I’ve seen this sentiment in several places and its pretty troubling to me.
When a cop gives you an order, you do what he says.
In dealing with law enforcement, I remember being told one thing in particular about it when I was younger is and that was: “Don’t mouth off to the cops.”
Wow, really people? Come on. I’m going to violate Godwin here, but this isn’t a fascist state we live in. I love cops, I think they’re great and 99.999999% of the time I side with them (there’s a reason I tend to idolize Superman and not characters like Batman or the X-Men). But a police officer is worthy of respect but he isn’t your boss.
They aren’t in a different class of society where they tell us the citizens what to do when we aren’t violating the laws. The idea that we just say “yes sir” to a cop no matter what is antithetical to the very idea of America. I’m not pretending as if things aren’t different in a real life situation, but the goal here should be to change the behavior on behalf of the police officers, not bend ourselves to their will.
I’m no fan of Winer but he’s basically right. There is a concept of lawful orders. When a police officer gives you a lawful order and you refuse it, you can get arrested (or worse).
See this dKos diary for a good rundown: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/19/23551/6745/107/699599
And everyone should note, Gates was arrested for “tumultuous” behavior, not for disobeying a police officer.
I have no idea who spawned this new breed of conservatives. It sure as hell wasn’t Barry Goldwater.
This is essentially the worst elements of the fascist idolizers combined with the worst elements of the libertarians. How can you support the notion that people should be closely guarded and obeisant but businesses should be completely unregulated?
Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. “Tumultuous behavior” was the description in the police report. If you read the report, he was basically arrested for yelling at the cop and calling him a racist. This is not disorderly conduct under Massachusetts state law.
I agree with Oliver, to an extent. Yes, you are required by law to obey a lawful order of the police. But “disorderly conduct” charges are used far too often to stifle dissent and free speech.
Of course, the smart thing to do is to not lose your cool when dealing with the police. But I think there is ample evidence that the police need much better training when dealing with non-violent dissent.
Naw, let me see yo I.D.
Actually, I’m going to have to agree with both of the quotes. LEOs are the only members of the civilian workforce that regularly need to wear body armor. As such, there are certain behavioral constraints that both parties are necessarily subject to. The belief that being confrontational with a cop is an expression of free speech is juvenile.
This is essentially the worst elements of the fascist idolizers combined with the worst elements of the libertarians.
Throw in some good ol’ fashioned racism and you have the modern Republican Party.
Southern Quaker, I read the police report and the statute yesterday, and tumultuous behavior is part of the statute. But I do agree with your comment.
Here’s something funny. Sgt. Crowley told President Obama on phone call today that he’d like to get the press off his lawn. I wonder if he tried going out there and yelling at them, would another officer arrest him?
There is outrage, and there is confrontation. It is a hard line to define, but when you cross the line from outrage to confrontation, you run the risk that the police will cross the line into spite.
But if you don’t know by now that you don’t mouth off to the cops, you have obviously never been in trouble before.
What lawful order can a police officer give a homeowner in his own house? The officer no longer had probable cause that a crime has been committed; therefore, he was no longer conducting any reasonable search and seizure of persons or things, but was an uninvited guest. Insulting a police officer is a generally poor choice and rude but failing to like, or to be liked by, the police is no crime.
I would give police a whole lot more deference on a city street – where multiple passers-by, vehicles, etc., make for a more complicated set of risks – than in the foyer of my condominium. In my home, the officer owes me deference as an uninvited intruder. We have a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; THAT is a permanent “lawful order” TO all police from the opponents of tyranny who formed this country.
Let’s face the facts. Anyone who puts on a uniform in this country presumably has the skills to make more money with less risk in another field. So what attracts people to the job? For some, it’s 20 year retirement. For others, it’s the camaraderie of the force. For others, it’s some sort of idealism, I suppose. Some fellows (or women, possibly) may like the uniform and its effects on their social life. But for a lot of police, it’s about having the ability to be in charge, to give orders, to investigate the “bad guys” (meaning mostly citizens who fail to renew their tags, make motorist errors, smoke weed or get into personal altercations, not Lex Luthor) and occasionally to enforce order. People who wear the uniform do so at an economic cost; they are giving up cash and safer work for the intangibles of using lawful force in emotionally satisfying ways and being identified with Order and Right among the more fascist-minded (yeah, I went Godwin) citizens of their communities. Just like judges usually give up money as attorneys to exercise power and control others’ fates, cops are in some cases about the same in their motivations. For both reasons, we restrain the power of judges and cops in the interest of liberty through Bills of Rights and many other requirements of due process and governmental restraint.
You know, the cop could always just walk away if someone gets abusive. It was clear that the old man in his home was not a threat to the officer, that no crime was committed, and that his work there was done.
Police see the worst of human nature on a daily basis, and they tend to look at everyone as a scumbag. People who work in “public contact” jobs (clerks, waiters, retail associates, DMV workers) have to deal with rude and insulting people all the time, but they lack the authority to do anything about it. Unless there is a reasonable threat to the officer, or unless there is evidence that a crime has been committed beyond being rude, then the officer should consider it part of dealing with the public.
The really shocking thing about the incident is that the old black man didn’t get beaten, tased, or sprayed to “teach him a lesson”. That is the much more common scenario.
You know, the cop could always just walk away if someone gets abusive.
You know, the person who’s being abusive could … stop being abusive.
You know, the cop could always just walk away if someone gets abusive.
You know, the person who’s being abusive could … stop being abusive.
So they’re both at fault. Glad that’s settled. Next subject?
The truth is Officer Crowley could have shot and killed Gates and almost every posting that supports Crowley now would be “a tragedy but the officer was justified.”
‘There is outrage, and there is confrontation. It is a hard line to define, but when you cross the line from outrage to confrontation, you run the risk that the police will cross the line into spite.’
Confrontation is not against the law; perhaps not in your best interest to ‘mouth off’ to a cop, but it sure as Hell isn’t a crime.
There’s at least some level of confusion here.
There’s a lot of good advice given about being cooperative with police officers, but the basis of the advice is not that there’s some legal or moral obligation to be nice and cooperative… it’s that there are too many cops who have hair triggers and will respond forcefully to protect themselves from a person carrying a concealed wallet.
It doesn’t matter if a cop has no right to hurt you; if he says the right things, he’ll probably get away with it. And, he may (in the heat of the moment) seriously believe you’re a threat if you make a move that looks threatening. So, yes, if a police officer stops you on the street, it is wise, even if not a legal or moral obligation, to be calm, polite, and cooperative.
Past that extremely pragmatic advice, no, we’re not under any legal obligation to bow and scrape to the cops. And yelling at cops is not a crime. And let’s face it: we have the police report. And the police officer quite carefully tries to draw Gates out of the house. Oh, sure, he’ll give his name and badge number… *outside* where he can claim Gates is being disorderly.
Everyone who defends Crowley’s behavior, ask yourself this: if Crowley had walked away, what danger would the public be in? What harm would have occurred? Remember: we’re looking at Crowley’s report, so we know that he knew that Gates didn’t represent any danger to anyone present. We know that the only charge was a claim that he was being loud and obnoxious.
The answer is, there would have been no danger to the public, at all. And thus, while the cop might have had the legal right to make an arrest, his actions were intended to deprive a citizen of his freedom when there was no need to do so, and no danger that would be averted by his doing so.
In a sane, free country, that would be the end of that.
The guy with the gun – the guy trained how to handle members of the public – the trained guy with the gun in Mr Gates living room – has GOT TO know when to apologize and gracefully exit.
The cop was wrong. Period. That doesn’t mean he’s NECESSARILY bad, evil or racist – BUT – when we TRAIN these guys, we have to train them to know when to back down. Police Behavior 101.
if Crowley had walked away, what danger would the public be in? What harm would have occurred?
Suppose Gates had been told by a real burglar, “If you let him know I am here, you are a dead man”?
As a citizen, you’re thinking, “I don’t want a cop in my house, and I haven’t done anything.” As a cop, he’s thinking, “What’s really going on here; can I just leave?” “Is he OK?”
Republicans have no shame. They love to call themselves the party of personal freedom, but every time something like this happens they come out looking like sycophantic, boot-licking bed-wetters. Because they are, in fact, sycophantic, boot-licking bed-wetters who don’t happen to give a toss about the Bill of Rights.
Gates was in his private residence. The cop had no business entering the home, then baiting him back out onto the porch. Once the cop saw two different ID’s showing that this was in fact Gates’ residence, he should have left. Period.
Republicans don’t seem to know much beyond the blind worship of authority for its own sake. Party of liberty and freedom my ass.
“Suppose Gates had been told by a real burglar”
Supposed the cop had gone away after Gates had shown him documentation that this was his own freakin’ house, as he did.
Play games all you want, but the cop was clearly in the wrong. And conservatives have a disturbing habit of defending any and all abuses of authority, whether from (white) presidents or from cops.
First of all, Todd and Bruce need to get off this meme that Gates was arrested “in his own home.” He was not inside the house when he was placed under arrest. Sgt. Crowley was leaving and already down the stairs when Gates decided to continue yelling and screaming at him (and yes SQ, Gates behavior would be considered disorderly conduct under MA law. Read the statute). Gates was warned. Then warned AGAIN. Then he was placed under arrest. Once Crowley was convinced Gates was the lawful resident of the home, why didn’t Gates just leave well enough alone?
Now, as to what Oliver says:
They aren’t in a different class of society where they tell us the citizens what to do when we aren’t violating the laws. The idea that we just say “yes sir” to a cop no matter what is antithetical to the very idea of America.
You’re stretching what I am saying Oliver. I never said say “Yes sir” no matter what. It’s merely a matter of common sense. Calling the cop “officer” instead of “pig” is going to make things easier when dealing with the cops in any situation.
Supposed the cop had gone away after Gates had shown him documentation that this was his own freakin’ house, as he did.
Which is what he was doing.
Why is everybody having such a difficult time understanding this?
There is more wisdom in this commentary than I’ve seen in all of print or TV journalism in the last 72 hours. (admittedly, not a high standard) Bruce, Todd, Longhairedweirdo, Mylegacy, and Jaim have all made terrific points, IMHO.
I, too, wondered why the officer couldn’t just have left. Of course we know the (unprofessional) answer: pride, ego, the need to be right and to assert his power–the latter probably the reason he entered the force in the first place. But police training should lean heavily on the “just leave” option, because it’s not only counterintuitive but one that is emotionally difficult for an officer.
Seen from a citizen’s point of view, it should be impossible to sass your way into an arrest. Arrests should be based on actions alone: that’s why, in those dozens of video shots we see the news, the policeman cannily tries to order the apoplectic citizen to DO something, then when he refuses, cuffs him for a (non)ACTION. This common police ploy should be identified for what it is (”come out on the porch,” my ass) and ridiculed out of existence.
I notice too how the meme has shifted with regard to how people are criticizing Crowley. Initially pure and blatant racism and profiling was the sole reason Gates was arrested. Then people were saying Crowley was wrong for arresting Gates “inside his own home” and should have left the home when he determined Gates was the resident of the house. Of course, Crowley did just that. Now people are saying Crowley “lured” or “baited” Gates outside just so that he could have an excuse to arrest him.
Crowley would never make it as a Beefeater.
Jay, the officer asked Gates outside. It’s in the report. Gates had more to say, but the officer had him go outside so he could arrest him. The officer wasn’t just walking away, he invited Gates to continue the conversation outside.
What people commenting here and elsewhere are forgetting is the notion of pride. This homeowner’s pride was damaged by the accusation that he didn’t live there. So he was butthurt and angry. The officer, who was doing his job and having to deal with someone who was butthurt pridewise, had his pride damaged by accusations of racism and unprofessional behavior. That’s pretty indisputable. But the thing is, the officer has the power to arrest the homeowner. And anyone who says pride didn’t have something to do with the officer’s decision is fooling himself.
And now that it’s become the biggest little issue in the world, it will be even harder for everyone to figure this out. Two men with damaged pride should avoid each other. The one with the power to arrest really needed to walk away here, in my opinion. That they both needed to calm down is obvious, but respect must be earned. Neither man earned much in this case.
Oliver,
I know you’ve read comics and seen TV/movies with both Superman and Batman, so I hope you’re not saying that Supes is more aligned with the way cops operate. I mean, Bats does work with a guy named Commissioner Gordon on occasion.
As for the X-Men: the reason they always seem outside the law is because the law hates them. They make giant robots to hunt them down and kill them, so I’d expect a few characters to be a little…”skeptical” when it comes to objective law enforcement.
Does Superman have these problems? Not really; it’s only been recent that writers have used the whole “he’s not really one of us” angle in his stories. But generally speaking, he’s been welcomed by the public at large with open arms since Day One.
As for GatesGate: it sounds like President, the Cop and the Professor are all willing to meet and “have a beer” over this. Endgame?
What jon said. The officer stepped outside onto the porch where other officers were waiting and (IMO) baited Gates into “public” area so they could arrest him.
I know cops have a tough job, but really — if you’re inside someone’s private property without a warrant, and you’ve got definitive proof no crime was committed (Gates showed his ID’s, and presumably he wasn’t wearing a balaclava mask), you should just leave. Did Gates call him an asshole or something? Maybe. Doesn’t matter. Your job of “protecting and serving” is over, so you should leave. The burden is on you, the public servant, not the private citizen.
Serious question Jay Tea: I know you’re a 2nd Amendment fan. As am I, believe it or not. How do you reconcile your dogged faith in the need for private citizens to have access to guns with a situation like this, where a private citizen was basically bullied by cops for doing nothing more than entering his house with his own key?
Hypothetically, if Gates had pulled out a weapon and shot the cop in the legitimate self-defense of his private property, would we even be having this conversation? Would you applaud Gates for exercising his 2nd and 4th Amendment rights?
“Two men with damaged pride should avoid each other.”
Actually, the one man with every legal right to be in his own home has every right to tell the other one, even if he’s cop, who didn’t happen to have a warrant, to go the fuck away.
“That they both needed to calm down is obvious, but respect must be earned.”
Cooler heads tend to prevail, but the officer had back-up waiting on the front porch. Gates didn’t. He got baited to go outside for the arrest, and the arrest was illegal.
These things are not mutually exclusive, unless you think “racism” means Crowley’s internal monolgoue was, “I’m a-gonna bag me a nigra today, yee-haw!”
Bull. You seem to be very, very confused (or willfully obtuse) in regards to “leave the home.” We aren’t saying Crowley should have taken one step past the door frame and then lingered around the yard, we are saying that he should have got in his car and driven away. And that definitely did NOT happen.
When a cop gives you an order, you do what he says.
Heh. Unless it’s “don’t bring your gun into my city,” that is.
Jay, the officer asked Gates outside. It’s in the report. Gates had more to say, but the officer had him go outside so he could arrest him. The officer wasn’t just walking away, he invited Gates to continue the conversation outside.
Wrong. Sgt. Crowley said he would continue to “talk” outside with Gates. Crowley had already gone down the stairs and was leaving. Gates decided that instead of talking he wanted to continue yelling and screaming and making a scene – ie, engaging in disorderly conduct (again, if I stand out in my front yard and start yelling and screaming at everybody that comes by, sooner or later somebody is going to call the police). This has been corroborated by eyewitnesses. It was at that time Gates (again I have to keep repeating this) WAS WARNED, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE BY SGT. CROWLEY that he was behaving in a disorderly fashion. It was only after warning Gates MULTIPLE TIMES that he placed him under arrest.
We aren’t saying Crowley should have taken one step past the door frame and then lingered around the yard, we are saying that he should have got in his car and driven away. And that definitely did NOT happen.
And Gates, after he was warned the first time he was being disorderly, should have gone back into the house or quieted down. He should have gone back into the house or quieted down the second time he was warned that he was being disorderly.
I swear, people are behaving as if this is the first time a person was ever arrested for disorderly conduct.
And yet, Jay, I checked a third time, and the charges were still dropped. That’s weird.
Yes Indeed, I know. I understand you may consider it a miracle, but people are arrested and charges dropped all the time. Welcome to Earth.
Jay, I notice this particular bit of lack of rigor all the time.
Maybe one person said X; heck, maybe a few people did. And then someone else said Y; maybe a few people did. And then, rather than address the actual points made by any particular person, the accusation is made that there’s a moving target.
Well, I read the police report early, and I noticed one thing that stood out: Crowley tried, twice, to get Gates outside of the house, where his legal behavior inside his house could have been ruled unlawful.
And rather than going outside, and asking one of the other police to handle the situation (”and make sure you give this asshole my name and badge number so he can’t keep banging *that* grievance drum!”) he became confrontational, in precisely the manner that any good cop knows is likely to escalate the situation.
That there was no danger presented by Gates, and that there was no harm that would come to him, or anyone else, had he not been arrested, indicates that his rights were needlessly violated.
There are other questions that can be asked and answered… but that Crowley made a needless arrest is clear.
I’ll also point out that, if Gates had been cited rather than arrested, or even if the decision to make the arrest had been handed off to another officer, a lot of sound and fury could have been avoided.
There was no compelling need to make the arrest; making the arrest kicked up a hell of a fuss that didn’t need to be kicked up.
I’m really surprised more people don’t agree with Obama that Crowley, however good an officer he is normally, acted “stupidly” in making the arrest.
There is outrage, and there is confrontation. It is a hard line to define, but when you cross the line from outrage to confrontation, you run the risk that the police will cross the line into spite.
But if you don’t know by now that you don’t mouth off to the cops, you have obviously never been in trouble before.
So Gates was arrested for mouthing off to a cop while Gates was inside his own house? I am no longer amazed at how conservatives can subvert their own stated principles whenever there is a well publicized incident involving a Black American and the police.
Conservatives never fail to overthrow what they purport to believe is the proper role of the government and its officials when the person being victimized is black. The sainted William F. Buckley, Jr. actually defended the use of violence against Black Americans 55 years ago. Little has changed with American conservatives over this period of time.
Henry Louis Gates, whether you like him or not, was inside of his own house when the alleged offenses that Sergeant Crowley cited in the arrest report occurred. Inside of his own house.
If a cop asks you for your ID, or something reasonable and lawful, it’s in your best interest to just hand it over without a fight. But if they demand something ridiculous or unlawful, don’t comply. I wouldn’t. It’s that simple. And I recommend not being an ass to cops in either situation. Nothing to gain by doing so.
PTCruiser…..
There are certain things an officer has to do when responding to a burglary call. Showing up at the place would be the first, and identifying the people to make sure they are who they say they are would be the second. The only place that something like this this COULD happen would be in *someone’s own home.* This situation happens daily. It’s not uncommon. I personally know some cops who have been in this exact situation. Fortuantely, most the people involved aren’t complete fucking assholes like Gates is.
The officer had a right to enter the home to ensure that everything was okay, since there was definite probable cause that something wasn’t. Once that was settled, the officer should have left. And no, just because someone calls you a racist asshole or whatever is not enough of a reason to call in backup. Just leave, since there’s no reason to be there once the initial report has been investigated. The officer didn’t leave, however. And the reason was pride.
Gates may or may not have been acting out of line, but someone has to be bigger than the situation. Police officers should be bigger than that, but of course don’t always live up to that standard. I hope the two of them can meet and get over what happened and we can all learn from this, but I doubt that will happen.
Fortuantely, most the people involved aren’t complete fucking assholes like Gates is.
I have had some contact with Gates. Based on my contact with him, I would imagine that he did not act like an “asshole”, as you characterize hi, for the first five minutes or so in his interaction with Crowley.
“You will respect my authoritah!
There was no compelling need to make the arrest; making the arrest kicked up a hell of a fuss that didn’t need to be kicked up.
Really? You don’t think Gates is partly to blame as well? He’s the one who insists he never yelled, was arrested the moment he walked out on to his porch and claims his arrest happened for no other reason that he’s black and that Crowley engaged in racial profiling.
Now if Gates had said that Crowley acted “stupidly” because he overreacted to somebody yelling at him, then this would probably have been over with already. Gates is the one that decided to make it a racial issue the moment Sgt. Crowley knocked on his door.
Henry Louis Gates, whether you like him or not, was inside of his own house when the alleged offenses that Sergeant Crowley cited in the arrest report occurred. Inside of his own house.
That is not true. The arrest report clearly states that what Gates was doing inside the home continued outside the home. That is when Crowley issued his multiple warnings. Please get the basic facts right.
That is not true. The arrest report clearly states that what Gates was doing inside the home continued outside the home. That is when Crowley issued his multiple warnings. Please get the basic facts right.
I have the basic facts right, Jay. Gates was asking (loudly demanding if you will) Crowley for his name and badge number. Crowley would not provide Gates with this information while they were inside the house. Twice, Crowley invited Gates outside to continue this discussion and when Gates finally stepped from the inside of his house and onto his porch Crowley arrested him.
I have the basic facts right, Jay.
You make this claim and then 2 sentences later you get the basic facts wrong.
Twice, Crowley invited Gates outside to continue this discussion and when Gates finally stepped from the inside of his house and onto his porch Crowley arrested him.
Wrong. Gates was not arrested when he stepped outside. He went outside, continued to yell and scream. He was warned once. He continued to yell and scream. He was warned again. He continued to yell and scream. It was at that point he was placed under arrest not the moment he stepped on to his porh.
If you’re going to claim to have the basic facts right, have them right.
so I hope you’re not saying that Supes is more aligned with the way cops operate. I mean, Bats does work with a guy named Commissioner Gordon on occasion.
I dunno, Batman tends to be a bit further out of police jurisdiction than Superman. Batman is willing to bend the law and I think his relationship with Comm. Gordon is what gives him that much leeway. Batman’s kind of like an undercover cop while Supes is like a beat cop.
As for the X-Men: the reason they always seem outside the law is because the law hates them. They make giant robots to hunt them down and kill them, so I’d expect a few characters to be a little…”skeptical” when it comes to objective law enforcement.
Well, they ARE filthy mutant scum that shouldn’t be allowed to exist with NORMAL human beings…
Well, I’m trying to imagine a world in which Crowley hadn’t made the arrest, and I’m trying to imagine the fuss being raised. Maybe it’s a failure of my imagination, but “Harvard Professor Really Annoyed By Police Officer Who Investigated Possible Robbery” sounds like a headline only The Onion would use.
Let’s just pretend that this is, in fact, true – we have only Crowley’s word for this, and my baseline assumption is that Crowley was acting the way he’d act when confronting a possible criminal suspect in a potentially dangerous situation, when he doesn’t have backup – which isn’t necessarily a good way to introduce yourself to a stressed home owner. I’m more of a mind to think that two stressed individuals got into an angry confrontation that could have been defused. But, let’s just pretend that Gates played the race card and “do you know who I am, peasant?” card, and let’s even pretend he did so without provocation. I’m not saying he did, but let’s pretend, and see what happens.
Where is his platform if he hasn’t been arrested? Who the hell gives a damn about his story if he was merely annoyed at the behavior of the officer, but wasn’t arrested?
When the Democrats demand a special prosecutor to investigate the Cambridge Police Department, can we please, please, please call it “Gates-Gate”?
LongHairedWeirdo: If you are saying “If Prof Gates didn’t do anything the police officer said he did, then how did he ever get arrested?” I agree with you 100%. I believe that Prof Gates was playing not the “you are a racist, and I am a black man” card, but rather the “do you know who I am, peasant?” card.
I am betting that the Police man has seen a few of them in the past.
The belief that being confrontational with a cop is an expression of free speech is juvenile.
Not in the Ninth Circuit, it isn’t.
Jay Caruso, Jay Tea, whoever you are,
Why are you so desperate to suck up to authority figures? Why do you ignore 4th amendment rights while trumpeting 2nd amendment rights? Why do you see them as different things when it comes to a black person?
Serious question. Knowing your limitations as a human being,I don’t expect an honest answer.
Jay – you’re defending the indefensible. When did it become a crime to yell at a police officer? Check out Lawrence O’Donnell’s brief piece in Time Magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1912778,00.html
Shorter Lawrence O’Donnell, and to quote him: “Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar.”
Jay actually believes that it’s okay to shoot a police officer if you feel the officer is acting in an unlawful manner.
Calling a cop names when you believe your civil rights have been violated, though, well, that’s over the line.
Gates decided that instead of talking he wanted to continue yelling and screaming and making a scene – ie, engaging in disorderly conduct
Gates’ behavior was insufficient to be constituted as “disorderly conduct” under Massachusetts Law. Period.
To quote a friend of mine familiar with Massachusetts Law:
“MA criminal law is equally clear: mere speech, even loud insulting speech, is simply not “disorderly conduct.” See Model Jury Instructions on MA Disorderly conduct at ; see also Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 723,725-726, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004) (finding no violent or tumultuous behavior where defendant, upon being told by police that he would be summoned to court for assault and battery, began to flail his arms and shout at police).”
Plus, what D.X. Machina said.
Jay, Gates was inside the curtilage of his dwelling which is the common-law definition of “home”. You don’t lose your rights to security in your home on your stoop.
Todd Dugdale: The really shocking thing about the incident is that the old black man didn’t get beaten, tased, or sprayed to “teach him a lesson”.
juhar: The truth is Officer Crowley could have shot and killed Gates and almost every posting that supports Crowley now would be “a tragedy but the officer was justified.”
It’s almost like there is some disappointment that neither of those happened. That an opportunity to get rightouesly indignant at The Man and show how all blacks are routinely harrassed and all cops are racists pigs just didn’t materialize.
anotherbozo: There is more wisdom in this commentary than I’ve seen in all of print or TV journalism in the last 72 hours. (admittedly, not a high standard) Bruce, Todd, Longhairedweirdo, Mylegacy, and Jaim have all made terrific points, IMHO.
IMHO, too.
I really wish folks on both sides of this could acknowledge what is known what is not known and what is pure speculation. And not either fill in the unknown gaps with with stuff that is at best speculation or misstate the known parts.
LongHairedWeirdo: And then, rather than address the actual points made by any particular person, the accusation is made that there’s a moving target.
…
I’m really surprised more people don’t agree with Obama that Crowley, however good an officer he is normally, acted “stupidly” in making the arrest.
You start by addressing a possible logical fallacy in Jay’s posting, and end by ignoring that Obama stated a definite conclusion despite admitting he didn’t have all the facts.
I understand you may consider it a miracle, but people are arrested and charges dropped all the time.
For no good reason? And in the face of all your awesome evidence? That’s weird.
<iJay Caruso, Jay Tea, whoever you are,
Why are you so desperate to suck up to authority figures?
It’s not sucking up to authority figures, or the second amendment, or (certainly not) the fourth amendment that intersts Jay and his wingnut brethren in this case.
What really gets them interested is that they think they have a new magic bullet to bring down Obama. The Bill Ayers thing didn’t work, yelling socialism! at the top of their lungs didn’t work, throwing Joe the P. and Sarah the L. at him didn’t work, and they don’t have any ideas of their own, so they have to claw and scratch at every opportunity to find something, anything that will pierce Obama’s shell.
That’s why I’m loath to argue with them on any of the particulars of this case, I’m sure they’ve pored over every available report multiple times, sent people out to measure the footprints outside of Gates’ house, interviewed all possible eyewitnesses.
All this effort for a minor incident that was over several days ago, because they need it, and need it badly, in their war against the president.
Sorry, that first bit is a quotation from Jaim, I screwed up the tagging:
Jay Caruso, Jay Tea, whoever you are,
Why are you so desperate to suck up to authority figures?
PTCruiser: Henry Louis Gates, whether you like him or not, was inside of his own house when the alleged offenses that Sergeant Crowley cited in the arrest report occurred. Inside of his own house.
I suggest you read that report again.
At best, Gates’ outburst began inside the house, but it was his continued behavior outside that lead to his arrest. Gates was outside of his house when the offenses that Sergeant Crowley cited in the arrest report occurred. Outside of his house.
Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’ outburst. … Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time I informed Gates that he was under arrest.
And again, however rude or obnoxious Gates was being at the time, his behavior does not rise to the level of disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law.
Southern Q: And again, however rude or obnoxious Gates was being at the time, his behavior does not rise to the level of disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law.
I’ll take your word for that. But the comment I was responding to was (yet another sigh) incident of someone proclaiming with declarative sentences something which just isn’t true because their non-factual version supports the argument they want to make.
And not either fill in the unknown gaps with with stuff that is at best speculation or misstate the known parts.
Yes, wouldn’t be best if we didn’t fill in the unknown gaps with shit we just think we read or want to assume is there to satisfy our own strange need to scold strangers on the internet. Like this:
It’s almost like there is some disappointment that neither of those happened. That an opportunity to get rightouesly indignant at The Man and show how all blacks are routinely harrassed and all cops are racists pigs just didn’t materialize.
“It almost seems,” Sean?
It almost seems like you’re complete tool, too.
Getting back to the original point of Oliver’s post. What concerns me most is not the specifics of this particular case, but rather the underlying principle.
Should a citizen of the United States be summarily arrested and taken to jail because s/he yells at or argues with the police? If there is no threat to public safety, if the person is not directly interfering with an arrest or investigation, then absolutely not.
What say you all?
Sean:
And you try to score points by trying to attack Obama’s reasoning when I am the one who is currently calling the actions “acting stupidly,” and merely mentioning that my assessment agrees with Obama’s.
*Not* a very good idea.
I’d really like to hear a response from Jay Whatever, for what it’s worth. Specifically, would Gates have been within his rights to defend his home from a cop without a warrant by shooting him? Would that have been OK? But yelling at him was grounds for arrest?
Wingnut, explain thyself and your paradoxical views of the 2nd and 4th amendments.
What really gets them interested is that they think they have a new magic bullet to bring down Obama…
All this effort for a minor incident that was over several days ago, because they need it, and need it badly, in their war against the president.
Word.
There is outrage, and there is confrontation. It is a hard line to define,
Confrontation involves acting on, or threatening physical violence. There, a reasonable, clear-cut line. That wasn’t so hard.
Should a citizen of the United States be summarily arrested and taken to jail because s/he yells at or argues with the police? If there is no threat to public safety, if the person is not directly interfering with an arrest or investigation, then absolutely not. What say you all?
It’s hard for me to imagine someone being an American and not agreeing with this.
Here’s Jay in another thread:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/04/08/9-i-kid-you-not-9/#comment-147440
In other words, if police officer tells a black man to stop yelling, and he should shut the fuck up straight away or else face the consequences, despite the long and well documented history of police discrimination and racial profiling.
If the same cop started shooting at the black man, he would be well within his rights to start shooting back because of the equally long and well-documented history of police randomly firing on innocent citizens.
So to recap, in Jay’s mind:
Yelling at cops = Hardly Ever Called For Under Any Circumstances
Shooting at cops = Sometimes It’s Your God Damn Constitutional Duty!
Awesome.
Game. Set. Match.
‘It was at that time Gates (again I have to keep repeating this) WAS WARNED, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE BY SGT. CROWLEY that he was behaving in a disorderly fashion. It was only after warning Gates MULTIPLE TIMES that he placed him under arrest.’
Gates also asked Crowley not once but twice, for his name and badge number, which Crowley twice refused to provide.
If he was so damn sure he was in the right, why not provide the information?
It is not the legal details of this case that really matter. Let’s back up a little bit:
Why did Professor Gates bring his (easy to detect) race?
Why did the policeman eventually decide (rightly or wrongly)”I have had about enough of this crap?”
Let’s step back further: Two detectives come to my door. They say “Some parents came to your son’s school, and said their children told them you had guns in your house, and that you had spent 4 years in Viet Nam”
{I am thinking “4 years in Viet Nam = ‘crazy’” But what can you do? }
I tell them, “I was Vietnam for one years, and for that reason, there will never be a gun in this house”
They say, “Can we look around?”
{ I am thinking, “here we go” }
I say, “Can I stop you?”
They walk around a little — don’t look in the closets or under the beds, and left.
Should they have done that? No
Should I have objected more strongly? Of course.
How would THAT have turned out?
What are the REAL issues?
If he was so damn sure he was in the right, why not provide the information?
And if he was so dam sure he was in the right, why were charges dropped almost immediately?
A question I have is: did Crowley provide his name and badge number to Gates upon request. If he refused, as has been suggested, then Gates’ behavior can be interpreted as being threatening to Crowley’s career.
If he refused, as has been suggested, then Gates’ behavior can be interpreted as being threatening to Crowley’s career.
Huh? Care to explain that?
midderpidge, in a transparent society a cop should have to provide name and badge number – at least in a situation where the cop is in the citizen’s home or property. That the cop might worry about repercussions is no excuse to avoid giving it – maybe lawmakers should be able to hide their votes in case someone gets pissed off the way the pol voted? It’s even less excuse to arrest the man, still (true?) on his own lawn.
Maybe in this teachable momnent we’ll find out the answer to that question, the one you keep pointing out as if this makes Gates completely innocent and the act of arresting him to be an error on the part of Crowley. But many times cops arrest someone who did what Gates allegedly did for the simple reason of hauling them down to the station to let them think about it for a few hours and then drop the charges. Doesn’t meant this was a wrongful arrest, something you seem to be making the case for since you’ve repeated it a dozen times or so.
Stop trying to interpret the event psychologically. It must be addressed sociopolitically.
At some point during the altercation, Professor Gates transformed himself from a beleaguered Harvard Professor to a beleaguered black man. To do so, he had to transform “friendly local policeman” to “nuisance” to “Bull Connor”.
When the police come to your door over a trivial matter, you are either transformed by them into a “suspect” , or you transform them into goose stepping “pigs”.
How, and why, does that happen? Should we look to the mythology of our Revolutionary Period? The propaganda of our efforts during World War II? Or perhaps the image of our country as fed to us by ALL media?
Can a country of jogging, tofu – eating, low – fat yogurt eating ; low sugar beverage drinking, no smoking , lite beer drinkers, ever be tough enough to stand up to anybody, let alone our own police ?
When the police come to your door over a trivial matter, you are either transformed by them into a “suspect” , or you transform them into goose stepping “pigs”.
When the police come to your house because they have been told that a burglary might be in progress it is not a trivial matter. If the cops suspect you of being a burglar, it is not a trivial matter.
I once had two Mission District plain clothes officers roll up on me in Noe Valley while I was waiting for two of my high school students to come out of the house that one of them lived in. Despite the fact that the student who lived in the house told the cops that she lived there and that I was her teacher, they wouldn’t back off. I read them for the jerks they were and still probably are and let them continue their Junior G-Men game with nary a protest from me. The ran a complete criminal check on me including asking me where I had gotten my car (It was a 1959 Mercedes 180A. Not exactly a rare or expensive car in 1976.)
Can a country of jogging, tofu – eating, low – fat yogurt eating ; low sugar beverage drinking, no smoking , lite beer drinkers, ever be tough enough to stand up to anybody, let alone our own police ?
Frank’s drinking again.
fafaroo: Yes, wouldn’t be best if we didn’t fill in the unknown gaps with shit we just think we read or want to assume is there to satisfy our own strange need to scold strangers on the internet. Like this:
It’s almost like there is some disappointment that neither of those happened. That an opportunity to get rightouesly indignant at The Man and show how all blacks are routinely harrassed and all cops are racists pigs just didn’t materialize.
“It almost seems,” Sean?
Show me where in that obvious sarcastic speculation of mine I said any of it was a fact. Your apparently inability to tell the two apart may explain a lot.
“Gates was arrested inside his house.”
“Gates was arrested becuase of what he did inside his house.”
“The woman who called wouldn’t have done so if it was two white guys.”
“The officer was baiting Gates and luring him outside so he could arrest him.”
All of which, along with many other similar statements, have been said on this and other threads. All of which were presented in declarative statements as if they were facts. All of which are pure speculation and projection.
And when I point that out I get called a tool. Oh, the irony.
LongHairedWierdo: And you try to score points by trying to attack Obama’s reasoning…
Where did I attack his reasoning? I was commenting on YOUR reasoning, not his. (Well, maybe indirectly his, but my point was about yours.) You started by criticizing Jay for making a statement you saw as having little support and logical flaws. Then you ended by ignoring that Obama did essentially the same thing.
I was commenting on your apparent double standard, if anything.
jrfunkenstein: Gates also asked Crowley not once but twice, for his name and badge number, which Crowley twice refused to provide.
There is disagreement on that particular point. Crowley’s statement is that he tried to give his name/number when Gates asked for it but was unable to do so as Gates cutting him off when he replied. Gates’ statement is that Crowley refused to give name/badge when first asked, requiring that they first go outside.
Lacking a credible third party, no real way to know for sure how the exchange went.
Frank DiSalle: Can a country of jogging, tofu – eating, low – fat yogurt eating ; low sugar beverage drinking, no smoking , lite beer drinkers, ever be tough enough to stand up to anybody, let alone our own police ?
Excuse me? Is that supposed to be Americans you’re talking about?
I knew that “obesity epidemic” talk and reports of increasing cigarette sales were as legitimate as global warming!
Sean, obesity could never be an epidemic – it is not contagious. It seems more people die while exercising, and from fad diets, than used to die from heart attacks.
We are now warned of the heat, the cold, rain, lightning.
We are becoming a nation of wusses.
Global warming (relatively sudden rises in global temperature) has hit this planet more than once; we survived and thrived in them.
What will we do when the soy plants die, the yogurt doesn’t propagate, and we can’t put ice in our Crystal Lights?
And when I point that out I get called a tool. Oh, the irony.
No Sean, you’re a tool because you got back up on your no doubt weary high horse yet again to accuse others of secretly wishing greater harm fell on Gates so they could bewail it all the more.
Then you turned around and scolded everyone for speculating and not sticking with the facts.
Now you’re claiming you were being sarcastic.
Like I said. Seems almost like you’re a complete tool.
The arrest report clearly states that what Gates was doing inside the home continued outside the home.
Jay, are you trying to imply that Gates’s porch and front yard are somehow legally different than the interior of his own home? He was arrested on his own property – how is it different whether it was behind a wall or not?
Sean, obesity could never be an epidemic – it is not contagious.
“Epidemic” has more than 1 definition.
It seems more people die while exercising, and from fad diets, than used to die from heart attacks.
More than 500,000 people die from exercise and “fad diets”?
We are becoming a nation of wusses.
And eating Cheetos all day is “manly”?
What will we do when the soy plants die, the yogurt doesn’t propagate, and we can’t put ice in our Crystal Lights?e
It’s so nice to see you concerned about this stuff rather than REAL problems in the country. I mean, we, as one of the biggest corn consumers in the world, are facing a corn shortage, but you think soy is out to kill us all. Right.
Looks like Frank’s been taking a page from Jonah “the Whale” Goldberg. Poor Frank’s blaming the Liberals(TM) for the fact that eating nothing but corn chips and ice creme is BAD for you.
Oh by the way, this was good:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003027.html
Sean, please… the grownups are trying to have a discussion here:
The facts are simple. I said that I was surprised more people didn’t agree with Obama’s words.
I did not address his reasoning.
You either
1) failed to realize I did not (lack of reading comprehension – or is it merely an embarrassing lack of intellectual rigor) or
2) deliberately disregarded that I did not ().
And, apparently, were damfool enough to think you’d get away without being called on it.
So the professor became agitated when the questioning continued and asked for a name and badge number. What did the officer think about that and why not simply provide it? The answer that springs to my mind is that he thought Gates was going to file a complaint against him. Then he escalated the situation leading to an arrest. Complaint foiled.
‘There is disagreement on that particular point. Crowley’s statement is that he tried to give his name/number when Gates asked for it but was unable to do so as Gates cutting him off when he replied.’
The guy asks the cop for his name and badge number, but INTERRUPTS the cop who willingly provides it, thus ensuring the information is not exchanged?
You gotta be kidding.
‘Lacking a credible third party, no real way to know for sure how the exchange went’
But lacking a credible third party, all the Crowley defenders have no problem accepting his version of events.
jr: But lacking a credible third party, all the Crowley defenders have no problem accepting his version of events.
Yep, and they didn’t even bother to sprinkle any crack on him, LOL!
“We are becoming a nation of wusses.”
Speak for yourself.
Jay actually believes that it’s okay to shoot a police officer if you feel the officer is acting in an unlawful manner.
No, that is not what I said at all. It had nothing to do with “feelings.” Of course, your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds and I refuse to engage on the issue because you do nothing but lie. It’s rather pathetic. I will comment for one last time on something else you write further down because it is just more evidence of your propensity to be completely dishonest, and…well….stupid. This is for the sake of anybody else that didn’t follow that thread.
In other words, if police officer tells a black man to stop yelling, and he should shut the fuck up straight away or else face the consequences, despite the long and well documented history of police discrimination and racial profiling.
If the same cop started shooting at the black man, he would be well within his rights to start shooting back because of the equally long and well-documented history of police randomly firing on innocent citizens.
Ahh yes. Bringing on the stupid in gobs. I find it rather hilarious when people wear bright signs that say, “I AM A MORON! YES I. AM. A. MORON!”
First of all, we’ll deal with your first comment which is of course, dishonest. Surprise surprise! This was not about a police officer “telling a black man to stop yelling.” It also has nothing to do with racial profiling because profiling didn’t come into play once Crowley left Gates house so now you’re just sputtering inane Fafaroo-like drivel. “Yelling” does not automatically make one’s behavior disorderly. If I am out in my yard playing with my kids and we’re yelling and having a good time, that’s one thing. If I stand in my front yard and then proceed to yell and scream at people as they walk by, then I am being disorderly. Now I hope I didn’t your head explode with that simple explanation.
As for your second paragraph I will ask you a very simple yes or no question. Let’s see if you have the balls to answer honestly:
If Crowley had walked up the steps to Gates door and upon seeing Gates inside, drew his sidearm and started firing at Gates, would Gates be justified in returning fire if he had access to a gun, yes or no?
OK, Jaim – I will speak for myself : YOU’RE a wuss
‘Yep, and they didn’t even bother to sprinkle any crack on him, LOL!’
He’s not Rick James bitch!
fafaroo: Then you turned around and scolded everyone for speculating and not sticking with the facts.
Again, show me anywhere that I presented speculation as fact, where I claimed opinion was how things actually are.
g: how is it different whether it was behind a wall or not?
Because when not behind a wall he’s in public view.
Would you have any problem with him walking around naked or making love to his significant other inside his house? Would you have a problem with him doing it on his front lawn?
Indeed: and Gates was arrested for “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior” in his home.
No, he wasn’t.
You can debate whether he should have been arrested or not. (My opinion, for example, is that he the situation shouldn’t have gotten that far.) But the fact is he wasn’t arrested for what he did inside his home.
But let’s not stop facts from getting in the way, shall we?
LongHairedWeirdo: You either
1) failed to realize I did not (lack of reading comprehension – or is it merely an embarrassing lack of intellectual rigor) or
Tell ya what. I’ll work on my comprehension if you work on yours. Twice I’ve explained what I saw as an inconsistency or double standard in your original post. Twice you’ve ignored it to complain about something else.
And, apparently, were damfool enough to think you’d get away without being called on it.
On the contrary, I fully realize I’ve been selected as the Cassandra pinata for discussions involving Gates. So it goes.
midderpidge: So the professor became agitated when the questioning continued and asked for a name and badge number. What did the officer think about that and why not simply provide it?
IMHO that’s the crux of where things started to go out of hand. Unfortunately, per Gates, yes, Crowley wouldn’t answer unless they stepped outside. But per Crowley, he tried to answer but Gates kept talking over his reply. And lacking a credible third party it’s he said/he said, and we don’t know who was first in the wrong.
jrfunkenstein: The guy asks the cop for his name and badge number, but INTERRUPTS the cop who willingly provides it, thus ensuring the information is not exchanged?
You gotta be kidding.
Nope. That’s how it happened per Crowley. And given that numerous witnesses say that Gates did become loud and disruptive I can’t see resonably ruling it out as a possiblity that Gates was aggitated enough to keep talking after he’s asked a question. I’ve seen people who are getting angry do it all the time.
Did it happen on this occasion? We don’t know. The only two people who have made statements contradict each other. Neither of which seems immediately dismissible as “kidding” IMHO.
But lacking a credible third party, all the Crowley defenders have no problem accepting his version of events.
Pretty sure the Crowley defenders would make a very similar comment about the Gates defenders. So where does that leave folks?
If Crowley had walked up the steps to Gates door and upon seeing Gates inside, drew his sidearm and started firing at Gates, would Gates be justified in returning fire if he had access to a gun, yes or no?
Clearly, Jay, you believe the answer is yes. Now I believe that if this had happened, shooting back at a police officer would be the worst thing that Gates, or anyone could do. You seem not to be thinking beyond your knee jerk “shoot em all let God sort em out” mentality. Do you really think that Gates, or anyone, would emerge from that situation alive?
But let’s break it down. What we have in the actual situation that happened a dispute between an officer and a citizen that comes down to Gates’ word vs the cops’.
If this were a shooting incident and Gates had actually survived — and not been shot down by Crowley or his backup or the dozens of other cops who would shown up within minutes of hearing “officer under fire” on the radio — it still would have come down to Crowley’s word vs Gates as to why the shooting occurred.
And no doubt you would be taking Crowley’s side in that debate, as well.
You take the cops’ word as gospel even going to so far as to exaggerate what actually happened — “If I stand in my front yard and then proceed to yell and scream at people as they walk by, then I am being disorderly.” — because Gates was not yelling at everyone who passed by, he was yelling at the cop who he believed had violated his civil rights or was acting in a racially insensitive manner.
Had that escalated to a shooting, you would be here right now quoting the police report, “Crowley said Gates made a sudden threatening move with his right hand! Crowley had to assume the worst! He had no choice but to fire on Gates! It’s all there in the report!”
And if Gates had said, “I had done nothing wrong. I was in my own home. I did not make a sudden move and was acting in self-defense” you would no doubt be denigrating Gates by saying: “Once Crowley was convinced Gates was the lawful resident of the home, why didn’t Gates just leave well enough alone? Why did he make a sudden threatening move?!?!?!”
Jay, your words are plain as day for all to see. If a cop shoots at you, and you haven’t done anything wrong, you are justified in shooting back. But who decides whether you’ve done nothing wrong? Clearly, if the cop is shooting at you, he’s decided you’ve done something seriously wrong. But you leave open the option for every citizen to return fire anyway if they feel they’ve done nothing wrong.
And then presumably everyone can figure out who was right and who was wrong after the smoke clears and the corpses are counted.
By your logic, Jay, it would be okay for Gates to resist arrest. After all, Gates believed he had done nothing wrong.
Again, show me anywhere that I presented speculation as fact, where I claimed opinion was how things actually are.
Sean, you implied that some supporters of Gates secretly wished greater harm had befallen Gates.
Based on what, exactly? Oh right, nothing.
fafaroo, failing to get the point yet again.
Fafaroo, I am not interested in your pontifications and ruminations about what would have or could have happened. That is completely irrelevant nonsense. Don’t talk about what I believe or what your idiotic interpretation of my words are and then contort yourself into a human pretzel to arrive at whatever preconceived notion you have about the issue.
I asked you a simple question. It merits a simple answer.
If Crowley had walked up the steps to Gates door and upon seeing Gates inside, drew his sidearm and started firing at Gates, would Gates be justified in returning fire if he had access to a gun?
Yes or no?
fafaroo, failing to get the point yet again.
Gosh, Sean you had a point?
sigh
It merits a simple answer.
No it doesn’t, because what’s at issue is not whether it’s ever justifiable to defend yourself against the sops but your blatant hypocrisy.
The question is why would you support Gates if he returned fire on Crowley in defense of his life and liberty, but not support Gates for merely yelling at Crowley in response to what he saw as a violation of his civil rights.
The other question is why are you taking Crowley’s report as gospel, in the incident as it occurred, while in your hypothetical you’re giving Gates every benefit of the doubt?
Of course, in your scenario, if Crowley came in guns blazing Gates would be justified in defending himself.
But in the incident as it actually happened, Gates was trying to get Crowley’s name and badge number presumably to seek redress for what he saw as a violation of his rights. Crowley was not justified in arresting Gates for being angry that his request was refused.
Of course, it’s Gates’ word vs Crowley’s. And, again, if the incident had unfolded per your hypothetical, and Gate’s and Crowley had survived, I find it hard to believe that you would be here defending Gates if Crowley’s police report presented some justification for shooting first.
Translation = Jay I won’t answer the question because I am too much of a chickenshit to do so. Instead I am going to bleat about THE HYPOCRISY!!
Run along Fafaroo.
Run along Fafaroo.
Can you read? Try it again, Jay.