One thing that has struck me in the endless discussion over Henry Louis Gates’ arrest is the difference in cultural attitudes between those who are defending Gates versus those siding with the Cambridge police.
Specifically, I’m startled by the notion put forth by some that Gates was in the wrong by not showing extreme deference toward the police. If you put race aside for a moment (but only for a moment), I think that, more than anything, accounts for the split. We’re talking about a clash of worldviews that we’re not going to resolve here.
I’ve been sitting on the fence but leaning toward Gates. I now think we know enough that I can come out firmly on Gates’ side. We may never know exactly what happened. But the only important difference between the police report and Gates’ own account is the question of whether Gates pulled a nutty. I don’t care if he did or not.
I’m going link-free; I’ve linked to everything relevant over the past few days, so just click here.
Here are some facts that we know beyond any doubt:
- A woman who works but does not live in the neighborhood called police to report that two black men appeared to be breaking into a home. Perhaps she would have called even if Gates and his driver had been white. I don’t know what she was thinking. But if their race played a role in her decision to dial “911,” that would hardly be the first time police have been summoned because black people had been seen in a place they weren’t supposed to be.
- The police responded and questioned Gates, as they should have, given the woman’s call and her report that the two men were trying to force their way in.
- A short time later, Sgt. James Crowley and his fellow officers knew for a fact that Gates, in fact, lived in the home to which they had responded. Gates — 58 years old and disabled — may or may not have been ranting and raving at them. But surely the officers knew that, through no fault of their own, they had stumbled into a racially explosive situation.
- Rather than find a way to extricate themselves and let everyone cool off, the police decided to arrest Gates at his own home and charge him with disturbing the peace. Even if you rely solely on the police report, it’s clear that Gates’ offense was mouthing off to the officers, who were on his property and who no longer had any reason to be there.
- The arrest took place last Thursday. No one knew about it until Monday, when the police report leaked out. (It appears that the Boston Globe broke the story.) Even though the report was a public record that the police were withholding on flimsy grounds (The investigation was continuing? Really?), a police spokesman said as recently as yesterday that the department was trying to ferret out the leaker.
- As soon as Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone got involved, the charges were dropped and the Cambridge Police Department issued a conciliatory statement. It is telling, I think, that it took an outsider to see the arrest for the fiasco it was.
Am I missing anything? I don’t think so. I also don’t think anyone can dispute the facts as I’ve laid them out. Given that, we come back to our competing mindsets.
Could Gates have handled this differently? Well, sure. He could — as many have suggested — have thanked the officers for keeping such a close eye on his house and sent them on their way with a smile and a handshake. Maybe that would have even been a better response.
And you know what? It’s definitely how I would have responded. But I’m white, and that fact predisposes me to have a very different attitude toward police officers. At a minimum, I would never suspect I was being hassled because I didn’t look like I belonged in my own home or in a particular neighborhood.
Gates responded as someone whose dignity had been assaulted because of his race. And whether that was literally true or not, the officers should have understood immediately that that was a perfectly understandable, reasonable response on Gates’ part.
Either the police didn’t recognize the situation for what it was, or they did and made a macho decision to show Gates who was in charge. Either way, it was a mistake, and one we’ll be hearing about for some time to come.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And if Gates had put up his fists in a fight or flight mode, what that have been "perfectly understandable, reasonable response on Gates' part"? Isn't this what your piece boils down to: what you deem "reasonable"? How "objective" are you? You're saying that as a white man looking on a black man, and imagining and feigning some knowledge and insight about black men (throwing some police officers into the mix) you are able to empathize with this black man (and black men in general) qua accused in the face of law enforcement? How else do you posit "that that was a perfectly understandable, reasonable response"? Your rant is as coherent as Gates.
Dan, amen. Same for the Globe editorial.If Officer Crowley has good counsel, he'll realize that he should offer whatever apology is necessary in order to get this behind him — although he probably would want to have a guarantee from Gates that he wouldn't be subject to a civil suit and/or a complaint to the police (or DOJ Civil Right Division) over his behavior (regardless of whether or not he believes such a suit or complaint would have merit).So, how do you think the media have handled this story?
Since classof93 poses a bunch of "what ifs" that no one is saying took place, I suppose we should thank her for her comments and send her on her merry way.
I think one thing is missing from your chain of events. After step 3, from what I have heard, Gates demanded (requested?) the officer's identity and badge number. I don't know in what manner that demand was made, but that is what led to the arrest.(Again, this is what I've gleaned from all the reports, which have been numerous, confused and at times not even factual, so I may be mistaken.)
Steve: I'll grant you that, but it's a fact in dispute. Crowley says Gates kept demanding his name and badge number even though he'd already told him several times. Gates says he kept demanding it because Crowley wouldn't give it to him. I tried to restrict my analysis to what we know for sure.
This is more about class as race. No one has mentioned this fact.
I agree with Dan until the second to last paragraph. Why should the cops assume Gates' dignity had been insulted because of his race? They're cops — average people — not Harvard scholars.
Dan: Do you really think you need to be a Harvard scholar to put yourself in the other guy's shoes for a moment? Police officers are professionals. Very few are not well-educated these days.
Ha! I was going to say something erudite and insightful here. But then I noticed the word verification for this post is "dinglesac" – just had to share that instead.Ok, while I'm here – I agree that, while race is an important factor, this also goes beyond race. I'm gratified that Prof. Gates is pointing out that if this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. I'm a white Irish guy, but that hasn't protected me from being hassled and treated disrespectfully by overzealous cops in a couple of instances.Motivation, intent – those are the hardest things to prove. We will perhaps never know what motivated Crowley. But regardless of his intent, he acted wrongly.Which brings me to my major quibble with your statement, Dan – it was more than a mistake. He acted wrongly and should be disciplined.
A comment I read on another blog sums it up perfectly I think: When assholes collide. My impression is that, although the cops were out of line, Gates behaved like a prick too. Nobody behaved like an adult.
Widmerpool – I'm not agreeing with you at all that Gates was acting like a prick. But, so what if he was? He was inside his own house and had complied with the officer's request for ID. He has a right to be a prick in his own house if he wants to be. It's setting a pretty low bar to say cops can arrest anyone – as in, slap handcuffs on them and take them down for booking – for being a prick in their own home. Don't you think?
One interesting point that you make is that it took three or four days for this story to make it to the press. The Cambridge Police didn't release the police report; Gates retired to Martha's Vineyard, anger possibly giving way to embarrassment. Both initially probably felt it was in their interest to let everything get swept under the rug.Neither the Cambridge Police nor Gates look good in this. Two accounts have Gates pushing buttons: "You don't know who you are messing with." One (easily verifiable) account has Gates trying to place a phone call to the chief (of police?), another button pushed. Of course an arrest was uncalled for, but it's not difficult to see how the sequence of events unfolded. I am, however, trying to figure out where racism or profiling fits in the story. Was it the orginal 911 call? Was it the officer asking for the ID? Was it an attitude that the officer carried? Was it the arrest after there very clearly was a scene of some sort? I am still on the fence.
I'm not agreeing with you at all that Gates was acting like a prick. But, so what if he was? He was inside his own house and had complied with the officer's request for ID. He has a right to be a prick in his own house if he wants to be.Treg, that really says it all. That's what defenders of the police don't want to acknowledge or don't understand.
Karl: It's possible that the only racial aspect to all of this was Gates' perception and response. Doesn't matter. He was in his own house, minding his own business
It is possible that this was a class, rather than strictly a race based incident. But it's just as possible that the class issue went the other way: Gates, well educated, Ph.D., widely known with an international audience, teaching at the peak of his career, wasn't about to take any lip from a local police officer. That is at least plausible.
Another point you should add, Dan. When the police realized who Gates was (and that the property was his) they called for back-up from the Harvard Police department. Which is strange behavior once you discover there is no burglary and therefore no crime. Why escalated the episode by calling for back-up?
Shame on you Dan, throughout your list of "facts" you editorialized your partisan conclusions.The mistake that was made was Gates' and that was to not be reasonable and responsible to legal authority.Sugar coat all you want, but that IS, in essence the case.I find it interesting that the liberal wing finds is very disconcerting when one of theirs falls into a trap of their own making.Rep, Rangel is next. Are the allegations of HIS corruption solely because he is black?Gates blew it. Get over it.
Ikcape: Rangel would appear to be a corrupt old hack. And argument by analogy is the next-to-last refuse of a scoundrel. It is a sign of the weakness of your argument that you would reach for Charlie Rangel (!) as some sort of — well, what?Why not bring in Scientology, the price of Microsoft shares and the hazards of pesticides while you're at it? Equally relevant to the matter at hand.
It's a clash of rights vs. the reasonable way to act around police.Police responding to any call are going to be jacked up, to some extent: It's a survival response that doesn't automatically get dialed down the second one realizes he's not in danger. That's the way it is.Certainly, Gates had a right to badger the cops if he believed (correctly, perhaps) had he been a target of racial profiling. But to be anything less than polite to a police officer is foolhardy — even if you have every right to be so.Say you're stopped at a DWI checkpoint (a relaxation of our civil liberties, unquestionably). When the officer asks you where you're headed, any response that smacks of the (factually correct) insistence that your direction of travel or plans for the night are none of the officer's business is going to get you detained — probably irrespective of skin color.I don't like answering police's questions or acting deferentially any better than Gates apparently does. But even if your integrity is impugned, when you're talking to a uniformed police officer, in that moment the police officer is in charge. Everybody, of any age, background or skin color should know that if they want to avoid problems with the police.
Now more than ever, Sergeant Crowley needs to find that black attorney (preferably an ex-cop) to bring a federal defamation suit against Gates. I hope Crowley has started seeing a doctor for anxiety, depression, insomnia etc. If he has a wife and kids, they should start going to.With nine B&Es in that neighborhood this year alone, and a Harvard employed, named, civilian caller in his presence at the scene (and in the court room a year from now) Crowley is a very sympathetic figure. No reports that he used any racial epithets or even raised his voice. Gates, OTOH, with his "Yo Mama" and "You don't know who you're messin' with," not so much. The Herald is now reporting that Crowley is well respected with a clean record, which bolsters his case. No patterns of racism, apparently.The breathtaking dog and pony show that Gates has engaged in on every willing media outlet in the past 24 hours, with his allegations of racism and false police reports, has been something to behold. He is forever tied those statements, including that he never yelled/couldn't yell. The Herald has already located a witness, sympathetic to Gates, who says Gates is lying on this. This is why good lawyers insist that their clients speak to nobody about their case until it comes to court.Noticeably, Sergeant Crowley is the one remaining silent. Smart man, tied only to the contents of his police report. Keep in mind, a federal jury pool is picked from the entire region, not just urban Boston, so unlike Suffolk County juries, there aren't likely to be many blacks on this one. I point that out because it's less likely Gates will find sympathy in federal court. Crowley, his career now in tatters, should go for millions, under the "No good deed goes unpunished" philosophy. I don't see how he can lose
io saturnalia! – Whatever. He WASN'T AT A DWI CHECKPOINT! He was inside HIS HOME!!!Ok, I'll stop shouting. But it's apples and bowling balls. The issue had been resolved. The police had received a call about a possible break-in. Gates showed his driver's license and Harvard ID and explained the door had been stuck. That should have been the end of it.
Both are completely wrongProfessor Gates, especially considering his prominence, was completely wrong with his horribly discourteous behavior. The police officer was completely wrong in his representation of the city and department to treat any citizen in such a disrespectful manner. And even if the occupant is rude, he is to overlook that and ensure the occupant's safety and that there is not a burglar in the house holding someone hostage. To that point they are equals, both acting inappropriately regardless of what set it off. Whichever one started the ruckus, the other should not have participated.Where the police officer obviously is extraordinarily out of line is in his abuse of authority by handcuffing, arresting, mug shooting and detaining in jail a person who has not committed a crime but instead to settle an immature, emotional dispute otherwise unable to resolve with both retaining their dignity. To use the authority of the city to apply personal punishment for an insult or fear of a complaint being filed with a superior, is a basic violation of civil rights along with other Constitutional protections which failed in Cambridge last week.Professor Gates didn't have the authority to handcuff and arrest the police officer for being disrespectful, but if he had and did he would have been as horribly wrong as Sgt. Crowley.
NewsHound, how do you know Gates' behavior was "horribly disrespectful"? I'm assuming you didn't witness the incident and that you're relying on the police report for that point of view. Gates says the report is inaccurate.And at any rate, Gates was in his home. He was a threat to no one and had complied with the request for ID. Let's just say for the sake of argument that he was disrespectful – so what? That's a reason to arrest the man in his own home? The police officer abused his power.
Dan and Treg,Of course you can behave like a prick in your own house. But you run the risk of encountering another prick dressed in blue. No one is wearing a white hat in this.
Widmerpool – So you ARE a racist! I suppose a white hat means good and a black hat means bad?And if Gates wore a white hat I suppose you'd call him, what? A pimp?Ok, fine. Don't laugh.At any rate, you're wrong. The prick dressed in blue had no business being there when he arrested Gates. This man did nothing wrong. He reacted negatively to an overzealous and abusive cop. He had provided ID. The situation was resolved and the cops should have left.What, is this a generational thing? The uniform and badge do not convey absolute authority, you know.
A reminder, Dan, next Scoundrel's Association meeting is Thursday; your remarks at the last meeting were interesting. :DI was merely pointing out the propensity for some to play the race card a the drop of a straw hat.Gates was one of them, and you are becoming an apologist.Stop dragging squirrels.Gates blew it. You know it. Gates knows it.So does anyone who looks a things with out the emotional overlays.
Nice summary, Dan. One criticism and three thoughts.First, the criticism: Once an arrest was made, it would have to have been the DA who dropped the charges. That's the system, and it's designed that way to prevent the police from abusing their arrest powers. So I think the implication that no one recognized this was out of hand until it got to the DA is not established. Others in the department could well have seen the foolishness of it, but they could not have dropped charges once someone is arrested.There are two elements to police work that are worth noting here. For starters, the police officers who work overnight are generally of a different makeup than those who work days. Because of the nature of their work, they generally do not have as much need for the soft, people skills that dayside officers have in greater measure. In cases like this, where finesse is required, that's a bad thing. But often times after midnight what's required is someone with the makeup to charge headlong into a dangerous situation and bring things to a halt immediately, which requires a wildly different skill set than daytime officers generally use. Like it or not, you often can't have everything in a police officer, and there are good reasons to have aggressive cops working late at night.Second, police have a limited set of options when a situation begins escalating. Someone may think that if they challenge an officer, they are effectively aiding their case. But in reality, they are closing off avenues of action for the officer. The more aggressive someone becomes, the less chance the officer is to let it drop. It's simply the way they are trained to handle a situation. So in effect, the louder Gates got, the more he guaranteed he would be arrested. Finally, I'm not so sure that this case says anything about race, but it does say a lot about people of privilege. Those of us who are not accustomed to lives of privilege and deference know full well that you cannot win an argument with a cop. You don't even try. A cop's world is one of privilege. As long as they have a badge, they don't need to yield to anyone. Professor Gates also inhabits a world of privilege and comfort. To him, the idea that he would need to be submissive to anyone is anathema. So is it any wonder that these two individuals, enjoying their privileged positions in society, would come to loggerheads when they met up. Two people or privilege trying to enforce their status as the most important. Note that even now, what professor Gates wants is to make the officer submissive to him, basically reverse the hierarchy that was imposed upon him by the officer. He wants to school the officer. How ridiculous it all is.Personally, I think both these guys would benefit from some schooling in how regular people live. It might help them understand that you don't arrest someone for popping off after a long day, and you don't piss on a cop who's out patrolling the streets with heightened adrenaline levels looking for dangerous situations to jump into.
Many thanks for what is the best synthesis I've seen so far of the incident. I would change only one sentence, as follows (my addition in italics): "Gates responded as someone who felt his dignity had been assaulted because of his race." Viewed in that light Gates' response is entirely understandable, but whether his dignity had in fact been assaulted is not provable. Perhaps a small distinction, but an important one, I think.
Revival – "A cop's world is one of privilege. As long as they have a badge, they don't need to yield to anyone." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!"Professor Gates also inhabits a world of privilege and comfort. To him, the idea that he would need to be submissive to anyone is anathema." How do you know this? And why is he supposed to be submissive in his own house to an overzealous cop?This thing really does go beyond race. Apparently there is a contingent that believes cops can do whatever they want and anyone who objects is either a fool or an elite snob.Ever heard of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
As has been pointed out several times, Treg, the time to voice the objections is not in the middle of the confrontation.The police DO have a certain amount of authority; it is best not to discount it.
If Gates blew it, how come the cops are apologizing to him?
Treg,No one (certainly not me) is saying the cop was right. I called him a prick didn't I? I am always very respectful of cops for the simple, common-sensical reason that you never know when you will encounter one that is a prick. That is the mature approach, in my opinion. Not the course Gates took, apparently.
Treg – we both strongly agree the police officer abused his authority and the dignity of Professor Gates.I read the police report and Mr. Gates' response. We both agree we have not seen evidence, nor apparently has the police chief or district attorney either, that an arrest was warranted or that a conviction was likely.But I did see enough in both reports that the professor, considering his position in the community and his prominence at Harvard, should have politely thanked the police officer for checking in on him and humbly let the officer be on his way. Even if the police officer was arrogant, rude or disrespectful, Professor Gates should have made more of an effort to be professionally grateful.From there Professor Gates could have used any of his many forums to describe the incident and the attitude of the police officer with perhaps more constructive and civilized results.In addition, he could have visited the police chief, mayor and spoken to city councilors expressing his view of the attitude, perhaps without much satisfaction as they would have been quick to explain that police have a difficult job.But, nevertheless, there were more dignified paths Professor Gates could have followed – an obligation he has to the University and the community.Professor Gates himself said that he repeatedly asked for the officer's name and badge number, thus verbally displaying his displeasure. Such rudeness was not necessary as the first responding officer's name would have been on the report, and if Professor Gates doesn't know that he isn't smart enough to be teaching anywhere.Putting that aside, the police officer was horribly wrong and abusive in particular to the city he represents, and the freedoms and dignity this country attempts to preserve for all its citizens.
I'm not saying it's right. Just that it is so. Police officers have privileges in this world beyond those of ordinary citizens by virtue of their employment. Tenured Harvard faculty members also enjoy privileges far beyond those of ordinary citizens by virtue of their employment. Though perhaps Professor Gates will jump in here from his Martha's Vineyard getaway to explain how I've got this wrong. I just don't buy that this is ultimately about race or profiling. I believe it's about two individuals coming from cultures of privilege butting heads over who trumps who, and acting very uncivilly in the process.
NewsHound – Gates had a right to be undignified under the circumstances. I'm not agreeing that he was. But if so, so what?And this statement, I can't quite believe:"Such rudeness was not necessary as the first responding officer's name would have been on the report, and if Professor Gates doesn't know that he isn't smart enough to be teaching anywhere."Do you actually believe this should have occured to Gates in the heat of the moment? And why should he have to petition the local police precinct for an officer's name and badge number?And, do you think a police officer has never succeeded in concealing his participation in misconduct? Why should Gates have been confident that he would easily be able to learn that officer's name later on? That's just incredibly naive.
I suspect that the apology from the police is all about politics.Given your studied cynicism Mr. B1, I would have thought you would have jumped on that.Mr Gates has the right to be as undignified as he wants to be. He needs only accept responsibility for his role in the matter. He blew it.
I think that Revival is absolutely correct in his assessment. All of us know cops who have become obnoxious in the performance of their duties. Some of us also know that there is no scorn quite like that sprayed by academia when the "don't you know who I am?" question hits a stone wall.
Like DeNiro said: "Most folks respect the badge. Everyone respects the gun."I think a substantial part of the problem here is that no matter what actually happened that day, the Cambridge Police Department showed a marked lack of judgment in arresting Gates. I mean, it's Harvard f**king Square, people…anyone who lives in a HOUSE there is either filthy rich or a VIP. As a cop, you don't "arrest" anyone from there…you "politely chauffeur them to a more convenient location to settle the disagreement".This touches on a larger issue: how cops in eastern Massachusetts have a nasty habit of stupidity. I could write a book about how Boston cops (and cops in other departments) routinely manage to run the gamut from exercising poor judgment to blatant criminal behavior. Remind me again where all the evidence processing happens these days for Boston crimes? What's the homicide clearance rate…still worst in the nation for a major city?I feel, and have felt for years, that police in many areas…not just Massachusetts…have forgotten that they are the representation of the law, and as such must be "Caesar's Wife" and act in a manner so as to be above suspicion. It's easy to forget that given what they deal with on a regular basis, but nevertheless it's hard to view this as an incredible lapse of judgment. Speculating further, it's hard not to see this as "annoyed white cop showing angry black man who's REALLY in charge".Short of physical altercations, or the explicit threat of them, Gates is perfectly within his CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED rights to be a total a**hole to the police if he wants to be. You can say all you like that Gates SHOULD have acted nicer and maybe this could've been avoided. That may be true, but the law does not require us to be nice to each other. As such, Crowley almost certainly stepped over the line.The sad thing is that no good will come of this. The problem is largely ingrained culture, and no lawsuit settlement or judgment that Gates can acquire can change that culture.
I feel the urge to share this anecdote from my college days…I was riding my bike to work in Cybersmith in Harvard Square in the summer of 1997, and largely zipping down the sidewalks…which are fairly broad in most places in the Square.I wasn't going pell-mell, but admittedly I wasn't exactly riding sedately, either. A nearby cop yelled at me to stop riding on the sidewalk. I yelled back that when he made it safe to ride in the street, I'd consider it.Needless to say, I started riding a lot faster after that! :-)Nothing came of it, but I wonder if I'll ever have the balls to mouth off at a cop when I was so clearly in the wrong.
Treg – interesting observations.I agree Professor Gates has a right to be undignified in his own home, to a point, at least. But, while he has such a right, considering his prominence he should not have been.We are suppose to be in a civilized society, and that truly should be up to Professor Gates if he wants to join in. He has a right to be rude and uncooperative and that most certainly can breed any number of undesirable results and we are seeing one version of the many alternatives right now.If Professor Gates had remained polite he would not have been arrested, and had he subsequently complained as he may have indicated was his intent, little to nothing would have resulted, with or without the officers name and no one gives a hoot, really, about his badge number. At the police station or city hall they may have offered some hollow words of empathy towards the incident, but that would have been the end of it. If Professor Gates wants to make an issue of something, it is best that he is not involved to the extent that his objectivity is questioned.The police should not act this way in any home under such circumstances but trying to fix this problem is a horribly difficult challenge and Professor Gates certainly should be smart enough to know that the time and place is not in his kitchen with one student so emotionally charged that no one is able to communicate anything to anyone.
I see a lot of attempts to equate Gates' and the officers' behavior. Doesn't work. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that each party was equally obnoxious. So? It was Gates' home. The police had no business being there once they had established that fact.If the police report is accurate, then Gates handled the situation poorly. As was his right.
And Dan, restraining Mr. Gates was within their rights, too. That is the point.You say: "I see a lot of attempts to equate Gates' and the officers' behavior. Doesn't work…."Did I see you elected as grand arbiter of all things controversial?I would suggest that Gates' was more out of line.But hey, he is a noted academic with a vacation spa on the Vineyard. The police should have known that.Another squirrel, I think.
So according to Ikcape it doesn't matter whether someone is obnoxious, the police can arrest anyone, anywhere for any reason at all. It doesn't even matter if you are respectful and submissive. It's your own fault. Nice logic– I can see why you don't want any squirrels around.
My understanding is that the criminal complaint of Disorderly Conduct was issued against Gates, which only happens after a clerk magistrate (judicial branch) determines that there was probable cause to arrest. In fact, arraignment was scheduled for August. That means the Sergeant has no worries. Gates might though, I suspect that's why he has suddenly clammed up again.Once probable cause is found by the court, sadly a police officer must learn quickly not to worry about what happens to the case from there on in. With politicians as DAs, and defense attorneys, and ex-legislators as clerks and judges, political bag jobs are the order of the day. As for Democrat Jerry Leone's decision not to prosecute –and it is ultimately his decision– isn't this the same guy who refused to prosecute Sen. Marzilli on the first allegations, leaving him free to attack more women?
BobG,the argument is not whether or not the cops have the right to arrest anyone for anything, the point is that Gates put himself in a position where they had cause.Now that was a pretty dumb thing to do for a guy with such academic credentials. He may loose "smart" points for such stupidity…
OMG, Obama has weighed in on live TV without reading the police report. DRUDGE headlining "Cambridge Police acted stupidly." How long before Obama is apologizing, or clarifying? I called the White House already to complain.
"Crowley says Gates kept demanding his name and badge number even though he'd already told him several times. Gates says he kept demanding it because Crowley wouldn't give it to him."Crowley said he couldn't give him the information because Gates kept interrupting him by talking and yelling, which is a fallacy on it face. Crowley blames Gates for Crowley not giving Gates his name and badge number. Why would Gates try to argue the officer did not if the officer did? Isn't that information the reason Gates followed the cop out to the porch? Gates wanted to file a complaint about the cops behaviour and Crowley would not give him the information. Crowley reacted by arresting him.
The DA knew the arrest was stupid. Officer Crowley sees no reason to apologize for acting stupidly. STORY
Dan, a nice summation of a disappointing affair. And I have to say the tired –but expected–"Boston troubles" canard is unfortunately too easy for a indolent national media not to run with.
I just want to know what percentage of the settlement Professor Gates will donate to charity.
:Specifically, I'm startled by the notion put forth by some that Gates was in the wrong by not showing extreme deference toward the police. Who is doing *that* Dan? All I have seen is people very justifiably saying that Gates could have and should have shown a reasonable amount of respect and understanding for the police, been more cooperative with the police, and refrained from making a complete ass out of himself almost from the moment the police arrived to investigate the break-in report.:If you put race aside for a moment (but only for a moment), I think that, more than anything, accounts for the split. We're talking about a clash of worldviews that we're not going to resolve here.Probably not. Most people are pretty set in their "worldviews" (Gates being an excellent example of that. . .) and are unlikely to change their minds even when presented with information that should cause them to do just that. One thing I have noticed is how quick people on both sides of the issue are to make ignorant statements that show they haven't made the slightest effort to check the facts about what really happened. . .:I've been sitting on the fence but leaning toward Gates. I now think we know enough that I can come out firmly on Gates' side. Oh dear. . .:We may never know exactly what happened. Well at least you didn't say -At the end of the day we may never know exactly what happened. . . :But the only important difference between the police report and Gates' own account is the question of whether Gates pulled a nutty. Really Dan? I read both the police report and Gates own account and both make it abundantly clear that Henry Louis Gates was quite the nutty professor in this affair, if not more generally. . .:I don't care if he did or not.I do and so do others. The last thing *any* cops need is self-important nutty professors going ballistic on them for little or no reason, or worse to further their own personal agendas. . . Here are a few snippets of Henry Louis Gates' nuttiness in his own words -"All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’"Yup all the hairs stood up on the back of Gates' neck, and he *knew* he was in danger because a Cambridge police officer asked him to "step outside onto the porch.""He (Crowley) said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’"That's ridiculous alright. . . Gates looks completely ridiculous if as "a Harvard professor" he doesn't have the grey cells to rub together to figure out that someone might have made a 911 call upon witnessing his own apparent breaking and entering into his house. And what does his being a Harvard professor have to do with whether or not anyone broke into his house anyway. In his own "interview" he even acknowledged that he suspected the front door was jammed as a result of an earlier break-in attempt."Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."Wow! Gates is not only a Harvard professor but a mind reader too. . . It should be glaringly obvious that if anyone had "a narrative in his head" in this matter it was, and still is. . . Mr. Henry Louis Gates. Can you say psychological projection Dan?
"By the time I was processed at the Cambridge jail, I was booked, fingerprinted, given a mug shot and answered questions. Outrageous is the only word that I can use. The system attempts to humiliate you. They took my belt; they took my wallet, they took my keys, some change; they counted my money. And I knew that because they said, ‘We’re going to release you upon your own recognizance, and the fine is $40, and we know you can pay it because we went through your wallet.’It’s meant to be terrifying and humiliating. And I couldn’t believe that this was happening to me."Yup the boring, mundane, and routine standard police procedure that *everyone* regardless of race, social status, or indeed guilt or innocence. . . goes through after being arrested is "outrageous" and "meant to be terrifying and humiliating." God forbid that Henry Louis Gates should have to do what tens of thousands of other Americans have done before him."I was in jail for four hours. I told them that I was claustrophobic, that I couldn’t be in this cell."Someone might want to check into whether or not Gates *really* is claustrophobic. In light of all the other things he has said this comes across more like, "I told them that I was *special*, that *I* famous Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates couldn’t be in this cell." That being said, in light of all the other evidence that Gates is a deeply insecure person in this "interview" maybe he is claustrophobic, neurotic and paranoid to boot."But I am determined that this experience, my experience, as horrendous as it was and as outrageous as it was, be used for the larger good of the black community."Well it is open to considerable debate just how "horrendous" and "outrageous" Henry Louis Gates' experience actually was. . . Quite frankly I think that professor Gates' hyperbole and BS is an insult to the thousands of other African Americans, living or dead, who would very happily trade their own genuinely horrendous and outrageous experiences with that of Henry Louis Gates' reasonably professionally handled arrest and four hour stint in jail."As a college professor, I want to make this a teaching experience. I am going to devote my considerable resources, intellectual and otherwise, to making sure this doesn’t happen again."Once the public see through Henry Louis Gates' opportunistic agenda driven publicity stunt, as many saner minds are starting to do. . . Gates' self-vaunted considerable intellectual resources will be called into question. Much of what he has said and done recently can be properly described as just plain stupid.
Thanks, Revival, for one of the best takes I've read on this incident anywhere.http://medianation.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-gates-story-says-about-culture.html#comment-7251902711484037705
Can another celebrity PLEASE die today to get us out of this tedium.
A few misconceptions battered about.First, fish, a clerk magistrate will most always issue a criminal complaint on an arrest. If an arrest is made at the scene of a crime, you can bet the farm that the complaint will issue, because the application for a complaint will be written to create probable cause.While the DA does have sole authority to dump a case, they nearly never do until after consulting with the police department. Note that Cambridge PD and the District Attorney issued a joint statement when they dropped the charge.It is significant that at first, the DA declined to drop the charges until after arraignment, a position he quickly reversed. Note that a criminal record attaches itself to one's CORI at arraignment. Dumping the charge prior to arraignment prevents the police department from making even a bigger ass of itself.Here's why:If the charge had not been dropped prior to arraignment, Gates' attorney would have made a pre-arraignment motion to have the matter sent to the clerk-magistrate for a determination of probable cause. If the clerk said there was no probable cause, it wouldn't go on his "permanent record. But more importantly, it would have made it legally clear that there were no grounds for arrest, because the charge would not have cleared the easiest hurdle to its veracity. If denied pre-arraignment review by the magistrate, Gates could bring a motion to dismiss the charge and then the judge would review whether probable cause existed for the arrest. If the judge said no probable cause, same result — a judicial finding that there was no legal basis for the arrest.What Cambridge police did agreeing to drop the charge, is prevent a judicial finding that their cop was out of bounds in making the arrest.
Apparently "restraining" an unarmed, slightly disabled 60 year old man was NOT within the police's rights.And it's gonna cost them, bigtime.As the Southern Legal Resource Center has shows, you can't legislate out racism, but you can certainly take all its money.
I honestly doubt that Sgt. Crowley is guilty of racism. There is very little evidence supporting that view and I consider him to be innocent until proven guilty of be a racist. There is however plenty of evidence supporting my view and Revival's view that *privilege* and perhaps *class* (to say nothing of lack thereof) is what lies behind Gates' arrest, with perhaps some testosterone thrown in for good measure. . . Revival's – "Two people of privilege trying to enforce their status as the most important." largely sums it up for me, although I agree that there is more involved here such as Gates' playing of the race card from the get go. I like to think that this LOL Cops photograph of Gates arrest with a satirical parodying of his alleged shouting -"THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA"!which very closely matches his own version of that assertion -"Is this how you treat a black man in America?"will garner some chuckles from those who believe that Gates has made an ass out of himself in this matter regardless of whether or not his arrest was justified.
It seems I made an HMTL error.Here's The Mything Link.
And you know what? It's definitely how I would have responded. But I'm white, and that fact predisposes me to have a very different attitude toward police officers. At a minimum, I would never suspect I was being hassled because I didn't look like I belonged in my own home or in a particular neighborhood. But would you suspect you were being hassled because many police have a sort of bully mentality, feeling bolstered by their authority which they frequently abuse. I am suspicious of any police officer that approaches me and I anticipate how they will enjoy flexing their figurative muscles and act macho because they think they are superior. They respond to how much respect they get and react accordingly, which is problematic because it allows them to be flexible with how they enforce laws that should be clear cut. Many police officers will provoke members of the public through cursing and so on. I've experienced it myself. An officer once shoved me onto a concrete set of stairs, snatched my cell phone, and illegally searched my backpack during a so-called "field interrogation" after I told him I would contact legal counsel as he searched my body without permission. This was a little more than a half a year ago at the end of Newbury Street where I was walking around close to Boston University (my brother goes to school there). In that case, I asked for his name and badge number, and he immediately refused, saying I didn't need it. I repeated my request several times until he blurted only his last name very quickly (refused to spell it) and would still not grant me his badge number. It was only later when I reported the assault that I got his full name and an apology from his department and a promise that they would scold the officer about his behavior. I did nothing wrong but was treated like a wild animal. Believe me, in that case, it was the cop who should have been arrested for disorderly conduct, because he was swearing up a storm and verbally abusing me with words intended attempt to emasculate me by referring to my genitals in a diminutive manner repeatedly. It was disgusting, and I was so civil throughout this while expressing my righteous indignation, demanding fair treatment and my Constitutional rights. Now, not all police are like this. But some are and it's those you should be wary about.Now swing away, conservatives. Tell me how I wouldn't have any rights at all if it weren't for these tough guys to keep me safe and sound in my Ivory Tower. Pffhh. I'm from the streets of Taunton, son.
I think it's interesting that the US locks up more people than any other country yet it hasn't put a dent in our crime rates.
This is about privilege and class, not race. If Gates were a white guy seen busting into a house, someone still would have called the cops. If a black officer then showed up, and Gates started mouthing off to him about who's boss, he still would have been arrested. This was a hoity-toity Harvard prof squaring off against a working-class cop and neither one thinking things all the way through.Gates should have the political sense to say he's going to let the matter drop, although as I said, he's a jackass with a God complex and he won't. So now we'll just create more bad blood in Cambridge and waste taxpayer money holding hearings. Maybe the most prominent Asian in town should tell them both to shut up and move on with their lives…
Amen** To the first three paragraphs@ Marc Larocque who said, "Now swing away, conservatives."Just thought I would let you know that I am a left leaning liberal from Soviet Canuckistan aka Canada who has had his own run ins with belligerent cops and has been falsely arrested at least once but AFA*I*AC two or three times. Interestingly enough all of the half-dozen or so cops who have arrested me over the last decade or so were very polite and professional about it. I even saw fit to publicly commended them for their courtesy and professionalism. Of course it helped that I didn't go ape shit on them and was civil and cooperative myself. . .
If Gates were a white guy seen busting into a house, someone still would have called the cops.No, if Gates were a white guy seen busting into a house, someone would have asked if he needed help.Keep in mind: He's 60, and looks it. He has a cane. He has a limo sitting outside his house. The limo driver is helping him. The entire situation screamed innocence, except to those who couldn't see beyond the color of his skin.
>>No, if Gates were a white guy seen busting into a house, someone would have asked if he needed help.Disagree 100 percent. Gates' neighbor apparently had no idea who he was– an increasingly common phenomenon today. I don't know my neighbors either. But if I saw two white guys trying to force open the door next to my apartment, I'd call the police too.
So now you are saying that the neighbor who called 911 is a racist. . ."Keep in mind: He's 60, and looks it."Actually I am keeping that in mind when I keep seeing the dated portrait that is being used to illustrate his "interview" and other reports. Why is Skip Gates himself using a photograph that looks like it was taken a decade or more ago? You don't suppose an inflated ego has anything to do with it eh?
>>I just don't buy that this is ultimately about race or profiling. I believe it's about two individuals coming from cultures of privilege butting heads over who trumps who, and acting very uncivilly in the process.Most intelligent analysis of this mess I've read yet. Especially since it's quite similar to my own views! Well said, Revival
@Robin EdgarIt's not alright to be falsely arrested. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the U.S. you have Constitutional rights you should stand strongly behind in the face of oppression or police brutality. This Gates incident has a racial element as an undercurrent of the narrative, nevertheless it is more so an element of overbearing police officers trying to show anyone they can who's the boss.
Which of the following are you asserting, Dan:1. Gates was definitely not guilty of the crime/misdemeanor of "disorderly conduct" and anyone who impartially observed his conduct that day would have come to the same conclusion (unless they're dumb)2. There's no such thing as "disorderly conduct" and nobody should ever be arrested for that phony, overly subjective, and possibly unconstitutional charge.
What happened to the taxi driver? Was he there while all this was going on?
@ Aaron Read:It's unclear from your post about bicycling on Harvard Square sidewalks… but do you realize that City of Cambridge ordinance forbids riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in any of five business districts in the city? (Boston bans sidewalk riding altogether.)Harvard Square is one of those business districts: you can find maps and text describing the boundaries of the no-bicycling-on-sidewalks zones online, as well as see the markings painted on sidewalks at intersections demarcating the boundaries.Cambridge is the only city in Massachusetts I know of that enforces its laws on bicyclists — such as ticketing riders who don't stop for stop signs or red lights. It sounds like you can add enforcement (attempts) on sidewalk bicycling to the list.And, yes, Cambridge's streets are (sort-of) safe for cycling. I commute daily on a bike to Cambridge.
@ Robin Edgar:Gates' response to the responding officer — "That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor." — is actually germane to establishing proper police procedure in this incident.While Gates said that the house is his, the land is owned and maintained by Harvard Real Estate. That's why Gates phoned someone at HRE to come over and fix the door.And that is also why Cambridge PD would (eventually) call in HUPD. That's how they deal with the overlapping jurisdictional issue — because HUPD will typically lead the response/investigation when it occurs on university property.While it is easy for many people to jump on Gates' comment about being a Harvard Professor as some kind of elitist attitude, his was an appropriate and relevant statement to make when dealing with Cambridge PD vs. HUPD.
Somehow, I don't think that there is a bright boundary line between Harvard property and the City of Cambridge. The laws of Cambridge still apply.Gates lost it…and then…He tried to play a) the race card, b) the celebrity card, and c) the Haavaard card.He got caught by his own hubris.
matteomht: First, it wasn't a neighbor who called; it was a woman from a completely different town. Second, what you are saying is, everytime someone gets locked out of their house, they should just call the police in advance, since the society we want to live in is "call the cops first and use your head second." Robin: Why is Skip Gates himself using a photograph that looks like it was taken a decade or more ago? Who says the news orgs aren't using file photos? And what does that have to do with anything? Ego is not a crime.
lckape keeps claiming Gates got "caught" and yet Gates is the only one who stands to make any money out of this Keystone Kops charade. And the only price he pays is a bunch of racist losers hate him even more than they did before.Gates wins. Big.
His willingness to make money over his racist attitudes puts him in the league with Reverend Al.Disgusting.Typical, but still disgusting.
"typical," lk? typical of what? those people? the coloreds, as o-fish would say? i'd like an explanation on that one and feel free to play twister with yourself as you do it.
Somehow, I don't think that there is a bright boundary line between Harvard property and the City of Cambridge. The laws of Cambridge still apply.Yes, there is…and no, they don't.I'm not really being facetious, either. A similar situation exists on the campuses of Boston University, Boston College and (I presume) most other major universities that have their own Police Department. Not campus security, I mean a real Police Department. BUPD is one and I'm pretty sure HUPD is the same. In BUPD's case, their jurisdiction is the campus and the only thing they are not allowed to do is issue traffic citations (due to a long and ugly union fight).It's been a while since I was an undergrad and cared about this stuff, but I believe the BUPD had the authority to boot the BPD out of their business if the jurisdiction was proper. But the BUPD also usually liaised with the BPD for major crimes that were "outside the usual" for a college, for the obvious reasons relating to expertise and resources.In this case I don't know where Gates' house is, so I can't say for sure if it should've been the HUPD sent over…but my hunch is that it was correct for the CPD to go; just because a building is owned by Harvard doesn't automatically make it part of the campus, nor part of the HUPD's jurisdiction.
@ mike_b1:Who says the news orgs aren't using file photos? Not me. I know that they are. My question was why is *Skip* himself is using a photo that appears to be a decade or so old to illustrate his "interview" in The Root. And you guessed it *ego*. And you're right Skip Gates' massive ego, which may be overcompensating for some deep personal insecurities from what I can see. . . is not a crime. It is however a major contributing factor to what has gone down in Cambridge over the last week or so. From what I can see, Skip Gates' overweaning sense of self-importance has a lot to do with generating what is now an national scandal.
Careful with the nickel psychology. Citizens everyday respond in strong and negative fashion to overbearing cops. Because Gates is smarter and better-known in some circles than most people doesn't mean ego played a role in any of this. That said, to be black is to be insecure. Or perhaps you know of a KKK-like organization that looks to eliminate whites instead of blacks? The entire system is rigged against blacks. And regardless of what you think of this incident, there's no question racism is alive and well in Boston.
lkcape, apparently you join PP in wanting to do away with the judicial system. Perhaps you would enjoy living in Iran instead. I'd be happy to buy you the ticket.
Good lord, could Crowley have possibly picked a worse way to respond to this mess?First, to respond not in a press conference, not at a neutral newspaper or radio news outlet, but to go on WEEI's morning show and basically say "F**K YOU!" to the world has got to set a new record for classlessness on greater Boston's police forces' already poor reputation.If Crowley was so sure he was right, why did he have to go on the most possibly police-friendly media outlet? The one place he could be guaranteed the hosts would be even bigger cheerleaders for himself than he is? A place that's not a news station and doesn't even pretend to be!Sad. Very sad. If I were in the Cambridge PD's PR department I'd want Crowley's head on a plate right now…
do you realize that City of Cambridge ordinance forbids riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in any of five business districts in the city? (snip)And, yes, Cambridge's streets are (sort-of) safe for cycling. I commute daily on a bike to Cambridge.Well this was back in 1997, but I did know full well, even then, that you're not supposed to ride a bike on the sidewalk. That's why I mentioned about being "in the wrong".And I can't speak for 2009, but in 1997 the streets of Harvard Square were most definitely NOT safe to bike in. In one lousy summer I was hit by two cars, "doored" four times (someone opens their car door right in front of you), and wiped out a half-dozen times while trying to avoid a crash with a moving car…one time causing a crash into a parked car that wrecked my bike.This was when I had daily bike rides from Allston Village to the BU Campus to the old WBCN studios in Fenway to Harvard Square, back to Allston Village. A lot of those routes have nice, wide sidewalks so I usually DIDN'T ride on the street…it was too damn dangerous, as outlined above. Laws be damned, I'd rather be yelled at by a cop than killed by a speeding car, thank you very much.
>>Second, what you are saying is, everytime someone gets locked out of their house, they should just call the police in advance, since the society we want to live in is "call the cops first and use your head second." No, Mike B1, it isn't. I'm saying that when someone forces his way into a home in front of another person, it's reasonable to expect that other person to call the police and report someone breaking into a home. That *is* using your head first. If this woman actually wasn't a neighbor of Gates's, as you say, that makes the case all the stronger. She only saw two people forcing open a door, called the police, and said 'you might want to deal with it.'I mean, if some stranger saw two people forcing their way into your house, wouldn't you want her to call the police? Yeesh, people, good behavior isn't that hard.
This just in. . .Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley, the cop at the center of a firestorm over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., has taught a racial profiling class at the Lowell Police Academy for five years.Doh!
Ikcape-"the argument is not whether or not the cops have the right to arrest anyone for anything, the point is that Gates put himself in a position where they had cause."But you only have the cop's word for it that Gates did anything to warrant his arrest. Gates denies he did any of those things.Neither you nor I know what who is telling the truth–yet you seem sure that Gates is at fault, that he "lost it" …"played the celebrity card" etc.That leaves two possiblities–either, like I said before, you think that the police can arrest anyone, anytime, for any reason they want, so it doesn't matter what Gates did or didn't do. Or that when you have to choose between a white cop, and a black professor, you are so sure that the black professor is lying that you are willing to say so without qualification. Which is it?
No… "Typical" for self-absorbed people to extend their 15 minutes of fame for profit.Disgusting.
didn't see any "typical" self-absorbed white folk in your comment.
Robin, all that means is that he doesn't apparently practice what he preaches. God knows how many police each day are caught driving drunk.
matteomht said…I'm saying that when someone forces his way into a home in front of another person, it's reasonable to expect that other person to call the police and report someone breaking into a home. That *is* using your head first. Right, because thugs intent on robbing houses typically come in their own limos.Don't confuse me with the facts.
Mike_b1, given the information we have, I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the person who called the police. Depending on the precise circumstances when she happened by, it really could have looked like someone was breaking in.The problem is with the boneheaded and abusive manner in which the police responded. There is no reason they couldn't simply stop by, check in with Gates, then be on their way.
Wrong Treg. Sgt. Crowley had no idea who he was dealing with as Gates might say. . . Until Gates identified himself he could have been an armed criminal who might have gunned Sgt. Crowley down to make an escape. Why do you think Crowley asked him to step out on the porch?mike_b1 said… Robin, all that means is that he doesn't apparently practice what he preaches. God knows how many police each day are caught driving drunk.Dealing with outrageous hypocrites who do not make the slightest effort to practice what they preach on an ongoing basis I will concede that as a possibility, but I have not seen anything in what Sgt. Crowley said or did that looks like racism. As others have pointed out this was more a matter of a couple of Alpha males having it out with each other with race having little or nothing to do with it other than in Gates' own internal "narrative". Gates was insecure, defensive, and even just a tad paranoid AFA*I*AC the minute Crowley showed up and was effectively calling Crowley a racist very early in their interaction. Giving Crowley the benefit of any doubt I can see how if I was a cop who taught classes on racial profiling on an unpaid volunteer basis I would be deeply insulted by someone ignorantly and abusively labeling me a racist just for trying to do my job.
I can guarantee you someone will pop up who was locked out of their house and whom received much different treatment from Crowley.And…that person will be white.
:Citizens everyday respond in strong and negative fashion to overbearing cops. Been there. Done that. . . but not in the moronic belligerent manner that Gates did. I protested in front of the implicated police station and handed out copies of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to cops entering and leaving the building. When dealing face to face with overbearing cops I stay calm, cool and collected even if and when I do give them a piece of my mind. :Because Gates is smarter and better-known in some circles than most people doesn't mean ego played a role in any of this.You're right *that* doesn't. Other evidence does though. If anyone was overbearing in this incident it was Gates. . .:That said, to be black is to be insecure. I think that is an over-generalization that plenty of African Americans would take exception to but I am sensitive to where it is coming from. AFAIAC Gates' obvious deep insecurity bordering on paranoia was not justified by the situation he found himself in and he could have and should have been more polite and cooperative with Crowley. Even if Crowley was somewhat overbearing Gates badly over-reacted to this situation.:Or perhaps you know of a KKK-like organization that looks to eliminate whites instead of blacks? Al-Quaeda?:The entire system is rigged against blacks. What "system" the police system or The System? Either way it looks like "the system" is presently falling all over itself to kow tow to Gates.:And regardless of what you think of this incident, there's no question racism is alive and well in Boston.I never disputed that. The public reaction to this incident makes that abundantly clear. I just do not believe that racism played much of a role in Sgt. Crowley's conduct. Gates is the one who made this into a racist incident with his "narrative" aka agenda.
The police officer was angry because of the way he was being treated. He should not have been treated that way. Had he been going door-to-door selling life insurance for example, he would have had little choice but to say he was sorry for the interruption and walk away.Instead, due to the policeman's perhaps rightful anger, he abused his authority by applying punitive measures towards the professor.Disorderly conduct must have a victim. Repeatedly asking for the police officer's name so that he can make a complaint against a specific person, and thus being angered because a response is not being presented in a tone and manner that is clear to hear and understand, hardly infringes on the police officer's right to be undisturbed.This situation is close if not crossing the line of violating several Constitutional protections including the Fourteenth Amendment.Police are deliberately provided with strong powers, but abuse of those powers, even on occasion, is horrible and if overlooked, a horrible threat to the inner core and fiber of this country.Clearly, there was no fundamental, objective reason for the arrest. The conduct did not infringe on anyone's rights, nor were there any victims.There was no public annoyance or cause for alarm. Officer Crowley was annoyed.Even if Professor Gates was rude, of which is most likely the case, he became the victim of abuse by a false arrest as a result of the police officer's punitive action due to his anger and dominance.
Robin, do you really think Muslims are black? I mean, honestly?Incredible.
You're the one who is incredible as in lacking in credibility mike_bs. Nothing in what you asked me necessitated that the "KKK-like organization that looks to eliminate whites instead of blacks" needed to be composed of African Americans aka blacks. In any case I guess your sarcasm detector is broken. I would have thought that the question mark would be a clue. . .
Has anyone considered the background of Sergeant Crowley? He is a highly respected officer in Cambridge. In fact he is so well respected by his fellow officers, African Americans included; he was asked to teach cultural sensitivity. On the other hand, if anyone were to read some of Professor Gates essays they may very well surmise that the man clearly blames the white race for all the ills of the poor black man. So I ask you, which of these two are more likely to be racist? The fact that the governor of Massachusetts squashed the charges because he is a friend of Professor "Skip" Gates is outrageous. This should have gone to court, then perhaps the true story would have come out. In fact I feel the comments made by the governor of Massachusetts, the major of Cambridge, and our President [all Black] were inappropriate to say the least. As society leaders, they should have been more biased. I feel they all owe Sergeant Crowley a public apology. Especially our President, he should apologize to Crowley, the Cambridge Police department, and all law enforcement for his lack of respect. It seems our President’s true colors may be coming out, rather than uniting us as promised he may have set racial discrimination back about 100 years. Personally if I were an educated African American, I would be ashamed and embarrassed by the leadership representing my race and their behavior. And finally, our president, who has also stated to be a friend of "Skip Gates", claims the professor is not one for public confrontation. Yet, the professor is the one speaking out to the media. I think Professor Gates acted vulgar and irrationally and it appears to me that in order for him to save face he is now embellishing the truth. I have far more respect for the person who shows humility and maturity. I'm leaning towards the record and integrity of Sergeant Crowley.
Beachwalker – I have every reason to believe that Sergeant Crowley is an excellent police officer with a superb record.And what you wrote about Professor Gates most likely is true, also. Further, the politicians should not have intervened simply because of race accusations, the professors stature, friendships, etc. The only thing that should count are the merits.In this particular incidence, all of the reports indicate that Officer Crowley was angered at the response he received from Professor Gates. It is possible the attitude was initiated by the officer. Regardless, the professor should have been courteous. If it had been me I would not have been arrested. I would have been angered perhaps, but I would have attempted to bring the occasion to civility and thanked the officer for checking my home so quickly and efficiently. Professor Gates clearly was wrong, and perhaps continues to be. I'd be embarrassed.Officer Crowley should have politely written down his name and badge number on a piece of paper in the professor's kitchen, and left. If at that time Professor Gates was subsequently found to be following up with a disturbance in the street after police had left that would have been grounds to make an arrest after a warning to return to home.Both could have avoided the arrest, and both should have. But, it was the officer, not the professor, who did make the arrest and abuse the authority because he was angry and proceeded for punitive reasons.
This comment is brought to you in honor of No. 99, The Great One, Wayne Gretzky.
robin wrote Nothing in what you asked me necessitated that the "KKK-like organization that looks to eliminate whites instead of blacks" needed to be composed of African Americans aka blacks. Please, could you say it in English?
Until Gates identified himself he could have been an armed criminal who might have gunned Sgt. Crowley down to make an escape. Why do you think Crowley asked him to step out on the porch?Because police officers are well-trained that they cannot enter a home without probable cause? Unlike "cultural sensitivity", which I seriously question can EVER be taught, much less to a division of society so ingrained with a superiority complex like police…the rule that you don't ever go into someone's house without a good reason is pretty cut-n-dried. It's a major Constitutional issue.More than one court case has been won by a sharp defense attorney who picked apart a weak "probably cause" claim by overzealous police who enter a house or car on thin justification.But if you manage to get someone OUT of their house under their own volition…they're suddenly fair game for a variety of tactics.However, I don't think Crowley's thought process was as calculating as that. It think it was more just instinct that "you don't go into the house unless you've got a damn good reason". With that in place, it rather strongly appears that Crowley instinctively reacted to Gates' belligerence with an "I'll show you" pissing contest and one tactic that instinctive comes to mind is to goad Gates to come out the house (where he's more vulnerable philosophically) and come closer to Crowley (where he's more vulnerable physically).If I'm not clear, and I apologize for it because I know I'm not being as clear as I could be, then imagine this partial analogy: you never fight an enemy on his home turf if you can avoid it. That instinct is partly what led Crowley to demand Gates come out of his house.———-By the way, does the police report mention how much time passed between when the woman phoned in the report and when the police arrived on-scene? Anecdotally you hear a lot of stories about calling the cops and waiting hours for them to arrive; it's a common compliant in Roxbury and Dorchester, although I have no factual evidence to confirm or deny it. I wonder how the response time of the Cambridge Police compares in this case vs. other "home invasion" calls under similar circumstances. If there's a notable difference, it would probably speak to the officer's frame of mind.And for what it's worth, I still think the bottom line here is that this story would never have happened if Gates were white. A lot of people in oh-so-progressive Cambridge don't like to think that they're racist so they just assume that they're not. So they become racist-by-ignorance and are shocked, yes shocked!, when the ugly truth is revealed.
aaron, i disagree. i think the exact same thing would have happened if a 58-year-old white harvard professor of irish-american studies with bronchitis who just returned from a trip to china exhibited the same kind of reactions to sgt. crowley. i did not and do not believe this was racial and emerging picture of crowley is evidence of that. but what i think it does show is a cop who did not get the deference he thinks his position deserves and decided to use the power he has to show a lesson to the disrespecting perp, and he did it colorblind. gates' attitude and skin color are both irrelevant. they are both being used to cover up what the real issue here is and what is becoming an increasing problem around the state, cops brandishing the growing chips on their shoulders because of what they perceive as diminishing public support. check out masscops.com and especially go to the thread about this. that is the issue and the sooner that gets discussed and race is dropped, the quicker we can see gates was well within his rights to be loud and obnoxious IN HIS OWN HOME AND ON HIS PROPERTY. i said it before in another post about the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . ." that is what crowley violated.
Aaron, Sergeant Crowley's report said he was near Ware Street when he heard the call and he was the first on-scene. I'd say the response was immediate, after all, the named, Harvard employed reporting party was waiting for him.As for probable cause to enter the home, Crowley had plenty. Named, credible witness on-scene who saw someone forcing the door, damage to same door, uncooperative person inside who answers the suspect's description. That's a ground ball. No court would find a problem with Crowley entering, in fact it would have a chilling effect on public safety and law enforcement if the court ruled Crowley should have done anything else.But probable cause isn't the only legal precedent that Crowley had at his disposal. "Exigent circumstances," in which the courts have consistently ruled that an officer needn't take the time to pursue a warrant if a life could be in danger or the destruction of evidence could be happening, allows the officer to break down the door, if necessary. Again, the sergeant had a credible report of two black men breaking in. He only could see one, and that one was uncooperative. If I were his Supervisor and Gates wouldn't answer the door or identify himself, it would be "Start the fire department" to break down the door. We're going in. I've done it many times and no court has or would have a problem with it. **Usually the uncooperative party has a change of heart when he sees the FD with axes and halogen tools running toward the door!