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 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
Yes the caller mentioned two people. Procedure would have been to detain the first suspect (because that’s what he is until proven otherwise) search the house and then go back and establish identity. I think Crowley saw that Gates was an older guy, not very big, and took a chance but a dumb chance that there wasn’t another guy in the apartment.
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM
So every bad aspect of being a cop is perfectly fair and deserved, and every perk is obviously corrupt. Is that an accurate summary of your position?
Scrappy on July 29, 2009 at 7:17 PM
There has been no real dispute over the facts in the case as laid out in the police report.
But, again, the officer HAD probable cause – the report of a suspected break-in.
Yet Gates wasn’t arrested for going “ballistic” on the officer INSIDE of his house.
In fact, Officer Crowley was trying to LEAVE the house, but Gates kept after him.
And when he followed Officer Crowley outside to continue his ranting in public, he most certainly changed the dynamics at play.
Exactly, and he was leaving the house but Gates felt that he hadn’t yet extracted his pound of flesh.
And despite two warnings outside he CONTINUED to rant and rave and make a public scene.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:17 PM
You guys keep bringing this up even though Crowley’s actions, before and after the arrest indicate no such concern that the burglar or other burglar (in case Gates was a suspect) might still be in the house. He didn’t ask Gates about another man. He didn’t ask Gates if he could search the home. He didn’t call for backup for officers to cover the back door.
From Crowley’s report it appears that he was satisfied that no break-in had occurred. That’s what he radioed to his superiors. From the point that Gates produced ID, Crowley’s attention shifted almost entirely to Gates’ behavior.
I think it’s funny how the cop/cop apologist camp is split between those who deny that Crowley was dishing out some of his own justice and those who think it’s fine to arrest folks for giving cops attitude.
BTW, for those of you who say that Gates owes Crowley an apology. Does Crowley owe Lucia Whalen an apology for falsely putting the racial thing on her?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM
But was Gates not concerned? I think he was more concerned with making it a racial issue.
Actually if you listen to Crowley he was concerned.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I think Gates would have acted more reasonably if Crowley’s first two comments were reversed.
How is Crowley’s job made harder by explaining that he’s investigating a possible crime?
You don’t expect cops to be psychic but you do expect regular folks to be psychic when it comes to cops, what they say, and how they act. We’re supposed to understand how hard their job is etc.
Meanwhile, Gates was minding his own business in his own home not knowing anything about a report of a break-in until after he was asked to come outside. I’m certain that if Crowley had said, “We’re investigating a report of two men breaking into this house”, Gates would have told him what happened with the jammed door and then produced his ID.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I would not say corrupt just human.
No an FOP sticker should not get you out of a ticket.
Too bad people like you only support making their jobs more difficult.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Have I got a deal for you. It is just a little plot of land in Florida and real cheap. /sarc
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Well, why shouldn’t it have?
The officer was trying to leave the house but Gates kept abusing him and asking questions (that he wouldn’t then let him answer).
The fact is that NO ONE denies that Gates had an attitude.
And NO ONE is denying that Gates kept that attitude going even after the officer wrapped up his investigation and was trying to leave.
What I find interesting is that NONE of Gates’ supporters note the TWO warnings given to Gates to stop making a scene.
As I said earlier:
So let me see here, IF Gates:
- had NOT assumed racism right off the bat
- had treated the officer with civility
- had stayed INSIDE his house
- had stopped after the first warning
- had stopped after the SECOND warning
If he had done any ONE of these, then Gates would never had been arrested.
Yet, there are some here who think the OFFICER is in error.
~shakes head~
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Why think? Crowley states clearly in his police report that he believed Gates was the lawful resident. He no longer was concerned about a break in. That’s clear from the report because from the moment Gates produced his ID, Crowley never mentions anything about the crime he initially was investigating, and focuses exclusively on Gates’ behavior. Contrary to showing concern that there might be another burglar afoot, Crowley asks Gates about securing the house.
You’re dancing on the head of a pin. Your so zealous in your defense of Crowley that you are making stuff up that’s disproved by Crowley’s own actions.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Not in his police report and not a reasonable assumption from his actions that day.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:34 PM
That’s rich from a guy who claims that almost every police department is corrupt and wants to ban all weapons. I least I have the courtesy to label my opinion with “I think” and don’t state opinions as fact. Oh wait – do you know what the difference between opinion and fact is or has the pot damaged too many cells up there?
dpierson on July 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM
You’re kidding me, right?
You’re trying to blame Gates’ racial hate-mongering on the fact that a police officer did exactly as he is trained and asked a suspicious person to come out of the house?
He did say that.
But the need to try to control the situation was more important than making sure Gates’ feelings weren’t hurt.
It doesn’t take a psychic to know how difficult a job police have.
However, Gates sure THOUGHT he was a psychic when he determined right off the bat that the whole thing was racially motivated.
So?
Maybe the Harvard intellectual should have considered the option that someone might call the police when he broke into his own house.
It’s not an unreasonable or difficult idea to come to considering the situation.
I’m no Harvard intellectual, but if I saw police knocking on my door ten minutes after I had to break into my house, I would reasonable assume that they were there because of my break-in.
And again, it was more important that the police officer try to control the scene than to assuage Gates’ ego.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Your confusing the time lines (again).
The initial comment was about why the officer went inside the house when he was told that there were TWO suspects.
I find this a reasonable question.
Yet your answer involves a later point in time when the officer ascertained that Gates was the legal occupant (not owner, the school owns the house) of the house.
Officer Crowley’s satisfaction that Gates was the legal occupant of the house occurred AFTER Officer Crowley entered the house.
Thus your post has nothing to do with the point you quoted.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Nobody said that the lot in life of those who choose to suck from the public teat was going to be a bed of roses all the time, from first hire to generous pension plan. We accept the concept that working on the public payroll comes with some restrictions, as with the Hatch act that controls political action by federal employees.
When a private company’s employee steals pens from the office supply room, that’s a perk. If it violates company policy it may actually be a crime. When a public employee uses the law or their authority to benefit themselves or those they favor, it’s definitionally corrupt. It may be human, but then isn’t corruption a human trait?
So yeah, the bad stuff just comes with the job and the perks, if you call them that, are corrupt.
Don’t want to be above suspicion? Don’t be a cop. If you are a cop, make sure that you report abuses and maybe people will respect you instead of fearing you.
I’m not sure which engenders more disrespect towards cops, bad cops, or the thin blue line that ensures that bad cops will be tolerated and that all police behavior will be defended if not caught on videotape, like that cop I mentioned before.
How come none of you guys condemned that kind of cop behavior? Assaulting an innocent civilian over a family matter, arresting her for assault on a police officer, then his buddies on the force attempting to destroy evidence of his crime.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Obama in the House! Listen, pal… we as a Nation have overcome a whole lotta chit over a whole lotta years. You race baiters are out of business since Obama was elected. Cambridge PD is a fine operation and for you to cast aspersions on an incident over an officer following protocol puts you right in the hot seat next to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who are now, out of business.
Heck the only press Al Sharpton has been able to garner was Michael Jackson’s death and subsequent missing fake nose.
Move on, pal.
Key West Reader on July 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM
And, again, well he SHOULD focus on Gates’ behavior because Crowley is trying to leave the house and Gates keeps abusing him.
Here, read it straight from the police report:
See, Crowley completed his report and was trying to leave.
If Gates had LET him leave, nothing would have happened.
In other words, there is nothing here to indicate that Crowley was LOOKING to arrest Gates or in any other way “get him.”
In fact, just the opposite – he was trying to leave.
Let’s continue with the police report:
So, instead of the officer trying to make something of Gates’ behavior, he was actually trying to exit the situation.
But Gates wouldn’t let him (not physically, but he wasn’t letting Crowley leave without extracting his pound of flesh).
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM
RokeRonnie
Maybe you already said it but why do you have a personal hard on for cops?
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:49 PM
The simple fact is that Crowley’s report mentions no concern about a second burglar other than apparently falsely reporting that Ms. Whalen told him that she had witnessed “two black men” trying to force the door.
Subsequent to that he made no effort to determine if there was a second person involved and after Gates produced ID he shows no further concern that there even had been a break-in.
Nobody wants to be under a microscope when they’re doing their jobs, but police power is still police power, so there has to be oversight. I know that cops and cop lovers chafe at that oversight.
I know that if you really cared about law as much as order, you’d care about how cops use their enforcement of the law as a perk.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Well, I’m not exactly sure how answer a break-in call and getting abused by a certified race hate-monger and THEN getting stupidly called out by the President is a “perk.”
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:55 PM
rokeronnie ….if you were the resident would you not then demand the house be searched? i will wait for the lame answer.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Ronnie i would suspect after that ahole started being a ronnie that the officer may have decided best to leave well enough alone with pursuing any concerns over another person in the house as the home owner was certain no crime occurred.
I know the only reasonable responses are the ones you deem reasonable.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Ms. Whalen only disputes the word “black.”
Even so, I fail to find this an important or relevant point to what occurred.
For as it turned out, it WAS two black men who broke into the house (Gates and his driver).
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Don’t read very well, do you? Where have I said anything defending Obama, or for the matter, Gates’ race baiting. Gates behaved badly, though his actions didn’t rise to criminal until Sgt. Crowley asked an irate, screaming man to come outside if he wanted to continue the discussion, and then he turned his back on the man when the guy acceded to his request.
Gates is a race pimp, and you have your nose so far up into some blue flannel shorts that you can’t tell an Obama supporter from someone that thinks he’s damaging this country severely.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Why in the world would she claim that in Obamanation?
/sarc
Could it be that she knows they will destroy her?
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Obama’s prejudgment was the only damaging done
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Blue Moon–Crowley
Red Stripe–Gates
Bud Light–Obama
Mr. Joe on July 29, 2009 at 8:01 PM
So you admit that Gates’ behavior was criminal.
So why are you blaming the police for Gates’ actions?
Are you intimating that Officer Crowley actually CONTROLLED or MANIPULATED the Harvard professor?
And being that the officer gave Gates not one, but TWO warnings, it certainly doesn’t follow that the officer WANTED Gates to follow, much less wanted to arrest him.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:03 PM
The only people I see casting aspersions on Ms. Whalen are you and your ilk. You’re essentially calling her a liar, and then blaming it on her fear of Obama supporters. I carry no truck with Obama supporters, and I’m well aware of their thuggery, but you, sir, are treating a good woman, who acted the way we hope folks will act, shabbily, because she makes your poster boy look less than perfect.
Race pimps do what race pimps do, and cop apologists do what cop apologists do.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Gates and Obama will have their beer bottles filled with whine.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Just asking a very reasonable question. Would you not be very worried in such a national story. Hell yes you would . You are an as+hole
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Funny AS+HOLE you did what you claimed I did to that woman. I did no such thing.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Which Crowley knew by the time he wrote the police report. The fact that Crowley and Whalen quibble over her remarks goes to his credibility.
You say Whalen is now lying to avoid threats from race pimps and Obama supporters. I say that Crowley has an even greater motivation to shade the truth. He’d just arrested a prominent black person and has a reputation to maintain as a racial profiling trainer for his department.
She might get some nasty phone calls. His career could be over.
I’ve never been a cop but I think he has a stronger motive to lie than she does.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Ronnie,
If you don’t think especially in this world that people are not scared to death over being beaten down by YOU THUGS you are sorely mistaken. What world do you live in? You ilk including Gates and Obama fueled this mess and now lie in what they made. The officer acted reasonably and because you have some personal vendetta you have lost sight of the truth and would rather spin the story.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Really?/
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:08 PM
1) No one is coming out and calling her a liar. I would simply say that in all the ruckus, it’s probably very easy to say something that you don’t remember – especially one little word that really isn’t important in the matter (especially since it was an accurate and factual description).
2) If she WASN’T afraid, then why did she hire a lawyer and call a press conference to deny the remark? I guess we could debate WHO she was afraid of, but seeing as it was the president who called out the police as acting stupidly and then tied the incident into past racial issues, I think it’s very REASONABLE to believe she’s afraid of the supporters of Obama and Gates.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:09 PM
She works at Harvard and they turned on her for embarrassing one of their own. She is afraid of the institution that employs her.
tessa on July 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Ronnie watch this
She was sincerely afraid. Jackas+
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM
He got control of the situation and manipulated Gates, who had not yet committed an arrestable offense (it’s unclear if Gates later behavior reached the legal standard of a conviction, but it was certainly arrestable).
Nah, he was just going by the book so guys like you would defend him. Most people, particularly cops, know that once someone’s irate, warning them about their behavior isn’t going to do much. Cops arrest folks they’ve warned all the time. Actually, my guess is that some of them use the warning to provoke even more anger, particularly if the guy they are jamming up is screaming about his rights.
What doesn’t follow your point that Crowley didn’t want Gates to follow him outside is the fact that Crowley indeed invited him to continue outside. He didn’t want him to follow him, so he asked him to come outside. Maybe in bizarro copworld.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:13 PM
worth posting again for the resident idiot
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:14 PM
You’re questioning her veracity, not me. She says she didn’t say it and that people shouldn’t call her a racist for being a good citizen. I believe her. You don’t.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:14 PM
I don’t see it, but I guess if you wanted to make a case out of it you could.
Then again, no one else but Gates is really disputing anything else in the report. And even Gates agrees with most of it.
Actually that was CWforFreedom.
And based on your prior point, I guess that remark goes toward your own credibility.
I don’t necessarily believe that two people with slightly (very slightly) different accounts of what happened means that one person is lying.
Maybe she said it and doesn’t remember saying it.
Maybe she said it and doesn’t want to be labeled as a racist as early reports from Gates’ supporters made her out to be.
Maybe she didn’t say it and the officer added the word “black” after the situation without really thinking about it.
Again, since the word is accurate and factual, I’m not overly worried about nor do I think that it somehow invalidates everything else the officer says in his report.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Actually I pointed out that the fear she had proves that some Americans worry very much so about being called a racist. That is all. Wow you believe her but not the cop. Surprise surprise.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Did i say she lied? Seems I would understand why she would .
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Maybe because she’s an honest woman who doesn’t want things she didn’t say falsely attributed to her.
It seems that I’m the only person here who believes her. You guys think she’s a liar. You claim to understand why she’s an liar, but you think she’s a liar just the same.
I think she’s a nice lady who did the right thing. Now that she says something uncomfortable for you, you question her honesty and blame nefarious others.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I think you are projecting. No one said she lied.Nada
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Ronnie are we supposed to think you are something for believing her? Such silliness . What does that matter. You are full of yourself. Is that libelous?
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Like I said. They both have motive to lie. Her motivation is fear from vague threats. His motivation is protecting his career.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Watch the film. Vagueness does not make her feel any better. You are so bought.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:22 PM
As a Cowboy local I hate the Washington Redskins. Well, I used to hate the Washington Redskins. Maybe Vic can get an invite from Barry to tell his story over a beer.
Limerick on July 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Curious part is how she said she never had a conversation with them, but it’s in the police report.
Now..when she was on the phone..the 911 call…She stated that she actually was calling because a concerned neighbor brought it to her attention..an older lady, I believe she said.
Maybe the cops talked to That lady and not the one who called 911.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion?
bridgetown on July 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM
So a police officer managed to manipulate a Harvard intellectual? That seems like a pretty big insult to Gates’ intellect.
Regardless, he STILL gave Gates two warnings instead of just slapping the cuffs on him.
That speaks to Crowley’s patience and Gates’ uncontrolled rage (and also the need to arrest Gates).
You seem to do a lot of guessing without any real facts to back them up. I guess that makes it easier to come to the conclusion you want to come to.
I would hardly say that telling Gates that “if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence” is some kind of engraved, formal invitation.
In the context of what was occurring, it sounds a whole lot more like a “blow off.”
Regardless, Gates still had the power and intellect and choice NOT to go out.
That makes it Gates’ responsibility and problem.
NOT the police officer’s.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:26 PM
It seems strange because you don’t know anything about Law Enforcement, no offense Ed. The Penal Law doesn’t end at your doorstep, sorry.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM
And this requires a lawyer and a press conference?
C’mon, are you SO invested in trying to win this argument that you can’t even concede an obvious point?
You know, that’s the second time you claimed I called her a liar, and yet I’ve never said that.
As I said earlier, I guess that goes toward YOUR credibility (or lack thereof).
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:28 PM
From the AP:
What motivation does Crowley have to make this up? .
Also, if someone breaks into my house and you know the race of the person and you do not tell the cops….screw you
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I think he meant I called her liar.
If Ronnie can quote me calling her a liar I will send $100 to the NAACP.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:30 PM
What’s a private citizen’s reputation when compared to protecting the reputation of your bois in blue?
Since the subject of projection has been brought up, it seems that what really is at the root of your anger and hostility is the fact that deep down you know that you’re just as must of an authoritarian and interested in order as the most orthodox communist with a five year plan.
I at least admit I’m not real keen on authority. You slavishly worship it. Your only real problem with Obama is that he’s in power, not you.
I agree with Mike Medved about big L “losertarians”, because they will never come in from the political wilderness and moderate their ideology for the sake of power. Some “conservatives” here seem to be far more interested in power, than in any coherent conservative political ideology.
If you’re going to claim Burkean conservatism prizes order and continuity, fine, but Ronald Reagan was no Burkean, and most post Wm F Buckley conservatives in this country have been trying to conserve a rather revolutionary document, the US Constitution.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Why would I want you to send $100 to race pimps like today’s NAACP?
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM
If anything she was wrong for not saying he was black, its pertinent information to the responder, the 911 operator should have asked their race, and passed it on, gender, race,
approx height, approx weight all very helpful things. If she did say he was black, she would have done nothing at all wrong.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Ok Ronnie you tell me where to send it and when you quote me calling her a liar I will send it there
LOL
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t her defense of her words come BEFORE the police report was issued?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Not at all. Some cops, I’m sure, have very high IQs. I know a couple of exceptionally smart plumbers.
Besides, guile and skill at manipulating people are not the same as book smart.
And yeah, if anyone doesn’t believe the CPD bois had a good laugh later that day at the expense of some smartypants Harvard professor, well like I said, there are used bridges for sale.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:37 PM
You guys are wasting your breath trying to reason with ole ronnie, he lives in a fantasy world where “da man” isn’t
holding us down, so we hold hands and sing cumbaya all day, let him stay there and be happy.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Ronnie it was your bois who scared the bejeebers out of her
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Still, you are giving Gates no credit (or responsibility) for controlling his own actions and emotions.
And if Gates can so easily be manipulated, maybe Harvard should reconsider employing him.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Gates stepped into the flaming pile of crap Crowley had waiting for him on his porch. I’ve never disputed that Gates’ behavior was arrestable.
While I think that many cops routinely abuse folks, I think that prudent behavior doesn’t lead to cop satisfaction.
Few things are more beautiful than the, dare I say surprised and confused, look on cops’ faces when they realize that they aren’t going to able to jam someone up who is guilty of contempt of cop.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Not strange to me. Officer Crowley kept telling Prof. Gates to calm down. Prof Gates was yelling and a “crowd of 7 people had gathered”.
If the officers thought the crowd of onlookers could/would have become involved, then the public would be at risk; thus warranting the arrest of Prof Gates.
TN Mom on July 29, 2009 at 8:44 PM
He manipulated Obama well enough. Maybe Obama’s employers should reconsider his employment. I guess they already are.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Logic don’t fly in Ronnie world.
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Simply put. The world is a cruel place, a place where a woman can decapitate her infant child, and consume its brain. Who has to walk into that horror, and look that woman in the eyes, and see what no one would want to see, and try to begin the mechanism of justice for that murdered baby, not f***ing you rokemronnie. It takes courage you wouldn’t know, dedication you couldn’t understand, its easy to pass judgment on Police when the most important judgment you will make all day is venti or grande. Pretty damn pathetic stuff.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM
“Flaming pile of crap Crowley had waiting for him”?
My word, could your prose be any more purple and overwrought?
But if you wish to be such a drama-queen, then you would be more accurate to say: “Crowley stepped into the flaming pile of crap Gates had waiting for him inside his house.”
I won’t deny that it probably felt good to slap the cuffs on Gates (I know *I* would have loved to do it).
However, that’s meaningless against the facts that:
1) Officer Crowley did everything he could to NOT arrest him; and
2) Gates was acting in a way that necessitated arrest.
Which means that everything still goes back to Gates.
HE was responsible for his own actions.
Thus, HE was responsible for his own arrest.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
The real injustice in all of this is how the charges were dropped against Gates. Obviously I cant know the reason for sure, but having plenty of experience in that area I can speculate that the charges were dropped because of who Gates is and the prosecutor didnt want to deal the the circus that would surround it.
I guess not all of us are equally culpable. Had I been arrested out of my own yard under the exact same circumstances, no one would care and I would be paying a fine.
And why do you guys keep arguing with rokemronnie? Even after saying what Gates did was arrestable he still tries to lay the blame at the feet of the officer.
See? This isnt a matter of right and wrong for him. He just hates cops.
SnakeintheGrass on July 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
You gotta wonder about his history with cops
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM
And I’ve noticed that the more his “arguments” get shown to be the nonsense that they are…
…the more he reverts to insults and purple prose.
And since he admits that Gates SHOULD have been arrested, then I don’t really know what his problem is here.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I don’t have any bois, I like adult women, thank you very much.
You seem to have me confused with some kind of “liberal” or Obama supporter. I suppose I’m a liberal in the Hayekian sense. You have read The Road To Serfdom, haven’t you? I’d think that any self-professed conservative would be familiar with Hayek.
Obama’s this-close-to-being-a-socialist, with some fascist tendencies (which is normal since fascism is a creation of the left). He’s trying to radically change America. The America he claims to love is a theoretical one that has never yet existed.
His comments on the Gates case demonstrate his own narcissism and race obsession.
I don’t need your kind of orthodoxy, I already argue with my rabbi enough.
I will say this. My black friends whom I’ve asked honestly believe that white cops act differently than black cops but that all cops care far more about blue than any other color. Black cops, they say, will cut them more slack, but no cops tolerate attitude. I don’t have their experiences so I can’t say if their perception is accurate or not, but it is the perception.
Sure, thinking the man is going to keep you down is a crippling way to think, but people think how they think and that colors their perceptions of reality.
Gates played the race pimp on Crowley. At the most, Crowley injected race into the issue retroactively when writing the police report and saying that Whalen used the word “black” in describing the suspected burglars, so I don’t believe he was racially profiling Gates and most of what Gates said was unreasonable and the rantings of a man who was irate and race obsessed.
The last time I looked, though, being race obsessed and irate in your own home, in lieu of any other actions, isn’t a crime. Neither is disrespecting a cop.
I’m a slightly libertarian leaning conservative. I think that state power is always inherently suspect but I think that there are some compelling state interests like road building, schools (maybe), and infrastructure, not to mention external security. On internal security I lean towards liberty rather than towards state control. I think early term abortions should be legal because my rabbi and the pope don’t agree on abortion. I think free speech is exactly that and that Lenny Bruce was a deeply flawed saint and a very, very funny man. Humor is a dangerous weapon because people who take themselves seriously hate being mocked.
So you guys have more in common with the totalitarian left and the Taliban than you’d like to admit.
Someone has to watch the watchers.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
This isnt the first thread I have seen him in. He has a habit of coming out in the cop threads and no amount of evidence has EVER changed his mind. That is why I dont respond to him anymore.
I have said it before and I will say it again: With all of the LEGIT officer misconduct cases out there, why are people getting worked up over a case when the officer was CORRECT?
SnakeintheGrass on July 29, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I don’t even drink coffee. You’re making conservatives look stupid if you think I’m some kind of latte drinking lefty.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I can tell you what’s better, going up to someone who has surprised and confused look on their face because they were just the victim of a crime, and making them feel better, and seeing humanity creep back into their face, that’s a hell of a lot better feeling. What would you know about that?
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Crowley could not establish there had not been a break-in, because Gates did break in. Into a leased home.
I hope the Cambridge PD excercises ITS freedom from any obligation to protect a specific citizen from crime.
Chris_Balsz on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I’m sure I could if I tried, but evoking childish pranks seemed to be appropriate in light of vindictive police behavior.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
How could Crowley inject race “retroactively” when Gates had ALREADY played the race card?
And how is factually describing the suspects “injecting race into the issue”?
It isn’t and, of course, that’s NOT what Gates got arrested for.
But thank you for going back to that meme and trying to recast what happened.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1gXG1PY5bM&feature=related
Jeff from WI on July 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
You are obviously a newbie
CWforFreedom on July 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Everything? You mean he told Gates: “if you scream and yell outside you can be subject to arrest” before he asked an irate man to come outside?
Why not just admit what every knows, Gates got arrested for attitude. The actual charges were just window dressing, a legal formality cops go through when they arrest for contempt of cop.
I really don’t think you’re giving your bois in blue enough credit. Clever they are. Everything was by the book. I’m sure they had a chuckle about that too.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
What’s truly childish is to stomp your feet and yell like an toddler when an authority figure confronts you with legal cause, Mr. Gates is and educated man and he behaved like an buffoon.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
If you agree that Gates’ behavior was “arrestable”…
…then how/why/where is the “vindictive” behavior of the police?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Heh.
So is this the “if I can find one little fault in the argument I can disprove the entire thing” type of thinking?
If so, it doesn’t work.
I believe we’ve ALL “admitted” that Gates got arrested because of his disorderly attitude.
No one that was at the scene (except Gates) denies that.
And personally, whether the police got satisfaction out of the arrest is simply a small perk of the job…
…but NOT the main, sole reason he was arrested.
In the end, as I said, the only person to blame for Gates arrest is Gates.
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Hey AP, isn’t that one funny?
Sheesh. Kids these days have no idea how to respect their elders.
AP and I go way back, to before HotAir, when he was doing the Allahpundit site. I’m sure my first visit to this site had to have been within the first couple of weeks after Michelle started it up. I’m one of the people who made it possible for you to enjoy HotAir today, by supporting the site with actual money back in the day.
You punks really need to get off of the lawn.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM
You were the one who said “everything”. As for finding a flaw in an argument, I’m sorry if what little talmudic study I’ve done has influenced my thinking. In the Talmud, a position is attacked from all angles and only if a position can withstand all logical attacks is it accepted as valid.
You don’t like it? Take it up with Rabbi Feigenbaum, he wrote the book on it.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Actually, in most places “newbie” is not only a designation for how long someone has been there…
…but also a designation of how someone acts.
Thus one could be older than Methuselah and STILL act like a “newbie.”
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM
It’s cute, almost endearing, and kind of childlike for you to call me childish. Your worship of authority, though, is troubling.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM
And if I was engaging in a religious/scriptural debate I would be certain to be absolutely precise in my word choice.
But again, I wonder what RAbbi Feigenbaum would think of your assertions that I called the lady who dialed 911 a “liar”?
Wouldn’t that invalidate ALL of your arguments?
Or should we just chalk it all up to being on a computer board and not being overly concerned about the precision of our language or arguments?
Religious_Zealot on July 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Not sure if this has already been stated but… every time I have ever called the police or 911 to report a crime or something suspicious, the dispatcher asks what race the individuals are, NOT so that the cops can go out and racially profile someone, but because it is an obvious and easy identifying factor that is important in helping to make sure they aren’t looking at the wrong person. It’s like saying he is wearing a yellow shirt, or a red hat, or he has long hair. So the fact that whoever reports something suspicious reports the race is not by definition a racist, they are merely being descriptive. This should be a no-brainer. Even if the woman who initially reported the incident had said they were black, which she didn’t, that still wouldn’t make her actions racially motivated. Duh.
pleaseandthankyou on July 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Like I said, you’re looking for orthodoxy in behavior and thought.
…I try and I try to be just who I am
but everybody wants me to be just like them
they say “sing while you slave”
but I just get bored
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
- some guy named Bob
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM
I invite rokemronnie and other to read Thomas Sowell’s take on this race fiasco – here’s the link.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/07/28/a_post-racial_president?page=2
Thomas Sowell, a scholarly Black conservative, is truly one of my heroes. Great writer as well (hint to Ed Morrissey and AP)
Sweet_Thang on July 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
If I confused you with someone else. I apologize. It’s hard to keep track of where all the slings and arrows are coming from. If you believe Crowley and not her, well you’re the one saying she’s untruthful.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Almost as endearing as your precious pseudo anarchistic ramblings. You’re one of those types that long for the days of 1970′s Times Square aren’t you? Well if you love crime so much, I can recommend some nice neighborhoods for you to relocate to.
ac1 on July 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I read the Sowell piece the other day. I’ve been reading Prof. Sowell’s writings for decades now. There’s nothing in his piece on Obama and the Gates arrest that I disagree with.
In any case, Sowell doesn’t address the civil liberties issue of contempt of cop, so I’m not sure why you want me to read it. It’s not relevant to my position.
rokemronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »