Actual Facts About The Henry Louis Gates Case
The Henry Louis Gates situation is mainly a distraction, where the media has decided to document a sideshow instead of the hundreds of millions of people struggling every day with substandard health care coverage.
But there's also a serious policy component. Policemen should not be allowed to arrest someone for being an asshole in their own home. If that was the case, right-wing bloggers would all be doing 10-20. It appears clear, and I guess there may be audio tape to this effect, that the cop came to Gates' house, figured out that he was not a burglar, words were exchanged, and then the cop arrested him for disorderly conduct. That's really over the line of what cops should be allowed to do, regardless of the motivations, racial or otherwise.
The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:
The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.
Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.
But for the sake of education, let's watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He's staying put in Gates' home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he'll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: "I'm sorry for disturbing you," and "I'm glad you're all right."
Spoiling for a fight, Crowley refuses to repeat his name and badge number. Most of us would hand over a business card or write the information on a scrap of paper. No, Crowley is upset and he's mad at Gates. He's been accused of racism. Nobody likes that, but if a cop can't take an insult without retaliating, he's in the wrong job. When a person is given a gun and a badge, we better make sure he's got a firm grasp on his temper. If Crowley had called Gates a name, I'd be disappointed in him, but Crowley did something much worse. He set Gates up for a criminal charge to punish Gates for his own embarrassment.
By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. The only plausible question for the chief to ask about that little detail is: "Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid?" Crowley produced those handcuffs to provoke Gates and then arrested him. The decision to arrest is telling. If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates.
The cop baited the guy into leaving the house so he could arrest him for making a cop feel bad.
I appreciate the work of law enforcement. But regardless of race, too many cops have the belief that if they get insulted, they have the right to turn that into an arresting offense. That's not the law whatsoever, nor should it be. It creates a chilling effect among the public not to call out bad behavior in law enforcement or raise your voice in any way. I know we're all supposed to believe that cops are saintly, but I live in LA. Police misconduct happens all the time, and we should be vigilant when it does.
Instead, the media takes the soccer ball and chases it into the corner, without any semblance of factual records or perspective. It becomes an emotional argument instead of a factual record of misconduct. We pay cops with tax money. We should not risk arrest when arguing with them.
Foist!
far left loon >.<
It's all part of the police state with FEMA camps under Obama...oh, wait...the libertarians and republicans all LOVED the arrest because it happened to a liberal.
Anyone ever notice that there were no arrests at the tea parties...no cops sent there to provoke the protestors...like during the Iraq War protests?
the cops were the teabaggers
compliments!
not sure what the video has to do with it though.
That was a good explanation about the economy. Sometimes simple is good.
PS If you liked that explnation (about the economy) there is a fuller one, by Ratigan, posted at at HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/dyla...
far left loon >.<
I can see why Ratigan abruptly quit cnbc. The fact that had to share air with kudlow, haines, cramer, bartiromo, caruso-cabrera and erin whatever must have been too much for him. He has been honest and clear in explaining what the banksters perpertrated on the world. I hope he is able to hand in there. The more unemployed people who are home watching him instead of the cnbc/faux heads the better to grasp what has/is happening.
n/t
i would say gates is very lucky. this is america we are talking about. you cant mouth off to cops, and expect to get away with it. he is lucky he just got arrested, and not beaten and tazed, where this kind of stuff happens fairly regularly in america. there was that case where a cop pushed a biker off his bike and then accused the biker of assaulting him. there was another high profile case of cops beaten and tazed a military officer at a las vegas airport. other high profile cases include the retired new orleans teacher who got beaten so bad his ancestors felt it. i dont know why americans are always talking about freedom of speech and whatever amendments there are in the constitution. the truth of the matter is, that stuff is just written on a piece of paper for show. cops might read you your rights, but how much relevance does that have in practice. americans need to stop being so naive and confuse theory with reality. americans think they are free, when in reality, it is an authoritarian country and has been as far as i can remember. some of you guys may be complaining about gates being arrested, but i guarantee you there are 3 times more americans who will say that the police should have more power, and that more cops should be on the street.
Sekund.
Amazing that Gates had nothing to do with the incident. Was he even there? Hard to tell from this one-sided post.
Gates. Flipped. Out. He lost his composure and his dignity. The cop didn't drag him out of his house. The cop didn't make him continue screaming after he went out on the porch.
For such a smart guy, Gates sure acted dumb. Or maybe more like an entitled, out-of-touch rich man.
Pfft.
far left loon >.<
He probably was acting like an out of touch rich professor... And I don't feel sorry for him at all. Not one bit. But the cop probably shouldn't have arrested him, from what I've heard. Let him yell all he wants, but after it was decided he wasn't breaking in, just walk away.
And I ask, why didn't Crowley arrest Gates in his home. Answer Crowley had no authority to arrest Gates in his home because Gates did not break any law. Crowley was hurt and knew if he could get Gates outside, he could arrest Gates and that's personal and will be found in Gates favor, in a court of law, but doesn't mean Gates will win.
They will settle out of court to peserve the perception of Authority for Policing.
Ministerbruce
case against Gates. This was police overreaching. This happens a lot. Not just to minorities, although they do have to experience more often. This has been going on for years and years and years. The police need better training, especially on controlling their own tempers. This kind of behavior needs to stop. As citizens of a free country we need to keep control of the police, not the other way around.
I don't get why people don't get the reality of the situation. It begins with the fact that cops, as a general rule (and with very few exceptions), have an inclination to act like hammers who see everything that happens in their world that is not to their liking like a nail. Who out there, black or white, has not experienced a situation where a cop goes to far in exercising what is supposed to be, in a free society, a certain jack-boot tendency? You know exactly what I'm talking about. Now, on top of that, add in the fact that young black males are quite often at the receiving end of the jack-boot. Like it or not, the fact is that violent offenders are disproportionately young black males in this society. That is a fact. So, is it any wonder that Gates, who was clearly acting in a way that Crowley believed was not appropriately servile, he was arrested. Just ask yourself, since when did "loud and tumultuous" behavior become a reason to make an arrest. How can anyone possible justify a cop arresting someone for shouting insults at the cop in their own home? You can't. Because, the fact is, that in this country it is called free speech. Read the First Amendment. It has no exception for "loud and tumultuous behavior." And for good reason. Unfortunately, though, cops do not generally impress me with their knowledge of Constitutional rights. Crowley can kiss my liberal white ass.
That these arguments have been (largely) resolved in the western E.U.s. Not a one of them would stand for what passes as sheer (police state-type) abuse in their territories. Though they may not enjoy an exactly similar history of racial discord/assimilation to the extent we've accumulated, I firmly believe we've much to learn of their present (and 'constitutional') practices. No?! So we're on top of everything that is best for us/them and in our own good favor?....
Advocate the violent overthrow of the Constitutionally elected government of the USA, or share state secrets with the representative a foreign government, and your opening yourself up to charges of treason. I don't think too many Constitutional scholars would argue the unconstitutionality of treason laws.
Common law is used in interpreting freedom of speech, too. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater probably wouldn't be covered precisely because of the tumult it might cause (and, oddly enough, the SCOTUS decision in which the theater scenario was presented was not about shouting in a theater, but a case concerning the Espionage Act, in which an author who advocated conscientious objection during WW I was tried under that act, and the Justice who wrote the decision made that- in my mind, poor- analogy). The common law reasoning behind public disturbance law seems to be that volume removes the speaker from the cover of the First Amendment protection, not the idea behind the speech. Keeping the peace, you know. Folks need to work and/or sleep.
All that said, there was no complaint filed by any other citizen (that I know of) stating that Gates' speech was too loud. That's why, it seems, the city of Cambridge dropped the charges.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Ridiculous!!
You have the right to pass out flyers stating your political views, you don't have the right to staple or paste those flyers to telephone pools and lamp posts. Speech is protected, the methods used to communicate that speech are not. Volume, like litter, is not protected.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Haven't stapled, folded or mutilated since my teens. Gotcha!
Depending on local ordinances, political flyers are on lamp posts quite often. Publishing news or political thought in one form or another is basic 1st Amendment 101.
Come on, use some common sense. Unamplified volume in one's voice per se does not take oral speech out of the realm of First Amendment protection. While you are correct that there are situations in which oral speech can cross the line and actually create a public disturbance, yelling at a cop on your property when you have done absolutely nothing illegal isn't even close -- and it's not why Crowley arrested Gates. Was Gates causing a public disturbance? Of course not. How could one possibly cause a public disturbance by yelling at a cop on your own property? It's not as if there were dozens of angry blacks standing around ready to break out in riot.
The real reason Crowley arrested Gates -- and everyone knows it even if they won't admit it -- is that Crowley didn't like the CONTENT of Gates' speech. So, like just about every other cop who readily abuse their office to act on personal animus, Crowley inappropriately and outrageously used the power that the state of Massachusetts vested in him to retaliate against a civilian being critical of his methods.
"appropriately servile" I have never active servile to a LEO. Have I acted with common courtesy? Almost always, and have they acted the same to me? Yep
If the cop had any decency he would have understood how outraged someone could be when accused of being a burglar while in their own home. Once the cop had satisfied the purpose of his visit and was aware that his continued presence was only making things worse, he should have left---and got off the mans property. If Gates continued to yell at him, so what; the cop gets into his car and drives off, situation defused.
The cop, who was not a rookie but a sergeant, is supposed to be a trained professional in this sort of situation but he handled it like an amateur with a chip on his shoulder.
That this 'officer' is purported to be a most sensitive trainer in racial profiling and sensitivity. Give me..A..F..B!
... maybe by the standards of that police force he is "sensitive".
questioned by the police about breaking into my own home. Was I outraged? Nope I was glad and reassured that the police were doing their job. Did I scream at them? Nope I showed them my id and that was it. If Gates would of done the same I'm sure the outcome would of been the same as mine. Which was a handshake and a thanks on both sides.
dealing with the facts. Gates did show Crowley ID, and that was not 'it.' Crowley called Harvard U PD, and did not leave Gates' home, nor would he give his name an badge number even after he had seen Gates' ID. So your situation is not comparable.
Actually, I think he's right that Gates' behavior led to his arrest. If he had acted calmly and with deference to Sgt. Crowley, the situation would not have escalated as it did.
But what Timjoebillybob is missing here is that Gates had the Constitutionally protected right to criticize Crowley -- whether his criticisms were valid or not -- without being arrested for offending Crowley. No, in an open, democratic society, it is not an acceptable answer to simply say that all civilians should supplicate themselves every time a cop knocks on their door. We do not live in a police state. Yet.
Gates IDed himself, I have never seen a university ID that had a address on it, a picture and name only. He probably called Harvard PD for two reasons, one to possibly verify that Gates did actually live there, and two probably to see if they could come down and calm him down since they probably have had more interaction with him than he did.
And yes he does have a right to criticize Gates I agree, but according to the law there he does not legal right to be disorderly about it.
And when have I ever said to supplicate themselves to the police? Or be subservient? Just show common courtesy.
How would this be covered in the news if the situation was reversed? Lets say the Cop was black, and the Prof was white, he comes out screaming racist remarks towards the black cop. I guarantee that Obama would not have said a word about it, or Sharpton, and the general tone on this board would be reversed.
ETA Actually I'm sure Sharpton would of been very vocal, calling for the professors resignation.
Again, I can't follow your logic. First, you say Gates has the right to criticize, but not be "disorderly about it." Putting aside for a moment the issue of how one defines "disorderly," you then go on to say that a person in Gates' position was not required to supplicate himself, only to "show some common courtesy." So, what is the conduct you maintain was punishable by arrest? Disorderly conduct or failure to show common courtesy to a police officer? Or do you equate the two?
The problem here, which you fail to recognize, is that it is not acceptable in an open, democratic society to give cops the unrestrained discretion to arrest people who criticize with less than common courtesy. Simply labeling speech "disorderly" because of its volume (and there was no amplification involved here) does not pass the constitutional laugh test. If it did, every person who ever shouted a slogan at a war protest or a political convention could be hauled away by the state. Can't you see that?
Yes I said he has the right to criticize.
And I said under the law in that area he could not be disorderly. The conduct that was punishable by arrest was disorderly conduct.
I've stated on this thread I don't agree with the disorderly charge as its enforced, but it is the law and I try to act in a lawful manner.
And I never said he HAD to show common courtesy. Just in my humble opinion that is the best way to at least start out dealing with LEOs if it is possible. I've criticized police, hell I've even gotten rude and insulting once or twice. I think the worst was calling a cop 'a deputy dog mother f'er' to his face. I did end up getting arrested over that, but not for what I said. He found a reason to issue a warrant for my arrest. Luckily I have a good attorney who is a friend of the family and it cost me I think $100 to get the charges dismissed. Just recently (month or so ago) I called to complain about a officer to my local PD a detective came out to talk to me, I told him my point of view in a calm manner, outside even, even accused the other officer of either being ignorant of the local ordinances in question or attempting to act like the gestapo "you will do what I say". The outcome of it? The Detective agreed with me, and let me know he would talk to the officer in question (very very new and hired to pretty much just enforce city ordinances. Shook my hand and told me to have a nice day.
You can't be "disorderly" in your own home. Period.
Once the cops determined that Gates was not a burglar but the owner of the home, they should have stopped treating him like a suspect and left immediately. They knew the moment they identified him that the call was in error. Everything after that point is the fault of the police mis-handling the call. "Oh, you're the home owner!? We received a complaint about a possible burglary. Are you sure there's no one else in the house? Are you OK? Have a good night, sorry for the trouble."
Try that on for size anywhere by anyone.
are an idiot.
Can you read? And if so, can you comprehend what you are reading? It seems the answer is no.
Just my informed opinion. You gave the information.
Schmuck.
How many cops in affluent areas hear "you don't know who you're messing with!" when dealing with routine calls such as this. I don't know that Gates should have been arrested, but having pushed a cop this far with uncalled for race baiting and arrogance is only going to ruin his reputation as an academic.
I was arrested for disorderly conduct once. It;s a bullshit charge, and cops know it. It basically means "you pissed me off, and I have nothing to arrest you for, so I'm arresting you for this."
http://www.jafafahots.com
A+.
far left loon >.<
Its good to see some serious analysis of what and why. I lonesomely queried and posted on Reddit about the appearance of the HUPD at the scene, somebody had to have called them in, to my suspicious mind that smells of a sting or entrapment operation.
I've heard about this once. I think it was called freedom of speech. WE can't protect ourselves anymore? Dangerous times people. Conformity is the only option.
is intended to be a factual statement
This was well written. The fact of the matter is that cops shouldn't be allowed to arrest people just because the person is upset. It happens far too often though, and it really doens't matter the race. This article did not imply the cop was racist, rather it just stated the officer probably did not need to make the arrest.
The strange thing in this, though, is that it would have never received so much attention if the racism charges weren't brought up - and that's what bugs me. This stuff happens a lot, but we only seem to care if the racism charge, or a very powerful/wealthy person has it happen to them... that's my problem.
did not arrest him simply because he was upset, the officer arrested him for violation of a law. If the officer was just upset and arrested him without him breaking any laws, yes that would be wrong. But if you plan on screaming at them, you better make sure you are totally in the clear. There is something called officer discretion for quite a few crimes. Its up to the officer to determine whether you are charged or not. Screaming at them in one way to almost guarantee you do get charged.
as in all charges dropped and a comment from Cambridge DA and PD that the incident did not reflect poorly on Dr. Gates?
I would have called you on your cell phone to check up on you.
About a year ago, I noticed two guys, I've never seen at my neighbor's house, milling around inside and outside the house and my neighbor's car.
Instead of calling the police, I called my neighbor, who I knew was out of town, and asked her about the two guys. It was her brother and father.
The cop was prejudice. The asshole neighbor who didn't even know Gates, is the racist.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
Adding fuel to the fire of maybe an entrapment operation against Gates by HU or elements there...
Whats the first thing you suspect when an elderly man walking carefully/slowly with a cane gets out of a limousine, and walks up to a front door...
I mean, I know in my neighborhood we have TONS of disabled elderly men constantly breaking in and robbing people blind. (/snark)
And what was the crime here? What law was violated? Tumultuous and loud behavior? What law makes that illegal?
This kind of fuzzy thinking is what really drives me crazy. You say on the one hand that it would be wrong for Crowley to arrest Gates if no law was broken, but then you that cops have the discretion to make a baseless charge if you yell at them. Which is it?
The real answer is that the law that was broken is the unwritten law that civilians cannot talk back to cops.
This case sure smokes out the Authoritarians.
not a Authoritarian, just have half a brain. Screaming at a cop and calling him a racist is a pretty good way for them to decide to charge you with anything they can.
I hate to break this to you, but disorderly conduct laws are vauge to the point absolutely anyone on the street is guilty of breaking one.
Any possible useful application of DC laws is already covered by another law. Their entire purpose is to allow the arrest of anyone at any time.
The officer asked the man to come outside so he could arrest him.
I have little doubt had he declined the offer to come outside, he'd have been arrested for not doing as he was told. Of course, being arrested inside the house instead of outside, I'm sure he would've "resisted" too.
Even if we're all absolutely wrong about this (And that's possible, unlikely, but possible) the police brought this on themselves.
When there are regular videos of police tazering children and choking paramedics floating around and the only reaction by police is "How dare you people question a cop. You're all criminal scum and these police are fine men." you're going to turn public opinion against yourself. Not a very good idea, when you're funded by tax money.
Funny how all these law and order people think "law" never applies to police.
The thing about this story is each of us relates to our own life experience, and then judges accordingly. If you've ever had words with someone you feel is a dick, be they a cop, or a black professor, or a white neighbour, or just someone who really is a dick, you add your own spin to it. Haven't we all imagined the scene in our own minds? I know I have.
In my version there is a smug cop and some guy who's quick to beak off cuz he's overcome the odds and is a "prestigious" professor: a perfect storm.
far left loon >.<
... all the so-called "trained professional" had to do was to leave the professor's home to defuse the situation; instead he went the thug route. It's not too far from there to the behavior of the Rodney King cops.
He became aware that his 'manhood' could not rise to the level of his 'professorial' victim's. Who T.F. knows?!
with an underlying fear of a black man's 'prowess'!?
Gates followed him.
entrapment
He asked the professor to come outside.
Knowing he couldn't arrest him inside the house he asked the professor to come outside.
There's a big difference in "The policeman tried to leave and Gates followed him" and "The policeman asked Gates to come outside, Gates complied and was arrested."
Of course, the same bootlickers that say "Gates followed him!" would insist Gates deserved to be arrested for refusing to do as he was told had he not come outside when asked.
did not ask him to come outside, he said he was leaving and if Gates wanted to continue the conversation he could come outside.
Did the cop intend to set him up? Quite possible. Was he within the law when he arrested him, from the sound of it yes. Was he within the law to set him up? Most likely.
I don't think what happened meets the criteria for entrapment, so again I would have to say yes. Basing it on police are allowed to set up prostitution and drug stings, a female LEO can dress like a hooker and stand on the corner and ask guys if they would like some company, and if they guy asks how much for a bj he is going to get arrested. A plainclothes leo goes into a bar, sees some likely suspects, ask them if they or looking for anything, or asks them if they have anything they would like to sell, they ask to purchase or sell illegal drugs, again they are going to be arrested. That is not entrapment in either case, now if they asked if they guy wanted a bj for $20 or asked the people if they wanted to buy some coke, that would be entrapment. The other instances are just giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with.
n/t
Gates asked Crowley for his name and badge number - which is a synonym for "who are you because I am going to complaint to your boss." Crowley refused to give the information unless Gates came outside. Gates walked outside, and was arrested.
Crowley was wrong.
been there done that, but I know better than to smart mouth the guy with the gun.
I'm careful too, just like dealing with any aggressive wild animal is the way I handle it. Keep as far away as possible. Don't draw attention to yourself.
Of course, this learned behavior on our part does come at a cost to the people who hire the cops. For one thing, I wouldn't interact with them in on the street, and I'm especially cautious about calling them for any reason, lest I be on the receiving end of an arrest, a beating or a bullet. And they wonder why they don't get citizen cooperation.
Every time a cop acts like a bully, and especially when the system doesn't punish the bully for that behavior, the gap between the police and the people they're supposed to serve grows a bit bigger.
I think the massive show of support (too massive, if you ask me) for the cop at the press conference was a definite sign that they were just out to protect one of their own.
When the prosecutor drops the charges, and yet have the cops go on the "we didn't do anything wrong" rant, well, if the cops didn't do anything wrong with this BS "disorderly conduct" charge, then the prosecutor must be the one making a mistake by dropping the charges.
Somebody sure as heck made a mistake here, and Professor Gates was simply doing everything he could to make sure he wasn't the one making a mistake. The "thank you for complying with our earlier request" shows that their only intention was to get him out on the porch so they could arrest him without having to ID him.
Any cop who arrests someone on a bogus disorderly conduct charge that later gets dropped should have his pay docked, big time.
So, if you get in an argument with a cop, even if you're in the right and it pisses the cop off...he can arrest you for disorderly conduct.
I have the utmost respect for cops. We've got a few cops in the family, but this is outright bullshit.
Well, that's what they do.
I've met tons of asshole cops. But, also, when my house was broken into, and the cops came, they were pretty cool and nice.
far left loon >.<
n/t
just charge professor Gates with Public Intimidation of a Police Officer - you know, like I was when I politely told a policeman he was being an unprofessional dick? Or is that law found only here in New Orleans?
Because of my experience - that is, being thrown in jail for nothing more than making a cop's testicles shrink (and I'm a white dude!) - I tend to believe professor Gates' story is the more accurate of the two. Sorry, officer Crowley, but I've just seen too many cops take advantage of their authority and throw people in jail for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Louisiana, use to have that code for criminal law, it the reverse of our Uniform Criminal Code, the defense goes first and if you're arrested it's because your guilty and you must prove your innocence under the Napoleon Criminal Code.
Not presumed innocent, until proven guilty. I think it’s changed, but don’t hold me too that.
Ministerbruce
Exactly. I once got pulled over by a Virginia cop for backing up a few yards on a street to get into a driveway I had overshot. I asked him why that was a problem and, noting that I had Maryland license plates, he said -- "It's just illegal. Do they let you do that in Maryland."
I pointed out, half jokingly, that I wasn't sure about Maryland, but it seemed obvious to me that backing up must be permitted on at last some streets in Virginia because this particular street had parallel parking spaces on it in the exact area where I had back up.
At that point, any reasonable person would have said, "Oh, I guess you're right. My bad."
Instead, the cop grabbed me and threw me up against the car, searched me, and said that if I didn't shut up, he would arrest me for disturbing the peace.
Now, if that happened to me, and I'm a white guy, I can only imagine what it must be like when black guys get pulled over.
and how it feeds into a mindless public. As with healthcare, it appears, the 'Mehrkin' peoples have been conditioned into accepting the unacceptible premise of status quo. Any self-respecting member of, say most E.U. nations, would have railed against such a situation, and succor fricken-punched (or worse!) any so-called 'officer' abusing a similar situation. I appreciate their (hard-earned thru many tangled crises and world wars) contempt of police power/ego empowered abuse, and invite more of our kind to do as much!!
in side their own HOME, especially if you have to prove it's your home and the person who ask for proof, has affronted you, by following you as if your going to drop your cane and run away.
In Black oral History, Black families, the men of that familie, had no control over their lives even in the home, or even for their wives, or children, this is documented fact, so when anyman enters some black mens home, he better be real repectful and pleasant, do not get authoritative and demanding and don't act arrogantly, not in their home.
Crowley froze and desided to escalate get back at gates, knowing gates was with in his home and had broken no laws, did not assulat the officer and being upset and talking loud in your own home, is not against the law.
Oh, heck just look at the 4th amendament.
Ministerbruce
This shouldn't be about black men's "oral histories" making them act a certain way in their homes... This is about ANYBODY acting this way in their home. Saying one group of people is excused for certain behaviors is discriminatory and won't be tolerated in the long run.
amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police received a report of a possible breaking and entering. The officer approached the door after talking to the person that called it in. Asked the guy to identify himself. How is that unreasonable?
It is unreasonable because there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed. Relying on an anonymous phone call about a possible break-in is not probable cause.
The lady was still on the phone and talked to the officer when he showed up. He even told Gates that the person that called it in was outside. Oh and since I never read in the report that Gates asked him to leave, it is quite probably a court would find that this was a consensual encounter, which does not mean a friendly conversation just that Gates was not being detained, and could of ended it. I can't find anywhere in the report that shows that Gates asked the cop to leave.
A cop can walk up to you on the street, or up to your door and ask you any questions they want. If you answer them it is a consensual encounter. If you don't want to answer them and want to shut the door in their face or just walk away that is fine. Although I would recommend asking if your being detained first, that way they can't charge you for resisting arrest if for some reason you were not free to leave.
Unfortunately, you've left out the majority of the story. Gates DID identify himself. And Crowley CONTINUED to escalate the situation.
If Crowley had asked Gates to identify himself, Gates had done so, and then Crowley had left, it would have been perfectly reasonable. And we'd have never heard anything about it.
As usual I'm with Obama on this - this was partly right and party stupid - a mixed bag, so Professor and Policeman - identify areas for improvement, shake hands, and let bygones be bygones with lessons learned. easy as pie.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
WHERE ARE THE SUPPOSED LIBERTARIANS???? Where are they pounding away at this notion of the catch all crime of 'disorderly conduct'? Where are they to defend the notion that a man's home is is castle?
Oh yeah, their too busy busting on Obama's 'stupid' comment.
republicanzi have a herd mentality. I think we just need to point them in the direction of a cliff and let them do the rest.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
pretty much Libertarian. I don't agree with a catch all of disorderly conduct as it is, but it is the current law. I tend to abide by the law while working to change it. If I do break the law I expect to pay the penalties for doing so. And as for 'A mans home is his castle' I agree but this did not occur inside his home.
is his private property. As a 'glibertarian,' however, I am sure you still realize this. Your responses are fairly typical disenglennuousness.
I think his porch and property is protected too right?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
your curtilage is considered both public and private depending, if it is visible from the streets or neighbors yards it can be considered public. Actually your own house can be considered public at times, there was a guy who was arrested for public indecency for standing in front of his picture window naked about the time school was getting out. He was found guilty because it was in public view.
It did happen inside.
As soon as he stepped outside he was arrested. He was even thank for being compliant inside.
No justification for an arrest. That's why the charges were dropped.
Please read b 4 typing.
he went outside and continued to scream at the officer, the officer warned him twice that he was being disorderly and subject to arrest, when Gates failed to heed the officers warnings he was then arrested. Where did you see that he was thanked for being compliant? I must of missed that. He was non compliant from the start.
And for the purposes of the law no his porch and yard are not protected. Heck in quite a few states you can get arrested for public intoxication on your own property. There was even at least one case of a guy being arrested for dui for mowing his lawn on a riding mower, and never leaving his property.
Do I agree with it? Nope but that is the law. Try to change it, but if you break it be prepared to face the consequences.
The officer said that Gates was being disorderly NOT that he was going to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct. Words matter and I would hope that a veteran officer would know how to communicate more effectively. It might be a subtle distinction but one perhaps we can learn from. As both the police dept and Obama have suggested we learn from the mistakes that were made.
I've learned that when an officer says that I am "being disorderly" that it really means that the officer is saying that I am going to be arrested for disorderly conduct. That "disorderly" isn't like when my children's teacher talk about their class's behavior.
that the second warning while producing handcuffs, is a pretty clear indication that a arrest is imminent if you don't stop.
Most of them said or did sweet FA.
A libertarian is just a republican that's had his ass kicked by a cop.
"I'm a white man! I voted for Reagan! How could they do this to meeee?!"
Well, to be fair to libertarians, there are libertarian bloggers that are screaming bloody murder about this. Not the racism bit...that was mostly a red herring to start with....but the violation of rights.
The ones that make a point of covering police stories (Balko Radley, Ed Brayton, etc) see it as just another example of the usual jackbooted thug attitude so common among police these days.
By the way, Timjoebillybob the Libertarian: You should flip through their archives of police beating/tazing the hell out of people for no reason whatsoever and see if you can find a single one where other police condemned their behavior. It's an exercise in futility, because there isn't one.
Any day now I expect to see a cop tazer an infant and his superior release "The suspect was waving a rattle in a threatening manner. On first glance, the powder blue rattle could easily be mistaken for a firearm. We find the officer acted in a professional manner in the best traditions...." Then many-a-bootlicker will come out of the woodwork to defend the cop against any slanders against his character.
your post appears to exemplify the difference between a theoretical or "academic" understanding of an issue and real-world experience.
you reach a conclusion by glossing over the vast majority of the story. that helps you be really sure of yourself, but it indicates that you're not interested in facts and reality. instead you're a 'conclusion-first' kind of guy, sort of like Henry Louis Gates appears to be.
now, if you choose to really perform a service for your readers, try to discuss the entire episode from the point of view of the officer, given his own lifetime and career experiences. maybe then we can have a worthwhile discussion.
i will hold my breath until you do.
Because in his proven home and Crowley holding the proof in his hands, had no authority to arrest gates, Gates did not assault the officer, by asking, or demanding, even asking in a heated manner, is not against the law, Crowley made it personal and if it goes to court Crowley will have to account for that time in Gates home, with the proof in his hands, the reported call of break in, was not true and he knew it with the ID’s , so Crowley had no further reason to stay.
Crowley was hurt and demanded satisfaction, Crowley wanted to stay in control and wanted to exercise his authority, but could not inside Gates home, so he coerced Gates to come outside, Crowley knew the law, but it was still personal and why he did not leave, or give Gates his requested info and being loud in the request is not against the law either, or making the request in your own proven home, that is not against the law either.
Ministerbruce
Crowley did not have proof in his hands that Gates was in his residence, he had proof of who he was. I have never seen a college ID that had a address on it.
Crowley gave Gates the requested info twice. And informed him of that. He told Gates that he was leaving and if he wished to he could come outside, Gates went outside of his own free will.
Gates is a Harvard professor he should have at least a slight understanding of the law. I have never went to college, although that is going to change in a month :) and I have a half assed understanding of it. At least on a local and state level.
Prof. Gates own words
(one page print format)
...
for the links, they present a side I hadn't seen before. It is biased on the side of Gates, the police report I'm sure is biased on the side of Crowley, I don't fully believe either one. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between.
If you don't think the author of this article was fair and balanced, perhaps you can point out the flaws in the logic. You are critical of the article without providing any facts to back up your POV. So here's your chance to shine and show us how smart you are by providing facts and logic to sway us toward your POV. Or are you allergic to facts and logic???
The guy is holding hs breath until we cough up what he wants.
I say we let him.
far left loon >.<
LOL Somebody should arrest that guy before he passes out from holding his breath. That could be considered disorderly conduct too...
referring to me, are you referring to the original blog post? Or the article Ferrofluid posted? But for the article Ferrofluid posted.
So for some facts, two officers state in the report that Gates was yelling Crowley and Figuroa, both of them also state that Gates initially refused to provide ID. Gates denies both. Gates also says that the officer asked him to step outside, he also say that he demanded, which is it? Gates also says that he was arrested as soon as he steps onto the porch, both officers say different. There was at least one witness there (named in the report) and according to the police report there were several other witnesses, any defense attorney would not have a problem tracking down one or more of them especially since one was named. The police know that so why would they lie about what happened, at least the part that occurred outside with witnesses? And for not being able to yell with a bronchial infection? All I have to go on is my own experience with that, and yes I could yell.
Gates also tries to project his thoughts onto the officer, "A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."
As I stated in a comment shortly before this one, I don't fully believe either report the police or Gates. I would assume that the actual story lies somewhere in between. But one thing I do get from Gates side, is that he is a intelligent person and knows how to state his side for the most sympathy. ie There was a ocean of police, when referring to 6 cops. And this part.
"HLG: By the time I was processed at the Cambridge jail, I was booked, fingerprinted, given a mug shot and answered questions. Outrageous is the only word that I can use. The system attempts to humiliate you. They took my belt; they took my wallet, they took my keys, some change; they counted my money. And I knew that because they said, ‘We’re going to release you upon your own recognizance, and the fine is $40, and we know you can pay it because we went through your wallet." All of that is standard procedure in a booking, it is not done to humiliate a person. And I'm sure he also knew they counted his money because the police do it in front of you, and have you sign a inventory form for all your belongings. That is to cover their ass from people saying the cops stole from them. You also have to sign the form when you leave that you received all your property back. Trust me I've been through it a few times.
ETA Although I should give the police report more weight, after all why should a officer that Obama described as "an outstanding police officer. " have reason to lie?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99L0...
Please note that all are white, although the guy on the right might be Jewish, but that is unconfirmed.
but the one officer who wrote part of the report is latino, and if you look at the pictures of the arrest there is at least one black officer their also. Nice try on the racist theme though.
The case is gonna go to civil court, believe that. Will this be a watershed moment for police abuses in America? One can only hope. Because I sure as hell don't want to be arrested in my own home because my door got stuck.
I don't think their is even a reason to try to correct it. You among many others clearly want to see this from a one-sided prespective.
Is there any point mentioning that the cop was polite and was just doing his job and gates refused to id himself at 1st I doubt it.
You know what really sad if the cop left and there were two armed drugies looking for shit and they killed this guy many of you would accuse the cops of no doing his job. But hey that doesn’t matter now does it.
Fight the man and peace out
Is there any point mentioning that the cop was polite
Yes, it means the cop didn't fear for his life.
that the Professor refused to id himself at 1st
relevance to case in point? It's his house and he did show his ID, even after the cop didn't comply with the Professors requests for the policeman's ID for him to examine or write down, as i recall. If the policeman won't identify himself you have a stalemate. The professor went and got his ID anyway, possibly against his better judgement.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Is there any point mentioning that the cop was polite
Yes, in this case it means he was an instructor in racial profiling appointed by the previous African-American police commissioner.
that the Professor refused to id himself at 1st
Refusing to cooperate with the police when they are called in for 2 burglary suspects, but one not only refuses to identify themselves, but refuses to tell the investigating officer if there is anyone else inside creates problems. TRY to think like someone trying to help someone else: 2 ppl are reported entering and only one answers the door and is reportedly belligerent. Answer: the cop is racist.
Also, how many times have you seen in the news that he was arrested IN his home? He wasn't. He followed the cop after he left and continued to harass the cop, and this is important, IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. If they release the radio recording I am sure this will be settled.
Ya, i don't think any party is yelling racist here, except the odd racist troll in the peanut gallery that is. lets keep the knowable truth going here. This is now about the boundaries of the law and a man's castle, that's all.
that the Professor refused to id himself at 1st
I'm not so sure the policeman adequately identified himself and his 911 call, by the sound of it that's also at the center of this. When a policeman goes borg on you i believe you have a right to full disclosure of their Identification and a record of it on your person.
Inside the home, on the lawn, on the porch - angels on a pin. He should have remained inside alright and next time he will.
However, I believe they have already settled it last i checked, so on to better things...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
yelling racism. Here is a couple of quotes from him.
"Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."
"He just presumed that I was guilty, and he presumed that I was guilty because I was black. There was no doubt about that."
http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C1
Maybe there could have been perps lurking and Gates wanted additional help beyond his own IDing, but the cop was walking away bored. Wouldn't you be a bit peeved at this and demand some ID off the scurrying cop!
I think you get my vote for lamest post.
Are you familiar with the types of places intellectuals live??? Its rarely where "armed drugies" are likely to steal...
I live next to a upper class college community (claremont). Its all lilly white and beautiful there, my guess is gates home is located in a similar setting.
Gates was obviously upset. Because he was in his home!!!! and frustrated by having to jump in his window, because he didn't have his keys! Like this type of frustration hasn't happened to us all?? If the cop cant see the framed family photos on the wall, and asses the situation rationally, and can only think that this is possibly "an armed drugie", and cant separate low class people, from upper class people.
Sorry pal that guy has no business being a cop.
I'm sure if a black cop busted into your home and got suspicious with you it surely would not be o.k....
And your precious rational thoughts would go flying out the window....
..the "conservatives" will point to this as another reason why "whiny liberals" have no respect for "authortay" unless they're introduced to Mr. Billy Club, just like Cartman does in the "Chicken-lover" episode of South Park.
this has been "racheting up" since the press conference. personally, i must say i wish he didn't say "stupidly". i knew immediatley it was a poor choice of wording. having said that, i only think it's fair to listen to the entire answer to the question when providing an opinon. there are certain demographic(s) that looking for any fault president obama can reveal. in the end president obama has handled it very well.
I guess we're going to have to waterboard everyone now, even the neighbours No other way to get the truth. If you've got nothing to hide...
(snark)
far left loon >.<
The really telling thing about this obvious case of abuse of authority is that is apparently considered acceptable by the law enforcement establishment:
o this act was not committed by a rookie but a police sergeant
o higher ups in the police force are silent about this
o the police union is out for blood: Gates's.
o the officer is convinced that his conduct is in compliance with the highest standards of law enforcement
Uncharacteristically Obama took the bait and really blew it on this one , he said he didn't have all of the facts and should have let it go at that point . The Rat party and the wing nut Conservatives are loving this one . Absolutely destroyed the whole " news conference " in regards to his message on health care reform , on top of that I felt Obama had an off night , just was not as sharp as he usually is , maybe too tired . Can't be " on " 100 % of the time I guess , I would not want his job , no way . My humble opinion .
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
don't forget it was the media that chose to destroy the news conference! Obama did nothing more than answer a question.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
... he should have just refused to make any statement because he "didn't have all the facts" and simply state that he knew Gates and that he was an upstanding fellow, etc.
The media is big on taking and running with tempests-in-a-teapot.
the photos of Prof. Gates being removed from his home, the all-white police presser where they hammered home that they believe they can do no wrong, and the police demanding an apology of Pres. Obama and Gov. Patrick.
Ok, maybe "rubbed the wrong way" is too weak a phrase!
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
n/t
a link about the photos being removed? Or the presser? I haven't seen them yet and I would like to.
ETA never mind the link to the photos, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying that the police removed photos of gates from his home. But why does the photos rub you the wrong way? The apparently screaming black man in handcuffs? Or the black officer standing there?
In the presser the sheriff deferred a question about the definition of 'disorderly conduct' to their counsel. The attorney made the distinction of saying Gates was arrested as a "disorderly person".
A disorderly person is one who:
A like definition is also one who "disturbs the peace". It was the cops who disturbed the peace and were disorderly under MA law.
http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/disorderly...
The schmuck then went on to say that police don't always know the legal definition of the term used to arrest someone.
Gates falls into none of the categories used to arrest him -that's likely why the charges were dropped.
So far that's the knowable truth then. until after we all have that beer...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
"annoyance" - the cop was annoyed, so it's a crime.
Gates showed ID, but cop wasn't sure it wasn't stolen, even looking at the picture, 'cause all them n*****s look alike to him.
Obama has apologized for a poor choice of words, he should instead have apologized for making a judgement without enough information.
... got a little information and called the cop a criminally stupid thug!
that can prove that Obama called the cop a criminally stupid thug.I don't remember hearing that myself.
since I was following up on the "should" portion immediately above. Too bad he didn't, though.
OK so we now know that Professor Gates can be a bit crusty but he's a good man, and it turns out the policeman is also a good man, as is President Obama. All good men.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
One did violence to the other under color of authority. Imagine if Gates had cuffed the cop as a trespasser who was possibly a threat to his safety.
You have a point and i think the policeman looses under the law. If he didn't repeatedly make every possible effort to identify himself and the nature of his 911 call, he looses twice. If he didn't seek a way to verify the Professor's claims after he presented his ID, the policeman looses thrice.
The charges have been dropped so for the players it's neat and clean as long as there's no lasting hurt feelings.
For the rest this could clear up a few loose laws.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
The policeman loses under the law. That's why the charges were dropped. If the case had gone forward, an additional case for false arrest AND entrapment would have been a no-brainer.
WHY was this question tossed in at the tail end of a presidential news conference that focused almost exclusively on health care reform ? Why the hell should the president's opinion matter on what should have been a local issue, unless of course because this president just happens to be black ? This wasn't news, it was a set-up . And if GWB had given the exact same answer, it would have been descibed as "folksy" . Turn off the T.V. , they're all on the take .
My thoughts also.
I wondered why she asked that question. She is from Chicago. She must have something she doesn't like about Obama.
There was no answer that Obama could have given that would satisfy the right wing nuts.
Just like the famous questions given to Clinton. Damned if you say yes and damned if you say no.
Icesailor
what you would consider a right wing nut. Here is a answer that would of satisfied me. I don't know all of the facts involved and I cannot answer until I do. He had it half right.
the police officer was wrong. Once Prof. Gates identified himself as the home owner....the incident should have been over.
Pres. Obama should not have commented about the incident at his press conference.....I understand why he felt the need to do so...but, as President, he should have exercised better judgment - just said, "I don't have all the facts.
The incident does, however, clearly demonstrate that the chasm between races is still deep.....and that the folks on the 'right' side still seem to be very insecure and immature.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
and it shows that the prez didnt study his clinton history very well
rule 1....dont give the wingnut fucks weekly talking points
commenting on this incident did just that
That was weak! And, for me, knee-jerk, and perhaps, compensation for his timidity on the real issue at hand!! (maybe Health Care?)
It matters not a whit to me if Dr Gates is black,white, 5'8'' or 6'8', walks with a cane or walks on stilts.
Dr. Gates was in his home, his sanctuary, and the arresting Officer was there to keep the peace. Did Dr. Gates invite the Officer into his home? If he did then that was a mistake on his part. Did the Officer force his way into the home? When the homeowner asked the Officer to leave, why did he not comply?
A Repug nut job broke up a Democrat fund raiser in Orange County by reporting load noises and the results were that the owner was arrested in her own home and several guests were maced.
It would be wise for every American to learn your rights as citizens. Citizens need to remind police of their obligation to respect the rights of citizens.
If you are unfamiliar with your rights then watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
'Talk to the hand'
The cop invaded without a warrant, then walked away from a citizen lawfully asking for the cops ID.
to provide ID when asked by a citizen would be subject to sanction.
And we all know this story has a healthy dose of MALE EGO(s) to it.
(Are any of the ladies from C&L even here?)
far left loon >.<
I think everyone here needs to read the reports of both the arresting officer and his backup officer and wait to hear what any actual, unbiased witnesses have to say about the incident before passing such critical judgments.
On it's own, the police report is clear, articulate, and logical. That doesn't mean it's all true, but it certainly makes a very good case for the officer's allegations. Furthermore, if verified by a third party, namely the complaining witness, Lucia Whalen, it's pretty damning to Gates. He was belligerent and incoherent from the first moment that Crowley approached him to inform him that there was a report of a possible break in at his home. In fact, Gates sounds so out of control I wondered while reading the account whether he was off some sort of medication or something.
The fact that the charges were later dropped don't change the fact that Gates was acting "tumultously" while outdoors in front of a gathering crowd, without any apparent reasonable provocation. If he was truly as insulting and belligerent as the report alleges, there is definitely probable cause for the officer to place Gates under arrest for Disorderly Conduct. Charges get dropped all the time, particularly after heads have cooled and prosecutors realize the case isn't worth the county or municipality's resources. If this was an unlawful arrest and imprisonment, then Gates can sue the city, but I don't see much of a case here, unless some third party comes forth and categorically refutes what Crowley alleges.
In the end, there are just too many potential witnesses to this event (who haven't come forward and issued any statements contradicting the police officer's allegations) to rant and rave about racist cops, coverups, and unlawful arrests.
Seriously, a lot of people on this thread need to put their own prejudices and personal experiences aside and analyze this story a bit more objectively.
You're just saying he was some crazy NIGGA?!
after actually reading the police report. I'm a defense attorney and deal with suspicious police behavior toward Black clients all the time, so this is something I have some experience with. I relaying to you exactly what I would say to my client at a preliminary interview, prior to when I would go and actually talk to any available witnesses.
Your knee-jerk response is typical rabble-rousing garbage that has no place in an objective discussion of the actual facts as we know them.
"In other words", you're an idiot.
Well then- explains a lot of your baggage- and suppressed guilt- (though curiously engaged justification for what you profess) as we know it. You're the least to preach and offer your most "honourable" insight as to the truth of such affairs, whilst defending the indefensibly dishonorable, my most esteemed compatriot. I shall nevertheless avoid any reciprocity of your very last statement. May you one day reap the 'benefits' of your trials! BTW- as an aside - do you engage in sexual 'bitch-slapping' as a sidethang- just wondering?? ;)
One more time, all we have (and all I ever have at the outset of a case) is a police report. So all we can judge about this situation is what's in the police report. Based on what's in the report, Mr. Gates doesn't come off very well sympathetically or legally.
Again, read the report. The cop was there for a legitimate reason, investigating a corroborated report of a possible break-in. He approached Gates' in his foyer. Gates was allegedly immediately belligerent and allegedly maintained his animosity and abuse toward the officers throughout the process, culminating in him acting disorderly on his front lawn. It might not seem fair, but those are grounds to arrest for DC.
That doesn't mean the story won't change down the road as we investigate the facts by interviewing witnesses, visiting the scene, etc., and more facts favorable to Gates appear. But at this point, if Gates were sitting in front of me after his Initial Appearance and all I had was that report, I would tell him exactly what I said up above - that the cops got a solid case here unless we can find a witness with major contradictions.
Place yourself in the 'hypothetical' position of defending Gates. Can you create for us an equally 'convincing' and thorough scenario?!
but it's far more speculative since I've never met with Mr. Gates to hear his story from him verbatim, nor do I have a detailed report of his side of the story sitting in front of me.
The best defense for Gates (and any criminal defendant) can be found in the intent requirement of the crime charged. If the code section cited by an above poster is right, Gates needed to either act "purposefully," so the State is required to proof he acted with the specific intent to annoy or alarm; or he had to act "recklessly" or with knowing disregard of a substantial risk of creating violence or the threat thereof.
I think a case can be made that Gates didn't act with the requisite intent to annoy and/or alarm, or to recklessly escalate a situation into violence. It still would be tough though, unless a different story comes out with further investigation, since Gates followed the cops out of his house yelling abusive comments, which could be construed by a jury to be sufficient evidence of an intent to annoy or alarm and/or recklessly escalate an already tense situation.
In the report, it's obvious that Crowley told Gates to talk to him outside in order to set the stage for a Disorderly Conduct charge. He tells Gates that he won't talk to him inside anymore, then goes outside. He uses the key word "tumultuous" twice in the next sentence, attaching it to "in view of the public". Throws in "surprised and alarmed" to make sure the we knew that he was endangering other citizens and then pulls out handcuffs while telling Gates to calm down. He could have defused the situation by showing Gates his ID and then walking away, instead of calling Gates out. The decision to arrest Gates was made well before the actual violation.
And, I do believe Crowley when he says he isn't a racist. I think this was less about racism on Crowley's part than it was about teaching this professor a little respect.
Crowley definitely should have IDed Gates, ascertained that the reported break-in was apparently without merit, and got the hell out of there.
Cops always use the exact language of the criminal statute. They're taught to do that to make the case more convincing on paper as well as in court.
I take no umbrage with the view that Crowley knew exactly what he was doing in taking the matter outside.
The question is though: does that conceit in anyway take away from the probable cause to arrest? Cops follow suspects around all the time waiting for them to do something that raises the reasonable suspicion necessary to investigate and frisk. Cops are cops, that's what they do.
I'll take your word about the wording of the report, I don't read many police reports, but still, isn't it one thing to follow a tweaker searching for parked cars with a stereo to rip off and another to ask a 5'5" elderly man with a cane to step outside so as to establish an arrestable offense? Couldn't this have been handled with a summons?
for disorderly conduct. By definition, the suspect is acting dangerously, so he or she must be placed under custodial arrest for the safety of the public and the officer (and potentially to avoid property destruction depending on the nature of the disorder).
Read the report though, it's important to see the State's evidence before we run around screaming about how bad their case is.
Comments are closed on this entry