Cops
Most of the exchanges on TPM about cops that have arisen in several posts
about the Gates case show a general hostility toward the police.
As world police go American cops are about par for the course... they come a lot worse.
In many countries the policeman would have suggested that professor Gates pay him a bribe to avoid further problems and mentioning the policeman's mother, as Gates apparently did, might have ended up with the professor being "shot while trying to escape".
Except for England in the old days, ("good evening sir, could we please see the license for that gun you are holding in your hand?) cops are rough trade everywhere in the world and even in England in the old days if you resisted they could get tough, but always "excuse me sir, just hold still while I twist your arm behind your back, sir".
One of the things that happens to policemen is that after
interviewing thousands of really horrible and dangerous assholes in the
line of duty, they come to assume that everybody is guilty of
something... and of course, in reality, everybody is guilty of "something"
if only stealing another kid's teddy bear back in nursery school. So
that is part of why contact with cops is normally so humiliating for
honest folk... the cops seem to be looking into your soul with a look
that says, "asshole, this time we are going to overlook that teddy
bear, but don't let me catch you around here again."
This makes an honest person feel soiled. So making people feel guilty is a professional tool of the police and people resent feeling guilty.
Perversely, if you don't feel guilty about anything and don't seem to be affected by this treatment, they may get the idea that you are psychotic or a hardened criminal.I'm not sure the President of the United States should have weighed in on this one until a full official inquiry had taken place, because as Chief of State and Commander in Chief, all armed forces and law enforcement in the USA are directly or indirectly under his command and this commenting on the behavior of cops on the beat, coming from the White House, may cause problems of morale among the law enforcement community and a hostile attitude from their unions.
In my opinion, Obama should have called professor Gates and offered his sympathy as a personal friend and promised him that he would ask that a full and fair inquiry take place.
Instead he has made this an "us and them" thing for a lot of people, both black and white, which is a tactical error causing an unfortunate distraction and division of support entering the health care battle, which is priority number one, or should be.
SPAM!!!
July 24, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not this the one before
July 24, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the President of the United States should have weighed in on this one until a full official inquiry had taken place, because as Chief of State and Commander in Chief, all armed forces and law enforcement in the USA are directly or indirectly under his command and this commenting on the behavior of cops on the beat, coming from the White House, may cause problems of morale among the law enforcement community and a hostile attitude from their unions.
-------------------------------------------------
Different views different opinions. That statement by Obama is the first thing I think he's done wholly right. This is the first time I can support him. It sends a powerful message to the nation. Police have limits. Even though Gates may have been "wrong" you don't handcuff a citizen and drag him off to the station just because he got angry and yelled at you from his front porch. Not everything that is wrong is a crime.
Its not that cops look into your soul. Its that they put their foot on your throat, usually figuratively, sometimes literally. Get out of the car, stand here, take your hat off, get your hands out of your pockets, shut-up. George Fox taught the Quakers to remove their hat for no man, neither high nor low, to show obeisance to no one, not even the king. The Quakers came to America because of the oppression this brought on them. They came for freedom. Too many cops act like petty tyrants and treat innocent citizens like servants. I bow to no one.
http://www.worldspirituality.org/quaker-address.html
July 24, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, I just don't see in the details of this instance how the cop was demonstrating the type of imperious, submit to my authority behavior that quite frankly living in NYC I've come to expect of many police officers. From the moment of contact, Gates projected the image of a racist & controlling officer on to him despite having no factual basis to do so. Um, I think they call that racial profiling. The officer arrested him after repeatedly asking him to stop and calm down. Most people don't get those chances. I still disagree with the arrest, but he was within his discretion to do so and Gates continued to challenge the authority of the police officer.
Gates was the one who expected (and still expects) to be bowed down to because he's a Harvard professor. I'm glad the cop has the good sense to not comply. And I'm also glad the cop's historical behavior and being someone who teaches others not to racially profile makes Gates' accusations of racism and bias transparently stupid to anyone who gives a fair read of the situation. It was about status and power and class. And yet again, there is someone else who as to live the rest of their life being publicly tarred as a racist because of someone else's stupid accusations.
July 24, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what did Gates project anything, dijamo? On the cop's statement, disregarding Gates' equivalent completely? We do not, and will not, know "the details" of this.
I would, personally, tend toward the assumption that Gates probably felt he was being targeted because of his race (although, in reality, by the "neighbour" who called it in, not the cop) and reacted accordingly, but that is beside the point.
Even if we take the cop's report as word-for-word truth, he had absolutely no legal basis for arresting Gates. None. Zero.
Further, I do not know of a better phrase than "being the bigger man" to describe the responsibility of a police officer in this situation, and aside from the unlawful arrest, the man failed in this. (Anyone have a better term?)
If you read his report, you will notice that, rather than e.g. asking something like "did you get locked out of your house, sir?" off the bat and throughout he treated Gates as a suspect, refused to in any way indicate there might have been a misunderstanding or otherwise try to defuse the situation. He did not, by his own admission, provide his name and identification number as police officers usually are required to.
In short, he acted very stupidly if it is assumed that his job is to maintain the peace. He utterly failed the conflict resolution process.
Ultimately, of course, we are all human, and I can empathise both with the homeowner and the policeman trying to do his job. An apology by the officer would be in order, and perhaps Mr. Gates might feel he overreacted a bit too. Leave this a "teaching moment."
July 24, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
In NYC if the cops are treating you as a suspect, they generally say "Hands up, against the wall!" and then ask for ID. Not what happened in this case. We got a report of a possible burglary attmept. Can you provide identifiation that proves you live here? That's standard police process, not racial profiling and not disrespectful. I am going by both Gates' and the officer's statements. And I have a feeling if they release the tape of what was recorded over his police radio, Gates is going to end up being sorely emarassed by his poor and abusive behavior.
People tend to throw accusations around like racist now just because without any regard for other people's reputations. I think it's wrong. I don't think cops should be abusive to citizens but neither should citizens be abusive to cops that are simply doing their job (i.e. responding to a burglary call with a broken lock and asking the person inside to provide ID). I don't think Gates should hav been arrested but the cop was within his rights to do so. Gates had opportunities to just walk away (as the officer was trying to do) and failed to do so. Sorry but anyone regardless of race would have been arrested under those circumstances. Being a Harvard professor should not give you license to be abusive towards a police officer doing his job. And Obama stupidly stepped into this whole argument and took sides when what he should have done is let the facts come out. The only racial profiling was done by Gates.
July 24, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please show the legal basis for the arrest.
July 24, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disorderly conduct. When a cop tells you to shut up, you shut up.
July 24, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Constitution says differently; as does the local law.
1) They were not in a "public place." The porch, yard and other surrounding land, "curtilage" in legalese, are legally exactly the same as your house.
2) Under state law, "To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute [that Gates was charged with violating], the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). Thus, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. 723, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals found no "violent or tumultuous behavior," where the defendant, "flailed his arms and shouted at the police" about alleged violations of his civil rights upon being informed he was being summonsed to court (but not arrested) for assault and battery.
July 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter where you are, you must obey lawful commands by a police officer. Gates was told to stay in his house, more than once, he was warned more than once that he faced arrest if he did not and continued to bully and harrass the police officer.
July 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says differently in my Constitution.
July 24, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't say anything in my constitution about proper responses by police to civilians or civilians to police because there was no organized police department in the U.S. until the late 1830s.
July 24, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD wins.
July 24, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever hear of MIRANDA RIGHTS; are you stating innocents have less rights than those suspected of committing crimes? Gates was falsely arrested in his home. The law says you are wrong. All Americans win, not just you or me, when the law is followed.
If you consider this discussion a contest of some sort you are engaged in mental masturbation, enjoy.
EVERYBODY WINS BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN A POLICE STATE
July 24, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, this is the kind of argument that people use when they have no argument. We have many more statutes and laws than are mentioned in the constitution and obeying a police officer's lawful instructions is one of them. In Mass. if you choose not to obey a police officer's instructions then you are subject to arrest, penalties and levies assessed against others who failed to obey the lawful commands of police officers.
Miranda rights have absolutely nothing to do with this.
July 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be why they dropped the charges? Your ignorance of the law is appalling.
July 24, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of ignorance...
July 24, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY. Police are a statutory creation, there is no way they can override the protections of the constitution. If they give a command that does not meet constitutional muster (like say, the 1st Amendment) ... it isn't legal.
July 24, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Federal law ALWAYS supercedes local law. Always. Now this matter of compliance of lawful orders by police to citizens has been legislated and litigated ad nauseum by legislatures and courts and found to be constitutional.
July 24, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Supreme Court ruling you cited only says that citizens must comply with lawful orders given by a police officer. Meaning the the local laws the officer is sworn to uphold. In this case, the officer was improperly applying local statutes for disorderly conduct as cited in this comment as well as this one.
July 24, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're in over your head with interpreting law, jason.
July 24, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you offer no actual rebuttal of the point based in facts nor does anyone with a law degree, of which there are plenty around here.
Seems to me you are the one who is in over his head by way of some strange notions on what constitutes legal activities by law enforcement officials.
July 24, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have offered rebuttals. But here's an attempt downthread to offer a clearer version of what I am saying.
July 24, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is utterly incorrect. Police officers have no such general authority.
And not shutting up just because a cop tells you to is most assuredly not illegal.
July 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cops certainly do have that kind of authority.
July 24, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please cite.
July 24, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they don't have that sort of authority in Massachusetts according to at least one case that has been cited on these pages. The larger issue is what such insistence on capitulation to state authority in such benign situations says about the state of our Republic.
July 24, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
U.S. v. Avizu, Maryland v. Wilson, Hilbel v. 8th Judicial District, City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, Brigham City v. Stuart, Hermmati v. U.S. - all of these supreme court decisions that uphold statutes that lawful orders by peace officers must be obeyed.
July 24, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pursuant to local regulations. The local law says that disorderly conduct doesn't constitute mouthing off.
July 24, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has nothing to do with mouthing off - when a police officer tells you in Cambridge or anywhere else to cease and desist from certain behaviors then you do so. He wasn't arrested for mouthing off, he was arrested on disorderly conduct which according to Mass. state law, chapter 147, sec. 8 means obeying lawful commands given by a peace officer.
Now tell me where there was any procedural misconduct by this police officer. He did exactly what he was supposed to do and called the Harvard University peace officers to secure their property. He stood back and Gates continued to escalate the situation. Gates insisted that he be taken to the police station and the police officer complied with Gates's request. Every single action by this police officer was in compliance with local and state statutes and laws and in good police procedure except for the fact that he put handcuffs on Gates in front instead of back and secured a cane for him. I'm not so sure I'd have given an irate citizen a cane while he's handcuffed in front. Now this doesn't sound at all like the cop was arresting Gates in a fit of pique or abusing Gates in any way. It sounds to me like he was going the other way.
July 24, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every action Crowley took up until the moment he arrested Gates for being an asshole was entirely correct. You are wrong that arresting Gates for disorderly conduct was within the bounds of his authority.
July 24, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was well within his boundaries as a peace officer. Every bit of Mass. common law, statutes and law and supreme court decisions would support the officer's actions.
July 24, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that isn't true based on links provide and actual cases cited. Not sure why you think the cop is totally without blame in this situation, but I have to disagree.
July 24, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you have presented no law, no precedent, no decision made by any court, locally, state or federally that would prove that this officer cannot arrest Gates for disorderly conduct. Yes, in Mass. you can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own house, if your actions can incite others.
If you want, stand on your front porch and scream and yell and shout about whatever it is you think is oppressing you at the moment. Then when the police show up tell them you don't have to shut up, you're on your own front porch - and then continue to berate, shout, harass and generally noise about on your porch and let me know what the cops do.
July 24, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps this comment escaped your notice. The hypothetical you paint isn't what actually happened, so the relevance of your argument continues to escape me.
July 24, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, and others, have provided links to relevant Massachusetts case law, which contradicts your interpretation.
And, beyond that, your sentiment that I must obey any "lawful" orders given by a police officer (whose lawfulness I am not allowed to question, on the spot at least) is probably the scariest fucking thing I have read on this site.
If you look through my posts, you will see that I have throughout my stay at TPM consistently avoided and advised against using terms like "fascism" and "police state," but if you stand by the statement, and I have not misinterpreted you, those labels apply.
July 24, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with civil disobedience. If you stand on your porch and violate noise and public nuisance statutes and ordinances, you're going to be arrested.
July 24, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. you haven't provided any link to Mass. case law. You and others cited a statute in the Mass state law, which is broadly interpreted by all jurisdictions and all jurisdictions have their own statutes and laws about public nuisances and disorderly conduct. Let's get that straight at least.
July 24, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most case law is decided by a very few precedents, which have been offered.
Nothing you have offered renders those citations invalid. In fact, it only reinforces the claim that the officer acted improperly no matter how big a dick the home owner was.
I am still not clear on why you think people should be arrested for being loud and/or obnoxious absent an actual threat.
July 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, my link specifically referred to case law.
July 24, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a lawyer but I doubt that an order to "shut up" would be considered lawful. That a citizen must obey lawful orders by police does not mean that an order by the police is therefore lawful.
July 24, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They sure as hell do. Have you read the statutes and laws regarding this on the books of the state of Mass. and the city of Cambridge?
July 24, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes,the law in this situation has been offered to you in this thread, you choose to ignore the legal precedents in this case (as did the officer making the false arrest.
July 24, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just gave you the legal precedents as established by the Supreme Court.
July 24, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That have nothing to do with this particular situation as they didn't have anything to do with the ruling cited as evidence of the officer's mistaken reading of the law.
July 24, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
let me know when this gets to scotus and they rule favorably to your opinion on this case. otherwise it's just more game playing
July 24, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're incapable of respectful disagreement or providing lucid and coherent arguments, then refrain from joining the conversation. I've been discussing this issue with Jason all afternoon, have you seen once insult each other?
July 24, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's insulting about my reply?
July 24, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Jonnie. You got this right. There are public easements on your front sidewalk, an alley...usually your property line goes to the middle of the street it is facing subject to public easements.
But there is no difference between standing in your livingroom or your porch or your front yard.
Well put. It is just one issue, but this point takes care of that issue.
Good for you.
July 24, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disorderly conduct. When a cop tells you to shut up, you shut up.
----------------------------------------------
Of all the statements I've seen written here this is the most horrifying to me. This is the attitude that has led to "free speech zones" when all of America should be a free speech zone and most assuredly the front porch of a person's home.
Its true that all lawful orders made by the police must be obeyed but what constitutes a lawful order defines the difference between a free state and a repressive police state. In some counties this wouldn't be an issue since there are no civil liberties to defend. In America disorderly conduct charges are on the knife edge of our civil liberties.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/police_unions_c.html
Another police union attorney at the press conference, Thomas Drechsler, acknowledged that the charge Gates faced of disorderly conduct is "one of the most difficult crimes to define."
"You could find hundreds of lawyers who would debate the ups and downs and merits and demerits of any disorderly person arrest,"
The freedoms and liberties of our country grant us the right to get angry, raise our voices even in provocative and inflamatory speech. Up to a certain degree. We have the right to be disorderly before we have reached the standard that defines it as a crime.
Exactly where is the defining line between lawful disorderly behavior and criminal disorderly conduct? I have long realized that my allegiance to freedom and liberty is on the extreme left. But I am shocked at the power you are willing to accord to the government and the civil liberties you are willing to sacrifice as indicated by this statement and other statements you've made here.
July 24, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it isn't, and you know it! That is an utterly false statement, oceankat. Free speech zones were invented by politicians (and the Secret Service protecting them), not by garden-variety cops.
July 24, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cops enforce those laws made by politicians. Quite often in the broadest interpretation and in ways that many of the politicians creating those laws would disagree with. If there were videos of all police interactions and all citizens had the resources to contest disorderly conduct charges we would see many cases where cops exceeded their authority.
The idea that a cop can tell you to shut up and that constitutes a lawful order that must be obeyed has the same root as the idea that the government can make laws that tell you to shut up except in "free speech zones" and that is constitutional. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on this point.
Time place and manner restrictions as written may be constitutional but as applied they are an egregious violation of our first amendment rights. Disorderly conduct legislation may be valid as written but as applied they often violate our civil liberties and gives extraordinary power to cops to require a degree of submissiveness to authority that is frightening to me and should be feared by any free society.
July 24, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite often? How do you know this? What evidence can you provide that "many of the politicians creating those laws would disagree with" how the laws are enforced? Are you assuming this?
If laws can be so "broadly interpreted" as to allow abuse, then the laws are at fault. They are written by humans, after all.
Wow, you have a terrible blind spot about this, oceankat. I've never seen you have such a blind spot where you misread other posters, make unsupported claims, and jump to hasty conclusions. Never.
July 24, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps because we have never disagreed so strongly before since I am as totally mystified by your reaction. Like Obama, "I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home."
Is there not considerable debate over what the crime of disorderly conduct consists of? Even the police union lawyer I quoted agrees with that. I have not seen you cite anything to show why you believe that Gates behavior met the standard required by law. I have seen Jason (and others) cite references that quite clearly shows that the arrest did not meet the threshold required to support the arrest.
The Supreme Court references cited that state a citizen must obey a lawful command are not relevant if the command is not lawful. I find the idea that an order to "shut up" is lawful to be a frightening concept in a free society. I doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold it.
July 25, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The online debate over disorderly conduct is irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether Crowley acted lawfully in making the arrest. Apparently he acted lawfully, according to the established protocol. No one is even calling for an investigation, which means that the guy followed protocol to the letter.
An arrest can be deemed illegal if the proper steps leading up to it weren't followed. But Crowley followed the steps properly.
Interpretation of the law that defines disorderly conduct is a separate matter and would have to take place before a judge, not in the court of online opinion. Cops don't interpret the law, judges do. Both parties would present their side in court.
That would mean that Gates's behavior would be made public in all its hideous glory. Gates and the CPD determined together to drop the charges. That likely means they agreed not to make Gates's behavior a public spectacle through a court proceeding. Gates was involved in this decision.
So again, this has already been decided. It's not up for debate and there is no public vote on it. Doesn't matter if the public disagrees with the decision. We don't get to have a say about MA law and law enforcement. It's been decided without our sage advice.
You can disagree with me till the cows come home, but none of this will change.
I don't have to cite anything to show that I believe Gates's behavior met a legal standard because that's not my argument. I am arguing that Crowley acted lawfully. There's a difference, and maybe that's where the misunderstanding lies.
Once the disorderly conduct charge was dropped, the case would not go to court to determine whether Gates's behavior met the standard for disorderly conduct. So we can argue about it forever. Hooray.
At any rate, I am not qualified to interpret MA law.
So what? jason and others citing references aren't lawyers. Who cares what they cite? The arrest was determined as lawful. The disorderly conduct charge was dropped. Nothing will change just because jason and others think they are qualified to interpret MA law. They clearly aren't.
Why do you keep quoting "shut up" literally? For one thing, I never said that, and I don't believe BevD meant that the words "shut up" are enshrined in law. However, since I never said it in the first place, I don't actually know if BevD meant for us to take it literally or not, so please don't attribute it to me.
I've done my best to break this down. Arguing the disorderly conduct charge is irrelevant because the charge has been dropped and won't be reinstated. Arguing that Crowley acted unlawfully is irrelevant because it's already been decided he acted legally. The only thing left is whether Gates will press charges, but my argument there is he won't because Crowley's behavior does not meet the legal standard for violating Gates's civil rights. I don't have to cite anything for this opinion; we'll know I'm wrong if Ogletree files charges.
July 25, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I gave BevD plenty of chance to back off the statements made about the absolute requirement to follow all police orders, and BevD did not.)
You are introducing a lot of conjecture about the case, why charges were dropped and so on. You are also, seemingly, completely relying on Crowley's side of the story (an arrest report is not an impartial document.)
I certainly think that a police officer should be taught, based on case law, which criteria must be filled for disorderly conduct (and was not, in this case.) You state that Crowley followed procedure adequately, which I suppose could possibly be true.
We will probably never agree on that matter, so let me simply ask you two questions:
1. Do you think Crowley should have arrested Gates?
2. Do you think Crowley could have avoided the escalation of the situation by projecting that he thought Gates was the homeowner?
July 25, 2009 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm simply hoping that we can get to a place where we understand each other. Never mind agreeing or disagreeing!
From my limited, after-the-fact perspective, I'd have to say no, he should not have arrested Gates.
This is impossible to ever determine definitively, so I will say maybe. Gates tells how the hairs on the back of his neck were raised. That means his response had immediately escalated to its highest possible point: a physiological fight-or-flight response. He fought. He was on autopilot. He wasn't engaged with the reality of the situation because he felt he was in mortal danger (that's what the fight-or-flight response is about). I am not a trained mediator, so I don't know what should be done to handle a situation like that. I know that sometimes you have to remove someone from the environment in order to calm them down, but I don't know if that was the purpose for Gates's arrest. In other words, I don't know if Gates was hysterical, uncontrollable, a danger to himself (potential heart attack). We will never be privy to that information. That's between the CPD and Gates.
July 25, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I can understand, if you will, your take.
July 25, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
response below due to concern over spacing.
July 25, 2009 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are videos in squad cars now.
In this case there is an audio recording of the entire encounter. It has been reviewed and is being considered for public release. Along with audio from the 911 call. Crowley has not been privy to hearing any of the audio.
July 25, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
very well said
July 25, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be mentioned, that NYC is where cops from around the nation go to learn how to subject their citizens to harsh tactics and get away with it. At least that's where the Spokane police went. To say that because an officer wasn't as fucked up as the officers in one of the most fucked up areas for police corruption and abuse is hardly an exoneration.
That said, I agree the situation wasn't based on race (OK, the neighbor freaking out over 2 black guys on the porch where a black guy lives may have been a bit ... how do you NOT know who lives next door to you?). But whether Gates acted embarrassingly, based on his on prejudice, is irrelevant. You can be loud and unreasonable in your own home.
I agree, you *should* treat officers (and everyone) with respect. But being disrespectful or rude to an officer shouldn't be cause for an arrest - any more than being disrespectful to a fellow citizen should.
July 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
July 24, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with the NYC comments, though the original poster made some otherwise good points with regards to the way both parties acted as well as how the police should treat law-abiding citizens no matter how loudly they proclaim their individual stupidity. At a minimum, they should be aware of the actual laws they are sworn to protect rather than using them as an excuse to put uppity citizens in their place.
There is no excuse for a sergeant with Crowley's experience to have reacted the way he did and that points to some larger issues with law enforcement in particular beyond the efficacy of the NYPD in particular, which both my wife and I have found to be quite nice on a number of occasions where a certain amount of irritation might be warranted.
July 24, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really feel guilty about adding to the feeding frenzy on this story, the way the blogosphere seems to love it in lieu of other stories, I find that ridiculously hypocritical in several ways.
(And I really am disappointed with Obama's helping feed it, he's starting to show a disturbing tendency to faux pas when he does too much media, to yap and have an opinion on everything in order to look more personable or average or whatever, when he should be projecting leadership instead--a grown-up president with a law degree that I would admire would be one that said to the question about this case--"no comment because I have a bias, Mr. Gates is a friend" instead of yammering on it like he was a commenter on TPMCafe or a guest on "The View.")
But I can't let this part of your comment go without offering my alterative opinion:
It should be mentioned, that NYC is where cops from around the nation go to learn how to subject their citizens to harsh tactics and get away with it.
This NYC denizen since 1983 totally disagrees. That describes them back in the early 80's, when the crime rate was very high and when their composition was much less diverse. Whether there is causation between those two things is debatable, but I do think there is. I also think they know now what works better than the way they acted then, and that's what other police departments seek to learn from them.
In any case, I wouldn't wish late 70's/early 80's NYC on anyone. Nowadays, it's quite different. I worry about relatives and friends living in other cities being subjected to both high crime rates and police abuse, just like they worried about me back then. Do we still have bad apples and abuse problems? yesiree bob. But I really do think we are a pretty damn good model, especially as they have, at the same time of phenomenally reducing the crime rate, had to deal with the incredible stresses on law enforcement for major metropolises since 9/11.
Oh and btw, if you really want to see a police state, I'd suggest visiting London rather than NYC. The denizens there joke about it all the time. It was also interesting to this visitor that, prior to the financial crash at least, the police state thing didn't seem to hurt the vibrancy of the city--I was prejudiced to think it would but my own eyes told me it didn't, still ponder why that was the situation.
July 24, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Winner of the Best Zing! Award!
July 24, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the officer said he provided his name and ID twice to Gates, but Gates was screaming and not listening to him. Would also be interesting to see if that got caught on the police scanner since that is one of the few things their initial statements disagree on. And apparently the police union wants the tapes released which makes me believe it will not be flattering at all to Gates' side of the story.
July 24, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
In interest of accuracy, Crowley states that he had provided his name on two separate occasions (both of which are on the report, albeit the latter occasion indicated as being interrupted.)
Frankly, I cannot believe that anyone would condone the officer's conduct, but I suppose it is pointless to argue about it.
Distraction achieved, nothing more.
July 24, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
MA law requires the officer provide his name or identification number. He complied (twice at minimum).
I have said I disgreed with the decision to arrest Gates, but he had the discretion to do so. Disorderly conduct means creating a disturbance of the general public (and all indications were that there was a crowd gathered outside). Gates was one the porch and was told to cal down and quiet down. If I'm blaring a radio on my porch and the cops come, I can get a noise violation summons. If I choose not to comply with police order to take it down a notch, I can be arrested for disorderly conduct.
You seem to expect the officer to act like a saint and not respond in any way to the verbally abusive behavior of Gates. In my experience, I have not met many saintly police officers, and this one seemed to have more patience and self-control than most (even by Gates' account). He could have just walked away and allowed Gates to get away with it, but he had every right not to. Do I agree that the officer made the right decision (discretionary) to arrest Gates? No. But it certainly wasn't an illegal arrest.
July 24, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I stated, I can empathise with having to deal with a belligerent person, and that sometimes we all fail to live up to the standards we ourselves or others have set for us. But yes, a police officer has a higher degree of responsibility.
Your legal analysis seems to be incorrect. I addressed it here just now.
July 24, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, though, about having to give name OR an identification number (although Crowley did not provide his police ID card, which he is apparently required to do.)
And, I remind you again, it seems that you are treating Crowley's report as complete gospel, which I cannot agree with as an approach.
Beside the point in my opinion, though...this is a failure to resolve conflict, most fundamentally. A few different words at the start would have completely changed the dynamic of the situation.
July 24, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
there is no indication he fully complied with providing his name and badge number.
July 24, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the worst that can be concluded about Gates is that he acted like a jerk. I'm betting that he did.
The best that can be concluded about the cop is that he acted correctly and within the law until the end. At the end when both parties were mad the cop exceeded his rightful authority and showed gates who was, ultimately, the boss.
To uphold the position of the cop is to determine that it is illegal to make a cop mad even if you haven't broken any statuatory laws.
We all know that we are taking a chance, and almost guaranteeing a bad outcome, if we tell a cop "no" even if we are completely within our rights to do so.
July 24, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mass. law requires the officer to carry an identification card and present it on request. Verbally providing a name is not a substitute for this requirement. The officer's report does not mention a request for, nor the presentation of his badge number. It is this omission that makes me most suspect of the veracity of his report.
And letting stupid words roll of your back is not acting like a saint, it's acting like a professional. It's not surprising you have not encountered may professional officers - you live in NYC.
July 24, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
MA law requires the officer provide his name or identification number. He complied (twice at minimum).
---------------------------------------------------
No he did not. He makes no mention in his police report to providing his identification number. He states he gave his name at least twice. Its likely that Gates asked for his badge number and likely Crowley did not comply otherwise it would have been included in Crowley otherwise quite detailed and comprehensive report. That he left out all mention of the request for a badge number is significant information that leads me to believe his report is slanted to his favor.
July 24, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key word is "or."
It doesn't say "both."
It says "or."
Crowley gave his name.
He also wears a badge in plain view.
July 25, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key word is "or."
It doesn't say "both."
It says "or."
---------------------------------------------------
Really? Please cite a reference.
July 25, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
A strange assumption that he "reacted accordingly" for as a scholar of African American Studies and co-editor of Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience, you'd think he'd know the consequences of the behavior he exhibited.
A true rational mind would file a complaint later if he wanted to protest. I bet that's what Obama would have done.
July 24, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As it says in the quoted part there, based on the stories, it seems that Gates felt there was a racial component and reacted according to that feeling. The statement is not a value judgement.
That, and while you may be right that it would be the "best" thing to do to quietly let such incidents go by*, sometimes emotions get the best of the best of people. That is where the police officer should show more restraint than the average citizen.
* A thoroughly disgusting thought.
July 24, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said "let the moment go". In fact, if you read my comments, I propose means of taking care of the issue more efficiently and probably with far better results from Gates' point of view.
The official police report seems to indicated that Crowley did show far more restraint than a renowned Harvard professor.
July 24, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am sorry -- I did not mean to state, or imply that you had stated, that not doing anything about it would be the best option.
I was protesting to the thought that people should subserviently let the police do what they want first and then try to get justice afterwards.
July 24, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way in hell if Gates had simply made a complaint to the officer's superiors that anything would have come from it.
As it was, Gates goaded the officer into an arrest that seems to fall outside the law. Now this is in the news and there will likely be a big investigation. Additionally, the question of the propriety of the original encounter, where Crowley was just checking out a break-in report from a neighbor, is superseded by the decision to arrest an angry citizen on their own porch. There wasn't (IMO) racial profiling, but the officer did go over the top ... making the accusation of racial bias somewhat moot.
The officer is the sucker here, not Gates.
July 24, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right. A Harvard professor makes a complaint about police harassment and it's ignored by the city of Cambridge.
July 24, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I correct you here?
July 24, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dij,
Finally glad that someone pointed this out. This is a detail in the story that really hasn't been used except to defend Gates. But the fact is that college faculty are used to having their asses kissed and double that for prestigious universities. You can see it in all types of behavior they exhibit outside their classrooms.
The arrest was unfortunate, but I think many on the left are having their own knee-jerk reaction to the issue of racial elements without reminding themselves of some key facts. These include the fact that there is no regular history of the Cambridge police being particularly aggressive. Much of Cambridge is Harvard and MIT. These universities have a huge portion of international students, faculties, and visiting scholars. The Cambridge police have to be particularly sensitive to this issue. They tend to be sophisticated. They don't act like the stereotypical county sheriffs deep in rural areas.
The other part of this debate that seems to be forgotten: Gates is a scholar in African American Research. So he, more than anyone, should know what happens when you are belligerent to a policeman.
I've been harassed on 2 occasions by TSA in airports (for carrying unusual items -- on government business!). It would have been in my legal rights to scream and make a fuss -- and pull out my "I'm working for the government at high levels" card. But I knew that would be stupid and get me no where. Especially since I knew what the TSA procedures would be. In fact, despite coming close to missing my plane twice, I was polite and firm. Both times a supervisor apologize profusely to me.
Similarly, while I won't quibble with Obama's characterization of the the stupidity of the police, I will add that Gates was at least equally, if not more so, stupid. He may (or may not) have been in his legal rights to scream at the police (and let's be honest -- that argument will be assembled all after the fact, in the heat of the moment, no one is doing that calculation!), but he was surely stupid to do so.
Want proof of this statement? Does anyone here at TPM believe Obama would have acted similarly under similar circumstances?
July 24, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was about status and power and class
It's been ironically humorous for me to see so many commenters here that have in the past shown a vocal and distinct prejudice against Ivy Leaguers and ivory tower academics now side with a Harvard professor in a dick waving contest between a professor and a cop. (If he had posted here, previous to his new victimization role, I suspect he would probably have suffered other types of abuse, certainly much more verbal abuse than was offered by the cop....)
Reminds me of something a tough dyke from Chicago said to me in a private message when I was the moderator on another forum. She said something in sympathy about some big todo about enforcing forum rules, along the lines of "your problem is that everyone likes to hate cops, they are the lowest of the low."
July 24, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be bummed, AA, if you didn't notice my consistency on this topic. ;-)
Ivy covered professors, in Ivy covered halls...
I've worked too much with police and firefighters to have the "easy" interpretation that people tend to gravitate towards. Or put another way, the left of center people are very quick to cry "politically correct" with any label -- except those towards police.
It might surprise people that the "bad apples" in these groups are pretty quickly shunned by the group at large. Of course, to understand this would require going out on extended bases to work with them.
July 24, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, it all comes down to the arrest. If we were discussing this and no arrest had occurred you are right. Many here would not side with Gates. IMO he over reacted, maybe provoked and definitely escalated the encounter. Its likely Gates behaved like an ass.
Its when he was handcuffed on his front porch that the story changed. I'm not defending Gates, I'm defending the right of a citizen to accuse a cop racism from his front porch of without fear of arrest. Even if the accusation is spurious as I believe it most likely was.
July 24, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea why Gates was arrested. You are assuming why without all the facts.
July 24, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? He was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct that Crowley termed a "tirade" which consisted of accusations of racist behavior. What facts am I assuming that is not in evidence?
July 24, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ, oceankat, were you there at the scene? Did you listen to the audio recording? How is it that you know exactly what went down? How do you account for discrepancies between the two stories? Do you have the transcript to fill in the blanks that the rest of us don't have? Not to mention, you're not a lawyer and yet you are making legal assessments based on incomplete information and a faulty interpretation.
WTF is right! You're just going off making assumptions that may or may not be valid in this particular. But one thing's for sure: Cops are always guilty.
Okay, so knock yourself out. Have a great time!
July 25, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What facts am I assuming that are not in evidence? Twice now you have accused me of that without stating exactly what they are. If you're going to go on this little rant against me you at least should answer the question. What facts am I assuming that is not in evidence?
July 25, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what would have happened if Gates had provided id and then left it at that? Who was escalating the situation?
July 24, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was escalating the situation?
---------------------------------------------------
In all likelihood Gates was. Is escalating a situation now a crime?
Apparently our views of the proper function of authority in our society is so disparate that I cannot see any possibility of ever achieving common ground.
While we agree that a citizen must obey a lawful order our interpretation of what constitutes a lawful order couldn't be more different. You believe that its lawful to order a citizen to shut up. The only way I can see that as lawful is if it was a situation like someone yelling to an accomplice that the cop was on the fire escape or attempting to incite violent behavior in others.
I believe that a citizen has a first amendment right to accuse a cop of racism from his front porch. In fact he has a right to not only yell it, but to use a microphone and amplifier, within reason, to make that accusation. You believe that its an arrestable offense.
Happily your views are not the ones that usually prevail when courts consider these issues.
July 24, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
DIJAH!
July 24, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my sense Gates is guilty of a POP (Pissing Off Police) Nothing else. Gates got up in the face of the cop, not a good thing, and the cop way over reacted and yes did something pretty stupid by arresting Gates on a trumped up charge. In order for disorderly conduct to hold he would have had to have been in a public place not with in the confines of his own home, which include the porch.
So here's my take Gates would have been better served by calming down a bit in the first place. The cop would have been better served if he had just ignored a cranky old man and walked away after confirming Gate's id.
July 24, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm torn between wondering if Obama deliberately jumped into the racial fray to distract the public from what appears to be a healthcare legislation nightmare—the administration could certainly predict the massive knee-jerk hyper-response that would follow a nationally televised, prime-time statement about the Gates case—or if Obama simply screwed up. Obama was deliberate and practiced about what he said at the press conference, so he clearly knew he was going to get a question about Gates. I'm suspicious about the timing of all of this, including Gates's I-think-I'll-wait-a-week-before-I-make-a-big-deal-about-my-arrest timing, and I'm always suspicious when TPM staff marches in uncritical lock-step with Obama.
I'm leaning toward thinking we've had our chains jerked.
July 24, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is somewhat difficult to think that they would not have foreseen the consequences, I agree.
I am not sure how much there is to really "gain" from it, though...although, notably, very little of the crossfire at least at my usual sources has been directed at Obama, the arguments staying mostly to the case itself (somewhat surprisingly.)
July 24, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/07/the-stupid-blunder.php#comments
Methnks you have something there and my post goes a little further.
July 24, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Castro was on the grassy knoll.
July 24, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You prefer to think that Obama fucked up? Fine with me!
July 24, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guys on the grassy knoll were training to get Castro, but they settled for JFK.
July 24, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should we have to accept the standard of police in repressive regimes? Why not aspire to the British "bobbie" style?
Why should the customer always be wrong? NYPD's slogan is "Serve and Protect". Don't know Cambridge's, but my experience with police when I was young is that town police always throw their weight around, whether in Chicago or Springfield. It is not essential to police work, apparently, since the times I was stopped by state police they were invariably polite and respectful, even to a longhaired, bearded hippie in a weird van.
It may be useful advice to suggest remaining polite to police, but that is not the same as saying police should expect it. If they can't take a person being upset by being accosted and interrogated they're in the wrong job. There is no shortage of bullies lining up to be policemen, and we want to reward the others, those interested in service, not power.
No matter that Gates wouldn't calm down, what part of the cop's job did that prevent?
July 24, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
Politeness isn't a show of deference to the police. It's a way of calming them down.
I've been told by many cops over the years that their first concern is a suspect pulling a gun or attacking them. It doesn't matter the neighborhood, it doesn't matter the state.
Police are human. They are trained to not provoke, but to be aware of highly dynamic (and possibly life threatening) situations. The more a person can do to ensure that the police is not in danger, the more the situation goes smoothly.
You know your motives, but they don't.
On more than 1 occasion, I've been pulled over late at night for speeding on an empty stretch of highway. I turn on the light in my car, and place my hands on the wheel, fingers outstretched.
Never gotten a ticket. All times the cops actually told me I didn't get one because I had put them at ease. (I didn't bother to tell them this is the advice I got from their peers!)
By acting out, even if he was in his legal rights to do so, the police have to assume that Gates was dangerous. They simply have to. They don't know if a gun is somewhere, if Gates is on medication, or what.
I'm not justifying the arrest, because I simply don't know what the story was. I am just pointing out that the framing of the discussion as being "polite to cops" is really misguided. It should be more along the lines of taking control of the situation and reassure the cops that they are out of danger. After that, you can always file a complaint or whatever is appropriate.
July 24, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems a disingenuous read on the situation.
The cop knew this was not a dangerous call within moments of arriving at the house and verifying the homeowners identity. He was insulted by a "civilian" asking for his badge and showed him who was boss when pushed further. They are required to show better judgment and restraint than this, no matter what Gates' may have said or his ulterior motives.
Criticism of the police aggressiveness in this instance, regardless of what Gates' or others may charge, is legitimate and has absolutely nothing to do with race.
July 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a bit presumptive.
We live in a society where people are very quick to ask "why didn't you do something???" when something goes wrong. Meanwhile, we ask the police to read minds and know motives. It's a very difficult line and one that requires nerves of steel to do the calculations while the actions play out.
Where do you draw the line between "aggressiveness" and "protecting"? It's difficult and the people doing these jobs are humans.
It's a job I wouldn't want.
July 24, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's based on his own report, dude. Read it and then comment.
July 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did. Did you?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html
He said he was "confused" by the behavior...
July 24, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, he was. Who wouldn't be? That doesn't mean he acted appropriately.
July 24, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said he knew there was no danger and suggested (harshly) that this was proved in his report. I merely point out that he never what you claimed and moreover point out that according to the report, officers became "alarmed" by Gates' continued reaction.
I stand by my statement that you are presumptive to "know" Crowley didn't think there was danger. At best, the situation is ambiguous by the data presented.
July 24, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the time Crowley was snapping the cuffs on the man's wrists, it was clear that this was the rightful homeowner and the man should have responded appropriately. He admits that arresting Gates had nothing to do with any perceived danger in the situation through his very account of what went down.
July 24, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criticism of police action isn't the same thing as calling them horrible human beings. Great people do stupid shit all the time and should be called out on it.
July 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the discussion here (and elsewhere) begins with a tenor that cops are thugs and we live in a police state. The reason this is on the front page is not because it's an issue between two individuals. They are archetypes now.
July 24, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then perhaps you should stop responding to people as if they were archetypes, and address their individual contributions?
Irony ahoy.
July 24, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment makes no sense. But this is not the first time.
July 24, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that cops are thugs is hardly a new one. Nor is the idea that the law enforcement in America has many tenants of a police state, albeit a mild mannered and subtle one until recently. I am quite sure Orwell would recognize the trappings.
July 24, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He had no problem entering the home alone, the initial 911 call mentioned two men. If he felt there was still a danger, would proper procedure be to enter home alone without calling for backup?
July 24, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to do some ride-alongs. Posses aren't routinely called at that stage of the game. it doesn't imply that it was "all safe".
That's why a cop's job is dangerous.
July 24, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to say it - from what I've read and from career experience, the p.o. did everything according to procedure.
What I believe happened here is a case of "do you know who I am" syndrome which seems to overtake the most minor of celebrities.
So what's the upshot of this? We have a p.o. with a stellar record, well respected by his peers and his community who responds to a call about a break-in by two suspects in progress. He sees that the front door has been forced open, on entering he sees an older black man and asks for identification. The cop, trained procedurally in this situation is not going to presume that the person is a suspect or a victim at this point and the correct way to assess the situation is to ask for identification of the person who at that moment is standing there in front of you. There is NO WAY a p.o. can know who that person is or what he is doing there and the only way to start is by asking for identification. Any reasonable person provides the id., waits until the officer verifies that id. and then shows a little fucking gratitude that the cop didn't take his word for it, that he left without assessing whether the person is who he says he is, that this is not some hostage situation with a family member being held at gunpoint or any other myriad of situations that can occur in a situation like this. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Gates to abuse this officer for doing what he has been trained to do. There is no doubt on my part that Gates was pissed off, on the muscle and looking for someone to unload on. He didn't co-operate and he continued to abuse the officer long after the situation had been resolved.
If I was called into the same situation and it was President Obama standing there and I recognized him, I would ask for id. and then verify it, because that's my fucking job. I would then proceed to assess the situation and cover all possible contingencies where someone could be injured or killed.
This officer did nothing but his job and his career with numerous citations and awards is now forever tainted because Gates refused to do what any reasonable, sentient person would do and should do for his own safety and that of others. Instead the police were treated to the usual conceited, "I'm above the rules because I'm soandso and you should have recognized me and taken my word for it.
Of course, if there was some lunatic in the house intent on killing Gates or holding him hostage or robbing him, the p.o. would have been accused of deriliction of duty and failing to provide protection because the person was an old black man.
July 24, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am utterly shocked to be in full agreement with every word you wrote in your comment. That never happened before. Ever.
July 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, having an overblown ego is cause for arrest in this country now?
By the time the cuffs got slapped on, none of these hypothetical situations requiring a cautious - or perhaps an aggressive - response proved to be what was happening. Had the officer responded to restraint in response to this obnoxious civilian none of this would have happened. As it is, he responded by showing the Obnoxious Professor who was really boss, thus exposing the dirty little "secret" that everyone seems to have a story about.
Crowley overreacted when confronted by a puffed up professor with an obvious agenda. Not sure why we have to excuse that stupid behavior in an effort to place blame on the person not in a position of authority but nonetheless decided to exercise his Constitutional right to be an asshole on his own front porch.
July 24, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, having an over blown ego is not cause for arrest, but failure to obey a lawful order by a sworn police officer is a cause for arrest. Why didn't Gates do what he was asked and then told to do? That is the law of Mass., not my personal opinion.
No, the police officer wasn't asking for id. because Gates is a black man in America, he's asking for id., because a citizen called in a report of a possible break-in, the front lock had been jimmied and the door forced open. There is a man standing in the foyer of the home, (and he's 58, not some elderly codger to weak to walk) and instead of thinking that more than himself, Gates, was involved, he chose to abuse and berate the officer, even after being told more than once to cease and desist.
July 24, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT IS NOT THE LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS AND YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY SHOWN THAT IT IS NOT. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY CITE IT.
July 24, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Precydent (bottom page 6):
I posted this elsewhere and couldn’t find the original link, but it was in a comment by JonLP24 at Dem Underground that also linked to this:
One simple definition of "tumultuous" (from one of the Masscases cites that I can’t find now) was “noisy and disorderly.”
I know it’s ‘first thing we do, kill all the lawyers,’ but where are they when you need one?
July 24, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
your 1st cite pertains to "protective custody of an inebriated person". the 2nd is not pertinent due to case law cited numerous times within this thread and others;
1) They were not in a "public place." The porch, yard and other surrounding land, "curtilage" in legalese, are legally exactly the same as your house.
2) Under state law, "To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute [that Gates was charged with violating], the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543 , 546 (1996). Thus, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. 723, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals found no "violent or tumultuous behavior," where the defendant, "flailed his arms and shouted at the police" about alleged violations of his civil rights upon being informed he was being summonsed to court (but not arrested) for assault and battery.
July 24, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m reading this differently. It doesn’t matter what case my first quote is from, it’s a cite of the penal code. OTOH, the case you’re citing applies to violence and disorderly behavior. The defendant was found not guilty of (a) or (c) in the statute for the reasons stated but (b) didn't apply in that case. My second quote is from the current Massachusetts Criminal Defense Resource Page but is also taken from the penal code and can be found cited in many cases on Masscases.
Though a porch or yard is part of the house, it isn’t necessarily a non-public space. Police can’t enter your yard and look around for incriminating evidence without some reason to be there. But if they see something when passing by, they can certainly act on it. I believe the fact that seven or eight people, on top of all of the police officers, had gathered around watching this makes it a public display. Of course, every case will have its own variations and defenses but the question isn’t would Professor Gates have been acquitted; the question is: was Crowley completely out of the bounds of law in arresting Gates?
As to the subject of this post, Obama has walked back his remarks and is trying to bring the parties together, so maybe that'll end it (Gawd, I hope so). I don't think it was furthering progress on race or police misconduct so much.
July 24, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
MA courts have basically refused to sustain disorderly conduct charges everywhere, unless a true riot-risk was present. The officer, especially such a respected one as you illustrate, would know that a First Amendment arrest for disorderly would not fly. Have a nice day.
July 24, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, really, because I had seen references to first amendment exceptions (of course,
I don't see how they could allow someone to stand in Boston Commons screaming curses at passersby). And it does seem odd that (all police brotherhood and Blue lines aside), if this is no longer the law in Mass, the whole CPD and, indeed, all of the unions and police organizations in the state (including minority police orgs) would stand behind, not just the officer, but the arrest. Maybe, I'm missing something here.
July 24, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, having ones feeling hurt isn't illegal no matter what someone's job happens to be. Even if it happens to be a cop.
According to Massachusetts law, at least as cited and not disputed on this blog, Gates was well within his rights to tell the cop he thought he was a racist in whatever derogatory or insulting terms as he saw fit without fear of arrest.
As it should be in a society that doesn't let ego outweigh the rule of law.
July 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said he had his feelings hurt, Jason?
July 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink