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 I understand your last point.
But freedom of political expression, religious expression, etc., is a lot different from being rude to a cop.
I recognize and lament almost daily the bully cop. They are a disgrace to their profession and their community. However, there are very very few cops that you can curse or verbally abuse and walk away.
You certainly can not when the cop is actively participating in his duties.
Do a little experiment.
Next time you see a cop directing traffic at an intersection or at a fire scene, give him the finger and tell him to kiss your @$$.
You do have the right, don’t you?
When he is in his civvies you do, but not when he is working.
Whether you stop exactly where he told you to or turned the way he told you to, you just can not give him the finger.
This is great in theory but if people had the right to just scream abuse at cops at every crime scene there would be little to no police work done. How do you interview witnesses or communicate over the radio with someone shouting at you? Never mind the fact that no one would take the police seriously. I think this type of speech fits under the “screaming fire in a theater” category. We’d like to allow all speech but sometimes it’s not practical.
This guy Crowley wasn't some hack bureaucrat running an academic institution filled with mediocrities. He was a law enforcement officer with a sworn duty to uphold the law, and he was responding to a call about a possible burglary in progress.
I have no idea whether or not Gates should have been arrested in this case, but the "constitutional" arguments put forth by Silvergate are misleading.
Silvergate is a moron.
His whole analysis is wrong.
Cops are government officials too and as big government has grown the dangers of abuse from them have also grown. If you don't believe that the abuse of power by cops is a problem in the U.S., go to youtube and you will see many examples such as the tasing of a 72 year old grandma who was tased for asking too many questions.
The whole situation was over when got arrested. The cop was walking away when Gates followed him to the porch yelling cuss words and threats.
This is THE definition of Disorderly Conduct I would imagine and just like freedom of speech doesn’t cover yelling fire in a crowded theater, I would think it wouldn’t cover being a foul mouthed jerk to a police officer investigating a suspected crime.
His identity had already been established. There was nothing left to investigate. In fact, the policeman should have just left his property at that point. Why invite him outside?
I don't think a person has a special duty to be civil to the police. I don't think a person has a special duty to 'tone down' his behaviour on his own property in the middle of the day in order not to offend the police. The fact is, the police presence was what was inflaming the man- who, it must always be remembered, had done nothing wrong in the first place and was minding his own business at his residence.
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. I know I should respect their power and authority, I have a duty to grovel in their presence- but you know what? I'm just not that kind of man. I guess that makes me a piece of excrement or whatever but I ain't changing. Flame away.
“The cop lured Gates outside because he could not arrest Gates inside the house without a warrant.”
That’s like saying that banks lure robbers by keeping a lot of money on hand.........
Seriously, are you really arguing that Crowley was under some sort of obligation to remain in that house, after his job was completed, just to listen to some racist old man rant and rave like a five year old?
In fact, the law is pretty clear that the State does not have to prove that any specific individual’s peace was disturbed, but only that the defendant’s conduct was such that the “public peace” was disturbed.
IOW, the officer’s observations that: a crowd was gathering and/or traffic was stopping and/or porch lights coming on and/or 911 calls regarding the disturbance were received, etc... is all the evidence needed to prove that a defendant was “acting disorderly to a disturbance of the public peace.”
drunkeness, profanity, etc... are not elements of the crime
Good points, although they gall me no end.
Thanks for a reasoned response!
Have you read the police report?
parsy.
Interesting article and comments at the source. Thanks. Henry Louis Gates Jr., an educator, certainly exhibited a “teachable” moment. Tangentially, it would be interesting to see what Harvey and Henry think about “hate speech”.
If you're looking to make a point on constitutional grounds, I would contend that the real problem here isn't that Gates was arrested, but there is even such a thing as a "law enforcement officer" whose mere existence is an abrogation of the responsibilities of free citizens.
It's no coincidence that there are parts of this country with almost no law-enforcement presence at all -- and they have no crimes, either.
my sentiments exactly!
As soon as Gates followed the officer out of the house (and the officer did not 'lure' him outside to arrest him, he couldn't hear his dispatch in the foyer because of Gates's yelling) and continued to yell and scream, drawing a crowd and attempting to incite the crowd, he was creating a public disturbance.
Do you have any idea how often - perhaps in less toney neighborhoods than Cambridge - an arrestee successfully incites a crowd to attack a police officer? If I were the officer, I would not want to bet my safety on the chance that there weren't any other people in the crowd who happened to have the same attitude as Gates and the inclination to join in.
I spend a lot of time reviewing criminal cases, and drawing a crowd to a police/citizen confrontation often ends very badly. Officer Crowley made the right call, and if this lawyer really knows anything about this area of law, he knows it too, he's just stirring the possum.
Several times...........
The law is due all reasonable respect.
Shouting racist and promoting hatred against a cop in an aggressive and possibly riot-promoting hysterical state is hardly reasonable respect. And, the police ARE the law. And without law, we are Rome. And we all know how well that turned out.
I always thought it was a “hickory massage”...
Also called a hickory shampoo, in refering to unwashed hippies. I first heard it in reference to the riots at the Democratic Convention in the 60s.
Not that I was alive back then, just that I'm a student of history when it comes to hippie beat downs. They give me a warm, fuzzy feeling that says "Everything is gonna be OK in our world after all".
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.