Housing While Black (1 Viewer)

[R 2 D 2]

It'll take me a while to read this thread. I do say that racial profiling happens everywhere every single day. It is one of the reasons I drive a VW and so far it has been

 

[Lupe]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down. Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

You do understand its up the courts to decide if someone is guilty of something illegal right? The police officer doesn't decide this. He is only following protocol, the judge will decide what happens next.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down.

Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.

2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.

3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.

For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

You do understand its up the courts to decide if something is guilty of something illegal right? The police officer doesn't decide this. He is only following protocol, the judge will decide what happens next.

I doubt it. I mean, when has Maurile ever demonstrated that he understands the legal system?

 

[Battersbox]

I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:

If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.

I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.

It's possible that Mass's law is more strict than other states.

 

[R 2 D 2]

Link to police report.

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Gates had a chip on his shoulder and was given plenty of chances to calm down. He didn't. Shame on him for bringing race into this.

I read the report a while ago.I'm pretty sure Obama will have a big photo op with Gates and Sgt. Crowley shaking hands. Do they give out Nobel prize for Race Relations?

 

[kaa]

From a political standpoint, republicans holding office, particularly those in leadership positions like Boehner, should refrain from commenting on the issue entirely. Doing that allows the democrats to turn this into standard partisan bickering. Of course people like Rush Limbaugh or myself, who are basically attack dogs, can feel free to pound Obama all day on the subject. I don't hold an elected office, so there's no reason to hold back.

Obama is arrogant.

I heard commentary today on Hugh Hewitt that I agree with and I'll paraphrase. The roots of this are in something called "the Philadelphia speech". Back during the campaign, Obama was under fire for rev. Wright and for saying his grandmother was a "typical white woman". In a speech in Philadelphia, he made a total mockery of the entire situation. He systematically pointed fingers at everyone except himself on the issue of racism. It was completely stupid. The media praised it as a "great speech". They seriously said students should study it in classrooms.

What that really did was feed Obama's arrogance. He figured if he could get away with turning the issue of race around on everyone else in America, and not get called on it, then he pretty much walks on water. No-one stood up to him. In that light, its perfectly natural that when the Cambridge police arrest Gates, he would call the police stupid and not give it a second thought. I'm sure it was completely shocking to him that he received pushback from the entire police force. I'm sure his first thought was "Who are these people? Do they not know I am OBAMA?"

 

[Neofight]

quote]

Healthcare? Dont' arrest him because of healthcare? What does that even mean?

No, don't arrest him because there was no cause. None whatsoever. End of story. The rest is just commentary on the state of things in this country. The officers actions obviously did not help. Did Obama's comments help either? No, not likely. But then I think that anyone here in this forum (white or black, though the outcome would likely have been much different if you are white) who was arrested in their own home, with the officer obviously showing his intent by coaxing you out of the home so he could make the arrest, would be pretty pissed if this happened to them. Maybe you wouldn't call the cop stupid or you would not have mouthed of to the arresting officer; but based on the posts I've read in this thread and others I'm fairly certain those up in arms over this issue would have more than a few choice words to say. And most of you aren't diminutive types using a cane to get around, one would surmise. I imagine this ups the ante. But here I go empathizing, and I do realize this is a difficult thing for some of you.I appreciate and respect police. I have two in my family who I am close with. But these actions were unnecessary and yes, stupid. Sometimes we lose our heads during confrontation. If this happened to you, how would you have reacted in either person's shoes? If you say you would have acted the same was as Crowley, back your case up with facts and the law. Otherwise pack up the feigned outrage for another day, por favor.

Gates wasn't arrested in his home, he was outside. The officer was not "obviously showing his intent by coaxing you out of the home so he make the arrest". He wanted Gates outside because it was the safe and proper request when investigating a burlary in progress. After being berated by Gates inside the house, the officer told him to calm down and later the officer walked away. Gates followed the officer outside and continued to berate him. After 2 additional warnings the officer arrested Gates outside.

Exactly my point. However, Professor Gates identity (as the owner of the home) was established prior to the request to go outside. Your version of this story is one that I have not read anywhere else. It does make the arrest seem like a more reasonable conclusion; but it is flat out wrong based on what I've read and heard of the police report by officer Figueroa. As stated by others, berating does not constitute a punishable offense in MA. Saying the words "Yo Mama" is not against the law.Still curious how those up in arms over this would feel if the same thing happened to them in (and on the porch of) their house.

Link to police report.Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Gates had a chip on his shoulder and was given plenty of chances to calm down. He didn't. Shame on him for bringing race into this.

Thank you for that, I hadn't seen it yet. This does make the story that much more interesting to me in that the two officer's reports don't exactly match up; you will notice that officer Figueroa's report claims that he stepped inside to see officer Crowley already in the residence, and hears the exact same words that Crowley reports were Gate's response to his question to step outside while he was himself outside. This is a fairly significant difference. Rookie mistake? In any event, nothing in the report indicates any reason or justification for the arrest, discrepancies aside. Gates knew better than to act as he did, but so did Crowley. And given that he was dealing with an exhausted and somewhat agitated man in his own home, he should have left well enough alone. As for the race issue, run with it as this isn't what I am interested in about this case. It's a non-issue and only concerns me so far as it may limit ones ability to see things from Gates perspective. But that gets into that whole empathy thing and I've already said my piece on that.

 

[R 2 D 2]

Obama is arrogant.

He is usually pretty humble when he texts me for advice.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'm asking again my earlier question, because none of the law types addressed as I could see:

If I am reading Maurile's responses correctly, then am I to conclude that one can say whatever one wants to the police as long as I don't physically threaten them? Is it really this clear cut? Could I insult his wife, his mother, his sexual orientation, his religion, his appearance, etc. as loudly as I want to but refrain from actually threatening him bodily harm and still be on the right side of the law? Honest question. If this is the case it surprises me.

I only ask again because it seems that those that are trained in the law are saying that it is really quite clearly NOT illegal. It just seems to me there has to be a gray area there.

I believe Ditkaless Wonders is a prosecutor in Colorado and he feels that Gates' behavior here was criminal and the arrest was justified.interesting article here that deals with police brutality in Washington DC

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, earlier this year found himself explaining to a D.C. Superior Court judge why he could not sit on a jury for a case involving a shooting by D.C. officers.

Bond told the judge that a decade ago, his 87-year-old uncle, J. Max Bond, a distinguished educator and diplomat, had been knocked to the ground outside his Capitol Hill home by an officer. Max Bond had gone outside to look into a disturbance, according to his subsequent account in court papers. When one officer after another refused to answer his questions and kept referring him to other officers, Bond muttered, "Another dictionary case: Donkey – see jackass. Jackass – see donkey."

Bond was immediately struck in the head and shoulders, then arrested for disorderly conduct, according to court papers. No charges were filed. Police say that anyone who verbally abuses an officer is subject to arrest.

"There was no excuse for striking an old man," Julian Bond said of his uncle, who has since died.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), a friend of Max Bond who witnessed the incident while jogging, said she was horrified.

"This was an old man of great intelligence, vigor and dignity," Norton said. "He had never been disrespectful to anyone. Nobody would have found an elderly gentleman of this kind a danger to the police."

The largest award this decade involving brutality allegations against D.C. police came after a four-year legal battle waged by printing salesman James Douglas Cox.

Cox won a $460,000 judgment in 1992 against two officers, and a separate $165,000 award from the city in 1993 after a judge found that the District had shown "deliberate indifference" to citizens complaining of police brutality.

Cox, a 28-year-old former Marine, was driving home to Bowie from Dupont Circle at 3 a.m. on Dec. 30, 1990, when he changed lanes without signaling. Officers Barry Goodwin and William Brady pulled him over.

During his two years on the force, Goodwin had already accumulated three review board complaints. In 1989, a Bethesda account executive accused Goodwin and others of throwing him into a plate-glass window in Georgetown and handcuffing him so tightly his wrists bled. In 1990, a motorist said Goodwin and other officers kicked and shoved him, according to the motorist's lawsuit. The city eventually settled the case. A student also filed an excessive-force complaint, naming Goodwin, in December 1990.

Goodwin denied all the accusations, according to court papers. All three complaints were still pending when Goodwin and Brady stopped Cox.

Goodwin was immediately confrontational and, after an unpleasant exchange, grabbed Cox's car keys and threw them into a parking lot, Cox said in a recent interview. Cox said Goodwin threatened to beat or shoot him if he came out of the car, then wrote a traffic ticket and tossed it into the passenger's seat.

Emerging from the car to retrieve his keys and driver's license, Cox said he tried to read Goodwin's badge number. Goodwin then "hit me in the head with his nightstick," Cox said.

Goodwin slammed him against the police car, Cox said. "The next thing I knew, a bunch of officers were on me," he added. Cox was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, placed in a police wagon and driven around for about 30 minutes before the officers returned to the 2nd District station.

"This was the scariest part," he said. "Nothing made any sense. . . . I feared they would kill me."

During a subsequent review board inquiry, Goodwin said Cox had resisted arrest. Goodwin declined requests from The Post for comment; Brady did not respond to messages requesting an interview.

Cox had bruises and a six-inch gash above his left eye, according to court records. He paid a $25 fine and was released just before noon on Dec. 30 – nine hours after the traffic stop. According to Cox's account to the court, when he asked the officers why he had been assaulted, Brady replied, "Slow night." Charges against Cox were dismissed six months later, when the officers failed to show up in court.

Cox filed a review board complaint, then sued the District and Officers Goodwin and Brady. For more than a year, Cox waited – while Goodwin accumulated more citizen complaints.

A Philadelphia man said Goodwin beat him outside a Georgetown club in June 1991. The city paid the man $10,000 after a city attorney withdrew from the case, saying that Goodwin would not cooperate with her efforts to defend him.

Cox's lawsuit came before U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green in February 1992, when national attention was focused on the Rodney King brutality case in Los Angeles. Goodwin and Brady failed to appear in court. Green found that Cox had "persuasive" evidence of a "mauling" by Goodwin, which Brady did nothing to stop. She held Goodwin liable for $350,000 and Brady for $110,000.

Criminologists and civil rights lawyers see similarities in many police beating incidents. The triggering offenses are typically minor, but the officer often perceives a challenge to authority and acts to regain control.

Klotz, who frequently testifies against police departments as an expert witness in brutality cases, said officers may regard a citizen's questions or refusal to fully cooperate as an offense known informally among police as "contempt of cop" – a sign of disrespect that could escalate into trouble.

Inez B. Vecchietti, a 70-year-old Bethesda woman, was accused of stealing two grapes at a Northwest supermarket by an off-duty officer working as a security guard. When she protested, Vecchietti alleged in court papers, she was dragged down the aisle, arrested and handcuffed. Charges against her were dropped. The lawsuit she filed was settled last spring by the store for an undisclosed amount, court documents show.

"These are petty incidents, not serious crimes," said Joseph Hart, a former corporation counsel lawyer who now represents clients suing for alleged brutality. "Seasoned criminals rarely are on the receiving end of police brutality. They know how to deal with the police and not provoke them. It's mostly your law-abiding citizens who have never encountered the police [and] who say, 'I've never been arrested before. Why is this happening?' "

That, law enforcement experts say, is where training comes into play. A well-trained officer learns to absorb verbal aggressiveness and not take confrontations personally, according to former D.C. police chief Isaac Fulwood Jr. Officers must understand, Fulwood added, that residents are angry not at the officer but at "the uniform."

"The overwhelming majority of police officers do a good job," added Fulwood, who was chief from 1989 to 1992. "They never use force, never fire their guns, never hit anyone."

But some D.C. officers are what is known in police jargon as "repeaters" – cited again and again in citizen complaints and lawsuits.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

another take on this

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

...

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

UPDATE: Via Rayne's link to DKos in comments, and the Boston Globe, the Statement of Facts from the official police report in the Gates arrest:

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley

And therein lies the problem for Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD. It was a patently illegal and insufficient arrest from the start. Gates is arrested for disturbing the peace - of Sergeant Crowley. See the words "directed at a uniformed officer"? This is the epitome of contempt of cop, and that is an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. What is not contained in the statement of facts is any reference to an identifiable citizen/member of the public being disturbed. None whatsoever. This is precisely the type of conduct castigated historically by courts as generally described in Duran v. City of Douglas.*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[ffjunk]

Thank you for that, I hadn't seen it yet. This does make the story that much more interesting to me in that the two officer's reports don't exactly match up; you will notice that officer Figueroa's report claims that he stepped inside to see officer Crowley already in the residence, and hears the exact same words that Crowley reports were Gate's response to his question to step outside while he was himself outside. This is a fairly significant difference. Rookie mistake?

In any event, nothing in the report indicates any reason or justification for the arrest, discrepancies aside. Gates knew better than to act as he did, but so did Crowley. And given that he was dealing with an exhausted and somewhat agitated man in his own home, he should have left well enough alone. As for the race issue, run with it as this isn't what I am interested in about this case. It's a non-issue and only concerns me so far as it may limit ones ability to see things from Gates perspective. But that gets into that whole empathy thing and I've already said my piece on that.

Read it again. He radioed he was off in the residence and asked for photo identification. Not sure how long Figueroa has been on but Crowley is a seasoned vet. Also, the black officer that was in the arresting photo has said that he believes 100% that Gates should have been arrested and backs Crowley. I do not like the race issues either--and unfortunately I do not deny that racism exists. I just don't think it played a part here.

 

[kaa]

It's possible that Mass's law is more strict than other states.

Yah that's the problem with debating the ins and outs of the law in this regard. I don't feel like we have many experts in this forum, and then it just breaks down into the "who has more credibility" game. Ditkaless Wonders post was pretty well put together, although I don't know anything about him nor do I know how much he knows about Cambridge law enforcement. I'm not saying DW or anyone else is right or wrong, but without much of a way to apply what is said to any facts that may come out or be changed, it doesn't seem like interesting dicussion.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop

Contempt of cop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Contempt of cop" is U.S. law enforcement jargon for perceived disrespect by citizens towards police officers. The term is most often used in connection with police misconduct in reaction to such disrespect, i.e., arrest or police violence solely as a reaction to the disrespect, rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Because of the possibility (and supposed frequency) of such reactions, it has become something of a cliché to sardonically refer to "contempt of cop" as the worst possible street crime.

Officers so inclined may react with such misconduct to any perceived challenge to their authority, including a lack of deference, disobeying instructions, flight from the police or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer. Offences such as the "trilogy" of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons for a "contempt of cop" arrest.

The term is derived by analogy from "contempt of court", which unlike "contempt of cop" is an offence in many jurisdictions. It was already in use by the 1960s. It has also been referred to as "flunking the attitude test" and as a form of "interactional discrimination" (i.e., discrimination against people more likely to "talk back" to the police, such as young black men in the U.S.).

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

another take on this

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

...

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

UPDATE: Via Rayne's link to DKos in comments, and the Boston Globe, the Statement of Facts from the official police report in the Gates arrest:

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley

And therein lies the problem for Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD. It was a patently illegal and insufficient arrest from the start. Gates is arrested for disturbing the peace - of Sergeant Crowley. See the words "directed at a uniformed officer"? This is the epitome of contempt of cop, and that is an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. What is not contained in the statement of facts is any reference to an identifiable citizen/member of the public being disturbed. None whatsoever. This is precisely the type of conduct castigated historically by courts as generally described in Duran v. City of Douglas.*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So Maurile was correct? I'm shocked.

 

[HellToupee]

don't know if this has been posted here...

Crowley was described by his colleagues as an exemplary officer who teaches a racial-profiling class at the Lowell Police Department.

Crowley has taught the class at the Lowell Police Academy for five years, Lowell police Deputy Deborah Friedl said.

Lowell Police Academy Director Thomas Fleming described Crowley to the Boston Herald as "very professional" and a "good role model." Fleming also said Crowley was hand-picked to teach the class by former Cambridge Police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black.

 

[Neofight]

Exactly my point. However, Professor Gates identity (as the owner of the home) was established prior to the request to go outside. Your version of this story is one that I have not read anywhere else. It does make the arrest seem like a more reasonable conclusion; but it is flat out wrong based on what I've read and heard of the police report by officer Figueroa. As stated by others, berating does not constitute a punishable offense in MA. Saying the words "Yo Mama" is not against the law.

Still curious how those up in arms over this would feel if the same thing happened to them in (and on the porch of) their house.

Link to police report.Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Gates had a chip on his shoulder and was given plenty of chances to calm down. He didn't. Shame on him for bringing race into this.

Relevant quotes from the two reports, illustrating the discrepancy I pointed out above:Crowley:

As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of (redacted) Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied "no I will not."

Figueroa:

When I arrived, I stepped into the residence and Sgt. Crowley had already entered and was speaking to a black male.

As I stepped in, I heard Sgt. Crowley ask for the gentleman's information which he stated "NO I WILL NOT!"

A couple of things here: one, and most obviously, Crowley goes out of his way to make clear that he is outside when he addresses Gates (apparently through a closed, glass paned front door). Figueroa says they were inside and that the Sgt. was inside the residence prior to his arrival. Two, Crowley's statement makes it seem as though Gates responded in a calm manner to his request while Figueroa's report is in a YELLING ALL CAPS with exclamation mark for good measure. It is interesting how perspectives, recollections and opinions differ in instances where there is a heated debate, even going so far as to make someone forget whether they were inside or outside, the tone with which the alleged perp responded, and when ID was presented. And these perspectives and memories are those of the two officers. It only gets more interesting when you throw in Gates take on the matter.

 

[ArcticEdge]

Gates is in the wrong, he's a race baiter and showed his true colors of him being the racist and not the police. Normal/rational people understand the cops are just doing their job and show their identification and thank the cops for looking out for their house and the neighborhood.

Maurile, I'm no law guy like yourself, but I believe disturbing the peace is against the law, Gates was acting like a lunatic. Can't wait till the 911 call tapes comes out (if they do).

Obama is also wrong for saying the police acted in a stupid manner without knowing all the facts. It was pathetic to see Obama's media stooge ask that Obama prepared question. Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

 

[IGKYA!!!]

It feels like we are in a vicious circle here. Gates was belligerent before his information was verified and after it was verified. The police gave Gates several (note key word - SEVERAL) warnings to calm down and he continued to act the way he did. Even after he was handcuffed he was still being belligerent and even threatened the officer that 'he was going to make him pay'. No matter how many times you try to spin it, the police were not wrong with their arrest at that time as Gates did not follow several instructions to calm down.

Why do both sides have to be at fault here? Why can't you just say that the actions of Gates were incorrect and that the police reacted accordingly (after showing much patience and restraint).

You're right that we've been through this before.1. Being belligerent on your porch (or in your house) is not illegal.

2. Disobeying warnings to calm down is not illegal.

3. Threatening to make someone pay is not illegal.

For the police not to have been wrong in their arrest, Gates would have had to do something illegal.

You do understand its up the courts to decide if someone is guilty of something illegal right? The police officer doesn't decide this. He is only following protocol, the judge will decide what happens next.

So what is the definition of disorderly conduct?

 

[kutta]

MT, a lot of people agree with what you are saying. The problem is that this thing blew up because of a claim of racism. Even if you grant that the cops were in the wrong in arresting him, who cares? So the cops erred on another close judgment call. If the claim of racism never surfaced, this would not even be in the news. So your position of not addressing whether or not racism was involved is a bit empty. I think everyone could agree, or at least come close to agreeing that it was close judgment call and the cops probably should not have arrested him. But not everyone agrees or is close to agreeing whether or not racism is involved in the decision. So until you address the issue of racism, whether from the cop, Gates, or Obama, your opinion is simple and not very interesting.

I don't think it was a close judgment call, and I have no idea what role race had in the officer's actions. You guys raking Maurile over the coals for not classifying this case as about race baiting are just as annoying as the ones crying racism from step one.It was a case where Gates acted poorly, and the officer, whether because he was frustrated or having a ####ty day or whatever, overstepped his authority. I don't know what was in the officer's head any more than Gates does. Because Gates came up through the Civil Rights Era, it's easy to imagine that he overreacted. To the extent that Gates wants to make this a "teaching moment" about race in America, I agree that he deserves some scorn. But we can admit that without making the cop out to be some kind of victim. He screwed up. It happens.

You really truly don't think it was a close judgment call? OK. Whatever.The point remains that we would have never heard of this case if it did not involve a high-profile black man accusing the police of racism. That's the issue here. The police arrest people all the time who are later found innocent or charges are dropped. So what. It happens. This one made the news because, and only because, a black man was arrested and claimed he was arrested and harassed by a racist cop because he was black.So to discuss this case and refuse to talk about whether or not race played a role is just a bit idiotic IMO.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

A couple of things here: one, and most obviously, Crowley goes out of his way to make clear that he is outside when he addresses Gates (apparently through a closed, glass paned front door). Figueroa says they were inside and that the Sgt. was inside the residence prior to his arrival. Two, Crowley's statement makes it seem as though Gates responded in a calm manner to his request while Figueroa's report is in a YELLING ALL CAPS with exclamation mark for good measure. It is interesting how perspectives, recollections and opinions differ in instances where there is a heated debate, even going so far as to make someone forget whether they were inside or outside, the tone with which the alleged perp responded, and when ID was presented. And these perspectives and memories are those of the two officers. It only gets more interesting when you throw in Gates take on the matter.

those are two different points in time.Crowley is talking about what happened when he first arrived. He went into the house, which is where Gates showed him his ID and started yelling at him. That's around the time that the other officers arrived. He then asked Gates to step outside again. Gates followed him back onto the porch and kept asking for his name/badge, etc.

 

[kaa]

Gotta love how the mainstream media are carefully crafting headlines to protect Obama. Let's look at Yahoo AP headlines:

Obama rushes to quell racial uproar, calls Crowley, Gates

Let's take that headline apart.

+ "Obama rushes" - here you present an image of Obama taking action, being decisive, moving in with a plan.

+ Nowhere does that headline note that Obama said something controversial. All that is said is that there is some mysterious "racial uproar" and Obama is rushing in to the rescue! I have this image of him in tights and a cape, flying in to save the day!

How would the headline read if Bush had said it?

Bush apologizes for calling respected police force 'stupid'

Let's look at the headline in the actual article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_...harvard_scholar

Obama rushes to quell racial uproar he helped fire

+ Again, the focus is not so much on the comment, but how Obama is coming to the rescue to fix things!

+ The headline notes that Obama only "helped" fire up the racial uproar. So who else was at fault for Obama's comments? The teleprompter?

 

[Neofight]

Thank you for that, I hadn't seen it yet. This does make the story that much more interesting to me in that the two officer's reports don't exactly match up; you will notice that officer Figueroa's report claims that he stepped inside to see officer Crowley already in the residence, and hears the exact same words that Crowley reports were Gate's response to his question to step outside while he was himself outside. This is a fairly significant difference. Rookie mistake?

In any event, nothing in the report indicates any reason or justification for the arrest, discrepancies aside. Gates knew better than to act as he did, but so did Crowley. And given that he was dealing with an exhausted and somewhat agitated man in his own home, he should have left well enough alone. As for the race issue, run with it as this isn't what I am interested in about this case. It's a non-issue and only concerns me so far as it may limit ones ability to see things from Gates perspective. But that gets into that whole empathy thing and I've already said my piece on that.

Read it again. He radioed he was off in the residence and asked for photo identification. Not sure how long Figueroa has been on but Crowley is a seasoned vet. Also, the black officer that was in the arresting photo has said that he believes 100% that Gates should have been arrested and backs Crowley. I do not like the race issues either--and unfortunately I do not deny that racism exists. I just don't think it played a part here.

I've read it three times and have illustrated the discrepancies in the reports in a subsequent post. It just fascinates me how the quotes match up but the location of Sgt. Crowley does not. The fact the Figueroa arrived later, heard the request to step outside while he was in the residence, and makes no mention of the ID requests leads one to believe that the Harvard ID was presented by Gates prior to Figueroa's arrival in the residence.It seems like you are stuck on the race thing as much as Gates was. Let it go, as it really doesn't play a role in the arrest.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

 

[kutta]

another take on this

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

...

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

UPDATE: Via Rayne's link to DKos in comments, and the Boston Globe, the Statement of Facts from the official police report in the Gates arrest:

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley

And therein lies the problem for Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD. It was a patently illegal and insufficient arrest from the start. Gates is arrested for disturbing the peace - of Sergeant Crowley. See the words "directed at a uniformed officer"? This is the epitome of contempt of cop, and that is an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. What is not contained in the statement of facts is any reference to an identifiable citizen/member of the public being disturbed. None whatsoever. This is precisely the type of conduct castigated historically by courts as generally described in Duran v. City of Douglas.*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So Maurile was correct? I'm shocked.

But here's the issue. The guy here says this is a "case I have argued with success many times." OK. Great. What's that mean? It means that "many times" the cops have arrested people for similar offenses and they have been found innocent. How many of those cases have made national news and how many of them have the President of the US commented on? Zero.Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

 

[Battersbox]

These are interesting replies, thanks. Though all the examples in the D.C. article contained abuse by the arresting officers of the arrestees--this case didn't involve that at all. In fact, it seems that the arresting officers went out of their way to make sure Gates was comfortable.

Is it possible that an officer in this type of situation might make the decision to arrest someone to cover their own behind?? i.e., make sure there is a complete record with the arrest and so forth in case the "bothered" party (Gates) decides to raise some ruckus later on? The officer may well no that the case will simply be thrown out or charges dropped, but still feels he's erring on the side of caution by ending the night with an arrest?

What if there had been no arrest made, and Gates feels like he was harassed anyway and decides to start spreading the word the next day to his colleagues, media, etc.? Would Crowley have less of a leg to stand on had there been no arrest? In other words, what if Gates were to say "they harassed me, insulted me, threatened me, made me fearful due to my race and then finally left. They didn't arrest me because I did nothing wrong, that's proof!" Would the court of public opinion be more likely to rule in Gates' favor in this hypothetical?

 

[ffjunk]

another take on this

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

...

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

UPDATE: Via Rayne's link to DKos in comments, and the Boston Globe, the Statement of Facts from the official police report in the Gates arrest:

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley

And therein lies the problem for Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD. It was a patently illegal and insufficient arrest from the start. Gates is arrested for disturbing the peace - of Sergeant Crowley. See the words "directed at a uniformed officer"? This is the epitome of contempt of cop, and that is an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. What is not contained in the statement of facts is any reference to an identifiable citizen/member of the public being disturbed. None whatsoever. This is precisely the type of conduct castigated historically by courts as generally described in Duran v. City of Douglas.*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So Maurile was correct? I'm shocked.

But here's the issue. The guy here says this is a "case I have argued with success many times." OK. Great. What's that mean? It means that "many times" the cops have arrested people for similar offenses and they have been found innocent. How many of those cases have made national news and how many of them have the President of the US commented on? Zero.Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

And I guess one could argue that Gates himself was racial profiling that a white cop is messing with a black man.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/200...egrettable.html

The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has called the arrest of African American scholar Henry Louis Gates jr "regrettable and unfortunate."

Once the identity of prof Gates had been established, the onus was on the officers in attendance to defuse the situation - not escalate it. It isn't against the law to shout at police officers, especially when you are the legal occupant of a home and believe you are being handled in an unjust fashion.

As more information about the incident becomes available, it does seem likely that heated emotions and language resulted in both men getting locked into a stand-off that precipitated the unfortunate outcome.

The arrest of prof Gates in his own home was a road too far. The power balance in this situation was weighted heavily on the side of the police and they overreacted.

It is to the president's credit that he is seeking to defuse fall-out from the incident that could potentially hurt race relations. He has taken the high road in an effort to be fair to all parties. As he put it: "... instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity."

 

[HellToupee]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

With the incident threatening to escalate, Obama chose to engage in some damage control.He did not say he had apologized to Crowley, but his words were regretful. Obama said his impression of Crowley was that he was an "outstanding police officer and a good man, and that was confirmed in the phone conversation. And I told him that."He said his choice of words had unfortunately given an impression "that I was maligning the Cambridge police department or Sergeant Crowley specifically. And I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sergeant Crowley."Obama said he continued to believe that there was an overreaction in arresting Gates and that he also believed that Gates "probably overreacted as well."

 

[Neofight]

A couple of things here: one, and most obviously, Crowley goes out of his way to make clear that he is outside when he addresses Gates (apparently through a closed, glass paned front door). Figueroa says they were inside and that the Sgt. was inside the residence prior to his arrival. Two, Crowley's statement makes it seem as though Gates responded in a calm manner to his request while Figueroa's report is in a YELLING ALL CAPS with exclamation mark for good measure. It is interesting how perspectives, recollections and opinions differ in instances where there is a heated debate, even going so far as to make someone forget whether they were inside or outside, the tone with which the alleged perp responded, and when ID was presented. And these perspectives and memories are those of the two officers. It only gets more interesting when you throw in Gates take on the matter.

those are two different points in time.Crowley is talking about what happened when he first arrived. He went into the house, which is where Gates showed him his ID and started yelling at him. That's around the time that the other officers arrived. He then asked Gates to step outside again. Gates followed him back onto the porch and kept asking for his name/badge, etc.

How did you discern this, from the reports? They read like Figueroa walked in just as Crowley is asking Gates to step outside, and nowhere in Crowley's report does he state that Gates repeated his statement of "no I will not". He does state that he was well aware of the reality that Gates was in all probablity the owner of the home and was "lawfully in the residence", but the he was "confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." This begs the question how a cop with plenty of race relations training would not be more sensitive to this scenario and this type of reaction. I would imagine it is something that he has not only been trained in, but perhaps has trained others himself. It strikes me as a bit innocent.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And I guess one could argue that Gates himself was racial profiling that a white cop is messing with a black man.

"One could argue?" Has anybody seriously argued otherwise?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

but at this point, I think it's pretty widely accepted, by people in this thread anyway, that race did not play a significant factor here. this cop isn't Mark Furman. I think it's reasonable to separate the issues.

 

[kutta]

another take on this

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

...

No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

UPDATE: Via Rayne's link to DKos in comments, and the Boston Globe, the Statement of Facts from the official police report in the Gates arrest:

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___ of ___ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at __ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley

And therein lies the problem for Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge PD. It was a patently illegal and insufficient arrest from the start. Gates is arrested for disturbing the peace - of Sergeant Crowley. See the words "directed at a uniformed officer"? This is the epitome of contempt of cop, and that is an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. What is not contained in the statement of facts is any reference to an identifiable citizen/member of the public being disturbed. None whatsoever. This is precisely the type of conduct castigated historically by courts as generally described in Duran v. City of Douglas.*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So Maurile was correct? I'm shocked.

But here's the issue. The guy here says this is a "case I have argued with success many times." OK. Great. What's that mean? It means that "many times" the cops have arrested people for similar offenses and they have been found innocent. How many of those cases have made national news and how many of them have the President of the US commented on? Zero.Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

And I guess one could argue that Gates himself was racial profiling that a white cop is messing with a black man.

You can argue racial profiling by Gates, racial profiling by the cops, racism by the President, racism by the limo driver, racism by the Governor, racism by the Harvard folks, or whatever else you want to about race. But to discuss this case and refuse to discuss race as some are doing here is just pointless.

 

[ArcticEdge]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

 

[kutta]

http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/200...egrettable.html

The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has called the arrest of African American scholar Henry Louis Gates jr "regrettable and unfortunate."

Once the identity of prof Gates had been established, the onus was on the officers in attendance to defuse the situation - not escalate it. It isn't against the law to shout at police officers, especially when you are the legal occupant of a home and believe you are being handled in an unjust fashion.

As more information about the incident becomes available, it does seem likely that heated emotions and language resulted in both men getting locked into a stand-off that precipitated the unfortunate outcome.

The arrest of prof Gates in his own home was a road too far. The power balance in this situation was weighted heavily on the side of the police and they overreacted.

It is to the president's credit that he is seeking to defuse fall-out from the incident that could potentially hurt race relations. He has taken the high road in an effort to be fair to all parties. As he put it: "... instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity."

Seriously?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

those are two different points in time.Crowley is talking about what happened when he first arrived. He went into the house, which is where Gates showed him his ID and started yelling at him. That's around the time that the other officers arrived. He then asked Gates to step outside again. Gates followed him back onto the porch and kept asking for his name/badge, etc.

How did you discern this, from the reports? They read like Figueroa walked in just as Crowley is asking Gates to step outside, and nowhere in Crowley's report does he state that Gates repeated his statement of "no I will not". He does state that he was well aware of the reality that Gates was in all probablity the owner of the home and was "lawfully in the residence", but the he was "confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." This begs the question how a cop with plenty of race relations training would not be more sensitive to this scenario and this type of reaction. I would imagine it is something that he has not only been trained in, but perhaps has trained others himself. It strikes me as a bit innocent.

seemed obvious to me from reading the reports. he asked him to step outside several times. once when he first arrived. and once again when he said it was too loud in the kitchen for him to communicate on his radio when Gates was yelling at him asking for his name/badge, etc. I assume that is when Figueroa showed up as there was a group of officers waiting outside.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Seriously?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...;#entry10583371

 

[kutta]

Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

but at this point, I think it's pretty widely accepted, by people in this thread anyway, that race did not play a significant factor here. this cop isn't Mark Furman. I think it's reasonable to separate the issues.

If we have totally moved on to simply whether or not Gates was disturbing the peace or not, fine. But I don't think everyone is at that point. I think most people in the thread agree that the cop is not racist. But there is still a whole lot of discussing to do regarding Gates, Obama, and racism.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...;#entry10583371

Why you always gotta bring up old ####?

 

[ArcticEdge]

Obama owes those cops a big apology, which they will never get.

except they already got it.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...;#entry10583371

Nope.

 

[Killswitch]

Okay, I've only read like half (?) of this, but it seems to me that everyone keeps saying, "would this have happened the same if Gates were white?" without noting a crucial issue- if Gates were a white, tired, annoyed 58 yo professor, he would have responded to the cops by saying, "Here is my id, now please leave me in peace, I'm tired and would like to get to sleep."

If I were a cop responding to a call which was my job and got called a racist, and had my top possible suspect being belligerent, I might arrest him too.

Having dealt with cops on numerous occasions, cops are mostly fairly hot-headed, and I've had more than one appear a bit upset when I didn't give them exactly what they wanted... so I could see this happening whether or not he was black tbh....

 

[jamny]

Obama showed his true colors. Middle America, and much of the rest of the country, can't be happy with it. He has officially lost the Independants. It's only a matter of time before his own party turns on him. I still hold out hope that he can do good things for our country but this is looking like a seriously disastrous presidency. The inexperience is glaring.

 

[Insomniac]

8 break-ins in the neighborhood in the last month including at this address

Sounds like Harvard professors get ####ty accomodations.

It's a couple of blocks from Harvard Square which at least used to be a very expensive area.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think most people in the thread agree that the cop is not racist. But there is still a whole lot of discussing to do regarding Gates, Obama, and racism.

I agree with kutta that this is the more interesting aspect of this case. The fact that somebody got arrested for contempt of cop* because he was being an ####### might not be justified, but it isn't really national news either. It also wouldn't generate more than a page in any thread if it weren't for the racial issues underlying this particular situation. In other words, if Gates was a white guy who was just spewing at a cop and got himself arrested, most of us would agree that he probably shouldn't have been arrested but that's what happens when you're stupid and make life difficult for yourself. The only reason why this story is any different is because Gates is black and he decided to escalate the situation along racial lines, which is disgraceful. * I want to thank DW for introducing me to this phrase earlier in this thread, even though it's now already become cliche in the MSM by now.

 

[HellToupee]

8 break-ins in the neighborhood in the last month including at this address

Sounds like Harvard professors get ####ty accomodations.

It's a couple of blocks from Harvard Square which at least used to be a very expensive area.

Cambridge = expensive

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Why is this one different? Because of the accusation of a black man calling a policeman a racist. That is the issue in this case and why it is being discussed. So to discuss it and leave race out of the discussion is silly.

but at this point, I think it's pretty widely accepted, by people in this thread anyway, that race did not play a significant factor here. this cop isn't Mark Furman. I think it's reasonable to separate the issues.

If we have totally moved on to simply whether or not Gates was disturbing the peace or not, fine. But I don't think everyone is at that point. I think most people in the thread agree that the cop is not racist. But there is still a whole lot of discussing to do regarding Gates, Obama, and racism.

well, I was interested in the stuff MT was bringing up about the legality of the arrest. Lots of people disagreed with him but there's obviously plenty of support out there for the idea that the cop overreacted by arresting Gates here. Lots of interesting stuff out there on 'contempt of cop' and the disorderly conduct charge.regardless of whether the cop made the right call or not, that doesn't excuse Gates, who clearly did a lot to escalate the situation here by inferring racism where none seemed to really exist.Obama obviously said some things he shouldn't have and he did the smart thing (IMO) to apologize for his role in making this into a much bigger deal than it should have been.

 

[flapgreen]

Interesting thread title. Can someone give me the Cliff's notes? tia

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Okay, I've only read like half (?) of this, but it seems to me that everyone keeps saying, "would this have happened the same if Gates were white?" without noting a crucial issue- if Gates were a white, tired, annoyed 58 yo professor, he would have responded to the cops by saying, "Here is my id, now please leave me in peace, I'm tired and would like to get to sleep."

what?

If I were a cop responding to a call which was my job and got called a racist, and had my top possible suspect being belligerent, I might arrest him too.

he figured out pretty quickly that the guy wasn't actually a suspect here. cops shouldn't be able to arrest people in their own homes if they aren't doing anything illegal.

 

[Neofight]

those are two different points in time.

Crowley is talking about what happened when he first arrived. He went into the house, which is where Gates showed him his ID and started yelling at him. That's around the time that the other officers arrived. He then asked Gates to step outside again. Gates followed him back onto the porch and kept asking for his name/badge, etc.

How did you discern this, from the reports? They read like Figueroa walked in just as Crowley is asking Gates to step outside, and nowhere in Crowley's report does he state that Gates repeated his statement of "no I will not". He does state that he was well aware of the reality that Gates was in all probablity the owner of the home and was "lawfully in the residence", but the he was "confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." This begs the question how a cop with plenty of race relations training would not be more sensitive to this scenario and this type of reaction. I would imagine it is something that he has not only been trained in, but perhaps has trained others himself. It strikes me as a bit innocent.

seemed obvious to me from reading the reports. he asked him to step outside several times. once when he first arrived. and once again when he said it was too loud in the kitchen for him to communicate on his radio when Gates was yelling at him asking for his name/badge, etc. I assume that is when Figueroa showed up as there was a group of officers waiting outside.

I'd love to read the transcript you are reading. The report I've read states in the fourth paragraph, third sentence that he asks Gates to step outside. Nowhere after that, or prior, does he state that he repeated his request. By the last sentence in that paragraph, Crowley had already seen Gates' Harvard ID. Next paragraph (5th), fourth sentence, Crowley becomes aware of Figueroa's presence behind him. It is at the end of this paragraph that Crowley states that he told Gates he was leaving his residence and that if he had any additional questions he would "speak with him outside of the residence." I do not interpret this as a request for Gates to step outside the house to ensure the officers safety. Mostly because Crowley had already established he was indeed in Gates' home.Someone's report is a bit lacking. Or perhaps one is a bit too robust. But things don't quite jibe.