Dispatches from the Culture Wars

1

An interesting way of looking at it.

Posted by: happycetacean | July 25, 2009 11:00 AM

3

Yes, but Ed, the police officer knows lots of black people.

Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 25, 2009 11:16 AM

5

You nailed it, Ed. I am glad that Obama didn't cave outright, but am very disappointed that he hasn't pointed out the obvious, i.e.: no charges, no justification. And it's not like the outcome wasn't already an established point of law.

Ron Reagan read the officer's entire written account on his program yesterday and the officer himself stated that he asked Gates to follow him outside the house and refused to provide his name and badge number inside the house because of the "acoustics in the foyer."

So this exemplary officer further agitates Gates by refusing to ID himself, tells Gates to follow him outside where he knows damn well he can use the "disorderly conduct" pretext to make an unwarranted arrest, and then plays the victim card when he gets called out for creating a situation that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worse harassment of a law-abiding (albeit obnoxious) citizen by the police.

Only in America...

Posted by: Jeff | July 25, 2009 12:00 PM

7

Here's some tone deafness. A Cambridge police officer driving an SUV around town with a personalized license plate reading, "WHY TEE". We shouldn't forget to consider this event with the appropriate context as Ed points out about where this happened.

Most people have concluded that Gates was a total dick (which may not be a fair assessment), and that the cop let his emotions override his professionalism when he arrested Gates rather than walking away. While what the cop did was wrong when he arrested him for disorderly conduct, it's not shocking this is the ocassional outcome given this is a human derived event - a defect in the process that's outrageous only if it's common rather than rare and ignored by those that control the process rather than used as an opportunity to enhance their processes to prevent future occurrences.

The appropriate response by the police, union, and the arresting officer after dismissing the charges was to admit the officer messed up where the officer should have personally apologized to Prof. Gates for arresting him coupled to promises by administrators to reinforce officer training for dealing with obnoxious citizens who are not breaking the law or a threat to anyone (italics to note I would have been public in this back-handed public release announcement, i.e., the inferrence that Gates being a dick contributed to this outcome).

Most Americans are a forgiving lot, if the officer and law enforcement's response had been regret and contrition coupled to a corrective acts to prevent recurences in the Department this would have blown over. Well . . . not; it's a much easier story for the media to sell than the complexity of health care reform. I think this is more of a media event than it is an event where people obsess over it like they are about their jobs, future income, and health care.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2009 12:21 PM

9

Could you be any more of an ignorant ass. Problem is you have never been in this kind of situation. Its very simple, comply with the law and there is no problem, break the law you get arrested. If an officer asks for id, to stop, put the gun down,,,,its not a request. Dont listen and there are consiquences,,, i love the way everyone is an expert but never had experience, i guess i could be a brain surgeon with that theory,,, So sick of this chip on the shoulder shit... Act civilized get treated civilized,,,plain and simple. If he didnt do a thorough investigation and it was a burglar he would have been blamed for not doing his job,,,either way the cops loose. Just think about what would happen if the police start thinking twice and become afraid to take action. It would be a lawless nation. You dont like the rules,,,LEAVE

Posted by: John | July 25, 2009 12:45 PM

11

Well put! The police need to take a good look at their policies instead of acting so hard- headed. Yes, police are only human and do make mistakes, but when they do, they need to own up to it and LEARN from them. You'll never learn if you always think you're right.

Posted by: Karen | July 25, 2009 1:02 PM

13

Stg. Crowley, the CPD and the police union should sue Gates and the POTUS for slander and defamation of character and sue the media for libel. Unfortunate incidents (true or embellished) that happened to other individuals are NOT what this issue is about. It’s about unjustly trashing the reputation of Crowley and the CPD.

Crowley should use the money to do a talk show tour and promote his new book:

“How my life and career were nearly ruined by a race baiting Harvard elitist and the POTUS – his willing accomplice.”

Subtitle:
Their Titanic egos and personal agendas won’t permit the apology we deserve and they are willing to injure law enforcement everywhere and purposely divide America to maintain the arrogant veneer of persona.

Posted by: truthinator | July 25, 2009 1:08 PM

15

I guess this is what I've found missing from all the media coverage of this silly incident, whether it's in print, on TV or in the blogs that I read.

Why has no one else hit on this line of thought? Whatever Prof. Gates said and however foul his language was, unless he threatened the officer verbally or made a threatening gesture toward him, there was nothing there to warrant the arrest. Except the 'contempt of cop'.

And I think this points to a trend in law enforcement that makes police officers think they are somehow exempt from the laws we all are supposed to follow. Just the number of cases lately where video has surfaced after an arrest to completely contradict an officer's testimony is alarming.

I think it's time to expect more from our police officers and to hold them to at least the same standard, if not a higher one, that the everyday citizen is held to. And I think we need to pay them more and train them differently. What police officers need, in order to do the job that we ask them to do, is respect. One of the best ways to earn respect is to respect others and the law they are supposed to uphold. You don't automatically get respect just because you have a badge and a gun.

And President Obama was correct when he said the officer acted 'stupidly'. While Prof. Gates' conduct may have been rude, vile, ill-advised, even racist, there was no disorderly conduct and thus, there should not have been an arrest that the officer KNEW would be dropped within a few hours. The stupid part is that the officer knew the arrest was bogus from the start, and he had to know the person he was dealing with probably had better access to a public forum and would be likely to use it. The officer didn't respect the situation. Instead, he acted stupidly.

T. Hunt

Posted by: T. Hunt | July 25, 2009 1:10 PM

17

Gates' greatest fault was to act like a white person, and demand the pig's name and badge #. Once he did that, the pig had to arrest him, on any spurious trumped-up charge he could manage.

Gates' first fault, though, was to be a black person in a "white person house," in a "white person town."

Posted by: Woody | July 25, 2009 1:59 PM

19

I got popped a couple of years ago for saying "fuck" too loudly at a (professional, AAA) baseball game. When I objected that I had done nothing wrong, the pigs perp-marched me out of the ball-park. When i called 'em fucking pigs, they laughed. When I called 'em fucking morons, they arrested me. I guess they didn't want that part revealed...

Oh, and Flatlander? Eat shit and die...

Posted by: Woody | July 25, 2009 2:05 PM

23

"Because the problem isn't the asshole behavior of the police, it's someone daring to point out that behavior that causes the problem."

Your wrong.

When the police ask you to step onto the porch you step onto the porch instead of refusing. When in an effort to properly identify you and who is supposed to be on the premises a policeman asks questions you answer the questions instead of breaking into a tirade on the officers lineage. When police are investigating a complaint and potentially dangerous situation you don't interfere with and distract them by verbally assault them. You let them do their job. Commentary can come later.

It is all about time and place. Would you stop a firetruck on the way to a fire because you don't like how they are driving? If your in court and you think the judge isn't following the law do you interrupt him and cuss him out? In either case do you claim that their objection to your interference is a violation of your right to free speech? How stupid are people going to be?

When dealing with police you save you objections and observations until the situation is under control. Once under control you may voice your complaints as long as the way you do so doesn't cross the line in language used into assault or in volume into disturbing the peace.

Failure to follow these guidelines tends to get you arrested and held until you cool down. Get over it. This is part of being a citizen and an adult. There are times and places for protest and rants.

Gates could, still can, make up a sign and march up and down in front of the police station equating the cuffing and detainment of an abusive, interfering, loudmouth with a lynching. He can file complaints. He can write angry editorials. He can make a career of being an oppressed and down trodden black man, like Al Sharpton. He can sue.

Posted by: Art | July 25, 2009 2:33 PM

25

Gates' mistake was letting the cop bait him into coming outside to talk. In the mindset of the cops, that put Gates 'in public' where he could be arrested for anything at all or no reason at all. At the same time, this qualifies what the cop did as entrapment.

Anytime a cop decides to take command of a situation then he decides his every instruction or request is a command that must be obeyed. Gates complained, and the cop ordered him to calm down. Gates refused to submit to the cop's will and the cop arrested him.

There is no basis in reality, or law, for this mentality, yet it is always taught to the police in training. The only person you must submit to the personal will of is your slave owner, and slavery in this country was abolished some time ago.

The cop violated Gates' civil rights, making Gates both victim and witness. The cop, armed with a deadly weapon and acting under color of authority, made a false arrest, kidnapped the witness against him and falsely imprisoned him, and lied under oath.

We need armed forces to protect us from the police. We need people to be as brutal to the cops as the cops are to the people. It's wonder how a really bad beating can teach so much about humility.

Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo | July 25, 2009 2:50 PM

27

When I first heard about this (a slightly confused account from a friend of mine) I figured there had to be something more to it, something to justify the officer's behavior. So far I've heard nothing but puerile defenses for it suitable to children's playground quarrels (such as the excuses given above). So far on this one, absent any evidence the professor was committing a crime, I have to agree with Ed's original post. And I also agree with Michael Heath's remarks about how the authorities should have responded to the mess.

Further, anybody who gets upset over some self-important asshole demanding "Do you know who I am?" is way too over-sensitive. In fact I would have to say that that person has an inflated sense of his own importance, and needs to get over it.

Posted by: sbh | July 25, 2009 2:58 PM

29

When dealing with police you save you objections and observations until the situation is under control. Once under control you may voice your complaints as long as the way you do so doesn't cross the line in language used into assault or in volume into disturbing the peace.

Have you ever been arrested Art? Or even just suspected of something by the police and questioned on the scene? It seems pretty apparent from your commentary here that you have not.

I have. Several times and for a variety of reasons - most stemming from having been a dirty hippie musician, who obviously was up to no good. And the cops ask you to do things and say things that they have absolutely no right to force you to do. They will make their request sound very much like an order and they will do anything they can to convince you to incriminate yourself in some sort of activity they can arrest you for.

Does it help to get angry and rant at them? Not at all. Doing so will often make them try that much harder to find a way to arrest you. If they actually have a reason to arrest you, yelling at them makes it that much more likely they're going to kick your ass (though being polite is no guarantee they won't) and from personal experience, you are more likely to win the lotto, than you are to see a cop get in trouble for beating the shit out of you.

But contradicting your naive notion of how one should deal with the cops, cooperating is often times something you should absolutely not do. They say they would like to search your car, politely refuse. They say they would like to come inside your home, politely refuse. They say they would like you to step outside your home, politely refuse.

They ask if you were in such and such a location, at such and such a time - or anything along those lines, ask them what it is about and if they refuse tell them you would like to speak with an attorney - whether you were there or not. Because at that point, you are very likely a suspect in something and it is best to not say a motherfucking thing until A) you know what the fuck is going on and B) are either confident in your ability to rapidly defuse the situation or have an attorney sitting next to you. If they ask you to come with them, politely ask if you are under arrest and if not, politely decline.

So no Art. You are dead nuts wrong in your assessment of how to deal with the police. Doing things your way is a great way to end up in jail and/or charged with a crime you didn't commit. And given the number of people who are exonerated post conviction, there is always a possibility of you ending up in prison, convicted of a crime you didn't commit.

Posted by: DuWayne | July 25, 2009 3:06 PM

31

If you are a peace officer and you're rationalizing "Once he steps on his front porch then he's no longer in his house and that gives me the right to make an arrest" then you are no longer a peace officer. You're just another run-of-the-mill government bureaucrat. Looking for legal technicalities to arrest someone who is a threat to nobody, who is just mouthing off shit that's pissing you off from inside his own house is not something American citizens expect their peace officers to do. That's something American citizens expect their clerks at the DMV to do.

Posted by: JLA | July 25, 2009 3:25 PM

33

As an ex-police office the actions of your Dept. is one reason I am no longer a police office. I saw 1st hand the racial profiling that all agencies employ. Say whatever you want all P.D. in my opinions are corrupt and give white people different treatment. Thank god due to all the various media outlets it is being uncovered. We can look at the Black ambulance driver being choked by a trooper w/ a patient on board, to the NFL player about 2 months ago being berated by Dallas police Officer Robert Powell as his mother-in-law lay dying. I hate to say it, but I don't lose any sleep when I hear an officer down on my scanner, because I think to myself how many lives has he destroyed because of his/her racist views. And don't think by asking the token black cop to speak on camera makes a difference I have no respect for him just for being a yes man. He knows that was dead wrong and trying to defend that is deplorable. As a black man I know 1st hand how police treat us as a race. God does not like ugly, I pray that hells angels hail upon you & cause great pain & loss to your Dept.

Posted by: FLBM | July 25, 2009 3:53 PM

35

FLBM writes:

" I hate to say it, but I don't lose any sleep when I hear an officer down on my scanner, because I think to myself how many lives has he destroyed because of his/her racist views"

Wow! Regardless of what your take is on this issue that is completely inappropriate. Congrats, FLBM. You are officially the biggest piece of shit I have ever met on this blog. Hopefully everyone (whether you favor the cop or Prof. Gates) will see this comment for what it truly is. You are a hateful little piece of shit.

Posted by: Brad Hart | July 25, 2009 4:06 PM

37

What is the significance/importance/strategy of the officer in getting someone out of their house -- on the porch or whatever?

Safety, for one. Bear in mind that the "please come out here to talk" happened before the officer had established that the person he was talking to was entitled to be there, and there was a report of two men -- the other not visible. Entering a house without backup if it was a breakin would be a pretty foolish thing to do.

Having the homeowner come out onto the porch also gets around the "permission to enter" issue. Again, a burglar doesn't have the authority to invite the officer in.

Having been questioned by police here (Phoenix) recently regarding events in the neighborhood, this is exactly the procedure they followed: ring, I answer, they identify themselves as PPD, ask if they can ask me some questions, ask if I would step outside (partly because standing in the door is awkward), I do, we establish who I am and why I might know something, they get my statement, I get a contact card, thank you very much, good bye.

Bear in mind that the script that this event followed is not the only one possible, and:
1) Procedure must be routine -- same as flying or surgery;
2) Procedure must take rare events (e.g. ambush) into account.

Ed has pointed out the problem with the police endgame, but that doesn't mean that the officer did anything wrong to begin with. And, yes, our litigious culture makes it inadvisable to do the right thing and start off with a "we could have handled that better."

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 25, 2009 4:26 PM

39

As much as I think the cop was an ass, Gates was too.

Three times in my life, twice in nearly identical circumstances in my own home, I've had to go through this. Unlike Gates, I didn't play asshole games and after the cop asked his questions, looked over my ID, and completed his investigation, he left and I went on with my life. It was, simply put, adult living.

And, unlike Gates, I had a prior negative history with the police having, three other times in my life when I was younger, had the police arrest and/or try to rail-road me on bullshit. One of which was a disorderly conduct (like Gates) for telling a cop to "Don't screw with me, ok? Your boss told me to move here, so here I did..."

Anyway, Gates clearly failed to demonstrate adult behavior and paid the price for his teenage rebellion. And yet, disgustingly, he continues to get a free pass for in another stupid incident where we have this "my team must win" zero-sum philosophy instead of trying to understand why each actor acted as he did...

As far as I'm concerned, a pox on both of them.

Posted by: Moses | July 25, 2009 4:33 PM

41

FLBM:

I have walked where you walked. Do you think you're the only former cop to ever read this blog? Give me a break. And yes, you're a HUGE piece of shit!

Posted by: Brad Hart | July 25, 2009 4:38 PM

43

I think this quote sums it up the best. A snippet from it:

"If you are willing to grant any individual with a gun and a badge the authority to arrest people because they don’t like them, then you and I share no common principle on liberty and the right of people to be free from oppression. None."

Posted by: Coturnix | July 25, 2009 4:46 PM

45

This says it all...

http://gawker.com/5322447/cambridge-cops-unfortunate-vanity-plate-why+tee

Posted by: FLBM | July 25, 2009 4:55 PM

47

Art #23:

When the police ask you to step onto the porch you step onto the porch instead of refusing.

Since when did America become a police state?

When in an effort to properly identify you and who is supposed to be on the premises a policeman asks questions you answer the questions instead of breaking into a tirade on the officers lineage. When police are investigating a complaint and potentially dangerous situation you don't interfere with and distract them by verbally assault them. You let them do their job. Commentary can come later.

At the point in time that Gates was asked to step outside, even according to the officer's own report, the officer had already ascertained that Gates was the resident of that house. As such, the officer was aware that the situation was NOT 'potentially dangerous' and that the complaint was made in error. At that point he had a quick and easy way to defuse the situation - leaving. He didn't use that method.

It is all about time and place. Would you stop a firetruck on the way to a fire because you don't like how they are driving?

A more analogous situation would be if the firetruck drives up, and the firemen barge into my house, but my house is not on fire, and they didn't like the way I asked them what the fuck they thought they were doing, so they set my house on fire, watched it burn for a few minutes, then put it out again.

If your in court and you think the judge isn't following the law do you interrupt him and cuss him out?

If the court's being held in my lounge, yes, if I feel like it.

In either case do you claim that their objection to your interference is a violation of your right to free speech? How stupid are people going to be?

Here's the little fact you seem to be missing. Gates was in his own home, minding his own business. The officer was at Gates residence, not in the street, or at a courthouse. Now, if it had been me, I would have said that I was the homeowner, presented my ID, thanked the officer for checking it out anyway, and wished him a good day. Gates, however, had obviously had a bad day, so, instead of being as polite as me, unloaded his frustrations on the officer, and, basically, was a bit of a jerk.

But that's not a crime.

Not only that, the underlying principle of free speech is that Gates has the RIGHT to be a jerk. In this case, Gates' assholery (if that's even a word) hurt the officer's feelings, so he used his authority to maneuver Gates into a situation where he could get his own back by arresting Gates for 'disorderly conduct'.

When dealing with police you save you objections and observations until the situation is under control.

The situation WAS under control.

Once under control you may voice your complaints as long as the way you do so doesn't cross the line in language used into assault

...which is impossible, as you can't 'assault' someone by talking to them...

or in volume into disturbing the peace.

Which is exactly why the officer had to maneuver Gates into coming outside, so he was technically guilty of 'disorderly conduct' and could be arrested. The fact it is fairly obvious this is exactly what happened, even reading the officer's own report, is probably why the charges were dropped.

Failure to follow these guidelines tends to get you arrested and held until you cool down. Get over it. This is part of being a citizen and an adult. There are times and places for protest and rants.

Except, from what you've written, never about or to a police officer. I'll ask again - when did America become a police state, exactly?

Posted by: Smidgy | July 25, 2009 5:01 PM

49

Saving face!!! What are you talking about,I said what I meant "I don't loose sleep. I could care less, I don't give a fuck. How ever you decipher it. It is what it is. LOL You are a Piece of Shit Read Asshole

Posted by: FLBM | July 25, 2009 5:10 PM

51

FLBM -

Fine, let me change the wording...Being that cavalier about the death of another human being that you know little about, makes you a shit.

Happy now?

Posted by: DuWayne | July 25, 2009 5:42 PM

53

Jesse:

I'm a historian, Jesse. I know the history of relations between the police, in general, and minority groups in the US. Nevertheless, those relations --- all intergroup relations --- change over time. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. And of course I wouldn't argue that there is no institutional racism left in the US. Suggested nothing like that in any post above. Though I wish I could argue that.

What I am suggesting is that to characterize "the police" as a single, monolithic [racist out of control at all times everywhere] group involves stereotyping as broad as racist police stereotyping of blacks or Hispanics or hippies or any other group. And is as dangerous. [See some of the posts above on what "all cops" are allegedly like for examples.] That too many abuses do occur Ed is documenting with depressing frequency. That such abuses characterize all police officers all the time is another mater.

And so, seems to me, every contact cop-to-citizen --- any color, any gender, any time --- has to be looked at on its own merits, or lack thereof. Did the officer act as he should have? No. But can we conclude from his having let Gates goad him into responding stupidly that he's a "power hungry cop"? No, for lack of sufficient evidence. That's all I argued from the first post.

That some took that pretty limited digression I offered from Ed's main post as a denial that there is a troubled history in this country between police and minorities, or that institutional racism no longer exists, or that people ought to, all the time, meekly submit to any and all police requests is, I think, interesting in itself, since in fact I argued none of those points.

Posted by: flatlander100 | July 25, 2009 5:53 PM

55

@ # 28 Jim Babka:

I can think of a few reasons to get the person outside if I had already decided to make an arrest: one, there is more room (usually) and the officer has the advantage. two, if there is a video camera in the unit, this will put the arrest on film so there will be no questions of how it happened. three, if there are other officers outside, it is easier to cover the suspect from different angles and get potentially needed backup quickly.

With all these things in mind, one of the first things you should have learned at the academy is that if you don't have it in your report, it didn't happen. If any of the above techniques were used to get the suspect outside, they should have been noted.

On a side note, I haven't read the police report. If some of the things that I heard in the comments are correct, that does, indeed, make the officer's position questionable.

Another question that comes to mind is just when the officer knew that Mr. Gates was in his own house. As I understand it, the house is owned by Harvard University. There are several things required to resolve this situation. The officer needs to verify the identity of the person or persons found on site. They need to verify the owner of the house, and if it is rented or leased, they need to verify that the person or persons on site are indeed the tenants.

On a traffic stop, your license plate is usually run before the officer ever approaches the car. When they ask for your license and proof of insurance, it is usually trivial to match the owner of the car with the driver and an entire list of potential threats fall off the radar screen: the car isn't stolen, it is insured, the driver isn't wanted, the tags are current, the tags are on the correct vehicle, etc.... This can get somewhat confusing if verification of ownership and authorized access are delayed. This is one of the reasons I wonder just "what he knew and when he knew it".

I would agree with Mr. Gates and President Obama, at least to the point that the officer could have handled the situation better. Different people react in different ways to threatening situations. Some people will get quiet and others will panic, scream, or threaten.

Two other points I would like to make (even though this post is too long). You should always be willing to give anyone your name and badge number, but only after the incident is complete. If the decision had already been made to arrest Mr. Gates, the incident wasn't complete. And two, often a simple charge is used to make an arrest. After the suspect is in jail, the district attorney reviews the information, drops charges, and adds new charges. The police on the street aren't attorneys. There is no practical way for them to arrest someone with a complete laundry list of crimes that they will potentially be charged with. If they make a mistake and arrest someone without any grounds, they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

Posted by: Marisa | July 25, 2009 6:01 PM

57

Du Wayne

Yep I feel the same way they feel about me. I hate police can't believe I was one.

Posted by: FLBM | July 25, 2009 6:37 PM

59

Do we have any actual evidence that "WHY TEE" is at all referring to race?

Posted by: Brandon | July 25, 2009 7:33 PM

61

You come across as a liberal cock, and on most points I disagree with you fairly strongly. However, I have no way to disagree with you on this topic. Yes, the professor was likely a dick -- but so frikkin' what? This was on his property, and if being a dick on your own property is a crime, my wife would have had me arrested years ago. The people who arrested him are cops, not gods -- they're no more deserving of respect than the rest of us are. If they didn't like how he reacted to their ministrations, then they should have left.

Posted by: Danimal | July 25, 2009 8:14 PM

63

SLC stated:

Hey folks, does the vehicle with the license plate WHY TEE belong to officer Crowley? If it doesn't I fail to see the relevance.

Since I posted that link first, I'll answer. It has no relevance regarding what Officer Crowley should have done at the Gates residence. It does have some relevance, not much, regarding the context within which Gates interacted with the police if this is representative of Cambridge's police force in general. As stated earlier, the police administrator's have an obligation to look at their policies and processes; this license plate leads people to suspect a culture may exist within the Cambridge police force that fosters racism and is not serious about its obligations to minority citizens.

I'm one of those that argued that it appears Gates was a total dick, however this license plate suggests that the police force may be in the public's face regarding their inherent racism which Gates' may have been exposed to in the past. That context rationalizes to some extent any verbal tirades Gates entered into, it doesn't excuse him, but certainly rationalizes his reaction.

How should this officers' boss respond to such an inflammatory license plate given Cambridge's history of racism in the police force and his obligation to eradicate that legacy if this is his vehicle? I'm cognizant this plate could have another explanation, but isn't perspective also imperative for public servants who claim their professionals? If I'm a black citizen seeing a white cop using this license plate, I'm concerned both my rights are at risk and they won't be protected.

The picture was worthy of sharing, it adds some perspective; how much we don't know.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2009 8:33 PM

65

If you read the police report there is no reasonable sequence of events.

Crowley never describes the total flow of events. He never describes how and when he enters the home but he makes multiple explanations as to why he didn't identify himself. A sure sign of covering of a$$ if I ever read one.

His story seems disjointed and unbelievable and the other officer claims to be in the home and hears Gates say "No I will not" to furnishing ID but Crowley says he said "No I will not" to going outside as well as "I will talk to your Mama outside". Which is it? And neither Gates nor Crowley suggests that any other cop was in the residence yet the Spanish cop says he was in the house at the beginning to conveniently only hear Gates refuse to give ID initially.

Then why didn't he come into the house if they didn't know who this man was and answering a b&e call. If a suspect was refusing to identify themself then you should've been giving the officer support.

Geez anyone can read that report and tear those charges apart. There is obviously a lot of story telling in that Police Report, it just doesn't make sense. It seems to me that the cop may be the only one who actually broke the law in not identifying himself by name and badge number.
Gates account hasn't changed but the cop seems to add something different in every account.

Posted by: CommonDamnSense | July 25, 2009 8:48 PM

67

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Posted by: Brandon | July 25, 2009 9:08 PM

69

Aren't racist license plates illegal? I seem to remember this issue being mentioned in previous controversies.

Also, I checked out the image, while I don't see evidence of photoshopping, I also don't see him getting into the car. As a commenter on the site pointed out, he could be giving the car a ticket for being in a no-parking zone.

CommonDamnSense, I am curious as to how you encounter racism every time you go to the links.

Posted by: Peacenik | July 25, 2009 10:16 PM

71

Here's another link about rights and cops.
http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?S=10652408

In that story, the cop is portrayed as polite and cooperative as is the citizen involved.

It was the citizen's later question to the mayor about the "request" made by the officer that is the controversy.

My mayor said that when you are stopped by the police, all your rights are suspended. The flashing lights and siren are "requests" that you stop your vehicle and most of us comply, don't we?

Since this really is a mostly law-abiding country, the most common interaction (no matter WHAT color you are) with police is the traffic stop.

Honestly do any of us think all our rights are suspended when we're stopped (with the exception of my mayor...)?

When a policeman comes to my door and makes a "request" similar to "Please step outside your vehicle" would I be justified in refusing? Technically, constitutionally... perhaps.

In reality, no. Being in the open is both a protection for me and for the cop. He's not asking me step outside because he wants me to misbehave, he's doing it because he wants witnesses that he's not misbehaving. OR, he's doing it because he doesn't know who else in the house.... OR because it's procedure.

I'm not a perfect citizen. I've refused "requests" by cops before, but I've also been grateful for their presence before.

This is one of those give and take sort of things.

Posted by: Donna B. | July 25, 2009 10:34 PM

73

My taxes are supposed to pay police officers to keep the peace and protect and serve. I realize that in some communities that is easier said than done. But I must say, the recent stories along with this one, showing a racially charged and prejudiced side of law enforcement, That are well known to exist, if rarely ever publicly commented on unless something truly heinous is perpetrated---well that is not what I want my tax dollars going toward.

I don't like to hear about people being pulled over for Driving While Black. This story didn't thrill me either because it was clear that if there was a reason for the cop to be there, it would have been revealed by now.

The Professor was pissed I am sure because he is thinking:

"I broke out of the cycle of poverty. I went to school. I am a prominent member of society that contributes something of value, and I still can't function in society without cops looking at me like I am a mugger or a burglar or a rapist."

And what point does one suppose, that this and similar situations sends the message to many people out there, one that resonates with a great echoing: "What's the fucking Point of even trying?!"

Why bother getting a student loan to get an education, why bother dressing the way they want me to dress, or talking the way they want me to talk, when its clear that whatever I do will never be enough? Why bother?

What despair and rage that must generate.

Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | July 25, 2009 11:40 PM

75

Gretchen,

"The fact that this abuse occurs so often that people take it for granted and view it as acceptable shows precisely how pernicious it is."

This is very true.

In the previous thread on this incident I was defending Crowley's actions even though I have had numerous run ins with asshole cops who had used the threat of a disorderly conduct arrest to stop my questions or protestations.

After listening to people pointing out the inconsistency of granting police officers rights that the rest of us do not posses I realized I was wrong in allowing them this privilege.

I'm glad to see that some of the reports I saw or read today in the media are focusing on this aspect of the incident.

Posted by: Lance | July 26, 2009 12:52 AM

77

Of all the people trying to justify Crowley's actions, or dismiss any suspicion of racism, not one has grappled with the following questions:

How many burglars are 60-ish and walking with a cane?

Although the officer had just received a credible report of possible burglary, the man whom he found in the house is 60-ish and walks with a cane. Should the officer tentatively presume the man is a burglar or the house's resident?

Does any of this change if "white" or "black" is inserted in the man's description?

Does the answer to the last question depend on the race of suspects reported in the 911 call? If so, does the combination of white suspects and white man at the door lead to the same conclusion as black suspects - black man at the door?

Posted by: bullfighter | July 26, 2009 2:00 AM

79

I don't see what Gates' problem is. Even back in the good old days just before the revolution, citizens enjoyed having orangutans in uniform barge into their houses and harrass them under pretext of official business. Why, people enjoyed it so much that the first set of amendments to the constitution had somethign in it about prohibiting 'quartering'. Gates is a fool for believing he has any rights within his own home; he needs to remember that he lives in Stalingrad.

Posted by: MadScientist | July 26, 2009 2:19 AM

81

One more thing: read Gates work. He is the bizarre mix of the eternal victim and the ivory tower elitist. He's one of those guys who thinks his own farts smell nice.

I have NO problem believing the cops side of this.

Posted by: Ian | July 26, 2009 2:40 AM

83

Ian stated:

I have NO problem believing the cops side of this.

Than you still miss the central point. The cop was absolutely wrong in arresting Gates even if he acted like a total dick. That in itself is an abuse of power and gross unprofessionalism. Crowley needed to walk away.

Brandon - you're a dick for accusing those of us who linked to the license plate of spreading a conspiracy theory when I at least certainly did not. The plate was even explained previous to your post as having zero direct impact on the actions of Crowley. The plate was described by me as interesting because it may provide possible context for the citizens of Crowley evaluating their police department, including Gates, if this plate is representative of a broad pattern of behavior.

My actual elaboration on the plate was directed towards the license plate officer's boss, and not at the Crowley/Gates situation with the exception if Gates had encountered previous and similar behavior or this pattern was pervasive enough to explain the culture of the Dept. and its commitment to greatly minimize future misconduct like we experience with Crowley abusing his power.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 26, 2009 2:57 AM

85

"Then you still miss the central point."

Mr. Heath, as I just mentioned, Ian doesn't seem to grasp the concept that one can believe that Sgt. Crowley's accounting of the incident with Gates was 100% truthful and accurate and still come to the conclusion that he shouldn't have arrested the professor. That's why he implied that Mr. Brayton, who came to said conclusion, wrote that Crowley was a liar when he did no such thing.

Posted by: daniel rotter | July 26, 2009 3:16 AM

87

Of all the people trying to justify Crowley's actions, or dismiss any suspicion of racism, not one has grappled with the following questions:

How many burglars are 60-ish and walking with a cane?

Although the officer had just received a credible report of possible burglary, the man whom he found in the house is 60-ish and walks with a cane. Should the officer tentatively presume the man is a burglar or the house's resident?

Does any of this change if "white" or "black" is inserted in the man's description?

Does the answer to the last question depend on the race of suspects reported in the 911 call? If so, does the combination of white suspects and white man at the door lead to the same conclusion as black suspects - black man at the door?

Well I'm definitely not trying to do either of those but I'll try to help you w/ your questions.

1: No idea.
2: The cop should presume nothing until he's determined that the person is not breaking in. How would you feel if somebody broke into your house an was seen doing so but when the police arrived the intruder picked up a spare walking cane from behind the door, pretended it was his house and cane and the cop believed him and left? Leaving you w/ an empty house to return home to.
3: No.
4: It would only matter if the call's description oh who was breaking in does not match who is found inside. Of course the caller could have been mistaken or the possible burgular could have accomplices. The cop should do the same thing as in step 2.

There are many instances of cops because dicks to white people too, it has happened before w/o race being involved. People should not assume it was a factor in this case unless some evidence for that is produced.

Posted by: tincture | July 26, 2009 4:20 AM

89

Brandon "My first instinct when I saw the license plate was that YT was the cop's initials. Find a single shred of evidence otherwise or stop this dishonest conspiracy theory crap."
My first instinct is that the guy was a douche. Not because of what the vanity plate said, but because it was, y'know, a vanity plate.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 26, 2009 8:08 AM

91

People, the cop may have been unprofessional but it could have been worse. see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwEl0I2p9yQ

Being a dick is one thing. Being a dick and not breaking the rules is truly evil.

Posted by: ppnl | July 26, 2009 9:55 AM

93

@ # 58 JLA

I do hate that I didn't seem to make my point clear. I rent a home too. If there is a report of someone breaking into my house and the police show up, all they are going to have is the name of my landlord. When they ID the person in my house, without further investigation, they aren't going to be able to tell whether the belongs there or not. In order to PROTECT my rights, they are going to have to verify that the person is, indeed, entitled to be present in my house.

This is in no way a "legal technicality", it is a requirement of PROTECTING the rights of the rightful tenant.

P.S. You don't mind if I use that "former government bureaucrat" quote do you? Former government bureaucrat Marisa sounds so much better than what I am used to being called.

@ # 77 bullfighter:

I see that # 87 tincture has already addressed your post. There is, however, one thing I would like to add.

You said: "How many burglars are 60-ish and walking with a cane?"

The officer wouldn't have known it was a burglary. They had a report of a breaking and entering (as I understand it). The officer couldn't assume that it was a burglary without already dismissing some much more dangerous options.

It is also possible that it was a domestic violence incident. The man (Professor Gates) could have just had a fight with his wife and his wife tried to lock him out of the house. At that point, he could have broke in, used his cane to beat her unconscious, or left her dead in the back room.

The only way for the officer to know would be to investigate, and that requires questions and verifying stories.

You said: "Does any of this change if "white" or "black" is inserted in the man's description?"

Unfortunately, for some people, might. If it does, the responding officers that treated one person different from any other due to race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, weight, hair color, height, style of dress, or any other reason should be removed from a position of power and charged, tried, and convicted if possible. We should never allow a place for prejudice -- not in the police, district attorney, judge, elected officials, president, or anywhere else in the United States or the world.

I don't know anyone capable of understanding statistics that would argue that prejudice isn't still a rampant problem in this country. At best, we have racism and other prejudices covered over with a very thin veneer. All I would like to see is that before anyone convicts someone in the court of public opinion, we wait to learn all the details of the incident to find out whether prejudice actually played a part in it.

Oh, and @ # 78 dave, you said: "I always wondered why people want to become cops in the first place. Can't be the money. Maybe the whole profession just tends to attract people who enjoy having authority over others, and playing with guns."

Research seems to indicate that the same type of people that are attracted to crime are also attracted to police work. While I don't think there is a consensus, they do seem to be attracted to the adrenalin, danger, and the freedom to step beyond the law without reproach. Obviously this doesn't include all peace officers, but I fear it includes more than I feel comfortable with.

Posted by: Marisa | July 26, 2009 10:31 AM

95

About a year ago, a friend of mine was out of town and i agreed to feed her cats. But upon reaching the house, I found that the key she had given me didn't work. I called her, and she explained to me her method of breaking into her house for emergency purposes.
So, I followed her instructions, got inside, fed the cats and let her know that all was well.
At which time the police arrived, laudably quick.
I exited the house and basically handed the phone to the police for her to talk to them, showed my ID, and explained the situation.
They talked to her, examined the ID and then thanked me and left.
I was driving my company truck logoed with a public utility. The first things the officers asked when I came out of the house was if I had a work order.
It later occurred to me that I was in notable danger when I came out of the house abruptly in front of two policemen.
Except that I'm white, as were the police, who have a rather bad reputation racially in this town.
Some things are parallel here, others not. I didn't act upset at being questioned, for instance.
On the other hand, the police officers didn't approach me with the default assumption that I was a criminal--even though I had clearly broken into the house--the open window was two feet away. The barely asked me anything at all.
I offer merely for anecdotal comparison; make of it what you will.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 26, 2009 10:45 AM

97

In Gates's own words at the Root, "My driver hit the door with his shoulder and the door popped open. so what the passer-by saw was a forced entry. She was not a neighbor, not an acquaintance of Gates ... she saw what looked like a run of the mill residential burglary (they happen most often during daylight hours when people are at work).

In Gates's own words, He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them.

So officer said he was investigating a break-in at that house ... and Gates continues. Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.

The officer had a valid 9-1-1 call, had talked to the witness briefly, and had explained why he was there. It's Gates, the academic who specializes in lit criticism, who goes all post-moder semoitic deconstructionist on the officer's straightforward statement of "I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house".

Gates does some signifyin' on that statement, extracts the hidden meaning, and just knows he's being subjected to racist behavior. Somewhere in that statement is a hidden sign that indicated deep-seated institutional racism was about to inflict itself on Gates. I can't see it, but I'm white, and only blacks can see these signs.

A cop on a call is in full Alpha-male mode, from tone of voice to eye contact to body language and it's designed to intimidate ... Gates, with his ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ went into his "Tenured Hah-vahd professor mode", which from tone of voice to eye contact to body language is designed to make grad students and the non-tenured scuttle from his presence.

... and it all went downhill from there.

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | July 26, 2009 11:08 AM

99

Great post, Ed.

I work with the public too (though not in law enforcement). My reading of the arrest report is that the contempt of cop did not come from the yelling and name-calling (although I think the allegation of racism got under his skin--deserved or no), but from the fact that Gates was threatening to file a complaint almost from the beginning of the encounter.

If you are in a position where an abusive member of the public is threatening to mess you up at your job by filing a bogus (you believe) complaint, I can understand where the rage starts boiling over and the stupid begins. But when Gates said "You don't know who you're messing with," he was right, and the cop (who decided he was going to prove HE was boss by arresting him) was wrong. Obama was 100% on the mark.

This all started with a cop being a dick about not showing his badge from the get-go, and a member of the public who'd just flown in from China, thus being sleep deprived and cranky and unable to just suck up a little typical Irish-Catholic-cop attitude.

Or is that beatitude? The way the CPD union has been talking you'd think somebody had been nailed to a cross.

Posted by: not a gator | July 26, 2009 12:13 PM

101

Ian--

The police report contradicts itself. Furthermore the nature of the call, the charges actually filed, and the dropping of said charges within a few hours screams more loudly than anything Gates, Crowley, CPD, or the POTUS has said since then.

Posted by: not a gator | July 26, 2009 12:41 PM

103

I've been mildly amused by all of the furor over Obama's comment...

Seriously...is there any better word than stupid to describe arresting a friend of the president for talking back to a cop in his own house?

Posted by: kormgar | July 26, 2009 4:41 PM

105

I am hesitant to mention names as I am sure I will leave one out so I am just going to thank you all for the intelligent discourse here and varying degrees of logical and critical thinking. Ed this is a testament to the quality of your readership.

This is my take on the question is this racial profiling.

Probably so...

Racial profiling sometimes is about the small things done and not done in the performance of duties day in and day out.
Racial profiling is my white friends that would get pulled over or stopped on the street leaving or coming to my house. They were stopped because of their race. See it doesn't happen to them anymore because now my neighborhood is 30% White. But they still stop our kids who are now young adults that come home to visit from college or on leave from the military like it's SOP. Because now they are black youths in this gentrified neighborhood. There is no crime on my quiet tree-lined street of private homes but they stop our children on their own block regularly like criminals.

Some Police departments have no sense of community. Those that do can and will target ANY unfamiliar face. Growing up I knew the cops in my neighborhood and they knew my family. Many times Off. Brady or Keagan would keep a kid from our neighborhood from getting picked up.

Police treat different people differently, their tone, approach and demeanor all change depending on where they are and whom they are dealing with, not necessarily the situation or circumstances.

We as human beings can tell when we feel the other person being discourteous or disrespectful. When interrupting a person in the middle of their day you will encounter people in all states of mind. Someone smiling from a good mood can be asked "What's so funny?" and so on by a cop with the wrong attitude.

Someone somewhere will get some insight to what it is like to walk in the shoes of a black person.

While on jury duty this spring I walked home from Court which is 5 blocks from my main home near Yankee Stadium. On the way home I ran across 6 young black kids at various spots on the way being detained by groups of officers. They must have rounded up every youth on the street it seemed and was having a witness go from kid to kid to identify them.

The 6th one I came across was my nephew who had came in about 1:30am that morning on leave from the Army. He was just going to the store after having a long nights sleep in his old bed at my house. They had his face crushed against the brick of the building. My heart sunk and I still feel guilty because I didn't call my nephew and check on him or tell him to stay in the house. They let him go on my word as I had verified everything he had been trying to tell them. That's the same young man who is going to fight in Iraq but can't come home and go to the store without having guns pointed at him and being slammed into brick walls.

It breeds a hate and disdain in people, some people have their self-esteem and self-respect crippled, some live in fear and anger.

See, Every one I passed was someone's child. Three with their bookbags obviously coming from school. All looking frightened some were just leaning on the buildings answering questions. One was on the ground with a backpack and a chinese food container on the ground nearby. I looked at the cops and could barely hide my shame over what they were doing. I was too scared to look back until I reached the corner and they had him standing up by that time.

That is the reality that our black children grow up with, regardless if they work and go to school and stay out of trouble. You see going to the store without your ID can get you in trouble. That's our lives even in 2009.

Accept it as fact and if you don't want it to be true, do something to change it besides living in denial and calling us names.

Posted by: CommonDamnSense | July 26, 2009 4:47 PM

107

tincture @87:

2: The cop should presume nothing until he's determined that the person is not breaking in.

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence, as you imply that he should indeed presume something - that anyone he finds in the house is a burglar.
However, that would be a dangerous rule, as it would expose a lot of innocent people to danger.

How would you feel if somebody broke into your house an was seen doing so but when the police arrived the intruder picked up a spare walking cane from behind the door, pretended it was his house and cane and the cop believed him and left? Leaving you w/ an empty house to return home to.

That is a dishonest argument, a straw man. Nobody has argued that the cop should not have investigated at all.

4: It would only matter if the call's description oh who was breaking in does not match who is found inside.

The description only involved sex and race. There is not much to match. Many - perhaps most - legitimate homeowners would match the description.

Posted by: bullfighter | July 26, 2009 5:55 PM

109

Marisa @93:

The officer wouldn't have known it was a burglary. They had a report of a breaking and entering (as I understand it). The officer couldn't assume that it was a burglary without already dismissing some much more dangerous options.

First, that's irrelevant - you can replace "burglary" in my question with "crime" without changing anything significant in the argument. Second, the cop's behavior clearly reveals that he had already dismissed "much more dangerous options" - he went to the house alone, and had a civilian witness stand nearby.

It is also possible that it was a domestic violence incident. The man (Professor Gates) could have just had a fight with his wife and his wife tried to lock him out of the house. At that point, he could have broke in, used his cane to beat her unconscious, or left her dead in the back room.

He could have done many things, but the officer had no specific reason to suspect that he did.

The only way for the officer to know would be to investigate, and that requires questions and verifying stories.

That's a straw man. Nobody says he shouldn't have investigated. Gates himself never said anything to that effect.

Unfortunately, for some people, might. If it does, the responding officers that treated one person different from any other due to race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, weight, hair color, height, style of dress, or any other reason should be removed from a position of power and charged, tried, and convicted if possible. We should never allow a place for prejudice -- not in the police, district attorney, judge, elected officials, president, or anywhere else in the United States or the world.

OK, I agree with that in principle, but I wouldn't go so far for practical reasons: if we did what you suggest, we'd have to throw most police officers in prison. We have to be more realistic. For example, while I believe that race was a factor in Crowley's behavior, I don't think he should lose his job, let alone be criminally charged. But I do think CPD is liable for damages to Gates, and more so after Crowley refused to apologize.

All I would like to see is that before anyone convicts someone in the court of public opinion, we wait to learn all the details of the incident to find out whether prejudice actually played a part in it.

But the main charge in the court of public opinion against Crowley is that he illegally arrested Gates. That charge stands completely independently of any racial prejudice. And there is no doubt that Crowley is guilty of false arrest.

Posted by: bullfighter | July 26, 2009 6:22 PM

111

Re FLMB

Obviously, I didn't make myself clear. The question is, what is the relevance of the license plate to the encounter between Sargent Crowley and Prof. Gates if the vehicle doesn't belong to the sargent? Is Mr. FLMB claiming that Sargent Crowley is a racist because another policeman had a dubious license plate on his car? That's called guilt by association. The vehicle in question may not even belong to a Cambridge police officer.

However, let me make it perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding that, IMHO, Sargent Crowley overreacted in arresting Prof. Gates. I would suggest that Mr. FLMB read the article at the link I posted at #102 and the link I posted on the previous thread on this subject at # 193 which seem to strongly suggest that the sargent is no racist.

Posted by: SLC | July 26, 2009 6:42 PM

113

SLC:

I asked pretty much the same question @#98; it's gone unanswered, as near as I can tell.

Posted by: democommie | July 26, 2009 7:16 PM

115

I think the town vs. gown angle (mentioned by a few
commenters) is more important than racism here. However,
although lots of folks have asked, rhetorically, if the
situation would have been different had Prof. Gates been
white, I would like to ask (rhetorically): would the thing
have played out the same way if Prof. Gates had been an
African-American professor of French, or Mathematics, or
Geology?

Posted by: Bafflegab | July 26, 2009 7:46 PM

117

Re tincture

That would seem to imply that the sargent was on patrol. Is it routine for officers with the rank of sargent to go out on patrol in the Cambridge Police Department?

Posted by: SLC | July 26, 2009 8:11 PM

119

Will somebody please have the balls to bluntly state what "why-tee" is supposed to mean? I can't find an answer, because when it comes to race I am surrounded by the timid.

Posted by: jws | July 26, 2009 8:38 PM

121

@Marisa #8:

I like to think that I wouldn't have arrested the professor, but that would depend on whether he exited his house screaming obscenities as I have heard. Even then I doubt I would have arrested him since I know everyone reacts to stressful situations differently, but the officer didn't seem to step over the line as near as I can tell.

Replying before reading the whole thread; but:

Marisa, why in the world do you think that a facially unlawful arrest ("tumultuous conduct" requires at least "fighting words", and even Crowley's police report discloses none) isn't "over the line". That's before we look at the fact that he engineered the situation in which the arrest took place by asking Gates to come outside if he wanted ID, and then failing to give the ID.

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 27, 2009 4:26 AM

123

Thanks tincture. I guess I prefer insults to be brash and brazen, not meekly tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by: jws | July 27, 2009 11:56 AM

125

CommonDamnSense: "I am not declaring that this was an act of racism, I am saying that the officer's side of the story is not making much sense, there are a few things missing except his adamant contention that he attempted to identify his self and that Gates was calling him a racist."

There are a whole lot of things about Crowley's account that don't jibe, not the least of which is that he puts the "yo mama" insult into the mouth of one of the country's most articulate and urbane scholars. Come on now, do we really believe that "Skip" Gates, Yale and Cambridge grad, the man who famously said he wants to "experience a humanity that is neither colorless nor reducible to color", said "yo mama"?

Posted by: Leigh Williams | July 27, 2009 2:42 PM

127

@FIBM #124:

LETS KEEP IN MIND YOUR HOME IS NOT PUBLIC AND AT SUCH A LATE HOUR AT NIGHT I DOUBT THIS WAS THE CASE. NO BODY ELSE WAS THERE. THIS IS A CASE OF FALSE ARREST, THE CITY SHOULD BE SUED.

Capslock doesn't help your credibility. You clearly have an early bedtime if you consider 12:44 in the afternoon to be "a late hour at night".

The arrest was however (IMHO) unlawful - because there were no fighting words, which are required for the offence to be committed.

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 27, 2009 4:55 PM

129

Robin Levett

A little humor I noticed it was daylight in the pic. Who is dumb enough to break in during daylight hrs anyway. I didn't know what time it was really. Was not important I figured someone would pick up on that thus proving a further point why did the neighbors not know who he was???

Posted by: FLBM | July 27, 2009 5:24 PM

131

Some ppl on this blog glorify police LOL.I don't!!I have seen their corrupt actions from both sides of the road. Most start off w/ good intentions, but are soon molded to do the very thing they should not. No cop is judge & jury. Due to the charges being dropped so soon, tells me the officer in this case failed to utilize the proper procedure here. You cannot let testosterone influence your actions. I don't care if someone is yelling at you(poor baby get another job). Police Academies train you to be calm & use sound judgment in all situations. He failed to do this. Facts are Facts. PERIOD, why many of you defend him is alarming. You obviously don't understand the law & your rights as a citizen.That's so sad

Posted by: FLBM | July 27, 2009 10:07 PM

133

The ignorance of most Americans is amazing. I not 100% sure, but by listening many of you have never served for any meaningful organization either State, City or National. I won't mention any names but BH would not have lasted a week in my unit. You letting me upset you & I find it amusing. Don't have a stroke.lol

Posted by: FLBM | July 28, 2009 1:42 AM

135

@FLBM #133:

The ignorance of most Americans is amazing.

That came from someone who claims to have been a cop, and has just delivered himself of the line:

Who is dumb enough to break in during daylight hrs anyway.

That flash you just saw was my irony meter going critical.

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 28, 2009 7:52 AM

137

@FLBM #136:

You don't get it, do you? The battle (on this blog)over whether Crowley wrongfully arrested Gates is over - he did, in the eyes of almost anyone else here. What is in issue with you is your claim that you are a former police officer - and your ignorance on when burglaries are most often carried out is pretty much fatal to that claim; and your callousness toward human life merely because the owner of that life wears a police uniform.

By the way, your reference doesn't support (y)our claim; refer to Mallahan for Crowley's "mistake".

Posted by: Robin Levett | July 28, 2009 1:03 PM

139

FLBM

I don't like police either, but you seem a bit harsh. Must have had a bad experience either during/ or after you were an officer. I will leave that alone.

Officer Crowley in my opinion may not be a racist, but I do think If that professor was white and acted exactly the same he would not have went to jail.

Posted by: Shawn G | July 29, 2009 12:07 PM