Harvard professor arrested for being black

Good. Now he knows what it's like to be white.




In my shoes, just to see what it's like to be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tsbrenda

The Henry Louis Gates situation is mainly a distraction, where the media has decided to document a sideshow instead of the hundreds of millions of people struggling every day with substandard health care coverage.

But there's also a serious policy component. Policemen should not be allowed to arrest someone for being an asshole in their own home. If that was the case, right-wing bloggers would all be doing 10-20. It appears clear, and I guess there may be audio tape to this effect, that the cop came to Gates' house, figured out that he was not a burglar, words were exchanged, and then the cop arrested him for disorderly conduct. That's really over the line of what cops should be allowed to do, regardless of the motivations, racial or otherwise.

The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.


The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.

But for the sake of education, let's watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He's staying put in Gates' home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he'll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: "I'm sorry for disturbing you," and "I'm glad you're all right."

Spoiling for a fight, Crowley refuses to repeat his name and badge number. Most of us would hand over a business card or write the information on a scrap of paper. No, Crowley is upset and he's mad at Gates. He's been accused of racism. Nobody likes that, but if a cop can't take an insult without retaliating, he's in the wrong job. When a person is given a gun and a badge, we better make sure he's got a firm grasp on his temper. If Crowley had called Gates a name, I'd be disappointed in him, but Crowley did something much worse. He set Gates up for a criminal charge to punish Gates for his own embarrassment.

By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. The only plausible question for the chief to ask about that little detail is: "Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid?" Crowley produced those handcuffs to provoke Gates and then arrested him. The decision to arrest is telling. If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates.

The cop baited the guy into leaving the house so he could arrest him for making a cop feel bad.

I appreciate the work of law enforcement. But regardless of race, too many cops have the belief that if they get insulted, they have the right to turn that into an arresting offense. That's not the law whatsoever, nor should it be. It creates a chilling effect among the public not to call out bad behavior in law enforcement or raise your voice in any way. I know we're all supposed to believe that cops are saintly, but I live in LA. Police misconduct happens all the time, and we should be vigilant when it does.

Instead, the media takes the soccer ball and chases it into the corner, without any semblance of factual records or perspective. It becomes an emotional argument instead of a factual record of misconduct. We pay cops with tax money. We should not risk arrest when arguing with them.

Tags: Henry Louis Gates, law enforcement, police misconduct, Prosecutions, race, traditional media

http://crooksandliars.com/dday/actua...uis-gates-case

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Sz83qFFwJP...otingDucks.gif

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beandip

Then you would be arrested just like this whining cunt Gates... You are obligated by law to surrender your ID when asked, refusal to do so will get you arrested.

---

No, that is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[9] However, many states have “stop-and-identify” laws... In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop-and-identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Notes: It's different in a traffic stop, you do have to surrender written ID there. There are some few states that have laws requiring presentation of written ID (untested in court thus far), like Colorado. And my strong opinion is that even the "stop-and-identify" laws should be struck down as unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment, but that's the state of the law as of today.

---

But we're still back to:

Break in has been reported, cop shows up and sees someone inside the house that matches the (vague) description given.

Should the cop just believe the guy saying "oh I am __, and I live at _this_addresss_" and leave?

The cop wanting to see ID is a no brainer under these circumstances, and one that shouldn't have set the guy off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahG

The cop wanting to see ID is a no brainer under these circumstances, and one that shouldn't have set the guy off.

---

(1) You don't have to show ID, that's the law.
(2) You don't have to let a cop into your home in the first place.
(3) This case pointedly demonstrates that showing ID will not help you.
(4) The police report admits that the cop was already doubly convinced that Gates was the homeowner before that point.

Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrendaQG

Such a big deal being made out of a non issue. As soon as some real news breaks this will go away.

Correction: After gates sues the police for false/unlawful arrest or some such then this will really go away.

---

Yea is a non issue cause presidents of Ivy League University departments get arrested everyday.

---

It's a simple mistake by the cops. There are mechanisms in place for investigating police misconduct. Dr. Gates is not a uneducated person and this arrest and release will be investigated without all this media scrutiny, or Barrack's comments. In fact all Barrack has done is make this take longer by inviting Dr. Gates and the cop to the whitehouse.

This is an issue is not for the executive branch, it is for the judiciary and that will happen at the state level not the federal level. He may have an opinion, but officially it's none of his business.

Being an asshole is not illegal. The cop was wrong....period. Gates behavior may have been extreme, but there were no laws broken. Someone earlier said he was arrested for being "uppity". Hmmm...they say the same thing about our president. All those on this board who aren't black have NO concept of what black men have gone thru in this country. The abuse and outright murder of black men by law enforcement is well documented.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/new...ts_arrest.html


Black officer at the scene says Crowley did nothing wrong.

Hmmmm.................


See folks race dont always matter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabaldone

Being an asshole is not illegal. The cop was wrong....period. Gates behavior may have been extreme, but there were no laws broken. Someone earlier said he was arrested for being "uppity". Hmmm...they say the same thing about our president. All those on this board who aren't black have NO concept of what black men have gone thru in this country. The abuse and outright murder of black men by law enforcement is well documented.

---

News Flash: Police brutality is color blind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scroller

(3) This case pointedly demonstrates that showing ID will not help you.

---

Sounds to me like the opposite. If Gates had simply ignored his rights, shown ID, and not raised a stink over it- I doubt anything further would have happened.

It's when Gates refused to show ID that the whole scenario started to get ugly.

Quote:

---

Black officer at the scene says Crowley did nothing wrong.

Hmmmm.................

---

But the police department announced they regretted the arrest, and the prosecutor dropped the charge. Hmmmm...seems both officers were wrong. How was it possible for Professor Gates' accusations to get under Crowley's skin to the point where Crowley broke with his training and trumped up a charge of disorderly conduct? Why was Crowley's ego so sensitive in this particular situation, with this particular 5'4" intellectual black man? Nobody but Crowley knows the answers to those questions, and he'll probably have to dig for them. But the fact remains, the arrest was wrong, the police department said so and the charge was dropped.