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 ...
And when does it stop being a suspected crime scene? Seriously. By the policeman's own admission he was already finished and was on his way out of the house. Therefore he was no longer investigating a crime. He had not been investigating a crime from the moment he ascertained that Gates was the legal resident.
He wasn’t on someone elses property,
Yes. He was. And that somebody has rights. And they don't stop having rights just because Johnny Law shows up at the door.
About as often as they face an arrestee-incited riot. Your pro-government worker standard for overriding First Amendment rights is too low. Disorderly speech is not disorderly conduct. This was a false arrest.
I know the vision of the Montana lifestyle is idyllic, but Montana does have police officers in it’s cities.
As for crime in the rural setting, it isn’t non-existent. I grew up on a farm in the 50s. Just down the road from us a man went postal and killed his family and then turned the gun on himself. His closest neighbor was miles away. He lived at least five miles from the closest town. There are property disputes and other things that crop up. You just don’t see the numbers because there aren’t the numbers. The rural population is sparse.
That being said, I think this nation could benefit significantly from disbursing the population away from the current population centers. It would spur self reliance. It would stop the problem of small town depopulation. It could spur a much better lifestyle for many people from the inner cities.
I know the loony left wilderness freaks would go postal, but so what.
It’s certainly an idea worth developing.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that my comments imply that the liberties of a free citizenry are completely incompatible with an urban existence. Don’t people who live in urban areas deserve to be free from the effects of crime? I would state that my comments advance the theory that ‘criminals’ should not be allowed to do whatever they please. I still believe there is a real benefit to reducing the concentration of people in such small areas.
As for a constitutional argument, there is one to be made, but I’m not convinced the argument to allow citizens to berate an officer trying to do his job, is ever going to be a successful one.
The problem is, the public doesn’t always understand the reasons why officers employ certain tactics. When this officer asked Gates to exit his home, it was for his own safety. It also provided Gates with a degree of safety in that anything that transpired would be visible to the public.
Gates got so angry that ‘he’ was being challenged, that he went postal. I still think we could learn a lot from the police recording from the officer’s open mic.
“He wasn’t on someone elses property,...And that somebody has rights. And they don’t stop having rights just because Johnny Law shows up at the door.”
No. He wasn’t. He was at a crime scene. That makes it his right to be there. and it stops being one when he says it does. And property rights do not extend to disturbing the peace. And that, fortunately for us all, is the law.
Who will you call when you can’t hire policemen at any price?
Who will you get to fill the ranks, when people with honesty and respect all refuse to work in an ever increasing hostile environment?
Obama’s army of civil servants I’m sure would be happy to fill the role.
“And they don’t stop having rights just because Johnny Law shows up at the door.”
INCORRECT! When a crime is reported, your rights (even on your own property) are quickly set aside for the safety of the responding officer.
You have a right to a gun and a right to protect your house - on this we agree, right? Now, have a break-in at your house and pick up your gun and see if the minute the police arrive you are not ordered to put the gun down!
Granted, you do not have to listen to the police, I mean, that is your RIGHT - but if you get shot, it is NOT the police’s fault. It is the criminal that started the situation and YOU for failing to comply!!
Let’s forget the Bill of Rights for a second and realize that this Haaaarvaaaaad educated idiot failed to use the bill of rights given to him by God Almighty - COMMON SENSE!
I have to go. I am expected somewhere for a few hours. I shall rejoin this thread later.
I would like to point out to all the lurkers out there- I think Gates is an ignorant racist. He is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me ideologically, I am pretty certain. It makes me sick to my stomach that he pulled the race card on the policeman and is still waving it about in a most shameful way.
And it is very unfortunate that the president has decided to come down on his side.
But as repellent as I find the man, I don’t think the police should have arrested him. I wish it were a situation where everybody in this scenario was Republican, NRA member and all the same colour, that the president was Republican as well and had never stuck his nose in it. Then we could argue this thing without any other issues entering into it. It is difficult to take Gates’ side here because it puts me at odds with many of my fellow conservatives and freepers.
But I honestly feel the man was within his rights and as distasteful as it is to defend him- particularly now that Obama has stuck his nose in- defend his position I must. I wouldn’t want the police harrassing me on my own property and then using ‘disturbing the peace’ or ‘disorderly conduct’ to arrest me when I had never done anything wrong in the first place. I think ‘Get off my property’ is a quintessentially American phrase.
If I were the cop I would have left the house secretly hoping there was an armed intruder upstairs.
Something kind of similar to this happened in New York City years ago. The cop on the scene ended up having a civilian complaint filed against him, but he was exonerated because he had been smart enough to have the "victim" sign a statement in the cop's notebook basically ordering the cop to act against his better judgement.
Right. So your point is that the police should have the power to arrest an unarmed and agitated old man in his own home when they outnumber him 5 to 1 on the basis that a hypothetical future danger may arise if some unknown person should happen along who may or may not be incited to cause harm to the police by witnessing the agitation of the old man.
What should we call this new “crime”?
True, I am.
and no matter what, the police/gov’t were wrong - probably always are in your mind.
Not true. But definitely in this case.
If you play your music (on your own property I might add) so loud that it creates a confrontation between you and your neighbors, YOU are disturbing the peace and can be arrested. If the police arrive (TWICE) and tell you to turn the music down or you will be arrested, and you do not - one should expect to be ARRESTED - hey even if you are on you own property! How is this different than from the scene that Mr. Gates was creating?
The biggest and most obvious difference is that Gates's outburst was caused by the police presence in the first place. There was no reasonable expectation that he would continue yelling at thin air once they left. And I am unaware of any neighbor complaints about Gates yelling.
” Conduct is conduct. Speech is speech,”
Um, conduct includes speech.
“Right. So your point is that the police should have the power to arrest an unarmed and agitated old man in his own home when they outnumber him 5 to 1 on the basis that a hypothetical future danger may arise if some unknown person should happen along who may or may not be incited to cause harm to the police by witnessing the agitation of the old man.”
When did I say that?
” Conduct is conduct. Speech is speech,”
Um, conduct includes speech.
“What should we call this new “crime”?”
It is called “Disturbing the peace” in some stated and “Disorderly Conduct” in others.
followed by a nice piece of cement pie
stated = states.
atlaw seems to think he was still in his house...and not disturbing the peace...
Harvey Silverglate can not get the timeline
and events correct before pontificating.anarchist ?
I think the author’s approach of basing much of his analysis of the issue on constitutional grounds is faulty.
Before we ever get to the Constitution we should look at the law. After the law then the governing State Constitution and possibly the Federal Constitution.
However, prior to that entire legal analysis, most of us want to begin analysis of conduct based upon common sense, civility, commom manners in public conduct and other issues of ethics and morality.
We have an officer of the law and public safety operating within that capacity and by a set of rules related to that conduct.
We then also have a resident acting in a capacity outside that of a normal home owner. He chose instead to act in his capacity and persona as a racial ethicist, professor and possibly an agitator.
There is no way for the officer to know that Gates was improperly operating outside his role of a normal courteous resident and make adjustments for it. He wasn’t encountering Gates during a lecture or public appearance where he could make reasonable adjustments for how to deal with him as an activist of whatever validity. He was instead encountering him in the capacity of a person at the scene of a possible crime.
This attitude of thinking of everything in terms of constitutional rights, or rights in general, first, leads only to a battle of rights when convention, common sense, civility, common law and statute law should all be called upon in thinking, conduct and analysis, and called upon in that proper order first, before the rules of laws governing conduct ever get analyzed in light of the State or Federal Constitution.
Leftists in favor of revolutionalry change to collectivism love for all issues to be reduced to issues of a battle of rights. As T. Sowell points out, this preference is because they know that in that battle, when it is conducted in the public perception, they can always win by pitting rights held by many against rights held by a lone individual. They can get emotion, empathy, nebulous concepts of fairness and history all to play a part in the debate. In doing so they are able to skip past all issues of convention, morality, commonsense, accepted standards of public conduct, common law and local law and leave everything to a leftist centralizing list of priorities.
Excellent post.
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.