Posted on 07/30/2009 6:36:55 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
The now-infamous Gates story has gone through the familiar media spin-cycle: incident, reaction, response, so on and so forth. Drowned out of this echo chamber has been an all-too-important (and legally controlling) aspect: the imbroglio between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley has more to do with the limits (or breadth) of the First Amendment than with race and social class. The issue is not how nasty the discourse between the two might have been, but whether what Professor Gates said--assuming, for argument's sake, the officer's version of events as fact--could by any stretch of both law and imagination constitute a ground for arrest for "disorderly conduct" (the charge leveled) or any other crime. Whether those same words could be censored on a college campus is a somewhat different--though related--question.
First, a quick recap. Gates returned to his Cambridge residence from an overseas trip to find his door stuck shut. With his taxi driver's assistance, he forced the door open. Shortly thereafter, a police officer arrived at the home, adjacent to the Harvard University campus--in my own neighborhood, actually--responding to a reported possible burglary.
Upon arrival, the officer found Gates in his home. He asked Gates to step outside. The professor initially refused, but later opened his door to speak with the officer. Words--the precise nature of which remains in dispute--were exchanged. Gates was arrested for exhibiting "loud and tumultuous behavior." The police report, however, in Sgt. Crowley's own words, indicates that Gates' alleged tirade consisted of nothing more than harshly worded accusations hurled at the officer for being a racist. The charges were later dropped when the district attorney took charge of the case.
It is not yet entirely clear whether there was a racial element to the initial
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Why would you assume that someone who took the time to review the facts of this case and concludes that police have the right to investigate burglaries would also have to believe that police have the right to taser old ladies? One is okay, and the other is not.
That is absolute bull. Crowley never even slightly implies that he was afraid of any unruly behavior from the onlookers. In fact, he explicitly says that police and citizens alike appeared "surprised and alarmed" at Gates' words.
You could use the same claim to shut down criticism of ANY gov't official.
Gates just had a "don't tase me bro" moment.
This is a good point. But if we're going to lay all the facts out here, we should consider a couple of things: (1) Gates doesn't own the home, and (2) I believe Harvard University, which does own the home, does not pay any property taxes on it as a non-profit institution.
If Point (2) is correct, then I think it says a lot about what happened here. Taxpaying citizens probably have far more respect for the people who work for them than do those who don't pay taxes at all.
“Not that I was alive back then”
Well, I was (still remember ole Dan Blather getting knocked on his can) but my observation had more to do with events/terminology on “the strip” than those at the Democratic Convention.
At what point does the officer have a duty to leave a citizen alone once that citizen has made it clear to him that he is not welcome on the citizen's property? And to frame this properly, we're talking when it is clear that no crime has been committed. How long does the policeman get to hang around when he is clearly upsetting and agitating the citizen and it is equally clear there is no pressing need for him to be there?
Why do the police seem to have all the rights here? Does the citizen in his private residence not have any protection against unwarranted intrusion? Does the citizen not get to define what is unwarranted or is that solely the provence of the police? When is a man's castle his?
“...that is if you believe in property rights.”
So, by your statements, I can cuss at anyone that comes on my property (because I have property rights) even if that violates laws that say cussing is illegal (such as in Texas: where you cannot cuss in the presence of minors).
So, by your statements, I can shoot anyone that comes on my property (because I have property rights) so long as I say I felt threatened. I should NOT be arrested while they do the investigation - because I was on my own property - at which point I could run, I could shoot someone else, but because I was on my own property, you are supposed to suspend all OTHER laws?
Your argument is thin. Gates created a disturbance - period. The police officer obviously was not going to calm him down there, so he took him in to help settle things down - something they have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to do - period. But, because he was on his own property, the rest of the rules just don’t count?
With this mentality, we really would be back in the old west with people shooting each other over the placement of fence lines!
I see this argument made from time to time. Perhaps it’s my lack of understanding as you say, but if you think your concept is a good idea, I would urge you to look at places like Somalia and how gangs have been elevated and warlords rule the day.
It would take about ten minutes before our cities would devolve into total anarchy.
You seem to entirely leave out the option of Gates calming down and conversing rationally. In fact, you seem to imply that in some insidious fashion, Crowly robbed Gates of the capacity for calm and rational dialog.
Just..wow. He should perhaps found his own lucrative cult religion if he has the abilities your post would require he have to be valid.
“It seems likely to me that Crowley asked Gates to come outside specifically so that a disorderly conduct charge could be plausible. Why else ask him to come outside?”
Lousy reception on his radio? Echoing from the bullying, racist ahole that was screaming so loud it could be heard across the street? Who knows? What are you a mind reader?
I understand this point but if we go there then the person who is merely renting and people in Gates' position with his home don't get the same respect for their privacy as a private home owner. I think the idea is not so much to protect the property owner as it is to respect a person's privacy. I think a rented apartment should be viewed with the same respect as a privately owned home (provided no conflict with the property's actual owner is in play). In practice, this is Gates' home and I would imagine he feels like he has a right to expect a certain amount of privacy even though it is a university provided pad.
But screaming over their burglary investigation radio report to their superiors is.
"As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me.
He replied, "No, I will not."
Crowley asked Gates to step outside twice. Once when he (Crowley) arrived at the home & later, after Gates became confrontational inside the home.
Unless you assume that Crowley had planned on arresting Gates at the outset, the request to "step outside" has nothing to do with creating circumstances which would allow for an arrest.
It was Gates' demeanor, once outside the home, that led to his arrest. Not the request that he "step outside".
re: At what point does the officer have a duty to leave a citizen alone once that citizen has made it clear to him that he is not welcome on the citizen’s property?
At the point the officer in this case left the house. He did not stay around and insist he be allowed to check the house, he was perfectly within his rights to do so since the report was there were TWO suspects. Where is the other guy now?
Gates exercised his rights when he refused to step outside in response to a lawful request from the officer and then used even more of them when he insulted the officer. And just for good measure he drew down even more of this stored up rights by following the officer out the door and cursing at him and further insulting him. He was using his rights when the officer advised him he was in danger of being arrested if he didn’t calm down.
Seems to me Gates had a full portion of his rights and chose to piss them away for whatever reason.
Again, Gates refused to let the officer leave the premises without further confrontation.
Gates was perfectly within his rights to accompany the officer outside. He was given those rights, there is no question about that.
It’s hardly unwarranted intrusion when a 911 caller reports what appears to be forced entry into a house. The officer handled this the same way he’s probably handled hundreds of other identical dispatches over the years. Why didn’t those end like this one if he’s the problem. Because he’s not the problem. Others who have been confronted by an officer who is checking on their safety and sanctity of their property have responded differently.
Exactly what rights of Gates do you feel were violated?
You keep saying that YouTube is filled with examples of this type of situation. You CANNOT make that statement. You do not know why those other arrests were made.
Understand that if you accidentally bump into a police officer while they are conducting their jobs, you can be arrested for assault and interfering with a police officer! If you do this while acting like a true A$$HAT, then you are more likely to be arrested simply to get you out of the way and out of the picture to allow the police to complete their jobs.
What part of this are you missing? I know, I know, he was on his own property. You do NOT have the right to create a scene that could become hostile even if you are on your own property.
With you logic, the saying, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater.” would be, “You cannot yell, ‘Fire!’, in a crowded theater, unless you own the property.”
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Crowley left the house when Gates was being too loud for him to hear the radio. He did NOT arrest him at that point or for that reason.
A cop responds to a possible B&E. The owner of the resident, decides to turn the incident into a racial publicity stunt taunting the police and trying to get himself arrested. He got his wish.
Gates has made an entire career out of being a race hustler.
You're right - Gates has made an entire career out of being a victim - it's his meal ticket. Gates had a dog in this fight...
What you are effectively saying is that the liberties of a free citizenry are completely incompatible with an urban existence. I won't argue with you on that one, but that goes back to whether a constitutional argument has any place in the discussion about the Gates incident at all.
“I’ll line up and take my flaming for this one. I know as a citizen I’m supposed to start saying ‘yassa boss’ as soon as the police tell me to do something but I don’t play to that tune.”
And you see no difference between “yassa boss” and being civil? The whole thing didn’t need to happen. And wouldn’t have, if it was civil. But you have a right to remain the man you are...and so does the cop, who sounds like the same type. And there you are...
“Insulting cops in your own house is NOT disorderly conduct.”
Correct, but screaming and disturbing the peace OUTSIDE of your house IS disorderly conduct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.