Seems Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates Jr. locked himself out of his Cambridge house the other day, so he tried to break open the front door, which prompted somebody to call the police who, when Gates refused to tell them who he was or why he was breaking into the house, arrested him. Gates charges racism, possibly on the theory that simply everybody in Cambridge must know who he is.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
No need to arrest this guy here....
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 5:33pm
But I would have summonsed him in for the felony of hindering an investigation. Both the cop and Gates here ended up being assholes, but it looks like Gates was the asshole at first. Heres a cop investigating a felony crime and some asshole can't have the decency to let the cops know he lives there.
Assuming the cop didn't lie here (as usually there are other witnesses anyway), Id say fuck him and just summons him in for the felony. He isn't going anywhere and there is clearly enough for that crime.
My question
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 5:54pm
What does it take to justify an "investigation"?
One person calling into the police that she saw a couple of black men use force to open a door? How "helpful" does Gates have to be (or not be) in order to justify "hindering" this "investigation"?
How does one random person get to dictate the scenario and create the homeowner-as-suspect?
I think you're wrong and any "hindering investigation" (what MGL is that, please?) wouldn't stick at all. He doesn't have to answer to them, let them in, or anything else. There was no emergency and they had nothing credible to believe there was a crime being committed other than a black man was in a house that a woman says she saw two black men enter.
Save your breath, Kaz
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 5:59pm
Pete suffers from an occupational derangement: If a cop did it, it's ipso facto justified. Felony Hindering Investigation = not doing exactly what cop says whenever he says it.
felony call is an investigation....
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:05pm
Ive been to many calls where the homeonwner comes home and has no idea someone was in his house or is still in his house. And of course the responding officer is not going to have any idea of that either. The crime is a reported break, and the MGL is 268. 13B and Ive seen dozens of people CWOF'd for lesser involvements.
No one ever believes me anyway so I hope Jake Wark can come in here and show some examples where this crime has been charged and held up in court.
He doesnt have to let the cops in but if the cops feel people might be in the building the dont need his permission. Credible?
Sockpuppet, maybe you Kaz and Bretts ghost can decide for yourself what the laws mean since you all know everything about everything.
You know what. Im not even going to respond on this thread anymore since everyone knows exactly what they are talking about.
Take your ball.
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:13pm
Go home.
We already know that there are an endless number of lies an abusive policeman can tell to justify his illegal actions. It's amusing to hear from you what some bullshit excuses might be, but it's not like you're participating in good faith. You already know that the cop is right, because he's in your tribe, and the other guy is wrong, because he's in our tribe. So it's funny to hear your justifications, but it's apparent to those of us not suffering from cop-mind what the difference is between justifications and reasons.
yea i cant go out like that...
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:17pm
but whatever. 100% chance there are other people there that will tell their story and they will have the same story as the police. Just like when that kid died down at fenway and everyone wanted to believe the kids friends and not the independent witnesses.
Did I not call him an asshole for arresting him in the first place? Yea but you read what you want to read. Ive been in these situations where the cops are racist for everything they do. Heres a situation where someone called the police to report a felony and the resident played the racecard right off the bat.
For real?
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:26pm
Under which part of 268-13b? This one?
If he doesn't give the cop an ID with an address (not illegal), says he's not coming outside (not illegal), confirms that he's not detained or under arrest and then goes back to his book on the living room couch (not illegal), how is that "impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish, or otherwise interfere"? It would seem those are all crimes of commission, not omission.
ask the judge..
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:29pm
they are all different and all intrepret it a different way.
Translation
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:37pm
A BS summons isn't intended to get a conviction. It's intended to be a form of cop-initiated judicial punishment. The victim has to spend money and time to defend himself no matter if the charge was preposterous on the face of it. It's done in bad faith by bad cops.
Sort of like arresting a man for being tumultuous on his own porch after pushing him around for 'breaking into' his own house.
Its only BS if you know the law
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:39pm
which you dont. So your opinion should mean something?
Telling
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:53pm
You're tipping your hand again, Pete. If you know the law, it's BS.
If you don't, you're what? Fair game?
No I meant that
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 7:04pm
you and Kaz (mostly Kaz I guess here) can't just look up the MA general laws on the internet and decide that the man didn't do anything wrong. Its never that simple.
Thus the questions
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 7:48pm
So, you tell me, then, since as Sock Puppet points out, either you know the law (and not just what they put in those pesky MGLs) or you don't either. I've been asking questions, not disclaiming knowledge. See my headlines? "Entering without permission?", "My question", "For real?": All denoting that I'm searching for clarification. Don't like being questioned? Am I being uppity? Good thing I'm not in public to be "disorderly", I guess.
As I understand it, "not making a cop's job easy" isn't a crime. Actively inhibiting his job is. There is very limited information that anyone, innocent or guilty, have to actively offer to an officer. That doesn't make them guilty of the original reason the cop came out OR any other trumped up legalized harassment the cop wants to hand out.
all right sorry...I snapped.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:02pm
But let me give you an example of something I experienced once.
There was a 911 call for a woman screaming for help in a house at X Main St. I showed up with two other officers and went up to the building and heard yelling and screaming inside. We knocked on the door and a man was at the door. He didnt really let us in but we could hear a woman yelling in the next room so we pretty much pushed him out of the way to get in. There was a woman crying and screaming at the other side of the room and the guy that let us in now wanted us to leave. We told him we couldnt leave until we found out if the woman was ok and what had happened. He continued to call us racist (with black officers there) and refused to give us his name or who lived there or why he was there. As another officer and I were talking to him, another man came running out of the other room with a syringe in his hand and stabbed my partner officer right in the face with the syringe. The syringe broke and only punctured the skin barely thank god (after a few dozen shots later he was found to be ok and disease free).
Now it turns out there was no crime here. The woman was crying because she was out of crack cocaine and thought one of the other men she was with was stealing money from her or something. It turned out to be a bogus call, but of course we could not take that chance with a woman screaming for help.
Now the guy who didn't let us in hindered us in a real investigation of a woman screaming. Were we at fault since the woman was only crying for help because she was out of drugs?
Now if we were just driving by and said "hey, X Main Street is a crack house and there is probably some crack inside...lets go knock and see what happens..." Then yea, there is no crime to investigate and if the same circumstances still happened (cop stabbed in the face), we would have still probably been found to be illegally in the apartment.
And just because no one broke into the apartment here, doesn't mean the cops weren't performing an investigation. Its not in the MGLs, and I don't have my criminal procedure book with me...but I can assure you that there is case law on it and I have seen lesser things happen under this statute.
Exigence
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:19pm
That's really not analogous since exigence from the crying woman let you in. There's no exigence here (and none claimed in the police report either).
But did you charge the guy at the door with "hindering"? I could see that one both ways. On one hand, he got in your way to respond to the assumed exigent nature. On the other, it doesn't sound like he was much of an impediment (pushing back, grabbing, etc) once you made it clear you were coming in past him whether he likes it or not.
exigence...
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:32pm
well the report here did not rule out that the officer was done with his investigation. He still did not know who lived there or if this man belonged here. Who knows if there was someone still in the house? But now this cop has to waste his time (and the people of Cambridges time) talking to someone in order to clear this call. He has to confirm that this man legally belongs here before he leaves. Does he leave just beaause he has a "gut" feeling that this man with a cane lives there?
And this case has nothing to do with whether the officer has the right to be there or not. I will bet a million bucks that this will not be an issue as the officer had the right to be there. It doesn't appear like the cop was trying to enter illegally or search for anything anyway.
This incident happened before this law was intrepted this way. It used to be just a witness or juror intmidation law and turned itself into a hindering an investigation law after judges started intrpeting it that way.
But you have to take all the circumstances into consideration. heres a crackhead holding us up while another crackhead friend charges the cops and stabs one. I believe they both ended up being arrested for mayhem and the privy element of that charge but I cant remember.
I agree with most of that
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 9:00pm
But this goes back to an earlier question I had.
"He has to confirm that this man legally belongs here before he leaves."
Does he? That goes back to presuming guilt before innocence. I don't see in either officer's reports where they asked the witness if Gates is the man she saw entering the house or not. Why should I have to prove I belong in my house just because someone called and said they saw someone enter my house (and the officer's don't note any evidence of forced entry either).
What keeps me from "innocently" calling the cops any time I see someone enter their own house and say "I just saw someone enter that house...it might be a burglar!". I shouldn't have to defend entering my own house every time someone calls the police when I do it.
proving who lives there.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 1:37am
Its like a 911 hangup call.
During home invasions (which are rare but dangerous), criminals will break into a house, tie up residents and rob the house. Sometimes a resident will 911 and the criminal will terminate the phone call. Now the police call back and want to talk to the resident. The criminal puts a gun to the residents head and asks them to tell the police everything is ok. In most departments this is not good enough and 2 officers will be dispatched to physically check to see if the resident is ok. If the officers do not physically check to see if the resident is ok and something happens to the resident....guess who is legally liable? Right or wrong a lot of these officers actions are liability issues. What happens if the cop left here and someone was still inside and murdered Gates? Officer Crowley never even was able to idenfity Gates why not? Again, these are policy issues when responding to breaking and entering calls and/or 911 hangups. If you don't follow through with the policy and touch all your bases, you are responsible.
Did this woman "innoncently" make a mistake here? Two men budging open a door that can't lock becuase of a past break might place more of a heightened alert for this woman. Im sure if he used a key the woman would not have called right? But these calls are not rare.
IE: resident forgot his keys and climbs up back fire escape to enter through an unlocked kitchen window. Another neighbor rightfully calls police because this type of action is suspucious. Hopefully the resident can identify himself and doesnt get hurt.
As for the officer not asking the witness if Gates was the man she saw? it seems that the report indicates that Officer Crowley asked the caller to wait for other officers on the sidewalk while he went up to investigate. And Officer Crowley even then mentions that he gets the sense that Gates was the resident.
If that were the reason,
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 8:02am
The policeman could politely inform the resident that he is sorry, but it is their policy to investigate the house completely with any B&E call. He could provide his identification and badge number to the resident and then do a complete sweep of the house.
None of these things were done. The policeman did not ask or inform, but barged in and followed Gates into his kitchen without permission. Once there, he verified Gates' ID and then left without providing his ID or apologizing.
The difference between a reason and a justification is that a reason motivates your action; a justification excuses your action. The idea that the officer was correct in barging in because it might have been a home invasion is a justification rather than a reason. The officer did not look for bad guys in the house. That was not his reason. You bring it up now as a justification because it is your habit.
In short, the cop had no reason to enter the house, and could have waited respectfully on the porch. If he had done so, it is likely he would not have precipitated the problem.
ok...
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 8:20am
The policeman could politely inform the resident that he is sorry, but it is their policy to investigate the house completely with any B&E call. He could provide his identification and badge number to the resident and then do a complete sweep of the house
The police officer asked a man that he did not know if he would come out onto the porch so the man could talk to the officer. The man said "no I will not".
So at what point should the officer apoligize. Before asking Gates to come outside?
The policeman could politely inform the resident that he is sorry, but it is their policy to investigate the house completely with any B&E call. He could provide his identification and badge number to the resident and then do a complete sweep of the house
It says in the report that the officer asked him to come outside. Gates asked who the officer was and the officer identified himself as a Cambridge police officer investigating a felony break that someone called in. Not good enough for Gates who yelled out racial comments and when the officer asked if anyone else was inside (because the witness said two men went in) Gates told him that it was none of his business.
And the issue of the officer being in the house is not even an issue here. Gates never made it an issue, so I dont know why it is an issue here.
you don't need ID unless you're driving
By anon
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 12:27am
"If he doesn't give the cop an ID with an address (not illegal)"
Uh, wrong. You are not required to show ID unless you're driving, because shockingly, you don't have to carry any ID....and many people don't have driver's licenses. Yes, I know about Liquor ID cards and such.
You are only required to give your name and address. Maybe DOB.
ask for ID or identify yourself...
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 8:21am
same thing. Usually a lot faster to see an ID so you dont have to go through the motions.
First, thanks for cluing me into the copy of the report
By adamg
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 5:40pm
I hadn't seen it, since my initial source was the Crimson story (which doesn't have it), not the Globe story.
My comment was based on this line from the Crimson story:
Which is basically in the police report - in the part about Gates screaming at the cop (the "acoustic difficulties" thing, surely you realize that police reports are sometimes kind of stilted) and calling up somebody and demanding "Get me the chief!" and repeatedly asking the cop his name even after the cop had given it to him and even as the cop was walking out the door.
Yes, there are two sides to every story and we haven't really heard Gates's side yet ...
By the way
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:09pm
The witness who called it in is Lucia Whalen. It appears the Globe decided on their own to redact her name from the report even though the police didn't.
I saw it when it was in there before they redacted it.
Um
By neilv
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:21pm
The Globe isn't evil. If they decided to redact/withhold the name of a witness, maybe they had a good reason?
Despite speculation by people here, we don't know the situation, so let's not go stumbling about.
My own speculation: I think most likely is that everyone involved already wants this event to go away.
Public record
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:30pm
Well, then they shouldn't have shown it in the first place. That was their decision, not mine. Besides, it was in there after the police redactions, so seems like it's public record no matter what they choose to hide for their own purposes.
Formerly of Wellesley, Perhaps?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:45pm
A bank employee in Wellesley, maybe?
Or maybe she previously lived in an upscale area of Milton and called the cops when she saw a doctor sitting in a Mercedes while waiting for his daughter at a friend's house? (what did Milton pay for that embarrassing stupidity, millions?)
And the youngsters wonder why a 60 year old educated black man would have his back up about being questioned about living in his own home. Why he might "overreact" about it. Maybe because he's been there, done that, and don't wanna go back?
Works for Harvard
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:23pm
That's going to be real uncomfortable for her tomorrow.
Um, Yeah
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:46pm
Sensitivity training is forecast for her future.
You would think the person in charge of fund raising....
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:50pm
... for Harvard Monthly might recognize a professor whose picture often turns up in the pages of that magazine.
Give her a break
By Kaz
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 9:01pm
HeIt was dark.WIN
By eeka
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 10:37pm
You win the internets.
In jail?
By ralph_waldo
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 6:17pm
In jail?
Oh, the Humanity!
By East Cambridge
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 7:21pm
Who does Gates think he is, Alan Dershowitz, playing the
put upon minority?
New line when getting arrested: "This is what it's like to
be a tenured Harvard faculty member in America!"
the arrest is absurd. the
By anon
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:44pm
the arrest is absurd. the alleged burglar was not a burglar and the cop learned that. in fact, the alleged burglar was in his own home. you would think the cop would apologize for troubling him and his taking time an beat a path out of the man's home. but no, he arrested him for a public disturbance charge.
Where do you live in East Cambridge?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 9:29pm
Maybe we should be neighborly and call the cops when you get home - just in case.
Where do I live?
By East Cambridge
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 9:18am
Right across the street from a bookstore that carries
"Radical Chic and Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers" by
Tom Wolfe.
You should check it out. In some respects, things
haven't changed a lot in the last 40 years. The grifter
may change but the grift itself stays the same.
police report
By david_yamada
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 7:42pm
The police report, written in classic cop-speak, raises my long-time-ago public defender antennae. How this scenario became elevated into a disorderly conduct charge against a man re-entering his own home is so troubling on so many levels I can't even begin to say. And we'll probably never fully know the extent to which button pushing and personal baggage on issues of race (both Gates's and the cop's) turned this into a needlessly ugly situation.
Ogletree releases statement
By adamg
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 10:25pm
Here. Varies a tad from the police report.
thanks news man.
By anon
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 11:43pm
Way to stay on top of this!
Would a white 60 year old Harvard professor have been arrested under the exact same circumstances?
Oh yea.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 1:25am
You can bet he got arrested because he was an asshole, not a black man. This was an asshole crime, not a racial one. I don't agree with the arrest, but it's one that assholes get arrested for, not blacks.
Probably differing asshole thresholds (thrassholds?)
By neilv
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 3:08am
I think that a 60yo black male professor would be not unlikely to have a different perception of the situation than his hypothetical white counterpart would.
The white one wouldn't have to wonder whether there's a racial bias (a suspicion that would be supported by decades of history, whether or not it's the case this time), and probably was not as personally invested/involved in the civil rights movement and ongoing efforts.
So, I'd probably have a little *less* patience for similarly rude remarks and incomplete cooperation from the white guy. The black guy, I can understand if he's sensitized and vigilant.
Another point... I suspect that, were I a cop, I wouldn't have arrested either of them, regardless of whether or not I saw solid legal grounds to do so. Just doesn't sound like my style. But I can't say for certain what I'd do, since I don't know enough about what considerations a cop would have in that situation.
Third point... This is Cambridge PD, who are good guys, in my experience. As I said before, maybe everyone just needs a good night's sleep. Then maybe this can be resolved well enough with brief voicing of viewpoint to each other and a gruff handshake, even if neither side is persuaded that the other was being fully reasonable.
And this is progress?
By People's Republican
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 10:07am
You wrote: "So, I'd probably have a little *less* patience for similarly rude remarks and incomplete cooperation from the white guy."
So... double standards are the way to go then? That's good to know.
Double standards
By neilv
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 5:55pm
I think more accurate is to say that an individual's motivations are relevant to interpreting their actions and interacting constructively with them. The group is almost incidental.
This is specific to individuals, not groups, although information from groups might help guide your guessing as to a person's motivations. For fairness to the individual, you can't penalize the individual because of a generalization from a group. However, there's nothing unfair to the individual about being extra patient with them if you think of possible reasons that might be appropriate (though can't be certain), though you might later realize that suspected reason didn't apply.
I'd guess this represents a combination of appreciating the importance of understanding perspectives, believing that people are in some ways more reasonable than is commonly believed, having a "better ten guilty go free than one innocent is wrongly convicted" policy in personal interactions, and believing that there's a limit to how much consideration you can give individuals.
Ogletree releases statement
By Ron Stevens
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 12:23am
That link you provided was interesting;
one could see which spin the story would follow;just look at the photo they used- the relaxed friendly smile on Gates face,obviously trying to engender sympathy for the defendant.
Al Sharpton is getting involved
By Kaz
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 2:22am
Sharpton speaks out on behalf of Gates and vows to involve his National Action Network.
Oh great. I wish the good
By anon
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 6:32am
Oh great. I wish the good Reverend would leave it to Ogletree, Skip Gates' lawyer.
You know what's odd about the incident? Skip Gates is all about bringing people together, so much so that black activists think he goes to far too fast in moving beyond racial issues. Also, Friends of his don't believe he accused the cop of racism.
Just another Cambridge crazy
By anon
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 5:36am
I can't believe you guys are defending Gates. Please feel free to post your address here so that I could break into your house. Then when the cops show up, I'll show my school ID and just say I live there. I'll even cross my heart and pinky swear. All this guy had to do is act like a civilized human being and answer the cops question without acting entitled. This is just another reason why I dislike Cambridge, not cause of the police, but cause of all the crazies on the other side of the river.
1000 comments on Boston.com
By anon
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 7:43am
1,000 comments. Their servers have probably melted.
There are two types of stories that will bring the army of bitter townies running to their keyboards: stories about Harvard, and stories about race. Looks like we have a perfect storm on our hands.
looks like the report was leaked...
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 9:24am
And Boston.com retracted it. I bet it was because the department forgot to retract the witnesses name. Good thing Kaz posted it here...I think.
Gates Police Report
By Kaz
Wed, 07/22/2009 - 2:47pm
They've removed the entire report now.
Good thing I still had a copy in my cache.
Here
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 10:17am
It may surprise you to know that I do not think that every thing a cop does is wrong. In this situation, I believe that it was completely sensible and not out of line for Sgt. Crowley to ask Prof. Gates to step out onto the porch when he first saw him.
I believe he would have done that no matter what race Prof. Gates was, because it makes sense for him to try to control the situation. I call this a dominance move; I’d bet cops have some jargon for it, like “positive control escalation” or some such.
On the other hand, I also think it was perfectly sensible, even advisable, for Prof. Gates not to step out onto the porch. It is equally reasonable for Prof. Gates to try to keep his control of the situation. Prof. Gates knows that it is his house. At this point, Sgt. Crowley does not.
The next thing that happened is that Sgt. C asked Prof. G to identify himself. Prof. G. did so. Then Sgt. C. asked him to prove it. Now, neither one of us knows exactly how he did this, what tone of voice or body attitude, or how this came across to Prof. Gates. It seems to me that this is the point where Prof. Gates began to feel a bit insulted.
Gates left his wallet in the kitchen, because that is where he came into the house. He was already in a totally pissed off mood because a) he’d just flown overnight from China; b) he’d just taken a taxi from Logan; and c) his damn door was broken. Now all of a sudden, he noticed that this cop was following him into his house, uninvited.
I believe that this was legal on the part of the cop. However, I believe that it was mistaken, and it was rude, and it was the key move that caused the ruckus. It appears that it was after this point (and Sgt. Crowley’s reported repeated refusal to properly identify himself) that Prof. Gates began to have a clear apprehension of racism on the part of Sgt. Crowley. One might legitimately ask if Sgt. Crowley would have followed Prof. Pinker or Prof. Greenblatt into his own house.
Now, you've suggested repeatedly that Sgt. Crowley had some idea of sweeping the house for burglers or some such nonsense. Do you have any other suggestions as for legitimate reasons for Sgt. Crowley to follow Prof. Gates into his house? And do you think he would have done the same for Prof. Pinker or Prof. Greenblatt?
I dont think there is any issue
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 10:30am
regarding Crowley in the house. The Issue with Gates was that Crowley was trying to talk to him in the first place and Gates did not want to talk to him. Gates knew no one broke into the house but had no clue that a cop might not know that. Its this miscommunication that led to everything.
1) Crowley could have
By anon
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 7:23pm
1) Crowley could have followed Gates into the house to make sure that he didn't pick up a weapon on the way to picking up his ID. Remember the door was open (don't think Crowley knew the door was hard to close)
2) Crowley would have followed Gates if he had been black, white, green or blue.
3) Gates was belligerent upon seeing Crowley.
I'm a white person. I don't
By SN
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 10:45am
I'm a white person. I don't know about the rest of you white people but I wake up every day and try to find ways to harass people who don't look like me. It doesn't matter if I could lose my job if I'm caught doing it, I still do everything in my power to harass and bother people who aren't white. I even see white people doing the wrong thing and blame black people for it because it makes me happy. All day long all that goes through my head is "How can I bother a black person today?"
Your statement has the ring of truth
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:22am
Thanks for sharing.
the woman who called 911
By anon
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:16am
It will be interesting to see if the Harvard employee who called 911 will find herself unemployed soon. If Gates claims that he is a victim of racial discrimination by a fellow Harvard employee, then is that not grounds for termination?
Channel 7: Charge will be dropped
By adamg
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:21am
Station cites sources.
The MOST inflammatory Colbert-esqe statement yet.
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:52am
How much longer will white Cambridge police Sargents have to endure the jackboot of elderly black Harvard professors and their black Harvard law school lawyers?
But seriously, the public disorderly charges didn't stick?
A post on "Gates" from
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:58am
A post on "Gates" from Decisionism, a blog by an an attorney specializing in civil litigation at Henshon Parker LLP, a small firm in Boston's financial district.
Get a grip
By Brightonian
Tue, 07/21/2009 - 4:46pm
Seriously people, debating the merits of who opened the door when and who asked who in what order is kinda beside the point. I'm white but even I can clearly see that the cop was overly suspicious and the professor was overly defensive. But why shouldn't Gates get his back up immediately? He's probably dealt with this many times before, and was at the end of his rope. True story: in Brighton not too long ago I was about to leave the house with a black male friend to walk my dog (yes, admittedly it was a pit bull). My friend walked out the door first and as soon as he hit the sidewalk a cop drives up, stops at the curb, gets out and demands to know who he is, where he lives, what he's doing there, is the dog licensed, etc. My friend naturally got mad as hell because all he was doing was STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. The cops didn't appreciate his attitude, big surprise there. Long story short, me and my (white) boyfriend came out of the house and intervened and managed to de-escalate the situation. Incidentally my b.f. walks the exact same dog on the exact same street several times a day year after year and has never been hassled by cops. Anyone want to guess why? So yeah I can see how if I were Gates I wouldn't knuckle under and do some kind of "yes, sir, no sir" routine. I'd protest loudly. The moral of the story: you can't give cops attitude, especially if you're black. It's not illegal, but they can still apparently arrest you for it.
Pages