officer showed up, or went into the house.
He was arrested for what he did in his front yard AFTER the officer had exited his residence.

Note that Crowley is apparently required by MA law to give an ID card with his name and badge number on it to a person who makes that request lawfully. Gates clearly did that in the confines of his own house, no matter the form.

Silver, I am curious; are you saying you feel the police report isn't factual (he was lying)? Seems he didn't get a chance to get off the property (even though that really has nothing to do with anything).
He warned him THREE times he was going to be arrested and Gates didn't back off one bit.
And lastly, according to the report, he tried more than once to give his name which Gates disregarded. Do you honestly think if the officer would have given him his name and badge number (clearly visible on his uniform) that gates would have been satisfied? Do you think he would have let it go?


I have been reading the reports on this on The Grio and on The Root. The black officer that was on the scene backs the officers conduct "100%". The comments there seem to overwhelming say that the black officer was a Sambo or Uncle Tom because he backs the white officer. Won't even acknowledge that it maybe might have been Gates' fault that this even happened.

PS; just because you are talking about politics doesn't give you a get of jail free card when you are being disorderly. Its about the conduct, not the subject matter.

I'm not contesting the police report, I'm contesting manimal's assertion that Crowley tried to walk off the property and break off the encounter. Crowley did no such thing, he invited Gates to come outside and continue talking.

(Although the person that called 911 seems to be contesting the police report...)

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html

I'm not sure what comments at the Root have to do with anything, or the fact that a rainbow of officers supports the arrest.

 

[manimal]

"As I began walking toward the foyer to the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates I would speak with him outside."

Was the sentence I paraphrased...how do you read that?

wow..excellent job of selective quoting.

“Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figuero was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside the residence.
As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units.”

yup...officer crowley sure was provoking the outburst.

so in other words. the officer had fulfilled his duty to investigate the call for a possible break-in, he presence was clearly not appreciated, told gates that he was leaving (ie: no longer had business there) and if gates needed any further assistance he would have to come outside. gates had his chance, twice, to get the officers name but couldn't shut-up long enough to hear. gates followed him outside, where at least 7 passers-by observed his disturbing outburst.

 

[manimal]

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html

I'm not sure what comments at the Root have to do with anything, or the fact that a rainbow of officers supports the arrest.

wait...you're telling me that a private citizen isn't capable of changing her story under severe pressure from the media claiming that she's racists for telling the officer about 2 black men at her neighbors house? poor thing..she's apparently a victim too

 

[Silver]

wow..excellent job of selective quoting.

You are aware that is sort of the definition of quoting, no?

Any response to the woman who says that her conservation with Crowley that is contained in the police report is made up?

I really am fascinated by this case. A nation of gun nuts who freak out at the idea of not being able to buy an assault weapon seem to be for the most part supportive of the police arresting someone for being in their own house and being a dick. We're ok with torturing people because we don't torture. We're ok with blowing away an old woman in her house because someone somewhere might be smoking weed. The constitution in real life seems about as useful to the average American as an exercise bike and sensible diet.

The gap between rhetoric and reality is simply stunning.

 

[Silver]

wait...you're telling me that a private citizen isn't capable of changing her story under severe pressure from the media claiming that she's racists for telling the officer about 2 black men at her neighbors house? poor thing..she's apparently a victim too

If she was lying she could have simply said that she never described the men as black (the tapes of the 911 call confirm that.

She's not doing that, however, she's saying that she never had a conversation with Crowley at the scene. Why make up a bigger lie than you have to?

Actually, yes, she is a victim. She did the right thing, and is being dragged through the mud by people on both sides of the issue. Fortunately, the 911 tapes back her up.

 

[sanjuro]

wait...you're telling me that a private citizen isn't capable of changing her story under severe pressure from the media claiming that she's racists for telling the officer about 2 black men at her neighbors house? poor thing..she's apparently a victim too

I thought this was from the 911 transcript.

Hey, I am with you normally, but just because Gates is wrong, it doesn't erase the millions of unjustified stop-and-arrests of minorities.

Yeah, there is going to be a lot of friction in the next year about any arrest like this, but it is necessary to move on with our race relation evolution.

 

[MikeD]

Not according to MA case law: This case keeps coming up, Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 475, which also pops up as precedent in later cases, specifically this one. Then there is COMMONWEALTH vs. HERTZL SINAI, where Feigenbaum pops up again. Seems like the judge there would disagree with you on content and form:

The judge further specifically instructed the jury that "you cannot convict on speech alone. No matter how coarse, how offensive, or how abusive that speech may be. For speech alone, as a matter of law, does not and cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless it is your determination that they are fighting words or threats."

Another question now, specifically for you: Everytime an issue comes up where a cop blows away a citizen or a dog that happens to be in his own yard, you tell us that as long as the officer felt threatened, he's justified in his actions. You're not willing to extend the same courtesy to a citizen in his own home whose actions consisted solely of words?

The judge is discussing the content of speech. 100% agreement; content of speech cannot not constitute disorderly conduct.

Creating a disturbance in your neighborhood, whether by yelling loudly, dancing naked in the street, etc. can be disorderly conduct, regardless of whether the disturbance is related to or contains otherwise protected speech.

As to your second point, I don't get what you're going for. How is this related to the use of force?

The officer was legally present in the home until he ascertained Gates' identity under the emergency scene exemption from a warrant; once it was determined there was no crime in progress (and to all reasonable understanding, he was not welcome in said home), he exited the home. Gates is entitled to yell at the officer in his home, so long as he doesn't disturb the public order. Outside, where his actions influence the public sphere, is another story.

MD

 

[Silver]

The judge is discussing the content of speech. 100% agreement; content of speech cannot not constitute disorderly conduct.

Creating a disturbance in your neighborhood, whether by yelling loudly, dancing naked in the street, etc. can be disorderly conduct, regardless of whether the disturbance is related to or contains otherwise protected speech.

Gates wasn't dancing naked in the street. He was yelling at a police officer. That's speech. The judge did not make an exception for the volume of the speech, but rather said that the speech had to be fighting words or threats. Is there any evidence that Gates uttered any speech outside the house that falls under that criteria?

Again, you know as well as I do that this was a nuisance arrest meant to teach Gates to shut up when being addressed to by a police officer, and nothing more, and that a conviction was never possible.

 

[Silver]

As to your second point, I don't get what you're going for. How is this related to the use of force?

The officer was legally present in the home until he ascertained Gates' identity under the emergency scene exemption from a warrant; once it was determined there was no crime in progress (and to all reasonable understanding, he was not welcome in said home), he exited the home. Gates is entitled to yell at the officer in his home, so long as he doesn't disturb the public order. Outside, where his actions influence the public sphere, is another story.

MD

It's an aside. When a cop acts stupidly, you're willing to bend over backward to find some reason that he might have felt threatened and therefore justified, but I've never seen you apply that same reasoning to the other side of the equation. It's a general observation, and has little to do with Gates.

 

[MikeD]

Gates wasn't dancing naked in the street. He was yelling at a police officer. That's speech. The judge did not make an exception for the volume of the speech, but rather said that the speech had to be fighting words or threats. Is there any evidence that Gates uttered any speech outside the house that falls under that criteria?

Again, you know as well as I do that this was a nuisance arrest meant to teach Gates to shut up when being addressed to by a police officer, and nothing more, and that a conviction was never possible.

Disorderly conduct is, to sum up, "making a scene." He was doing that to a degree sufficient to support probable cause for his arrest on the charge; almost certainly not to a standard beyond a reasonable doubt. You're stuck on fighting words and clinging to this case law. It is wholly irrelevant.

It's also 100% true that many people often do far more to make a scene and don't get arrested. It's like Gates was going 60 in a 55mph zone and got a ticket (or even arrested for speeding, which is totally legal in many places) for doing it.

Fact is, he crossed the line and across the line, only the officer's discretion is what determines your fate. When you've done your best to piss off the officer upon whose discretion your fate hangs, you've generally screwed yourself.

 

[MikeD]

It's an aside. When a cop acts stupidly, you're willing to bend over backward to find some reason that he might have felt threatened and therefore justified, but I've never seen you apply that same reasoning to the other side of the equation. It's a general observation, and has little to do with Gates.

I don't bend over backwards; I generally apply relevant case law and legal standards. And refuse to draw conclusions which I reasonably can't. But in this case, we're not even talking about a use of force. Just like your misinterpretation of the case law about protected speech, you're making a leap of logic that I can't bridge.

Are you saying Gates felt threatened? He never said or even intimated so. He was just pissed off. Even if he did, his disorderly conduct was not part of some sort of pattern of defense against any threat whatsoever. So what are we talking about here...?

Edit: I'll also add, again, that personally, I don't think arresting Gates was a good idea. I think it was heavy-handed. I think the cop showed emotional involvement in the situation, although I cannot condemn him for that, especially from a distance. However, none of that matters...Gates met the criteria for an arrest, and was arrested. (From the information in the police report, which for the sake of argument is the source material available to us...)

 

[dante]

wait...you're telling me that a private citizen isn't capable of changing her story under severe pressure from the media claiming that she's racists for telling the officer about 2 black men at her neighbors house? poor thing..she's apparently a victim too

So wait, you'll take an officer's police report as gospel, but doubt the testimony of the original caller and basically say that Gates is flat out lying. You've taken the police report not only at it's exact word but at it's tone, inflection and demeanor. The police officer was polite, calm, collected, and did everything by the book. He tried to offer his name twice to Gates, who was combative and verbally abusive. There was no condescending tone when he walked in, there were no insults or ratcheting up the tension on his part, he was the perfect gentleman. It's all in the police report and therefore it's as good as if written by god herself to any and all who should read it.

Yes, in your line of work you often have to take an officer at his word, and the court will as well (until video evidence sometimes proves otherwise) but as the cop thread below this shows, cops aren't always 100% truthful, and even when they are they will of course spin it to make themselves sound better.

To give you some background on why I think Gates may have been (understandably?) upset, about 10 years ago my sister (white) dated a black guy for a couple months. He dressed normal, he drove a normal looking car, was well educated, etc, but she said that probably on average of once per evening they'd get pulled over, or stopped, or approached and asked what they were up to, etc. She was flat out flabbergasted that this was still going on (in the relatively liberal Westchester, NY area). She said that she had never believed that that type of thing still occurred, or that it was anywhere as bad as it was. It really opened her eyes as to what he had to go through on a daily basis, and really changed how she felt about continuing racism in this country. She said it was flat out disgusting... I think that Gates has had to live with this for many, many years, some of which were definitely even worse than they are today.

So can you feel just a little bit of understanding why Gates might have been furious that a police officer all but accused him of not living in his own house? Even after showing id (which I heard a rumor that it didn't have his home address on it? not sure about the validity of that though), the officer still was calling the Cambridge police to verify it. Then when Gates demanded the officer's name and badge number, the officer did not supply it (again, conflicting stories: the officer *tried* to but failed due to Gates' ranting, and Gates claims that the officer refused), and rather turned around to walk out. If a cop treated me poorly in my own house, refused to give his name and then started walking away you can damn well better believe that I'd be following him outside, probably causing a disturbance in the process.

I don't know, I just think that there's a lot of underlying issues going on here (not to mention this Cambridge Cop's license plate), and each side brought a ton of baggage into this situation. No matter who escalated it first, end ended up with the cop escalating it by hauling Gates off to jail. I'm kind of glad that Gates isn't escalating it further by suing the city, which would determine whether a wrongful arrest had occurred. (Link, link, link, link) Theoretically, that is the final check in the checks-and-balances...

<shrug> Otherwise everyone seems to be talking past each other, so I'll just back out of this thread slowly...

 

[dante]

Disorderly conduct is, to sum up, "making a scene." He was doing that to a degree sufficient to support probable cause for his arrest on the charge; almost certainly not to a standard beyond a reasonable doubt. You're stuck on fighting words and clinging to this case law. It is wholly irrelevant.

It's also 100% true that many people often do far more to make a scene and don't get arrested. It's like Gates was going 60 in a 55mph zone and got a ticket (or even arrested for speeding, which is totally legal in many places) for doing it.

Fact is, he crossed the line and across the line, only the officer's discretion is what determines your fate. When you've done your best to piss off the officer upon whose discretion your fate hangs, you've generally screwed yourself.

Thank GOD our legal system isn't based on something as vague as "making a scene", nor is your fate determined by an officer's discretion. You have the courts to determine whether you actually broke the law (letter of the law, not "summing up") and you have lawsuits to determine whether the police were justified in their actions.

 

[MikeD]

Our legal system isn't, but it's a reasonable 3-word summary of the criminal statute at hand, reduced to three words in an effort to distinguish conduct from content of speech. And yes, your fate in the criminal justice system, both pre-judicial and during the judicial process, relies on the discretion of many people, from cops to prosecutors to judges to juries.

 

[Silver]

I don't bend over backwards;

Yeah, you never put yourself into the cops shoes...remember the guy on the ground where the cop kicked his head like he was trying for a field goal in the Superbowl? You couldn't bring yourself to say 100% based on the video that kicking a suspect who is on the ground and in a submissive posture was wrong, I believe.

Are you saying Gates felt threatened? He never said or even intimated so. He was just pissed off. Even if he did, his disorderly conduct was not part of some sort of pattern of defense against any threat whatsoever. So what are we talking about here...?

Dante summed that up perfectly, so there's no sense in rewriting it.

 

[manimal]

Yeah, there is going to be a lot of friction in the next year about any arrest like this, but it is necessary to move on with our race relation evolution.

if anything it set us back a decade or so.

 

[sanjuro]

if anything it set us back a decade or so.

I disagree.

1. This brings racial profiling back to discussion, but without anyone getting hurt.

I remember the case of the NJ State Troopers who shot a group of college basketball players during a "routine" traffic stop. That is the most famous profiling story, the big difference that there were 3 unarmed men shot for no reason.

Gates being detained for a few hours is not the same.

2. The professionalism of James Crowley is evident. While I disagree with the arrest, I applaud the way he handled this.

3. Involvement by the President. I know this is political hay, but his opinion is relevant, as a black man and as our leader. Just because he put his foot his mouth to start doesn't mean it will end that way.

4. Gates' fault. An admittance of fault would bring race relations a long way.

This is not 1998. Read this piece about the NJ State Troopers and you have to recognize that: http://revcom.us/a/v21/1020-029/1020/racpro3.htm

 

[Silver]

Gates being detained for a few hours is not the same.

For sure...ask Shem Walker about that.

 

[MikeD]

I think Obama may have deliberately stuck his foot in his mouth to appear a little less slick and middle-of-the road than he's been accused of being. He ran on rocking the boat, and he hasn't too much yet. He may have decided this was a nod in that direction that might actually result in some meaningful dialogue.

Or he just spoke too soon... Either way, yeah, sit-downs and talk-throughs would be a nice way to cap this. I don't think it's going to be a massive setback, but might be a little progress in the end.


My father-in-law was arrested in an airport for throwing his tickets down onto the counter in frustration after he was bumped/rescheduled several times for his continuing flight over the course of more than 24h inside the terminal. I believe the charge was disorderly conduct. BS? Even the arresting officers thought so. But he met the requirements of the statute and the arrest was legit. Judge let him go to anger management and expunged the arrest afterwards. Not the worst turn-out, but certainly even small, white, hippie, gnome-like men can inadvertently end up in cuffs with a single poor decision at the wrong time or place.

 

[ohio]

(not to mention this Cambridge Cop's license plate)

Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but it turns out the guy was given the nickname "Whitey" by his non-white friends as a pale Ukranian growing up in the Boston projects. He works with troubled youth all over the city, and the nickname stuck as a way to humorously diffuse racial tension. From what I read, this guy is actually an example of what race relations SHOULD look like.

 

[ohio]

My father-in-law was arrested in an airport

How many times?

Yes, we're all aware that people besides blacks get arrested sometimes. However, white folks don't seem to have to same cadence of regular "conversations" with cops asking suspiciously what they're up to and what they're doing in the neighborhood.

 

[Silver]

My father-in-law was arrested in an airport for throwing his tickets down onto the counter in frustration after he was bumped/rescheduled several times for his continuing flight over the course of more than 24h inside the terminal. I believe the charge was disorderly conduct. BS? Even the arresting officers thought so.

So why arrest him if they thought it was BS? That seems like a massive waste of time and resources.

 

[sanjuro]

So why arrest him if they thought it was BS? That seems like a massive waste of time and resources.

If ordered to calm down and you won't, what's the solution? Especially at an airport...

 

[Silver]

If ordered to calm down and you won't, what's the solution? Especially at an airport...

You ever watch that Airline show?

The solution is obvious: Replace police officers with Southwest gate agents.

 

[dan-o]

(not to mention this Cambridge Cop's license plate).

My friend's truck plate reads BLK BOY.
But since he's black, everyone just laughs instead of making unsubstantiated judgements.
Oddly getting pulled over in Boston, or the surrounding suburbs, hasn't been an issue for him.

 

[pnj]

black dude is a racist. has a chip on his shoulder. cop put up w/ his crap for as long as he could, then made an arrest.

that's my theory...

 

[Silver]

black dude is a racist. has a chip on his shoulder. cop put up w/ his crap for as long as he could, then made an arrest.

that's my theory...

No one is more oppressed than a white man in America...

My theory is that the people who are busy trying to define racism as white victimhood tells me a lot about said people.

 

[dante]

Latest: A Boston cop, in an effort to show the openness and racial tolerance of the city's police force, proceeds to send an email to the Boston Globe that calls Gates a "banana eating jungle monkey".

 

[JohnE]

For a "former English teacher", he writes like crap...

 

[MikeD]

For a lower species of primate on speed, he writes like crap...

Edit: That dude is a CAPTAIN? Holy crap.

 

[Sandwich]

Latest: A Boston cop, in an effort to show the openness and racial tolerance of the city's police force, proceeds to send an email to the Boston Globe that calls Gates a "banana eating jungle monkey".

Way to scold somebody for lumping people together and judging them as a group then lump them together and judge them as a group.

EQUALITY FAIL.

Not to defend this jackass, he should push brooms in the zoo.

 

[dante]

Way to scold somebody for lumping people together and judging them as a group then lump them together and judge them as a group.

EQUALITY FAIL.

Not to defend this jackass, he should push brooms in the zoo.

Point out where I lumped people together? I said that it was HIS effort to "show openness and racial tolerance of the city's police force".

COMPREHENSION FAIL.

 

[Silver]

For a "former English teacher", he writes like crap...

Paragraphs are for jungle bunnies...

The best part is, I bet that he thought he was being clever by not putting the n-word in there...