President Barack Obama’s press conference took a surprising turn when the President decided to weigh in on the controversy over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by the Cambridge Police. While admitting that he did not know all of the facts, the President called the police stupid in their response to the call of a suspected break in.
The President stated that “I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”
The President admitted that Gates is a friend and that “I don’t know all the facts.” However, he felt that the matter should have ended with proof that this was Gates’ house. He raised the specter of racial profiling: “I guess this is my house now. Here I’d get shot.” He noted that “[s]eparate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-American and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
Ironically, the arresting officer Sergeant James M. Crowley is one of the academy experts who teaches a course on racial profiling, here.
The incident has caused an intense debate on this blog and other sites. A neighbor saw someone forcing open a front door and did the right thing in calling police, in my view. It would be a bit unfair to suggest that this neighbor Lucia Whalen was clearly racist in making such a call. Assuming that we agree that she was correct in making the call, the main controversy focuses on the police and their response. The officers insist that Gates became immediately belligerent and refused to come out of the house. On the other hand, accounts suggest that Gates was willing to show this proof of residency and eventually did come out on to the front porch. Even assuming Gates acted in a boorish and insulting manner in allegedly calling the police racists and pulling rank, I fail to see why an arrest was warranted.
Police officers, however, may be a bit put out by the President’s intervention. The police insist that Gates escalated the matter and could have simply resolved the dispute by cooperating without the alleged outburst. I am not sure that we will ever know the facts with complete certainty. The issue of profiling is an obvious concern, though most people (I think) would agree that a call is appropriate when someone is seen forcing their way into a home. Moreover, the police may argue that they needed Gates to come out on to the porch to match his identification with his face and confirm that there was nothing suspicious occurring. I would expect that officers would be equally insistent on speaking directly to me if I were seen forcing a door at my own home.
This may be a case of everyone allowing a routine police call to get out of hand.
The officer, Sergeant James M. Crowley, denies that he is a racist and refused to apologize, here. Below is Gates’ account.
For the full arrest report, click here.
For the story, click here.
Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. — by Charles Ogletree
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest [1]of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.”
Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
I wanted to let you know that Republicans in Oklahoma are finally speaking out against Sally Kern. I think your posts, which I put on Facebook and tweeted, were influential.
I’m a liberal-leaning moderate and a Christian. I’ve written a post about why more Christians have not spoken out against Kern’s distortion of the teachings of Christ. I’ll never be as smart as you, but this is my humble effort to right the wrongs: Sally Kern’s good intentions which do more to repulse people from the message of Christ than draw them to him. Thank you.
http://www.jenx67.com/2009/07/i-see-sally.html
This statement by Obama seems to have opened a whole new front on the race and class wars. Living in Boston, I have rarely seen such outrage.
This was a very significant misstep by Obama, and his comments may permanently set him back in his effort to “transcend race”.
The question I have is would the person have called the police if the man pushing on the door was white? The fact of him coming out on the porch is interesting as well. Why wouldn’t the police have dealt with the issue inside the house rather in public? The only reason why this person was arrested was because of the color of his skin and it may have been the reason why he was even confronted. Obama was exactly correct to state that this arrest was stupid because it was. The police have no reason to arrest someone just because they are upset. If that was the threshold then the jails would have a lot more politicians in them.
Rule one of lawyering is no offer no opinion until you know all of the facts, and rule two is to avoid opining about the actions of family and friends. One would think a law professor would know better.
The key, it seems to me, is “who is the adult” or “who are the adults” in this type of situation and who is the citizen they are sworn to protect.
The professionals are required to have a professional response and to be the adults, even when non-professional citizens loose it.
I a little man walking with a cane is miffed already by having lost his keys, and they get authoritarian and he gets miffed, that is what professionals are trained to handle.
Building good relations with citizens becomes the objective in any scene like this, once the professionals have determined they are talking with a citizen in his own home who has committed no crime.
The good working relationship with the citizenry then becomes the primary result they should seek to accomplish.
When they have done so they have added one more ally to their ranks, but when they do not they have foolishly drawn negative attention to their unprofessional behaviour and to their fellow officers.
I am going to take a hit for this one: You know not knowing the facts about the situation and all. Not one has stated that the electricity was on, so “Don’t you know why Gates had to go on to the Porch? Because All blacks look alike.”
The responses are just incredible. THE MAN WAS IN HIS OWN HOME or at least the one he was allowed to use as a Professor at Harvard, don’t ya know. He could not prove ownership, I presume no one way acting reasonable under the circumstances.
The Police could have acted differently I am sure. But could have Gates.
I have heard numerous lawyers say that if the police pull you over and tell you to get out of the car that you have the right to ask them if you are under arrest. If the answer is no then you can stay in your car. Wouldn’t the same also apply to the police telling you to exit your residence?
We have seen too many instances of police acting like gestapo instead of peace officers. From the arrest of a Democratic House candidate in California, to shooting a 80 year old woman in Atlanta, to police agent provateurs in St Paul, the police in this country have truly forgotten that they are not an occupying army. With the advent of video, we are discovering more often than not, that police offiers exacerbate situations, and then fabricate written reports to protect their own actions. To arrest a man in his own home for requesting the officer to merely identify himself goes beyond the pale.
“The police insist that Gates escalated the matter and could have simply resolved the dispute by cooperating without the alleged outburst.”
Some unreasonable people expect the police to treat them with courtesy and react in an oppositional way when they do not receive it. Police on the other hand expect instant compliance and take offense when it is not forthcoming, they do not want to hear that one is offended by their discourtesy or be told they have made wrong assumptions. You do what they say in one microsecond or ZAP, you answer their questions and how dare you think you are entitled to question them.
Maybe Gates problem is that he does not have the experience with police of a more normal underclass afro-American and thus is ignorant of the correct protocols to avoid being shot, tasered or arrested.
Let me throw this in the pot,How much do you think “Jet Lag” may have had on the Professors reaction to the situation?
The President of the United States, without having complete knowledge of the incident, should refrain from commentary.
Is it possible that Gates jumped to conclusions? Is it possible that the police officer acted in a prejudicial manner? -The answer to both is Yes. -The problem is, we have two different stories, and none of the stories were supplied by an impartial observer.
We may never know exactly what took place at the residence of Mr. Gates. We do know that the POTUS will jump to conclusions while admittedly not knowing all the information….and he has control of “the football”.
When I see Obama comment on how the US military and police forces are (mist)treating our detainees, how ICE is arresting hispanics, both citizens and non-citizens alike and entering their homes without warrents, when I hear him apologize to our detainees in Gitmo and release or give them a civil trial, when he stops the illegal spying on all American citizens, when he stands up to stop the arrests for drugs which has a clear racial/class bias, then I will believe this was anything other than a political stunt.
I, like everyone else here do not know all of the facts about this incident. I have been pulled over and have had many incidents simply because of driving while black. At one time I drove for a living.
For those of you who want to play the race card here lets look at both sides.
