Maybe Gates should have stood on civil liberties rather than race
posted at 10:55 am on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Henry Gates erred, says Christopher Hitchens in a must-read Slate piece, by assuming to know the motivations in a police officer’s heart when Gates found himself under arrest for screaming at Sergeant James Crowley from his own property. Instead, Gates should have avoided motivation altogether and stuck to the strange notion that venting one’s frustration on one’s own property could result in an arrest for disorderly conduct. Civil liberty and free speech are the issue, Hitchens insists, and not race:
I can easily see how a black neighbor could have called the police when seeing professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to push open the front door of his own house. And I can equally easily visualize a thuggish or oversensitive black cop answering the call. And I can also see how long it might take the misunderstanding to dawn on both parties. But Gates has a limp that partly accounts for his childhood nickname and is slight and modest in demeanor. Moreover, whatever he said to the cop was in the privacy of his own home. It is monstrous in the extreme that he should in that home be handcuffed, and then taken downtown, after it had been plainly established that he was indeed the householder. The president should certainly have kept his mouth closed about the whole business—he is a senior law officer with a duty of impartiality, not the micro-manager of our domestic disputes—but once he had said that the police conduct was “stupid,” he ought to have stuck to it, quite regardless of the rainbow of shades that was so pathetically and opportunistically deployed by the Cambridge Police Department. It is the U.S. Constitution, and not some competitive agglomeration of communities or constituencies, that makes a citizen the sovereign of his own home and privacy. There is absolutely no legal requirement to be polite in the defense of this right. And such rights cannot be negotiated away over beer.
Race or color are second-order considerations in this, if they are considerations at all.
In my former career, I worked closely with police and fire departments across the country. The overwhelming majority of interactions were at least polite and professional, and many warm and friendly. Even when we had different short term goals, we had similar long term goals — the security of the communities they served. However, in more than a few cases, my staff and I had to deal with officious, condescending, and hostile representatives who treated everyone as their enemies. Instead of understanding the role and scope of their authority, they used their power as they saw fit, and in those cases went beyond their authority in demanding some kind of compliance to which they were not entitled. And it might surprise a few people that we saw that dynamic more with fire marshals than any other type of authority figure.
(An old industry joke: What’s the difference between a fire marshal and God? God doesn’t think he’s a fire marshal.)
When the Gates story first broke, I refrained from commenting on it until Barack Obama foolishly took sides without full information, mainly because I’ve had a couple of similar interactions with law-enforcement officers who either enjoyed their power a wee bit too much or simply had one bad moment. At that time, I mentioned a party that I attended many years ago that drew noise complaints. Someone mouthed off about a warrant, which provoked the officer to charge into the house without permission, thump his finger repeatedly into the smart-alec’s chest, and threaten to arrest everyone at the house. That broke the law and was an abuse of power, which his partner was smart enough to end by grabbing the officer by the arm and dragging him back out of the house. Race played no factor at all in that incident, but like Hitchens’ experience, it has stuck with me ever since as a reminder of the potential cost of demanding that the police stick to the rule of law while keeping the peace.
James Crowley sounds like an outstanding officer, but arresting someone on their own property for yelling at the police sounds a little strange. It seems at least plausible that Crowley had a bad moment and used poor judgment, not because of race, but simply because he’s human and has a tough job. Had Gates stuck to just those facts, he would have provided a teaching moment and a lesson on civil liberty and the right, at times, to yell at the representatives of our government when they appear to trample on the rights of citizens — even when the citizens are wrong in assuming the motivations involved.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »
This reminds me of Democrats complaining that we wanted Clinton impeached because he had sex in the oval office.
Why do you repeatedly try to minimize what Gates did by lying about what happened?
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM
He was …
Mouthing off Loudly.
Hurtling insults.
Interfering with a police team in the process of performing their duties.
Disturbing the peace.
You and Ed can defend that behavior – I think most of us out here have sense to realize that Gates got what was coming to him.
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Precisely.
I don’t even see why the charges should have been dropped.
But, this is an excellent time to talk about whether the law is right or not.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM
The only people acting “stupidly” here (besides Obama and Gates) are all of those who keep insisting that Gates was arrested INSIDE his house.
And even if he WAS arrested inside his house (which he wasn’t), your home is not some “safe haven” where you can get away with breaking the law.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Never defended it.
But to say he wasn’t arrested for mouthing off is not exactly true.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM
It’s hilarious to see you guys backtrack on this. as it becomes increasingly clear that Crowley did in fact act “stupidly” by arresting Gates.
crr6 on July 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Huh??? Gates certainly acted foolishly — whether legally or not, appears to be in dispute. Crowley, though, appears to have the full backing of all people present during the dispute, with the exception of Gates himself.
jwolf on July 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM
HondaV65:
I don’t move out of California because I’d rather stay and fight. Did we not recall the biggest piece of crap ever to sit in the Governor’s chair? These things take time and resolve. Don’t get me wrong, I lived in the deep south (Alabama) and have nothing but respect for it. How about you returning the class?
barberik on July 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I’m white. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times. If an officer requests information he has the authority to request and I bark a refusal at him – repeatedly – I’m stupid if I don’t believe that officer could snatch me out of my car or house and cuff me.
If he finally gets the info. he requested from me, but then I follow him out of my car or house shouting abuse, I’m STUPID if I don’t believe that officer could slap me in cuffs.
In Gates shoes I’d have immediately provided the id requested by the officer, thanked him for responding to check my property, and apologized that he had to come out on a false call.
Authority is due respect when it goes about its job. If everyone thinks they can act like Skippy the A-hole it very quickly becomes impossible for the law to do it’s legal duty.
The Ritz on July 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Oh well then … if you’re into “minimizing” and excusing his conduct – why not just that the dude was arrested for …
“talking loudly”.
/ rollseyes
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Gates did stand on civil liberties. He trampled on the liberty of Cambridge residents to govern themselves via laws, ordinances, and to tax themselves to pay for the enforcement of them.
Christien on July 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM
And to claim he was SOLELY arrested for “mouthing off” isn’t exactly true either.
He was acting loudly and disturbing the peace.
If he “mouthed off” calmly and quietly (and remained inside his house), we wouldn’t be talking about this because he wouldn’t have been arrested.
People also seem to forget that the officer was LEAVING the scene WITHOUT arresting him even AFTER all the abuse that was thrown at him inside the house.
It was only after Gates provocatively followed the officer outside to continue his ranting that it became a public matter and he was arrested.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Obviously that’s not what people are saying, so stop with the strawman. If it had just been hurt feelings, Gates would have been arrested inside his own home. He wasn’t, and every cop who was there agrees that the man created an unlawful disturbance.
Question the law if you want, but that’s a separate issue, one that most people are ignoring.
Look at your own story. You were breaking the law. Your car was illegally being driven in that city, and if you had tried to take it from the cops, you would be stealing it.
Bad example for cop abuse of power.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM
wait what?
So are you saying…
Its ok for some crotchety black liberation scholar aka Reverend Wright 2.0 Gates to scream RACIST at a cop doing his job and follow him out on the street infront of his house and scream Racist some more and should never have been cuffed, but its not ok for people in Missouri to say Obama will raise taxes during the election without the fear of the police showing up at their doors with “information” and the authority to remove anti obama lit and signage from yoru premises??
Will you woosies stop playing fair?
8 years of obama will ruin this country for generations to come. If you nincompoops don’t get your crap together and your war boots on and take it to the One, you will sorely regret it.
BillaryMcBush on July 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I have no problem with you staying in CA to fight the good fight bro.
But if you’re going to do that – then stop blaming the guys who are out on the beat (who keep you and your family safe) when they are simply enforcing the laws that the elected leaders of California enact?
I mean – how can you possibly enforce a stupid smog law and not look like a complete dick doing it?
It’s impossible. But that’s the situation the cops are in.
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM
The officer was trying to collect information in the line of his duty. It was reasonable information and a reasonable duty, considering Gates’ home had been broken into a month earlier.
