Really? I wouldn't have anticipated it being such a big story knowing only that the guy worked at Harvard.

7/23/2009 2:21:20 PM

i'd base it off of a harvard professor who's yelling about racism. there's going to be some stink. especially if the arrest is for such a minor thing as yelling at a police officer.

7/23/2009 2:24:00 PM

Quote :

"and the cop should have known the shitstorm (for no real net gain) that would be caused by arresting the guy."

I agree. This is why I don't think we should arrest famous people or academics.

Also, unless the cop was an idiot, he probably did understand that this might get headlines. So, maybe one could take that as evidence that the cop thought he could justify the arrest if it came to a media fire storm.

7/23/2009 2:31:17 PM

well he's already started to lie about in the press. even contradicting his own report. he said on the radio yesterday that he went outside of the house because he feared for his safety. and said that he didn't know who gates was at that point. when the report says that gates had already provided ID at that point and presumed before even talking to the guy that he wasn't a threat (thus was ok with going into his house without backup)

7/23/2009 2:35:10 PM

So far, we really only have Crowley's word and the police reports. Gates has yet to tell his side of the story, from anything i've seen. From the police reports, it seems pretty clear to me they are written in a way to paint the cops in the most positive light, so it's hard to say what really happened just based on that.

Unfortunately, it would end up being Gate's word against Crowleys, and the cops usually win in that situation.

Crowley's statements he made on the radio though don't make sense to me, especially as ^ noted, since they do seem to contradict the other reports.

It's still not clear to me though what Gates could have possibly been arrested for in his own house if he wasn't physically threatening the police.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 2:48:57 PM

I'm a little late to the story because I managed to ignore this stupidity, but it keeps showing up on the front page of every news site. I caved in and read. After reading several different stories and this thread...

Problem 1: A black man had a chip on his shoulder. Thinks he has some special rights because he's black and has a big you know what.
Solution 1: Chill out dude. We know you have a big one. A little civility would have gone a loooooong way.

Problem 2: A cop had a chip on his shoulder. Thinks that if you're a black person with a bad attitude and loud mouth, then you've committed a crime. They should arrest you before you manage to end up screaming at your cousin on the other end of Walmart.
Solution 2: Chill out dude. That badge doesn't make you anyone's father.

Problem 3: A TWW user has a chip on their shoulder. Thinks that he's actually important and arguing on the internet will actually prove something or convince someone otherwise.
Solution 3: Chill out dude. It's just the intern3ts.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : meh]

7/23/2009 2:57:06 PM

Gates has already given several, differing testimonials.

Crowley's account has been verified by witnesses, of which there were many at the scene.

If I were to encounter a policeman responding to a break-in at my house, I think I'd be thankful. Why would any intelligent person be anything other than thankful? If I tripped the alarm at my house, and the cops came to investigate, the cops would be idiots for not treating me like a suspect, and I'd be an idiot if I didn't expect as much.

Sure no one likes being treated as a suspect for a crime they didn't commit, but an intelligent person appreciates the need for such treatment, expecially if you're the victim of said crime. It's not like he was being arrested, or asked to come downtown. That happened after he flipped out.

7/23/2009 3:07:32 PM

Quote :

"Gates has already given several, differing testimonials."

so has crowley now.

7/23/2009 3:09:22 PM

^^ i think the issues are with what happened after they verified he wasn't a criminal. Why not just apologize and leave? I used to take naps in my car between classes, and a cop questioned me once... when he saw it was my car and I had a parking permit, he just said "okay be careful" and drove away.

And where are you seeing Gates' account?

I read through a handful of these: http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=dTNVRaL2-Zk3GzMuhlTjGy2qIItIM&topic=h

And almost all of them cite the police report of Crowley's radio interview for their accounts (which differ between news sites too).

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 3:12:06 PM

http://tiny.cc/dnWqM

Link to an article on how Crowley is a "profiling expert" and actually taught classes on how to avoid profiling.

7/23/2009 3:15:51 PM

Quote :

"^^ i think the issues are with what happened after they verified he wasn't a criminal. Why not just apologize and leave? I used to take naps in my car between classes, and a cop questioned me once... when he saw it was my car and I had a parking permit, he just said "okay be careful" and drove away."

Is it so hard to fathom that even though Gates proved he was in his own home, there is still a potential investigation to be conducted? Did Gates let the cop know that he cleared his house and was positive there were no intruders? Of course now we know that it was him trying to beat down his own door, but how was the officer supposed to know? Did Gates explicitly tell him that he was the one seen "breaking in", and there was nothing to worry about, or did he act like a total ass and not give the officer a chance to answer these questions?

7/23/2009 3:19:36 PM

a legal perspective from someone on andrew sullivan's site:

Quote :

"You asked for a legal perspective on the Gates incident. Here are my thoughts, at least from a Maryland perspective: Most if not all states make it a crime to engage in “disorderly conduct,” or, similarly, to fail to obey an order of a police officer reasonably meant to prevent a breach of the peace. Generally disorderly conduct means words or actions taken with the intent to disturb another, or incite or provoke another to violence. Speaking one’s mind, even with the use of profanity or harsh words, is not sufficient to be criminal, as speech is protected by the first amendment. Instead, language must qualify as so-called “fighting words,” the use of which is not constitutionally protected. The term “fighting words” means language that tends to provoke or cause an act of violence on the part of the listener. In the words of one court, “conduct must have advocated imminent lawless action and been likely to incite a breach of the peace in order to be proscribable by the state.” Where the accused is “not exhorting others to breach the peace”, there is no crime. The focus here really is on the listener. Would the language or conduct tend to provoke the listener to violence? There is different standard for words or conduct directed to police. Police officers are expected by law not to be as sensitive as members of the general public, and to be able to withstand certain conduct or words that ordinary citizens could not. Courts also recognize that citizens have a right to protest police action, even emotionally or emphatically. Again the focus is on whether the words or conduct used would incite others – officers or ordinary citizens within earshot – to react violently. So here, the questions are: What did Gates actually say? If he was addressing the officer, where those statements intended to provoke the officer to react violently? Could the statements have provokes another bystander to violence? Of course, the decision as to whether or not a particular incident such as this amounts to a crime happens later, in court. At the scene, practically speaking, the officer has the discretion to arrest and charge disorderly conduct as he sees fit. That charge may or may not hold up in court, and often it doesn’t. Realistically the officer would probably not face any backlash (unless the accused happens to be a prominent Harvard professor.)"

i guess my beef is with the whole "being arrested" bit of it. but perhaps that's just how it works most of the time. i still have a problem with it and i think that someone shouldn't be arrested for something that they say if it isn't violent or disruptive in nature even if he is being a dick.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 3:21:37 PM

Quote :

"Is it so hard to fathom that even though Gates proved he was in his own home, there is still a potential investigation to be conducted? Did Gates let the cop know that he cleared his house and was positive there were no intruders? Of course now we know that it was him trying to beat down his own door, but how was the officer supposed to know? Did Gates explicitly tell him that he was the one seen "breaking in", and there was nothing to worry about, or did he act like a total ass and not give the officer a chance to answer these questions?"

According to the police report, the worker who called in the "crime" was standing there. I would be surprised if Crowley hadn't asked him "is that who you saw?" and he said "yes."

And why do you assume it was solely gates acting like an ass? I can't see how the situation got to this level, if at least Crowley wasn't acting like an ass too.

I have not seen or heard anything that would indicate to me that Crowley was being racist, but I think what may have happened is that Crowley reacted very negatively to Gates insinuations that he was racist, and started acting like a dick, which made Gates even more angrier. Considering the nature of his job, the onus is really on Crowley to maintain his calm.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 3:26:32 PM

Quote :

"The term “fighting words” means language that tends to provoke or cause an act of violence on the part of the listener. In the words of one court, “conduct must have advocated imminent lawless action and been likely to incite a breach of the peace in order to be proscribable by the state.” Where the accused is “not exhorting others to breach the peace”, there is no crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
Though it's the last case where "fighting words" were upheld, it stated that such words don't have to lend themselves to imminent lawlessness, but instead can create insult and injury just by being spoken and as such are a breach of the peace.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's something that gets brought up on occasion when a cop arrests someone just for talking shit.

7/23/2009 3:30:31 PM

Some places have specific laws making it an arrestable offense to be offensive to a cop.

But, I guess this is irrelevant if the police report has "disorderly conduct" as the charge.

7/23/2009 3:33:53 PM

Moron,

Actually, Gates gave his story earlier this week in both a prepared statement issued by his lawyer and in an interview w/The Root (an interview some have noted seems to contradict his earlier statement).

Here is my post about it from the previous page of the thread:

Interesting excerpts from interview between Gates and The Root:
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks

On why his door was jammed:

Quote :

"It looked like someone’s footprint was there. So it’s possible that the door had been jimmied, that someone had tried to get in while I was in China. But for whatever reason, the lock was damaged."

Or maybe right before you got home? The fact that someone might have tried to break in your house and you don't when could potentially be a cause for concern and a reason why one would want a cop around to investigate? Nahhh.

On how he was treated by the cop:

Quote :

"All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’ ... He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them. ... So he’s looking at my ID, he asked me another question, which I refused to answer. And I said I want your name and your badge number because I want to file a complaint because of the way he had treated me at the front door. "

Was it really so strange to see a cop at your door after noticing someone possibly broke into your home???? Its funny that evidence of a potential break-in doesn't scare him (in cambridge mind you), but a cop asking to speak with him does (but I'm sure he gets grilled by racist cops all the time in Cambridge, Mass). Its also funny that Gate's descriptions of the cop's words don't differ from the police report and he never actually explains the substance of his complaint (how did the cop mistreat him to warrant a complaint? by asking to speak with him and for some ID during the process of investigating a reported break-in? We don't know.)

On his arrest:

Quote :

"It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, ‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything. He turned his back to me and turned back to the porch. And I followed him. I kept saying, “I want your name, and I want your badge number.” It looked like an ocean of police had gathered on my front porch. There were probably half a dozen police officers at this point. The mistake I made was I stepped onto the front porch and asked one of his colleagues for his name and badge number. And when I did, the same officer said, ‘Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.’ And he handcuffed me right there. "

Thank goodness. Now even Gate's statement confirms that he followed the cop outside (some people apparently were unwilling to believe the police report earlier).

After that its all he-said-he-said. On the one hand, the police report said Gates was hollering about racism and demanding the first cop's badge #, Gates was asked twice to calm down, and was arrested for "disorderly conduct" when he failed to do (contrary to apparent popular conception, disorderly conduct is not an imaginary crime they made up just to shit on Henry Louis Gates). On the other hand, Gates makes it sound like he was arrested for calmly asking questions.

I guess people can draw their own conclusions from there. But whatever we think, it sounds like there were close to 10 witnesses of the arrest, so I guess the truth will get sorted out if Gates bothers seeking legal action.

7/23/2009 3:41:11 PM

Quote :

"Why not just apologize and leave? "

I'm not convinced Crowely stayed very long after his identity was verified. That said, if he did stay longer than expected, it may be justifiable due to Gates suspicously indignant behavior.

One reason I'm more inclined to believe Crowley is the fact that Gates continues to claim it was a racist action, and I'm fairly certain that's not true.

However, maybe it was the initial claim of racism itself that elevated Gates' behavior from tolerable to intolerable, from Crowley's point of view. How's that for irony.

7/23/2009 3:48:37 PM

^^ why would Crowley care if he was a harvard professor? I don't get why Crowley would ask about that (if that's what happened)... the drivers license with the address should be the only thing he cared about.

Quote :

"He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them. 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. So he’s looking at my ID, he asked me another question, which I refused to answer. And I said I want your name and your badge number because I want to file a complaint because of the way he had treated me at the front door. He didn’t say, ‘Excuse me, sir, is there a disturbance here, is this your house?’—he demanded that I step out on the porch, and I don’t think he would have done that if I was a white person. But at that point, I realized that I was in danger. And so I said to him that I want your name, and I want your badge number and I said it repeatedly. "

If this is how it went down, then I can see why Gates got upset. It should have ended at this point. An officer would not have any reason to demand he come out on to the porch at this point.

edit:

I'm inclined to believe Crowley's account though (except the "i'll take to your mama outside" seems to be out of place...) i still don't see why he felt the need to arrest him, except for the fact that he had already called in so many other cops that he would have felt dumb not walking away with a perp.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 3:52:58 PM

"Cop who arrested black scholar is profiling expert"

The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on racial profiling.
Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class on racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.


"I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy," Fleming told The Associated Press on Thursday.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99KBEAO1&show_article=1

7/23/2009 4:40:54 PM

Nobody wins in this situation. Congrats to everyone and their poison tipped quills/keyboards, especially first page posters

7/23/2009 4:55:53 PM

I haven't really commented yet on the main thrust of this thread, mostly b/c I've been pretty sick the past few days, other than to share the link about & text about it. I do wonder about the woman who called the police... I feel as though I could recognize my 20 or so nearest neighbors if they were trying to get in their own place. I also think that after the cops identified that he was who he said he was, and in his own home, then that should have been the end of it. But how much race played a factor, it is hard to say. I think the pool incident that I shared more of & went into more detail about is unquestionably an instance of racism & shows there is work to be done, especially when the racism is towards kids... that just isn't right.

In regards to the arrest issue I'm not sure if this really helps the police officers defense though when he recently talked about performing CPR on someone 16 years ago.

Quote :

"“I wasn’t working on Reggie Lewis the basketball star. I wasn’t working on a black man."

More follow up on the kids who were kicked out of the swim club for "changing its complexion":
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/50589797.html?cmpid=15585797
It appears as though they were invited back, after the swim club got some bad press & the board voted nearly unanimously to allow them back. But I believe they declined to return. And some other facility heard about this on the news & offered to help:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Campers-Complexion-No-Problem-for-New-Pool.html

Quote :

"[T]he staff at Girard College, a private Philadelphia boarding school for children who live in low-income and single parent homes, stepped in and offered their pool. "We had to help," said Girard College director of Admissions Tamara Leclair. "Every child deserves an incredible summer camp experience." The school already serves 500 campers of its own, but felt they could squeeze in 65 more – especially since the pool is vacant on the day the Creative Steps had originally planned to swim at Valley Swim Club. "I'm so excited," camp director Alethea Wright exclaimed."

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 5:36:34 PM

she wasn't a neighbor. she was passing through the neighborhood (working i think).

7/23/2009 5:41:08 PM

sounds like gates got what he deserved. he played the race card and lost. it is obvious he was acting like a damned fool and not following orders. the cops did nothing wrong. asking him onto the porch is not wrong. maybe the officer didn't want someone to be in the house where a weapon might be obtained?

7/23/2009 5:50:00 PM

well he claimed it was because it was too loud in the house. but what does he know. he just wrote the police report and then said something entirely different the next day.

7/23/2009 5:55:15 PM

What is his new statement?

7/23/2009 6:09:18 PM

Sounds like another case of teh



As many people declared in the lounge if a white male like myself is pulled the police is merely "doing his job" or i need to stop "being a bitch"

or

"I mean, if 98% of the time a group of 5 college aged males weren't drunk then the police officer wouldn't need to stereotype.

You fucks create it you can change it, until then expect the world to hate you."

message_topic.aspx?topic=571760

If a police is investigating suspicious behavior and the target just happens to be black. Even if the officer is just doing his job you get the whole african community in an uproar screaming racism and unlawful persecution. Even if the officer may have a legitimate claims or if the black professor, with possibly a chip on his shoulder, acted in such "offended" manner as to antagonize the cop to make the arrest.

I do not see how this guy would have gotten arrested had he come to the door and politely answered the cops questions.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : l]

7/23/2009 6:19:06 PM

^^^ no, you just misunderstood.

He said to the press that he initially asked Gates to come outside because of safety issues. Of course Gates refused. He said in his police report that after gates refused to come outside, at some point he entered and asked for proof of residency, etc. Then Gates started yelling at him, and he asked to go outside again due to the acoustics in the house.

Where is the discrepancy?

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 6:28 PM. Reason : 2]

7/23/2009 6:26:52 PM

Quote :

"he was acting like a damned fool and not following orders"

really? he was in his home. it doesn't matter what color you or the officer is, many people would feel at liberty to tell a cop to fuck off if they were in their home and already provided proof. it could have been the queen of england questioning him; after he provided proof, gates had no legal obligation to comply with further questioning.


this seems less likely a case of racism and more of a power struggle to me.

"the cop was just doing his job." to me that argument loses steam once identification was established. after he realized a man was in his own home, he should have left. the cop is just being a prick for not leaving after that.

the whole part about crowley saying "please step outside - thanks for stepping outside so that i may arrest you" seems like a cop baiting someone so that he could arrest him, which is wrong, and is the main reason why i'm inclined to side with gates. it's the equivilant of getting in someones face and repeatedly saying, "come on, hit me, hit me, hit me" and then claiming that the other person threw the first punch

my guess is that the cop came, was less than cordial to gates (even if he is a cop, he still has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally) and gates didn't like it and started suggesting that the cop was being racist. crowley didn't like that (maybe because he's an asshole and just had nothing else to do, or maybe because the accusation ticked him off after spending a career being honest and race conscious) and felt the need to flex his muscle.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 6:32:49 PM

obama needs to learn to keep his own racist comments to himself

if it ain't on the teleprompter mr president...stfu

7/23/2009 6:37:36 PM

Quote :

"my guess is that the cop came, was less than cordial to gates (even if he is a cop, he still has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally) and gates didn't like it and started suggesting that the cop was being racist. crowley didn't like that (maybe because he's an asshole and just had nothing else to do, or maybe because the accusation ticked him off after spending a career being honest and race conscious) and felt the need to flex his muscle."

[/thread]

7/23/2009 6:40:12 PM

^probably not what happened

this is just another example of the

7/23/2009 6:45:43 PM

Quote :

"WHITE MAN'S BURDEN"

7/23/2009 6:48:29 PM

Quote :

"obama needs to learn to keep his own racist comments to himself if it ain't on the teleprompter mr president...stfu "

lol

oppressed white male syndrome much?

Quote :

"my guess is that the cop came, was less than cordial to gates (even if he is a cop, he still has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally) and gates didn't like it and started suggesting that the cop was being racist. crowley didn't like that (maybe because he's an asshole and just had nothing else to do, or maybe because the accusation ticked him off after spending a career being honest and race conscious) and felt the need to flex his muscle. "

This is what I was thinking too, but we don't know.

I also am surprised at the media's reports of Obama's statement on this. They make it seem like he just called the cops stupid without qualification, and I had been thinking Obama screwed up, but then I saw the video and he was fairly reasonable.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 7:08:08 PM

Dave Chapelle on what really happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx2nRhwfydo

7/23/2009 7:58:27 PM

Quote :

"why would Crowley care if he was a harvard professor? I don't get why Crowley would ask about that (if that's what happened)... the drivers license with the address should be the only thing he cared about. "

I get the impression from the fact that Gates called, per his own account, the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door, that the housing is owned or managed by the university, and presumably only university affiliated individuals could be the owner the property. So valid ID + university credentials would be the items the cop would want to validate Gates' claim that it was his house.

7/23/2009 8:34:26 PM

Quote :

"CLEVELAND – President Barack Obama said Thursday he was surprised by all the hubbub over his comments that a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., had acted "stupidly" in arresting a prominent black scholar for disorderly conduct. "I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement," Obama said in an interview with ABC News, "because I think it was a pretty straightforward comment that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home.""

So that's how the police were acting stupidly...handcuffing Gates? Gates wasn't in his house when he was arrested. Anyway..we don't need to follow established police protocol when it comes to Obama's friends.

New rule police...if the suspect is middle-age, or uses a cane...he's harmless...no need to handcuff these perps.

7/23/2009 9:43:53 PM

I do find it amusing that while profiling on race would be a bad thing, people would be perfectly OK with these cops profiling on age and disability.

7/23/2009 9:54:38 PM

The police report reads like a Monty Python skit.

The officer walked up to a black man who was fighting with a front door and told him, to his face, that he was "investigating a report of a break in progress."

Obviously at that point the officer didn't actually think Gates was trying to break in. Now I'm no student of police protocol, but is it often that people try to break in through the front door in upscale neighborhoods, in plain sight of everybody? And is it often that police respond to legitimate break in attempts by telling the person who they are and why they're there?

And maybe I am from the privileged upbringing of small town North Carolina, but I can see how it's at least a little bit insulting to walk up to an older black man in a nice neighborhood and imply to his face that he's breaking into a house. At the very least, I would have considered the possibility.

Of course from the report, it sounds like Gates totally over-reacted. In fact I suspect he's a professional over-reactor. But I didn't read anything that even remotely warranted arresting the man. What was the cop afraid of? If he just left, that the guy would sit there screaming for twenty or thirty more minutes? So what? If we just arrest people for screaming at themselves, I want that cop in SF -- we have plenty of crazy guys on the streets here for him to have a ball with.

Obama should have stayed away from this one -- nobody walks away with their hands clean in a real-life social farce.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : foo]

7/23/2009 10:36:51 PM

No. This was O'bamas chance to practice what he preaches and bring the races together. He should have come out and said lets not rush to judgment and let the facts come out. Instead the angry black man came out of him and he verbally assaulted the cops without knowing all the facts. He really blew his first major "racial" incident.

7/23/2009 10:51:33 PM

^
Excellent call

7/23/2009 11:18:59 PM

thats because Obama is a racist radical black man

7/23/2009 11:19:31 PM

Quote :

"The officer walked up to a black man who was fighting with a front door and told him, to his face, that he was "investigating a report of a break in progress." "

-Smoker4

lol Smoker has obvioulsy not read the police report, despite his claims to the contrary. Both the police report and Gate's subequent statements say that Gates was inside the house when the officer showed up to investigate a reported break in. That is NOT fighting with a front door.

haha.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ``]

7/23/2009 11:22:44 PM

^

Who are you again?

7/24/2009 12:20:34 AM

a massachusetts lawyer on andrew sullivan's blog:

Quote :

" I have been a Massachusetts appellate lawyer for more than twenty years, and will attempt to outline relevant state law to you. This is a quick answer, and I will look at some more cases. The criminal prohibition against "disorderly conduct" can be found in Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, under a category that penalizes "crimes against chastitity, morality, decency and good order." It is penalized under Section 53, which provides fines and possible imprisonment for "Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure." I do not think you need to get far, if at all, into nuances of First Amendment law in order to discern that a "disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home. In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor." In a 2008 case, the state's Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated "[t]he "public" element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant's action affects or is 'likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'" Id. "

7/24/2009 2:27:50 AM

^

Quote :

"...keepers of noisy and disorderly houses...it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home."

7/24/2009 8:46:23 AM

Jumping into the conversation late, but I think Obama's choice of words were correct. Note that he said "stupidly," not "wrongly." Of course the police officers acted stupidly; either:

a) Gates was acting properly, and they weren't justified in arresting him

b) Gates was acting improperly, and they let the situation escalate and gave Gates exactly what he wanted. There's no way this scenario could have happened if either party had been acting with a measure of humility.

Neither scenario describes good police work, regardless of whether the officers were right or wrong.

7/24/2009 9:33:15 AM

^ lol are you on his pay roll? Are you suggesting we shouldn't arrest people that want to be arrested, even if they are breaking the law, because that would give them what they want? ahah I bet that's a good general rule for cops to use. "We can't arrest that guy breaking into that car, Phil. I happen to know he's actually a homosexual that wants to go to prison so he can he get it up the cornhole. No, no. We'll ignore him and he'll go away." But, of course, I'm sure you had a much more "nuanced" idea for how such a lame approach would be applied (i.e. only use it to arrest the people you want to arrest). lol

Anyways, it sounds like your same argument could be used to describe why Obama's remarks were stupid in themselves, even if you think they are correct.
"Of course Obama acted stupidly; either:
a) he misunderstood the facts of the case and his statements were inaccurate

b) the cops were acting improperly in arresting Gates, but in getting involved in a local matter involving a personal acquaintance, he only gave the right-wing noise machine more fodder to criticize his administration.

neither scenario describes good politics, regardless of whether Obama was right or wrong"

Partisanship is so last year, friend.

7/24/2009 10:30:59 AM

Quote :

" Are you suggesting we shouldn't arrest people that want to be arrested, even if they are breaking the law, "

that's assuming that they're actually breaking the law.....

It's still woefully unclear that Gates was doing anything actually illegal. Public disturbance my ass. You know what the best way to get someone to shut up? Check their ID, then leave their fucking property.

7/24/2009 11:07:41 AM

^ woefully unclear to a guy on TWW forum over a week after it happened?? YOU DON'T SAY!??? You don't thinking he was creating a disturbance...when *you were not there*!?!?! WOW!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!

Look, I acknowledge the facts are fuzzy because none of us were there. That's why I abhor the certainty with which people (including our President) assume the cop was wrong "stupid".

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ``]

7/24/2009 11:40:38 AM

My thoughts:

1.) The lady was right to call the police.

2.) The police were correct to respond.

3.) The police were correct to investigate, which required Gates to prove his identity.

4.) Gates was justified at being upset by having to prove himself in his own home.

5.) The officer was able to determine his identity.

6.) The officer should have simply given his name and badge number and left.

7.) Gates would have either cooled down or filed a complaint that would have went nowhere.

8.) The officer showed poor judgment by arresting Gates. You can't come on to someones property, provoke them (regardless of intention), and then arrest them. You are going to lose that one every time.

9.) The officer is going to get slapped with a civil rights lawsuit. Although he probably isn't guilty of that, and may win the suit, he still loses. Defendants in civil cases always lose, even when the win the case.

10.) They both could have prevented this, but the officer is trained for these confrontations, Gates was not.

7/24/2009 11:43:24 AM