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 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
So what’s Radley Balko’s problem?
The fact that you cannot address the substantive issues that DeputyHeadmistress and others have made about cops and abuse of power, and that you have to resort to personal attacks shows just how weak your position is, at least from the point of reason and law.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 4:37 PM
You sure make a habit of conveniently “forgetting” details of the story that don’t fit your narative of the “bad cop who could have done stuff better”
Like that fact that the first thing he said to Gates was: “I’m Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police investigateing a report of a break-in in progress.”
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM
…perhaps the same goes for the gov’t. After all, they do pay for things.
You know those women…
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM
One might as well expect a snake to fly rather than slither.
Luka on July 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM
One might as well expect rivers to run backwards.
Hinmahtooyahlatkek on July 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM
It may have already been posted,but this is a pretty good
parody of the Gates incident by Stewart:
(via Sondra K)
http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/yo_mama/
When the liberals are making fun of the race hustling,perpetual victim game, you know for sure you have lost the battle.
Baxter Greene on July 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I don’t understand this.
The police have been called to investigate a suspected break-in.
Why would the police GO INTO a possibly dangerous situation?
The safe and logical thing would be to ask the person to step outside.
You don’t assume the person is the homeowner. That will get you killed in most situations.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM
DeputyHeadmistress’s point (the same one made over and over ad nauseum) has been shown to be false many times over.
You resorting to ignoring half the facts in the case shows how weak your position is.
And the one who was going on endlessly about “hoster sniffers” “badge bunnies” in Gates threads for the last few days has no room to look down at anyone about personal attacks.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Are you speaking from personal experience?
There are millions of folks who smoke pot and experience no symptoms of paranoia. Really, it’s just a mild intoxicant. SSRIs probably mess with your head more.
At this point, medical marijuana is legal in a bunch of states. There hasn’t been any uptick in ER admissions for folks freaking out with paranoid delusions from cannabis.
In any case, since I haven’t said anything that DeputyHeadmistress or those of libertarian bent here haven’t said, and I don’t think that they like weed.
If pot explains my “paranoia”, what explains that of DeputyHeadmistress?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I would not call these substantive issues by any means but anecdotal. You conveniently ignore my message were I point out the pure statistical probability of even having hundreds of cases of abuse of power a day still makes them so insignificant that drawing broad conclusion from them is wrong. As I said you have your message already made up and are not interested in any other viewpoint. In your world cops are all abusing citizens every day on every interaction – and that’s bull.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 4:45 PM
No, I think every reasonable person would agree that the primary purpose of a police report if for the officer filing the report to cover his ass, make himself look as good as possible and make any arrest look by the book.
If you believe otherwise, I hear there are some great prices on used bridges.
Or, when your boss asks you to summarize your work on a project do you point out all the times when you screwed up?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM
You know when you use the well worn straw man argument of “every reasonable person” you have unmasked yourself as a demagogue.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Does it rain in your world?Nevermind, you probably don’t know what rain is.
daesleeper on July 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I am keeping this entire thread and the other Gates threads to show my kids what pot can do to a person – should scare the crap out of them.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Ummm, what part of public employees isn’t an employee?
As for putting their life on the line daily, garbagemen have a more dangerous job. Seriously. You can look it up.
Being a cop is dangerous, but there are at least 9 other jobs in the US that are more likely to get you killed on the job. Whatever you say about cops you can say about garbagemen and truck drivers and farmers and pilots and fishermen etc. They all do jobs that we rely upon. All of their families don’t know if they will come home from work that day.
But you believe that cops automatically deserve some kind of special respect and that if I say garbagemen have more dangerous jobs you’ll think I’m disrespecting cops, all the while you are disrespecting everyone who is not a cop.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM
To a someone who can never tell the truth, everyone in the world is a liar.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM
DeputyHeadmistress had made NO “substantive” issue.
Instead, she has cherry-picked parts of the arrest report and inserted her own predetermined narrative in place of all those “messy” places where what happened didn’t match up with her narrative.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Yes, I realize you think this. Look above.
Just as long as they don’t go to Victimhood, USA.
Well, in my case, yeah…
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM
You hate cops and spend an inordinate amount of time doing so – get a life.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM
another silly point from rokemronnie.
Isuppose if the garbage man was in danger because he was trying to protect me from the garbage zombies that were trying to steal my stuff or kill my wife then you might have some sort or relevant point. But as usuall just more obfuscation and going off on a tangent in an attempt to distract people.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM
The one you intentionally left out of your extensive citations from Crowley’s account of the incident. When Crowley says that he believed Gates to be the lawful resident of the home but that he, Crowley, was “quite surprised and confused” at Gates’ behavior.
Really? Quite surprised and confused that the occupant of dwelling might be upset over being perceived by the police as a burglar? This thought never crossed Sgt. Crowley’s mind?
Well, then cop minds must work differently than those of non-cops.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Policeman put their life on the line to protect me. All throughout history the people who are willing to sacrifice their life in the defense of another human being are held in high esteem (and I don’t mean your type of pot induced high). You are a miserable little man who hates cops and to whom every cop is a potential abuser. If that is not paranoia I don’t know what is.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM
You presume that every police officer is dishonest.
I’d be willing to bet that a vast majority of people would find that a very UN-reasonable position.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I think the correct description for what you just said is a lie. No correct that, it’s a bald faced fucking lie.
The first thing Crowley said was to ask Gates to step out on to the porch.
Like I said, had Crowley mentioned his investigation from the outset, Gates most likely would have not felt slighted. Instead, the first thing Crowley did was treat Gates like a suspect, though he was not acting suspiciously, and certainly in Gates’ mind he had no reason to be suspected of anything, since he was minding his own business standing in the foyer of his own home.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I know! How would anyone think that someone might think they were a burglar after they broke into the house?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM
And Gates is upset because he never thought that the police would have to verify who it was that broke into the house?
And remember, Gates isn’t just upset that the officer is there to ascertain who he is…
…he’s stated that the only reason the police are there is because he is black (and this is BEFORE he identifies to the officer who he is).
I’m sure the police officer was prepared for a homeowner to be a little miffed about the situation.
But who WOULDN’T be “surprised and confused” that the homeowner would leap into racist demagoguery just because the officer was responding to a reported break-in?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Actually, Sloan and Kettering donated money they made by selling people cars they wanted. The government uses money taken at the threat of jail. I’m not sure that qualifies as paying for things.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I didn’t say anything about the way they obtain the money, but if you don’t believe the gov’t pays for things, then I wonder what we are spending our money on.
BTW, how many of those heroic Detroit companies are now sucking at the Gubmint Tit?
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Which is why Sgt. Crowley entered the home when Gates opened the storm door for him.
Which is it? Crowley asked him to come out on the porch because he was concerned about his own safety or Crowley, unconcerned with his own safety and diligent in his pursuit of possibly dangerous criminals, bravely entered the home, when Gates opened the door for him?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Uh oh – don’t go there roke is a “leading writer” about car issues on some site somewhere – I think.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Did he say that or imply it?
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Seriously dude, put down the bong!
“Was not acting suspiciously”??
The police were called to investigate a break-in and lo and behold, THERE’S SOMEBODY IN THE HOUSE!!!
Now, what does the smart policeman do? You know, the one that wants to get home safely to his wife and kids every day?
Does he ASSUME that the call is in error and the person (who he doesn’t know) is actually the homeowner?
Or does he assume NOTHING until he can ascertain the facts?
OF COURSE Crowley (and every other police officer alive) would treat Gates like a suspect – BECAUSE HE IS!!!
And he will remain a suspect unless and until he can prove that he belongs there.
And Gates should NOT have been surprised that a neighbor would call the police when they saw him break into his own house.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Hmmm. “Gates started it” seems to be part of your side’s argument in this debate. Let me just say that I wasn’t the first to start flinging feces and “holster sniffer” and “badge bunny” are nowhere as disparaging as what was said to me on that thread.
