American Morning
Caller in Gates case says she'd do it again
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/30/art.lucia.whalen.gi.jpg caption="Lucia Whalen, who called 911 to report a possible break-in, speaks to reporters Wednesday."]
(CNN) - In her first public appearance, the woman who made the 911 call that led to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. said Wednesday she would make the call again if placed in the same situation.
The arrest and its aftermath have sparked accusations of racial profiling, and even President Obama has become involved. He plans to meet Thursday with Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, at the White House.
Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct July 16 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, after he had shown Crowley that the home he was suspected of breaking into was his. The charge was later dropped.
"If you're a concerned citizen, you should do the right thing if you're seeing something that seems suspicious. I would do the same thing," Lucia Whalen said.
Whalen said she contacted police after an older woman with no cell phone told her she was worried that someone was trying to break into the house.
She said she was en route to lunch when the woman approached her.
"I thought: 'I'm the one with the cell phone. I should probably call'" police, she explained.
Although Whalen never referred to black suspects when she called authorities about the suspected break-in, the incident prompted a heated discussion across the nation on race relations in the United States.
Police released tapes Monday of her 911 call.
Senators push nationwide ban on texting while driving
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/30/art.textingban.gi.jpg caption="A law that went into effect January 1 in California makes it illegal to send text messages while driving."]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Four senators pushed for a bill Wednesday to ban texting while driving, a day after a study found that drivers who text while on the road are much more likely to have an accident than undistracted drivers.
Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-New York; Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey; Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana; and Kay Hagan, D-North Carolina, unveiled the ALERT Act, which would ban truck and car drivers and operators of mass transit from texting while driving.
The proposed legislation would prohibit any driver from sending text or e-mail messages while driving a vehicle, said an earlier news release from the senators.
If the bill passes, the Department of Transportation would set the minimum standards for compliance.
States that do not enact text-banning laws within two years of the bill's passage could lose 25 percent of their federal highway funds, Schumer said in a news conference announcing the legislation. The noncompliant states could recuperate that money once they meet the text-banning standards, Schumer said.
CTIA, a cellular phone industry group, said that it supports legislation that addresses text messaging while driving.
"CTIA and our member companies continue to believe text messaging while driving is incompatible with safe driving," said a statement on CTIA's Web site.
Fourteen states, including the home states of three of the bill's sponsors, and the District of Columbia already have laws barring texting while driving: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington.
We Listen – Your Comments 7/29/09
Editor's Note: The “fat tax” and healthcare were top of mind for Wednesday’s American Morning audience. Overwhelmingly, viewers supported a tax on “junk.” Some suggest it was a positive move for fairness reasons: “Let's start being fair by taxing everything that is unhealthy so that smokers do not have to bare the entire burden for people who choose to be unhealthy in other ways.” Some wondered if those receiving food stamps would suffer disproportionably regarding medical issues, as soda is tax free.
- Lauri: If we decide to tax "Junk Food" I am all for it, but why can't we remove the availability to get these types of items with Food Stamp cards. There should be tight restrictions on only be able to buy good food with our tax dollars since our tax dollars go towards health care of those using the cards just for "Junk". Now, in the state of Texas, you can buy anything on those cards except alcohol and tobacco. We MUST take action if we want a healthier nation to remove the "Junk Food" from the list. This is a low-income family which already has too many problems to add obesity for children and adults. I don't even buy that stuff except from time to time. A healthier child has a better chance at being a better student and getting out of needing food stamp cards. How do we get that discussion started.
- Carol: Re the proposal on adding tax on sugar drinks: What a terrific idea. However, it will not "hurt" the poorest, as Federal Food Stamp Program does not tax its recipients. They may purchase the product TAX FREE. Will that mean more health problems in the future with those on food stamps?
- Mike: I'm all for a tax on foods that have NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE. I'm a smoker and they taxed the hell out of cigarettes because they have deemed them bad for me. Well fair is fair... there are a LOT of items on the grocery store shelves that has none if any nutritional value. Let's start being fair by taxing everything that is unhealthy.. so that smokers do not have to bare the entire burden for people who choose to be unhealthy in other ways... i.e. eating unhealthy foods that they lead to diabetes or obesity or both... which cost more than cigarette related illnesses. Thank you.
- Dave: This is a simple question. WHY CAN'T THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE SAME MEDICAL COVERAGE AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES? Why are they considered better than the rest of us? How about a discussion on this subject?
How do you feel about a “fat” tax? Does such a tax disproportionably target poor families? Is it fair, as “Mike” the viewer states, that non-nutritional foods should be taxed just as cigarettes are taxed for smokers? How will such a tax affect your family?
Police search Jackson doctor's home, office
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/29/art.conrad.murray.house.cnn.jpg caption="Investigators arrive at the Las Vegas, Nevada, home of Michael Jackson's personal physician."]
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) - Investigators searched the Las Vegas home and office of Michael Jackson's personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, on Tuesday morning, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman said.
Los Angeles police and DEA agents, carrying search warrants, were "looking for a lot of things," said Assistant Special Agent in Charge Mike Flanagan.
Aerial cameras showed investigators leaving Murray's home, three hours after they entered, carrying several containers.
The searches came a day after a source with knowledge of the investigation confirmed to CNN that Murray administered a powerful drug that authorities believe killed the singer.
