the picture is here; I suggest you look at it. Who are you going to believe, Gates or your own eyes? Why do you think his mouth is open so wide and why do you think the LEO in the forground sided with Crowley?
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 ...
I forgot to mention that he also needs to say, “No, I wasn’t shooting at anyone.” I mean, the police did their investigation so they can leave - we wouldn’t want them to hang around and possible “escalate” the situation.
This is just stupid that we are even having this conversation. An idiot, too full of himself, causes a scene, acts unruly and disturbs the peace which finally gets him arrested and we are arguing about his 1st Amendment rights!?!?! How about the police officer’s rights to ensure he was safe? Everyone says that the investigation was over when he asked Gates outside - that is NOT the case. The officer said he would continue talking outside; he never said, this is over I am leaving. He needed to ensure that Gates was not a hostage in his own home. He needed to take the conversation outside so he could hear the radio. He needed to (God forbid with these posters) “control” the situation.
We should have a thread about how the people of Cambridge should feel safer knowing that the police department quickly and professionally responded to a 911 call! THAT is the ONLY conversation that should be happening concerning this entire situation.
Heaven forbid anyone actually READ the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Instructions for charging Disorderly Conduct.
For those who might be interested, it’s here:
“Sounds like a fishing expedition.”
When a person does not act as one would “usually” act in a particular situation, the police are TRAINED to investigate! Imagine, if you act like a criminal, police have a tendency to treat you like a criminal - weird!
Since I belief just about everyone agrees that Mr. Gates was acting like an A$$HAT in a situation where most people would act cordial and cooperative, the police officer stayed around. No one was “fishing” they were doing what they were trained to do - ensure the entire situation was under control.
Thanks.
>>Um, conduct includes speech.<<
It can, but not always. If I quietly raise a blade and cut a mans head off yet say nothing, there is no “speech”.
Gates problem was not what he said, it was the accompanying conduct and the way it was said that got him into trouble. Belligerence is never a good way to do things. Especially with folks with nightclubs and guns, and the authority to use them. In those cases it is best to apply the implications of the “other side” of the ol’ “Barking dogs never bite” axiom.
Yes, and he was right to do so! It is good to be polite but one of the key reasons that it is not a good idea to argue is that the cop has total power and it is best not to get him mad. For the same reason, I kiss ass when the IRS comes around to audit my taxes because they have arbitrary power to punish me even more if I get too uppity. Is that a good thing? I thought that Americans were independent and were free to assert their constitutional rights against authority. It seems that we have adopted the European model that citizens should always should always sshow "deference" to their betters.
This is not “good sense” on the arrest, although it may be a valid critique on the constitutionality of the law enforced by SGT Crowley. A police officer cannot single-handedly determine that a given law is unconstitutional, especially when that same law has been judicially enforced numerous times before.
This “analysis” does nothing more than give cover to the racist in the incident on the Porch - being the named individual who does not wear a police uniform.
The audio of the police communication is here, I suggest listening to it.
I can - at times - catch the sound of someone in the background speaking loudly, but it does not sound to me as anything that could be described as screaming. Listen at 2:16, 2:45.
Gates sounds like he was being a jerk, but that's not illegal. I know police officers have a difficult job and deserve our respect, but I don't approve of "contempt of cop" arrests. And that's what this looks like with the information I have now. Not at all racist, that's garbage, but a "contempt" arrest.
Yes, free speech lets you call a cop names. BUTT if you don't cooperate with them,
you might find out why Jail is called the SLAMMER.
First: defendant engaged in tumultuous behavior - CHECK.
Second: defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public - CHECK.
Third: defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm - CHECK.
Seems to me like he was arrested because, I don’t know - HE WAS ACTING AGAINST THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT LAW!
(Can someone show me, where it reads, “If you are on your own property, this law does not apply to you!” - I missed that paragraph.)
the picture is here; I suggest you look at it. Who are you going to believe, Gates or your own eyes? Why do you think his mouth is open so wide and why do you think the LEO in the forground sided with Crowley?
One of the elements the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were reasonably likely to affect the public & cause a public inconvenience.
"Public" as defined by the Instruction 7.160:
"For the defendant to be found guilty, his (her) actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public, that is, persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access."
I s'pose that lying on your bed, muttering into your pillow, "This is what happens to a Black/White Man/Woman in America", then privacy or property rights come into play.
But looks like your front porch which is 15' from a public way in Cambridge doesn't cut it.
CC: rolling_stone, Republic, piytar
This wasn’t Harlem, or East L.A. It was Cambridge, where the intellectual elite have deigned to live. Not likely to have a race riot amongst that crowd of eggheads.
I appreciate and understand your response. I would posit, however, that there is no such thing as local anymore, and that all things said and done in this case were for national consumption. Gates was unexpectedly presented with an opportunity, handed to him, as it were, on a silver platter. But opportunity, as it is said, is 90% preparation. Gates was, as ever, on the lookout and prepared, and when opportunity presented itself he shaped and packaged it for national consumption. The crowded theatre of which I speak was not merely Cambridge, but every dry tinderbox of poverty sizzling in the hot July sun.
“One of the elements the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public & cause a public inconvenience.”
Be careful not to just “cherry pick” words. Included, with “inconvenience” were also “annoyance” and “alarm.” Yelling so loud as to have caused a crowd (as was noted in the report), I believe, would be an “annoyance” and just as important, Mr. Gates’ accusations of police racism would definitely cause “alarm” especially with the liberal leaning crowds that live in the Cambridge area.
Even MORE importantly, one must realize that it is NOT the job of the police to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” any arrest. Their jobs are to keep the peace and enforce the law. Officer Crowley, IMO, was doing his job as any one of the other officers on the site has stated, they too would have done.
And remember, “dropped charges” does not always mean that it was an unlawful arrest. It could mean the prosecution decided that even though a law was broken, they cannot “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that it was broken.
“Officer Crowley, IMO, was doing his job as any one of the other officers on the site has stated, they too would have done.”
I apologize for this badly worded sentence, but I think you get the picture.
Look at Crowley in Post 232...you can see him saying calm down (hand gesture inclusive) while that little nutcase was screaming his head off...
“Gates problem was not what he said, it was the accompanying conduct and the way it was said that got him into trouble. Belligerence is never a good way to do things. Especially with folks with nightclubs and guns, and the authority to use them. In those cases it is best to apply the implications of the “other side” of the ol’ “Barking dogs never bite” axiom.”
What specific act of his conduct was illegal? Be careful what you respond as no charges were filed.
If we need to be afraid of those government employees, civil servants, with guns and nightsticks, it is high time we immediately abolish that government force. Living is fear of government force has gotten completely out of control.
It is about publicly displayed belligerence. When a person is responding in an unreasonably manner in public, bad things can happen. Gate’s response to these guys was idiotic. Sorry, it just was. I am not saying HE is an idiot, but what he did in this particular event was idiotic.
We all do idiotic times from time to time. Sometimes it costs us. I’ve read the police report, seen and heard everything that I can find on this and it is pretty darned clear that the cops did a good job and this guy crossed a line.
Pushing the envelope can be dangerous.
Gates’ problem was not what he said but how loud he said it and where.
Had he remained inside instead of following the cop outside, nothing could have been done about the same words at the same sound level. Once outside his loud rant became a disruption of the peace.
Given his reputation Gates should have known that. He obviously knew better than to step outside when the cop asked him to come outside to talk. It appears he worked himself into a fit and forgot that basic rule.
NEVER step outside to talk to a cop. Talk to them while standing inside your door keeping them outside.
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.