Cambridge Police Sergeant James M. Crowley is considering a defamation lawsuit, according to his lawyer. The possibility of a lawsuit adds an intriguing element to this controversy over the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The Massachusetts Police Commissioner Robert Hass has also come out to criticize the comments of President Barack Obama denouncing the actions of the police as “stupidity” and suggesting that it was a case of racial profiling.
Crowley has spent the last five years teaching the avoidance of racial profiling at the police academy and has an impeccable record, here.
A defamation lawsuit would raise some novel issues. There is no question that the suggestion that Crowley acted with racial prejudice is injurious to his professional standing, particularly given his status as an expert on combating profiling. Impugning the professional integrity of another is a per se category of defamation for slander. Indeed, such profiling can be a criminal act — another category of per se defamation. A court would likely treat this as a case of per quod defamation where extrinsic facts are needed to establish the defamatory content.
There is little chance for a lawsuit against Obama who was expressing his opinion on a public controversy. He did not expressly name Crowley (which is not a barrier to recovery but makes the case more complex) and he did not expressly say that it was racially motivated. He stated his concern that it might be racially motivated.
Gates is a different matter entirely. He currently made such allegations of abuse and racism. Crowley is not technically a public figure or limited public figure simply because he is involved in a public controversy. His status as a police officer may not be enough to make him a public official under New York Times v. Sullivan. If treated as an average citizen, he would not have to satisfy the high standard of actual malice and show either reckless disregard of the truth or knowing falsity. The Court further defined the meaning of a public official in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) as “those among the hierarchy of government employers who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.” But does this include rank-and-file police officers? Some courts have said yes, here and here.
The Supreme Court has clearly identified the seeking of public office as a common element in establishing public official status — as indicated in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) when the Court noted “An individual who decides to seek governmental office must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs. He runs the risk of closer public scrutiny than might otherwise be the case.” Moreover, the Court ruled out that mere public employment is not sufficient to establish this status. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979), leaving it to “the trial judge in the first instance to determine whether the proofs show [the plaintiff] to be a ‘public official.'”
Three years after New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court greatly expanded the reach of the constitutional defamation standard in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts by saying that the actual malice standard applied to “public figures” as well as public officials. In Curtis, the Court described public figures as private individuals who may help shape events and views of society and “play an influential role in order society.”
There is no question that Crowley is now a public figure due to his media statements, but that does not mean that he was a public figure at the time of the statements by Gates, Sharpton, and others. As was held in Foretich v. ABC against my former client Eric Foretich, even a brief media appearance can convert an average citizens into a public figure as someone seeking public attention. Crowley, however, did not make public statements until after the original claims of racism and profiling.
Lawsuits by police officer and fire fighters have long been controversial in and of themselves. For example, under common law torts, the Fireman’s Rule barred officers from claiming the more protective status of invitees in injuries that occurred in homes. However, the common law has never limited the right of officers to bring defamation claims. Indeed, Rev. Al Sharpton (who has also intervened in this controversy with claims of racism) was found guilty of defamation of prosecutor Steven A. Pagones in the infamous case of Tawana Brawley. Notably, police officers were also defamed in that case, but the most likely litigant Harry Crist Jr. former Fishkill, NY, police officer, committed suicide after being subject to the vicious and false statements. Crowley can make the same type of allegations as in the Brawley case. Of course, the Brawley case involved allegations of the physical abuse of a young girl for racial reasons — a far more specific and clearly criminal allegation.
Gates could argue that this was merely an opinion uttered in the heat of the moment. However, the allegation continued to be made after the arrest and courts have rejected the use of the opinion defense when it is based on the assertion of a defamatory fact like racist motives.
If Crowley can avoid public official or public figure status, he could have a case. It would allow him to conduct discovery with depositions of Gates and others — a great temptation for Crowley and his allies.
There are strong public policy reasons for including police officers in the category of public officials because their actions are routinely subject to public review and scrutiny — and they hold considerable power over citizens. If he is found to be a public official, however, it becomes tougher but not impossible. He could still argue that Gates knew his allegation was false or had reckless disregard of the truth. However, Gates would argue that this was his view of the events and there is no objective means to prove one’s motivation. Moreover, Gates could argue that a ruling in favor of Crowley would expose any citizens to lawsuits by police when they allege racist motivations or actions.
For the story, click here.
An absolute defense to an civil action alleging slander is “what I said about the officer was TRUE”. 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.
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.
O.K. FFLEO,
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.
FFLEO,
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.
Your name is Mud,
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.
mud:
“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.”
Former Federal LEO skirts the legal issue:
“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.”
Jill,
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.
Did the officer in question actually follow proper procedure in this situation. Most police leave their radios open to record what is going on in an arrest. I believe that the recorded tape not an edited transcript would put some light on the situation of who actually over reacted. It seems it wouldn’t be necessary to arrest a man for entering his own home. I would think showing some sort of ID would have cleared the matter up. At this point no one knows all the facts. Suing for defamation of character seems to be a way of throwing up a smoke screen instead of sticking to the facts in this case.
Communication is possible only if all parties in the conversation agree on the meaning of the words that they use. The word racist is a problem because it means different thing to different people.
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 .
Federal LEO’s commentary is spot on:
“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.
Even worse news in today’s Boston Globe, since the woman never said she observed black men, and the Chief agreed with her, but that false information was put in the police report.
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.
Officer Crowley’s report of the incident is “factually challenged”, to put it generously. In particular, the indication within the report of proper radio communication with the 911 dispatch at the Cambridge Emergency Communications Center is suspect, since the Department has made contrary public statements:
“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.
Mike Spindell,
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.
FFLEO,
As you suggested I read the entire PDF file, actually expecting that I was about to be proven wrong and that the Harvard Police were being called to search the house, or that Crowley or Figueroa were going to state the need to search the house in case of a lurker. I was already thinking about how to phrase my regret for getting the facts wrong. However, taking the report as fact securing the premises was never done by either Crowley, Figueroa and/or the Harvard Police. That was either sloppy police work, or a tacit acknowledgment that there was no danger. If the police suspected anything untoward, such as a bad guy holding Gates’ wife in the basement and telling Gates he’ll kill her if Gates doesn’t send the police away. A not unreasonable scenario. They didn’t and never searched, nor requested to search anything.
Therefore any argument by the police about “securing” the scene was specious.
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.
FFLEO,
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.
Thanks FFLeo for weighing in on the topic. I was wondering what you thought was reasonable given the facts as we know them.
Mike S. I wrote the following last night and I just read your comments regarding the security of the house etc. but I did not modify my comments. You are mistaken, my good cyper-friend, about securing the residence. Read the Incident Report posted as a .pdf link by charles grashow above (thanks C. G.). There is a full paragraph of 5 sentences regarding the residence’s security.
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.
Mike S:
“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.