OT: Officer Crowley

[sox839]

Perhaps its the law that needs to be looked at but the officer was not wrong for arresting Professor Gates at least according to the police reports. Also I don't buy the arguement that people say that Professor Gates because he was a famous scholar he would not be a threat because an officer has to assume that when making a stop or entering a home or business they have to be on the defensive because there is always an unknown there. One person that comes to mind is the racist nut job who at age of 88 tears old shot and killed a security guard at the holcaust museum or how about phil specter all that money and fame he wouldn't kill anyone he was convicted of murder by a jury, rae carruth a football star convicted of murder so these people listed were old like the racist skumbag or famous like specter or carruth so they wouldn't be a threat to anybody, NOT true.

[Joyeuse]

No. You didn't make it clear. You tried to muddle it up with some idiotic congruous statements. Gates actions make it a teachable moment as well.

I said, and I quote, "As far as I'm aware, all three of the police officers thought they were acting in an appropriate manner in arresting Gates." This is an unambiguous statement. I don't see how this can possibly be misinterpreted as being anything other than a direct acknowledgment of all three of the police believing they were in the right.

And yes, we should all use this incident as a lesson in how breakdowns in communication between civilians and police officers can have bad consequences for both the civilians and the officers. Always cooperate with the police to the best of your ability so long as they are being fair and following the law. But I've only seen one person in this thread arguing that people shouldn't cooperate with the police, and I've seen a lot of people argue that it's not just acceptable but laudable for police to arrest uncooperative people on completely unrelated (and, in this case, invented) charges as a sort of punishment for their lack of cooperation, so I've been focusing on the police instead of on Gates.

[Joyeuse]

Perhaps its the law that needs to be looked at but the officer was not wrong for arresting Professor Gates at least according to the police reports.

No. Even the police report (which is, notably, written by a police officer who writes the report from his point of view and with the partial intent of justifying the arrest he made) does not depict any specific crime committed. As has been established previously in the thread, the claim of disorderly conduct would not have stood up in the Massachusetts courts. It may not have been illegal to make the arrest, but the actual charge would not have stood up in court.

The police report does make Gates look like an unhinged ****. But that's not a crime in Massachusetts.

Also I don't buy the arguement that people say that Professor Gates because he was a famous scholar he would not be a threat because an officer has to assume that when making a stop or entering a home or business they have to be on the defensive because there is always an unknown there. One person that comes to mind is the racist nut job who at age of 88 tears old shot and killed a security guard at the holcaust museum or how about phil specter all that money and fame he wouldn't kill anyone he was convicted of murder by a jury, rae carruth a football star convicted of murder so these people listed were old like the racist skumbag or famous like specter or carruth so they wouldn't be a threat to anybody, NOT true.

Doesn't matter what he's capable of. There's no indication that Gates threatened violence or approached Crowley with any intent of engaging in violence. If there's no threat of violence, then the police officer can't arrest him on the basis of a possibility of Gates becoming violent at a later point in the engagement. This isn't Minority Report. Our police cannot make an arrest just because they presuppose a crime will be committed.

[DelMonte West]

Obama owes his career to race. With a black man in the White House it is too easy to assume race is no longer an issue. This was a great opportunity to make race yet again a national issue. The simple fact is a white man acting the same way would have been arrested. The only difference is it would not have been an international incident.

For those who are interested Dennis and Callahan interviewed Crowley yesterday. Listen to it here:

http://audio.weei.com/m/25432556/stg-james-crowley-cambridge-police.htm

Wow, I wonder whose side those two well-documented gasbags are going to take. The racist garbage they've spread in the past (among them "white guilt" being the reason white people voted for Obama over McCain) rivals Bill O'Reilly's infamous "iced tea" flap.

[AlCelticFan]

This whole story is a non-story. Yawn.

[sox839]

They should have let the court decide this issue. If there wasn't enough probable cause then the court would drop the charges. This is not racial profiling whether the arrest was warranted or not warranted is the real question not racial profiling.

[Fencer reregistered]

Smokinggun.com has the police report of officer crowley and officer figueroa. Professor Gates was rightfully arrested for disorderly conduct and he was arrested outside his home not inside as has been stated by bloggers on this and several other sites. The officer told him to stop gave him several warnings while outside the house. He continued tumultous behavior in front of the public. What more do you want the cop to do he was tolerant in that he warned him several times but Professor Gates continued with his rant.

Judging by the police report in Crowley's own words, as well as the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the arrest was wrong. Not coincidentally, charges were dropped.

http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml shows through multiple examples that conduct more "disorderly" than Gates' has been found by the courts not to be illegal in Massachusetts, in line with the 1976 Commonwealth vs. Richards standard.

[GuyClinch]

Meh. So Crowley should have charged him with obstruction instead. I am still happy a twit like Gates got what he deserved. Cops are people too and should have the right to conduct their job with a modicum of civility.

Poor guy - teaches a class on diversity and such and this is the treatment he gets. And then the president acts stupidly and stick up for Gates simply because Gates is black. This is precisely what most people don't like about universitys. They proclaim tolerance and justice but act out on bias and are incredibly intolerant. This is a classic example of that..

[AlCelticFan]

"Most people" don't like universities? I think that's a stretch.

But I do think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.

[GuyClinch]

"Most people" don't like universities? I think that's a stretch.

Well clearly you didn't attend one. What most people don't like ABOUT universities <g>. Reading Comprehension for the loss. You can love a university but hate the PC dimwit professors that have the racial narrative stuck in their head. You know the people who everytime they deal with anything negative its "racism."

[Bill Lumbergh]

Meh. So Crowley should have charged him with obstruction instead. I am still happy a twit like Gates got what he deserved. Cops are people too and should have the right to conduct their job with a modicum of civility.

Poor guy - teaches a class on diversity and such and this is the treatment he gets. And then the president acts stupidly and stick up for Gates simply because Gates is black. This is precisely what most people don't like about universitys. They proclaim tolerance and justice but act out on bias and are incredibly intolerant. This is a classic example of that..

Completely agree.

[Fencer reregistered]

Perhaps its the law that needs to be looked at but the officer was not wrong for arresting Professor Gates at least according to the police reports.

To repeat, he WAS wrong to arrest Gates. More specifically, his report contained no details of illegal actions that Gates supposedly took.

[Fencer reregistered]

They should have let the court decide this issue. If there wasn't enough probable cause then the court would drop the charges. This is not racial profiling whether the arrest was warranted or not warranted is the real question not racial profiling.

If charges won't hold up in court, you should drop them as soon as you realize that. That's what happened.

[Fencer reregistered]

This is precisely what most people don't like about universitys.

It's appropriate that you made a grade school spelling error while typing that stupid sentence.

[Spin Move]

This is not just about race, this is about what is right and what is wrong, the officer if Gates showed his ID was wrong to arrest him. I hate to tell you this but everyday thousands of police officers break the law. You are not a victim of thier abuse so you do not complain most of the time, I have spent time on both sides of criminal law and I have seen it happen. One of my favorite quotes that I use in my motions is this: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandies dissenting opinion Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

Mr. Gates could not arrest the officer, and Mr. Gates committed no crime, If Mr Gates had placed handcuffs on the officer for being rude and forced him to go somewhere he would be charged with kidnapping and spending 20 years in prison. The fact that Mr. Gates liberty was denied without him committing a crime even for a brief period of time is a big deal. The idea that its ok for an officer to arrest someone when they have committed no crime because they are annoying is a problem, people who thought this could happen to them would not accept that, its only those that feel secure that it would never happen to them that could believe so. One of our founding fathers Thomas Paine said "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Regardless of the racial component of this, the fact that an officer arrested someone who did not commit a crime is a big deal, lets not lose that point. Sometimes tyranny is colorblind that makes it no less dangerous.

[x34truth34x]

Kudos to Obama for admitting his mistake and behaving in a conciliatory way last night.

Honestly, you Obama fanboys are disgusting. He admitted no mistake and was hardly "concilatory". Everybody I know, and I mean EVERYBODY thinks Obama is a jackass over this and they're right. I am so glad I don't live in New England with you whack-job far lefters.

To everyone defending Gates, it is my personal hope and wish that the police DO NOT respond when you call them in a time of need. And if they do, and follow proper procedure and you start raving like a lunatic, I hope they beat the stupid out of you.

Some of us believe the Constitution should be obeyed.


I'm sorry there are people like you who believe otherwise.

You and your friends probably supported our torture of foreign captives as well.[/quote]

Puhhhhlease. Get over yourself. You must have a raging guilt complex. Indoctrinated in a university would be my guess.[/quote]


Hahaha this must be a joke you can't be serious. What is with you all and your hatred of.................... institutions of higher learning!!!!!!!!!!! Places where facts and hard evidence win out over conjecture! Where almost every medium of study uses the scientific method or the socratic method!!!!

Your talk about "indoctrination" is hilarious man. You seem to not understand academia at all, do you understand that anyone's work on a subject is rigorously attacked by his or her colleagues? But they must be wrong man, you're right. You're comparing your world view which has gone virtually unchallenged your entire life with nothing to challenge it. However this "indoctrination" of students is given out by people who have spent their entire adult lives studying their subjects and having their work scrutinized by their peers.

For instance i'm looking at grad schools right now, in my program a minimum of 5-6 years of study is required to earn my master's and phd concurrently (more likely 7-8). Can you imagine studying something for that long and somehow being uninformed? Can you imagine panels of experts on the subject reviewing your work for eight years and making you one of their colleagues with you not knowing what you're talking about.

Your views on the subject seem to be that of a petite bourgeois who is somehow arrogant enough to think they are more learned on a nuanced subject like this than people who have spent their adult lives learning and practicing this. (Your allegations that the police were correct when spin move; a criminal attorney, has clearly stated this is wrong. You all seem to have some underlying hatred of higher education and strangely enough a hatred for those lower than yourselves if the political topics on this forum show anything. You all have decried labor unions, obama for being "socialist" (which coming from a socialist is hilarious), and pretend racism no longer exists in Boston (hint it's still a huge problem).

[GuyClinch]

To repeat, he WAS wrong to arrest Gates. More specifically, his report contained no details of illegal actions that Gates supposedly took.

It was a PoP arrest. Or what the calling pissing off the police. its the best the cops can do with people who are uncooperative and boorish like Gates. Lets not get carried away and act like this fairly mundane action if some great attack of civil liberties. It happens all the time. You go and verbally assault a cop - and it will happen again to you. If the guy was just civil and let the cop perform his job this never would have happened.

Is it officially legal according to the state of MA? I don't know. Most of the time they drop these cases anyway as the intent isn't really to prosecute but just to give the guy a bit of trouble for troubling the cop.

As the statute is written though it seems in line despite what the ACLU whines about it..Either way I don't feel bad for Gates because there is a kind of justice that goes beyond the 'statutes' if your going to be an a-hole expect people to treat you like one no matter how much "higher education" you have.

The law is flexible. If the legislature wanted to take this 'option' away from the cops they could by passing new laws which make it incredibly clear and have harsh penalties for this typical PoP arrest. Truth is they likely want to leave cops some recourse to deal with a-holes.

Pete

[exculpatory]

I have skimmed through all of the posts above, and find it quite fascinating to see where fellow Cs fans position themselves on this unfortunate event. I happen to be an academic and a professor. I am also a social liberal in many respects, but hard to the right with regard to respect for law enforcement and the protection of America from the radical slime who want to hurt and kill Americans. My totally "non-legal" opinion on what transpired is as follows: 1) The cop (and his backups - including a policeman of color) did what he was supposed to do, i.e. he responded to a 911 call about a potential burglary by 2 men to ensure that everyone was safe; 2) After it was established that a robbery was not in progress, and the Professor showed proper ID, the cop should have left; 3) However, it also seems to be clear that the Professor, in spite of a multitude of warnings, pretentiously berated and insulted the cop needlessly. This may or may not have been against the law, but, in my opinion, you have to have a screw loose if you continually badmouth a cop (after being warned not to do so). The Professor asked for trouble and he got it. The Professor should have taken down the cop's name and badge number, reported his concerns to the proper authorities after the fact, shut the door and gone to bed. The President should never have inserted himself into this mess before knowing all the facts.

[ryaningf]

Yeah, it's sure been fascinating to see the varied opinions of Cs fans. My own little opinion is as follows:

Yes, Crowley acted stupidly in arresting Gates--and the Cambridge police department agrees, since the charges were dropped. Technically, Obama's pronouncement was correct.

Politically, Obama's pronouncement was unfortunate to say the least, giving this story more legs than it deserved and giving his enemies more things to distract the American public with... Pragmatically, it was a bad move...

I'm not even going to discuss the 'facts' in this case--let's just say that a certain portion of the public is going to believe the police about 100% of the time and a certain portion of the public is going to believe the accused 100% of the time. The fact is, we don't know what happened and it's pointless to argue from each party's version of the facts. So I won't do that.

I respect the Police as an institution and as a necessity of modern life, but on an interpersonal level, they're just like any other people--some are smart, hardworking, and have good integrity and character, and some are lazy, stupid, power-hungry a-holes with guns--and therefore my respect varies depending on the tenor of my interaction. I've been helped by some great heroic cops and I've also been disserviced by some lazy moronic cops too. Therefore, I'm not going to automatically defend the police in this situation, even if the officer is decorated. Regardless of the specific circumstances (which we'll never really know), the conclusion is rather straightforward--middle-aged man is cuffed and arrested outside his own home for bogus charge of disorderly conduct. That's bad police work NO MATTER the circumstances involved.

There's also a question of Gates behavior and whether he deserved to be wrongly arrested because he was acting pretentious. First of all, you never 'deserve' to be wrongly arrested. That's BS. Second of all, no matter the personal feelings involved, no police officer should ever arrest people for spite or because they were angered--that's unprofessional and illegal. This is where Crowley acted stupidly. As a police officer, it's his duty to stand above the fray and not let his personal feelings influence his actions--he's acting not as Mr. Crowley but as Officer Crowley, representative of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He just can't go around arresting people who piss him off--following the law is HIS biggest priority, it is the ultimate essence of his existence as a police officer, and there are no circumstances that warrant the misapplication of the law. This is about respect for Officer Crowley or the police in general--it's about respect for the law.

There is also an undercurrent of white privilege throughout this thread that ought to be recognized. White privilege is a loaded subject but basically refers to the situation where a white person judges everything according to their experience, which they assume to be universal. As such, the white privilege viewpoint thinks, for example, that success comes from hard work and dedication and that the lack of success means that somebody either didn't work hard enough or wasn't dedicated enough to their goals. White privilege, in this situation, assumes that everything else is equal--that the non-successful person went to the same good schools, had the same stable home life, ate the same good food and received same good health care that they--the successful person--also had access to. Thus the person with the white privilege viewpoint assumes all things as being equal and concludes that a person's lack of success is attributed to some defect of character.

White privilege, then, is when white people ignore the role that race and socio-economic factors have in shaping people lives and perceptions and ultimately their chances at success. White privilege as it relates to the case at hand basically cannot understand why anyone would possibly challenge a cop in any way and thus concludes that any one that does challenge a cop deserved to be arrested for acting stupidly. The problem is, that conclusion completely ignores Professor Gates' personal history, and the role race has played in his life. Yeah, it's easy for a white man to laugh off the police's assumption that he was breaking into a house he actually owned--it's not so easy for a black man to do the same thing because similarly incorrect assumptions have been attributed to him and his race for as long as he's lived. White privilege cannot fundamentally understand the black man's plight. So, to all y'all people who think Gates' behavior somehow justified Crowley's actions, I'd ask you to think long and hard about what it was like to be Gates in that situation--and then see if maybe you can understand his behavior and outrage. Gates doesn't have a 'screw loose' and he's not 'stupid'--he's just a black man in America and to understand him one needs to drop all of one's assumptions...

[GuyClinch]

There's also a question of Gates behavior and whether he deserved to be wrongly arrested because he was acting pretentious. First of all, you never 'deserve' to be wrongly arrested. That's BS. Second of all, no matter the personal feelings involved, no police officer should ever arrest people for spite or because they were angered--that's unprofessional and illegal.

Sure the unofficial reason why he was arrested was likely that he was pissed off. But swearing and cursing at a policeman is good enough to fit under the statute.

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

That's the relevant law there - and as you can imagine it gives cops tons of leeway to arrest all kinds of people. Most states have laws like this. The fact that it won't hold up in court is irrelevant doesn't make it a wrongful arrest or false imprisionment. Don't try making Crowley seem like Mackey from the shield. He didn't just go pull over and round him up. <g>

Pete