Police Discretion
There's already been a lot of virtual ink spilled about the Gates
arrest, and now about the President calling the arrest stupid. As
someone from a police family, I think that arrest was stupid. It was a
glaring piece of bad judgment.
Even according to the arresting officer's report, this is very much a discretionary arrest. There are such things. If every law on the book was constantly enforced with arrest, we'd live in a bizarre and palpably unjust world. Every loiterer should not be fined. Everyone drunk in public should not spend a night in the drunk tank. Every piece of disorderly conduct should not lead to an arrest. Any time a police officer makes one of those arrests, he or she is using her discretion. It's a judgment call.
Should these laws be taken off the books? No. Do they give the police too much leeway? Not necessarily. Police need some tools to manage difficult situations in real time in the interest of public safety. The ability to arrest people, to remove certain parties from a situation that's looking volatile, is an absolutely necessary tool. If you've got some truculent drunks in a crowd after a sporting event, who are on the verge of starting a fight, public drunkenness is a great arrest to make. If you want to keep two large groups of teenagers from brawling, the no-loitering law is perfect. If someone is legitimately creating a public danger, disorderly conduct arrests can defuse the situation.
But here's the thing. Exactly because these arrests are discretionary, they put the burden on the police officer to use discretion and good judgment. These are laws that are basically designed not to be enforced most of the time. The point is that the officer is supposed to apply these laws judiciously, in the interest of public safety. A drunk twenty-something leaning on a designated driver's arm? Not an arrest. A drunk twenty-something screaming threats at a guy in a Yankees cap? Arrest-a-mundo.
Most of all, discretionary arrests should not be used by a police officer to vent spleen or avenge insults. They often are, but that is not policing. That is public bullying. Disorderly conduct should not be charged simply because someone displeased a police officer.
The arresting officer's report, which is by its nature a one-sided and adversarial document, can't really make the case that Gates had to be arrested. It only makes the case that Gates could be arrested. And for a disorderly conduct charge, that isn't enough. Any talk about how Gates comported himself is beside the point. Being a jackass, and we only have the arresting officer's word for that, is still not an arrestable offense. And as for the defense that Sgt. Crowley was "just doing his job," I would point out that his job is to use his discretion. He certainly wasn't protecting anyone when he arrested Gates. And he wasn't using his judgment. He was just being, to put it as charitably as possible, stupid.
I believe that Crowley knew from almost the beginning of the interview that Professor Gates was not a threat to him. The fact that Crowley entered Gates's home (as all parties agree) by himself and without backup, gives that away. If he went into that house without backup (especially when the initial report mentioned two suspects) before knowing that there was not a crime in progress, then he would be an enormous fool. That he walked into Gates's home alone suggests that he knew he was dealing with a safe situation.
After Gates had identified himself as the homeowner, and shown ID (which all parties agree, although they differ on details), and after, as Sgt. Crowley himself reports, Crowley believed that he was dealing with the legitimate resident, there was no further police work to do. (Certainly, he should not have continued to ask the resident questions after that. What reason could there be?) Crowley should have been on his way. Ideally, a few conciliatory words along the line of "Sorry to disturb, just doing our jobs," would have helped, but Crowley was also free to scowl and depart.
What happened next, with Gates being arrested and cuffed on his porch, has nothing to do with public safety. Even if Gates behaved every bit as badly as Crowley claims, Gates's vocal and arguably "disorderly" displeasure was not going to be a threat to anyone else's safety. There wasn't going to be any mayhem on Ware Street. I'm not entirely sure that the laws of physics permit mayhem on Ware Street in Cambridge. If Gates had genuinely lost his temper, then Crowley should have allowed him to sputter on his porch and embarrass himself. Instead Crowley reached for his cuffs and made everything into a bigger deal. Was that stupid? There's no way on Earth to call it smart.
Even according to the arresting officer's report, this is very much a discretionary arrest. There are such things. If every law on the book was constantly enforced with arrest, we'd live in a bizarre and palpably unjust world. Every loiterer should not be fined. Everyone drunk in public should not spend a night in the drunk tank. Every piece of disorderly conduct should not lead to an arrest. Any time a police officer makes one of those arrests, he or she is using her discretion. It's a judgment call.
Should these laws be taken off the books? No. Do they give the police too much leeway? Not necessarily. Police need some tools to manage difficult situations in real time in the interest of public safety. The ability to arrest people, to remove certain parties from a situation that's looking volatile, is an absolutely necessary tool. If you've got some truculent drunks in a crowd after a sporting event, who are on the verge of starting a fight, public drunkenness is a great arrest to make. If you want to keep two large groups of teenagers from brawling, the no-loitering law is perfect. If someone is legitimately creating a public danger, disorderly conduct arrests can defuse the situation.
But here's the thing. Exactly because these arrests are discretionary, they put the burden on the police officer to use discretion and good judgment. These are laws that are basically designed not to be enforced most of the time. The point is that the officer is supposed to apply these laws judiciously, in the interest of public safety. A drunk twenty-something leaning on a designated driver's arm? Not an arrest. A drunk twenty-something screaming threats at a guy in a Yankees cap? Arrest-a-mundo.
Most of all, discretionary arrests should not be used by a police officer to vent spleen or avenge insults. They often are, but that is not policing. That is public bullying. Disorderly conduct should not be charged simply because someone displeased a police officer.
The arresting officer's report, which is by its nature a one-sided and adversarial document, can't really make the case that Gates had to be arrested. It only makes the case that Gates could be arrested. And for a disorderly conduct charge, that isn't enough. Any talk about how Gates comported himself is beside the point. Being a jackass, and we only have the arresting officer's word for that, is still not an arrestable offense. And as for the defense that Sgt. Crowley was "just doing his job," I would point out that his job is to use his discretion. He certainly wasn't protecting anyone when he arrested Gates. And he wasn't using his judgment. He was just being, to put it as charitably as possible, stupid.
I believe that Crowley knew from almost the beginning of the interview that Professor Gates was not a threat to him. The fact that Crowley entered Gates's home (as all parties agree) by himself and without backup, gives that away. If he went into that house without backup (especially when the initial report mentioned two suspects) before knowing that there was not a crime in progress, then he would be an enormous fool. That he walked into Gates's home alone suggests that he knew he was dealing with a safe situation.
After Gates had identified himself as the homeowner, and shown ID (which all parties agree, although they differ on details), and after, as Sgt. Crowley himself reports, Crowley believed that he was dealing with the legitimate resident, there was no further police work to do. (Certainly, he should not have continued to ask the resident questions after that. What reason could there be?) Crowley should have been on his way. Ideally, a few conciliatory words along the line of "Sorry to disturb, just doing our jobs," would have helped, but Crowley was also free to scowl and depart.
What happened next, with Gates being arrested and cuffed on his porch, has nothing to do with public safety. Even if Gates behaved every bit as badly as Crowley claims, Gates's vocal and arguably "disorderly" displeasure was not going to be a threat to anyone else's safety. There wasn't going to be any mayhem on Ware Street. I'm not entirely sure that the laws of physics permit mayhem on Ware Street in Cambridge. If Gates had genuinely lost his temper, then Crowley should have allowed him to sputter on his porch and embarrass himself. Instead Crowley reached for his cuffs and made everything into a bigger deal. Was that stupid? There's no way on Earth to call it smart.
Advertisement
To the extent that media accounts are accurate, I believe that Crowley was stupid, Gates was stupid, and Obama was stupid.
All right, the last point was an exaggeration, but as many have stated, Obama stepped on his own healthcare message by using a word that was too incendiary, however valid the thought. After his brilliant and persuasive talk on health care reform, he didn't need the distraction that the Gates controversy has engendered. Fortunately, I believe he and the media will quickly find a way to move beyond it.
Gates was (apparently) stupid in assuming a loud, argumentative, and demanding attitude toward the officer, when more restraint would have avoided the mess.
Crowley was probably the worst offender, because unlike Gates, it was his professional responsibility to show restraint in the face of provocation. In addition, as far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer), the disorderly conduct arrest was illegal. As interepreted by the courts in Commonwealth vs Mulvey, disorderly conduct is only a legitimate charge when it occurs in the presence of members of the public in addition to any police who are present, and that apparently was not the case here.
July 23, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Crowley goes out of his way near the end of his report to point out that there are other citizens gathered in the street watching. So he's tried to cover that base.
Did the officer, in fact, try to lure Gates outside his home where he would be liable to the disorderly charge, because the officer was upset by how Gates had spoken to him inside his home? All too likely.
July 23, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I'd just repeat something I wrote in another post comment:
The key fact is that by the time of Gates's arrest other officers had arrived on the scene. Crowley had the skill, training and backbone to quietly absorb Gates's (mostly unjustified) tongue-lashing as long as it was just the two of them.
But here's where the stupidity comes in: he couldn't allow himself to been as a pussy by his fellow officers.
As Obama said, I wasn't there. But I'd bet real money that's what it all comes down to.
Shorter Gates: I won't be bullied by any cop.
Shorter Crowley: I won't be embarrassed in front of my friends.
July 24, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A long time ago I represented a lot of criminal defendants on an appointed basis. I found the work very interesting from a people perspective. It gave me a chance to get into Court early in my legal career and paid the bills.
After a while, I started to get confused at times recognizing the truly "good" guys from the "bad" guys, and went in another direction with my practice. While I continue to respect the majority of law enforcement officers trying to do the right thing every day, like my own profession, for many reasons subject of discussion another day, there are way too many members of the law enforcement profession that have the wrong priorities, which unduly makes the rest of law enforcement look bad.
Great post Dr. Cleveland in methodically and correctly pointing out the obvious holes in Officer Crowley's statement.
July 23, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
and, there are way way too many lawyers with the wrong motives. You lawyers outdo the cops about 100 to one.
July 24, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Certainly, he should not have continued to ask the resident questions after that. What reason could there be?"
Even though you are a resident you may: have a restraining order, may be involved in a domestic dispute, may be evicted or barred from the property by the owner, may be in your home unaware that someone has broken in and is still on the property, may be a hostage to people hiding in the next room, etc... The officer needs to follow up beyond determining the person's residency. I agree that once it was determined this was a homeowner entering his own home, it should have ended at that and not resulted in an arrest. I also should think we should get these laws off the books: loitering, disorderly conduct, inciting to riot, jaywalking and other nebulous laws designed only to allow police to enforce an arrest based on personal discretion.
July 23, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with nearly all of your statement. However, I have an issue with your opinion that the police need these basically blanket charges to have the power to arrest if needed to avoid a situation from escalating. Counting on the judgement of a police officer is essentially giving all of them discretionary power over all of us. Police cannot predict the future and the majority of these arrests are used to force compliance with their orders. If a cop does not like someones attitude they place them under arrest and if the person objects they usually end up tasered and charged with resisting.
Arresting someone because you think they might do something wrong is the same misguided policy that leads our nation to war with countries that could possibly one day develop a weapon, that could possibly one day end up in the wrong hands, that could possibly one day be used against us. With this reasoning people would be justified in eliminating all their enemies because one day they could possibly be attacked by them.
These vague blanket charges give the police too much power. They should be eliminated and the police should not be allowed to arrest anyone unless a crime is committed and there is an actual victim.
P.S. Please support police reform. Visit the YouTube Channel "CopsOutofControl" to see the most shocking police brutality videos on the Internet. Please comment, rate and most importantly SUBSCRIBE. http://www.youtube.com/user/CopsOutofControl
July 23, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What happened next, with Gates being arrested and cuffed on his porch, has nothing to do with public safety."
No, it's got more to do with a police state.
Those of us who ranted for months on the FISA issue didn't do it because of the technicalities of that law alone. It's all about the erosion of the 4th amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights (well I guess your gun can still be secure just not your home and every other bit of property you have) and it's intent to protect the rights of people to be safe in their homes from King's men.
This is about race but I believe it really has more to do with basic civil liberties.
July 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So nicely done. So Coherent. This is a model. Many thanks.
July 23, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was elected because he is that rare politician who tells the truth.
The truth is Crowley behaved like a enraged bully, and clearly has an inflated opinion of himself as some kind of infallible law enforcement genius.
He arrested a partially disabled man well into his fifties at his home, a man who had just endured 24 or more hours of airports and travel from China. (and all the airport security, checkpoints, regulations, searches etc) Did he realize the man might be tired and angry at being accosted at his own home?
His whining about the POTUS calling his actions stupid show that Crowley is so dumb he doesn't even know when to shut-up.
If this is the best the Cambridge Police Dept. can offer I am glad I don't live there.
July 23, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although none of us was present at the scene, the reports indicate that both parties were at fault. Eric Wattree has posted a very well-written, persuasive essay describing how Professore Gates might have handled the situation better, so as not to have provoked a confrontation that ended with his arrest. It's at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wattree/2009/07/how-to-protect-yourself-when-y.php?ref=reccafe
July 23, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read Wattree's sound advice and note that someone said it was good, particularly if you live in a 'police state'.
Crowley was the party who was on official duty. Gates had been up for day(s) traveling from Asia. On his arrival Crowley was 'in charge' doing his sworn duty to protect the public. As such, Officer Crowley bears full responsibility for the unprofessional results of this fiasco.
Proof - Crowley's presence and actions were the only factor that resulted in the unfortunate end result. Nothing Crowley did prevented any risk to life, limb, or property. He was like a doctor who injured a patient operating on them with the wrong diagnosis, or someone else's x-ray.
He was guilty of poor policing, law enforcement malpractice, or more simply, stupidity.
July 23, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would encourage others to read Eric's essay, because Eric would disagree strongly with you, NCD, that Crowley was exclusively responsible for the outcome of the Gates/Crowley confrontation.
My own view is to agree with Eric that Professor Gates could have handled the situation much more wisely than he did, thus avoiding confrontation and arrest, and that the incident, while regrettable, would not be seen as evidence we are a police state by anyone who has actually lived in one.
July 23, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read Eric's essay, and it is good advice from him, it describes how to psychologically control the situation of a confrontation with cops who may be stupid or unprofessional, or biased.
That advice does not negate the fact that it was Officer Crowley's actions and presence at the scene that created the conflicts and problems in this situation.
Crowley's actions directly led to the resulting unnecessary arrest of Dr. Gates. Officers should be strive to resolve problems and not be the source of them.
July 23, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. you and I came away with two very different impressions of Waltree's post.
Waltree is pointing out that rights don't mean anything. He didn't say Gates shared the blame for Crowley's actions.
We're talking about the law and what is actually right under it. Waltree is talking about how one must behave to avoid a beatdown in a world where cops don't acknowledge the citizen's rights or their own responsibilities under the law.
July 23, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I just noticed I've been misspelling Eric's last name. Sincere apologies.
July 23, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
agree 100% kgb999.
July 23, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that the 'evidence that we are a police state' may vary according to personal perceptions and experiences.
I do not believe we are, but the wife of the mentally ill man who was gunned down in a Florida airport, the surveillance and wire tapping of Americans without court supervision, the torture and murder of captives, the compilation of secret 'terrorist' lists, immigrants who are denied medical care and die in US custody might have or result in a different view on the subject, than that held by either myself or Mr. Moolten.
July 23, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! This is a primer for how to behave when rights become irrelevant and arbitrary decisions by the police define the law. The unstated fact here is that these officers are instructed, abetted and encouraged by prosecutors who build political careers on the statistics of how many citizens they convict.
July 23, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still hope others will read Eric's essay, because he appears to disagree with you regarding the complexity of motives underlying police behavior. I found his analysis insightful in its own right, and even more so because it is based in part on his personal experiences.
July 23, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he disagrees, I would like to hear from him, you are presenting your own opinion.
July 23, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you comment on his post if you are seeking a response from him? In the meantime, others might want to read his essay to judge for themselves.
July 23, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you stop saying who Wattree agrees/disagrees with, and stop telling me what to do. I already did comment on his post.
July 23, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should comment in Wattree's post on the issues of disagreement here if you want a response from him as to how he thinks. I believe those who visit his post will find it very enlightening, but I don't believe it has been accurately represented by comments here.
July 23, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are commenting on what they see as your misreading of Eric. If you think he agrees with you, ask him. We see him as telling what to do if you get a bully, not as saying that bullying is perfectly fine if you know how to cope although he does hope you can educate the bully or the person acting from unjustified fear.
July 24, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too hope others read his post. But I also think you should read it again.
When I lived in Vegas, a friend was visiting. We were walking down the street and there was a brand-new model of a sports car parked on the street (back when the viper first came out). I instantly walked over and, without touching, started looking it over and checking out the controls and dash and everything.
Oh, I should say - I'm white and my friend is black. Anyhow, he looked aghast and wouldn't come anywhere near. I was like WTF, check this out - it's BAD ASS. I'll never forget his response: "If the owner sees a black man and a longhair anywhere near this, they'll call the cops".
Having grown up in D.C. - this wasn't really my experience. There was such a large population of all races that the kids who grew up with me in the suburbs (old Blair HS for those who know the area) pretty much shared the same experiences. Theater geeks, the math team, the magnate program, heavy metal music, stoners, even the "rednecks" all were multi-racial cliques to varying degrees. This was the first time it really hit home for me that across most of the nation, black men have to worry about things that I never had even contemplated. Sure, I knew it in my head - but this was personal.
Just because a man can tell you how to behave to avoid a confrontation that they can never win - does not mean that they believe those who run afoul of the dynamics that make such walking on eggshells necessary share the blame in the resulting situation. Nor does it mean that expecting them to walk on such eggshells is right, or that those who rebel against what is a totally horrid reality deserve what they get.
I did read it. And what I heard was the same thing I heard when my friend (also Eric) told me in one simple sentence how he could never share in the same simple joy of checking out a car he'd never seen before parked on the street.
I didn't read a defense of Crowley. I read a sad, sad commentary that we live in a fucked up world.
July 23, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people cannot believe a white man (this case a cop) was entirely at fault in an incident with a black man.
Why Officer Crowley would be allowed to voice his 'frustrations' on talk radio is another mystery of this case. In most government organizations there is a media relations spokesman who handles department commentary. Crowley could always write a book when he retires. Crowley thinks it is Ok for him to be 'disappointed' with what Obama said about his police work, but Mr. Gates cannot be upset about being accosted by Crowley in his own home. It sounds like Crowley has the 'its me and only me that matters' disease.
Additionally, it seems the Cambridge Police Dept. does not have unified or strong leadership to (1) drop the case (2) let this blowhard go on the air the next day (3) while the Black mayor is apologizing for the arrest at the same time.
July 23, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One point of fact: under Mass. law, simply being loud and using foul language and, apparently, flailing one's arms (specifically directed at an officer in the precedent-setting case) is not enough to justify an arrest under the statute Crowley used. Even had Gates elected to leave his porch - which incidentally, a different precedent seems to rule does not count as public, regardless of the neighbors being present - nothing he did rose to the level that Crowley was empowered by law to use his discretion to curtail.
Crowley seems to be the one who technically broke the law - even based on the facts in his own report. I can't imagine that his continued belligerent stance is going to encourage Gates to let the matter drop. My impression is that Crowley has no idea that the law doesn't allow him to arrest whoever the hell he wants. It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out.
The only unfortunate thing (aside from the arrest itself) is Gate's decision to make this about race when it's really about systemic abuse of police authority across the board.
July 23, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Certainly, it's influenced by race but it's really a civil liberties issue. If they can do it to Gates, they can do it to me.
July 23, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the comment I added to a heated debate among friends on Facebook over this same point (I would only clarify that it has been nine years since I have had a drink and therefore the gendarmes and I have no current issues):
I'm well aware of what cops can and will do under those circumstances, having gone downtown at least twice for failure to shut up and play along. However, I was a.) drunk b.) not in my own home and c.) a nuisance to others and therefore fully deserved to go downtown in the back of a paddy wagon. That's the rightful application of the law.
I don't see how arresting a guy who is standing on his own property yelling because he is rightfully and understandably upset is going to protect OR serve anyone. I think it's abuse of power. Did this guy constitute an actual threat to himself or anyone else? Who was complaining about his "disorderly conduct" besides the arresting officers?
This isn't proper enforcement of the law; it's abuse of a power entrusted to you by the people you're sworn to protect and serve.
July 23, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former wayward youth, I can attest both to the fact that some poepl deserve to get dragged downtown, and that cops can be bullying assholes drunk on their own authority.
To my fairly well-tuned cop radar, this certainly sounds like a case of the latter. And it would alomst have certainly not happened if Gates was a frail, bespectacled, middle-aged WHITE Harvard professor.
July 24, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to me is this defense of the police action by claiming Gates could have "acted better".
And the author writes how these type of arrests are "discretionary ".
So all one needs to do is act exactly like the police want and demand and guess what?, he/she wont arrest you!
So lets have all the papers and web sites list exactly how not to offend the police and hope they wont arrest you just for fun.
But, if you live in the real world you know the police very often arrest people and lie about it because "they didn't like the way they acted"!
Reality is different then argument.
We live in a near police state where only on rare occasions are their actions ever questioned, let alone reviewed.
Observe in this case how the police actions are defended by every institution in society.
The people must NEVER be allowed to get the impression that their grievances will be addressed when confronting authority.
And that's what this arrest demonstrates.
Obamas attempt to draw some light into the reality of police powers and abuse is met by the usual and predictable pushback.
Sad to see so many here that don't realize the issue.
July 23, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade - Nobody here has defended the police action, but many here and elsewhere have pointed out that Gates might have avoided arrest had he refrained from provocative comments and demands.
It's important to distinguish "blame" in a moral sense, from responsibility in the sense that one's action plays a role in determining consequences. Gates is blameless, but the accounts of what happened suggest that he may have gone out of his way to trigger a blameworthy police response. Avoiding that needn't have required subservience on his part, but merely some restraint, as Eric Wattree eloquently discussed in his own post.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I would suggest that your claim we live in a "near police state" would be vigorously disputed by anyone who has actually lived in a police state.
As to defense of the police by "every institution in society", you seem to be excluding the Presidency, as well as numerous lesser institutions with some clout. Interestingly, even the Cambridge Police Department is not unreservedly supportive. It states that the officer acted according to protocol, but also that it regrets the incident and is looking into it to see how it might have been avoided.
Most important, in my view, is that every ounce of public attention focused on this issue because of continuing arguments distracts from attention that should be devoted to health care reform and other urgent national priorities. Keeping this debate alive best serves the interest of those who want the Obama presidency to fail. Obama himself saw this immediately, and has already commended Officer Crowley for his fine record of performance as a police officer.
We should probably move on in the same manner.
July 23, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Fred, considering how much you seem to be adopting the role of spokesman for Mr. Wattree's intent - I was very surprised to find that you did not participate in the discussion on his thread.
maybe YOU are the one who should actually comment over there and see if you are right before putting words in the man's mouth.
I also feel you are GROSSLY characterizing Obama's response to the situation.
July 23, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
grossly mischaracterizing Obama's intent that is (^%*^ spell checker).
July 23, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
(^%*^ spell checker).
A poor workman blames his tools. (just kidding - sort of)
July 23, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: How many health care faxes have you sent this week? There are several active campaigns, we could use your help.
For myself, I also called Baucus' office in Missoula and pointed out that it's an hour drive and I can be campaigning for a challenger in a region that is a PAIN IN THE ASS for him to spend time in ... not a constituent, just sayin' ;-). Also kicked my own blue-dog's butt a bit, but that was sort of a formality and waste of time (gonna be back next week though).
Why do you think we have to ignore the abuse of police power in order to push health care? Obama isn't the only one who can multitask.
July 23, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a question of ignoring police abuses, but of prioritizing, and the focus on the Gates case distracts public attention from efforts to focus on health care. Obama immediately recongized this, and I would think it a good idea to follow his example.
If you don't live in Montana, you're wasting your efforts contacting Max Baucus. As for what I'm doing - on Saturday, I will be participating in a health care reform forum organized by the Congressman in my district. Although I doubt that he personally will be amenable to change (he has adopted the standard Republican position), I'm hopeful the discussion may influence other members of the audience.
July 23, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't know much about Montana. A foot soldier with canvassing experience is like gold in the rural areas. The key is connecting with the staff, then it's gravy (ask if they ever let people from Idaho help with campaigns). It doesn't hurt that one of my associates is developing several hundred acres in Hamilton and Darby.
It takes quite a lot of resources for someone in Helana (N. of Butte) to canvas the rural NW of the state. I can make a week of it visiting friends. It's one hell of a loop with a decent (for Montana) total population ... but they are all spread out. The nice lady who spent 15 minutes talking to me also tried to recruit me to help McDonald(I think?) for congress.
Maybe she was just blowing sunshine up my butt, but I think Baucus is going to do OK in the end (not stellar, but OK). She said some nice words about a public option but was less clear on exactly what it means. The big question is more when we'll get it; she was very elusive. Certainly didn't get any information worth a post, but also certainly not a waste of time. The downside is if Baucus comes through ... I kind of implied I'd help him out campaigning.
BTW: I predict Gates as a topic isn't going away - nor should it. Hell, Sharpton hasn't even had his moment yet ;-)
July 24, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying the arrest is discretionary does not mean that the cop was entitled to do anything he liked. Obviously not.
He's obligated to use his discretion, and only use these statutes when public safety is legitimately involved.
And I find the "Gates brought it on himself" argument deeply problematic. There's a question of prudence here which is separate from a question of questions of morals or propriety. Gates was imprudent; Crowley was wrong.
One shouldn't antagonize an armed robber, either. But that doesn't entitle an armed robber to kill you. Gates might have placated a police officer who was exceeding his authority. But unjust authority should be uprooted, not placated.
July 23, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doctor Cleveland - As I understand the media accounts, the officer did not exercise any unjust authority until after Gates had gone out of his way to provoke him. Therefore, there was nothing unjust that needed to be placated until Gates engaged in his confrontational stance.
No-one claims that Gates "brought it on himself" in the sense of insisting that Crowley was innocent of unprofessional conduct, but Gates did respond to Crowley's lack of professionalism in such a way as to bring the outcome on himself. I don't think that is disputable, because it's not an issue of right or wrong but simply of what happened.
Massachusetts law grants some discretionary authority to police in a variety of circumstances, not merely those involving threats to public safety.
July 23, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Friend, perhaps Gates did not exercise any unjust provocation until common sense and his dignity had been trampled by unjust authority. He was a man coming home from a long journey to a small problem with the door that became a police action of serious consequences.
Do you know that female officers are statistically more likely to resolve personal conflict situations more often peacefully than male officers? If a female officer had been at the house I bet this never would have happened. Males take their own pride and authority to a point females feel is pehaps foolish escalation instead of happy resolution.
July 24, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on. Anger provoked can't be held up as anger that should have been avoided.
The cause and affect here was the police officer's ego butting up against the immovable object of a citizen who knows his rights. I think this will be a good thing in the long run if only that it brings the dysfunctional relationship that has grown between law enforcement and the general public to light.
I wonder when this confrontational attitude actually started. I posted the following on Wattree's latest blog.
Apparently no one can, so that tells me it has been since at least the end of World War II that the police have butted heads with normal citizens over inconsequential bullshit on such a regular basis that it became the norm.While there are exceptions to every rule, I suspect you are right that a female officer would have handled the situation much differently, if only because women are typically more empathic than men and pay attention to the small details in a given situation.
July 24, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sexist!
July 24, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Just married! :O)
July 24, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Noble comment decider points out that nothing Crowley did prevented any risk to life, limb or property, but Crowley was responding to someone who was coming after him in an angry manner as he was exiting a house to leave the scene.
Look, I don't like cops much but it seems like this Gates dude started screaming "is it because I'm a black man" before he even opened the door to find out why a policeman was on his porch. I've read his books. Seriously, he can't stop wielding his "evil white man" hammer, which, to me, makes him the racist in this little incident.
It's unfortunate that Crowley did not charge him with "disturbing the peace." That, I feel, would not be as subject to a Gates lawsuit.
Anyhow, great essay on discretion. Let's see how the story plays out.
July 23, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
sass-Its unfortunate Crowley showed up as his presence created the problem. If he didn't show up Gates wouldn't have claimed he was a Black man, and Crowley wouldn't have been disappointed when Obama said arresting a man in his own house is stupid. It would have been a win-win case.
Fred, please stop using straw people to support your positions, such as: 'your claim...would be vigorously disputed by anyone who has actually lived in a police state.'
July 23, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Readers can review what I said to decide whether it is a straw man argument to dispute someone else's claim that we live in a near-police-state status.
I hope though, that more readers will consider my appeal to move past arguing about the Gates affair, just as President Obama is trying to do, and instead focus on those issues that are very important to him, and should be equally important us - health care as the most immediate concern, but subsequently climate change, possibly a need for more stimulus funding, and the like.
July 23, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abuse of authority is a symptom of a system that is unwilling to change. It is also symptomatic of the larger abuse of authority that happens at all levels of leadership. Challenging the specter of fairly systemic abuse of power is central to implementing sustainable change.
Concentrating on the tactical to the exclusion of the strategic means failure on all fronts.
The American people need to walk and chew gum at the same time if we are even going to put a dent in all the things you mentioned. That includes reining in a government and corporate structure that is completely out of control by way of vigous and public debate of "hidden in plain sight" problems like racial profiling and thin-skinned police enforcers.
Anything less is leaving the same impediments to progress that have kept us from fixing these problems for the last forty years. None of items on our Do-or-Die list are new. Our "leaders" have just never gotten anything done because We The People don't vote and Congress has no moral center that can't be purchased with campaign contributions. Left and Right and independent of all rational thought when contrasted against the big picture of America's most pressing problems.
While I see Wattree's point, sometimes gentle resolution of a situation leading to individual enlightenment isn't enough. Sometimes the representatives of authority need to be pushed a little to see how they respond. Had the officer responded with proper restraint, we would have had to wait for another incident of this nature to get into this issue. He didn't and here we are.
Not sure what your objections are to the idea that varying levels of a "police state" can exist, and ours would be very familiar to George Orwell.
Free and open societies don't lock people up for no reason other than they scared us or wire-tap innocent citizens in the hope that some bad guys might be rounded up as well. Free and open societies don't use vice laws to fill a draconian prison system that can be a fate worse than death for many non-violent drug offenders.
Free and open societies look very different from America on a number of levels actually, despite not living in a brutal dictatorship.
July 24, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The discretion to arrest and then the discretion to book and then the discretion to prosecute...
These are the powers in a democratic or a dictatorial society.
The courts can be warned from above so to speak. Civil attorneys are now going after this discretion and attempting to demonstrate violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the due process clause.
But what exactly does "Probable Cause' mean?
I do not know but thank you for this post.
July 23, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates [was not required to] placate[d] a police officer who was exceeding his authority. Doctor Cleveland
Agreed but --
At what point did Crowley exceed his authority?
July 24, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If NC Steve is right ... when he decided to arrest Gates for doing nothing more yelling. Apparently Gates could also have used foul language (unless you count "yo mama" as foul) and gesticulated wildly.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/2009/07/two-stories-henry-louis-gates.php#comment-3536369
IANAL, but the cases he quotes seem to be pretty applicable to Gate's situation.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/60/60massappct723.html
Some folks have rejected this argument ... but didn't actually articulate why it didn't apply. I think the complaints seem to be substantially similar ... draw your own conclusion.
July 24, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that is about an 'assault and battery' charge, though they do get into "tumultuous," a term used in Crowley's report. How does it apply here?
I think Dr. Cleveland is correct in that this is one of those discretionary laws that are used flexibly by police (and much differently in different places). Even the minority police associations are unquestioning of the arrest on its face.
July 24, 2009 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the quoted material: "The judgment of conviction on the charge of disorderly conduct is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and that portion of the complaint is dismissed."
July 24, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was kind of confusing to me at first too.
There are two charges under appeal in the case. The disorderly conduct charge (the part that addresses tumultuous behavior) based on the individual hollering at the police about his rights being violated (substantially similar to the behavior of Gates) was overturned. The events in that case occurred in a public parking lot, Gates was on his own porch - I expect the police would have a higher bar to meet with Gates.
The other charge that related to an altercation with a woman resulting in an assault and battery conviction was upheld.
July 24, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's true, then, what was Prof. Gates yelling about -- before Crowley exceeded his authority?
And what could Prof. Gates have done -- at and after the time Crowley exceeded his authority -- that could have "placated" the police officer?
July 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it becomes accepted that the responsibility of the citizenry is to placate the police, and the actions an officer takes under the law can be justified by a lack of deference; IMO it becomes impossible to argue we don't live in a police state.
Why should Gates ... functioning within his rights under the constitution and the definition of Massachusetts law ... even have to address the question of what he could have done to placate an officer to avoid false arrest?
I thought the officers took an oath to uphold the law. If they fail at that, there is no one else to blame but themselves. The problem isn't Crowley. The problem is the system is currently maintained to encourage the response that Crowley had.
July 24, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He could have kissed his ass.
July 24, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't actually know that Gates was yelling at that point.
I know the officer, who was in Gates's home with no other witnesses, claims he was yelling.
July 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no lawyer, but I believe loudly accusing a cop of being racist is protected free speech -- even if the accusation is totally unjustified.
At the point of Gates's arrest, Crowley was simply overreacting to the embarrassment of being dissed in front of his fellow officers and passersby.
The key issue here is not racism, but arbitrary abuse of police powers -- which happens to disproportionately fall on the backs of minorities, but impacts all society.
Health-care reform is really important, but this debate is also one that America desperately needs to have.
July 24, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an extremely disappointing situation. I would have expected better from the CPD. Whether or not I should have expected more from Gates, I'm not sure. I wish he could have deferred. But he didn't and he was likely guilty of nothing but a minor tantrum.
I assume the city dropped charges, presumably because the ADA told them the #$%^ was untenable. I would like to think that any law enforcement organization is approachable. Unfortunately I don't believe that and I don't think the police care. It's a shame.
July 24, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a well written and considered post, Doctor Cleveland, but wonder (being from a police family) what percentage of disorderly conduct cases you think are solely based on a real and imminent "danger to the public"? Or, from another perspective, how many cases of police discretion are exercised in favor of a suspect who is screaming, cursing or berating officer(s) or acting in any other disruptive matter outside (even as they attempt to leave)? Should discretionary laws like this be regulated and reigned in? Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. But is this really the test case for racial profiling?
Let's put aside Sgt. Crowley's discretion. What actually happened to Professor Gates? He was made as comfortable as possible and taken to the station to be booked, and then taken to a room to meet with his associates (not a cell). He was then released agreeing to a mutual statement of “misunderstanding,”and no charges were filed. Is this "...every black man’s nightmare and a reality for many black men," as Mass. Governor Deval Patrick puts it? Is this "stupidity" and racial profiling as the President implied? Is this the usual treatment of any (ordinary) man on the street defying the police?
July 24, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They made him comfortable, after removing him from his own home in handcuffs, for the offense of being obnoxious and waving his arms.
July 24, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a typical statutory definition from Wiki (Indiana) note #2:
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct. . . [1]
It is often a discretionary call, as Dr. C says. I don't think it should have happened here or in the countless situations everyday where I think laws to protect good people often ensnare them but can't say the officer was out of line either. He followed the law and SOP it seems. Whether he could have diffused the situation some other way is conjecture.
There have been countless civilians killed in Iraq by US soldiers who were trying to do their jobs. In many cases I'm sure they at least constituted reckless disregard for life. In many they were unfortunate accidents (caught in crossfire, a bomb off course). In those cases where a soldier follows the book and his training, has he or she committed a homicide?
July 24, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we don't have to use a "typical definition" from Wikipedia. The law has been interpreted in Massachusetts by the courts ... as I pointed out above. Crowley really seems to have gone beyond his discretion in this case under the law in the state in which he works.
Your question about soldiers and homicide is one reason so many need mental health counseling when they return home. Taking an innocent life is not a light matter - regardless of following the book and training. This is why the decision to go to war in Iraq for a frivolous and ultimately dishonest reason was such a crime.
But if the soldier *knows* his actions are likely to kill innocents along with the bad guys, the decision to attack anyway is a decision to commit homicide; no matter what they write down in a book.
July 24, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My computer is being disorderly. I was trying to post this to your reply above: Thanks, KGB. I see it now. This (footnote 1): The relevant provision of that section reads as follows: "A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior . . .. seems to be saying that in this case the charge involves violent or threatening behavior, which isn't the case in Gates. I guess it comes down to the definition of tumultuous as that's what Crowley reported. Perusing Mass. cases, one used three dictionary definitions of "tumultuous." One was simply "noisy and disorderly."
I'd still agree with the post that wide discretion is involved but doubt that Crowley acted extraordinarily here.From Precydent:
July 24, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't give you percentages, Don. And I've never walked a beat a day in my own life.
How many such arrests are just bullying? Too many. I've known too many terrible, terrible cops who should never have been given a badge. (Although I was raided by a very good one.)
Too many are just the cop throwing around his (usually but not always his) weight. Some are not threats to public safety, but are disturbances to what I'd call public welfare. If you stand in the middle of Harvard Square screaming in ways that alarm the shoppers, you're going to risk arrest. (Ideally you would be asked to desist move along first, with an implicit or explicit threat of arrest. And then if you kept screaming, you'd be taken in.)
And this opens a gray area that gets dark fast: the homeless gets arrested on police discretion too often, simply as a way to manage the homeless presence on the street. That's not a good use of police power at all, but it exists to fill a vacuum created by bad policies.
July 24, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Err, that should be "raised by a very good one."
Huge Fredian slip.
July 24, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered how you could be so generous towards a cop that raided your house! I agree with you and where I live it seems like cops have huge discretion in most matters. If the city or courts don't reign them in, that "discretion" can become SOP. But I interact with police at work on occasion and most I've known are just good guys. Some that cross the line seem to be on a power trip, and I imagine, some act out of fear. There are cities and towns that seem to use their police just to keep certain areas clean (your homeless example is a good one) and all of the loitering, public nuisance, disorderly statutes are tools for that abuse. I don't see Crowley as going out off bounds here, but it does raise the question of how much authority we're relinquishing for our "security."
July 24, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, yes Gates was treated well after the arrest, but because he is black, he had little reason to take that for granted, the way most whites would in the same situation.
Of course, in the same situation, a white guy might not have been arrested.
In our recent history, blacks have been beaten and otherwise severely mistreated while in police custody. And, further back, if my fore bearers had been the main attraction at the popular lynching-and-picnic-on-the-grass, that might influence my apprehensions re: how comfortable police would make me, esp. in light of the out-of-line actions of the arresting officer.
Would there be more of the same, except I'd be on their turf and outnumbered? Would the police start pushing and jabbing me? Throw me against a wall? Hit me in the head? Throw me down and kick me? And then say I was out of control, and they had to defend themselves and subdue me? And all this because I wasn't submissive and polite to a white cop?
Gates had good reason to be afraid which way it might go.
July 24, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about that perspective, Scott, and I can understand it. I don't doubt Gates reaction was genuine from his POV but that doesn't mean it was correct. And his reaction was more anger than fear. It appears more like he was the aggressor. And to accuse a cop of racism from the get-go, before anyone knows what's going on, shows his frame of mind.
I just think this kind of overblown, sensationalized and somewhat contrived (reframed afterwards) case actually sets back any progress that is needed, especially on police profiling and brutality issues. The issue is now more polarized and doesn't stand as a 'teachable moment,' though it might fade quicker than it would after the presser today.
July 24, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My brother has been in the law enforcement field his entire life. He is proud of his work as he should be; he's one of the many good men who get "tarred with the same brush" when people in authority abuse their positions. His son, my nephew, followed in my brother into law enforcement. The first words he spoke to his son on graduating from the academy were "Don't EVER forget who you work for". My nephew has followed those instructions and does honor to the service of law enforcement.
July 24, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the point jonnienohands. Good cops will suffer because of this a-hole.
Why Crowley is being allowed to be a crybaby on every TV/radio talk show in the nation is beyond my comprehension also. Media relations should be handled by the police spokesperson.
Crowley believes only he can feel, he feels 'disappointed' by being called stupid, Gates cannot feel outraged by being accosted in his own home without being arrested.
July 24, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's a tough thing.
Bad policing also makes good policing harder: makes people less cooperative
In a very real way, the stage for the Gates incident was set by years of bad policing nationwide. Gates had been given historical reason to be mistrustful. That's not helpful when the situation is confusing, but it's certainly not irrational either.
And Crowley, by his own account upset at Gates's suspicions about police officers, did the worst possible thing by confirming those suspicions.
July 24, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it! Great piece.
Absolutely zero reason to arrest Dr. Gates, except to prove your power.
Cops have to know when to walk away, too.
July 24, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prof. Gates had every right to do and say the things he did and there was no cause for arresting him. Cops routinely arrest people essentially for giving them lip and that is wrong in every instance. They far too often arrest black people for giving them a look! Gates was incensed and rightfully so to be harrassed in his own home. I doubt it was the first time in his life a copy harrassed him. Gates posed no threat to anyone or anything but he was browbeating the cop in anger which is something I find perfectly understandable under the circumstances. Once he found out this was Gates' home, the policeman should have simply apologized and withdrawn after giving Gates his card (all cops carry business cards). That would have been the end of it. Instead, the cop had to show everyone who is boss like they do with average people all the time. Except when it is a famous person ya just don't get away with that bullying the way ya do with some unknown guy in the hood.
July 24, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
I actually disagree that there was a legal basis for the arrest at all, backed up with a link, but throughout, this was a question of judgment and the standards of conduct set for police officers.
July 24, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it unfortunate that opponents of health care reform have continued to enjoy the distraction imposed on the public by these debates about the Gates controversy. President Obama immediately realized the counterproductive nature of this squabbling. He backed away from his "stupidly" remark, and praised officer Crowley's fine record of performance as a police officer.
Now that the healthcare reform issue is coming to a head in Congress, it deserves much greater attention from the public than the Gates debate is permitting. In particular, the public insurance option is in some danger of dilution or elimination, and I believe it would be desirable for the media and the blogosphere to keep that issue in prominent view without obsessive competition from the recent incident involving Gates. The Senate Finance Committee should be a particular focus of attention.
July 24, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for all the comments and for the excellent discussion, gang. Let me try to respond to some of the big points.
1. As for Gates's role: I agree that he did not behave in the way that would have gotten him the best result. But that does not excuse the officer in anyway.
Police work is not about dealing with citizens who are behaving perfectly, or who are having their best day. The nature of police work means that officers are almost constantly dealing with people who are under stress, over excited, or behaving unpleasantly. A police officer who only behaves well when everyone else does is not policing at all.
2. How much of this is bullying? Too much. As I said, I grew up around cops. Some of them I admire greatly. Some I despise. Few things are better than a genuinely good cop. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worse than a bad one.
There are police who abuse their authority routinely. They are not really policing. Although our public debate is often framed as public safety vs. police reform, my experience suggests that's nonsense. Bad cops don't keep people safe. Show me a questionable police shooting, and I'll show you some terrible and unprofessional police work.
3. Should these laws that permit police discretion be taken off the books?
I think not, but I think there need to be more controls after the fact. These discretionary arrests are all for petty misdemeanor charges, which involve light penalties. If they're thrown out in court, or simply non-prossed, they can work well. The law does need to allow some room for real-time decisions.
And I would not be a fan of police being unable to make an arrest in, say, a crowd control situation until punches are thrown. At that point, if it's outside Fenway Park after a game, police might simply not be able to contain things, and certainly not without using lots of force themselves. Better to be able to head off trouble with a misdemeanor arrest or better still the threat of a misdemeanor arrest.
As it is, I agree that this puts too much burden on the officer's judgment, and allows bad police too much leeway. What matters in such a case is supervision, both by the police department and the district attorney's office. Officers who show bad judgment repeatedly need to face consequences, and the police culture needs to change. That will be very hard to do. But the idea that the brass and the union need to back the street officers up on everything, while deep-rooted, is extremely unhealthy.
Even more importantly, the courts should be reluctant to press minor discretionary charges against poor or minority defendants, who suffer disproportionately from nonsense charges. If I got arrested for disorderly conduct tomorrow, the consequences will be minimal. But the fine isn't half my weekly paycheck either. The big question is structural inequity in the court system after arrests have been made.
July 24, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really excellent post, and great epilogue. One thing that I sort of disagree with though.
If the charges are thrown out or non-prossed, that means someone, in real life, was the victim of a police officer who improperly used their discretion. Sitting in jail waiting for arraignment and then sometimes bail is NOT a petty situation. Unless you have the connections of Gates, it's not an in-and-out process. People lose their jobs by not being able to go to work ... which can have a cascading devastating effect on their entire life. The police have learned how to extract maximum negative effect on the people they decide to punish before the court even gets involved.
I think it should be emphasized, the missing piece is that officers who employ discretionary statutes to accomplish their goals need to have repercussion for bad judgment. How many people need to lose their freedom, only for the judge or prosecutor to agree no law was really violated before an officer loses the discretionary power to arrest? In today's situation there is no negative effect - their egos are essentially rewarded for putting someone who should never have been arrested into jail.
I think you are totally spot on here. Nice post.
July 24, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it's about disciplining the police when they misuse their judgment.
And okay, while I minimized being arrested too much, I wouldn't want the police only to be able to arrest for major crimes that carried big-ticket penalties.
I think some of what you see in the "Gates had it coming" response is people's experience of having been busted in some discretionary way in which the arrest itself constituted the primary punishment, or experience of seeing police do that in a more or less positive way. There's a certain element of "I got busted for being a jackass at the bar, and I kinda had it coming."
(And some of the "Gates had it coming" is just authoritarian nonsense, too.)
July 24, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doctor, please allow me to underline a key point you made in your excellently reasoned epilogue:
"The police culture needs to change. That will be very hard to do. But the idea that the brass and the union need to back the street officers up on everything, while deep-rooted, is extremely unhealthy."
Amen.
July 24, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prof. and the cop could recognize human weaknesses and forgive each other for the misunderstanding(s) and on a personal level I hope they do.
But the prof. got booked on his way to jail. His digital hand prints and photo and arrest report are in the NCIC and FBI files. They can not be removed with any real verification. For the rest of his life any identification information will return that he was charged with a crime. The Department of Homeland Security will pick up on it next time he needs to go through an airport. A secruity clearance or background check for employment or credit rating will bring it up too. Consider what intelligence agency data mining programs might flag him for if you want to let your paranoia out for a run.
Bottom line: The prof. is no longer one of those law abiding citizens we hear so much about.
July 24, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The police have strict Constitutional constraints.
July 24, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this chesnut??
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/videos.php/2008/02/02/sadistic_american_police_strip_assault_v
July 24, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the official incident report from the Cambridge Police if anyone is interested.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17512090/Gates-Incident-Report-Redacted
July 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in instances such as this it falls on the officers at the scene to diffuse a situation and not let it get out of hand. At the very moment the officer came to understand Gates was the homeowner that should have been the end. The officer should have apologized for the inconvenience and bid good day. Maybe Gates was more vocal than he could have been but that is human nature. And I suspect, as is very common, the officer may have had the intimidating tone and demeanor that is so common. The natural reaction to that is well understood and the police would do well to learn this and act differently if they really want to have a different result.
July 24, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink