Harvard Professor, Henry L. Gates vs. Knuckle-head arm of the law
July 23, 2009
KNUCKLE-HEAD JUSTICE - NOT ACCEPTABLE.
By
Joseph Chez
The law that binds us all, derives from the will of the people. We expect that justice is fair and equitable, and that the arm of the law understands that it is not judge and jury.
Society as we know it was once a dangerous place to live. Each day, one's freedom or life could well be in peril and appropriately, it is said, that law of the jungle ruled. Consequently, man reasoned that in order to be free from harm, the community had to bind together as a group, as there would be safety in numbers. Thus, these tenets were the beginning of threading the fabric for which we now call our common good - our society. Additionally, early man conceived; to further guarantee the people's safety, freedom, and common interest, the best and the brightest of the community would be chosen to be the community's leaders, while others who were strong and loyal would safeguard the community's safety and freedom.
However, many of us still remember when constables or community officers were respected for their mediation skills and the sense of safety their official capacity provided. Regrettably, the mood in our communities has changed; we no longer feel safe in the presence of the police. In fact, COPS instill fear in all of us. We look out for them, we fear being pulled over by them, and we dare not call them as we may fear for our safety or fear for our life. But, if you disagree, just ask yourself, will you dare speak up to a police officer and robustly invoke your rights under the law? Will you dare question the police officer's motives for stopping you? The answer is perhaps no. Yes, there is a fear factor when dealing with the very same individuals entrusted to keep us safe.
So how did we get here? Is this what society envisioned for a perfect society? Did the people want law abiding justice, or have we settled for knuckle-head justice?
Today, we require our doctors , lawyers, teachers and other professionals to meet certain educational requirements. We impose Intense academic standards so these professionals will serve the greater good of the community. However, for our police, we require the minimum. Thus, any knuckle-head can apply and become a law enforcement officer. And to add more injury to justice, today's law enforcement enjoys an atmosphere which many believe, is above the law. Yes, in many states, they are granted special license plates for their own private vehicles and this keeps them from being pulled over - for any reason. Their wages in many cases rivals those of many highly educated professionals or even judges. We name highways after them. We seek their support to become elected into office. Moreover, police officers today employ what they refer to as "professional courtesy" which allows them to protect each other, cover-up for one another, and thus, not be subject to the dictates of the law. And yet, we frequently witness police brutality on our television, but, we acquiesce to the police department's PR person and accept that the beating of a citizen, misconduct by an officer or the death of an innocent person, will be investigated - internally of course.
So how can we remedy this unintended situation created by our society? RESIST: If you believe that a COP is being a knuckle-head, invoke your Constitutional rights, file a complaint, file a civil complaint in court, fight your ticket in a jury trial, and if need be, appeal. But more importantly, when choosing your community leaders, tell them you want the law to apply to COPS as well.
Of course, not all COPS are knuckle-heads, and they deserve our respect and admiration. However, society must require that our police be better educated, more understanding of their role in society, and that police officers be held accountable to the same rules of society and the law, for which we are all subject to.
In the case of the Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, the knuckle-head arm of the law, was completely out of line. Even after ascertaining identity of the elderly (African-American) professor, he was arrested for invoking the sovereignty of his own home. The officer's reason: disorderly conduct. The department soon dropped charges as they reasoned that it was two hot-heads in a bad situation. Lame. They realized that there was no justifiable cause for the apprehension.
Professor Gates, a man's home is his castle and you must uphold that right. The community supports you. Your fight is our fight.













The same thing happened to me when I was in college. I locked myself out of my apartment and broke in with a credit card, but one of my neighbors saw me and called the police. Ten minutes later, I get a knock on the door and find a police officer with his hand on his gun who ordered me to put my hands up. I turned around and he grabbed my wallet and checked my ID to find that I lived there. He appologized and radioed to his partner who was at my back door. I thanked the cops for paying attention to my apartment and they left. I understood that the cops didn't know if it would be the owner or a dangerous criminal inside the apartment. Gates, however, reacted improperly.
July 23, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates exercised his first amendment right of free speech, and the content of his speech is also Constitutionally protected. It was Crowley who arrested Gates for having exercised his right of free speech -- which Crowley publicly, if inadvertently, publicly admits -- apparently to "teach him a lesson".
What lesson does violating a person's rights "teach"?
And all of that was AFTER Crowley determined there was no crime in progress, no violations of law, AND that Gates BELONGED there. Is there a law against being "disorderly" IN ONE'S OWN HOME?
July 24, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take exception to one thing in this post which otherwise is excellent and that is the characterization of Prof. Gates as elderly. He's 58 from what I've read. So, he's not a spring chicken, but 58 hardly qualifies for elderly.
And, just to throw in my 2 cents once again on this site if the Prof. got angry, raised his voice and was irate... GOOD! He had every right to be angry that he was being harrassed in his own home and that's all there is to it.
July 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to my birth certificate ("borthers" potentially notwithstanding), I'm older than Gates; but I am certainly not "elderly".
In fact, I'm not tall enough to be over 18, so it is impossible that I am the age I actually am.
July 24, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To (mrathel): First of all, I would not have opened the door for the police. Opening the door simply allows the police to have the right to come in. However, as you say, incidents such as what you experienced and the Gate's case, are perhaps frequent occurances. However, Professor Gates was confronted by the police and even after asceertaining the facts, the police was not satisfied. that led to Mr. Gates getting angry and defensive. And as you know, having a wrong attitude is not agains the law. Rather, the question of law is whether the charge of disorderly conduct can occur while inside your home. A reasonable officer would have excused himself and let it go at that. Instead, the officer felt offended by Mr.Gates attitude and that led to the arrest. The officer was wrong and in a court of law, this will be established.
July 24, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To (oleeb): I retired from the Fed. Gov't. and under its own rules, any person over 40 is deemed, "of advance age". Simply, I was just trying to make a point that professor Gates being of advance age, did not pose any threat to the officer. And you are correct, Mr. Gates had every reason to feel angry and that is not a crime. Questioning the sitiation and charge is not a crime. However, it appears that the officer felt disrispected and that may have led to the arrest.
In a case of a Nevada cattle rancher in which he was stopped by the police, he refused to provide identity as he felt he had done nothing to warrant the police to demand for an ID. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on the side of the police, however, the court did not answer whether an individual within his/her home, and no crime is committed, is required to provide identity. We will see what results.
July 24, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink