Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Unlikely actors
It seems as if the Fates conspired to put two unlikely people on either side of an arrest and an accusation of racism.
Contempt of Cop is not a crime
Are you disagreeing with what I said?
I was referring there to what we know about the reputations of both parties, separate from this incident. I didn't say anything there as to whether or not any crime was committed, and I didn't mean to imply anything about that.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean with that quote?
No, I'm sorry. I meant to
No, I'm sorry. I meant to hit add a comment, not reply.
What this case says is that cops cannot arrest someone for yelling at the them (or calling them racists.) Since the public disturbance charge had no merit - Gates was in his own home when he yelled very loud - it would appear this was a wrongful arrest by Crowley.
Crowley's incident report says Gates was yelling and being tumultuous (in his own kitchen) and so if this is why he arrested him, Gates wins a wrongful arrest suit.
In the big picture, let's hope cops learn they cant arrest people just becuase they don't show sufficient deference.
cops can arrest someone that is disorderly
in their own house, porch, garage, front yard or property. Its not a false arrest.
He he was charged with distrubing the peace (same statute actually), then he could be charged with false arrest since you need a victim.
Gates was yelling on his porch and told to quiet down. Thats why he was arrested, not because he was yelling in his kitchen.
And it wasn't just
And it wasn't just yelling.
He was Angry and escalating a situation, which could have put the office or others at hard. He refused the officers request to calm down and talk it out, instead getting more agitated.
One of the first things they teach you is to take control of the station, and neutralize the threat to the officer and bystanders. Crowley was doing what his training had always told him to do.
It was probably excessive, but Crowley didn't know who Gates was and acted as he should have in that situation; ie let the courts figure it out when calmer heads prevail.
furthermore
Furthermore, if Professor Gates was a teacher at Bunker Hill Community College, as opposed to Harvard University, the furor over his arrest would NOT be happening.
True, but still wrong
One of the first things they teach you is to take control of the station, and neutralize the threat to the officer and bystanders. Crowley was doing what his training had always told him to do.
Probably true, but to the extent that means "raised voice to police officer means you can arrest the subject," the protocol is plainly illegal.
Obviously, But that's the
Obviously,
But that's the line that courts tend to draw. From the sounds of the report, Gates didn't just raise his voice, but persisted in a verbal assault of the officer from stat to finish, so much so it drew a crowd.
Its ugly all around, but Gates could have easily disarmed the situations.
I don't see this as a case of racism as much as a case of two Egos clashing.
Read police report first
Professor Gates was NOT arrested for shouting inside his house. Professor Gates was NOT arrested for breaking in his own house.
Professor Gates was NOT arrested to screaming at the officer inside his house.
He was arrested for following the officer outside his premises and shouting at him racially charged slurs so loud that it attracted a crowd to gather on the street.
It means that Professor Gates was arrested for:
1. Behavior OUTSIDE the house,
and
2. Disorderly conduct in public domain
I also personally think that professor Gates behaved in an arrogant self entitled gross manner of a person who feels that he is above law, and who feels invincible to a point of becoming slightly manic.
Yeah but
Gates' actions caused citizens passing by the location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed. Isn't it obvious he should have been arrested for that?
Which is why the Cambridge Police are now arresting fat woman in stirrup pants, men with mullets and sagging jeans, and Michael Jackson impersonators.
(but seriously, nice contribution, Anonymous)
Hey Sock...
...can you get back to calling him "Officer Cracker" again? Seriously, that was totally cool of you-- definitely puts your comments in the proper context. Lord only knows what kind of shitstorm anyone here would endure if they were to combine Gates's name with some kind of ethnic slur, but apparently when it's a slur against lower-class rural whites, it's A-OK with you and the other hippies. Very, very nice.
Don't make me
come out on this porch and talk about yo mama. You don't know who you're messing with.
Nice comeback
That's your defense against an accusation of racist speech? Repeating something-- and something really cringe-worthy at that-- that was supposedly said during the incident? If it is, then I do know who, or at least what, I'm dealing with: An idiot.
If you were to come out on any porch and talk about my dear mother, I'd laugh at you and pity you for not having better verbal options, and for thinking that I'd be offended.
Thanks!
It's so nice of you to share all your insights with the group.
How is the Yo Mama comment
How is the Yo Mama comment racist?
I think Gates asked Crowley if he was being targeted because he was a black man in America. I presume Crowley said no but neither Gates interview or Crowley incident report says how or if Crowley responded to the question.
Yo mama has a particular meaning in contemporary black diction. I don't think it has racist implications.
Besides which
One wonders if what Gates said was not "I'm gonna talk with yo momma" but "I'm gonna talk with Obama."
I didn't say "yo mama" was racist.
I said "cracker" was a slur. Try reading posts completely-- more than once if necessary-- before responding. Won't necessarily make you smarter, but at least it'll appear to make you smarter, which may be the best you can hope for. What I was commenting on was the lameness of Sock's response, which incorporated what sounds to my ears as one of the more unfortunate things which has (allegedly) been said in this whole thing.
Regarding whatever its meaning might have in contemporary black "diction" (you do mean "dialect" here, right?)... well, what does it mean? Enlighten us! What it sounded like to me was something said to provoke or insult the officer as he was leaving; something to the effect, "Yeah, go running to your mother for help, you weak little boy!"-- meant to insult the manhood, maturity, physical strength, whatever, of the target. Something like that? Am I close?
If I am, then fine-- good enough insult, but it only works if the target is offended. Which, when Sock used it on me, was not the case. I mean, if Sock wants to hear about grandchildren and the problems my mom's having with the rain gutters, fine with me.
Part of me suspects, though, that Sock's use of it is a bit of a red herring, and his flawed logic is actually meant to undermine the position he's appearing to support. If so, well done sir. Madam. Whatever. If you were foolin', you had me fooled-- and if not, keep it up! Entertaining either way.
your mama
My best guess interpretation when I first heard the alleged "mama" statement was that it was a colloquialism for likening the other person to a child, in an argument or when angry.
Or, especially if the speaker is 12 years old, it can mean that s/he is claiming an especially intimate relationship with your mother, or that many people do. In the right crowd, those jokes never get old.
This whole article revolves
This whole article revolves around whether Crowley is a racist or not. I think that is entirely the wrong question. The question is whether he acted properly in arresting Gates for public disorderly and if so, why; and if not, why?
If he did not act properly then the question of prejudice could be asked.
---------------
There's a link on this article under "Related Content" labeled
PDF Copy of police report
but it links to Officer Figueroa's incident report only and not Officer Crowley's incident report. What gives?
There are multiple questions
Definitely, a question of racism was raised by Gates, and the President used the incident as an occasion on which to make a point about racism (while saying he didn't know that racism was involved in this case).
As a society, we take questions of racism seriously, and it's a big deal for the officer accused in this case, as well as for CPD and the city. I suspect that the answer is that there was no racism by the officer in this case, but the taint of accusation and suspicion is hanging there at the moment.
I agree that there is also a question of whether arresting Gates was proper. I just don't think it's the more important question.
The event is regrettable, and I'd like to see a prompt reconciliation. Perhaps some good will come out of it, in that -- while this is not a good poster-child case for prompting any kind of improvement that might be needed nationally -- I think that Cambridge is progressive and well-intentioned enough to take a genuine look at things and see whether there is anything constructive that it can do. Hopefully, both Gates and the city will keep opportunists and crazy people from nudging their way into whatever the dialogue locally.
What happened to the report
Well, as far as I can tell, the original link the Globe posted went to a 3 page report of Crowley's detailed statement regarding the arrest and Figueroa's witness comment. It had SOME information (addresses, phone numbers) redacted with ink on the original paper that was converted to PDF.
Then, a few hours later, it was replaced with a more redacted version. New black boxes had been added (by the Globe) to remove Whalen's name from the entire document as the original 911 caller and witness to the possible break-in.
THEN, it was completely removed. There were comments (unsubstantiated?) that it had been a leaked document from CPD and that the Globe never should have had it (when has that *EVER* stopped the Press before?? They've gone to COURT over having the right to publish that kind of leaked info before!).
Now, it seems like they've gotten their hands on the two page booking information for Gates and Figueroa's witness statement again, but "lost" the original Crowley pages. So the link that you post is the new 3 page report that doesn't have Crowley's info at all.
However, I and others had the original PDF (redacted ONLY by CPD) and have made it available at Scribd (free PDF hosting for public sharing).
I'll also say that this is the second time in about a week where the Globe has played along with the police in not investigating info or going an extra length to remove information in benefit to the police. The other time is when they didn't get the cop's name in Mattapan who had the K-9 dog jump a woman and her dog.
It took me about 15 minutes to find the address (something the on-the-scene reporter would have had), reverse lookup the resident names, find one of them in the news/web as a K-9 cop (they probably have access to police rosters or something), find his personal website validating the info I found, and then cross-validate his WHOIS info back to that same address. However, it took them hours to use "inside police sources" and "neighbors" to get that info instead according to the news story. So, either they had his info for a while but sat on it...or they're more incompetent than me.
Going back to the first PDF
I thought that the Globe was being proper by redacting the name of the reporting party or witness, simply as a matter of good standard practice.
We already have enough trouble with people being reluctant or afraid to report possible crimes. I think that the default for a newspaper should be *not* to identify RPs/witnesses without either their permission or a carefully-considered decision that there is compelling public interest.
They can decide to publish later on, as they have a better understanding and time to consider, but they can never fully un-publish.
The Smoking Gun has it up
The police report is now up at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/07...
From the article
Why do I get this sneaking suspicion that this cop has given out more than his fair share of "contempt of cop" charges...asshole. Cops can be wrong sometimes. It's okay and the sooner cops start accepting that into their disposition to other citizens, the better we're all going to be. I'm tired of this "respect mah authoritay!" attitude that gets doled out these days, especially when a cop can demonstrably be shown to be wrong at the time that you're dealing with them. All these cops do is ratchet up the confrontation these days even when they've screwed up. That's STILL what's going on with Crowley now...and it's going to keep happening until this kind of cop is forced to get an attitude adjustment.
I am not a racist
Cuz I love them black basketball players, see?
But seriously, in defense of Mr. Crowley, I find it entirely possible he's not lying when he says he's not a racist: it's likely he believes that. I will even go so far as to say I find it likely that he treats the black people he meets off the job - such as the basketball players he coaches - with respect and fairness.
On the other hand, racial assumptions that we may not hold at the front of our minds do tend to pop up at inconvenient times, such as when we find a black man in a Harvard professor's house. It seems possible that some degree of unconscious racism played a part in Mr. Crowley's treatment of Prof. Gates.
Even assuming the best - that race played no part whatsoever in Mr. Crowley's treatment of Prof. Gates - we are left with the unflattering conclusion that Crowley is an equal opportunity asshole. I'm not sure it does him too many favors to believe that he would just as likely have arrested an Irish professor for being uppity.
So that forgives gates from
So that forgives gates from any responsibility? Last I checked, he refused to show identification to a LEO that had no clue who he was or why he was breaking into a house. Granted, it was his house, but the cop is just supposed to take his word for it?
I'd hope not if it was my house.
The from the sounds of it, he berated the cops, and drew a crowd. The second other people stop and start confronting the cops, led by Gates's verbal battery, the situation can become dangerous.
LEO's are taught to keep control of a situation, and to remove the trouble maker asap, so as mob mentality doesn't take over.
Is it excessive? Probably in most cases. But you know what? Plenty of cops and bystanders have been injured and killed when they didn't, which is why they do. The fastest way to deescalate the situation was to arrest Gates, and let the courts handle it when everyone was more cooled off.
I'm sorry, but that's not racism, that's policy on someone berating and drawing needless attention to an officer. gates should have gotten names and numbers, and if they refused, call the police station right away. The last thing you ever do i assert authority over an officer and draw a crowd. They will neutralize that thread, as taught on day one.
Gates did show identification
If he hadn't, wouldn't he have been arrested for B&E?
From all the accounts, it
From all the accounts, it appears he showed a Harvard ID without an address, and Crowley had to confirm with Harvard PD the residency status.
One account is after several request and refusals, the other is right away. Lots of gray, he said she said.
I'm erring on the side Crowley's report, since I don't think Gates would have been arrested unless he was in a aggravated state, and the report matches up with most of the stories on his demeanor.
If you didn't do anything wrong, and an officer isn't showing disrespect, there's no reason to be so combative. You can be to the point and serious, but verbally combative is just going to escalate things.
No "gray" on that
That's not even what the officer's own report says.
The officer's report says that Gates showed him a Harvard ID. Ware Street, where Gates lives, is immediately adjacent to the Harvard campus. The report does not say that Gates did not show the officer a drivers license, or whether the officer asked for one. The report doesn't mention calling Harvard's campus police.
Gates' account says, "I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him."
Gates is Irish
Found on Ethnicelebs.com
Birth Name:
Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Birth Place:
Piedmont, West Virginia, United States
Date of Birth:
September 16, 1950
What Race or Ethnicity?:
Black and Caucasian
The American scholar and professor at Harvard University is well known for hosting the television series, African American Lives and African American Lives 2, where he helped notable African Americans find their ancestry. In the first series, it was found that Gates is partly descended from the Yoruba people of Nigeria and also has Irish heritage.
implicit race prefrence - a test
There's a psychological test available online through Harvard University that attempts to measure our implicit preference for black and white race. It works by flashing images on the screen which are responded to quickly by a keyboard click.
I'd heard of the test and know it's been around a long time, but had never taken it. With the Gates flare-up, I finally did take the test - very interesting.
Here's the link:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeate...
in their own words
“Racism is not part of it, and that is what is frustrating. The fact that the Police Department dropped the charges makes the police officer look like he is wrong.’’
This statement by one of Sgt. Crowley's fellow officers says it all, to me. It is clearly incredibly difficult for police officers to ever admit that they have crossed the line. You only have to look at any of the myriad cases where police abuse their power to see that basic rule seems to be "deny at all cost". To be called out, first by Prof. Gates (ostensibly the cause of the arrest) and now by many in the public, will only deepen his desire to dig in.
I'm not one to defend LEO's,
I'm not one to defend LEO's, but this isn't a case.
They are in the right here.
If gates was non-confrontational, and they arrested him, I'd be right they're calling their actions out. But "Rascism isn't a part of it", because it's police policy on how to handle an escalating situation.
It's about officer and public safety
That's precisely the problem
Any "police policy" of arresting people who raise their voice to a police officer would be illegal.
That's not the policy. If
That's not the policy.
If that was the case, Gates would have been arrested immediately, which he was not.
It's the persistent verbal assault and creating a disturbance that attracted attention that was the arrestable offense and could devolve into a safety issue in some instances. Very angry and agitated people rarely act rationally, and the laws there to deal with them, similar to how police can arrest you for being drunk and disorderly.
That's not the law
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that verbally challenging police officers is protected free speech. For example, in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987):
You seem confident in your analysis, DrJoe
I think that a reputable real doctor would not jump to such conclusions.
First rule on the street
never give the cops shit, you'll always lose. As a wise mouthed kid of 16, I took a pinch in Kenmore Square for disorderly conduct. I gave the arresting officer (he was black)a real hard time with my mouth and when I got to District 4, 2 other officers, one black, one white, took me in a room off of the garage entrance and the three of them proceeded to give me the worst trimming I've received to date with a copy of the Yellow Pages.
When my parents picked me up, I told them what happened, and my Mom, born and raised on Cummins Highway, said "Good, next time you'll keep your mouth shut". Bottom line,you never mouth off to the cops. Sure, you might get lucky and you bring a case against some officer that you might win, but the cops will always win on the street. What Gates didn't realize is that the cops in that area are doubly screwed. I lived on Prescott, the next street over from Ware, and in the 3 years I lived there, my Mustang was broken into 4 times. So here we have an area that is easy pickings for criminals of all races and creeds and a cop who has to tread the fine line between racial sensitivity and a neighborhood of elites who scream like hell if their BMW's get a scratch on it.
Was there mistakes made on both sides?, yes. But I'm willing to give the cop a little more leeway, because at the end of the night, this will be something for Gates to discuss at cocktail parties and the Faculty Club for the rest of his life, while Sgt. Crowley, falsely accused of racism, will have to strap that on with his badge and gun for the rest of his life and that just ain't fair.
wow, talk about not understanding...
No, you could not be more wrong about Gates. Being arrested in his house, cuffed, and hauled down to the police station to be photographed and processed is likely something that Gates will have to live with beyond the high-brow confines of the Harvard Faculty Club. In fact, it may be the event that makes him feel like an outsider at Harvard and in Cambridge, because this is not exactly a shared experience among Harvard faculty, and it's certainly not something he'll be casually discussing at cocktail parties.
In fact, Crowley will probably get a lot more moral support from his fellow cops than Gates will get from the standard-brand Harvard professor.
That doesn't make Crowley a "racist." In fact, the entire use of labels to easily package and categorize each of the parties is what's guaranteeing that we will not learn any deeper, more subtle and nuanced lessons about the incredibly complex dynamics here.
Really?
There is nothing complex about this.Being arrested is no big deal, especially if you know you're going to beat the charge, which Gates knew he would, being who he is, an employee of the largest landowner in the City of Cambridge and a world renowned academic.So I fail to see your point about what Gates will have to live with beyond his bullshit arrest. From his daughter's piece in "The Daily Beast" to the Huffington Post and to his interview from the warm environs of his summer home on the Vineyard for the Root and now even the President weighing in on this, Gates can count on being the main attraction at cocktail parties for years to come. He himself has already said he plans on making a documentary on race and there will undoubtedly be a book and appearances on Oprah.
So forgive me if I side with Sgt. Crowley on this one. While Skip Gates will profit from this in the end, all the Sgt. has to look forward to is his pay, his pension and the chance he may take a bullet someday in defense of a man like Skip Gates.
Exactly....
Your response -- overflowing with resentment towards Harvard and the world you presume it to be -- illustrates exactly why this is so complex.
Believe me, I carry no torch for Harvard. Anyone who teaches at a university in Greater Boston that isn't Harvard (I am among them) must labor under its shadow (okay, maybe except MIT), and the bowing and scraping accorded to the institution and its denizens is sometimes quite undeserved.
That said, there are issues of power and social class mixed in with issues of race that came crashing together in this one incident. Simple, it's not.
Gates is less than half black
but appears to be 90% pompous ass. America in 2009:
Payback Nation. Get used to it.