Poll: Disorderly Conduct and Disturbing the Peace
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
The recent arrest of Barack Obama's friend Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in Cambridge, Massachusetts has stimulated an unprecedented volume of discussion about the meaning of charges like disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct, which are famously hard to define, and since nothing much less than an infinity of legal detail can specify how either charge is interpreted by judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere, it may be worthwhile to approach this issue from the other side of the bench, and investigate when and how the public believes these and similar charges should be defined and applied.
So temporarily leaving aside the question of which specific offense should or should not be charged, and in order to accommodate this diary to sites where it's either inconvenient or impossible to post a poll, and focusing solely on shouting, because of the particular episode which prompted so much discussion, and additionally leaving aside complications about whatever an individual may be shouting, with the special proviso that it isn't threats or "Fire!"...
Readers are invited to list their preferences in comments according to designations like A1 or B1 as listed below, and of course anyone is welcome to add his or her own set of conditions.
Do you believe that a citizen should be subject to arrest for...
A. Shouting at police from his or her own front porch...
A1. Never.
A2. Sometimes.
B. Shouting at neighbors from his or her own front porch...
B1. Never.
B2. Sometimes
C. Shouting at police on the street or in another public space...
C1. Never.
C2. Sometimes
D. Shouting at customers and other passers-by in front of a place of business...
D1. Never.
D2. Sometimes.
E. Shouting at children on the street...
E1. Never.
E2. Sometimes.
F. Shouting at children in front of an elementary school...
F1. Never.
F2. Sometimes.
G. Shouting at women on the street...
G1. Never.
G2. Sometimes.
H. Shouting at men on the street...
H1. Never.
H2. Sometimes.
I. Shouting at first-responders during an emergency...
I1. Sometimes.
I2. Never.
J. Shouting at an audience or performers during a musical or theatrical performance in a public space...
J1. Never.
J2. Sometimes.
K. Shouting at mourners in a public cemetery (for example, Arlington National Cemetery)...
K1. Never.
K2. Sometimes.
L. Shouting outside a hospital...
L1. Sometimes.
L2. Never.
M. Shouting outside a hospice...
M1. Sometimes.
M2. Never.
N. Shouting at officials or the public at a meeting on public property (city councils, state legislatures, and so on)...
N1. Sometimes.
N2. Never.
O. In other public situations which didn't occur to this pollster...
O1. Nowhere and never.
O2. Sometimes somewhere.
The Cambridge city manager, who is White, and the Cambridge mayor, who is Black, are announcing the formation of a committee to address racial tensions within the city.
The presser is being carried on CNN as of 12:00 PM EST.
Cambridge is seems is willing to attempt to work through their differences. It seems a good start to me. It was previously noted that Harvard instituted it's own commission to look into racial profiling on campus last year.
The root cause of this entire issue is poor relations between police and law-abiding members of the community. There is a historical basis for the mistrust. Hopefully Cambridge will make progress.
July 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massachusetts make progress ??? Surely you jest.
C
July 28, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post is already an amazing success, since I can finally agree with rmrd0000 about something.
I totally agree.
July 27, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And apropos of nothing, here's a question that just occurred to me....
What is the protocol for investigating break-ins? Does the officer on the scene have to make a note of how he or she identified the resident?
My intuition tells me that every report on a possible break-in has to hit a few definite marks, but I don't know what they are.
July 27, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the Cambridge PD, in order to insist that the demand that Gates identify himself, said that the policy is to ask anyone in his position to identify himself.
But in response to an NY Times column on the incident, a poster said he is (1) white, (2) lives on the same street as Gates, six houses from his home, and (3) that he shares a front door with a family upstairs from him.
The family upstairs has a security system, which has gone off at least six times. When it goes off it rings at the Cambridge PD, and two cops are dispatched. In NO instance when the white resident opened the door for the PD who showed in response to the alarm going off did they ask HIM to show an ID.
July 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there a broken front door and a call from an eyewitness saying she saw people possibly trying to break in? I'd say that changes the SOP for the officer vs. some guy who accidentally set off his Sloman's shield. Also I'm assuming the guy in question knows the code to turn the alarm off even though the cops are already on their way.
July 27, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Sgt Crowley lying in his police report when he said the witness told him "she observed two black males with backpacks on the porch"?
July 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is the POLICY of the PD to demand ID, then why would they not demand an ID of a person who might be the burglar who set off the alarm?
As for the Gates incident: the PD received a call of a crime -- burglary in progress. Crowley and three other cops investigated. The found the following:
1. No crime in progress.
2. No law/s being violated.
3. Gates verified his identity.
4. Gates proved he belonged there.
That having been done, the incident was done with, and the cops should have apologized for the intrusion and left.
July 27, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone can be arrested in their own home for yelling at a police officer than we need to make sure that sports referees & umpires never get to carry handcuffs. I'm 100% sure that every single professional referee & umpire has been yelled at and called worse names than anything that Professor Gates said.
The officer was just doing his job up until the moment when Professor Gates provided his proof of residence; at that moment the only thing the officer should have done was leave the property as no crime had been committed nor was one about to take place. I don't think that the officer is a racist by any means, but he obviously didn't have think enough skin that day.
Police officers should not arrest people for being rude to them. They are here to protect and serve us and once protection is out of equation (no crime) then they work for us the law abiding citizens not the other way around.
July 27, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Gates had incited a riot, does your opinion change?
July 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If.... But, he didn't
July 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if there was a reasonable chance that his actions would lead to such, then I can understand why the cop chose to arrest him for disorderly conduct.
July 27, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If.........But it didn't
July 27, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you are either missing or choosing to ignore my point. You don't need to wait for the actions to incite an actual riot before you can arrest someone for disorderly conduct or disturbance of the peace. If the cop believed that Gates actions would lead to a larger public disturbance, then he has justification to arrest him. Same way that you can arrest someone for carrying an illegal weapon before they actually shoot someone with it.
July 27, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still trying to avoid the facts of the matter by slinging "What ifs" that are IRRELEVANT to the matter.
This is a discussion of "disorderly conduct" law in MA. The arrest, for the "reasons" CROWLEY alleged, was ILLEGAL:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/07/the-henry-louis-gates-jr-arrest-and-disorderly-conduct.html?=features
Others have noted other discrepancies, such as those between the account by the woman who called 911, and Crowley's report of that woman's account.
If you listen closely to the statements made by the Cambridge PD, and such as the "Fraternal Order of Police" spokesman's ABSTRACT "defintion" of "disorderly conduct," you'll note they are AVOIDANT of the ACTUAL incident, and addressing THOSE SPECIFIC facts. Wanna play "IF"? -- then play "WHY do they not want to discuss the ACTUAL facts of the ACTUAL incident"
July 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a brilliant link! Except the moron who wrote it distorts the most basic facts about the actual arrest, which was provided with an abundance of witnesses.
But nobody on the scene (as far as I know) disputes the fact that Crowley was walking away from Gates outside the house, and it was only when Gates continued to shout, outside the house, after two warnings, that Crowley arrested him.
July 27, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the law it says "disturbers of the peace" can be fined or imprisoned. My interpretation of the situation is that Gates was disturbing the peace. Thus his arrest was justified.
July 27, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and that's why I included disturbing the peace in this poll where nobody is answering the questions.
But it would actually represent a huge elevation of the level of discourse if even 10% of the commenters realize that Gates was arrested for shouting at a cop from his front porch, however anyone may parse the details.
July 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not FROM his front porch. ON his front porch.
July 28, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: The answer is that no one, ever, should be arrested for shouting.
Shouting does not cause panic. Absent some sort of physical threat, the most a cop should do in case like this - no matter who or where we are talking about - is put the cuffs on and sit them in the car to cool off. We need common sense restraint while accomplishing the goal, which is defusing the situation.
I doubt anyone would find that sort of response as objectionable the same way hauling the guy down to the station comes across, which is a petty abuse of power. Minor, to be sure, but still abusive of the public trust. I expect better for my tax dollars than to be treated like a criminal for letting a few things off my chest, at volume.
July 28, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to CROWLEY - the only person on the scene to whom you grant credibility -- Gates was yelling at him IN GATES' KITCHEN BEFORE CROWLEY got him outside onto the porch.
Not so by the way, neither Crowley nor Gates were acting under California/Malibu laws.
July 28, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
MA law is to be "interpreted" by MA courts -- and they've ruled on this matter in favor of persons in Gates' position -- not by those who are not only from elsewhere than MA but who also avoid the facts by means of speclations in order to defend the cop.
I hope you have opportunity to hear the tapes of the woman making the 911 call, and then compare that with Crowley's statements in his report which are starkly different than the facts revealed by that tape. Then you can distort THOSE facts to your satisfaction in order to continue to make excuses for Crowley.
Not so by the way: at the same time that tape was released, the Cambridge PD chief (a significant backdown) said that, based upon review of the case, there are many things "we" -- meaning THE PD -- can learn from it.
Might he be referring, in part, to the fact that "race" didn't enter into it, as concerns the call to 911, UNTIL THE PD DRAGGED IT IN -- which was then continued by mistatements of fact by CROWLEY in his report of the incident?
July 28, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be so sure that this case is exactly like the others MA has ruled on.
I am not distorting any of the facts. The 911 tapes do contradict what Crowley says the woman told him in a conversation at the scene. I don't have enough to know whether Crowley is lying or she is lying.
July 28, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious you'll do ANYTHING to keep this issue going.
How many fucking times must you be told -- law-illiterate -- that the LAW in Massachusetts is exactly as I -- and many Massachusetts lawyers, speaking directly to this specific incident -- have said: PROTECTED SPEECH is NOT grounds for arrest.
And get real, ass: Gates, disabled and on a cane, was confronted by FOUR ARMED COPS, IN his house -- his KITCHEN, to be exact. He is NOT stupid: he wouldn't antagonize them.
In addition to which, those cops would boast of being PROFESSIONALS -- which MUST mean they can't be antagonized by mere PROTECTED SPEECH.
FACT: Crowley DIDN'T talk to the woman AT THE SCENE -- OR ANYWHERE ELSE. We KNOW she's telling truth on that point, exactly as and because we KNOW she is telling the truth about what she said during the 911 call: we have the tape of that.
It was the POLICE that dragged RACE into the issue -- WE HAVE THAT ON TAPE. And we KNOW Crowley states "facts" in his incident report -- which is an OFFICIAL document -- which ARE NOT FACTS.
July 29, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you being so argumentative on the topic? Some cases have ruled in favor of people behaving like Gates, but not every case is the same. But the MA law itself is ambiguous and says you can be arrested for disturbance of the peace. I won't say whether or not I think Gates is stupid - but he definitely did antagonize the police. Why would he do this? I've taken the guys class in college and know what a big chip he has on his shoulder.
We don't know whether she spoke to him at the scene or not. That happened after she called 911. It's possible that she could have spoken to him at the scene and use the words "black" and "backpacks". I have no idea why she would do that but it's possible she could have changed her story. Presumably we'll now more as the investigation progresses.
Thankfully people like Colin Powell are stepping up and saying that Gates should have been more cooperative with the police.
July 29, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is YOU who is being argumentative: instead of sticking to the known facts, you drag in speculations, ifs, possibilities -- ANYTHING but accept the known facts, which adversely reflect on the white cop.
You're intellectually sloppy, likely intellectually dishonest, and I'm convinced underlying is racism.
August 10, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a "fact" that Crowley didn't talk to the woman at the scene. The "known fact" is that his statement contradicts her 911 call transcript. But you can't make a definitive conclusion that therefore the cop is lying and she's telling the truth.
It is one person's word against another's. We don't know if she changed her story after the 911 call or if he is lying.
August 10, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Unless there is proof she's a liar, it is a fact.
2. In his offical report of the incident, Crowley stated that she said, "Two black men with backpacks." The 9/11 tapes reveal that SHE DID NOT say that; not only did she say "suitcaces," she made no mention of ANY race until the POLICE ASKED her -- and even THEN she didn't say "black".
But keep on lying in behalf of the white cop, racist.
August 12, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless there is proof that she is a liar, it is a fact??? That doesn't make any sense at all.
So I could tell the police that somebody robbed my house because my jewelry is missing. As long as there's no proof that I lied, then it's a fact?? That doesn't make any sense at all. If nobody ever finds the landfill where I dumped the jewelry, then it's a fact that I was robbed even though I told a lie?
As for your second point, you are mixing two separate events. What she told Crowley at the scene could have been different than what she said on the 911 call. Crowley says that when he spoke to her she made the two black men with backpacks comment. She certainly could have contradicted herself versus what she said to a 911 operator on the phone.
I don't know why you assume that what she said to him in person must have been verbatim to what she said on the phone to someone else.
August 12, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enraged Harvard post grad students and professors insighted by a middle aged professor bellowing, "Burn baby burn!" from his front porch, set fire to a quiet neighborhood in which they resided, overturning cars, lawn ornaments and backyard swing sets. Lawn maintainance crews and domestic workers expressed shock. One maid who spoke under condition of anonimity said, "I didn't know the Mrs. had it in her. She just lost her mind and started smashin' stuff with the hedge trimmer."
Standing by the bus loaded with chanting, screaming intelectuals, Sgt. Crowley said, "If only I had arrested that maniac Gates when he started, all this could have been avoided."
July 27, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
very nicely done
July 27, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know who was standing out front of the house?
July 27, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would I care who was outside (reports have said 8-10 people). Who was outside is not so important as the fact, that according to witness statements and the radio dispatch tapes Crowley lied in the police report.
July 27, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a different topic. Fpie is implying that it was just students and teachers, who would be unlikely to become unruly.
I know people at Harvard and in general the students are white and the non-professor staff (ie housekeeping, food services, maintenance, etc) are all lower class black. The house was right next to campus and therefore it's more than just students and professors who would be walking past the house.
Crowley's account doesn't contradict the tapes necessarily. The caller said on the phone that one man was hispanic and the other she didn't see.
Crowley said that the caller spoke to him and told him directly it was two black men. Could the caller have changed her story and told 911 something different than what she told Crowley? Perhaps. I don't have enough information to have an opinion as to which one is lying. Without knowing the caller or Crowley, it's hard to know which one is telling the truth. But like I said, that's a different topic.
July 27, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The caller was civic minded enough to report a potential crime in progress. Why would she change her story.
I don't understand what the make-up off the crowd has to do with this.
July 27, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea why she would change her story. I could think of a few reasons but that would be pure speculation. But it's certainly possible. Will you accuse me of being a racist like you did to Don K?
My point on the crowd is that there could be people in the crowd that the officers were worried could get incited if Gates continued ranting about "black men in america" etc. Others here have said that that is impossible because it was all just professors and students who are not generally likely to get excited. But I don't believe it's accurate to assume that the only people in front of the house were professors and students.
July 27, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
why would the make up of the crowd make a difference?
July 28, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now, you want to say once again, that I called someone a racist; when you know for a fact that i did not. This is every bit as disingenuous as all of this "what if" drivel you are cluttering the thread with, grow up.
July 28, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did so. Just look at his reaction to your comment (and others reactions as well).
July 28, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The police need to make a judgement as to how the crowd would react to hearing Gates screaming about the "racist cop".
July 28, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That "judgement" being based on what? You have still not said, why the make up of the crowd would make a difference.
July 28, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it was likely that members of the crowd also start chanting "racist cop" and start a confrontation with the police, then it's reasonable for Gates to be arrested for disorderly conduct/disturbance of the peace.
July 28, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How would the police officer be able to ascertain the crowds potential reaction.
July 28, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
By judging from how they were reacting to Gates' screaming and ranting.
July 28, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, what does the make up of the people gathered, have to do with it.
July 28, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't the one who brought up the "makeup" of the people. But thanks for trying to make me into a racist. I simply made the comment that the bystanders could get incited by Gates' comments. Some other person commented that it's unlikely professors or students would do that. I said it was likely a mixed group of lots of different types of people. So you can't assume the bystanders wouldn't get riled up.
July 28, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racist is a word you used not me. Guilty conscious?
July 28, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you were the one who started using the word racist with Don K, not me.
July 28, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
making shit up.
July 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote. When you ask someone if they're a racist that will usually set them off.
July 28, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can stick to the facts, or one can attempt to avoid them by floating some irrelevant "IF".
July 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not there, but it seems to me that the cop could have reasonably thought that Gates actions might start something larger given the crowd on the sidewalk
July 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there even the remote possibility that he could have started a riot? That any of the neighbors reported to be watching would have begun rioting incited by his shouts even if he had exhorted them to?
July 27, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, because I wasn't there. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that it was going through the cop's mind. Therefore he arrested him for disorderly conduct
July 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the policeman was so worried about a riot, why did he talk Gates into going on the front porch so that he could arrest him?
July 27, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cop made a mistake. He should have kept him inside. But once he was outside, Gates kept on screaming, attracting attention.
I'm not saying that the cop did the right thing in arresting him. I am saying that it was justified.
July 27, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A riot of Harvard profs in the middle of the night? Right.
July 27, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a list of who was there? Plus, it wasn't in the middle of the night. Try 12:44pm.
July 27, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The police report says 7 bystanders. I have read there were more cops than bystanders in an article I can't find now so take that with a grain of salt.
July 27, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The color you've provided doesn't really prove that Gates couldn't reasonably be arrested for disturbing the peace.
July 27, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you address the absence of two Black men being quoted in the police report and the denial of the witness that she had a conversation with Crowley?
July 28, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't want to address the discrepancies in the report, this is what he wants to discuss;
Why would I care who was outside (reports have said 8-10 people). Who was outside is not so important as the fact, that according to witness statements and the radio dispatch tapes Crowley lied in the police report.
Posted by jonnienohands in reply to a comment from MiddleClassBill
July 27, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a different topic. Fpie is implying that it was just students and teachers, who would be unlikely to become unruly.
I know people at Harvard and in general the students are white and the non-professor staff (ie housekeeping, food services, maintenance, etc) are all lower class black. The house was right next to campus and therefore it's more than just students and professors who would be walking past the house.
Crowley's account doesn't contradict the tapes necessarily. The caller said on the phone that one man was hispanic and the other she didn't see.
Crowley said that the caller spoke to him and told him directly it was two black men. Could the caller have changed her story and told 911 something different than what she told Crowley? Perhaps. I don't have enough information to have an opinion as to which one is lying. Without knowing the caller or Crowley, it's hard to know which one is telling the truth. But like I said, that's a different topic.
July 28, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly somebody isn't telling the truth. Both Crowley and Whalen have motives to massage the truth in order to improve their image and make it appear that they were not "racial profilers".
(And by the way - now the lawyer is saying that the witness DID have a conversation with Crowly - although it was just a brief statement identifying herself to Crowley as the 911 caller).
July 28, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conversation : "Wait there"
When you seriously argue that 8-10 people are going to riot because of Gates' arrest, you can no longer be taken seriously.
If Crowley fudged his police report, then all of the sergeant's statements come under question.
July 28, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why couldn't Gates' racial remarks have possibly started a larger uprising?
July 28, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why did he lie in his report ?
July 28, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not clear yet who's doing the lying.
July 28, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crowleys statement doesn't jibe with the dispatcher tapes, the dispatcher clearly stated race unknown. Crowley lied in the report or the Cambridge PD doctored the tapes.
July 28, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not exactly accurate. You're ignoring the conversation that allegedly occurred between Whalen and Crowley. The police report says he spoke to Whalen and that's how he learned about "black" and "backpacks". She says the conversation never happened. I don't know who's not telling the truth.
July 28, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
P. Shouting at the staff at the DMV...
P1. Never.
P2. Always.
July 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of them are obviously deaf, blind, and drunk, so shouting and even obscene displays are permitted.
July 27, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll:
1. Did the female witness who called 911 mention race?
A: Yes
B: No
C: When pressed, she said she was unsure, but one may have been Hispanic?
2. Did the police report say that the witness mentioned 2 Black males
A: Yes
B: No
3. Did Crowley state that he talked to the female witness?
A: Yes
B: No
4. Did the female witness say through her lawyer that she never talked to Crowley?
A: Yes
B: No
July 27, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sub-poll: (in the style of rmrd0000)
Did Crowley have an absolutely unblemished record of dealing with minorities in Cambridge, and was he chosen to teach a course about racial profiling because he was extremely knowledgeable and sensitive on this subject and one of the least likely police officers in Massachusetts to be guilty of racial profiling?
A. Yes.
B. No, but I only chose "no" because I'm an ignorant hoodoo with an uncontrollable urge to cheer for Obama, hate the police, distort reality, chug koolaid, and unlike Sergeant Crowley, I would poop my pants before I risked my ass to protect anybody from possible home-invaders.
July 27, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice dodge. The witness said after repeated questioning that one individual might be Hispanic. Eyewitness IDs are always suspect, but how did that faulty ID become two Black males in the official report?
Crowley's report says distinctly that he talked to the female witness. If this is not true, can other aspects of Crowley's report be false?
July 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept without question anyting in Crowley's report and after-incident public statements which condmen Crowley. That includes his statement that he arrested Gates for allegedly saying something against Crowley's mother: if Gates said such, then it is PROTECTED SPEECH, and Crowley violated Gates' first amendment rights by FALSELY arresting him.
One would think Crowley would know something about that area of law, as MA law is very narrow as to favoring police in such cases.
July 27, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike most of us, JNagarya uses an actual contemporary photograph of himself as an avatar, and anyone who is tempted to dismiss his comments as retarded should ask himself or herself how intelligently he or she could have commented on complicated subjects at the same age.
July 27, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now wasn't that a cheap shot!
But seriously...
Harharharhar!!!
July 27, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was a cheap shot.
And the MA law is I said. I've an education in law, and reside in MA.
And his after-incident PR blitz on local AM talk radio included his statement as I paraphrased it: that he arrested Gates -- AFTER, note, determining not only that there wasn't a crime in progress, and NO laws were being violated, AND verifying both Gates' identity and that Gates belonged there -- for allegedly insulting Crowley's mother.
Did Gates act like an asshole? Perhaps. But if that were illegal, then 99.99 per cent of humans on the planet, including Crowley, and most toddlers and infants, would be in jail.
July 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention most of the bloggers on TPM.
July 28, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
AND MY DOG
July 28, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering. . .
Is this a first amendment issue, or a fourth amendment issue. both perhaps? Does the constitution protect grumpy old men from arbitrary detention for saying asinine things while standing on the porch of their own house? I certainly hope so, because the older I get the grumpier I get.
And then it occurred to me. . . thank God this didn't happen in Texas or it might have been a second amendment issue.
July 28, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
YYYYAAAYYYY! After more than fifty years I finally achieved my most ardent desire: to be 2 again!
July 27, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats!
July 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Discussion of "disorderly conduct" in MA law --
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/07/the-henry-louis-gates-jr-arrest-and-disorderly-conduct.html?=features
July 27, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Police officers don't falsify reports, it must be the witness who is lying. Oh, the 911 tapes, they were tampered with. Enough, of this maligning a of poor man just trying to do his job and besides he has an impeccable record. rofl
July 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In every case the shout would have to move from the case of a deed to an action.
Shouting threats at the neighbors from one's porch? Potentially. I'd prefer the arrest to come the second time.
Shouting at responders in an emergency? Only if the shouting somehow managed to obstruct emergency work. But that would be more than shouting. A person shouting loud enough to make it hard to for emergency responders to hear their radios should be asked to move out of the emergency scene. If the person won't, or is otherwise physically obstructing efforts, arrest.
In a genuine case of a noise ordinance problem ... if the person were screaming at 3 am loud enough that the neighbors couldn't sleep, a warning, followed by an arrest if the the person persisted in the behavior.
July 27, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for replying on point. I agree with all your cases, but don't understand the distinction you make between deed and action.
And maybe it's just me, but in an emergency situation, I think my brain could be significantly distracted by a volume of noise that would still allow me to hear my radio, and those guys are usually cranking their radios to the max.
It's just a quibble, but there's a sort of parlor trick where you try to remember a 7-digit number (like a phone number) while somebody else recites a string of random digits.
It's surprisingly difficult!
July 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I mistyped in haste.
"Rises to a deed" or "rises to an action."
"Goes from speech to an action."
That's what I meant.
July 27, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a genuine case of a noise ordinance problem ... if the person were screaming at 3 am loud enough that the neighbors couldn't sleep, a warning, followed by an arrest if the the person persisted in the behavior.
-------------------------------------------------
This is a good point. I've played my stereo uncountable times at a volume greater than I can shout and never had a visit form the cops over it.
July 27, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really glad I don't live next to you, oceankat.
Although, as I recall, you have good taste in music.
But cranking your stereo louder than you can shout in a trailer? Oy.
July 27, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject the poll's premise.
The only courses of action are not "arrest" and "do nothing." "Remove person from premises" comes to mind as applicable in some cases.
July 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how do you suppose that the police can remove anybody from anywhere without making an arrest?
That would be a very significant extension of police power, but I haven't ever seen such a thing.
July 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you give them a lift to city limits and tell them to get lost? I saw it in a movie, it must be true.
July 27, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for injecting a little "Hollywood consciousness" into these otherwise glamorless proceedings.
Now I feel more at home.
July 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is probable that in order to remove a person from the premises, especially but not necessarily if the person is unwilling to be removed, one must first make it "formal" by ARRESTING the person.
July 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it does not require a person to be arrested.
July 27, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you cite some authority for that assertion?
July 27, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too would like a cite for that. But make it to MA law.
July 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, remind yourself that removing someone does not necessarily involve carrying that person out (this is why I rejected the dualistic premise to begin with.)
An involuntary removal, if you wish to explore that option, would usually already involve a revoked invitation or trespassing, but aside that police officers explicitly do not have the authority to remove from premises persons considered tenants. This leaves out invitees and licensees -- you have, for example, seen people escorted out of town council meetings, or removed from bars or restaurants where they have entered as invitees.
Finally, you may also want to distinguish between detainment and arrest.
July 27, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for cite as substitute for rhetorical surmise.
July 27, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly it comes from personal experience.
July 27, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be legal to hold a rally on Gates front lawn with 50 people with signs saying, "racist cops" all chanting that at the top of their lungs?
July 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I'm usually on the side of police power in most aspects of this particular episode, I have to say that a "rally" belongs in an entirely different category from a private confrontation with police, and in my opinion anyone at a "rally" could have shouted insults at Crowley all day without being guilty of anything, except a possible violation of some local ordinance about where the "rally" was assembled.
July 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point and the difference. If you've read any of my posts you know I disagree. The right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances doesn't require you assemble with even one other person.
July 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But even at a rally there are usually scores of police ready to arrest people if things get out of hand.
July 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No
July 27, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Substantiate.
July 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called disturbance of the peace.
July 27, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
By whom?
And doesn't that ultimately require the word not of a cop but of a jury?
July 28, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you mean when you say "By whom"?
Ultimately a jury gets involved but they can't get involved unless a cop makes an arrest.
July 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
By whom? COP -- or the LAW on the point?
By whom? YOU -- or the LAW on the point?
I assure you that this issue has been litigated numerous times over the three-century of history of Massachusetts/-Bay, and that, therefore, the fact pattern in this instance has been litigated and ruled upon before this instance.
July 29, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crowley:
She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," the report says. "She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html
Witness lawyer:
On CNN the caller's lawyer says she never stated there were any black men and she said she never talked to Sgt. Crowley. So why in the police report did it say Sgt. Crowley talked to the caller??? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html
This needs to be clarified
July 27, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the relevant portions of the tapes, being played on the news, and (increasingly) compared and contrasted with Crowley's police report, she DOES NOT mention "backpacks". She does mention what appear to be TWO SUITCASES.
Nor does she say in any instance "black males". Rather, when asked/pushed by the 911 dispatcher on the point, she said she hadn't got a good look at the two "gentlemen" (her word), but that one might have appeared to be Hispanic.
We may find that racial profiling was the fact: "They were black males, after all, which are, as we all know, justifiably suspect."
July 27, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sad, but MCB is serious.
July 27, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it make any difference if there had been 23 break-ins in that neighborhood this year, as the NY Times reports?
Does it make any difference that Prof. Gates hadn't quite just flown in from China on a 14-hour flight, but had actually spent the previous night in New York?
Does it make a difference that lone police always try to get people to step outside rather than risk entering a house, whatever color the occupant?
July 27, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answering questions isn't exactly customary on TPMCafe, but let me just say...
Yes, yes, and yes.
And...
Yes.
"There were only three questions. Why did you add an extra yes?"
I added it just to show how incredibly agreeable I am!
July 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your generosity exudes confidence, and vice versa.
July 28, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you at all concerned about Sgt Crowley's report indicating that he had talked to a witness who denies that the conversation took place?
July 27, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
no one wants to talk about that.
July 27, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. Some will dismiss facts that do not agree with the script that Gates was an idiot acting like a homeless person.
A Northwestern University stay found the Cambridge PD in the top 40 abusers of racial profiling. I say this to say that Prof Gates may have been wary of having a Cambridge PD officer question why he is his own home.
Crowley's report states that he personally had a conversation with Ms Whaley. This fact is in dispute instead of backing off some are arguing that the conversation was between Ms Whaley ad another officer. If this is the case, we are still left with why Crowley says that he had the conversation.
If the conversation is not factual, other elements of Crowley's report deserve further scrutiny.
July 27, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
does it makes a difference if you are making the stuff up?
1. Gates was sick, tied, and on jet lag. Plus, I tried to check this "night in NYC" on Google, to no avail.
2. Few dispute that Sgt. Crowley was fully aware that nothing wrong would happen to inhabitants of Ware St. would he just drive away. Including the residence that he just investigated
3. What was exactly the risk that Sgt. was evading by "trying to get people step outside the house" if he was already inside? And after thorough determination that Prof. Gates is unarmed and (mostly) harmless?
On the other hand, I have no idea what is the importance of the fact that the info that Sgt. Crowley had on the situation mentioned two suspects with suitcases and no identified race rather than "two black males with backpacks". It neither helps or hurts his account. It merely indicates that his recollection may be correct on a general level, but he was surely sloppy with details. So, one may wonder: were the citizens on the street startled or bemused? Was Prof. Gates yelling, or wheezing (as he claims)? The difference is smaller than the one between a backpack and a suitcase. (I guess I would prefer to carry out a robbery with a suitcase, you can put more stuff in, and if it is a sturdy specimen, you can use it as a cover in an eventuality of a gunfight.)
July 27, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates: "We flew back on a direct flight from Beijing to Newark. We arrived on Wednesday, and on Thursday I flew back to Cambridge. I was using my regular driver and my regular car service. And went to my home arriving at about 12:30 in the afternoon."
Granted, jet lag can hit later, but the way some interpreted this in comments was that Gates was just off that long flight and worn out, not that he had overnighted in New York. But Prof. Gates seems to be a bit sensitive in much of what he does.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072709.shtml
Here's a video Prof. Gates might view to see how police normally respond to public resistance to their orders:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-just-too-easy-by-digby-update-heres.html
As I noted, a neighborhood with 23 break-ins, you would think someone might praise a cop for showing up quickly. [At Columbine, police waited for backup 2 long hours while students got shot up. So thanks, I'll take the pro-active cop.] If Gates were being held hostage by an intruder as sometimes happens, would he be grateful that a cop didn't just nod and walk away? Again, I don't justify arresting Gates based on him being a loud-mouth ass, nor do I dismiss millions of acts of racism based on a non-act of racism.
July 28, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have no idea what is the importance of the fact that the info that Sgt. Crowley had on the situation mentioned two suspects with suitcases and no identified race rather than "two black males with backpacks". It neither helps or hurts his account."
In fact it hurts his account, when one compares SEVERAL claims he made which are FALSE:
1. He said the woman who called 911 identifed the "suspects" as black males with backpacks. We've now heard the tapes of her call, and she said no such thing.
2. She said NOTHING about race until ASKED by the 911 operator. And even then she DIDN'T say "black". What would race have to do with it, though, if not "racial profiling"?
3. He said he talked to the woman. He hadn't.
Apparently you don't see it as lying, or racist, when a cop conveniently "fills in the blanks," including the dragging of race into it by the PD itself, and the claim to have spoken with the women, when he had not, and misstating essential facts:
"black" v. "I don't know"/"MAYBE Hispainic, BUT I don't know"
"backpacks" v. "suitcases".
In a trial such details can be crucial, and would be in this case. One would think Crowley would know better than essentially tie things together as he preferred: "two black males with backpacks" is justification -- but also FALSE.
July 28, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never voluntarily step outside or invite police inside when they show up at my door unannounced. It wouldn't even occur to me to do so. And I was raised by a police officer.
Crowley naturally didn't want to enter the house alone until he had investigated. But the correct response was to wait for backup (which wasn't long in coming) and then enter.
July 27, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink