“This case is however about our “Constituitonal rights” under the first ammendment and “freedom of speech”. You have the right to voice anything you desire except verbally saying fire in a crowed building where there is NO FIRE, & telling a judge to F _ _ _ off or even a police officer.

Anything short of that is our God given rights provided by our founding fathers and our CONSTITUITION. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!”

**********

Well you certainly are an absolutist.Let’s look at some other fact situations and see if your “No Exceptions” rule applies:

1. American naval vessels are crossing a narrow isthmus in a canal in hostile territory and you become privy to the time and location of their crossing. You decide that this is news of public concern and you decide to broadcast it to your fellow countrymen, and also to the enemy who then immediately goes about the task of annihilating you countrymen. Still think you conduct is “God Given” and immune from criticism and punishment?

2. You are witness to a bank robbery and see the armed robber fleeing the scene. As the officers give chase, you tell the robber that the police are coming down 4th Street and his best escape route is up 3rd street. He gets away scot-free. Should your free speech rights be sacredly protected now?

3. You are driving along Highway 5 at midnight near the Guadalupe Bridge. You have just heard a radio alert that the bridge has collapsed. A family of 4 heading out on vacation asks you if you heard the newsflash that they just missed. You tell them it was some distant weather advisory and that you just came from the direction they are going and the way is clear and the bridge is fine. They roll along relying on your word and plunge into the river to their death. Still hear the fifes and drums of your free speech rights playing?

4. Your pastor has just returned from vacation in Brazil sporting a great tan and some great stories. You decide to drop by his house and tell his wife (who did not make the trip) that the good vicar told you he just broke off a torrid affair with his South American mistress. Th wife files for divorce and the pastor’s career is ruined by your slander. Still think any jury would protect you under these circumstances while you recite the Constitution?

Absolutes are for foolish or weak minds.

This case against Professor Gates isn’t about a racial issue. I’m a middle aged white male & the same thing would have happen to me as well. Thanks to the cops being an arrogant, my way or the highway mentality, combined with authority issues!!!!

This arrest is about out of control police officers throughout the country. Once it was established that this house was Professor Gates residence this Officer Crowley should’ve had enough sense to leave IMMEDIATELY, PERIOD. This is just another example of rogue cops and how they don’t follow the law!!!! A judge would’ve have thrown this case out of court and in favor of Professor Gates.

The only exception would be if an verbal or physical threat was imminent.(which was NOT THE CASE).

This case is however about our “Constituitonal rights” under the first ammendment and “freedom of speech”. You have the right to voice anything you desire except verbally saying fire in a crowed building where there is NO FIRE, & telling a judge to F _ _ _ off or even a police officer.

Anything short of that is our God given rights provided by our founding fathers and our CONSTITUITION. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!

My sincere hope is that Professor Gates sues this police force because that is the ONLY WAY to stop this CONTINUOUS BAD BEHAVIOR!!!

Greatd job Mr.Turley I love how you explain things and I’ve admired you for a very long time!

FFLEO,
I am spreading the blame wide, but if you read into what I’ve posted about LE, you might understand that it is not the officers I blame. As I’ve written I’ve worked with, known and even been friends with police. Their backgrounds are similar to mine and over some drinks, back when I could, we enjoyed each others company. It is not them. It is the move in this country to Militarize the police, initiated after 9/11. It is the training of them that borders on the para-military, supplied by Homeland Security. It stems from the poisoning of the FBI by JE Hoover, who instituted a culture of lawbreaking to intensify his power. The first movie that I went to in a theater was High Noon, with Gary Cooper playing the role of Marshal Will Kaine. Standing up to evil, even when the whole town turned its’ back. I can’t overemphasize the effect it had on me, my outlook on life and how I’ve stood up to bully’s at work despite the possible effects on my career. I would have become a Cop in NYC, or Nassau County, except my eyesight at the time was unacceptable.

So understand, I’m not against LEO’s, the work they do, or getting the bad guys of this world. However, the sheer bureaucracy of police work, the demands to close cases quickly, the training that tells them they must be obeyed perfectly or face danger, the police unions that convince them they are victims, the egging on by cheap politicians (like Rudy Guiliani, who promoted an almost police riot in his mayoral campaign and fired a wonderful police chief because he got to much good publicity), Mayor Daley who encouraged the insanity in 1968 Chicago and then the reality of how they are treated badly in general by the system that praises them to the public. I’ve been in police precincts in NYC many times and seen the decrepit furniture, ill maintained buldings, disgusting rest rooms, shapeup rooms that could barely hold the next shift. I’ve even lectured at precincts on dealing with the severely mentally ill and have not only found good people ready to listen, but learned some valuable tricks from old pro’s.

I’m not anti-LEO, but I’m anti using them for purposes that disrespect our laws and our Constitution. That is where they become the victim, along with their victims. They are being ill served by the political hacks who praise them to their faces, make the public more fearful than it should be and out of sight screw the very officers they use to promote their political careers.

Holly,
I’ve been fervently wishing that to be true literally since the age of four when I heard my mother talking about her disgust with segregation in N.C. from where she had just returned. Unfortunately, too many people still judge people by our superficial differences and the stereotypes they are taught
about them. I wish you a world where that which you dislike no longer exists.

Mespo,
That is true if you look at it from strictly a news story context. However, at least half of the “dramas” on TV are shows that extol police and portray them very favorably. That doesn’t count the prime time reality police shows like 48 hours, Cops, and America’s Most Wanted. There is a network ID, which runs reality police shows 24 hours a day and Oxygen that has entire
evenings devoted to showing “Snapped” a reality show about women who commit murder. The favorable publicity for police is so overwhelming as to touch on propaganda. Then too in NYC where I used to live the two tabloids The Post and The News would constantly take the side of police in cases like Amadou Diallo’s, which was to my mind indefensible. I’ve written here often that given all the favorable publicity, it is telling that police in general see themselves as victims.

This is the very first time that she seen this cripple old man with a cane going into his home?

“I started to reply soon after his post, but I knew that some reading this thread would simply consider me too biased ….”

**************

I doubt anyone who has read your comments thinks you shill for anybody. I like your expert opinion … even when it cuts against my argument.

If you judge by the sports page, everybody sets world records, all long touchdown passes happen in the final seconds, home runs are frequent event, and soccer is an exciting pastime in the US. Good police reporting and work rarely makes the papers or the Huffington Post. That should not suggest it doesn’t exist. Read any good “dog bites man” stories lately?

{Quote:

WASHINGTON — The police officer at the center of a national dispute over race and law enforcement says a much-anticipated meeting at the White House was productive and all parties are looking forward.

Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley spoke after meeting with President Barack Obama and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., along with Vice President Joe Biden. Crowley described himself and Gates as “two gentlemen who agreed to disagree” about the confrontation that led to Gates’ arrest.

He said that the conversation centered on moving forward, not reliving the events of the past two weeks, and that they plan more meetings.

End Quote}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/beer-summit-begins-obama-_n_248254.html
________________________________

We don’t need no stinkin law, nur judges, nur courts of law, we got’s beer justice in this ‘sheer country. Swangin’ doors to blissful happiness.

They’s a tear in my beer…

I posted that HuffPo link yesterday, which implies that you are not reading the previous posts before commenting. That is not like you. In fairness to Crowley et al. please see my comments above regarding *securing* the Gates’ residence since you and I have a disagreement regarding that issue.

Regarding police/LEO misconduct, it has always occurred and the main difference is our heightened awareness of the misconduct based on modern, ever-present videography and the Internet. I personally want to see every ‘bad cop’ lose their LE careers and serve jail time; however, you are spreading the blame over too wide an area across the LE spectrum. Now, this is a blawg and it would not be very worthwhile if each of us does not give his or her own opinions, but we all realize our comments are just opinions and hearsay because we never know the full facts of the case so we should not get too critical of others’ opinions.

Yet another example of police gone wild.

Mespo,
Yet sometimes they do and enough times to raise suspicions,
Amadou Diallo, for instance, or this from today:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/30/video-florida-officers-openly-discuss-falsifying-report-to-protect-officer-from-blame-in-accident-by-framing-a-citizen/Police don’t falsify their reports all the time, your assertion notwithstanding.

original link provided by JT:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32199319/ns/local_news-miami_fl/

While James statement was hyperbolic, these incidents happen with great frequency. My original position still stands though. Sgt.Crowley’s and his colleague’s own reports, even if we grant them as being true provide no rational reason for making the arrest, no matter how this is spun. Was it racism, as I said before no one can know, but at the least it was the case of a PO who did not like having his authority challenged and in revenge decided to take Professor Gates down a peg. Sgt. Crowley should have walked away after he saw proper I.D. and if he was not self serving would have written down his name and badge number and left it with Gates.

We have had so many instances of this posted by JT since 2009 began alone, that it points to a pattern of police behavior. I’ve stated on many occasions that I am sympathetic to the police and that as a former civil servant I know how badly they can be treated by their own Agency. They are hardly victims though, although the majority feel that way and thus feel entitled to be treated specially. This has been compounded by the homeland Security/DEA police indoctrination that has accelerated since 9/11, to the point where police have in their minds assumed a para-military status. While
a military outlook is essential for combat, it has no place within the law enforcement realm of a supposedly free society.

Thank you for your witty retort to James’ ridiculously false statement. I started to reply soon after his post, but I knew that some reading this thread would simply consider me too biased regarding LE to counter James’ comments.

I have no idea how many officers you know, or even if you know any, but your statement that, “Police falsify their reports all the time to cover up their abuses of power,” speaks for itself both in terms of its breadth and foolishness. Police don’t falsify their reports all the time, your assertion notwithstanding. And as for your invective that Sgt. Crowley should be taking out other people’s trash, some would say that is, in large measure, what his job consists of already. Judging by your comments, I must wonder if you come with handles or a drawstring?

{Quote:

Disorderly Conduct: Conversation About Gates Arrest Precedes Arrest

A lawyer who moments earlier had been complaining to friends about police overreaction in the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., got a taste of the Gates treatment himself after loudly chanting “I hate the police” near a traffic stop in Northwest Washington, D.C.

End Quote}
_________________________________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/disorderly-conduct-conver_n_246794.html

Police falsify their reports all the time to cover up their abuses of power. Justice needs to be served in this case and Crowley needs to answer for his illegal actions.

Crowley should be taking out people’s garbage, not wearing a badge.

“If Gates can prove, using incidents and people from his past, that the officer involved has shown insensitivity in the past, which would be evidence of color-aroused bias, then Gates could successfully defend against a slander action.

…

But, because he is a white man and thinks he can do anything he wants, he might go ahead,…”

***********

Well, your efforts at erudition came screeching to a halt with this classic display of elliptical reasoning, and ad hominem attack. (Are your legs tired from that colossal leap of logic, too?).

In addition, Gates cannot prevail by showing that the officer was “insensitive,” in the past and, according to your logic, was thus supposedly acting on some “color-aroused bias [sic].” Instead, Gates must show that the officer’s actions in arresting Gates were motivated exclusively “because [Gates was] a black man in America,” and that his arrest was solely due to his race. Otherwise Gates is guilty of slander per se since loudly alleged this to be true in front of witnesses.

Finally, your analysis of the Lee Bailey/ Det. Fuhrman confrontation is superficial and pedantic: Fuhrman was not discredited because he used a racial slur, but because he denied ever using the word. Had he simply admitted the use of the racial epithet, albeit in anger or frustration or whatever, his credibility would not have been so successfully challenged as jurors themselves admitted after the verdict.

All in all Francis, you have added nothing to the discussion save confirming your inability to grasp the issues, and your reflexive need to blame the officer first, with little regard for the facts or the law.

The important outcome is that the full facts surface, something positive derives from this incident to ensure that any wrongs committed are fully exposed and justice is meted, if appropriate, and that it never happens again.

I don’t expect much from any disorderly conduct charges though. And it appears that Prof. Gates is satisfied that there’s nothing more he needs to do other than teach.

The review board is the next at bat.

“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.”

And here’s the extent of remedial action to be sought:

“9.20.010 Violation–Penalty.
Unless otherwise specified, any person who violates any provision of this title shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars for each offense.”

Above that, there would be need to rely on Massachusetts general law to support arrest and detention in this case:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-pt4-toc.htm

CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE.

No good luck there.

The likeliest surviving blue law:

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER.

would be:

Chapter 272, Section 36. Blasphemy.

There’s a lot more fruitful area of the statutes to look for correction of impropriety in this case, it would seem to my uneducated eye:

CHAPTER 268. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE.

So for all the disjointed anecdotal statements made by you, there is only one individual involved in the incident under discussion who has any possibility of having violated the law and it’s Sergeant Crowley. Since his problems have been compounded by televised public statements and radio interviews, I’ll await the review board’s assessment rather than ascribing to the forced conclusions that you’ve arrived at, since you’re not a lawyer.

In this case I was not under suspicion. He was trying to avoid break-ins and was asking me not to take out my purse at the park. I have been stopped in Phoenix and grilled for having too brown of skin, so I understand what you are saying about your own situation and I agree with your point concerning the law.

You said,

It turns out he asked me if I would not pull my purse out the trunk while at the park because they’d had some break-ins.

I was in the same situation once, where I was stopped on the highway in Florida and had left my wallet in my suit jacket, which I had placed in the trunk of the car. As a result, I was compelled by those circumstances to open the trunk of my (rental) car in order to get my identification, which the police officer had a right to request that I produce.

However, if I had my identification in my pocket, the officer certainly would not have a right under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court to demand that I open my trunk. He would have to have a reasonable suspicion, and the fact that there have been some thefts in the park does not mean that the police have a reasonable suspicion of everyone who drives through the park.

The fact that my skin is brown does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion.

I would look to the example set by Johnny Cochran and Mark Furhman to see where this would end up. I’m willing to guarantee you at this point that officer Crowley has some behavior that he does not want aired in a civil trial. But, because he is a white man and thinks he can do anything he wants, he might go ahead, hoping as Marsha Clark did, that the truth will not come out. Somewhere, there is someone who heard this officer say negative things about Black people. If officer does have color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior (and virtually everyone in this country does on some level) then the officer cannot carry his burden of proof.

One interesting question would be to litigate the meaning of “racist”. Is “racism” a mental defect that is chronic, or can it also be a momentary ideation, emotion and behavior that is, for example, unlawful or tends to hurt one’s standing in the community?

Should Dr. Gates be required to prove as an affirmative defense that Officer Crowley has a chronic mental disorder that could also be called Extreme Color Aroused Disorder, or is it enough to show that ON THIS DAY, IN THIS CASE, Crowley had ideation, emotion and behavior that was aroused by skin color?

Let Crowley file his suit. We’ll all learn something about Extreme Color Aroused Disorder in the process, because the suit will turn on whether officer Crowley has that disorder. If so, it doesn’t really matter whether it was what motivated Crowley in this particular case.

Analogously, if person “A” calls person “B” a thief based on a misunderstanding in a store, it doesn’t matter whether the misunderstand involved thievery if OTHER facts prove that “B” is a thief as a matter of chronic behavior. IF “B” is a thief, then calling “B” a thief does not constitute slander.

You might also say that this threat to file a civil action is in the nature of a “slap suit”, trying to quash First Amendment speech through civil actions.

If Officer Crowley refused to give his badge number and name to Gates then, in my opinion, that should be a prima facia defense of ANYTHING that Gates might say about officer Crowley. When you invade someoene’s house and refuse to identify yourself, you can expect to be called some awful names.

Here’s me as a average citizen. First of all most LEO’s scare the living crap out of me (sorry). Just a while back I was walking in the park and the ranger pulled up blocking my car from pulling out of the space. He then got out and came towards me. I couldn’t help noticing his hand was near the gun. I knew I hadn’t done anything but I thought I was about to be arrested because he’d blocked my exit and was telling me he wanted to talk. It turns out he asked me if I would not pull my purse out the trunk while at the park because they’d had some break-ins. That’s a reasonable request but I was feeling a lot of panic because my exit was being blocked. I maintained myself as calm when he approached, but I was quite scared. So I have sympathy with Gates. If the police came to my house and said there had been a break in, and I knew there hadn’t been one, I would be scared and suspicious. On the other hand, Crowley had an honest report of a break in and had to check it out.

We then come to the part where I believe Gates was probably scared, confused and also a classist a-hole. So he reacts out of a combination of all of these. I didn’t know what “securing” a residence meant until you explained it. If the police had asked if they could take my house key to “secure” my house, I would have been very nervous because I wouldn’t know what they meant or why I couldn’t just lock the door myself. I would want the police to leave ASAP, not stay and do more than figure out everything was O.K.

You write: “However, had I noticed his calm—and considering the totality of the circumstances—I might have stated, ‘we still do not need to go to the station if you are willing to cooperate. Based on a nod or other affirmation I would have ‘unarrested’ him in the field and then asked for his noncustodial compliance to an interview to sort out the issues with the full understanding that he was no longer under arrest and that he could leave at any time.” To me, again, having been arrested I would have been scared shitless. I’m certain that you mean well by that offer, but after having been cuffed I would not have been in a trusting frame of mind. So I look at this situation just as seamus does, keep your mouth shut, cooperate and move along. I think Crowley misused his authority. I think both men were a-holes and I hope they will both “cop” to that and make something good come from this situation.