I don’t know why cop groupies and cop wannabes get so sensitive. It’s not like I can arrest you or something.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I think he said “Professional Writer” and some other stuff to stroke his own ego on another thread. All of course intended to make his opinion seem more valid than others. Oh, he also holds a patent and at some point will threaten to sue you if he really dislikes you or if it’s that time of the month.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Not sensitive. Just trying to keep you honest. You seem to have real difficultties doing that on your own.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Which was probably a pretty stupid thing to do.
All in all, Crowley handled the whole situation with a lot of patience and aplomb.
He certainly would have been well within his rights to order Gates out of the house by gunpoint.
It looks a whole lot like the answer is BOTH.
He first tried to get the suspect out, but then decided to take a chance and enter the house.
But his decision to enter the house in now way invalidates the correctness of first asking Gates to step outside.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Well, in Roker’s opinion, it must not be a threat unless he specifically said, “I am going to sue you,” in which case one has to wonder if Evil Copper Crowley could have told Gates about the statistics of old men getting raped in jail… ya know, for sh*ts and giggles.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Grow some. You started it with your simply-minded anti-cop message. I doubt you even care about the facts of this case as you already have compartmentalized this under the cop abuse category.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM
And every commission in NYC for the last 125 years that has investigated police corruption and corrupt cops has said the same thing, that it’s endemic. But that’s just anecdotal.
When it’s police corruption and the internal affairs department, cops want us to believe that’s just nonsense from tv and Hollywood. But when they want us to be grateful for how they supposedly put their lives on the line for us more than any other workers in this society, their jobs are just like TJ Hooker.
Just another type of public employee. There job is more dangerous to you than that of folks working at the DMV and less dangerous to them than sanitation workers.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Yes, you are right, he did actually ask him to come over and talk to him before stating “I’m Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police investigateing a report of a break-in in progress.”
All of which happened right at the beginning of the exchange with Gates while he was still outside the door. so your point is still ridiculous about criticizing him for not stating it “from the get-go”
If you could debate honestly about it you could recognize that. but your blind hatred for the police won’t allow you to do that. Everything they do is automatically wrong and whatever he said first would not have been the right thing.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Actually, I was using it more the way the law does (you “law and order” guys remember the law, don’t you?). Many laws use what is called “the reasonable man” standard.
In any case, it’s more polite than saying you’re an idiot if you disagree, which is more the style of cop lovers.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Dunno… the DMV does have some of your info.
Plus there’s a reason Bush’s turds were sealed up, if you will…
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Perhaps more polite, yet still lacking the same amount of deductive argument.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You are correct, he asked him to come to the door so that he could talk to him before stating why he was there. It happened while Crowley was still out on the porch at the beginning of the exchange with Gates. Not sure how that changes greatly the characterization that Crowley didn’t inform him “from the get-go”. So the real lie is yours in that Crowley did not infor gates why he was there “from the get-go”
Whatever Crowley did first would not have been right in your mind because you hate cops and everything they do is automatically wrong. Everything you say about what he should have done had he actually done that you would have a reason why he should have done something else.
(censored the language in your quote because the filter screened my response twice already)
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Cops very rarely stop crimes in progress. They’re more likely to let a crime proceed so they can arrest someone. As far as your stuff is concerned, they are far, far more likely to show up after your stuff is stolen. Well, that is, if your municipality’s police department thinks they are funded well enough to respond promptly to property crimes. As far as your wife is concerned, unless they are actively looking for a serial killer or a serial rapist, the sad truth is that God forbid something should happen to her the police will show up sometime after she’s bled out or violated.
Cops don’t stop many crimes, unless they get credit for all the crimes not yet committed by people they arrest.
Last year the Detroit PD made a big deal about how they’d significantly cut the murder rate, mostly by putting away some guys responsible for a number of murders. Now, with a new mayor and new chief of police it was revealed that data on murder stats has been cooked for a long time.
I’m sorry but the power given to cops is so great that they necessarily have to be severely constrained in their actions. Sadly, though, the incidence of police misconduct is so widespread and pervasive that when confronted by a police officer, the prudent thing to do is be concerned about your own safety and liberty.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM
It’s a HA-Rokeronnie conspiracy ;)
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM
And every cop in the entire country is a member of the NYPD, plus they are talking about corruption and not abuse? Jeez – you have no proof the cop abuse is endemic in any police department in the US just your own well-worn opinion.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I don’t want to violate Godwin here so let me just say that no, I don’t hold the Vietcong soldier who took a grenade so his buddies could live to kill Americans in high esteem.
When cops stop going to court to prevent people for suing them for failure to protect, then I’ll believe that cops risk their lives for me and you.
They risk their lives for a paycheck and a pension, just like everyone else with a dangerous job. Some are noble, just like farmers and airplane pilots. Most are just doing a job, enjoying the perks of the job, which include professional courtesy on traffic stops and arresting folks who give them attitude.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM
How about some real evidence other than you own paranoid opinions?
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Cops don’t stop many crimes, unless they get credit for all the crimes not yet committed by people they arrest.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Isn’t that generally the way the law works. Arrest people for a crime they’ve already commited so they don’t commit more?
Or in a perfect world there wouldn’t be any crime because there aren’t any evil cops out there driving people to commit crimes?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM
No more honest nor more dishonest than the average person. Cops fill out police reports the same way doctors and nurses fill out hospital charts. CYA is the prime directive when self reporting for cops, you and me. If you read what I said, I never accused Sgt. Crowley of lying. Cops are well trained on how to write a truthful, albeit inaccurate, account.
I think the appropriate term is not lying but rather dissembling, misleading while not exactly saying an untruth.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Oh… so like “implying”
As in implying a “non-existent” threat?
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM
And I’d STILL be willing to bet that a vast majority of people would find that a very UN-reasonable position.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM
If one truly thought this, then wouldn’t the “prudent thing to do” would be to cooperate fully in a civil manner?
If you believe every cop is out to get you, then the prudent thing would be not to give them anything more to “get you” with.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I wonder if reasonable people could read through some masked threats … uhhmmm I mean implications.
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You are certainly a master of that, but if this thread isn’t proof enough…. not everyone is like you.
Like I said before: To a person who can never tell the truth everyone in the world is a liar
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM
You used quotation marks. Who are you quoting? Not me? I’m a relative novice in that field, though my editors think my work is professional enough that they pay me for it. Do I know more than the average person about cars and the car biz? Yeah, it’s not immodest for me to say that. Am I leading writer? Some leading writers might know my name, that’s about the extent of my reputation. I’m sure some of them think my opinions are outrageous. God didn’t put me in this world to win Miss Congeniality awards.
Now if you want to read a really outstanding automotive writer, the late LJK Setright was absolutely remarkable. My best writing approaches Setright’s shoelaces if even that. In terms of contemporary writers, I like Jack Baruth’s writing, but then I think Jack is a charming rogue, but he’s got some style to his prose.
The golden age of automotive writing, ironically, was in the 1970s and early 1980s when cars really, really sucked.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Two questions:
1) What is the number of times that a police officer has gone to court to “prevent people for suing them for failure to protect.” And please present this number along with the total number of police in this country (include state troopers, sheriff’s deputies and small town police). Then tell me why such an infinitesimal percentage should be used to disparage all police.
2) So you’re saying that the police who actually DO die in the line of duty don’t do it for you and I based solely on a handful of court cases?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Darn close to being libelous in a sense. But hey you are the expert.Anything to back that up?
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM
South v Maryland is sufficient. It’s settled law per SCOTUS.
Try to sue your local police department for failing to protect you. The city attorney will fight you and so will the cops’ union and it will get thrown out based on the above precedent.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM
So, you cite one case.
WikiAnswers gives an estimate of 800,000 LEOs in the country.
So, 1 case vs. 800,000 LEOs.
That is .000125% of LEO’s.
That’s way too small of a number to be using to disparage all police officers.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Gates was arrested on July 16 and the charges were dropped on July 21. Your definition of “immediately” could use some work.
Besides which, dropping the charges doesn’t necessarily mean the officer was out of line to bring up those charges. Especially in this case. Or maybe you’ve never heard of someone using their political influence to try to get out of a jam?
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM
How dare you call a brave LEO, stupid? Who are you, Obama?
No disagreement. He got the result he wanted.
Under what law? Where’s his probable cause? The phoned in report?
Not even cops are that authoritarian.
No, you can’t be rousted out of your own house without a warrant or probable cause for your arrest.
As I said, standing in the foyer of your own home is not suspicious behavior, well, except to a cop, but then cops see reality differently, apparently.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Silly . Had this not been a fave of Obama’s and a black one at that the charges would have been pursued. It is just pure stupidity to think otherwise.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Which is why you don’t let a police officer into your home without proper identification first.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Reading minds again
Here read this …….
Oh forget it you might accuse me of libel
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM
So you want police to both stay out of people’s homes even to investigate calls to 911 that there was a possible break in AND want to hold them responsible for every break in that they don’t manage to stop?
You think that police not wanting to be sued because the are not omnicient and omnipresent means that they can’t possibly have possitive motives for wanting to be police?There is some interesting logic.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM
That was Gates plan. He has movie tickets to sell
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Sting operations.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM
This is why the 2nd amendment needs protected.
In many areas around the country due to the economy there is little to no police presence at certain times of the day.
I think ronnie would love those places til he was assaulted by someone.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM
In other word YGN (you got nothing)
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I bet you roke would love the cops the moment they saved his sorry butt.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I get the sarcasm, but I’m also prepared to apologize if/when a real LEO says that I’m wrong.
Heh.
Right, Crowley answered the call thinking to himself “I think I’ll arrest this guy for Disorderly Conduct.”
Fact is, the police report shows Crowley doing everything possible to NOT arrest Gates.
He left the house to avoid further confrontation.
He gave Gates not one, but TWO warnings.
Yeah, THAT sounds like a cop who was looking to arrest Gates. /sarc
Um…
…actually, they DO have that authority.
The “probable cause” is exactly where you said it was – in the phoned in report.
The police officer is investigating a report of a break-in and finds a man inside the house who refuse to come out.
What is the cop to assume?
1) The officer HAD probable cause.
2) The officer would have been detaining him until identity was ascertained – NOT arresting him.
When you break into your house and the police don’t know it’s you and your house, you ARE acting suspiciously.
Police officers don’t have the luxury of hindsight or of being psychic.
They are trained to secure the situation and determine what is going on.
Only THEN can they determine that it was the owner of the house.
Until then, the person could be a burglar POSING as the owner.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Why would they do that? According to ronnie they’re only doing it for the paycheck. Obviously saving a cop-hater’s butt is something they would never do.
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Which was provided.
So why, then, did Gates go ballistic AFTERWARD?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Both Gate and Sotomayor have elucidated the race issue.
Kudos to both.
but then, it was obvious.
AnninCA on July 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Upstater85 on July 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Heh, varmint not human.
There’s a skunk family that found their way into the underground caves around here this week as surrounding new neighborhoods are constructed on their habitat.
Our animal control officers are only pet control officers, and have nothing to do with wildlife.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Political choices of beers?
Obama goes with the safe bet, Bud Light. Who can criticize that as being elitist? It is very American and it is low alcohol to boot.
Skip Gates goes with Red Stripe, a Jamaican brew. But in reality Red Stripe is owned by Diageo PLC (who owns Baileys, J&B, Guiness, Captain Morgan, Tangueray, etc.). A faux “Afro-Caribbean” corporate beer.
And Crowley goes with Blue Moon, which is a faux microbrew* of Molson Coors. Everyone knows the Coors are all holcaust denying racists.
*I would have guessed Sam Adams for Crowley.
Mr. Joe on July 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM
but then, it was obvious
AnninCA on July 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM
that you would improperly use “elucidate” as neither of your examples provide lucid analysis in verbal debate, nor written critique in defense of their own racism, including Sotomayor on her written judgment denying Rico, and in her Senate hearings.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Crowley is a true patriot and drinks beer. The other guys never really touch it.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM
rokemronnie,
If I may, I’d like to ask you a question.
What would you like for other HotAir commenters to take from your comments? What is it that you could feel satisfied in coming to an agreement on?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Ann learned a new word and could not wait to use it.
Don’t rain on her parade.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 6:13 PM
It is entirely plausible that Gates wanted to set up the police for this entire episode. The record would substantiate that observation. Gates’ first response after the officers left was to threaten a lawsuit. As fate goes, Gates picked on the wrong policeman as a “whitey” abuser of blacks. Tables turned. The law suit Gates imagined for his financial boon has turned instead into a plausible law suit that would cost him. Hence, Obama offers a beer, not so much to diffuse the situation the Obama stupidly inflamed, but to gather conversation that would strengthen Gates’ offense when Obama twists words in days to come.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:35 PM
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM
But we need the rain here.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Stuck on stupid.
Unless the entire department has literally determined to deny you protection, there’s no grounds to accuse them, let alone “sue your local police department”, corruptly trying to get something for nothing from the taxpayers.
Get off our backs.
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM
maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Oh, I agree that it is entirely plausible that Gates either set up the entire thing or saw what was happening and took quick advantage of it.
I was just trying to debunk rokemronnie’s strange obsession over Gates being treated as a suspect right off the bat (I guess instead of the way a Harvard professor should be treated.)
I guess I need to start drinking or using Ronnie’s invention in order to understand the points raised here by our
liberallibertarian friends.I mean, what does it really matter that Officer Crowley first asked Gates to step outside?
And what does it matter that Officer Crowley left the house after answering Gates’ demands for identification even though Gates refused to LISTEN to the identification.
And why do these people never mention the TWO warnings Gates was given once he got outside?
And even IF Officer Crowley deliberately “lured” or “baited” Gates to come outside, so what? Gates still had the opportunity to stay inside (along with the opportunity to listen to either of the two warnings).
I simply don’t get how this is supposed to be a “civil liberties” issue. I’m tired of hearing people state that a person’s property/home is “sacrosanct” as if it was a protected space wherein you could commit any kind/type of crime and get away with it.
And even IF Officer Crowley arrested Gates for mouthing off, why in the world should I be offended, outraged or upset about it?
Gates had plenty of time and opportunities to turn the situation around, but steadfastly refused to do so.
Even his supporters admit that he acted in a disorderly manner once outside the house.
I feel absolutely NO sympathy or sorrow for the jerk.
And I don’t see how that incident should make me feel any less secure in my own house.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM
That is probably because he cannot get Shiner Bock there.
Johan Klaus on July 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Actually, the most dangerous places in the country are big cities that have large police forces (and often restrictions on handgun ownership).
It’s just a guess, but I’d imagine that unincorporated areas are safer than most big cities, even with all their police officers.
Also just a guess but it seems that meth is a bigger problem in smaller cities than in the major urban areas, where pot, cocaine, heroin and pharmaceuticals seem to satisfy the need for people to self-medicate or get high.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Gates was not breaking into his home when the police arrived. He was standing in the foyer. The police report makes no mention of a broken door. Crowley’s account does say that the caller, Lucia Whalen, at the scene told him about “two black men”. Whalen denies saying anything about race, so there is a credibility issue.
Nor do legal occupants of dwellings. From Gates perspective he was doing nothing illegal and a cop told/asked him to leave the sanctuary of his home.
Crowley didn’t tell him the reason until after Gates refused to come out on the porch.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Your point is not inconsistent with my point.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I haven’t read all 6 pages of comments because I got too mad to get through them all. I don’t know who rokemronnie is, but I have met many like him in my 35 years on the job. Someone who has never been in a cruiser answering calls night after night, just trying to keep the peace, and trying to go home with the same amount of holes in you that you started the night with. Dealing with people who think that they can do and act as they please, and to hell with rules and laws of society. He sounds like someone who has all the answers, but none of the experience, training, or knowledge of what he talks about. He talks about police corruption like it was the norm, instead of the exception, when in fact, the vast majority of officers on the job in this country always try and do the right thing and are not corrupt. In fact they are some of the best people in the country.
He is probably like many of the people I arrested in their homes, who thought that it couldn’t be done. Well, as Gates found out, it certainly can and is done a thousand times a day in this country. Sgt. Crowley was answering a call of a possible burglary in progress, in a neighborhood that had seen several over a few weeks. While trying to investigate the possible crime, he is confronted by an out of control person, who would not cooperate, and would only yell in a raised voice at the Sergeant. This person made the mistake of following the Sergeant out onto the porch of the residence, where his ranting and raving attracted the attention and disturbed neighbors and people passing by. He refused to cooperate and shut up, so he went to jail. His choice, his actions, he caused his arrest.
Your home is your castle, no doubt, but that does not give you the right to do as you please, disturb the neighborhood, and refuse to cooperate with a police investigation. Yes, officers have to take verbal abuse, but when that abuse reaches the level of disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct according to code, then you go to jail.
By the way, if you think it’s fine to degrade and yell at an officer while he or she is trying to simply do their job, then let me come to your workplace and get in your face while you are at work.
And another thing, in 35 years I have never seen a lawsuit against an officer or department for “failure to protect”. Don’t know where that came from.
Sorry for the long rant, but enough is enough.
kam582 on July 29, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Legally I doubt a cop has to tell him.
This is very similar to arguing that ignorance of the law is a defense. As you know it is not.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Cops definitely will take their time arriving at Gates residence for sure. If they are smart they will do the same to Ronnie’s.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Well, Crowley said that he provided his name. In any case, Gates cooperated and let him in the house.
I don’t let meter readers into my home without proper photo ID. In light of the 4th and 5th Amendments I’m not going to let a supposed police officer in my home without proper ID, probably cause / warrant.
Because he’s a homeowner accused of burglaring his own home and he has a hair trigger when it comes to race.
Still, going “ballistic” on a cop in your own home is no crime, particularly when your actions are cooperative, which Gates was, despite his running of his mouth.
Crowley was indeed satisfied that Gates was in his own home. He reported that to his superiors.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Not necessarily
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Hey Roke
Did they ever rule out that there may have been a burglar in the house already? Seems that little detail is lost on the thick.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Then they are corrupt.
You have no problem with cops playing favorites. I do.
Should a FOP sticker get you a pass on a speeding ticket?
Cops have a very difficult job. One of the requirements is treating people with Screw The Police bumper stickers fairly. If cops don’t like that condition of employment, they can look for another job.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM
I’m sorry, but THIS is your best argument?
To differentiate between the time that Gates broke into his house and the time the police arrived?
Seriously?
You DO realize that that does NOTHING to refute the point that the police don’t KNOW it’s your place, so even being IN your house is “suspicious” until the police ascertain your identity.
Not relevant to the point.
The police received a call that two people were breaking into the house.
Upon arrival they see one person standing inside.
Now, given the dearth of facts available to the police at that time, which is the more reasonable assumption:
- the man is the owner?
- the man is a burglar?
And if you say that neither choice is reasonable, then it BECOMES reasonable to play it safe until such a time that you can ascertain the facts.
Why?
Whalen told the police she saw two men entering the house in a suspicious manner (breaking in).
When the officer arrived he saw one man standing inside the house.
If the man had been white, red, yellow, black or green with pink polka dots…
…he STILL would have been suspicious and treated as a suspect until proven otherwise.
And your point would be what? That that gave Gates the right to be abusive to the police?
And why couldn’t a Harvard professor see why the police might be called to check into a suspected break-in?
I mean, is it THAT much of a stretch to understand what is going on soon after you break into your own house?
And this is important HOW?
And
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »