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 ...
You are correct. When I lived in Cambridge, there was a shopping mall (a nice one) that I stopped going to because there was a heavy gang presence and there were occasional shootings. It is false to think of Cambridge as some sort of lush gated community for eggheads.
You’re right, but I believe Gates’ status as an “occupant” rather than an “owner” is germane to this discussion in one key respect: I think he never would have gotten into a heated confrontation with the police officer if he owned the home himself.
No argument is more popular, on both the left and right, with those who restrict free speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes used it as ane excuse after WWI to justify a terrible violation of the first amendment. This popular catch phrase also obscures reality. The person who is shouting fire in a crowded theater is guilty of violating the property rights of the owner and the contractual rights of those attending the show. That particular example has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with property and contract rights. Gates had a right to free speech on in his own home!!! If he doesn't have that right, we might as well have a bonfire with the bill of rights.
If no cops had been there issuing "orders" and Gates had simply gone outside to his front stoop and yelled (about whatever) at the same volume and for the same length of time, do you think ANYBODY could reasonably regard that as a crime?
Here’s the police report. Read the second paragraph of page 2.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
parsy.
"Could become"? That's pretty squishy, but I'd say Gates was already hostile. But there was no reason to think that the situation was going to become violent or otherwise criminal, particularly if the LEOs left.
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.”
A better analogy would be the theater owner yelling, "this movie sucks and the director is a Nazi!."
“Disorderly conduct is now a Constitutional right. Apparently.”
Well, if the government gets to define “disorderly” then it can define ANY speech against the government as disorderly or causing disorder. So much for the first.
To be consistent then, because cops routinely get shot at, the Second Amendment should only apply to peaceful hunters, with a temporary government permit of course.
MrEdd replied:
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.
marktwain replies:
Certainly it would have been better for Professor Gates to act calmly. I was not there, but police do arrange situations so that they can use their authority to advantage. That may have happened in this case.
You know, kinda like there's a First Amendment right to create and distribute kiddie porn but not to criticize the President (if he's a Democrat)?
And this link will explain why the cop had to maneuver Gates (the idiot) outside so that he could arrest him.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/arrest-warrant.html
parsy.
Once he found out Gates' was the person who lived there, there was no longer any suspects because no crime was in progress. I don't think a policeman has a right to check your house once that determination has been made. Not without a warrant anyway. No crime = no suspects = no reason for the police to be there.
He was using his rights when the officer advised him he was in danger of being arrested if he didn’t calm down.
The way I see it, the officer is admitting he (the officer) is fully aware that he is agitating Gates and he should have just left. Why must the citizen back down? I mean the police no longer have a right to be there because no crime is being committed. Why must the citizen back down on his own property? The police are going to have to leave pretty soon anyway- why not just go before you agitate the man to the point where you feel like you needed to arrest him? Why not defuse the situation by removing yourself from it? After all, Gates has a perfect right to be where he is- you (the policeman) do not (keeping in mind the policeman knows by this point that no crime has been committed and he is not needed).
Seems to me Gates had a full portion of his rights and chose to piss them away for whatever reason.
You referred earlier as well to Gates' stored up rights (to paraphrase you). I don't believe your rights are like a battery charge- once you use them up they're gone. You don't just use up your 1st or 2nd Ammendment rights by exercising them. If Gates has the right then he has the right.
It’s hardly unwarranted intrusion when a 911 caller reports what appears to be forced entry into a house.
It is once it's been determined that no burglary is taking place. No reason to be there at that point.
Exactly what rights of Gates do you feel were violated?
1st and 4th ammendments. I think Gates has a right to be secure in his own house from unwarranted intrusion and I think he has a right to speak his mind- even at elevated volume- to a government official, most particularly to one he feels like is intruding unduly on his rights as a citizen. Put in plain speak, the right not to be f---ed with by the government when you haven't done anything wrong in the first place.
“If no cops had been there issuing ‘orders’...”
BUT, they WERE there as a part of the JOB to investigate a REPORTED possible burglary. Do not try to use hypothetical situations here; they are going to bite YOU, not me. We are not dealing with a hypothetical situation, we are dealing with reality. And the reality is Mr. Gates did create a disturbance and was arrested for doing so.
“...yelled (about whatever) at the same volume and for the same length of time, do you think ANYBODY could reasonably regard that as a crime?”
If it disturbed the peace and caused a crowd - YES, it could be regarded as a crime.
jessduntno replied:
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?
marktwain replies:
I am not a mindreader. Police know the rules, and how to tweak the system to their advantage. They do not like being insulted and yelled at, and they understand that they need to use the system to their advantage if they are to retaliate.
Posting HTML
Well, I can't comment on that.
Not on my property he don't.
You posted;
“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?”
I responded;
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?
Do you have an answer to that? Are the possibilities that I propose (and that Crowley reports in his statement) so completely out of the question? I am not trying to persuade you to support the guy, but why do you jump to the conclusion he was not being truthful?
That is simply not true. If a police officer responds to the scene of a possible break-in and finds a person in the house that lives there, he/she would be remiss if they didn't also verify that the person who is rightfully in the home is actually the person who was observed breaking in.
If the police had left and Gates was attacked shortly thereafter by an intruder who had already been hiding in the house when the police arrived, we'd never hear the end of it . . . and that professional malcontent Looie Gates would be making a racial issue out of the lack of proper diligence by the white police officers who came to the house.
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.