I had missed your post to me and the earlier statement, just seeing them now. Thanks for laying out your experience. I will think about what you said. I do not have your background to draw on and please know I will take your words and life experience seriously.

If you bothered to read the posts of this thread, in my last post to which you stated, “Former Federal LEO skirts the legal issue”, I was responding directly to Jill (not Jill et al.) regarding a question she asked of me. I strive to respond to the regulars even if I understand that my reply is not directly germane to the specific legal issues/statutes involved.

Mespo is correct regarding the “willfulness” question of Sgt. Crowley’s actions. I submit that only an impartial court of law examining the entire set of facts and circumstances can ‘reasonably’ decide if Crowley’s actions were a willful ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities’ of which Professor Gates is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

If you are not an attorney—or unfamiliar with LE—I suggest that you and others do some research to also fully understand the legal concept, ‘color of law’. Any Internet ‘Philadelphia lawyer’ with a Google J.D.—or not—can find the ‘color of law’ explanation on the web.

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution…”

************

The operative word is “willfully,” and that is what this thread has been talking about ad nauseum. I’ll concede for the sake of argument that FFLEO may be skirting the issue (and I for one know that he is not), but you, my friend, understand neither the law nor the issue. Quoting law you don’t understand doesn’t make you look like Moses, rather you look like Mrs. Malaprop in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s play “The Rivals.”

“TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

” Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

I stated above in a previous post: “The arrest was likely too excessive an option;”

In such heated encounters, it is impossible to replay the interactions in an after-the-fact scenario to derive the defendant’s or the LEO’s ‘reasoning’ for the actions they took at that time.

Apparently, Prof. Gates wants to move on. I do not think he has a strong case for a false arrest claim given his unreasonable and–most importantly–his *unexpected* behavior which can lead the arresting officer to consider any defendant’s current state of mind as part of the reason to detain or arrest.

Here is the manner with which I *might* have handled the situation. Once Gates was cuffed, he seemed to calm down as evidenced from the Incident Report. At that instance, he was under custody and Miranda triggers. However, had I noticed his calm—and considering the totality of the circumstances—I might have stated, ‘we still do not need to go to the station if you are willing to cooperate. Based on a nod or other affirmation I would have ‘unarrested’ him in the field and then asked for his noncustodial compliance to an interview to sort out the issues with the full understanding that he was no longer under arrest and that he could leave at any time. Then the impetus is on the defendant to comply with your request to resolve this in an amicable manner. I would have requested the assistance of the black LEO on scene to help in the field ‘arbitration’. At that juncture the LEO has established his LE authority per the disorderly conduct stature—rather than a ‘making’ a personally biased point—restored order, and then offered the defendant an honorable way out. The fact that Crowley was potentially defamed as a civil rights violator and a rogue cop, I do not know if this potential option would have crossed his mind.

Regardless, we have courts of law and judges to adjudicate problems such as the Gates/Crowley encounter. I always tried to remember what an LE colleague told me when confronted by a judge about a mistake in judgment the LEO had made by letting a defendant ‘off’ with just a warning and the guy bragged about getting away with a crime. The judge learned of the incident and told the officer that an LEO’s duty was not to judge the guilt or innocence of any defendant, but to enforce the statues. Certainly, LEOs have discretion—which must be tempered with good commonsense and logic—although most often it is best to let the judiciary do its job and stay away from judging defendants afield where the crimes occur and most often in the presence of anger and frustration on all sides.

In fact racism is a normal characteristic of humans as frequent as the characteristics of having two eyes, two ears, two arms or two legs. A human who denies he is to some extent racist is either a liar or lacks self awareness. When most humans use the term they are thinking of Adolph Hitler or a grand exalted dingbat of the Ku Kux Klan but the correct term for Nazis and Klan members is “extreme racist”. Extreme racists are a problem but if all of them were to disappear the lesser racism of the remainder would continue doing enormous damage to those who are on the receiving end especially when they are also socially disadvantaged. Racism and social disadvantage work together in a synergistic way to multiply the damage.

Racists do not know that they are racists and their outrage when someone states the truth about them is not feigned. All humans exaggerate the harms done to them by others and minimize the harm done by them to others, but racist overmen exaggerate more than undermen who are subject to discrimination. There discrimination by overmen against undermen is so large that there is little scope for exaggeration, maybe 10% whereas overman exaggerate maybe 90%. For example it is a bit rich when white people act as if the accusation of racism is as hurtful to them as the use of the “N” word is to a Negro.

It is obvious by sampling the blog comments on several blogs that white Americans are favouring Sgt Crowley and his description of what happened over Professor Gates and his account. In addition there are accusations that Gates is an inferior scholar in an inferior subject field, that he has a victim complex and a chip on his shoulder and that he is a bully using his position of power against the poor white policeman. This indicates that the US is not post racial.

I tend to think these two posts by Francis L Holland are pretty close to the mark:-

http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/07/yes-president-obama-arresting-officer.html
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-it-reasonable-for-blacks-to-ask.html .

“If the shouting rant actually occurred as alleged, one of the first things that most likely coursed through Crowley’s mind was that Prof. Gates was strongly implying that his civil rights were being violated.”

Which Officer Crowley promptly did by, first of all abusing the public trust by making unjustifiable arrest and subsequently compounding that abuse by misstating the facts that the CPD wil support in his filed police report.

“That is a Federal crime involving a U.S. DOJ investigations of him and his department and a career ending time–often in prison—for the officer(s) involved, if convicted.”

Precisely. There’s one person in this incident who has made himself appear to be a criminal and it certainly isn’t Prof. Gates. There’s a purpose to the statute: encouraging proper respect for the law by the citizenry under whose authority it is to be enforced.

“Perhaps Crowley considered that the only manner to deescalate the situation to prevent further damage—civil rights related or otherwise—was to arrest Gates for both men’s well-being and for that of others at the scene.”

Tell it to the Judge. Four hours in “protective custody” is a preposterous line. Try another.

“Crowley could have ‘temporarily’ further restrained/detained Gates onsite and released him once he quieted down, but that might not have resolved the situation nor have been a viable option.”

Or he could have waited for HUPD officers who had actual jurisdiction:

http://www.hupd.harvard.edu/public_logs/20090716.pdf

he didn’t.

“Of course, false arrest can fall within a civil rights violation.”

You betcha.

False information in the written report.

This guy does not want to go on the stand.

Better sign a book and movie deal for big bucks while the story is hot.

Sgt should sign with Spike Lee — he would make the best offer and the best movie.

“As the encounter between the two men escalated, the Cambridge police tried to reach Sergeant Crowley on his radio at least three times, but he did not respond, police officials said, revealing previously unreported details. Because of his worrisome silence, they said, six more police cars soon clogged the one-way street, surprising Professor Gates. By 12:51 p.m., he was in handcuffs, charged with disorderly conduct. Friends say the two men who met at the front door of the trim yellow house on Ware Street were the unlikeliest of people to be caught in such a struggle.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27gates.html?pagewanted=1&hp

The “trim yellow house on Ware St.” appears to have the distinction of being within the bounds of the Harvard University campus. Officer Crowley, having been a Brandeis University police officer should have been immediately aware of the jurisdiction of the Harvard University police in the situation, and gives himself retroactive cover within his subsequently filed report, but the Department statement indicates that his communication and responsiveness was so lacking that it was necessary to dispatch additional backup to ensure that the situation was in hand.

Professor Gates’ account of the situation is as follows:

‘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.’

http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr

Someone doesn’t have a defamation case, much less a legal leg to stand on in this matter.

I had to type this from the Incident Report because I could not copy/paste it. This is what I mean when I say securing the scene before the officers departed, in this situation. Prof. Gates’ compliance is reason enough to absolve the LEOs of any further potential liability of leaving the scene unsecured.

The following is an excerpt of 5 sentences from within the Incident Report.

________________________________
Quote (* Emphases are mine):

“I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and *secure* his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was un securable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person *securing* his residence. He told me that he was.”

End Quote.
________________________________

Under the circumstances in this case, any LEO would do a cursory security sweep of the immediate residence since the RP stated that she observed only 2 subjects trying to break in to the residence.

I simply cannot argue with your opinion regarding the sloppy police work or any prejudice involved, because those are not founded on the available facts.

The officer was clearly trying to lure Gates outside in order to arrest him. Why did he specifically invite Gates outside telling him if he wants his name and badge number he would have to come outside. Crowley is obviously a smart police officer and smart police officers know how manipulate people.
Even if Gates was yelling at the officer in the street, what public danger was occurring that, especially considering that most of the crowd were police officers? My honest reading of the entire report leads me to feel the arrest was unnecessary and more about the officer’s ego, than about protecting public safety. Now did Gates over react, perhaps. Was this racially motivated on Crowley’s part, no one will ever know?
Even if Crowley wasn’t racially motivated, the arrest was in my eyes a stupid one and an abuse of police power.

I think there is an unacknowledged elephant in the room and that is classism. Gates was a big, classist a-hole and I think Seamus calls this situation correctly. But for the life of me I cannot see why Gates should have been arrested. I know that Crowley had no reason to know that a break-in had not occurred and he did need to investigate and make certain everything was O.K. It certainly does seem that Gates was throwing his weight around and being a jerk and that he did make a statement that would make an officer nervous. Still I think it was Crowley’s duty to check things out, let Gates get on with his rant, say what a jerk this guy is to himself, record the whole thing just in case, and then leave. I don’t understand your point of view. I do understand how Gate’s statement would be worrisome, but wouldn’t the recording of the situation allow the officer to prove he had done nothing wrong? I am not trying to get in an argument with you, I really don’t see why an arrest was called for.

Mike Spindell et al.

I agree with Mespo in this specific instance and the procedure Sgt. Crowley followed regarding protocol appears reasonable given an officer’s duty to perform a thorough investigation and follow-up report to ensure completeness, accuracy, and that he left the scene in a secure condition. If Crowley was the lead officer and he did not fulfill his duties, he could have been liable for follow-up ‘claims or occurrences’ associated with the immediate scene and property.

If the shouting rant actually occurred as alleged, one of the first things that most likely coursed through Crowley’s mind was that Prof. Gates was strongly implying that his civil rights were being violated. That is a Federal crime involving a U.S. DOJ investigations of him and his department and a career ending time–often in prison—for the officer(s) involved, if convicted. Perhaps Crowley considered that the only manner to deescalate the situation to prevent further damage—civil rights related or otherwise—was to arrest Gates for both men’s well-being and for that of others at the scene. Crowley could have ‘temporarily’ further restrained/detained Gates onsite and released him once he quieted down, but that might not have resolved the situation nor have been a viable option. Of course, false arrest can fall within a civil rights violation.

Had I been Crowley and someone was shouting that I was violating their civil rights—implying police misconduct under the ‘color of law’—I would have taken those comments as potentially threatening, in the context that—if you proceed—I will have your badge because you do not know who you are dealing with here. Speculatively, perhaps Gates knew his friend, Pres. Obama, would eventually come to his aid and that is a powerful incentive to ‘make your point’ knowing that kind of power is on your side; having friends in high places can embolden a person into thinking that they are somewhat beyond reproach.

Of course, we are all speculating and I am anticipating the release of the audiotapes, although we might only get a transcription of those. The tone and the volume will lend credence to either Gate’s or Crowley’s recollection of what actually occurred.

However, as Mespo stated, and most of us know that, many good, decent, dedicated LEOs risk their lives daily for our safety and at very little financial compensation. There seems to be a downward trend in competency and ethics along with lowered standards in LE but that appears prevalent in most sectors of government in today’s world. I think that our 3-branches of Federal government set the tone and temper for the local and State governments and the problems trickle-down. That is, if our Federal judiciary and Congress are corrupt and our Attorney General does not apply the rule of law equally—or not at all—how can those examples of failure and neglect encourage LEOs at any level to regard their oaths as sacrosanct.

Finally, Professor Turley often presents examples of rogue cops within this blawg and Sgt. Crowley does not fit any of those traits, based on the evidence to date.

“I’m unable to use my impeccable logic, sterling integrity and just perfect understanding of all and everything, to convince people my views are the correct ones. You’re a hard man Mespo and you know too damn much Emerson for your own good.”

********************

Principled disagreements among friends are the things that making conversation worthwhile. Who wants a chorus chiming in every time you speak?

BTW, if you like my Emerson, you should see me Thoreau. I try not to flash it too often. JT gets a little cranky, you know, what with all his Captain and Tenille philosophy.

Mespo,
I do have my moments, at times. On this Gates thing we’ve both made our views clear and damn it, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I hate it when I’m unable to use my impeccable logic, sterling integrity and just perfect understanding of all and everything, to convince people my views are the correct ones. You’re a hard man Mespo and you know too damn much Emerson for your own good.

“When I tried to explain to the officer what the situation was, he cut me off curtly, as he stood in a defensive posture, perhaps expecting attack at any minute from these two threatening characters.”

********

Well, if a rapier wit is a weapon, I consider you heavily armed and dangerous I understand your feelings, but I have to side with the officer in the Gates case given the potential felonious nature of the encounter; minor infraction or misdemeanor and I’m with you.

More importantly I think your conceptualization of the idea of overman/underman puts much into proper perspective. My own feeling for years has been that human society’s greatest ills stems from the myths, inherited fear/flight characteristics and rigid mores that guide humanity, much more so that any political and/or religious philosophy. The reason to me that reform is so difficult is because people are in general unaware of these motivating factors and so a decent discussion cannot be held about how to deal with them and hopefully evolve into more humane creatures. Overman/Underman is one way to frame the discussion which creates a framework makes it easier for most people to conceptualize. Jane Elliott’s contributions also fall into that category.

This is, however, as I’m sure you are aware, merely one aspect of the problem of the human condition. How we organize ourselves is another; the success of sociopaths in politics;
the instinctual xenophobia; the tendency to give accolades to the most physically aggressive; and on ad infinitum create the mess we see around us throughout the world.

The problem is that most humans, including those wielding any kind of power are unable to examine even their own interior
selves, much less conceptualize the effect on society as a whole. This to me is the evolutionary challenge and I do believe we humans are in a race to meet that challenge, or self destruct.

Mespo,
Actually it was ex post facto musings due to one salient fact. I read the entire police report that Vince provided. There was no mention in the report of ensuring the security of the house. It did mention that a second policeman joined Crowley as he was with Gates in the kitchen. That policeman could have been asked to secure the premises. Mespo like you I’ve also had many dealings with the police, during my Child Welfare days, which I’ve written about. If there was any danger perceived in lurking villains it would have been put in the report as further justification for the officer’s actions. Having read Crowley’s own report and that of the other officer, there is nothing within it that justifies this arrest, or presents any logical/legal case for it.

Given that in my opinion the arrest was unjustified accepting the report as factual for the purpose of discussion. We then are free to make assumptions as to why Crowley did it. Since the simplest solution is often the best, the simplest solution is that Crowley didn’t like Gates’ attitude and decided to punish him for it. Was this because of race we will never know? However, discounting race it seems to me that Crowley was exhibiting a behavior that has become all to common of late. That is that despite all the respect, deference and accolades given to police, their post 9/11 training is coupled with an Us vs Them (civilians-the public) mentality and a tendency to see themselves as victims. If you would like to get into a larger discussion of why this is so, I’m willing to, but the answers are long and complex.

Why was Gates so certain the arrest was racial is an easy surmise. This man’s life work has been about the effects of racism in America. He has reached much fame do to this and incidentally for his moderate views. He was tired and he was agitated that he just got home from a long flight and into his home with difficulty, when come police accusing him of being a burglar. He made the assumption of racism based on that and his supposition may, or may not have been correct.

Just recently, my wife and I had cause to make a police complaint under the advice of the head of security for our large gated (yes people I do live in one)community. This was not a matter which would involve either an insurance claim, or a possible arrest, merely something we were told should be put on a police record by someone who works closely with police. The PO was a ramrod straight, unsmiling type who refused to sit down, I explained to him I had to sit because I can’t stand for long due to my disability and had offered him a chair. My wife and I are two attractive people in their 60′s, who were dressed well. When I tried to explain to the officer what the situation was, he cut me off curtly, as he stood in a defensive posture, perhaps expecting attack at any minute from these two threatening characters. He told me that he alone would ask the questions and he wasn’t interested in long replies. The upshot, to shorten the story, is that I felt violated in my own home for making a minor police report. Unlike Professor Gates perhaps, I have neither the resources nor the prominence to challenge a public servant with such an attitude. However, if I had I would have let the man know who he was dealing with and excoriated the man for simply his attitude and who knows I might have been arrested.

This is what is happening all over the country in police work as it becomes more and more militarized. Do I personally feel empathy for police, you’re damned right I do. Down here they are underpaid and under insured. They are middle class people predominantly who mostly went into the job for very good and probably noble reasons and yes I would enjoy having a beer with them if I drank beer. However, on a country wide basis this post 9/11 propaganda and the pandering of politicians had led the police to believe that they are not to be questioned and must be treated docilely, or they must assert their authority. By his own hand Officer Crowley expressed that in this case, in my opinion.