It's Not About Race, Dammit
Take it from a southern white guy. Usually when a white guy says "this has nothing to do with race" it's a great big flashing "Danger Danger" sign that the speaker is about to say something incredibly racist.
This time, however, it's got nothing to do with race. And it has a lot less to do with "liberal" than with "libertarian." At least for me.
I am not excorcised about the Gates arrest because The Man was hassling a brother for doing nothing and my guilty white liberal heart bleeds for him.
That's not to say I am insensitive or unsympathetic to what may (or may not) have set Gates off. I get that black people, and in particular, black men, often, perhaps invariably, have a fraught relationship with the police. I even recall the time it really hit home to me how bad it was. During the very bad year of unemployment after I graduated from law school into the 1991 recession, I managed to total two cars in six months. My insurer tagged me as the at-fult party in both, cancelled my insurance and put me into the bad risk pool. What with the joblessness and the injuries from the second wreck and the pittance I got for the second car and the impossibility of obtaining anything except very expensive liability coverage, I really didn't have any choice but to buy a cheap, POS heap. Having been in two wrecks, I was also inclined to buy the biggest effing 70s Detroit battletank I could wrap around myself, at least until I got over the flashbacks. Even after I finally got a job, I had to keep that embarassing, baby pee yellow '77 Mercury main battle tank while I dug out from under the the worst of the debt, rebuilt my credit and waited for the wrecks to drop off my insurance record.
So much for the background. First year associates keep crappy hours sometimes, so one night, about two in the morning, I was driving the baby pee tank home after a long night rewriting a brief whose manifold deficiencies had been identified in red ink by older and wiser attorneys. I was boating down a deserted thoroughfare, my head still back in the office, and, suddenly, out of absofrakknglutely nowhere, I was surrounded by police cars and blue lights. I hadn't been speeding. I didn't have any burned out lights. I hadn't swerved or driven erratically or run any lights. As I pulled my car over, turned off the ignition and waited the seven or eight infuriating seconds it always took the heap's engine to stop chugging, I knew, with crystal clear certainty, that I had been pulled over for Driving While Black. I thought that was funny.
It didn't take a psychic to figure it out. I was driving a gigantic 70's car with oxidized baby pee yellow paint in the wee hours of the morning. And I was doing this in a southern town where race relations were at a low ebb due to a couple of high-profile trials of black men accused of violent attacks (one fatal, one nearly so) on young white women. So when I rolled down the window and the cops saw a young white professional in a suit and a silk tie behind the wheel, the change in their demeanor as they whiplashed through grim and on guard, to nonplussed, to partially concealed rueful amusement was comical. They told me they'd been following me for two or three miles (yeah, I was that tired and distracted) and that I hadn't signaled when I turned onto the thoroughfare. They told me to drive carefully and sent me on my way.
And then, on the way home, it stopped being funny to me. Failure to signal? Are you kidding me? In North Carolina, people use turn signals in two and only two situations: when they're merging onto the Interstate (because otherwise, the folks on the Interstate might think your intention is to drive the car into the ditch to the right of the shoulder) and when they're in a dedicated turn lane (especially one with a a green arrow traffic light and a sign indicating that turns in the other direction are forbidden). Other than those two scenarios, North Carolinians stubbornly resist committing themselves to a turn in advance. Maybe they think its rude to go telling folks that they have to watch out for you 'cause maybe you're fixin' to turn, when there's a tiny chance you may change your mind before you get there. Using a turn signal in this state anywhere other than a dedicated turn lane or an on-ramp is so rare that it is actually probable cause to pull you over and give you a field sobriety test.
Those cops thought they saw a poor black man driving around at 2:00 in the morning and equated that to a high likelihood of up-to-no-goodness in progress, so they used a completely bogus pretext to pull me over. Which I already knew, but as I merged onto the Interstate (without signalling--I still wasn't fully assimilated in those days), it finally hit me, really hit me, what a lifetime's accumulation of episodes like that would do to me. How much unreleased rage could build up over time as you had to swallow down your anger and fear and be polite to wary, taciturn cops who pulled you over for no reason other than to interrogate you about what you were up to and run your licence for warrants.
So in my own Wilbur Whitebread walked in his brother-man's shoes for about .05 seconds way, I get the baggage that every police interaction with a black man carries.
And that good white liberal's understanding of the plight of the black man has absolutely nothing to do with why the Gates arrest strikes a nerve with me and gets me pissed off enough to keep commenting long after I, and everyone else, should let it go.
No, I am exorcised about this episode because THE GUY WAS IN HIS OWN GODDAMNED HOME. Yes, he somehow managed to piss off the cop. Yes, the cop in question may be the greatest cop who ever lived and the greatest humanitarian since Mohandas K. Ghandi. Yes, he may have been a great cop and a great human being who just was having a rare bad day and was really annoyed and Gates may have been acting like a complete asshole who was dumping a lot of grievance-laced dung on a solid guy who was just doing his job. I don't know any of that, but I am willing to assume it for the purpose of my point, which is that even if Gates was being a complete asshole to Sgt. Ghandi, he was being an asshole after his identity had been established, after it was clear that no crime or emergent situation was in progress and--this is the important part here, so follow along with me, please--IN HIS OWN GODDAMNED HOME.
Being an asshole, even to a cop, is not a crime. And I'm not just saying that that's a thing that oughta be true. As I noted in a comment on another post, under Massachusetts law, "to be disorderly, within the sense of the statute [that Gates was charged with violating], the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543, 546, 666 N.E.2d 152, 155 (1996). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. 723, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals found no "violent or tumultuous behavior," where the defendant, "flailed his arms and shouted at the police" about alleged violations of his civil rights upon being informed he was being summonsed to court (but not arrested) for assault and battery. (And, unlike Gates, Lopiano was in a public place.)
Further, I definitely don't want anyone to take away from this post that I've got a problem with cops per se. My dad was a cop until I was about five, when he was asked to take some classes on fire fighting and start a fire department for the tiny (pop. 6000) town I grew up in. Even after he became fire chief, the fire and police deparments faced each other on opposite sides of the garage that housed the fire trucks. Even as the town grew explosively and both departments grew busier, day in and day out, they shot the shit with each other between calls, played rough jokes on each other, ate each other's food, drank each other's coffee.
And even after he moved on to other things, my Dad's long association with the local P.D. got me out of many a youthful misadventure without an arrest or a mortifying escort home. Many's the time that a local cop looked at my license, put my name with my Dad's, asked me if he was his boy and then sent me on my way with an admonition to get home and stay out of trouble. That probably would not have been enough, however, if not for my Dad's lessons in how to behave if you're stopped by the police. He trained all of us from a very young age to be polite when them, to never give them a hint of attitude and always act respectful. And I do respect cops as a rule. I respect them immensely. I appreciate them for keeping us safe. I know how many of them are fundementally good-hearted men and women who hide a genuine desire to serve and protect behind a shield of machismo. I get that they have deal with a parade of stupid mopes so I don't have to. I appreciate that they encounter dangerous situations and deal with the stress created by not knowing which situations are going to turn out to be dangerous. I particularly understand that they deal, day in and day out, with horrible situations that range from the merely emotionally draining to the utterly devestating, situations that would turn me into basket case in a week.
And all that being true, I still think the important thing to recognize here is that even assuming Gates was being a complete turd--which I don't know--he was also an old man whoi walked with a cane who was, and--I hate to say it yet again, but people don't seem to be grasping the that this is the critical ssue here--HE WAS IN HIS OWN GODDAMNED HOME when he was arrested. Sgt. Crowley's report clearly states that Gates' identify and ownership of the house had been established before he was arrested as had the lack of a crime to investigate. And even if Gates followed the the cop outside, and even if he continued to berate the cops after he got out there, Gates was still, under the law, IN HIS OWN GODDAMNED HOME. That's right, his porch and his sidewalk were still his home. Contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe, your porch, your front yard and all of the property surrounding the house, and not visably separated from it are, to use the legal term, "curtilage." Curtilage is the area outside your home that the law treats as identical to the interior of your home for purposes of the Fourth and Fifth Amendements and for purposes of determining the scope of a police officer's license to be on your property.
And for those saying that, even if he was legally deemed still in his home, Gates was properly arrested because he was disturbing the peace by taking the ruckus outside where people could hear and see it? Please. It's not like saintly Aunt May next door was disturbed in the quiet enjoyment of her tea and knitting by whatever Gates was saying to Sgt. Crowley. Instead, she like everyone else in the vicinity, was already outside watching the show. How do I know that? Besides the fact that its in Crowley's report? I know it because when a bunch of police cars pull up in front of your neighbor's house with the piercing, seizure inducing arrays of twenty or thirty blue and white flashing strobe lights and with all the unmistakable beeps and fascinating snatches of cryptic, but loud, radio chatter, it draws people out onto the street like iron filings to a magnet. That magnetic effect is why they invented yellow police tape and the phrase "move along folks, show's over, nothing to see here." If Gates' neighbors had any peace, it had already been disturbed long before Gates and Crowley took it outside, and, at that point, the neighbors were just spectators at the freakshow. To suggest that whatever additional ruckus Gates might have added when he took his rant outside was distrubing to them is absurd. If anything, it was just a bonus attraction to the show.
What probably was disturbing to them, however, was seeing their aged neighbor cuffed, put in a patrol car and driven Downtown for booking simply because he was vigorously expressing his low opinion of the cops on his property. He was arrested for pissing off an ordinarily good cop who had to know the arrest was bogus but who also knew he had the ability to humiliate and inconvenience the annoying old man, free of consequences.
My Dad taught me to respect cops and to be respectful and polite to them. He also, however, made it clear that one reason you do that isn't necessarily because you actually respect all of them, but, rather because some cops come to expect obsequiousness and instant obedience as their due, as their right. And if the ones who think they're entitled to it don't get it, they can and will abuse their authority by running you in on some bullshit charge--disturbing the peace being a favorite--or, worse, busting your head. Worse still, whether it's a bogus arrest or a busted head or both, they know that as long as their partner tells the same story, they will always beat you in court unless someone gets it on tape. Hell, sometimes they win despite someone getting it on tape. Some of them feel that way all the time. Most all of them feel that way once in a while. After all, they're human beings doing a tough, hard, dangerous job for society for too little pay. Even for hte best of them, it would only be human to occaisionally feel underappreciated and to succomb to the temptation of the power they are given.
And that, in a nutshell, is what bothers me about this episode. It's not about race, or about charges of racism, or about being a good liberal. It's not about whether Sgt. Crowley is a good guy or a bad one or whether Gates was calm or over the top. And it is most definitely not about old fights over whether charges of deliberate race-baiting during the primaries were justified or whether Obama cynically and mendaciously played the race card.
Instead, it's about the simple, important, fact that, cops, by and large and most of the time, deserve our respect, but they are not entitled to it.
That easily overlooked distinction between "deserve" and "entitled" is critically important. That distinction is one of the sticks in the bundle of important little things that, in the aggregate, distinguish a democracy from the authoritarian shitholes that were the plague of the 20th Century. We, as free citizens, have a right to be secure in our homes and in our persons from unreasonable searches and arrests. The sanctity of the home as a place where the individual is sovereign and the power of the state is limited is something precious. It's a concept that our political forebears clawed away from the state, a tiny bit at a time, often at great cost, beginning with a bunch of bullying aristocrats who forced a bullying king to sign a Great Charter acknowledging some limitations on his own power.
Within the confines of his home, including the curtilage, Gates had a right to be an asshole to anyone, cops included, as long as he wasn't threatening imminent physical harm. This entire notion that he "deserved it" or "asked for it" because he should have known better than to mouth off to a cop is an implicit endorsement of the notion that cops are entitled to respect and cringing, obsequious obedience and, therefore, are justified in misusing the power entrusted to them if they don't get it.
This is a minor episode. It is a negligable, and lamentable, distraction from the most important and pressing issue of the day. But the underlying principal is important. At some point during the Reagan years, a lot of big-chilled boomers started dealing with their generational guilt over having called police officers just doing their very important and necessary jobs "pigs" and "fascists" by over-compensating. In the 80s, a lot of them began trying to turn the notion that cops don't merely deserve respect, but rather are categorically entitled to it--merely by virtue of wearing the badge and irrespective of whether they individually deserve it--into a cultural norm.
God forbid. That attitude is unworthy of the citizens of a republic dedicated to the proposition that a person is entitled to his or her opinion. It is one more step on the road that leads to a day when the microcosmic police states we've turned our airports into break out of the terminals and onto the streets of our cities.













Excellent post. I totally agree.
July 25, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinion—legally and personally informed as it may be—does not matter for a nanosecond, NCSteve. You are not a judge or an attorney in this case (not to mention, there is no case), you have no authority to interpret Massachusetts law, and you are misrepresenting a legal issue to a lay audience (which is totally fucking irresponsible).
And you know it.
July 25, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself confused by your comment. I freely admit that I am not licensed to practice in Massachusetts and I'm not a criminal lawyer. However, I know how to read a statute, I know how to read a case, like every graduate of a "national" law school, I dare say I know the Fourth and Fifth Amendment about as well as anyone who doesn't have a criminal practice.
I have as much (and as little) "authority" to comment on the law as any law student writing a law review note, a law professor writing a treatise comparing the law of jurisdictions he's not licensed to practice in or a lawyer TV commenting on a case pending in a jurisdiction he or she's licensed in.
I've been totally transparent about what authorities I'm relying on. There are plenty of attorneys around here to call bullshit on me if I've misstated the law or overlooked relevant authority. (In fact, it never fails to amaze me how many there are here.) If one does call bullshit on me--well, frankly, unless they have me flat-footed, I'll probably argue with him or her, because that's what we do. But so far, no one has.
July 25, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edit. Make that "a lawyer TV commenting on a case pending in a jurisdiction he or she's not licensed in."
July 25, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are offering a misinterpretation of the case. There was nothing in that case cited that even remotely suggested that the statute is unconstitutional, the decision by the court states that the commonwealth by narrowly defining the statute to the "tumult. behavior" test failed to prove that the defendant acted in such a manner.
July 25, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the same standard any court would be obligated by precedent to find Professor Gates' behavior had not risen to "a standard of disorderly conduct" within the intent of the law.
July 25, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't finish this sentence because you are not a judge, you are not a jury, you are not a lawyer, and you do not have all the details to make a final determination about a specific case. The minute you use Gates's name, you are referring to a specific case, about which, again, you do not have the full details.
It's not up to you to arbitrarily determine whether something meets a legal standard just because you read an excerpt from a "precedent" case online and you formed an opinion about it. It's up to a judge in a court of law with the case before him/her. You, dear jonnienohands, merely have an opinion. And your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's here.
July 25, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can read! There is precedent in case law! The case was dropped immediately! The city of Cambridge apologized! I'm do not need to be a judge to apply obvious precedent and common sense.
July 25, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
this link gives a good perspective on the incident, also comment#19 gives a better background for the legal precedent in this case. If the court found Lopiano's behavior didn't meet the level of disorderly conduct they could not possibly find Gates' conduct meeting this standard.
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/comment-page-5/
July 25, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind.
July 25, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the law in this case is pretty clear. Further, as an actual attorney, Steve is more than qualified to find the applicable rulings in Massachusetts state court and bring them to our attention.
I am still not sure why you keep insisting this issue is more murky than it actually is in contradiction to just about everything you wrote in this comment.
July 25, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure why you are elevating the issue of disorderly conduct to the status of arguable legal case with such conviction, jason. The disorderly conduct charges were dropped, there've been no further charges or motions, and so we have a game of hypotheticals, not a true discovery of facts. What exactly are you comparing your "precedent" case to? You're comparing the precedent to dropped charges.
But not only were the charges dropped, Gates and the CPD made an agreement about it behind closed doors. Not only that, but they issued a joint statement:
What is it that you personally don't accept about the legal legitimacy of a "just resolution"? Because NCSteve says otherwise?
July 25, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
there is still potential for legal action, this from your link;
Mr. Gates, a Harvard professor and director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, said he hadn't decided whether to pursue any legal action. He said if the officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, "sincerely apologized, I would be willing to forgive him."
and I left this background on the precedent in this case on other thread;
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/comment-page-5/
please read comment #19
July 25, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hallelujah! Now we are getting somewhere!
There is potential. "Potential" is very wide-open, and we have no idea whether Gates will ultimately challenge the disorderly conduct charge or something else entirely.
In fact, we have no idea if he will bring any charges at all.
July 25, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect a civil case for false arrest would be settled out of court, with Gates donating the proceeds to charity, is a very possible outcome. However, if Crowley apologizes, which may happen at the "beer blast at the White House", we could have a happier ending.
July 25, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I know is, I need a beer now.
July 25, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or a beer neow, as the case may be.
July 25, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do have a gift, NCSteve, for making me laugh. I don't know how you do it, but dammit, I'm charmed. :-)
July 25, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. A police officer must be aware of the definition and application of laws to a degree, or they will be unable to do their job. In, I presume to say our, take on the matter, the rationale given for the arrest in the report is not consistent with the current case law in Massachusetts, as linked to extensively.
2. "Disorderly conduct" is, without addressing this particular case, most definitely a "get into jail free" card for police officers*, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
It would be nice to have a crisp set of exact conditions for disorderly conduct (and other similar laws and statutes), but since it is impossible to compile an exhaustive one, there must be some discretion given. However, the discretion must also be reviewable, and naturally used responsibly by those in whom we invest such considerable power. Further, in many cases, the statutes themselves should be clarified and reduced in scope -- in the case of Massachusetts, this has occurred through case law, but naturally a legislative change would be welcome.
As a sort of a sidenote, I would like to track back to your earlier sentiment and state that if it is desirable for the police to be able to detain people to "cool them off," there should be separate law introduced -- if it does not yet exist -- for a detention based on the individual's own well-being (probably requiring at least a cursory medical); rather than abusing a law created for an entirely different purpose to apply here.
I would like to, again, also point out the distinction between an "unlawful arrest" and an "illegal arrest". I cannot, however -- based on the available information, concur with Mr. No Hand that there is cause for a civil case (morally, at least) and maintain as I have throughout that an *ahem* tea party as suggested by Obama would be the correct resolution.
* I really should not need to specify that I do not think all police officers are evil, power-tripping etc., but someone is bound to try distract with it if I do not.
July 25, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You love yourself some Johnny Law. Got it. I prefer to stand with the average citizen in cases such as this.
July 25, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about charges or racial profiling or whether or not Gates and Crowley are buddies now. This is about abuse of authority and how it happens every day, in every city in America while we don't do squat about it.
July 26, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve makes some interesting points, but by now, most readers have realized that continuing this debate most serves the interest of opponents of healthcare reform, who welcome this as a distraction from the compelling arguments President Obama is proposing to advance the cause of reform.
Obama himself immediately recognized that. He has praised Officer Crowley, invited both him and Gates to the White House for a beer, admitted that his choice of the word "stupidly" was misguided, and done everything possible to express the thought, "Please, let's stop arguing about this incident and get back to the nation's most urgent priorities."
I've read the earlier arguments, and they are being recycled here. I urge everyone who supports the President's agenda to follow his advice.
July 25, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care is indeed important, but it's not as if people venting here is in any way going to slow the enactment of legislation.
As ex-NC says in his headline, the issue isn't merely black professor vs. white cop.
Where to draw the line between police or government authority and an individual's right to privacy is an equally important debate, and one that Ex-NC adds to in his post.
July 25, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, acanuck, at least partly. It may be that "venting" on TPM is totally without any effect on anybody, in which case you would be right. However, I already know that well-reasoned posts here on healthcare - the kind that are currently being replaced by the "venting" - show up conspicuously on Google, in the blogs section related to healthcare reform news.
In the same vein, if other bloggers elsewhere don't refocus on healthcare, as Obama asks us to do, the aggregate effect could seriously reduce the push for reform. Again, the President believes this, and has appealed to us and others to return to the healthcare discussion rather than perpetuate the Gates/Crowley arguments. If he didn't feel strongly about this, I might not belabor the point, but I believe his instincts are sound.
July 25, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I did health care. You mean it's not over yet?
July 25, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Steve - Yes, I remember your healthcare tirade. After all the hyperbole and ad hominems were stripped away, what was left were about three or four sentences with very wise advice - keep pushing, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and therefore support a strong public option over inaction or ineffective action in a political climate that renders a single payer solution non-viable for at least the time being.
Please continue your efforts to make this point.
July 25, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it odd that we are being encouraged to ignore the abuses of authority in order to support the efforts of that same authority elsewhere, as if the two can't be done simultaneously.
How discussion over our rapidly forming police state has anything to do with health care reform is beyond me. Why discussing one should detract from the other given the total disparity in the political processes involved seems illogical on its face. We have interconnected dysfunction in this country that can't be solved through one-dimensional solutions to three-dimensional problems.
Define the debate in this fashion seems in direct contravention to our actual need - which is to attack multiple foundational weaknesses at the same time in an effort to avoid total collapse of them all.
July 25, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Obama is appealing to all of us to avoid distraction from healthcare that comes with focusing attention on the Gates controversy instead. I believe he's right. The question is not whether any of us can discuss two different issues, but whether public attention can be adequately focused on the more urgent issue - health care - when health care reform opponents are using the Gates controversy to shift attention in another direction.
The President has now repeatedly asked us to refocus on health care rather than continue the distraction. This is particularly important now that the Senate Finance Committee is wrestling with both cost control measures and the viability of a public option component to health care reform. With Committee Chairman Max Baucus unenthusiastic about the public option, concentrated pressure is important to preserve that component of reform. It is likely that some type of reform package will ultimately pass, but without a strong public option, it will fail to achieve its goals of near universal coverage at affordable costs.
I believe anyone who disagrees with the President's perspective on this should contact the White House and make the case to the President and his advisors as to why they are wrong.
July 25, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ways in which I would tell the president and his advisers they are wrong would encompass much more than just health care reform.
Regardless, this comment has nothing to do with what I posted. If Obama is only able to do one thing at a time, we are fucked.
July 25, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do see the Gates controversy subsiding, despite attempts to keep it alive, and so to some extent, this disagreement is becoming moot. The change in emphasis reflects well on Obama's determination to bring the public's attention back to health care reform. In general, only a single issue tends to dominate public attention, which is why Gates distracts from healthcare.
It's also a matter of urgency and timing. Our nation, sad to say, will not infrequently learn about incidents such as the recent Crowley/Gates episode, and will have many opportunities to discuss them, but will have very little chance to reform health care anytime soon if the current efforts fail. This is why Obama is so focused on the current reform effort.
I've also seen it personally. In a "town hall" meeting I attended today, organized by my congressman (a Republican), the audience frequently applauded criticisms of the reform effort that would be well understood to be spurious if more media attention had been devoted to the topic. In particular, he implied that the public option would be tax-financed when it fact it would be self-financed through premiums. Given current widespread public reluctance to see tax increases, it was unfortunate that this option, which is a centerpiece of adequate reform, was falsely portrayed.
We may all be capable of considering more than a single issue, but when we continue arguing about Gates/Crowley instead of discussing health care, that choice sacrifices an opportunity to inform the public about the latter, with time running out. It is why the President is still justifiably concerned when the public is allowed to remain misinformed.
July 25, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What time is running out on health care reform?
Why should impose artificial deadlines on such a complex issue. Are we looking for the same sort of crappy results as we got from TARP and the stimulus package? I am sick of hearing we don't have enough time to get this reform package done.
I am more than happy to take as much time as is required to ensure we do this right.
July 25, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made the points I thought were relevant in my comments above. Rather than repeat them, I would invite anyone interested to read what each of us has said to decide for themselves what conclusions they wish to draw.
July 25, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. That was more an answer that says nothing in a very wordy fashion. Further, I notice you are responding to yourself rather than me, which is odd unless you really don't replies to the constant refrain you've got going on.
I could see that as being the case.
Shoving legislation through Congress in a Do-or-Die based on artificial deadlines is just more of the same shitty process we've been getting for decades from Washington. It is why nothing gets done that actually works. Ever.
The only way this effort will fail is if we think the idiots in Congress can craft legislation that is solid enough to fix some of the most serious problems with this health care system in a matter of weeks. Based on the legislation I have read, they are missing at least two or three very important parts of the puzzle. One of which will make any reforms meaningless in short order - the lack of a healthy food policy for the United States and increasingly sedentary lifestyles.
July 26, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If the audience at a republican town hall don't understand the legislation, that is a failure of Congress and the president to impress upon the country the true nature of the crisis.
Had they done so, perhaps scenes like the one you painted would instead involve grassroots conservatives berating their rep for not supporting health care, which most Americans certainly do, even if this current bill has some issues.
Taking more time to get this right is prudent and pragmatic, two things our president seems to appreciate, except when he is asking for massive legislation packages to sign from Congress. Then it is damn the torpedoes and all that.
That is perhaps what is pissing me off most about Obama, despite your apparent inability to criticize the guy.
July 26, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. "Interconnected dysfunction" this usage is priceless.
July 25, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates really played with Crowley to test his professionalism, and Crowley failed the test.
If you read the pdf copy of Crowley's report at link it seems Gates was almost funny. Crowley reports, and later complained, on being asked to come outside Gates said, and I quote Crowley's report: "Ya, I'll speak with your Mama outside"- as Gates is taking Crowley to the verbal woodshed for what Gates perceives as prejudice. At link there is a good analysis of Crowley's official report, basically tearing it apart as showing he lured Gates out to arrest him in a very poor piece of police work. It is by Lowry Heussler, who has worked on police-misconduct cases in Massachusetts.
If Crowley does go the White House as the NYT has just reported he said he would, to have a beer with Obama and Gates, the wind in the wingnuts sails will deflate fast, and Crowley will be dumped by the Lou Dobbs/Rush Limbaughs/Fox News blowhards in the wingnutosphere for the crime of being too friendly with 'the enemy'.
July 25, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
To expand on my comment, Gates knew exactly what he was doing, and would do it again.
He pulled a version of an MLK non-violent protest to demonstrate and publicize bad police conduct for the entire nation.
Crowley unconsciously complied and because of that cops across this nation will, for a while, not want to make the same mistake he did. Their sensitivity level will go up. Just a notch, but as Obama just said, it is a 'teaching moment'.
Gates threw a spanner into the machine of police conceit and hubris. He showed that police can accost you in your own home, arrest you, and they may show no regret. This is a message that will certainly resonate with blacks, and also with many whites.
Gates was the guy in control and the result was just what he expected.
July 25, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
excellent commentary, hopefully your links will supply much needed clarity to the illegality of this false arrest.
July 25, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read Crowley's report on what Gates said, "Ya, I'll come out to speak to your Mama" this is what a man says to a boy he has caught doing something naughty, which is exactly what Gates thought of Crowley.
A man scared of the police or arrest doesn't say such things. On very small scale it was a demonstration of the philosophy in MLK's march on Selma, a non-violent demonstration of police abuse.
July 25, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recognized that attitude from the start. I have had it on many occasions myself. When faced with law enforcement with an attitude; they threaten jail, and I say, lets go. Same thing with people threatening to call the cops, I tell'em, here's the phone CALL'EM. There is a great security in knowing your rights. Fear doesn't enter into it.
July 25, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You or I wouldn't do what Gates did, nor would I have marched into lines of police with batons in Selma in 1965.
Its called civil disobedience, and Gates just happened to demonstrate how it is done on his own property.
July 25, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have done what Gates did. It's called standing up for principal and the rights given us by the Constitution. Denying rights under the colour of authority cannot be tolerated.
July 25, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you johnnie, although I was once stopped by three squad cars with guns drawn as a possible bank robber and awakened at 2AM for a 911 call we didn't make, the cops involved were professional. Hope it stays that way. People who stand up to authority keep the authority under control.
July 25, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legal clarity has been missing or willfully ignored throughout the discussions, on this topic, here at TPM. Your contributions are praise worthy. Thank you.
July 25, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And NCSteve just made it worse by willfully misrepresenting the law!
July 25, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a serious accusation. If you're going to make it, it is incumbent upon you to identify which law I misrepresented and explain what you think the law really is.
July 25, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can't back it up; she's been harassing me for days with this drivel.
July 25, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the one harassing anyone, although you are, jonnie. And I have not once mentioned NCSteve, as your faulty reference (re "this drivel") suggests.
As for you, NCSteve, no, it is not incumbent on me to get your facts straight. You're the professional lawyer. You're the one who introduces the bias (see comments in all caps for example) to your audience and reinforces the bias, not with legal argument, but with simple repetition. The responsibility lies with you to take extreme care in presenting legal opinion in any of your public writings to a lay audience. You do know this, you do know what your responsibilities are as a representative of your profession, and you are clearly trained in how to persuade an audience.
July 26, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
you probably should have replied to ncsteve directly rather than hiding behind another attack on me.
July 26, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
July 25, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have witnessed incidents like this decades ago.
A funnier story was when some football player (if I recall correctly) had been running around in his expensive van from mall to mall to pick up a present for his wife. He was stopped by the cops and could not understand why.
Until it was pointed out that he had entered somebody elses van and the key happened to fit.
The powers that be ended up convinced that he was telling the truth. If he had reacted in the wrong manner he would have been in a hell of a lot of trouble.
Americans, by a great majority do not like to see people being arrested for being on their own premises.
July 25, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Americans, by a great majority do not like to see people being arrested for being on their own premises.
..which is exactly why Gates walked out his door when he probably knew he might be arrested.
He knew any arrest would be at least local news, and he used the incident as a 'teaching moment' for the nation as it turned out. Gates is a guy much smarter and more in control than anyone I have heard give him credit.
Every cop in the nation has got the message, which is why they watched and protested criticism of Crowley so vehemently. No cop wants to be the next one who makes the national news for a similar incident, their defense of Crowley does not mean they would do the same thing again.
July 25, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree! It's about race only in the sense that minorities are often the canaries in the mine when it comes to the power of the state encroaching on civil liberties.
If you want to see the elephant in the mine, there's Cheney trying to use the military to invade suburban Buffalo.
July 25, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just hate it when people succeed in making a point it took me hundreds of words to make in a couple of sentences. (j/k).
July 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thread I left out of an essay that I knew already had too many.
We obviously don't need any additional object lessons in the rank hypocricy and unabashed racism that's destroying the Republican Party. This, however, is another. All you have to do is compare the wignut reaction to this incident to their reactions to the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian episodes.
July 25, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Skip Gates, not doin a thing when a racist cop breaks down his door and arrests Gates for being in his own home. Why the cop went to his house in the first place is a mystery, probably looking for an old black man to arrest.
July 25, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see you have come to a more reasoned opinion of the situation.
July 25, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you're irrelevant.
July 25, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unnecessary, Ripper.
July 25, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And untrue.
July 25, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment kind of makes me wonder if you read the post before commenting.
July 25, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read your post - twice.
You know what people are forgetting here? A report was called in by a citizen about a possible break in in progess by two black males. The witness who called in the report was standing outside the house waiting for the police. The officer went to the door and saw a black male standing in the foyer. Now you tell me what the cop was supposed to do. He doesn't know who lives in the house, the house is owned by Harvard University and the black man inside refuses to produce identification.
Now at this point the officer is responsible for his life, the witness's life and any residents of the house. The person standing in the foyer started screaming at the officer that he's being profiled and targeted by the officer because he is black. Is the officer responding to a called in report or specificaly targeting Gates, because Gates is black? Gates refused to produce any identification until some time had gone by and after he did produce it, he continued to rant that the officer was a racist and he {Gates} was a target of the police. While the officer was in the kitchen of the house and trying to transmit information to the emt system, Gates was still making so much noise that the cop left to finish his call-in.
Gates continued to ask for the officer's name and badge number although the officer had given it to him (and no one questions why Gates found it necessary to call the chief of police and report the officer who was doing nothing but his job). Was the officer supposed to stand outside and continue to yell back and forth with Gates in his house? Is that what you think should have been done? Should the officer walked away and then be accused later of refusing to provide his name and badge number? He asked Gates to step out on his porch and Gates continued to rant and rave and yell and shout, even after being told to stop several times. Now why should Gates continue to yell and make false accusations in public against someone who was doing his job? Why should that be overlooked? This isn't some "cranky elderly man", this is a 58 year old man who refused when asked to provide identification, made false accusations against a police officer and continued to rant and rave long after the incident had been resolved.
The question asked is why the police officer didn't leave? The police officer WAS leaving, he was informing other officers and no doubt by now his supervisor on the scene as to what happened. It was GATES who continued the encounter, not the police officer and I absolutely guarantee you that if the officer had left WITHOUT providing his name and badge number again for the THIRD time, he'd be answering for that today.
So what do we have here? We have someone who refused to to provide id., threatened a police officer that he would have his badge and ruin his career making false accusations in public that the officer targeted him because he was black and acting in an irrational and obnoxious manner even after the incident had been resolved. Gates was intent on revenge against a police officer whom he didn't know because the officer was white and Gates presumed he was being targeted because he was black. With no facts and no information he accused a police officer of racism and racial profiling and threatened the police officer that he would make sure the officer lost his job. Exactly who is throwing his weight and position around and threatening someone's livelihood? It isn't the officer, is it?
After the officer arrested Gates for being disorderly, it was Gates that INSISTED that he be taken to the station, is that the action of a rational human being or the actions of someone who steadily escalated a situation that he had obviously misjudged in the first place?
No, I don't blame the police officer who was responding to a called in report, who acted appropriately and was met with more and more anger, abuse, threats and allegations for doing his job. Instead of apologizing to the officer and backing down and controlling himself, he continued to provoke and escalate. In my book that makes him an asshole and they come in all colours.
July 25, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm reading the police report; your depiction has nothing, other than the names of those involved, correct.
July 25, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's against the law to be an asshole?
Most everyone in the TPM commentariat's in a lot of trouble if that's the case.
July 25, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is secretly why I am so vehemently against the police arresting people for being assholes :D
July 25, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
July 25, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say that? He was arrested for disorderly conduct, not for being an asshole, that just exacerbated the situation. Yesterday, I gave the chapter and section of Mass. law which defines disorderly conduct. Mass. law defines disorderly conduct as "a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm...[and]tumultuous behavior". No one claimed he was exhibiting "tumultuous behavior" nor does he have to be engaged in that kind of behavior to be arrested under the statute. The case you cite was decided on that basis because the commonwealth CLAIMED the defendent in the case WAS engaging in "tumultuous behavior" clause of the statute. The court ruled that the defendant was not engaged in that particular behavior and threw out the "disorderly conduct" conviction.
So, there you have it, the officer could legally arrest him on charges of disorderly conduct and for informational purposes, in the state of Mass., a public place can be a neighborhood, which it states in the case you cited.
People need to read the entire case and the footnotes and look at the statutes before claiming an "illegal arrest" was made. Obviously, it wasn't.
July 25, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the case law noted above?
July 25, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev-If it the arrest was legal why did they throw it out within 12 hours?
Gates wasn't disorderly, he stood up to unlawful harassment, which some courageous Americans have been doing for hundreds of years. There is more to freedom then invading countries on the other side of the planet BevD.
July 25, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He actually cited two cases, one of which you take exception to as applying to this situation and still fail to make an argument based in law to support. I would be happy to see case law from the same legitimate sources that supports your conclusions.
July 25, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read both cases cited and I can tell that no one here has a clue as to what those cases say. the statute is still [part of Mass. state law and both these cases only define the statute as it applies in those particular cases.
July 25, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you keep dismissing the fact that precedent is how laws are decided.
The precedent with regards to disorderly conduct charges in the state of Massachusetts seems to run counter to your interpretation of the applicable laws.
We aren't dealing with an issue that has no existing rulings.
July 25, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question for BevD. I did not know that Gates insisted on being taken to the station. What's the source of that info?
July 25, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no indication in either man's account that Gates made any such request, you are correct.
July 25, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you not read the report?
July 25, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My last two cents (dug out of the sofa):
I used to have an uncle who would stand in his front yard and yell at the neighbors. On occasion, I've heard, he'd shoot his pistol into the air during his tirades. I know that he was arrested more than once IN HIS HOME for disorderly conduct.
I believe many people are judging the officer's actions because of who he arrested. A 58 y.o. transient, even with a limp, will be arrested if disturbing the peace in most places. Gates initially claimed, among other things, that he didn't yell at all because of a bronchial infection. But witnesses have said that Gates was yelling and was addressing the bystanders, too ("This is what happens to a black man..." etc). I think it could be construed as being disruptive (tumultuous) in public. I'm not saying the arrest was the best thing to do but illegal and racist? I think that, probably, the Professor's tirade went on just a bit too long and Crowley felt he had to do something.
But I don't think any of it matters. First, this is being used as an open and shut case of racial profiling, "every black man's nightmare" according to the governor, but it's obviously not so open and shut (witness the discussions everywhere). Crossing a PC line is probably every good cop's nightmare and that line can move like a snake. I agree that this is an ill-defined law (looks like even the MA courts can't agree on it) and it leaves too much discretion to police, but there many laws like that (often abused and often used properly to diffuse situations).
I witnessed gross police abuses when I was younger, and from some of the stories my dad used to tell me, the abuses were infinitely worse in the past. Still, it's a problem that seems to recur. I just don't think this is a case for that debate (when an officer is following an SOP that is flawed, it doesn't make his actions wrong, illegal or racist). Anyway, I'm glad all parties seem to be trying to put this behind them. It is a distraction, though there needs to be a debate about rolling back law enforcement and government powers and invasions.
July 25, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to post this at the bottom of thread. Sorry Bev, I think I was going to compliment your comment and got sidetracked.
July 26, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No, I am exorcised about this episode because THE GUY WAS IN HIS OWN GODDAMNED HOME."
And that's all that really needs to be said. End of story. People have the right to be left the fuck alone and the right to be left alone is no more sacrosanct than in one's onw home.
July 25, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a white person who has been "arrested for pissing off an ordinarily good cop who had to know the arrest was bogus but who also knew he had the ability to humiliate and inconvenience the annoying old man, free of consequences," I deeply appreciate your post. In my case, the person who was unruly was the cop and not entitled to the respect I normally accord an officer.
July 25, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the cops got by 'free of consequences', did the cops with batons who beat unarmed kids in Selma in 1965 get by 'free of consequences'? Yeah, but the demonstration of their abuse of power led to a public uproar that changed their behavior. This is the same thing on a very much smaller scale.
July 25, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so interesting to me how so many are so quick to make non-fact based assumptions.
None of us were there. None of us KNOW the words, nuances and/or actions of any of the principals. All we can do is assume and choose to use our assumptions as a springboard to blame and/or support one over the other.
When choosing to do this - are we not guilty of some sort of preconceived judgment based not on this specific issue but on our own perceptions, not factual knowledge?
Dare I ask, no matter which assumption we make in this case, isn't it just another form of airing our own biases?
What if the police man had been black and Gates white? Would that change your perception/assumption?
In my opinion, none of us have any valid right to make any judgments in this matter, because we do not have factual knowledge of all that transpired.
July 25, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read the post?
July 25, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course.
I apologize for not clarifying, as my comment was directed more at others stances here and elsewhere. Your post is the best I've seen and I should have given you the kudos prior to my comment.
Mea Culpa.
July 25, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry Steve, but even in your own god damned home, if you continue to disturb the peace after numerous warnings from the cops, you are likely going to get arrested, much more quickly than Skip Gates did. You want to try it, go ahead. There is nothing in the policemen's code of conduct that requires them to be doormats for abusive Harvard proessors working out their anger over racial profiling over centuries on a cop that was simply doing his job. We expect policemen to be respectful and not abuse their authority. I don't expect them to be abused for doing their jobs either (like responding to a possible burglary call, entering to find the front door broken and asking the gentleman inside to provide identification proving he lives in the house).
Just like I would be appalled at some right winger who wrote a post on why he doesn't trust black people because one robbed him, I am appalled at Gates' treatment of that one individual cop as racist with no factual basis to do so. The officer did not treat the balck man automatically like a criminal, make him put his hands int he air, pull out his gun. Gates did repeatedly accuse the officer of racism and act belligerent towards him for doing his job.
Respect goes both ways in mending relationships between minority communities and the police. We are set backward wen some elitist asshat like Gates expects to be abusive towards cops because he's a Harvard professor and then has the audacity to treat this as ground zero in the fight against racial profiling. Maybe Obama should start his new national dialogue on race and law enforcement in Oklahoma with teh OK State trooper and the black EMT (and patient).
Gates was the provocateur in this situation and has smeared (and continues to smear through his attorney) by all accounts a decent cop who followed protocol in this situation to the letter.
July 25, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A decent cop would have left the area which would have ended the incident. The NYT reports both men have agreed to visit the White House and 'have a beer' together with Obama so you are the one doing the 'smearing' now.
July 25, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong read on that bub. There was conversation between Crowley and Obama about coming to the White House. Obama then called Gates and recommended a three way conversation. Let's see if that happens. Given that Gates is STILL acting like an asshat towards Crowley and his attorney is smearing Crowley's reputation by asserting with no proof that he is well aware of numerous people who will question Crowley's behavior towards blacks in the past, I am putting down bets that will never happen until Gates becomes more conciliatory and apologizes to the officer for his abusive behavior.
July 25, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should Gates have been arrested for disorderly conduct?
July 25, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about there being no statutory crime called "being abusive toward police"?
You ignore NCSteve's reference to the fact that under Massachusetts law, "to be disorderly, within the sense of the statute [that Gates was charged with violating], the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute." Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543, 546, 666 N.E.2d 152, 155 (1996). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. 723, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals found no "violent or tumultuous behavior," where the defendant, "flailed his arms and shouted at the police" about alleged violations of his civil rights upon being informed he was being summonsed to court (but not arrested) for assault and battery. (And, unlike Gates, Lopiano was in a public place.)
Arrest did not prevent a crime, or respond to one.
July 25, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, I responded a bit below. Steve's arguments are relevant in a court of law to determine whether Gates was guilty of disorderly conduct, not in the cop's decision to arrest based on the statute. Steve's speaking from a lawyer's perspective, not a police officer. Had this case gone to trial Gates would have done well to have NCSteve representing him, but the cop was well within his legal authority and discretion to make the arrest.
July 25, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-takes-on-health-care-detractors.php#comments
July 25, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crowley hasn't publicly accepted. And given that the egotistical Gates is STILL trying to esclate tensions with unnecessary comments like "After all, I first proposed that Sgt. Crowley and I meet as early as last Monday. If my experience leads to the lessening of the occurrence of racial profiling, then I would find that enormously gratifying," I'd be shocked if Crowley shows up to be lectured on racial profiling from some abusive asshat that still continues disrespect him and slander his professional record. Maybe it's just me, but I'm doubtful Crowley will accept when he denies race played any part in the arrest. I guess we'll see.
July 25, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, if Crowley doesn't accept an invitation to the WH to try and talk this out, he's going to look like a complete asshole regardless of what you labelled as Gates' "escalating" and "unnecessary" comments.
Second, do you honestly think Obama would issue an invitation to both of them to try and talk things out and then idly sit back and let Gates lecture Crowley?
July 25, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dija, oh most favorite of gadflies, I understand your point, but I feel you're missing mine.
Did Gates provoke or was he provoked? Don't know, don't care. You care about that and your reasons for caring about it are good reasons relating to the urgent need for blacks and police to break out of their dysfunctional relationship. I too care about that issue, but it is quite irrelevant to the point I'm making here.
I don't know how I can put this more clearly than I already have. Whether Gates was being inexcusably rude or excessively paranoid is irrelevant. Whether he was setting back the cause of better relations between police and the black community a hundred years is irrelevant to the underlying principle that I care about here. Though I do not know what actually happened, I stipulate to his unprovoked, loud boorishness for purposes of my argument. Whether his statements were disrespectful of a fellow human being, a trangression of social norms is irrelevant. Though I don't know what actually happened, I stipulate to those facts for purposes of my argument.
What I do know is that, taking everything in Sgt. Crowley's report as true, and ignoring everything Gates and his lawyer have said about the incident, the conduct Gates is accused of engaging in was an egregious breach of etiquette and inexcusably rude to a guy who'd come there to protect Gates property from what was, as far as Crowley knew, a burglary in progress.
It was not, however, a crime and arresting him for it on his own property was emblematic of how corrosive to our rights as free citizens undue deference to authority can become.
Assuming the truth of everything Crowley said in his report and ignoring Gates version, Gates' inexcusably anti-social conduct was still well within the charmed circle that the law of a free society inscribes--must inscribe--between the individual and the state. Old men have a right to be noisy, paranoid old coots in their home and on their porch, even when the object of their ire is a police officer, and even when the police officer's performance of their duty--not, I note, the old coot's behavior--has drawn a crowd.
It does make a difference. Both under the "law of nowhere" G.P.'s they teach you in 1-L criminal law class and under the case law of the particular statute Gates was charged with violating, it makes a difference. Having read the statute (which is worth reading if only for the charming, anachronistic colonial-era puritan language), the offical jury instructions and the relevant cases footnoted in the jury instructions, I can tell you that how and when and why the crowd gathered makes a difference to whether a violation has occurred. If Gates had just upped and stepped out on his porch one day and started screaming invective at passers-by, causing his neighbors to drop their knitting, run outside and worry whether their neighbor has flipped, he could have been charged with disturbing the peace. Where a crowd of onlookers has already been drawn by the police cars, the peace has already been disturbed. That's why the accused in Lopiano walked.
As long as they have been sufficiently cooperative with an officer's investigation of a reported crime to satisfy the requirements of the law and the exigent circumstances that licensed the officer to be on the property have been dispelled, people have a right to be misanthropic and disagreeable, even to cops. If they cannot exercise that right on their own property without being arrested, the right does not exist.
If this had been a white gun nut who had had the police called on him because a neighbor saw him breaking into his own home with a gun, and then, having satisfied the police that the gun and the house were his, loudly launched into a Wayne LaPierre approved diatribe on his porch about "jack-booted thugs," my feelings would be the same.
July 25, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
July 25, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lopiano didn't walk, the conviction of the charge of disorderly conduct in his case was overturned by the court.
July 25, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are discussing disorderly conduct.
July 25, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve I get your point, oh favorite of Obama-ites ;), but your argument is legal - one that is made after the fact to the DA in deciding whether the priorities of the community are best served in letting the case proceed to court or by a judge if the DA decides to take it to trial. They have nothing to do with to with the discretion of the police officer to arrest someone who is being disorderly and failing to obey police instructions after numerous warnings. That's a criminal justice decision. The officer was well within his discretion to arrest Gates and no one is disputing that except people relying on legal arguments about prior case law. The fact of why the crowd is there etc is relevant in a court of law when the defense attorney is presenting Gates' case. It has no relevance in whether Crowley had the legal authority to arrest Gates at the scene.
When you make your analysis of the law and say Crowley had no right to arrest Gates, you are confusing people into thinking Crowley acted illegally or not according to proper procedure which is wrong on the face of it. Police officers use their discretion to arrest based on the circumstances at the scene. DAs decide whether or not to charge. Your argument is about whether Gates SHOULD have been arrested, not about whether he COULD have been arrested legally. Mr. nohands, JEM and others are confusing the two based on your case analysis which I admit would probably win in a court of law.
And I think the most dangerous part of this argument is giving people the misimpression that they are allowed to be verbally abusive towards cops in similar circumstances. Let's set the record straight. Unless you are Gates, you CAN'T get away with behavior like that. No one expects people to be servile or even polite to the cops, but you can't be verbally abusive int he course of them doing their jobs either. I don't care how pissed you are. At some poitn you walk back int he house, call the press, call the civilian review board etc. Verbally berating the police after being repeatedly told to stop will mean you end up in handcuffs. But some idiot will think this case gives him license to have a national dialogue on race (i.e. screaming you are a racist and talking about officer's mamas) in their own community based on Obama (and others) defense of Gates and they will learn quickly that justice does not work the same for those of us who are not Harvard professors. Way to contribute to the national dialogue on race and police, Professor Gates and President Obama.
July 25, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point being that while you may not be able to get away with such behavior unless you are Gates, you should be able to get away with such behavior no matter who you are under our system of laws as interpreted by at least the Massachusetts state court as well as the spirit of our constitutional compact.
July 25, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
July 25, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
djamo- Gates saying (police report) 'Ya, I am coming out to talk to your Momma" is comedy, not disorderly conduct.
Its a man talking to a naughty boy, or a man talking to man behaving like a boy.
July 25, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very sad (and frightened, quite frankly) that you think it's okay in this country for someone to be arrested for offending the delicate sensibilities of a police officer. And I say this as someone whose father spent 20 yrs as an army mp and another 20+ yrs as a correctional officer for the FBP. Trust me, if anyone has been taught to respect law enforcement, it's me.
There was more than enough stupidity to go around in this case. The difference is that Officer Crowley should've known better than to let the situation escalate. He admitted in his own statement that Gates was "very upset" from the start and so he should've been better prepared to diffuse the tension. HE'S the professional...HE's the one who's received the training....it's no different than holding my 8 yr old to a higher standard than my 2 yr olds.
July 25, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
On that note, I defend the President on his "acting stupidly" comment.
I have an IQ of 143--not stupid. About a year ago, I slammed not one, but three fingers in my car door. By just about all counts, that was a pretty stupid thing to do.
I've said and done stupid things to others during my adult life that I've regretted and apologized for, figuring that gaffes come with the territory we know as life. For Sgt. Crowley to refuse to even consider offering an apology for his behavior is, in my opinion, more damning than the behavior, itself.
July 25, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Accounts". Jeez--see what I mean?
July 25, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he offers an apology it could have legal ramifications if there is future legal action. It may be the right thing to do, but, I would bet my last dollar that lawyers have told him not to apologize.
July 25, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dij, you seem to be saying that if a cop doesn't pull his gun or order a citizen to put his hands over his head he wasn't disrespectful, abusive, or engaged in racist behavior. I disagree. A cop can treat a citizen with disrespect, abuse his authority, or be racist without going so far as to order a citizen to put their hands over their head and pulling a gun.
You also seem to accept Crowley's police report as 100% accurate which means that you must consider Gates' version as a pack of lies. I think it likely that both have areas of truth and untruth. You're entitled to your opinion but I wonder what evidence you use to form that opinion. Did you read NCsteve's link ? You may not agree with the analysis but I think its sound enough to cause one to be at least a bit less sure that Crowley's version is 100% truthful.
And last, not all disorderly behavior raises to the level of criminal disorderly conduct. There is in fact some line that separates legally protected disorderly behavior from illegal disorderly conduct. From links posted by Karl, Jason, and others it appears that the standard in MA is extremely high. You may disagree where that line is but it doesn't seem like you are even acknowledging that the line exists.
July 25, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, I have great concern about racial profiling, police abuse of authority and being abusive towards civilians. This case ain't it. Period. This is a case of an elitist Harvard professor who feels he doesn't have to play by the same rules as the rest of society. White, black, whatever color, anyone who is repeatedly disorderly and verbally abusive towards police officers is going to find themselves arrested a lot faster than Gates, Obama's comment noting that Gates is a eminent scholar is irrelevant. The laws should apply to all citizens equally. Harvard scholars no matter how esteemed they are have no greater license to be abusive to the police than I do.
People get arrested for disorderly conduct in their homes ALL THE TIME. Whether it's domestic violence incidents, or noise complaints where the person refuses to turn down the volume or stop the screaming, radio playing etc, are verbally abusive towards officers in the process of doing their jobs. The only reason this one mattered to Obama was because it was his friend. This is no case of racial profiling. This is no case of police being abusive towards civilians. Not how measured (and how ong it took) Obama to respond to Jena 6 or Sean Bell. How many cases of real police abuse everyday happen, and this is the case to start a national dialogue on relations between minorities and police officers? Please.
This cop was not acting abusively, he was doing his job. I am disgusted that Obama and Gates are egotistical enough to think that this case has ANY relevance in the race relations between officers and minority communities. Are they trying to imply that citizens (black white whatever) are within their rights to abuse police officers int he way Gates did while facing no repercussions? It is irresponsble and stupid to make that argument or think every police officer will be as professional and measured in their response as Crowley was. It is indicative of how far in the ivory tower they are when it comes to real police abuse and racism if they think these issues are relevant at all given these circumstances. And with this nonsense they are minimizing real complaints of police racism and abuse when they happen to regular citizens who don't have the President as a personal friend to defend them from the Oval Office.
July 25, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are asking that an elitist Harvard professor be held to a higher standard of law than is reflected by the statutes and case law currently in effect. Where's the just in that?
July 25, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, you are wasting your time trying to convince people this was not a case of racial profiling. Most people never mention race in their posts. At least a majority have stated they don't see this as a case of racial profiling. You've replied to my posts. I've stated on several occasions that I don't think it was a case of racial profiling. Surely you must have seen me post that at least once. For gods sake dij, the title of this thread is, "It's not about race, Dammit." You're spending your time trying to convince people who came to this same conclusion before you started to convince them. The dialog has moved past this point a long time ago for most people posting here. You're not responding to their posts, you didn't address my post, because you seem obsessed to tell us what we've already told you. This is likely not a case of racial profiling
You are absolutely correct in stating that many people would have been arrested faster than Gates. In fact Crowley said in an interview, "He was arrested after following me outside the house, continuing the tirade even after being warned multiple times - probably a few more times than the average person would," What is Crowley saying? That he has done this before with even less cause than this situation.
Why has this gone on so long? Because so many here have been in situations where we felt the police exceeded their authority. Look at the many stories people have posted of their experiences with police abuse. There are probably more who just haven't posted their story. Here is one of mine.
I have a friend who led a very sheltered life. She is very naive, very unworldly with no street smarts at all. She was walking down the street eating an ice creme cone she had just bought when she saw some cops arresting someone. As it frequently the norm there were several cop cars and at the edge a cop was standing next to his car watching what was going on. My friend walked up, on the sidewalk and asked what's going on? The cop rudely said, "None of your business. Move along." She said, "Why? I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm just standing on the sidewalk." The cop grabbed her, pushed against the hood of the car, handcuffed her and put her in the back. Under arrest for disorderly conduct.
She sat there until the cops finished what ever brought them there in the first place and drove her down to the station. As they took her in the cops laughed and mocked her, "the baby is gonna cry now" while she was weeping with fear, humiliation and furious anger.
She had no resources to get a good lawyer, there where no witnesses, no sympathetic reporter to investigate and write up a supportive article. What do you think happened? Found guilty and given a suspended sentence since it was her first offense.
Well Gates has resources and connections. I know this isn't the best case to argue but the best cases are happening every day to people without the power to do anything but pray for mercy. The Gates case is good enough to send a message that there are better ways to handle these situations than handcuffs and the ride to the station. I still believe Obama made the right response when first asked about this situation. I'll be satisfied if he sticks with his last message, “I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Prof. Gates out of his home and to the station,”
July 25, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please be assured that I do have a healthy skepticism of police behavior based on my own personal experiences and that of friends (including one who was unarmed and actually shot by the cops in a Driving While Black situation). I've worked for an organization that provides public defense to people who can't afford attorneys. That said, I've also had the pleasure of knowing police officers who are abusive of their authority and treat citizens (and suspects) respectfully.
In most cases I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt as I did to Gates. But I don't see abusive behavior in this instance by the officer. His behavior was measured and geez he gave him numerous chances to not get arrested. That's the kind of response I want from police officers to the public. Not yelling back, cursing back, getting physically abusive when their authority s challenged. This cop is not the poster child for abuse of police authority. Gates feels he does not need to be held to the same laws as everyone else. It irks the hell out of me that this asshat is claiming the mantle of oppressed citizen when he is anything but.
July 26, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
oceankat: A naive friend of mine got arrested for impeding an investigation! Have you ever?!
dijamo: A friend of mine got shot minding his own business.
According to oceankat, Crowley should pay the price for what happened to his friend. That's the argument he just made! It's payback time.
Revolting and dishonest.
July 26, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Revolting and dishonest.
------------------------------------------------
So true you've been revolting and dishonest in post after post. Repeatedly making accusations and refusing to back them up. As in this thread where you made this accusation.
"And NCSteve just made it worse by willfully misrepresenting the law!"
"That's a serious accusation. If you're going to make it, it is incumbent upon you to identify which law I misrepresented and explain what you think the law really is."
Your response? Nothing.
I have written numerous long posts detailing why I believe the arrest was not warranted. You've responded to several of them so I guess you read them. I understand you disagree with my arguments but to now ignore them and accuse me of simply looking for payback is insulting. I have lost all respect for you this day. I truly don't understand the attachment that would cause you to make false accusations, make no attempt to back them up, and to insult people over this issue.
July 26, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What respect have you shown me, oceankat? I've responded to you at length. Your response? Crickets!
On this particular issue (cops), you've made little effort as far as I can tell to try to understand where I'm coming from, so your threat of rescinding your respect is fairly empty to me. You've shown me plenty of disrespect already by your repeated erroneous assumptions and knee-jerk reactions to what you think my arguments are. I know I'm speaking English to you, but suddenly it's like you don't understand English. I therefore maintain that you have an enormous blind spot in these discussions. Ironically, you are interacting with me exactly as Obama supporters interacted with you during the primaries: with preconceived notions and inordinate prejudice.
The construction of your last comment to dijamo is exactly as I laid it out (although I left out the part where you lectured her). If you didn't mean for that structural equation to occur, then you shouldn't have structured the comment that way. If it was some unconscious error, then try looking at your words from a reader's perspective who can't read your mind.
FYI, if NCSteve is a practicing lawyer, he can be reported to the American Bar Association or other ethics panel for misrepresenting legal issues in a public forum. It's not at all incumbent on me to answer to him. It's incumbent on him to write about legal issues as accurately and honestly as possible, especially to a lay audience of non-lawyers. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I certainly haven't reported him, and except for some outrage at you and jonnienohands, I have been extremely civil (and even joking) throughout despite being barraged by more questions than I can possibly answer from you, jonnie, jason, kgb, and Karl the Marxist.
July 26, 2009 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have been respectful to the extent I ever can be, but I have a big fuck you in store if you continue to claim that NCSteve is willfully misrepresenting the law without backing your claim up in any way.
July 26, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't defend him if I were you. He needs to take his authority seriously and represent it responsibly. Why? Because people like you are easily duped. That's why there are ethics boards.
Oh, and thanks for jumping in so that oceankat will never see my response. He has a hard enough time finding my responses to him.
July 26, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and thanks for jumping in so that oceankat will never see my response. He has a hard enough time finding my responses to him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All right, I'll respond since you have decided to make an issue of it. I may not read all threads and sometimes I skim over some comments. But if I'm posting in a thread I don't miss any comments, I read and reread everything on the thread I'm posting on.
First your link that you complain I did not respond to. Here is a brief response. Look at the flow of that dialog. You claimed no one is even calling for an investigation. I quoted that Cambridge Police Commissioner Haas has already called for one. You claimed Crowley followed correct procedure. I quoted Attorney Heussler who has worked on MA police misconduct cases who said they were not. You claimed, "That would mean that Gates's behavior would be made public in all its hideous glory. Gates and the CPD determined together to drop the charges. That likely means they agreed not to make Gates's behavior a public spectacle through a court proceeding." I quoted Attorney Huessler who said, ""The lying matters. I'm afraid that part of the decision to nolle prosse the case stems from the CPD's reluctance to have Mr. Ogletree produce evidence contradicting Crowley's statements."
You then produced a long post explaining why you felt the discussion of the disorderly conduct charge was moot, irrelevant, inapplicable, because the charge had been dropped. I had no interest in a discussion of whether a discussion was moot because the charge had been dropped. I felt it relevant and was prepared to discuss it with those who also felt it relevant. Those who felt it irrelevant were free to not discuss it. I decided to let your views stand unchallenged. I'll remind you that up to this point all I had been doing was discussing the validity of the disorderly orderly disconduct charges and what I saw as police misconduct and so were you.
---------I have been extremely civil (and even joking) throughout despite being barraged by more questions than I can possibly answer from you, jonnie, jason, kgb, and Karl the Marxist.-------
I would like to point out that in the last half dozen or more of these dialogs we've been having you have replied to comments I made to Dijamo, ArtApraiser, Bev and others. I have no problem what so ever with you replying to comments I made to others. But I don't see how you can complain that you have been barraged with questions by *me* when *you* began those dialogs with me.
I feel I have been very civil and respectful to you. I do not feel you have returned that respect to me or others. You have not just made what I see as a false accusation against NC without backing it up, but you also accused me of assuming facts not in evidence. Twice I asked you what facts I assumed and you did not respond. I was willing to let those false accusations go as well as other minor slurs. But calling me revolting and dishonest crosses a line. As does claiming I'm just looking for payback after all I've written on this subject. I'm not here for a flame war. There are a couple of people here that I do not dialog with because I'm looking for rational debate not trading of insults. Since they have not posted to me that's the end of it.
My intention was to ignore you and let this fade away. But you decided to push it. So I will be explicit. I will not comment to you for a very long time. I will not reply to your comments unless I feel they insult or defame me. Since there are so many other people here for you to dialog with that shouldn't be a problem. I can be pulled in if you decide to insult me in subsequent threads. I can be quite mean. I suspect that won't be necessary since I think you will stop posting to me when I ignore you. Let's just say we have a personality conflict and leave it at that. And now, I give you the last word if you want it.
July 26, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect link. This I hope is the correct one.
---------------------------------
Twice I asked you what facts I assumed and you did not respond.
July 26, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink