The Gates Arrest: what does it say about race?

Or, it could be that people don't think that White Cop + Black Arrestee = Automatic Racism.

Just a thought.

 

I am mainly interested in this story as a First Amendment issue than a racial incident

In what way?

 

Well, the mention the Latino cop being there as proof that it wasn't racially motivated. Like a non-white cop automatically means the guy doesn't have racial intent. I'm not saying this is the case. It just seems silly to me.

 

Mr44

Well said, although it's hard to think that a sixty year old man with a cane is a physical threat...but of course, I wasn't there.

Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct (yes?), and subsequently released. I don't see how what the police did was so bad. They certainly had reason to check the house in case of a break-in. If anything, they were protecting him by making sure that no one was breaking into his house.

I'm not afraid of criticizing police (or anyone for that matter ), but it really seems like Gates was in the wrong here. I get that there is distrust between police and minorities, but to react in such a manner to police is to prejudge them in the same manner that minorities hate to be prejudged.

 

Agreed.
[image=http://leseanthomas.com/gallery/images/Boondocks/000-106-01-ruckus-front2-.jpg]

 

I'm saying the facts. I watched the morning news for 3 hours, this incident was all over it, many African-Americans came on as commentators, only 1 would say there's a POSSIBILITY it has nothing to do with racial bias. I don't know if other people heard differently, that's why used the words "personally" and "I" and "frustrated". For some reason, they weren't cooling down. I don't know what it's like to be an African-American, I don't claim to, I just know from my cousin and my friends, but I don't think they should jump on the bandwagon of saying "of course this is about race, he wouldn't have been handcuffed if he was Larry Summers..." (I already explained my many disagreements with that point above). The guy was being very uncooperative and acting suspicious, I don't care if he's a black Harvard scholar or a white garbage man, they should both be treated the same.

I am not demanding a group of people to react how I want them to react. I'm not saying "of course he's not a racist", I'm saying we shouldn't be so quick to condemn and destroy a man's reputation for life. Based on the facts we have now, I just don't see what he did wrong or what was racially motivated about it.

May Crowley have been too harsh in arresting him? May Gates have had a reason to say what he did? Yes, and it's important to discuss that and get to the bottom of things. But automatically dismissing this as racism, of automatically condemning the cop without hearing the full story, of turning this into a race issue and refusing to say the cop could not have been racist, is WRONG. If this should be an issue, it should be a justice issue and a legal issue, not a racial issue, unless there is evdience of racism. People shouldn't assume just because it's a white cop and a black man.


In other news, I hear President Obama has invited both Gates and Crowley to the White House.

 

Then they (and you?) should make exactly that point and forego the "some of his best friends..." posts. Which is all the "OMG there was a black cop there too!11!" boils down to.

 

As a thoughtful poster with LE knowledge, I'm sure you are aware of the First Amendment issues surrounding both "disorderly" statutes and "contempt of cop" arrests.

 

Well said, although it's hard to think that a sixty year old man with a cane is a physical threat...but of course, I wasn't there.

Sure, more than anything though, it defaults to what standard procedure is. Procedure of which is designed to remove ambiguity from such encounters, not add to it.

I mean, if you've seen the Movie Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood's character of Walt Kowalski was 79, and I don't think there was any doubt how well he could wield an M1 rifle. Really, it doesn't even have to be something as sinister as weapons. An agitated "60 year old with a cane" could certainly run into the bathroom and down a bunch of sleeping pills, or lock himself in a bedroom. It happens all the time, and anyone can think of a number of possible situations that could arise if a person is simply allowed to walk around and the officer doesn't take any steps to control them. The "disorderly conduct" arrest was simply the legal tool used to finalize that control.

It even looks like that people here are getting hung up on the concept of arrest. People can be arrested and unarrested depending on how the situation plays out.

I'm sure it was the compliance that was issue here, not the yelling. If a police officer orders someone to do something, I'm quite sure not one is going to care if the person is swearing at them, as long as they are following the order.

But again, most encounters wouldn't even get that far. Most people would simply accept that it looked like they were breaking into a house, the police showed up to do a job, and everyone can get on with their day.

 

Well, considering that was my first post in this thread, I think that you are way off base.

To make my position clear, I agree with FIDo, that everything was kosher, up until the actual arrest (although I would not go so far as he in thinking that cops are thugs, but that's a matter of experience and opinion).

I also agree with FIDo in expressing confusion as to why "Hey, there was a non-white officer there" equates to "No racism here, move along."

So, maybe I should have just kept it to "QFT" and been done with it? Or should i expect a witty retort. But please, I've been watching House tonight, so your witty retorts had better sparkle more than gay vampires.

 

As a thoughtful poster with LE knowledge, I'm sure you are aware of the First Amendment issues surrounding both "disorderly" statutes and "contempt of cop" arrests.

No, I mean what 1st Amendment issue do you see forming the core issue here?

Farraday is absolutely correct when he pointed out that legal precedent establishes a higher tolerance for police officers in relation to insults (as long as they are engaged in official duties)

I think it was FID above who said he would swear at the police all day. That's fine. You have to be careful though to make sure that such yelling doesn't spill over and alarm other people, because then the lower threshold would apply.

But there is also legal precedence that establishes peace officer's authority. If an officer orders a person to exit a vehicle, for example, they have to comply. (they can swear all they want as long as they do it.)

If Crowley told Gates to stay inside, or don't move, or similar, and Gates continued to follow him outside while he was yelling, that's a crime. (and it violates a number of safety concerns) If Gates had simply stayed there as directed and did nothing but continue to insult the officer, then he would just have to deal with the insults.

 

Guess I was just confused as to what part of my post you were responding to. But I assure you my retorts are not witty, more of a rambling contraption like Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos.

And yes, I did just think you meant Full House for a second so I think I lose at the internet.

 

If fangirls were unicorns Stephanie Meyer would be very sore. Since, per the police report, Gates was not told to stay outside but was asked to step outside your hypothetical is irrelevant, as I am sure you are aware.

EDIT: typo

 

I don't know what that means.

 

What I meant (with a regrettable typo but at least as much clarity as the last all-caps police report I read) is let's not make up "what ifs."

 

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. From the general sense, precedent and legal authority aren't derived from the Gate's case. That's why I initially asked which 1st Amendment issue you were bringing up here. I suppose some examples I used were generically based to illustrate the principles themselves (For example- the ordering out of a car example, or suggesting that people grab weapons in their home shouldn't be taken as a claim that Gates had a weapon in this case, but rather that policy is developed to eliminate ambiguity across a broad spectrum.)

In this specific case, I guess you could look at 2 instances, but neither represent 1st Amendment issues.

1)First, the initial contact.

As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked he would step out onto the porch to speak with me. He replied "No, I will not." He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was Sgt Crowley from the Cambridge Police" and I was "investigating a report of break in progress" at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed "why, because I'm a black man in America?" I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer.

That's at least 2 instances of non-compliance before Gates even identified himself, and before the responding officer even knew he lived there. Not to mention the fact that his answers weren't typical to someone who simply had to force open their own door.

2)The we have the actual disorderly charge that came later in the call:

Due to the tumultuous nature he had exited his residence, as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both police and citizens. For the second time, I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issue handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates he was under arrest.

All Gates had to do when the police showed up was say "Oh man, I was away on a trip, and I came home to find my door jammed so I had to force it open. I'm a professor here, and it's just me and my cat...Thanks for checking to see if everything was ok..."

Crowley probably would have checked Gates' id and looked at the door, and cleared the call with a "no incident" code before 5 minutes had passed.

 

I've always admired the way police officers can ask you orders.

Failure to obey a question?

Of course police officer benefit highly by blurring the line between questions and orders since it allows them to abuse consent when you do have the right to refuse. Not to mention arresting you for failure to comply when you don't.

 

I want you to make the claim that this incident was nothing but lead by the actions of a racist cop who wanted nothing but put this Gates boy in his place.

After you make that argument, it is relevant to point out that to both the minority cops that were there, neither one considered this to be the case. You think they are just going to sit back and what the dogs be unleashed on the good citizens of Cambridge?

Edit:
Yeah, not sure what color the sky is on your planet, but a man getting arrested in his own house isn't an 'insignificant' event. A turd plopping into the toilet, maybe. But not this. At all. And shame on people for thinking that this is just someone being a drama queen.

[image=http://blogs.dailyrecord.com/photojournalist/files/2009/05/hindenburg.gif]

OH THE HUMANITY!!!

Get some perspective man. He is a drama queen, and if he hadn't had his panties in a twist and not mouthed off to the cop nothing would have happened. It must be tough when Whitey is always putting the black man down to recognize when the rich and powerful are preying upon racial divisions for their own personal benefit.

There are black men who are not being treated fairly by the criminal justice system, it is just rich Haaa-vad professors who are friends with the President aren't one of them.

 

But there had yet to be a conclusion that there was no break-in at the point that Gates became unruley. The situation wasn't settled.

And FID, I have a long and storied history with law enforcement, and it hasn't been my expirience that "most cops are thugs." From FL to AZ, MN to IL, and many points in between, I have never been treated unfairly or even with disrespect.

I'm curious as to the events in you life that have lead you to feel that cops are thugs.

 

I don't see why that's important at all. I don't see why everyone feels they have to have an opinion on this individual case. Ya got laws, police, judges, and jurys; they should be able to handle it. No debate is needed.

 

My husband had an encounter a cop-wannabe (security guard) who was like that. Yes, my husband mouthed off at him (for accusing him of doing something wrong when he didn't), and the cop-wannabe called the real cops, who sided with my husband. One of them said, "Yeah, everybody thinks he's a cop these days."

But back on topic. Yes, Gates was belligerent, but I'm not willing to place the blame solely on either him or the cop. I think there was some wrongdoing on both sides.

I'm glad Obama has invited them both to the White House and it will be interesting to see what happens.

I'm still seeing the fallout on Facebook of Obama being asked a question that he should have never been asked, and then people not liking how he answered it. Nice catch-22, if he had answered differently, people wouldn't like that either.

 

His best answer would have been to simply say that he doesn't have all of the facts, and as it is a local matter, it should be left up to the local authorities to deal with.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Agreed. Disappointed (but not surprised) that he was asked the question, and I'm also disappointed in Obama's response.

 

I agree completely. And I think he might have answered this way if he hadn't been caught off guard.

 

Sgt. Crowley responded the way he was trained to. End of story. Gates overreacted, and honestly is being a drama queen. The cops i work with (in massachusetts by the way) are nowhere near "thugs" and while I haven't met Crowley before, I think it is a safe assumption that he was only responding to what he thought might have been a criminal act. It would have been criminal for the sergeant to simply ignore a possible/suspected break-in.