Flanagan said that while he could not disclose details of the search warrants, because a judge had ordered them sealed, he confirmed they were looking for documents and computer records.
Murray's attorney, Ed Chernoff, issued a statement saying that officers from the DEA, Los Angeles police and "various local agencies" executed a search warrant at Murray's home and office beginning about 8 a.m. (11 a.m. ET) Tuesday.
"The search warrant authorized investigators to look for medical records relating to Michael Jackson and all of his reported aliases," the statement said. "Dr. Murray was present during the search of his home and assisted the officers."
Investigators left Murray's home about noon, he said, taking cell phones and a computer hard drive. "As of 2 p.m., the search at Dr. Murray's office continues," the statement said.
Powell: Both Gates, police could have handled things better
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/29/art.powell.afp.gi.jpg caption="Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he has been subject to racial profiling."]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that he has been the victim of racial profiling but believes Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. could have been more patient with the police officer who arrested him.
Watch what Powell would advise Gates » 
At the same time, Powell also faulted the Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Department for escalating the situation beyond a reasonable level.
"I think Skip [Gates], perhaps in this instance, might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer and that might have been the end of it," Powell said in an interview with CNN's Larry King.
"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal.
"I think in this case the situation was made much more difficult on the part of the Cambridge Police Department," Powell said. "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would've thought at that point, some adult supervision would have stepped in and said 'OK look, it is his house. Let's not take this any further, take the handcuffs off, good night Dr. Gates.' "
Gates, a top African-American scholar, was arrested July 16 for disorderly conduct outside his Cambridge, Massachusetts, home after police responded to a report of a possible burglary. The charge was later dropped.
Powell said that under the circumstances, Gates may not have been in the appropriate frame of mind to best handle the situation.
"He was just home from China, just home from New York. All he wanted to do was get to bed. His door was jammed and so he was in a mood where he said something," Powell said.
He recalled a lesson he was taught as a child: "When you're faced with an officer who is trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something, this is not the time to get in an argument with him.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
Commentary: Vick could come back as early as week 1
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/28/am.intv.ryan.smith.vick.art.jpg
caption="Smith says Vick's impact as a humane spokesperson could be far-reaching"]
Michael Vick is back in the game. Now he needs to find an NFL team that will let him play. The former star quarterback, who just finished serving 18 months in prison for running a dog fighting ring, received a conditional reinstatement Monday from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. A ruling on Vick’s full reinstatement is not expected until October but he could be cleared before then.
Ryan Smith is sports attorney and BET talk show host and spoke to CNN’s Kiran Chetry Tuesday.
Kiran Chetry: Were you surprised that Roger Goodell said Vick could come back in?
Ryan Smith: Not at all. He had to give him some sort of second chance. Playing in the NFL is privilege, not a right but there has to be some sort of forgiveness. He served 18 months. Goodell is thinking let's let him back in, at a time frame that’s not immediate after he served his sentence but after a little bit of time.
Chetry: When we talk about conditional what does he have to do, what obligation does he have to meet to be fully reinstated?
Smith: Well Michael Vick submitted a plan to the commissioner about what he’s willing to do to show that not only that he has remorse but also that he's going be an active good citizen and spokesman on the behalf of dogs. He's going to work with the humane society possibly to be a spokesman for them because his voice as a convicted felon of these kinds of crimes has a greater impact than someone just coming out and saying ‘don't abuse jobs.’ Look at what he lost, he could say, this is why you should not hurt dogs.
Chetry: Just to remind people who may have forgotten the federal conspiracy charge against Vick for his role in the dog fighting venture which was on his property. It included executing eight dogs who underperformed. One of them, he got the okay to wet the dog down and electrocute them. In one case they hung the dogs, in one case he drowned them, and in another case they slammed the dog's body against the wall. If you and I faced prison time for that, would we get our old jobs back?
Smith: We would never get our jobs back. That makes it surprising in the overall scheme of things. That's why the commissioner is taking this approach. Look at it this way, the NFL doesn't just want people to come and play in their league and be good players, they want good citizens. So what he's trying to say, look, I don't want to take everything away from him. He served 18 months in jail. He did his time but I’m not going to let him right back in unless he shows me complete remorse. Not only is he going to be somebody who’s going to say ‘I’m sorry’, but he's going to be somebody to fight for the rights of dogs and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Chetry: The other interesting thing is you said that Roger Goodell said in his statement that the playing for the NFL is a privilege, its not a right. But he also said that a player is held to a standard of conduct higher than that generally expected in society and is held accountable when the standard isn't met. In this case, it seems, yes, he served his time but that wasn't being held to a higher standard. The dog-fighting ring is not anything that's acceptable to society but he's getting his job back.
Smith: Yes because most people would not get their jobs back but I think what he’s trying to show is if he cuts the player off now then NFL players might look and say, you know what, this is unfair. I served my time. You're trying to hold me to a standard that's higher but I'm in the public eye all the time. Maybe if I can show remorse, maybe if I can go out there and do things that the normal citizen can't do because of my stature maybe I should be let back in.
Chetry: He cleared that first hurdle. The next hurdle is finding a team that will take him on. What's the likelihood of this?
FULL POST
Filed under: American Morning • Commentary • Controversy