Gates stands on the porch and will not cooperate, but decides to impede a public officer in the completion of his reasonable duty. Gates decides to hurl racist epithets and seeks to incite others who have gathered. I would not want to be Crowley in that situation. He removed the only non-reasonable factor out of an escalating situation: Gates.
If hate crimes are going to be prosecuted, I think Gates may need to stand up to some charges.
Joan of Argghh on July 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Well, was he not?
Many other Americans of all stripes get arrested for talking loudly in their front yards… and it’s perfectly legal. In fact, some of them probably say “yo momma” more than Gates did.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
“…but arresting someone on their own property for yelling at the police sounds a little strange.”
He wasn’t arrested for yelling at the police. He was arrested because he was being disorderly. There is a definable difference. Albeit, the definition of disorderly is slippery, it is still defined and it is still a law. If you think the law is strange, then change it. But until it’s changed, an officer has the right to arrest you for disorderly- even on your own property.
In Gates’ case, the officer warned him twice.
Fish on July 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
yep. no-brainer, really.
funky chicken on July 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I’m curious ED, is there some point at which your civil liberties to act as you please on your property stop? IMO while the cop acted wrongly at the party you were attending, did you ever stop to think about the fact that the noise level of the party was interfering with the rights of other property owners to peacefully enjoy their property. I no longer can count on my hands and toes the number of times I’ve had to ask neighbors to turn down the sound at their parties only to have them turn it up and then I have to call the cops on them. When I’m trying to sleep and my bed is dancing across the floor because of the noise then those who do that are violating my civil liberties. If the standard that is going to be held up is my rights uber alles then this society is thoroughly ripped.
BTW the above won’t happen to me anymore. My wife and I retired to a 38 acre spread in North Eastern Arizona. Nearest Neighbors are all quiet like I am.
“All things are legal, but not all things are expedient”
chemman on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
I don’t understand why otherwise intelligent people are missing the point here. I think it must have something to do with male egos and baby boomer issues with authority.
Gates wasn’t arrested for yelling at the police or for being an ass, he was arrested for disturbing the peace. Based on what I’ve read, Gates’s conduct would have met the elements of that charge and, contrary to the opinion of many HA commenters, police are NOT obliged to issue idiot passes to people stupid enough to break the law in their presence.
If you don’t think disturbing the peace should be an offense, or if you think there needs to be an exception in these statutes for disturbing the peace in the context of a police investigation, or police investigations of race-baiting university professors, or something equally retarded, you should take it up with your state legislature. I wish you the best of luck.
Infidoll on July 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Let’s just step outside of the world of “what it could or should be” for a moment and address what just IS. When anyone hurls insults at cops these days, they are likely to be arrested, regardless of race, creed or color. To assume anything else is to live in a delusional vacuum…….
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM
yep. again, seems a no-brainer.
funky chicken on July 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning.
Yes, Obama was wrong to interject himself and call the police stupid (or say they were acting stupidly).
Yes, Gates is rude, obnoxious, and belligerent.
No, civil liberties are not just for the polite and well mannered. Neither are they just for characters whose politics we share, nor are they just for people we like. They are also for jerks with offensive politics and an arrogant sense of entitlement.
He was on his porch. He had shown his ID- yes, not as soon as he should have, but he had shown it. He was telling the police to leave. Having established his identity and right to be there, they no longer had business there. They invited him to continue the discussion on the porch and then arrested him for doing so because they don’t like being yelled at and called names by anybody regardless of color. Nobody does, but that’
So not handcuffing us and arresting us and carting us downtown and putting us to the expense of having a lawyer come and get us out is the same as ‘thanking’ us?
I missed that part of the Bill of Rights. And just plain English.
DeputyHeadmistress on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Were you there? How do you know what Gates said?
And here’s a riddle for you …
Which statement best describes Teddy Kennedy’s crime?
A. Attempting to cover up the death of Mary Jo Kophechne and his role in it. or …
B. Taking ten hours to get to the police station to report the accident.
By your minimalistic logic – the answer would be “B”.
But we all know that the correct answer is A.
Just like we know that Gates wasn’t arrested for “simply” … mouthing off. It was his conduct as a whole brah.
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM
lol, of course :-)
funky chicken on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
It seems just as plausible that Crowley was justified in taking the actions he did. After all, he wasn’t the only cop on the scene. Are you suggesting that it was a conspiracy? If Crowley was acting like a martinet, wouldn’t one of the other cops have taken him aside and told him to back off? Fact of the matter is the officer- not the racist professer- deserves your benefit of the doubt in this situation.
highhopes on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
The only mistake the Cambridge Police made was dropping the charges. The law in MA covers the Gates situation perfectly. It is a minor arrest charge, and Gates was guilty of the charge. His behavior was drawing a crowd, and he was disorderly in public. Crowley was down the stairs, leaving, and Gates wouldn’t shut up, and kept yelling. Police are not supposed to leave someone in that condition.
The Dept. dropped the charge because Gates screamed RACIST and Al Sharpton was preparing to gather up the mobs. If anything, Gates received preferential treatment by having the charges dropped.
Because the charges were dropped everyone mistook that as proof that Gates was innocent of the charge. He’s not. He just knew how to get out of it – race card, al sharpton, and “Do you know who I am?”
sarainitaly on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Hitchens, Allah and (sadly, even) Ed here are spouting the typical libertarian angle – it’s all about rights.
Funny thing, though, the discussion is never about the reasonable and responsible USE of those rights.
Remember, just because you have a right to do something…
…that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
I will continue to assume that a police officer is acting fairly and will be calm, gracious and cooperative with them instead of assuming right off the bat that they are on some kind of power trip.
That just seems the right and responsible thing to do.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
And even then, you aren’t allowed to pose naked in front of your open windows (or even have sex with your own lawn furniture as one case explained), and if the noise in your own home is loud enough to bother others in homes near yours, then even that becomes a problem.
We don’t have the legal right to do whatever we want regardless of who it affects.
Now how would we get your wrong when you claimed a Southern education was deficient?
Of course you do. The man’s a friend of the president and was already making his documentary. He was given preferential treatment.
Agreed. Unless someone can show me that Crowley broke the law (and no one has yet, especially when every officer there has agreed he did the right thing), then this isn’t about him but about the law.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Ed = Libertarian Wingnut
The officers were authorized to be on the premises. No longer did Gates have “absolute sovereignty” until he dispelled their suspicions. This wasn’t a casual encounter but the investigation of a possible crime, which requires compliance with those who carry a badge and a gun–not verbal abuse of them.
cackcon on July 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Well, yeah.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Well, he was saying nasty things. What else? Swinging and kicking?
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Less Libertarian mentality more a$$whooping conservatism please.
What the heck is a Libertarian anyway?
The mutated Spawn of a Fringe Liberal Treehugger and an Introverted Recycled Paper Librarian?
BillaryMcBush on July 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I haven’t seen anyone “backtrack”. Ed for example is taking the same position he took when this story originally broke.
I haven’t seen anyone else change their position either.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Well, I guess I do… Sad. I guess my point was, I don’t see why the police would even cave to Barry’s wishes.
Yep
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM
He’s not minimizing it but just explaining it. Gates was arrested for yelling loudly, that’s what he did to cause a disturbance, and there’s no indication that he did anything else to cause the disturbance.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM
What else?
Screaming.
Shouting.
Causing a scene.
Trying to prevent the officer from leaving.
Disturbing the peace of his neighbors.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM
barberik on July 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The point is that you are abusing the police for enforcing the law. Vent your anger on the proper target. The politicians who passed the law, and the voters who support those politicians.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
OK… you are giving the trolls ammo next time they claim Conservatives are Fascist Nazis…
More follow the rule of law-conservatism, please (which was followed, except maybe when charges were dropped).
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
BillaryMcBush on July 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Real Libertarians are simply Constitutionalists at heart.
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM
‘Civil liberties’ does not include the liberty to be a disrespectful loudmouth to a licensed officer of the law, especially not while interfering in their duties.
Cops today really are d–ned if they do, d–ned if they don’t when it comes to black offenders.
Dark-Star on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Gates not longer disputes Crowley’s version of events so there is no doubt. It’s an open and shut case.
What we’re really disucssing is the political question “Should you be able to do whatever you like as long as you do not use violence?” Libertarians call this “non-initiation of force”. The law as is says no, there are other standards of behaviour that you must conform to i.e. you must keep the peace and not appear paralytically inebriated in public.
However instead of arguing that the law should be changed the libertarians here are trying to argue that Gates did not break the law by a) setting up a series of strawmen (“impolite”, “mouthing off”, “hurt the cop’s feelings”); b) getting the facts of the case wrong (e.g. saying that Gates was inside his house) and c) pretending that the law allows for “unreasonable noise” and using “abusive or obscene language” in a public place which it does not.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM
All you have to do in the current climate is scream “Racist” and every bleeding heart numbskull automatically assumes a crime has been commited against someone civil liberties without any questioning of the motivation of the screamer.
Hate Mongering Pastor Mentor Screams Racist…
Its Obama’s White Granny who is the racist…
Black Liberation Scholar friend screams racist…
Whoops, out of grandwhiteys…
Lets blame the cop.
BillaryMcBush on July 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Don’t bother with reason. It’s wasted on crr6.
Well, we all know justice isn’t really blind.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Hey Ed maybe the STUPID cop should have left when he found out Gates lives there.
Terry Silver on July 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The first 4 lead to number 5. The fourth one is strange. He may have verbally tried to keep the officer from leaving his property, but the officer did “manage” to leave hi house building.
Screaming, Shouting, and Causing a scene is definitely more than mouthing off… but not significantly more.
Let’s not romanticize this. Gates was arrested for doing what many other people do in their yards right before getting arrested – except he probably wasn’t drunk off alcohol – just his own ego.
Personally, I’m hoping Gates makes a guest appearance on Reno 911 … gotta represent. I wonder if they’ll have a trailer to his liking.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I guess I just don’t understand Hitchen’s, Allah’s and Ed’s arguments.
Are they really suggesting that Officer Crowley broke the law by entering Gates’ house?
Are they really suggesting that Gates WASN’T acting in a manner that fits the description of “Disorderly Conduct”?
Or are they suggesting that there is some “right” buried in the Constitution (presumably right next to the “right” to kill an unborn baby) that it is legal to act disorderly AS LONG AS it’s against a LEO?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM
spot on, and it will only get much worse…
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Here is a prime example. Is the law predicated on the libertarian principle of non-initiation of force? No, it is not. Does Upstater85 believe it is? That is unclear, but he is arguing as if it were.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Well, we can nitpick the seconds, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he did.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
And Ted Kennedy is simply guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it in a timely manner.
Got it.
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Same exact things.
Didn’t he cause the scene through his screaming and shouting?
Again, just by yelling, correct?
Once again, through yelling, screaming or any other synonym you want to come up with, which is upstater’s point, not that he wasn’t causing a disturbance but that his means of doing so were all vocal in nature.
This isn’t in dispute as far as I can tell.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
OT…..
Lucia Whalen, the lady who made the 911 call is giving a statement on Fox right now.
It’s heartbreaking what they’ve put this lady thru.
Knucklehead on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
…well, I honestly though Gates would kick him or something.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Actually I’ve never even seen Esthier talk about Ted Kennedy.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Freedom of speech means just that. Not, freedom of speech EXCEPT when talking to a cop or certain minorities. And the idea that hollering at a cop is somehow ‘inciting’ is nonsense. As long as I keep my hands to myself, I would expect anyone, police included, to have the restraint to walk away from me if I shout ‘yo mama’ or anything else at the top of my lungs. If we can’t expect this, and anyone can interpret anything said by anyone as offensive (or ‘inciting’), then we would have no freedom of speech at all.
hogfat on July 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM
There is no civil liberties issue, in my view. If Gates had cooperated and still been arrested, there would have been an issue, but at no point did he try to cooperate. Breaking into a house, whether it’s yours or not, has the appearances of a criminal act. The same situation would arise if you locked your keys in your car and used a coat hanger to jimmy the lock. It’s your property, but you are exhibiting criminal behavior by breaking into it.
tommuck on July 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM
That it is.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Hey, nice post!
You actually pointed out that Gates’ unwarranted hotheadedness doesnt mean he should be arrested, and suggested that it’s at least possible that the officer overreacted.
When you brought up Obama, it to say Obama was foolish to take sides (which I agree with) rather than saying he injected race into it (which he explicitly did not do, despite what APundit claims).
And you pointed out that Crowley’s error was much more likely based on a poor understanding of civil liberties than based in racism.
Good stuff. I criticize Ed Morrissey when he posts stuff that’s dishonestly partisan, so I want to give compliments when he’s even-handed. Well done.
orange on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Well, it’s the difference between the officer leaving WITHOUT arresting you and the officer leaving WITH arresting you.
Remember, Gates “mouthed off” INSIDE his house and the officer was prepared to leave the scene without arresting him.
Following him outside was an escalation of the situation and created a public scene that was veering (if not already) out of control.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM
By the way, do any of the libertarian nuts care to speculate why Gates’ conduct ought to subject him to arrest? I mean, if you’re the only cop who shows up to a house where–for all you know–two men have broken in, and the guy you confront starts acting in a threatening manner (including placing a call right in front of you), wouldn’t you feel that something bad was going down? Maybe?
cackcon on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Okay but Crowley would not need to believe that Gates was on the verge of violent behaviour in order to arrest him, as displaying “tumultous” behaviour in a public place is disorderly in and of itself.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM
No, in my opinion, it is legal to arrest someone for simply mouthing off in a manner that disturbs the peace.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM
heartbreaking indeed, the leftards are truly shameless…
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Hey Terry, he did.
The Stupid Race baiting BLack Liberation Scholar and Friend of Jeremiah God D@mn Ameri-KKK-a the Gobment invented the AIDS Virus to kill black folk Chickens are coming home to roost White followed him out of the house and continued verbally assaulting the officer – You a Racist, attempting to intimidate him – You don’t know who you are messing with i want your badge number, insulting his mother – you “son of a b!tch, threatening him and screaming – This is what happens to a black man in america, causing a scene and stopping foot traffic disturbing his neighbors and being a public nuisance.
Looks like Stoopid didn’t know when to shut the f#ck up just like his friend Obonkers – “I don’t have all the facts but let me say something stupidly that will inflame the situation because he is a racial opportunist who just LOVES TO RACEBAIT!!! “Hey They are going to say he looks funny doesnt look like the other presidents on the dollar bill has a funny name and did i mention he is black?”
BillaryMcBush on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
No, one improper screech and Crowley was following the law in arresting him. (/sarcoff)
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Conjecture. The tapes should provide clarity. Besides, disorderly conduct(disturbing the peace) is considered a crime in the US, especially if Gates was asked to stop, but decided to continue.
runner on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Twist my words all you want, but we already know Teddy was drunk, tried to set up an alibi, didn’t even have a valid license, didn’t even try to save her or get her help even though there was a house nearby and she was presumably still alive when the car hit the water, and many other things.
With Gates, no matter how you word it, the man was yelling, and through his yelling and only his yelling, caused a disturbance.
Everyone has agreed here that if he’d stayed quiet, his “yo mamma” BS would have been legal. So it all goes back to his yelling. Take that away, and he was fine, with it, he broke the law.
With Teddy, even if he’d reported the accident in time, there were still several other laws he’d broken.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM
The officer also has to ensure that the homeowner is not being held hostage. IE, the robber is behind the door holding a gun on the homeowner and telling him what to say.
Once that second hurdle has been passed, then the officer should leave. And from everything I have read, the officer did try to leave at that point.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Actually, the courts have ruled for many years that there are restrictions to that freedom.
Included in those is that you have no “freedom” to cause a loud, disorderly public scene.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM
No he’s simply spouting the same silly minimalistic argument that you are – and I’m simply throwing it right back at him.
But why just minimize it down to “mouthing off”?
Why not just say he was arrested for “talking loudly”?
Or why not just say he was arrested for excessive vocal volume and making angry faces?
Technically all this is correct.
But in fact – the guy was interfereing with the police in the performance of their duties by disturbing the peace.
Nuff said and I’m not arguing this stupid point anymore.
Nuance much?
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
It’s possible to yell without causing a public disturbance.
Trying to dismiss this behaviour as “just screaming”, is not an accurate description.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM
It is a civil liberties issue. A person has every right to break into their house if they are locked out. Its their house! They could kick the door in if they pleased.
Terry Silver on July 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM
You cannot be arrested simply for hollering at a cop. That is not why Gates was arrested. It was not Gates’s outrageous behavior to Crowley, it was the public disturbance Gates created by continuing to shout invective from his front porch into a public street where there were seven passersby who had stopped to see what was happening.
That’s why Crowley said in his report that the people in front of Gates’s house were surprised and upset by Gates’s behavior.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Upstater has agreed that the arrest was likely legal.
I’m sure he prefers your criticism.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Hmmm….
…I’ve obviously misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing that Gates had every right to “mouth off” to the officer.
I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Hehe … nuance much?
HondaV65 on July 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Freedom of speech also means that you have to accept the consequences of your speech.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Ummm………
…you ARE aware that Gates was NOT arrested for “breaking into his house”?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Obama injected race into this incident when he went into his long speil regarding white police abusing blacks.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Esthier is a she, and perhaps you should look at her posts more.
Well, heck, if I had a neighbor that talked as loudly as Gates, I’d probably have no problem with the police arresting him or her.
He did disturb the peace (at least as the law would have it), but I’m not sure Gates really interfered too much with police business. A little, but they were free to go… oh, except he was yelling loudly. They arrested him.
OK
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I’m a she. The name didn’t give that away?
When would yelling outside loud enough to be heard by your neighbors not cause a disturbance?
Calling it a disturbance is even less descriptive, and I’ve yet to see someone come up with something better.
Gates wasn’t arrested for breaking into his own home, so you’re point is completely irrelevant.
Still, someone who breaks into a home does not get the presumption of innocence when being asked if he lives there, and it’s asinine to believe he should get it.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Perhaps he did if he was being relatively quiet, but he clearly was disturbing the peace.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM
cackcon on July 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I am one of the most consistently libertarian posters on this board.
Would you care to be a little more careful in your characterizations?
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM
First of all, it was not one “improper screech”. As Officer Crowley was leaving the scene Gates kept repeatedly shouting loudly at Crowley.
Second of all Gates was not arresting for shouting loudly at Crowley. As one poster said above its not a crime to holler at a cop. It was the public disturbance Gates created by continuing to shout invective from his front porch into a public street where there were seven passersby who had stopped to see what was happening.
That’s why Crowley said in his report that the people in front of Gates’s house were surprised and upset by Gates’s behavior.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Not at all. Just busy burning your strawmen.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
If my neighbor screams loudly every day at 12:00PM… even without using “yo momma,” they are disturbing the peace.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The shouting in and of itself is not the disturbance. The disturbance is the fact that several members of the public were visibly disturbed by the loud scene Gates created.
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM
If the police officer was justified in his arrest, and all his fellow officers backed him up as being a good man, then why were the charges dropped so quickly?
Terry Silver on July 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Oh, okay. Then what are we arguing about?
aengus on July 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I second that Mark, people confuse “anarchist” Libertarians with “free will” Libertarians too often. Folks need to read up on that. Libertarian is NOT spelled Liberaltarians.
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 12:22 PM
My definition of “peace,” does not include shouting.
If Gates lived somewhere with no neighbors, he could probably claim he wasn’t disturbing the peace by yelling. But that isn’t the case.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM
They were disturbed why? Oh, right, because he was yelling.
Seriously, guys, this like arguing that a man charged with murder wasn’t just arrested because he plunged a knife into a man’s heart five times but instead was arrested because he murdered someone.
Why are you pushing this into an argument?
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM
SCOTUS already settled this long ago. Screaming “Fire” in a crowded cinema was not considered free speech neither is inciting violence or causing a civil disturbance. That’s why the laws are on the books and are valid. Get used to the fact that you simply cannot do what you want to do all the time – that’s not what freedom is about and it demeans the memory of those who died protecting it to make it a self centered ego issue.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Perhaps nothing…
though I strongly disagree with such posts as follows:
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM
1) Disorderly Conduct charges are rarely prosecuted when that is the only charge.
2) Gates is an influencial man, with many powerful friends.
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Semantics.
Because Gates is a personal friend of the President and was already planning a documentary on racist cops that don’t exist.
Are you really under the impression that no one has ever been let out of jail for political reasons?
If so, I have a bridge for sale…
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Fact: Gates and friend broke into a house, regardless that it was his own property, leaving the impression to an uninformed neighbor that two strange men were breaking into a neighbor’s home.
Fact: Crowley and two other officers were dispatched in response to a 911 caller’s report of two unidentified men breaking into a private home, that of the neighbor woman who urged the passerby woman to please call 911 on her cell phone to report what appeared to be a break in.
Fact: Crowley and two other officers were responding to a reported break in of a private home. Their actions were determined and governed by police procedural manuals and codes and other such mandates. They had a procedure to follow to determine the actual situation, and they did so according to the book.
Fact: Any interference with a police officer’s procedural duties during an apparent crime-in-progress is a crime in and of itself. Crowley’s team had no way of knowing if there were other potential criminally minded men already in the house once Gates proved his own identity, and it was their responsibility at that point to determine that the house was safe for Gates to reenter. Had there been a prior break in and the perps were still present inside, and had they then attacked and injured or killed Gates, holy hell would not have been enough to pay.
Fact: Gates pursued Crowley outside, continually and abusively berating Crowley and thus interfering with Crowley’s legal responsibilities. Interfering with the investigation of a reported crime-in-progress is illegal, don’t forget. That Crowley felt compelled to handcuff Gates just to get him out of harms way and out of Crowley’s way in wrapping up the investigation and securing the property just screams about the level of abuse and interference that Gates was inflicting, unnecessarily complicating everyone’s lives over his silly bruised ego.
Fact: It had nothing at all to do with free speech and liberties. It had everything to do with police officers who were behaving appropriately in investigating a reported break in, which, if it had turned out someone else had done and was lurking inside while the second break in by the owner was happening, could have proved disastrous.
Fact: Yes, there are LEO’s and others who like to throw their weight and power around, but they are relatively few, and Crowley and his partners were clearly not of their ilk, from the get-go. Given Crowley’s history as an LEO, especially being a specialist in racial profiling, how anyone in the aftermath can accuse him of being a racist or in any way behaving in any manner other-than proscribed ways according to standard police procedure is beyond me.
People who are having a knee-jerk reaction to this should step back and ask themselves: How many more times are we going to jump to the conclusion that the cops are the bad guys at all times under all circumstances just because there are a few bad pennies that get a lot of press? Each time all of the good cops are made to pay for the actions of a few, it makes them hesitate all the more when responding to legitimate reports of potential crimes-in-progress. Do we really really want hesitant cops coming to our defense at a time when it’s our turn to be the potential victims of a crime?
Not me. Not now. Not ever. The bad press that bad cops get as well as police department policies and punishment are enough to tamp down the actions of over-eager power-mad few, and in the cases where it isn’t enough, they get canned.
But I sure don’t want the good cops to take heat because of the actions of bad cops, and I sure as hell don’t want the good cops to become prone to hesitating when the time comes for them to be watching -my- back!
KendraWilder on July 29, 2009 at 12:25 PM
OMG – charges get dropped all the time, especially minor ones without presumption of guilt or innocence. If you bothered to look at the available evidence you would see what really happened based on the original source evidence and not what the liberal MSM is feeding you.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »