Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., University professor and director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Studies at Harvard, has been arrested while trying to break into his own house. A concerned neighbor called police when she saw Gates, 58, “wedging his shoulder in the front door [of Gates’ house] as to pry the door open.” Police say that he refused to give them his name, accused them of racism, and continued a loud altercation from his porch until his arrest for “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior.”
Police report that when an officer arrived at the scene, Gates became belligerent and allegedly shouted “[t]his is what happens to black men in America” when asked for identification. He also allegedly told the police repeatedly that “[y]ou don’t know who your [sic] messing with,” according to the report.
The Cambridge Police Department maintains that Gates created such a commotion on his porch that he drew a crowd.
Harvard Professor Charles J. Ogletree, Jr. appears to have agreed to represent him — though these types of disorderly conduct charges are routinely dropped when they do not involve alcohol or drugs or property damage. This is not a major offense — Gates was released on a $40 bond.
Gates was awarded a MacArthur Foundation “Genius Grant” in 1981 and was named one of Time magazine’s “25 Most Influential Americans” in 1997.
The Cambridge Police entry merely states “On 7/16/09 at 12:44 PM, 58-year-old Henry Gates of 17 Ware St. Cambridge, MA was arrested for Disorderly conduct after exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior.”
Gates (who had just returned from China) has denied the police account, here. Ogletree says that Gates found his door damaged when he returned from China and entered through the back door. He and his driver then forced open the front door and brought his luggage in the house, according to Ogletree. Police state that when they arrived he was in his office and initially refused to come out and accused them of racism.
Rev. Al Sharpton has already descended on the scene to allege racism in the force and denounce the crime of living in a house while black.
UPDATE: As expected in the above blog, the charges have been dropped.
For the full story, click here.
Baru you are prejudiced anti-nigger and pro-police. This is not surprising, as an Indian in the US you have the status of honorary white, the police would not treat you with the kind of contempt they habitually use for those that they assume because of race to be habitual crim
I do resent the allegation of racism. I have the highest respect for Dr Louis Gates, but I only said that he got defensive and by no means have I said anything that makes me an Honorary “white”.
I am a civil libertarian and to say that I am pro-police is absurd.
Baru Virupashka,
If one takes the police story as being totally true there is still no reason for Prof. Gates to have been arrested and that is the salient fact.
Baru Virupashka.
“Having said that, I must however say, that he comes off very poorly in the incident that is causing such an uproar all over the world.”
I am glad to see that you were an independent observer of the event but I am puzzled how you disguised yourself so that the combatants were unaware of your presence. Did you perhaps use sorcery to disguise yourself as an insect perched on the wall or did you observe by means of astral travel?
“and from all accounts it was Dr Gates who got all defensive and made it a “race” issue by saying that he will not stand before the searjents mama’s house or words to that effect.”.
By all accounts, There are only two accounts, that of Professor Gates and that of Sergeant Crowley, it is a case of one persons words against that of another. Of course the other police will back up Sgt Crowley for the time they were present but this means zip as they would have done the same had Sgt Crowley tasered Professor Gate for 30 seconds and then shot him 19 times a-la Amadou Diallo. Police always back up other police especially when they are doing wrong.
The fact is that there were no independent observers of the event and there are mutually incompatible accounts by the participants. To choose one account over the other is to say that the author of the other account is a liar. Of course in courts of law, everyone has to take the word of the police over that of the defendant unless there exists overwhelming evidence that the police are lying, the system would break down otherwise but this means that the police can lie in court and win cases by it and not surprisingly they will do so.
As we are not in court, there is no reason to prefer the police account to that of Professor Gates.
“Dr Henry Lous Gates front door was stuck and he tried to enter from the back door. Anybody would have become suspicious about a person trying to enter through the back door in the wee hours of the morning.”
Dr Gates entered the back door with a key, no one should be suspicious of someone entering a house with a key through front door, back door or side door.
The fact is that Dr Gates interpreted the encounter through the prism of being a nigger in America albeit being an upper class one and Sgt Crowley interpreted the event through the prism of Dr Gates being a nigger as did the four NYPD officers who murdered Amadou Diallo. The extent to which the interpretive prisms affected each man is something we do not know as neither of us were there. what a pity there is no publicly available video of the event, I believe police should be fitted with recording equipment that record everything they do from 5 minutes before an encounter with a suspect until the end. That is the only way we could find out the truth in a case like this.
Baru you are prejudiced anti-nigger and pro-police. This is not surprising, as an Indian in the US you have the status of honorary white, the police would not treat you with the kind of contempt they habitually use for those that they assume because of race to be habitual criminals.
am extremely familiar with the work of Professor Henry Lois Gates jr and have the greatest regard for his scholarship and academic attainments. Having said that, I must however say, that he comes off very poorly in the incident that is causing such an uproar all over the world. Professor Gates was known to President Obama right from his Harvard days and so he can be forgiven for “wading in” where mightier hearts fear to tread.
Dr Henry Lous Gates front door was stuck and he tried to enter from the back door. Anybody would have become suspicious about a person trying to enter through the back door in the wee hours of the morning. The Police serjent stopped by to check and from all accounts it was Dr Gates who got all defensive and made it a “race” issue by saying that he will not stand before the searjents mama’s house or words to that effect. Plantation rhetoric has no place in this day and age and Professor Gates more than any one else should have known. It was Professor Gates who got extremely agitated over the issue and seems to have been curt to the policwe officer. A cordial introduction and identification would have settled the matter, but Professor Gates viewed the whole affir through the prism of race. A white police officer versus a “black man”. I think there was no hint of racial antagonism in that episode.
President Obama, does not weigh in on the affirs of the police operationg at the level of a municipality. He needed not have reacted to the arrest and subsequent release in a manner that hinted that the police was acting out of turn, or in a “stupid” manner.
The police officer was withion his right to reasonably infer that a break-in was taking place and he was within his rights to stop and question Professor Gates. He wcould have just told the officer that he was living there and that the marshall of Harvard University can be contacted for indentification, if necessary. The matter would have ended there.
Treating every abrasive encounter between a while law enforcment officer and an Arfican- American as a racist encounter will not wash, especial;ly now that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is the President of the U S of A.
Saw Gates in an interview, he said the officer followed him into his kitchen without his permission. Guess what? If he had not been who he said he was and that cop waited in the other room, the person claiming to be Gates could have gotten a weapon from the kitchen. Permission or not, the cop was right to follow him. Gates should have shut up long enough to THINK things through, maybe put himself in the officer’s shoes for a moment instead of exploding about profiling. The cop was doing the right thing in escorting the suspect into another room. Oy!
Vince:
“Your opinions, as usual, are graceful, well written and thoughtful.”
************
As are my friendly adversary’s.
Mespo: “I believe it was you who were being less than factual here since you were kind enough to provide the parts of the report that supported your version of events and simply disregarded the other inconvenient parts that did not fit. Not exactly a lie, but close enough for me to call you on it.”
You are still at it, mespo. I did not provide the “parts” of the report that supported me, I provided the ENTIRE reports verbatim, with links, in two separate posts. I did not even post Gates’ version until this morning. Everything I posted in this thread were complete verbatim statements by the police, with no editing. Again, it shows some gall to accuse me of selectivity in expressing my opinion and accusing me of providing only material that supports my position, when I am the one who posted the police reports, not you.
So, mespo, you cannot call me on it. I posted the original brief reports in pdf and the entire full reports for all to read, and from feedback I believe they have been useful to readers. In both posts, I provided links and quotations so that the reader did not have to depend on my summary of the facts and my opinion, and I concealed nothing from the readers. I cited the admitted fact that that Gates identified himself in the house to the officer to refute your claim that he said that he would not give his id, with the unstated implication that he did not identify himself. I take that you now accept the police report’s statement that he did identify himself.
And which law requires him to give his id? Actually, the Massachusetts laws require the officer to wear id and show an identity card. Here are the laws, posted in entirety:
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
POLICE OFFICERS
Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards
Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
POLICE OFFICERS
Chapter 41: Section 98C. Badges; identification by name or number
Section 98C. In any city or town which accepts the provisions of this section no uniformed police officer, and no other uniformed person empowered to make arrests, employed by such city or town shall be required to wear a badge, tag or label of any kind which identifies him by name, but any such officer or other person employed by such city or town who does not wear any such badge, tag or label shall wear a badge, tag or label which identifies him by number.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm
Finally, although you posted a definition of disorderly conduct, I have tried to post the applicable Massachusetts law and state supreme court interpretation on the later thread.
Since the facts are now agreed that he identified himself after an initial delay, I will have to wind up my part of this exchange.
Your opinions, as usual, are graceful, well written and thoughtful.
Vince Treachy:
“You were wrong and I was right, and I posted the relevant quotation from the report, a link, and the FULL verbatim police reports to support my statement.
You have some nerve to claim that you gave a fair reading of the report or showed the entire scene, when you did not post or link to it, and quoted only a cropped portion of it. Your post did not show the entire scene, but only your selective description and quotation.
…
Sorry, mespo, but you have been busted.”
**********************
Busted or not, you have to admit that you carefully omitted the fact that our great man of letters initially refused to give his identification to the police as he is required to do under these circumstances. You intentionally left us with the impression that Gates’ was consistently cooperative. Clearly, he was not, and that was my point to which you took great umbrage. You and Gates may have a lot in common given your touchy stance here.
I believe it was you who were being less than factual here since you were kind enough to provide the parts of the report that supported your version of events and simply disregarded the other inconvenient parts that did not fit. Not exactly a lie, but close enough for me to call you on it.
Again, sorry to point out your slip is showing, but it was!
“You may consider Gates’ behavior cooperative based on the reports, but any fair reading of the report notes that Gates was entirely uncooperative,”
“The point of my post was to show the entire scene, not to just pick up where you did after Gates finally showed some ID after the officer had to call for backup.”
Mespo,
I disagree with you that any “fair reading” of the report makes Professor Gates liable for arrest. I will for the sake of discussion grant that the report is totally factual in content and to my “fair reading” there was absolutely no reason for them to have arrested Prof. Gates other than then the officer didn’t like the tone of voice or the loudness of voice used. He
was investigating a “break-in” the owner of the house may have been belligerent, but did produce identification.
“At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked
a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times.”
Interesting that he mentions this after seeing a witness in back of him.
“but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.”
What was the need for the Harvard police may I ask after Gates had provided ID and established he was a Harvard Faculty member and this was a Harvard Faculty house? Now to me after proving his ID Gates has to hear that a new batch of police was coming over to re-question him and investigate what? The Harvard ID and the Drivers License were of course photo ID’s.
Had I been Professor Gates I would have been quite angry and I am not black. I might well have followed the officer out and damn well would have told him who I was and words to the effect of how dare you. A good part of the crowd outside formed because in a quiet neighborhood, when there are perhaps 3 police cars and 4 policemen outside of a house, neighbors do gather.
Gates was arrested by not passively submitting to these officers, when he had committed no crime and they were embarrassed by his lack of deference. That is my fair reading of this even accepting the officer’s reports. Do I believe them no. There was no need for this arrest by the officers other than they didn’t liked to be talked to that way, even if the person had committed no crime. What racism behind this.
Damned right it was.
Mespo: “I would be interested to know how you would have handled a report of a felony break-in or home invasion when being met by two uncooperative and/or belligerent males in a house at night.”
Well, mespo, you may be interested in my views on belligerent persons in a house at night, but why?
The Gates arrest took place in broad daylight shortly after noon.
You should really do some more reading on the case before springing into print again.
Mespo, you lied. I said that Gates showed proof of who he was and where he lived. I was correct. You quoted a statement from the report that he refused to identify himself. You quoted his initial refusal selectively from the police report. In fact, the police report’s own words confirmed my statement that Gates showed id. You were wrong and I was right, and I posted the relevant quotation from the report, a link, and the FULL verbatim police reports to support my statement.
You have some nerve to claim that you gave a fair reading of the report or showed the entire scene, when you did not post or link to it, and quoted only a cropped portion of it. Your post did not show the entire scene, but only your selective description and quotation.
It may be your own personal opinion that a crime took place, despite the fact that charges were dropped and essential elements of the offense were missing, but I do not care about your opinions. I have the facts, and you do not. The policeman’s own report states that Gates identified himself in his own home, and I will stand by my post.
Sorry, mespo, but you have been busted.
Mespo.
“Any fair reading of the report.”
But was the report an accurate description of what happened?
When the police say someone was belligerent, what do they mean? Maybe its a synonym for uppity nigger not knowing his place.
See what Jon Katz says in the article for which thee is a link in my previous post.
Jon Katz on his Underdo blog has a good post on this issue.
http://katzjustice.com/underdog/archives/1729-Henry-Louis-Gates,-Jrs-story-shines-the-light-on-common-police-practices..html.
Vince:
You may consider Gates’ behavior cooperative based on the reports, but any fair reading of the report notes that Gates was entirely uncooperative, belligerent for no good reason, and provided information only grudgingly after initially refusing and then attempted to throw his weight around by calling the officer’s superior. The point of my post was to show the entire scene, not to just pick up where you did after Gates finally showed some ID after the officer had to call for backup. There is no dispute that Gates was belligerent on the porch as seven witnesses can attest to, and whether the charges were dropped or not doesn’t suggest to me that a crime wasn’t committed. I would be interested to know how you would have handled a report of a felony break-in or home invasion when being met by two uncooperative and/or belligerent males in a house at night. Perhaps you can share. I would also like to hear from FFLeo on the proper protocol.
In my last post I left out the critical word “not”. The second last sentence should read
Still I feel that merely shouting at police because one thinks they are racist should not be classed as disorderly conduct.
Vince.
The police report is interesting and it certainly makes the police sound very reasonable and Gates unreasonable. However I have two reservations:-
1/ The police can lie and unless their are recordings to prove they they lie the legal system has to believe them.
2/ Even if the words said were as described by police the report says nothing about tone of voice. Tone of voice alone can turn words meaning one thing into the opposite, sarcasm for example. It is possible to use tone of voice to turn words that on paper appear polite into grievous insult. It may be tone of voice that caused offense to Professor Gates.
Again there is the fact that Gates straight out contradicts the policeman, they can’t both be telling the truth, and Professor Gates as a member of the respectable classes is deemed to have credibility such that automatic acceptance of the police account as truthful is no longer justified. Maybe this is unfair, may be this is class prejudice in favor of the educated elite and against the white policeman from the lumpen proletariat simply trumping the normal race prejudice in favor of whites and against niggers.
Still I feel that merely shouting at police because one thinks they are racist should be classed as disorderly conduct. Either there was a massive misunderstanding or something a lot more sinister.