One, he is black, was the neighborhood where the house was located all black, all white, or evenly mixed?
Two, was it an upscale neighborhood or just the hood?
If it was an all white or mostly white, and a black man was living there then it would not be out of the ordinary to see a black man on the porch. What would be out of the ordinary would be a black man trying to force his way in. A neighbor called police. If it was a white neighbor, he had to know a black neighbor was living there. If the prof. was out of town then there was no activity at the home. Then all of a sudden the neighbor witnessed a black man trying to force his way in and I assume there was luggage being rolled around which could of been assumed that there was a theft occurring.
The police arrive, they may have been influenced because it might be an upscale neighborhood. I assume that because I doubt the prof. lives in the hood. In which to them a black man in an upscale neighborhood trying to force the front door to a home open is, out of the ordinary. However had this been the hood and the same thing happened the police probably would of taken all day to respond because this is ordinary in the hood.
The confrontation ensued. I can already tell you the prof. response. When ANYONE gets confronted and feels like they did not do anything wrong you get defensive. That is a natural thing to happen. I’m sure the prof. was screaming this is my house. The police at that point have know clue how’s house is who. The only thing they know at that point was a black man was trying to force the door open, thats what the call was. The police ARE NOT going to go in his home unless they feel they need to take that next step. They don’t know if someone else is in there that may cause them harm. They want to keep everything in the open. As the old adage goes you never know whats lurking around the corner. Could they of handled things differently I’m sure.
For more inside tips go to the comment section here.http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/13/florida-sobriety-roadblock-produces-host-of-arrests-and-citations-except-for-dui/#comments
Mespo: “Rule one of lawyering is no offer no opinion until you know all of the facts, and rule two is to avoid opining about the actions of family and friends. One would think a law professor would know better.”
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.” [from previous Gates thread].
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.
See rule one.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that Boston-area police have acted stupidly.
http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/09/19/star-simpson-once-mi.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/nonterrorist_em.html
The more serious race issue is why didn’t the neighbor know who lives there. The neighbor assumed, because he or she saw a black person trying to open the door, that it must be someoen breaking in. I doubt that would have occurred if Gates were white. Who in their right mind would think an elderly man was breaking in?
I am white. I live in a mixed race neighborhood. I know who belongs and who doesn’t. And that distinction isn’t based on the color of their skin; it’s based on their faces. The way to know who belongs and who doesn’t isn’t by looking at the color of someone’s skin, it’s knowing your neighbors.
I posted the police reports verbatim on the earlier thread so that readers would have access.
Now I am posting Gates’ side of the story in the statement by Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law Professor, who is representing Gates:
Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. — by Charles Ogletree
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest [1]of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.”
Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
Source: http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr
Just another Mom
EXCELLENT< THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
Thanks, Vince, I added that statement to the post so others can read it.
An arrest was not warranted. The officer states in his report that he was aware early on that Gates was the rightful occupant of the house. He showed two forms of ID with his picture on it while the cop was in the house. So there was no need to step outside. Gates did right by not complying, but made the mistake in stepping outside his door later and as they say the rest is history. The president was asked a question by Lynn Sweet, gave an honest answer and now folk are angry because he told the truth. White people just don’t get the fact the it is not safe to be a person of color in the US particularly when the police get involved. Racial profiling is real which far too often has led to death or the serious injury of black and latino men. It is an American reality and all of us are responsible in ridding our society of this human rights violation. But those who live on the privilege side of racism continue to live in denial. What can you do?
One other thing. I have to say that I am disappointed with the way Turley has framed this issue. Obama did not simply decide to step into this controversy. A journalist asked him about it and he responded. He stated from the outset that he would no doubt be bias since Gates is a friend. I thought the answer was nuanced and spoke truth to power. Race still matters in this “post-racial” country. And those of us who are victims of racism are tired of white folk telling us that it is all in our heads.
erykah:
there is definitely some racial component to law enforcement. But why are the jails in the US filled with black and hispanic men in far greater percentages than in society? Certainly some can be atrributed to false arrest and racism on the part of white officers. But it cant all be. At some point we must take responsibility for our actions and quit blaming others for our failings.
Harvard Square must not be a terribly neighborly place. If my across-the-street neighbor was having difficulty opening his front door, my first reaction would be to go across and try to help rather than calling the police. Don’t these people know their neighbors?
Prof. Gates is a pretty recognizable fellow, and a middle aged man in a polo shirt walking with a cane and carrying luggage in the middle of the day fits the profile of a Harvard Prof far better than the profile of a home invader.
So, I guess I don’t accept the notion that the neighbor was correct.
As Vince Treacy has supplied us, the City of Cambridge arrest report said only the following: “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.”
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CPD/News/NewsDetail.cfm?story_id=2247&pv=Yes
The Cambridge Municiple Code defines “disorderly conduct” as:
“9.08.010 Disorderly conduct–Profanity and insulting language.
No person shall behave himself in a rude or disorderly manner, or use any indecent, profane or insulting language in any street or public place. No person shall make or cause to be made, any unnecessary noise or noises in any public street, private way or park, so as to cause any inconvenience or discomfort for the inhabitants of the City.”http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=16889&sid=21
Apparently this is why Gates had to be lured onto HIS OWN porch, apparently interpreted as a “street or public place” and/or “public street, private way or park.”
I would submit this is a much about the “the ass-kickers vs the effete intellectual snobs” as it is about race. Gates is lucky he wasn’t tasered half to death. (Maybe he tumultuously mentioned he was a friend of the president.)
And, yes, this CERTAINLY raises Obama’s “uppity” quotient. Perhaps he should be forced to submit to the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee a list of all his friends that have a propensity for “loud and tumultuous behavior.”
There may well be a racial component, but this is really part of the larger (and growing) problem of police everywhere in America acting more like an occupying army than a police force.
And unfortunately, courts have backed them up time and time again. Why, if I am just standing by the side of the road and not under arrest or even under suspicion, do I have to show a police officer my identification? That’s Gestapo-ish and yet the courts have backed police on that one.
Just try refusing to exit your car when an officer requests it, even if you ask him if you’re under arrest first. You’ll be under arrest faster than you can say constitution if you try something like that.
There was no reason to arrest Gates, even if he was yelling at the officer once his right to be in the house was established. The police officer did act stupidly; he should’ve walked away from the situation.
erykah
Obama did not simply decide to step into this controversy. A journalist asked him about it and he responded.
The whitehouse called the reporter last night and asked would they ask the question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpI4vCMTuFQ
One of the saddest and most frustrating things to me as I contemplate present day America is the fact that even though we have elected a Black man President, though some kooks even doubt that, there is still little understanding of the racism inherent in this country, felt by many on a sub-conscious level, but nevertheless there. President Obama was confronted by the question of Ms. Sweet at the end of the press conference and he answered it truthfully and with humor. Naturally, as befits the US in these times, he is castigated for daring to express a truth which we all know, but except for fringe people dare not speak.
The vestiges of slavery,segregation and racism still exist in this country in large enough proportions to make it dangerous.
Black people, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans are portrayed in our media and entertainment in stereotypical fashion and for those with little or no real experience with these communities this stereotypes of language and demeanor seem real. As someone who has worked all his life with, for and supervising these humans of color, with the exception of native Americans, I am continually amazed at how they are portrayed in the media and how some have to portray themselves to get work in their chosen professions. The portrayals I see are clownish, whereas the people I know and have known are little different from any of us.
For instance coming from NYC, if I had not known differently Professor Sotomayor’s Bronx accent would have pegged her as Jewish, or Italian and not Puerto Rican. However, we were even treated to a Senator using the Ricky Ricardo cliche’ “Splain.” The fool didn’t even realize that Ricardo was Cuban and the Cuban American accent is way different from that of a Puerto Rican American. Ms. Sotomayor has a Bronx accent not a Puerto Rican accent. Being white I am privy to discussions of other whites when it comes to these humans of color. I do not think, I know that racism is alive, well and still relatively lethal in this country.
Some mention the disproportion of Black and Latino people in jails and say “It all can’t be prejudice.” They are wrong. The seeding of certain communities with addictive drugs was abetted at times by Governmental entities. Rush Limbaugh, an oxycodone addict receives no jail time or rehab for a huge stash of the drug, while some black man get 5 years for possessing $100 worth of crack. The cocaine addict businessman
gets rehab for possessing an ounce of cocaine a weight at which one is presumed to be selling, while a Hispanic gets
sentenced to 10 years for having that a $100 worth of crack and presumed to be selling. The other problem is our Legal Aid and Public Defender systems, while staffed by heroic and competent lawyers are stuck with impossibly sized caseloads and so poor people do not get the representation that most white people get. Those whites who are forced to used public defenders have in general similar high rates of conviction.
Most sentencing studies for all categories of crime overwhelmingly show that humans of color get significantly harsher sentences for the same class of crime. However, beyond that almost all sociologists/historians agree that poverty breeds crime. The rate of unemployment in Black communities reaches at times 40%, leaving people needing to resort to crime as their only way of feeding, clothing and sheltering themselves. This unemployment rate is directly attributable to neglected, underfunded education and also to the fact that people of color looking for jobs are consciously, or sub-consciously facing more skepticism. The affirmative action meme is just that a meme. Those who believe that people of color in America have special privileges are stupid or bigoted.
Finally, in the case at hand I have read the police report, as Vince helpfully provided. As I said in another thread today
granting that the report was totally factual there was no convincing reason given for Professor Gates arrest, other than to show an “uppity” black man, where he stood. The arrest wasn’t done to deal with any crime, it was to show Professor Gates who was boss. This was a disgusting and vile incident and it was done to a person with one of the best minds in America. The President was correct in speaking out. It’s too bad in the US many don’t like to hear the truth.
I have to correct my post on the first Gates thread, where I said “Besides, there is no such crime as tumultuous behavior.” There may be no such crime in and of itself, but it is an element of the offense of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts, as that State’s courts have held:
QUOTE Subsequently, terming the statute 66 archaic,” the court in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580 , 587-599 (1975), narrowed the definition of “idle and disorderly” to exclude subsection (b) of s. 250.2 of the Model Penal Code [Note 3] – “disorderly” conduct may now only be “validly . . . applied to conduct which involves no lawful exercise of a First Amendment right.”
As thus construed, and as reiterated in Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 474, “disorderly” conduct, in accordance with s. 250.2 of the Model Penal Code [Note 4] is defined as follows:
“A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
“(a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or . . .
“(c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor” (emphasis supplied in Feigenbaum). UNQUOTE
The term “tumultuous” has been construed by the courts in Massachusetts:
QUOTE 1. Tumultuous behavior. Turning to the ordinary dictionary definition, we find that “tumultuous” is defined as “l: marked by tumult: full of commotion and uproar: riotous, stormy, boisterous . . . 2: tending or disposed to cause or incite a tumult . . . 3: marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval.” Webster’s Third New Intl. Dictionary 2462 (1993).
Massachusetts cases are in accord with these definitions. See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. at 597 (noting that the statute covers ” ‘tumultuous behavior,’ which, while perhaps not physically violent, may nevertheless be characterized as involving riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise so as to constitute a public nuisance”).
Other cases inform. In Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443 , 448 (1976), the defendants were held to have engaged in “fighting” and in “violent or tumultuous behavior.” Due to their actions – drinking alcohol in a crowded mail, resisting arrest, punching and cursing police – a crowd of some two hundred people became hostile and abusive and threw “bundles of newspapers, books, and other debris” at the police. Id. at 447.
In Commonwealth v. Carson, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 920 , 921 (1980), campus police responding to a complaint of a “disturbance” found the defendant, a college student, drunk and belligerent. Cursing at the police officers, he attracted a crowd of fifty people, some of whom “laugh[ed] or yell[ed] abuse at the police.” Ibid. His intoxication, belligerence, and his manner of resisting apprehension “could be fairly characterized as ‘tumultuous”‘ and needlessly exacerbated a situation which “might have moderated of its own accord.” Id. at 922.
In another case, the “defendant’s actions of removing his hands from the [police] cruiser, flailing them in an agitated and belligerent manner while berating [police] Officer Rivera with loud profanities, and shoving his hands into the pockets of his baggy shorts, especially in light of Officer Rivera’s previous encounter with the defendant on a gun charge, constituted tumultuous or threatening behavior beyond protected expressive speech or conduct.” Commonwealth v. Mulero, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 963 , 965 (1995). Such actions, which led a crowd of about thirty persons to gather, provided the police with probable cause to arrest the defendant on a charge of disorderly conduct. Id. at 963-965. UNQUOTE
As noted above, the offense cannot be applied to political expression and lawful exercises of First Amendment rights, where behavior has a legitimate purpose.
QUOTE In Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. at 475, the court held that although behavior which was motivated by political purposes could be found to have created a hazardous condition, and might be considered “criminal under the common law or by some statute,” such behavior “does not constitute disorderly conduct under G. L. c. 272, s. 53,” because it has “a legitimate purpose.”
The Commonwealth would have us confine Feigenbaum and the term “no legitimate purpose” to situations involving political expression. However, neither the opinion nor the Model Penal Code suggests such a limitation. Indeed, another section of the Model Penal Code, s. 250.4, defining “harassment [Note 6],” described in the comment as “a companion offense to disorderly conduct under s. 250.2,” contains the same phrase. Model Penal Code s. 250.4 comment 1, at 360.
Commenting on the catchall language of subsection (5) of s. 250.4, which covers “any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor,” the drafters stated, “The import of the phrase . . . is broadly to exclude from this subsection any conduct that directly furthers some legitimate desire or objective of the actor.” Model Penal Code s. 250.4 comment 5, at 368. See Commonwealth v. Wheaton, 409 Pa. Super. 622, 628 (1991) (defendant’s efforts to maintain his water supply constituted a legitimate purpose precluding conviction of harassment). See also DiDonna v. DiDonna, 72 Misc. 2d 231, 233 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1972) (preservation of marriage a legitimate purpose). UNQUOTE
Source Commonwealth v. Zettel, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471, September 10, 1998 – March 16, 1999.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/46/46massappct471.html#back3
The law students here can go to the sources. I do not think anything described in the police report amounted to tumultuous behavior under the court’s standards, and I doubt if speech in his house and on his porch is public, since most of the “public” were police officers, who would have clearly been able to prevent any further spread of inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but that is a matter of opinion.
I think that Gates’ counsel would have made a very strong argument that his speech served a legitimate purpose, and that it was political expression protected by the First Amendment, since the subject of his speech was racism in America, even if the speech was “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
Vince:
Thanks for the correction but it is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of time of day, Gates was out of line in his aggressive stance towards these officers whose purpose for being there was the protection of Gates’ safety and property. That it occurred in broad daylight, gives more credence to the officer’s probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct since Gates was obviously inciting the gathered crowd with his vocal and misplaced allegation of police racism and his own victimhood.
I note Professor Ogletree’s reluctance to simply state exactly what Gates said to the officer. Instead, Ogletree summarizes the language in the light most favorable to his client. Good lawyering maybe, but it speaks volumes to me that Gates’ lawyer never refuted the officer’s account of belligerency and pandering to the crowd, not to mention his client’s defaming the officers who never once exhibited any overtly racially motivated actions or made any such remarks. By the way, I have learned to disregard press releases from an accused’s lawyer.
The officers remained professional in my view, and it was Gates who decided that this minor intrusion on his dignity for his own benefit warranted his ass-like behavior and then alerting the media in an effort to vindicate him. I would have thought an innocent man would have wanted his day in court. Gates, it seems, was all too willing to accept the dismissal. Let’s wait for the inevitable civil suit before declaring winners and losers here. I want to hear all the evidence not merely that filtered through the less than impartial Professor Ogletree or even the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I think the officers counterclaim for defamation will make for stunning reading as well as Gates’ sad tale of deprivation of civil rights.
I’ll reserve my sympathy for the real victims of discrimination (See e.g., Loving, Mildred), not the self-appointed ones.
Indentured servant as the daughter of a former felon, I well know that there are those in the Black and Latino community who deserve to be punished for their crimes. But in the same token I am also well aware of those who have been penalized by the “justice” system for no other reason than white cops abusing their power over black and brown bodies. While I appreciate your response you really need to get an education in public policy and policing. Like I said, those who live on the privilege side of racism can ignore what people of color know to be reality. There are plenty of books and studies you can avail yourself to regarding the historical and contemporary issues of racial profiling and disparities in the penal system. Even John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General under the Bush administration had to admit that racial profiling is a national problem. Obama pointed this out last night. Remember, one of the issues he worked on when he was an Illinois senator was racial profiling. Plus, he has lived in Cambridge and knows that it is not friendly territory for Blacks. My daughter is a student at Harvard and always has a story about some Black student who was abused by Harvard or Cambridge police. Gates is lucky because of who he is. But far too many Blacks are not because they do not have his connections. So Gates, while shaken, will be fine. Many others not so much.
Mespo.
Why did Crowley wait until Gates stepped onto his front porch to arrest him? Why didn’t he arrest him inside the house? Why did he call the Harvard University police
The two descriptions of what happened in the police report and by Professor Gates’ lawyer are completely incompatible. They can’t both be true and I do not think that mere exaggeration can explain the differences.
Why are you so certain that the police report is the accurate one when you have so many examples of police bad behaviour on Johnathon Turley’s blog such as this one in the Lawless Arrest Thread.
The link that I thought that I included in the previous post vanished on submit.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/20/getting-lawless-police-officer-shown-on-tape-assaulting-women-involved-in-car-accident-with-his-son/.
Here it is again.
Badaman
There is no evidence that the white house called reporters and asked them to ask this specific question. Helen Thomas alleges that the white house informed people ahead of time that they would be called on but Gibbs does not confirm it. From what I know of Obama, he would not deliberately enter into this discussion as he is well aware that race remains a hot button issue despite his election. Post-racial America my ass. And given the fact that his purpose was to sell health care reform why would he want to do anything to take the focus off that discussion.
Let me say one more thing about the arrest. While some of you are adamant that Gates was out of line and therefore should have been arrested I want to remind you that the Cambridge police stated that the arrest was “unfortunate and regrettable.” That says to me that they recognize a mistake was made despite the fact that they are now all rallying around Crawley because of the president’s response. According to Crawley’s own report, he realized early on that Gates was the rightful occupant of the house and no crime was in progress. The 64 thousand dollar question is why didn’t it end there?
erykah
“The 64 thousand dollar question is why didn’t it end there?”
The answer I suspect is that Jim Crow Etiquette for white policeman dealing with a nigger requires that he punish the nigger for being uppity and demanding his name and badge number.
Carlyle:
“Why are you so certain that the police report is the accurate one when you have so many examples of police bad behaviour on Johnathon Turley’s blog such as this one in the Lawless Arrest Thread.”
******************
My training teaches me to accept the word of those with no axe to grind and those who have a sworn duty to uphold the law until such time as they prove themselves unworthy of that trust. I see no evidence of racism here by the actions or words of the officers and they deserve the benefit of the doubt. I also tend to distrust those who decide that a dispute is best decided by public spectacle replete with inciting crowds, press releases, unsubstantiated charges, and Al Sharpton chiming in to wring the last ounce of publicity out of the situation. I don’t like trial by media. I do like ordered debate and deliberate consideration of facts and assertions by experienced persons who understand both human rights and human nature.
The essence of the charge is inciting others while in public, and that is why there was no crime until Gates entered an area visible to the public — before that he was just a boor. I don’t know that the officer enticed Gates to his porch where his childish antics certainly met the test of probable cause for the charge of disorderly conduct. I have heard it both ways: that Gates followed the officer loudly claiming discrimination, and the officer invited him outside. That is the essence of a factual dispute.
BTW I learned today that the sergeant involved in a police academy trainer charged with teaching new recruits to avoid unlawful racial profiling. Does he appear to be the type of officer who would play the game of “do as I say and not as I do” in full view of his students? I don’t know, but it’s one more piece of evidence telling me this is case more about the thinness of skin rather than its tier on the von Luschan scale.
Mespo.
But why are you so sure that it is the police who lack an axe needing grinding?
Racism is an axe grinding issue. Remember you are not in court now, in court you have to assume that the agents of the law are truthful unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise or the system does not work. But you are on JT’s blog and JT has collected so many cases of police abusing their power.
Carlyle:
“But why are you so sure that it is the police who lack an axe needing grinding?
Racism is an axe grinding issue. Remember you are not in court now, in court you have to assume that the agents of the law are truthful unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise or the system does not work. But you are on JT’s blog and JT has collected so many cases of police abusing their power.”
*******************
I think JT would be the first to tell you that most police officers are not racists or ogres bent on denying civil rights. Unfortunately there are some, but having represented three law enforcement unions and scores of cops, I find them much like any other group of folks doing a stressful job–comprised of both saints and sinners with the majority somewhere in between. Most just do their job, go home to their kids, and get along on a public servant’s salary. The interesting cases that JT presents are springboards for discussions, not documentaries on the typical cop.
Racism is a heavy axe, and in my experience it’s hard to conceal. I just don’t see it here, and I grew up with it in the South. It’s not pretty, but it’s not particularly stealthy either. I need more proof to overcome my presumption that most people are trying to do their jobs as best they can in a fair way. A 50ish guy still calling himself “Skippy” with a chip on his shoulder won’t garner any sympathy from me. It’s a disservice to the fine people I have known who bore much heavier burdens with far more dignity, and in their suffering insured that the rest of us were shamed into trying to end this scourge. To put it succinctly, I was much more impressed by Martin Luther King than H. Rap Brown.
Mespo,
God are you so naive. First, Why can’t you understand that black people have a very different experience in this country when it comes to the police? White people see a police officer and feel safe. blacks for the most part see a police office and feel threatened. Blacks have been railroaded by the system so much that we have little confidence in the police or this “justice” system. Second, I personally do not give a damn whether or not you sympathize with Gates because you think he is uppity. The question is did the police have reason to arrest him? Was a crime committed? The answer is a resounding no. Third, you say you do not have evidence that the officer lured gates onto the porch. You also do not have evidence that Gates was the irate uppity negro you claim he is either. Please, go get yourself an education. You are shooting off at the mouth about something you really do not know anything about. The man was in his own house. By the officers own admission he realized no crime was in progress. That should have been the end of it.
By the way, those who are asserting that the police officer is an expert in racial profiling are wrong. The true experts are those who have been victims of it and survived.
Mespo
One more thing. I know, I am on a roll here. If I had a nickle for every time somebody said they loved King because he was peaceful and disliked folks like HRap Brown because he was confrontational, I would be rich. Yeah, American loved King and his peaceful message so much that they thanked him by putting a bullet in his neck. Give me a break!
erykah,
“American loved King and his peaceful message so much that they thanked him by putting a bullet in his neck.”
One man put a bullet in MLK; not America.
Is what you said really what you think? I hope not.
HRap Brown was confrontational?
I think I speak for most of us when I ask; who the heck is HRap Brown?
This is being used as a sort of dog-whistle for white resentment. Fortunately, far too many Americans of all colors and backgrounds won’t be responding. Just as this old tick won’t work for the Republicans, it doesn’t work for Al Sharpton either.
A large and diverse coalition put BHO in office. That is a growing group. They will not take the bait in adequate numbers for this to help the Epublicans much, and many will look at this just as the President does: the police seem to have acted stupidly.
It ain’t “post racial,” by any stretch. But it is “post-Obama,” meaning that race is something that can be discussed in a far more open manner than just one year ago.
P.S. Just found this blog. I’m bookmarking it.
Jim B,
You can google HRap to find out who he is. As for my comment about King, my point is that King was not as beloved at the time as many believe him to be. Honestly, he had a large following but King was seen as a trouble maker by many. He was viewed as Al Sharpton is today. Many love Sharpton but many more hate his guts. Time has erased all of that. Yeah one man fired the shot but America is responsible for King’s death. Had we lived up to our ideals we would not have needed a King in the first place. We wouldn’t need one now. God Bless America. Indeed!
erykah,
Any one who thinks Dr. King’s murder was a one man job also believes in the tooth fairy. however, it is to be expected also from people who don’t know who H. Rap Brown was. Part of the unconscious racist game played by the media with black people is to choose the most outlandish people as Black “leaders.” This allows them to ignore the multitude of true leadership and intelligence that resides in the Black community. I learned long ago that black people have the right to choose their own leaders.
The fact that Rev. Al got involved in this says a lot about his need to enter the limelight, but while the media portrays him at time as a clown, if one listens to his points you find a brilliant man. I say this not as a fan of his or of Jesse Jackson. However, truthfully who are better and more intelligent people: Sessions, Graham, Lott, Barber, Sanford, Gingrich, et. al. I’ll take Jesse and Al in a landslide.
As for doctor king, the addition of his birthday does not cover up the fact that he was reviled in his own time by a majority of Americans and the hatred spread when he voiced opposition to viet Nam and poverty for Blacks and White. Then he became a danger and had to be eliminated. Just as Malcolm X, one of the greatest men of the 20th Century had to be eliminated when he broke with Elijah Mohammed. At that point Malcolm, who was equally as articulate as dr. King suddenly also became a threat because he was reaching across racial lines. Had he and Dr. King gotten together, you would have had two of the most intelligent and articulate men in America leading a movement of change for all Americans.
However, I’d best not get started or I’ll be writing again how the CIA help airlift heroin to America and help unleash it on black people to effectively kill off the civil Rights movement. I’m not Black, but I lived through those times and worked in the Black community. I didn’t recognize either the people or the communities portrayed in the media as being black. In 15 years, in the places in NYC where supposedly police were never to go alone, I walked those communities day and night and never had an ill word said to me. Was there crime yes and were there dangers, perhaps, but the portrayal of the black communities was one of stereotypes that failed to capture the richness of the intelligence and the culture of African American people. I don’t say this as some innocent naif and I understand that oppression does not breed saintliness per se. The fact is though many older whites still don’t accept or get the destructiveness of racism and my only hope is that seems to be fading to an extent in our youth, no matter how hard the media tries to still sell the stereotypes.
erykah:
“Yeah, American loved King and his peaceful message so much that they thanked him by putting a bullet in his neck. Give me a break!”
*****************
I always enjoy an opponent who is absolutely certain of his position and will admit no possibility of error. It is even more useful when he uses hyperbole to make his points;most see him as the zealot, or fool or both. I think the latter applies here.
Mespo.
I suppose you would deny that the multiple murders in Russia of human rights workers journalists and lawyers are obviously the work of the authorities, just the works of lone nut gunmen.
Carlyle:
“I suppose you would deny that the multiple murders in Russia of human rights workers journalists and lawyers are obviously the work of the authorities, just the works of lone nut gunmen.”
************
I don’t know (though I doubt one gunman is the culprit), but I also know that you don’t know either.
Mespo.
“Racism is a heavy axe”.
There is racism and then there is extreme racism. The heavy axe you refer to is extreme racism.
The real problem with racism is that sensible discussion about is impossible because in one sense of the word the vast majority of humans are racists. Most racists acknowledge that racism sometimes or somewhere exists or did exist and that it can be a serious problem, but when they think of it they are thinking of hatred of other races so much beyond what they themselves feel that they are aware of it or they are thinking of the hostility that members of other races feel towards their own race.
Consider the white people of Jasper Texas. They were shocked when a couple of their neighbors attached a nigger to the bumper bar of a light truck and dragged him to death. Their nigger neighbors on the other hand were not in the least surprised. I have no doubt that the two perpetrators were also surprised when they received the death sentence, they expected that other white Texans would approve of what they did. The difference between the two nigger draggers and the other white residents of Jasper is that between the extremely racist and the merely racist but the extreme racists would have experienced more than enough reinforcement of their views of black people from the good people who later became shocked.
It is not possible to summarize racism with a single number, but if we could we would find that there is no zero level. Even Jesus Christ, Mohomad and The Buddah (not our one) I am sure had irrational prejudices about some group or other.
Most people are racist but very few are aware that they are. their outrage when someone accuses them of racism is not feigned, they really feel hurt and indignant. Those who are aware of their racism can be split into two classes, one consists of extreme Ku Kux Klan types who are proud of protecting the legitimate interests of their own race, the other contains people whose racism is of the lowest levels because they are conscious of it and try to suppress it.
Racists are not necessarily evil or even nasty. I remember reading an article about a Jewish man who infiltrated a white supremacist group. He found that he liked many of the members, apart from their racist ideas they were nice people.
Most racists if made aware of their attitudes would try to change their ideas. This is the idea behind Jane Elliotts techniques for sensitizing people to their own prejudices as shown in the documentary films “Blue Eyed” and “A Class Divided”.
Mike S:
“The fact that Rev. Al got involved in this says a lot about his need to enter the limelight, but while the media portrays him at time as a clown, if one listens to his points you find a brilliant man.”
***********
“If the Jews want to get it on,” he said, “tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
–Al Sharpton, On the Crown Heights riots
The adjective “brilliant” didn’t immediately spring to mind when I heard this line.
I found Vince’s post interesting about Charles Ogletree is representing Gates, and is very tightly connected to Obama, having been one of two (the other being socialist Cornell West) on Obama’s campaign Black Advisory Council, & having when Obama applied to Harvard law received a letter of recommendation for him from Percy Sutton solicited by Khalid Al Mansour, ex-Black Panther & advisor to Saudi Prince bin Talal, plus Ogletree is also known for advocating reparations.
Mespo
Resorting to name calling says a lot about you. You are just as sure of your position and refuse to believe there is no room for error in your own thinking. So this is the pot calling the kettle black. But no matter how you slice it, Dr. Gates’s arrest was an error. If it were not he would still be facing charges and the Cambridge police would not have called the arrest “regrettable and unfortunate.” These are the facts which you refuse to accept. Now who’s the fool?
erykah:
I note with some interest that Sgt. Crowley, the so-called racist, rogue cop in the Gates affair, was the same officer who, 16 years earlier, attempted to save basketball star Reggie Lewis by administering mouth to mouth resuscitation during a fatal heart attack. Said the officer, “I wasn’t working on Reggie Lewis the basketball star. I wasn’t working on a black man. I was working on another human being.”
To answer your question, “Now who’s the fool”? Well, I ‘ll let you figure it out.
Regardless of the racial argument, the arrest of Professor Gates was illegal under Massachusetts case law.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/07/professor-gates-was-falsely-arrested.html
Dredd:
“Regardless of the racial argument, the arrest of Professor Gates was illegal under Massachusetts case law.”
****************
Since no one wanted to press this issue to court and thus no findings of fact were made, that is something we will never know for certain.
BOSTON – President Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.
The President shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.
The president is thought to have said that the police had issued tickets to him because he was acting stupidly even though he was president of the law review. Momma always said stupid is as stupid does.
Bdaman 1, July 24, 2009 at 9:00 am
BOSTON – President Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.
The President shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.
The president is thought to have said that the police had issued tickets to him because he was acting stupidly even though he was president of the law review. Momma always said stupid is as stupid does.
***********************
Did I read he paid them? Ya would think that the SOL would have run by that time and therefore no legal obligation to pay. Moral is a different story.
Who has ever gotten a parking ticket that they have not paid except the President and I? Humm…..
Bdaman,
Bad example. when I was an undergrad student at college I received perhaps $1,000 in parking tickets. The problem was I went to a school that had thousands more students driving in than it had parking facilities. If you were late for class, you parked illegally and hoped the Campus cops missed you. My wife had the same thing happen at another school in NYC, as did bother my daughters when they were undergrad students at the same school as my wife’s. If you’ve ever been to Cambridge and/or Boston you know parking is tough and tickets help pay the municipal budget, as they do in NY. Your point is either uninformed or stupid and really is totally vapid.
Dredd, good analysis. The officer filed his report with the case law (posted above) in mind, and seemed to report some legal conclusions as well as facts in the original short report. He said “tumultuous” because that is the term applied by the MA courts. He said Gates speech served no legitimate purpose, because that is another element the courts look to, since political expression cannot be disorderly conduct there.
The cases the court described all took place in areas that were clearly public places. Gates seemed to have been on his own covered porch, just outside the door of his own home, and was a single individual surrounded by six or seven officers, so he had little chance to stir up a crowd, even if a crowd had gathered on the street. All he did was talk. Prosecutors probably looked at this and groaned audibly at the prospect of bringing this case.
What legal authority permitted Crowley to enter Gates’s home?
There are a lot of things white people say to other white people, but not to people of color.
A white friend of mine moved to a wealthy suburb. A white neighbor spoke to her children. She told them that, if they ever saw a black man on their street who was not in uniform, they should call the police immediately.
It happens.
“If the Jews want to get it on,” he said, “tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
Mespo,
Perhaps the adjective brilliant didn’t come to your mind, but then I assume you know little about the Crown Heights Community and about the ethnic tensions there. I do, more than most. In 1972 I became par of the spearhead group to establish an Office
of community Services in Crown Height. This was to bring together in one office all the varied government social services offered.. It what Mayor John Lindsay’s attempt to destroy the local party ward offices that historically in New York provided a range of services to citizens. since these were Democratic and Lindsay then a Republican, there was of course political motivation Our office was located in a three story Brownstone at 823 Eastern Parkway. We we diagonally across the street from the Lubavitcher Hassidim Sect’s World Headquarters.
I became the liaison to the Lubavitcher’s because they knew I was Jewish and had long hair and a full beard. I was also 29 at the time and they saw me as a potential recruit, since with the hair/beard all I would need was to cut the hair to shorter length, don their 17th Century attire and I would look like one of them. As liaison I attended services a few times at The world Headquarters and was invited to Shabbos dinner at a Rabbi’s house. I came to know the community very well.
Now the Lubavitcher’s, as I see them, are a cult. I could give you the reasons but that is easy enough for you to find out. They had a large presence in the Crown Height Community that almost equaled that of the Black population. However, they received a disproportionate number of City services and perks from the City. The reason is simple. The Lubavitchers voted as a block. In any given election you could get almost 100% of Lubavitcher’s voting the same way. This as you might surmise made them a voting bloc with power that far exceeded their neighbor’s. They also were a closed knit group, that didn’t particularly like blacks, or try to coexist with them, but reasonably they didn’t like anyone from the outside as is the wont of most cults. There was also an occupied police car stationed 24 hours a day outside of the 770 Eastern Parkway World Headquarters. This was an affront to members of the community for not only special privileges, but because it seemed a symbol of who had power in the community. The ironic thing was I learned many years later that the car was there because the Satmer Hassidim of Williamsburgh, an even more radical cult that didn’t believe in Israel, had made death threats against the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
That was the festering background of the Crown Heights Riots and the Lubavitcher’s remained an unequal power in the Crown Heights Community into the 90′s, when the riots developed.
That he car that his the child was part of the Rebbe’s motorcade was a last straw that burst years of festering and in many cases justified resentment.
Now I also made clear that I hold no brief for Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson. Certainly Sharpton’s remarks were over the top.
However, given that to the Crown Heights Community the face of Judaism was seen as this cult, that in every way equals Fundy Christian cults, it was a bigoted yet understandable remark. Please let me be clear Mespo, I am not just some guilty apologist for the oppressed of this world colored by my radical political beliefs. I could fill pages with critiques of black politics in the US and of some black attitudes. However, understanding the history, knowing the culture as well as a white man can and having had first hand experience with certain situations and finally being quite aware of the still underlying racism and stereotyping that exists in this country, I can understand, if not particularly like Al Sharpton. By the way he is brilliant at times in his political analysis.
Finally, I find it more than telling that an entire range of basically racist Republican pundits, let’s start with the crooked clown Newt Gingrich are treated respectfully by the media and weight is given to their ideas, while Sharpton and Jackson are derided. Do I think that Al and Jesse are just as corrupt as Newt, yes I do. However, they are far less vicious and racist then Newt, et al. are and they are certainly much smarter.
Cindy, you mean to tell me that Prof. Ogletree has advocated the payment of reparations to the descendants of slaves? How dare he! After all, slaveholders did not receive reparations when their property was taken by that shameful Abraham Lincoln. What’s fair is fair.
Sorry for the typos above. This is what I was stating.
“If the Jews want to get it on,” he said, “tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
Mespo,
Perhaps the adjective brilliant didn’t come to your mind, but then I assume you know little about the Crown Heights Community and about the ethnic tensions there. I do, more than most. In 1972 I became part of the spearhead group to establish an Office of Community Services (OCS) in Crown Heights. This was to bring together in one office all the varied government social services offered. It was Mayor John Lindsay’s attempt to destroy the local party ward offices, that historically in New York City provided a range of services to citizens. Since these ward offices were Democratic and Lindsay was then a Republican, there was of course political motivation in his actions. Our office was located in a three story Brownstone at 823 Eastern Parkway. We we diagonally across the street from the Lubavitcher Hassidim Sect’s World Headquarters.
I became the liaison to the Lubavitcher’s because they knew I was Jewish and had long hair and a full beard. I was also 29 at the time and they saw me as a potential recruit, since with the hair/beard all I would need was to cut my hair to shorter length, don their 17th Century attire and I would look like one of them. As liaison I attended services a few times at The World Headquarters and was invited to Shabbos dinners at Rabbi’s houses. I came to know the community very well.
Now the Lubavitcher’s, as I see them, are a cult. I could give you the reasons but that is easy enough for you to find out. They had a large presence in the Crown Heights Community that almost equaled that of the Black population. However, they received a disproportionate number of City services and perks from the City. The reason is simple. The Lubavitchers voted as a block. In any given election you could get almost 100% of Lubavitcher’s voting the same way. They voted as their leaders told them to vote. This as you might surmise made them a voting bloc with power that far exceeded their neighbor’s. They also were a close knit group, that didn’t particularly like blacks, or try to coexist with them, but reasonably they didn’t like anyone from the outside as is the wont of most cults. There was also an occupied police car stationed 24 hours a day outside of the 770 Eastern Parkway World Headquarters. This was an affront to members of the community for not only the special privileges it implied, but because it seemed a symbol of who had power in the community. The ironic thing was I learned many years later that the car was there because the Satmer Hassidim of Williamsburgh, an even more radical cult that didn’t believe in Israel, had made death threats against the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
That was the festering background of the Crown Heights Riots and the Lubavitcher’s remained an unequal power in the Crown Heights Community into the 90’s, when the riots developed.
That the car that hit the child was part of the Rebbe’s motorcade was a last straw that burst years of festering anger and in many cases justified resentment.
Now I also made clear that I hold no brief for Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson. Certainly Sharpton’s remarks were over the top.
However, given that to the Crown Heights Community the face of Judaism was seen as this cult, that in every way equals Fundy Christian cults, it was a bigoted yet understandable remark. Please let me be clear Mespo, I am not just some guilty apologist for the oppressed of this world colored by my radical political beliefs. I could fill pages with critiques of black politics in the US and of some black attitudes. I could fill more pages relating the “black is right” party line of the communists in the 60′s, who were trying to gain black support. What they didn’t get was that black people were much to aware of manipulative techniques
to be easily fooled. However, understanding the history, knowing the culture as well as a white man can and having had first hand experience with certain situations and finally being quite aware of the still underlying racism and stereotyping that exists in this country, I can understand, if not particularly like Al Sharpton. By the way he is brilliant at times in his political analysis.
Finally, I find it more than telling that an entire range of basically racist Republican pundits, let’s start with the crooked clown Newt Gingrich, are treated respectfully by the media and weight is given to their ideas, while Sharpton and Jackson are derided. Do I think that Al and Jesse are just as corrupt as Newt, yes I do. However, they are far less vicious and racist then Newt, and his buddies are and they are certainly much smarter.
It’s been many years since I’ve lived in Cambridge, but while I was in college I drove a cab out of East Cambridge for a year. Most of my fares were working class Irish and Italian folks. I enjoyed that job and came to know some of the people fairly well because they were repeat customers. For the most part, they were friendly, caring, hard working people who loved their families, their churches, the Red Sox, the Celtics and the Bruins. But they also had some very negative attitudes about blacks and hispanics, and were not hesitant to share those attitudes with me. This was the late ’60s, after all, and a time of great turmoil. I knew plenty of cabbies who would flatly refuse to pick up fares in Roxbury, which meant that many black people had problems just trying to get transportation. There were also many confrontations between blacks and whites when Boston began integrating its schools. In short, racism in the North, even in bastions of liberalism like Massachusetts, was pervasive in those days. Most of us understand that anger and resentment breeds distrust, which takes a long time to overcome.
We will probably never know all of the facts surrounding the incident, including what was actually said and, just as imporantly, the manner in which it was said. It will have to work itself out over time. My only opinion is that I think it was unwise for the president to comment on the incident at his press conference for two reasons. First, he knew no more about the facts than the rest of us. Second, I do not believe that essentially local situations, regardless of the prominence of the participants, are appropriate subjects for presidential pronouncements.
mespo727272,
I assume the facts exactly like the police officer filed them. I assume none of the facts Professor Gates advanced. (Kinda like a motion to dismiss a complaint under the federal rules.)
Read the Massachusetts case I cite in my post. The white woman double parked waiting for school to get out and pick up her kid, who resisted and kicked the police, who had broken the traffic laws, and who was found guilty by a jury, had the “disorderly conduct” charges against her dismissed.
The exact statute Professor Gates was charged under.
The controlling issue under Massachusetts case law is whether or not there was “a legitimate purpose” for what a defendant was doing. If so the conduct cannot be disorderly as a matter of law.
The defendant can be dead wrong on the facts (no racial motive for example) and still have “a legitimate purpose” under the statute at issue. Free speech is a legitimate purpose.
Professor Gates can stand on his porch all day long and loudly call a policeman a racist and it is not “disorderly conduct” under the applicable Massachusetts statute.
Nice work Barack… with one comment you managed to alienate 75% of America.
And anyone who has spent any amount of time in the “higher” education system knows the Professor Gates type: bitter, spiteful, bigoted racist with a position of power who felt emboldened to make a political statement.
This is the type of Professor who would change the subject on you when you attempt to engage in a debate- or would give you a poor grade because you actually have an opinion, and done research outside of marxist texts and such. You are fooling no one, Mr Gates.
And Mr President, is this “nuance” you’ve spoke of? “the police acted stupidly”? -please
Obama is out to rip this country to shreds in EVERY way- who can question that such ill-advised statements are divisive… and NOT helpful? He has no idea what happened, he admitted it- and apparently doesn’t care, either… he’s picked his side.
But back in reality, the childish and paranoid Gates completely baited the cop, who acted with admirable restraint, IMO… all he had to do is show his ID and shut up, he was treated with respect. This guy was clearly looking for a fight… and he ought to thank God he didn’t find one.
Obama is going to destroy race relations in this country with his vengeful “get even” mentality… some messiah- Americans should have chosen a fair and sensible human being instead of this embittered nut.
Reaganite Republican,
So we should take the point of view of a man who supported a mediocre actor, whose failing career was rescued by America’s largest defense contractor, who this hack as puppet gave speeches they wrote for him; dealt with Iran to hold our hostages until his election; provided Iran and Osama Bin Laden with air to ground missiles thus creating Al Queada; provided poison gas to Iraq; enacted the largest tax increase in history aimed specifically at the Middle Class, while he cut taxes for the rich; put us into heavy deficit spending through a bloated defense budget that paid off his campaign backers with government contracts; visited an SS cemetary to pay homage to soldiers who had murdered millions and fought against US troops; made our Airline industry unsafer; and falsely claimed credit for the fall of the USSR, while suffering from early onset Alzheimer’s disease; believed he was actually at war in WWII while he was only making movies; brought into being an anti-missle program that he once saw in a bad science fiction movie but nevertheless gave billion$ to his political supporters; committed treason in Iran Contra and finally ran like a scared puppy after 250 of our finest were blown up in Lebanon, never taking action to get the bombers; that Ronnie Reagan who you idolize?
You are certainly no student of history or government and you put your faith in frauds. Reagan, your hero was also a racist
hero, but to you i guess that only recommends him more. Why do you hate our country?
Mike S.,
I could not have said it better. I am impressed. I thought I was the only one who disliked Reagan for what he did to the US and the aide and assistance his Veeps son protested. Humm…
Dredd:
You and I agree on your cited example, but disagree on the facts here. I believe the charge stems from the conduct of Gates inciting the crowd of seven or so people. The purpose of the disorderly conduct charge to to prevent persons from inciting those around them to lawlessness or public disruption. Here is an analysis from a Mass. appellate attorney:
“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of “disorderly conduct” as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): “It is our opinion that “disorderly” sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): ‘A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.’. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility,” and penalizes one who “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
In a 2008 case, the state’s Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated “[t]he “public” element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant’s action affects or is ‘likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.’” Id.”
Mike S:
Thank you for your interesting break down of the Crown Heights dynamic. I too suspected there were no angels in that dust-up. My point was simply that ol’ Al is more showman than scholar, and has a proclivity as much for foot-in-mouth disease, as erudition.
“I thought I was the only one who disliked Reagan for what he did to the US’
AY,
I loath the man and pity him at the same time. He was a puppet for a much more evil group of people including GHW Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and the whole sick crew. What I wrote too, as I suspect you already know, was not even a scratch on the surface of the harm that man’s administration did to this country.
“My point was simply that ol’ Al is more showman than scholar, and has a proclivity as much for foot-in-mouth disease, as erudition.”
Mespo,
This is true about Sharpton but he doesn’t rise to the level of people like Newt, Rove and the whole crew who are also grifters but have in their time done far more harm than Sharpton and when you get him beyond his game playing he really does show insight. Same is true of Jesse Jackson, who has played the game better than Sharpton. To me though there are so many white clowns out there who are treated with respect, rather than the disdain Al and Jesse get and who are far more
dangerous to us all.
Mespo,
Let me just follow up a little with Crown Heights. The Jewish population is about 10% compared to the black population’s 90%.
There are about 150,000 in the community today, probably that’s risen from when I worked there. The black population was about 70% from the Caribbean and 30% American blacks. Thus there were tensions within the Black community as well. Even though the Lubavitcher’s were only 10%, they voted as the Leaders told them to vote and to a politician if you can get near 100% of any small voting block, that block wields political power. The services received by the Lubavitcher’s were out of proportion and that was what made them offensive to the Blacks.
The second part and there are many Jews who may not agree with me, is that I see them as a cult. As such they didn’t go out of their way to make friends with non-Lubavitcher’s. The exception to that is that they are great and savvy proselytizers to young Jews and their message is targeted to them. They are a lot more enlightened and benevolent than most cults in truth and do some good things to boot, but I am not a fan of any group that requires such internal discipline that those who don’t conform are ostracized.
mespo727272,
The statute he is charged with violating is what is relevant, and the case law interpreting it.
There is no case whatsoever in Massachusetts law that would support a conviction under these facts elaborated in the police report, hence the D.A. dismissed it before the ink dried.
If Professor Gates sues for false arrest the arresting officer will have to carry the burden and prove probable cause under Massachusetts law.
Who is going to call the D.A. as a witness and ask him “if there was probable cause” why did you drop the case immediately?
The police officer does not have to do what the D.A. does, and that is prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury each element of the offence.
As stated, the case would fail on the “no legitimate purpose” leg of this Massachusetts law.
Where there is a legitimate purpose, whether the defendant is right or wrong like the woman picking up her kids, there can be no violation of this particular statute as a matter of law.
To Reaganite Republican:
Thanks for bringing it up again: All Crowley had to do was READ the ID, SAY “Thank you very much, I hope we didn’t incovenience you. We were here to protect your home and now we see it is safely in the care of it occupant, goodbye, sir,” AND leave.
END OF INCIDENT