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 5 6 … 8 Next »
Gates is a racist, just like the Prez. He wanted to get arrested that is why he started yelling at him as soon as Crowley arrived. Trying to dissect what Crowley did or didn’t do is to miss the entire point!
Sporty1946 on July 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM
We specifically want people we hire as our public employees to be our servants. It provides a false sense of superiority for those not capable of handling a position of responsibility (i.e. they will never be in a situation to hire someone ever but will remain the hiree for their entire life). Then they bask in the false sense of superiority over people just trying to make a living. This whole mindset is abhorrent to me. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Can’t think it was ever something most people were interested in. It means having to think of others and think of what they would want and how they would like to be treated.
Sure it makes for a better society and makes it easier to enjoy its benefits, but then, you have to think of other people.
Esthier on July 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
We can split hairs on “civil liberties”, but essentially the liberal argument is that citizens have a Constitutional right to VERBALLY ABUSE police officers. Nice.
That’s what Dr. Phil refers to as “right-fighting”, isn’t it? You might be right… but does it get you what you want?
Obama and Gates both played the race card. That’s the bottom line. They did it impulsively as a matter of reflex, showing us all who they really are in the process. And now, instead of apologizing for it like civilized men, they’re determined to brazen it out on a technicality, demonizing good people in the process.
People aren’t stupid. They know what they saw. And in the end, it’s public opinion that counts, because public opinion will eventually translate to votes.
Murf76 on July 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM
What’s really pathetic is that this no-talent buffoon ever became a “prominent scholar” in the first place.
The Leftists in academia elevated Black History to iconic status and installed the r hand-picked affirmative action poodles as shining examples of scholarship.
Mark Steyn had a wonderful column about Gates last week.
Gates was called as a defense witness in the obscenity trial of Two Live Crew.
He compared their vulgar lyrics to line “My love is like a red, red rose,” which he attributed to Shakespeare.
That poem was actually written by Robbie Burns, 200 years after Shakespeare.
Keep in mind that Gates is a Professor of English, as well as of Black History.
Another race hack living large in academia. Only slightly less clownish than Ward Churchill.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Let it also be noted that Gates went from 0 to 100 IMMEDIATELY upon seeing the color of the police officer’s skin.
ALL parties (Gates included) agree that there was NEVER any civility given to the responding officer.
Which is a very, very strange (and sad) thing.
Gates never even gave Officer Crowley the chance to show whether he was racist or not.
It’s a wonder that such bizarre and offensive behavior didn’t get Gates a trip to the psych ward.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
something liberals only pretend to do…..
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
That is the essence of racism – making an assumption about a person based on their race.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I agree that civility is an important component in how people should interact but it is NOT against the law to be impolite, sarcastic, or condescending.
Gates should never had been arrested.
lexhamfox on July 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Religious_Zealot, according to Crowley’s own account, Gates asked for Crowley’s ‘identification’ (Crowley’s word).
Yet Crowley did not provide the identification card bearing that information, the card that police officers in Massachusetts are required to carry and, by law, “shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.”
Crowley’s own account has him telling Gates he’ll respond to his demand for identification outside, and then walking off instead of giving him that information. It has Gates remaining on the porch, still yelling, and Crowley coming back to the porch to arrest him- still not giving Gates the information he was legally required to give.
There was no reasonable presumption that the ‘crowd’ was being incited to violence or even there because of Gates. It’s just as likely the police were attracting the crowd at least as much as Gates.
DeputyHeadmistress on July 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
But it IS against the law to be impolite, sarcastic and condescending in a loud, abusive and disorderly manner.
Which is exactly what Gates was doing.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM
With all the arguing the details of this situation, there is something that I’ve wondered but haven’t seen much discussion on.
What was the situation Gates actually wanted? If what was happening made him so mad, what is it that he would have wanted to be different?
Did he want there not to be any response from the police that there was a break-in reported at his residence?
Did he want only a black police officer to show up at a black person’s house to investigate?
Did he want the police to grovel before him as his servants?
Did he want the police to arrest the white woman who saw him breaking into his own house?
Did he want a free ride in a police car?
Did he just want a police officer to be there so he had someone to be mad at?
And most importantly in my mind:
Did Skip Gates think that what he was doing would help race relations in this country, or drive a wedge deeper between the races?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Well written piece by Mr. Morrissey. Although I disagree in part. Specifically, you may want to refer to the Mass. General Laws for Disorderly Conduct.
Throughout all this, the Cambridge Police have proven themselves to be a most professional and model police department.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the police are going to rush to Gates’ home for future emergencies? How about the neighborhood? The city? What if everyone acts like Gates? Are the police going to be eager to help? Go above and beyond?
Believe it or not, I think that they will still rush in to help Mr. Gates in any future emergency. Why? because they are the good guys, that’s why. Maybe that’s why some of the public feel they can talk this way to the police. Because I highly doubt Gates would talk this way to some thug on the street who would most likely kick his teeth in then take the abuse.
By the way, I think it is important to remember who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ are. Can the police be downright rude? You bet. Are they supposed to take some verbal abuse? Yes, to the extent that it doesn’t become criminal (e.g. disorderly conduct).
If the officers follow policy and procedure and act in good faith, (as the police did here) they should be afforded the respect and trust that was simply not afforded to them by their own Mayor, Governor and President.
brennan251 on July 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I haven’t vetted this yet, but if it IS true, may explain the Ones angst. (was forwarded to my email a few minutes ago) Any confirmations out there?
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM
not sure google and snopes does it for me ;-P
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM
But a name IS identification.
And Crowley states in his report: “I could hear Gates
again demanding my name. ”
This comes after his statement about Gates asking for identification.
Thus, Gates’ first (and continued request) was for his name.
Which Crowley PROVIDED, except that Gates kept shouting over him.
Again, the report states that Crowley PROVIDED his name several times.
Gates continued to shout over him.
At that point, he proceeded to leave and mentioned that if Crowley had any more questions (NOT “I’ll respond to your demand for identification outside), then he’d respond to them outside: “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 of the residence.”
Obviously Gates was never really interested in the officers name because he didn’t ask for it again. Instead he shouted about how Crowley was a racist and how this is how black people get treated.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM
True, however disorderly conduct is against the law.
Everybody on the scene, including the civilians agreed that Gates should have been arrested. (with the presumable exception of Gates, unless Gates’ goal was to get arrested so that he could promote his All Cops are Racist video he’s planning to make.)
MarkTheGreat on July 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Again, he DID provide that information.
Gates shouted over him.
From the police report:
Oh, and he did provide identification:
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I have a hard time buying this. I remember the parking ticket “scandal” from back during the campaign. It seemed pretty lame then. Now it seems even more lame. I would really hope that someone who has gone through enough good fortune to be elected president would not hold a grudge over some parking tickets.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
So, in other words, he may have acted stupidly?
If you rewatch Obama’s remarks, he’s very careful to say he didn’t know if race played any role in the arrest. What he said is that police acted stupidly in arresting Gates in his own home. And, it seems he’s right in that assessment.
Tom_Shipley on July 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM
It is a fundamental of recruiting, that as you are recruiting a person, you are also training them. Between the lines you are communicating, “How I’m talking to you, this is how you’ll talk to people if you join our organization.” So you’re recruiting and modeling simultaneously.
When the police are dealing with people in public, as they are trying to work with the principals, they are also teaching behavioral expectations to those who are watching. For example, if someone gets too lippy with them in public, the police want to teach those watching that won’t be able to get away with that, so they crack down on the lippy guy, partly to discourage lippy behavior. If the police didn’t crack down in certain ways (that can seem excessively harsh) their jobs would be much, much harder.
Chris Rock, whose video “How not to get your ass kicked by the police,” has been often referenced in the Gates discussion, says, “Everybody knows, if the police have to come get you, they’re bringin’ an ass-kickin’ with you.” Everybody does know that but there’s no reason why it has to be, except that the police all agree they need to do it, presumeably to discourage running from the police, which although tempting, is extremely dangerous. Who knows how many more people would run from the police if everyone didn’t know Chris Rock’s rule of thumb. Police have agreements, unwritten rules, like that, and getting yelled at in a disrespectful manner is covered in another agreement; at least every time I’ve seen it go on long enough, arrest, at least, has been the conclusion of the incident, often accompanied by a body slam into the side of the squad car prior to frisking, as much for the benefit of the by-standers as for Mr. Lippy.
Crowly, for his part, being Mr. Diversity Expert, can’t be having some guy calling him a racist. HE isn’t going to cop to that ever never. Gates couldn’t figure out why this white man’s knees weren’t going wobbly in the face of his well-rehearsed “critique,” he also didn’t know whom he was messing with. So he just kept pushing harder–irresistable force meets immovable object until the inevitable occurred. It turns out really, that Gates didn’t know who he was messing with more than Crowly didn’t know who HE was messing with–even though Gates is buds with the POTUS. America! What a country.
And the moral of the story is–dont’ f*ck with the police. Right or wrong, most of us know where the lines are, and the police get to draw them. We can be redressed after the fact–but when it’s going down, the police rule. Plan accordingly.
smellthecoffee on July 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
lol, agreed.
Ozprey on July 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Hope and change. AS we used to say in the Army: Hope is not a method.
I can fully believe that he did not pay his tickets because everything is about him. If he decided to park somewhere then that should be good enough for all the little people and they should not give him a ticket. Obama is a self centered a$$hole.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
From the police report, all of the parts that deal with Officer Crowley’s identification and Gates’ response to such:
Please note that when Gates followed the officer outside, there is absolutely no mention of Gates continuing to ask for identification.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Religious_zealot: I agree that Gates was the racist here, not Crowley. I agree that Gates behaved like an idiot.
I agree he should have been more civil and polite to the officer.
I agree the police have a moral right to expect some appreciation from a citizen in the situation Gates was in.
I do not agree they have a legal right to expect deferential treatment or even gratitude, to the point of arresting a man for no greater crime than yelling at them.
I also find it disturbing that Crowley’s OWN account has him admitting that Gates asked him, not just for his name, but for identification, and that at some point he responded to Gates’ demand (again, by Crowley’s OWN account) that he would speak to him further outside- and that he had walked off down the porch and down the sidewalk rather than do what he told Gates he would do and give him further information, and, still relying on nobody’s word but Crowley’s himself, Gates was NOT following him out to the street, but remaining on the porch, since Crowley had to turn around and go back to the porch to arrest him.
Verbally mouthing off to a police officer on your own property, particularly when the police have established that the reason for their being there is a misunderstanding will get just about anybody arrested- but it shouldn’t, and that it does should trouble principled conservatives.
Civil liberties, again, are not just for people we respect.
DeputyHeadmistress on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
beekiller on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html
commonwealth v. Whiting, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 918 , 920 (2003). See note 1, supra. “To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute.” Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). The Commonwealth argues that the defendant engaged in ”
The arrest was unlawful end of story. The rest of you defending the cop and thinking this was a lawful arrest are ignorant.
Norvell on July 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Exactly what I said the other day. Gates should have stuck to the true Conservative tenets – the right to proivacy and that one’s home is sancrosanct.
The big problem with many of these Conservatives is their knee jerk reaction to believe they must support anyone wearing a uniform, or else.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM
The problem with many of these Liberals is their knee jerk reaction to believe they must support anyone who is a minority, or else.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I think Gates should also be charged with a hate crime. He was inciting racism (with witnesses outside) which could have erupted into more than a public disturbance; literally into a full blown riot if it had been a black neighborhood. Officer Crowley’s life could have been endangered, and other police arriving on the scene would also have been in jeopardy.
And we know the only race-baiter in this situation was the black professor. And since race is one criteria/basis for Hate Crimes Law, I think the Professor’s charges should be re-instated, as well as adding a new hate crimes charge.
Suck on that, racist.
Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Sadly if you happen to be white you also have to be gay or a transvestite otherwise you a considered to deserve everything you get.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
It would have been his own fault for going into his home illegally. Sorry, no sympathy here.
beekiller on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
your conclusive proof is severely lacking in context.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
You pays your money and you takes your choice. If Gates wants to sue, he’ll probably find plenty of lawyers who want to take the case, for free even. I doubt his POTUS friend wants this to get dragged out even more, however, considering how badly he (Obama) behaved. Your irony can be one mean son-of-a-b, sometimes, can’t it?
smellthecoffee on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Yeah, I don’t have much sympathy for Gates either. =P
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
One tit-for-tat bad behavior doesn’t rectify another.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Fact is, if gates was white and the cop black, the case would never have been dropped and may even be considered a hate crime.
sonofdy on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
He wasn’t just yelling at them. He was creating a scene (“Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew
the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gate’s outburst.”)
You’re ASSUMING that Crowley’s first use of “identification” was something OTHER than his name (which, btw, he provided right at the beginning).
But Crowley ONLY did this because he had already provided his name numerous times, and Gates kept shouting over him.
It doesn’t trouble me because a conservative also values civil behavior.
If the officer hadn’t been civil to Gates, then maybe, MAYBE, there MIGHT be a point here.
But that wasn’t the case.
Gates took one look at Officer Crowley’s white skin and proclaimed himself to be a victim of racism WITHOUT even inquiring on why he was there.
He was also given ample opportunities to end it.
Gates didn’t need to follow Crowley outside of the house, and Gates certainly didn’t need to ignore Crowley’s warnings.
This is not a civil rights issue, but an issue of civility and perceived entitlement (by Gates).
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Ha! True dat. But legally…
Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Most I’ve seen take it on a case by case basis. Look back a few months to the post with the video of some cops beating a guy who almost ran over a cop but then crashed and was thrown from the car. A lot of conservatives who are defending the police in this case, were very outspoken against them in that case.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Are you implying that one can break the law and get away with it AS LONG AS they are on their own property?
Are you also implying that Gates’ “right to privacy” outweighed the police department’s need to investigate a 911 call about an attempted burglary?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
@smellthecoffee
Yes gates should of followed common sense and remained calm however looking at this in hindsight the cop was WRONG. End of story. Also yes gates would have every right sue. I hope it does. Speech is not disorderly conduct according to MA law.
Also the police in the end do not get to draw the line. Police enforce certain lines that are drawn up by laws. If they do otherwise they’re not doing their job.
Norvell on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Religious_Zealot, first you didn’t believe Gates asked for identification, but according to Crowley’s account he did and didn’t get it. This should give you pause for thought. And, actually, Crowley does not say what Gates was yelling. It might have been a continued request for identification.
But at any rate, Gates shouldn’t have to KEEP asking for identification- he had already, by Crowley’s own account, asked for it and not been given it. This is illegal. Crowley is required by law to provide it when asked- he is required by law to carry it on a card and offer it when asked- he did not.
Instead, Crowley told Gates he would speak to him further outside- and then, Crowley just walks off instead of giving him the information he told him to come outside and get, information he was legally bound to provide, however rudely asked.
The law Crowley cited when arresting Gates does not apply to what Gates was doing.
Gates was a jerk, bigoted, racist, ill mannered- all of these things. We could say he ‘started it.’ But only one of the two men was acting in his official capacity, and in that official capacity he declined to do something he was required to do by law, he told Gates he would talk with him outside and then he walked off instead, and he had to walk back up on to the porch to arrest the man, proving Gates was not ‘following him out to the street.’ Although he carefully worded his arrest to try and make Gates’ behavior fit the law, reading the law it is obvious that verbally abusing an officer on your own property when you have already established your right to be there is not what the law was written for.
DeputyHeadmistress on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
@scrappy
From the link, here is the summary of the case
The evidence at the trial of a criminal complaint was insufficient to convict the defendant of disorderly conduct, where the defendant’s conduct in flailing his arms and shouting did not constitute violent or tumultuous behavior. [725-726]
Norvell on July 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM
The filthy liar’s comments were planned but he was utterly mystified when the story kept growing (and not in ways favorable to the filthy liar and his racist friend). He jumped into the press room on Friday in an attempt to make the story go away over the weekend. It has not. It will still be a story tomorrow when they have the beer and bigotry session. After that it will probably be less of a story but the filthy liar definitely did not win points with the American people when he showed how truly racist he is at his core.
highhopes on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Ed:
I am a strong believer in civil liberties. I agree that if there is a case to be made, it is based on the rights of the individual and not race.
However, Crowley was not there to harass Gates. He was not the one who escalated the situation. And if Gates had actually been polite, or even yelled at Crowley and then shut the door in his face rather than following him outside…I doubt very much if there would have been an arrest.
I think Crowley decided that Gates needed some cool down time.
BTW, being a libertarian or a believer in civil liberties does not mean that we believe in the right to get in others peoples faces and scream at them for no other reason than the sheer nasty fun of being obnoxious.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I value civil behavior, too- but that doesn’t mean I think being rude is an arrestable offense, and Gates was not breaking the law (which I have read).
DeputyHeadmistress on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
This repetitious line of argument is getting tiresome. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that upon request for ID on multiple occasions Crowley was responding by giving ID but that Gates repeatedly shouted over the response. Not only is the legallity of it covered by the police officer, but Gates’ own actions show that he wasn’t interested in actually getting the information
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
If it was Henry Kissenger or Alexander Haig who was arrested by a black cop – completely different outcome.
The black cop would be fighting for his job right now – against the world and every opinionated bastard this side of cable news.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
You know how it is in America these days. Rogue cops randomly hauling blacks out of their homes and delivering them to doctors who needlessly yank their tonsils out for the insurance money.
highhopes on July 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I agree with Colin Powell – I would say where’s the adult – and I would take it further and add – where is the Conservative adult – protecting the taxpayers – from ridiculous arrests, just as damning and costly as silly lawsuits.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
AprilOrit:
I do not knee jerk defend anyone, but for heavens sake…Crowley was there in answer to a 911 call he was not cruising the streets looking for black men to harass. If this silly prof had just answered the questions in a civil and intelligent way the whole incident could have been avoided.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
That’s just utter BS. Stuck on stupid is clearly not limited to the filthy liar in the White House and his racist friends.
highhopes on July 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
If it was Henry Kissenger or Alexander Haig who was arrested by a black cop – completely different outcome.
The black cop would be fighting for his job right now – against the world and every opinionated bastard this side of cable news.
You made this comment and I have to say it is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. BTW, some of the strongest support Crowley has received has been from the black cops he serves with. Are they racists too?
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Not to quibble, but what I meant was the police get to draw the lines about what behavior they will or will not tolerate. I think there are lines that the police have drawn that aren’t even strictly legal, but that judges understand policeman insist on as part of being willing to do the job. It’s like in baseball. On a double-play, does the pivot man really, always touch second? I sooo doubt it, but when have you ever seen a double-play overturned because the pivot man didn’t touch second? So there’s what’s legal, and there’s what happens in court. Some of police insist on (e.g., we get a certain number of free wacks at anyone we catch that was running) may not be 100% legal, but if judges support the police in that practice, then it amounts to much the same thing.
smellthecoffee on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
-sigh-
It would help if you read ALL the police report and not just pick and choose what you want to read.
Crowley provided his identification when he arrived (“He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence.”)
He also provided his name several times, but Gates shouted over him (“Gates again asked from 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.”)
Again, you are factually wrong.
Crowley GAVE his identification right at the beginning.
And the only reason why Gates had to KEEP asking for identification is because he wouldn’t let Crowley answer the question (and he must have forgotten that Crowley ALREADY gave him his identification.)
Yet again, Crowley DID provide identification.
Gates’ conduct was most definitely disorderly (“Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gate’s outburst.”)
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
What I want to know is – where did the 2 black men in the report description come from – the 911 operator, because we know the caller never mentioned color.
Who’s responsible for that and where did it come from?
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Haven’t seen too many episodes of “Cops” have you?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Where is the conservative adult? Right here, wishing the idiot Professor had not shown his ass and made this into a national event.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
No he would be lauded as a hero for doing his job in the face of blatant white racism.
sonofdy on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Where did it come from?? What does that even mean? The report was written up after the fact. I supposed the report could have said the caller said two men who we found out later were black men but at the time we did not know but now that we do we can say they are black men so we write it into the report were seen……
This is just nitpicking nonsense looking for a reason to be call racism. The first person to make note of the fact that Gates was black, was Gates himself when he yelled at the police officer about being a black man in America..because the officer had said he was there in response to a 911 call.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’m not a lawyer, but I would be very hesitant in using the results of one particular case as being applicable to a different case.
Part of what I read from your link is that the police could not meet the “public” part of the law (it happened on SECLUDED private property.)
Obviously, that would not be the case here since there were many witnesses.
And who knows how many OTHER important details are different enough to make a difference on how a judge rules?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I have never seen cops, other than in passing – I don’t watch that kind of reality, too despressing.
You don’t believe that had Dr. Kissenger been handcuffed and arrested in his own home after returning from a long trip – this wouldn’t have taken a different turn?
I disagree.
You shouldn’t have been burdened with it, none of us should have been – it should have never gotten that far.
The Conservative voice would have thought first of the taxpayer and wasteful spending – and nipped it at the adult level of the Police Dept.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Writing fiction into a police report isn’t nitpicking.
beekiller on July 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Sure it is. It isn’t your job to reward civil behavior. It’s not your job to punish or reward anyone. But cops think they have the right to punish folks who give them attitude. I have the right to be as uncivil as I want to be to a cop, as long as I haven’t violated any actual laws. That’s not just my opinion, but that of constitutional scholar Harvey Silvergate (who’s no left winger, btw). http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/28/gates-crowley-arrest-first-amendment-free-speech-harvard-opinions-contributors-harvey-a-silverglate.html
“There’s a First Amendment right to be rude to a cop.”
Acting like a dick isn’t a crime. The reality is that cops have the power to push back when folks have attitude. Hardly anyone else in our society has that kind of power, except for judges and there are hundreds of thousands of cops, and relatively few judges. Cops push back when people are “dicks” because they can.
Being a dick, though, isn’t a crime.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM
If he handled himself the way Gates did I’m pretty sure it would have gone that way. But then no one believes that he would have behaved that way.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM
We can split hairs on “civil liberties”, but essentially the conservative argument is that citizens have a Constitutional right to be better armed than police officers.
You think the police won’t take away your guns if their superiors tell them to?
BTW, it’s not a liberal position but rather one consistent with conservative and libertarian views that regard state power with suspicion.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Exactly – according to terrye if we try to dicpher what is real and what isn’t we are suddenly fishing for racist angles.
How about maybe there wouldn’t have been any racist angles introduced had someone in the police dept. done their job thoroughly and provided a verbatim complaint transcription?
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
See, I disagree there. That sounds a whole lot more like the LIBERTARIAN voice.
The “Conservative voice” is also very interested in law and order and controlling a situation that looks like it is starting to spiral out of control.
The “Conservative voice” also understands that LEO’s have a rough and largely thankless job and that most of them are honest and hard working. Thus, we presume honesty and integrity from the police officer until they prove otherwise (unlike Gates, who presumed racism first).
The “Conservative voice” also looks long-term at things and hates, ABSOLUTELY HATES, people, governments and corporations giving in and settling “nuisance suits.” If a little tax payer money NOW in fighting to uphold the law will save a lot of tax payer money later in increased nuisance suits, then the “Conservative voice” is all for that.
The “Conservative voice” also understands that whatever “right” Gates had in ranting against the police ENDED when he took it outside in full view (and earshot) of the public.
The “Conservative voice” is also very much interested in civility and tends to believe that if one is rude and obnoxious than they deserve whatever they get.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
April:
That is so ridiculous. If Kissinger had returned from a long trip with some other guy and had broken into his own home and a neighbor had called and the police had come and Kissinger had screamed at the policeman as soon as he laid eyes on him and told him he did not know who he was messing with and got on the phone with someone and demanded the Chief and then made all sorts of threats to do damage to the policeman’s career and made obscene comments about his mother or whatever and had followed the cop outside raving like a loon…I think he would have lost his position and been put in a mental hospital. He certainly would not be playing the victim.
The really absurd thing is here you have an elitist African American college Professor from Harvard, an African American female mayor of Cambridge, an African American Governor of the state of Massachusetts and an African American POTUS, all acting as if this white cop is a racist for responding to a call at this man’s home and arresting him on a disorderly conduct charge. That is surreal.
Who has the real power here?
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Actually we simply believe in the right to bear arms period. And what does the second amendment have to do with this?
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM
And if you really want to save money, just tell the overpaid folks at Harvard to use their own campus police for things like this. Tell the folks in the area to call Harvard for breakins in this area. I understand that Crowley called them once he was there to secure the home…just save the taxpayers some money and let Gates pay for his own security.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Ditto.
Personally, if someone tells me a lie…I start to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
beekiller on July 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM
beekiller:
It was not fiction. They simply clarified the race once they had it, if the men had been white they would have done the same thing.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM
FTS! Authority is due fear, period.
Was the authority of the KGB due respect? The Gestapo>?
Just what authority will you not knee before?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I do not even see any of what are seeing.
It doesn’t matter what color any of these people are as far as I am concerned. To get hung up on that – you will never have a clear and concise view of the civil liberties arguement.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM
This is priceless. I insulate myself from the reality I don’t like yet I want my opinions to be taken seriously.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Most police departments that have taken a stand on the 2nd Amendment support restrictions on firearms.
The cops don’t want you to have bigger guns than they have.
Hell, the cops don’t want you to have guns, period.
Well, at least their departments feel that way.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM
beekiller:
What lie? For Chrisake the officer was there to answer a 911 call. That was all. It is not a lie. The men were black. The worse you can say is that they added that fact when they wrote out the report, but it does not alter anything that happened.
This is absurd.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I’m unsure how a “verbatim complaint transcription” would have prevented Gates from assuming from the get-go that the police were ONLY there because he was black. (“As I turned to face the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of ** Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak to me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I am a black man in America?”.”)
It seems to me that Gates CREATED the racial angle all by himself.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Love the name, hate the comments.
Being rude is not an arrestable offense, I agree. But, inciting racial tensions IS a crime in this instance. A hate crime. Gates was trying to get others (out on the street)to believe it was a racial confrontation, not the investigation of a break-in, and when asked to desist in his incitement of the crowd gathering outside his home he did not comply. Book em, Dano.
It was up to the DA whether or not to prosecute his disorderly conduct, and its perfectly reasonable to conclude that since Mr. Gates wants to continue this racial line of attack against the police that he now be charged with not just disorderly conduct, but disorderly conduct for inciting a racial confrontation.
Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Why don’t you back that up with any type of data? When you say most you must have access to a survey or something that shows that – otherwise you are basing your argument on fiction not fact.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM
In ten years as a police officer nobody had to ask for my name or badge number. Both are clearly on the front of my uniform (nametag) and the badge number is prominently displayed on the badge.
All the subjects I encountered figured this out without a degree from harvard.
Gates was so out of control he couldnt even read his name tag or listen to him repeat his name.
If Crowley was black this thread wouldnt be here beacuse racist Gates wouldn’t have verbally assailed him.
ObamatheMessiah on July 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Well, that’s the question. Most of us here who bend Libertarian have a problem with it.
Conservatives seem to always have the need to bow down before those who wear the uniform. Not that they know any better – they believe that if they don’t they will be questioned by these other Conservatives who believe the cops are always right – and will be called libs I suppose. LOL
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM
rokenronnie:
That is ridiculous. Cops do not have a problem with the second amendment.
I have known cops in my life, I have even been related to a few and none of them are against people owning guns.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM
April:
So, do you think the cop should have refused to answer the call? After all, Gates was outraged at his very presence at his door, was Crowley supposed to refuse to even show up?
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Generalizing really makes no argument it just shows your ignorance.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I saw the press conference of the lady who called 911 today. Did you? She wants to know why it was written that she said a single word about race OR a possible break in.
beekiller on July 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Completely true where I live – in Manhattan NYC.
I wrote this the other night – that up in that neck of the woods – it’s like here – same deal.
Our cops believe the problem is the guns – not the people who are uses them.
Therefore – no guns – no problems.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Nice straw man you got there.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Not a crime in your own home.
Also not a crime.
No, if you read the police report you will find that rather than interfering, Prof. Gates opened his storm door to allow Sgt. Crowley to enter his home. Most juries would see that as cooperation, not interference.
That was the result of Sgt. Crowley baiting an irate man to come out into eyesight and earshot of the public.
Had the officer not wanted Gates out of the house so he could arrest him, no public disturbance would have happened.
As Radley Balko (who has done a yeoman’s job at cataloging how serious a problem out of control cops are) put it, Contempt of cop is not a crime, nor should it be.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM
We had the same libertarian argument to Senator Craig groping under the stall wall, and that fireman exposing himself in a topless park.
You might someday legislate that the cops ignore this stuff, but that just puts it on bystanders to stop it.
Chris_Balsz on July 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Exactly, and the great thing about living in the USA is that more will be revealed about this point.
We will get to the truth soon enough – of who said what to whom and why.
She was basically smeared by this alleged police report- that was obviously not transcribed verbatim.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM
That explains a few things, but I have news for you, there is a whole nother country out there were cops don’t think that and people still life in relatively well adjusted communities where the cops are respected and they in turn respect everyone because we are all neighbors and friends.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM
April:
Verbatum?? That does not make sens.
Crowley answers 9// call. Gates jumps on him the minute he sees him.
Verbatum has nothing to do with the banal and insane behavior of the racist and cop hating professor. The truth is a verbatum transcript from that encounter would probably make Gates look worse, not better.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The police claim that the 911 call identified two black men trying to break into Gate’s home. The caller, Lucia Whalen, insists that she never said that.
She has no reason to lie. The police do.
I happen to not believe race had anything to do with Sgt. Crowley’s actions. This was just a case of a cop punishing someone with attitude.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Manhattan??
Well that explains a lot.
smirk. snort.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I think you just hate cops period – maybe it’s that bong thing you invented or something.
At what point do you start threatening libel suits again?
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM
I mean I live in the wilderness of Indiana and I actually own a gun. I have not robbed any liquor stores either.
The idea that criminals would obey gun restriction laws is so absurd anyway.
Terrye on July 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Us here who really believe in smaller government and government staying the hell out of our homes – will never win with these staunch Conservatives.
They are libs lite basically – when it comes to government involvement.
You can argue with them ’til dommsday – they don’t get it.
They basically want the government to regulate people for certain things, period.
AprilOrit on July 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »