The Gates Arrest: what does it say about race?

Mr44

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

Well, yea, but that was Clint Eastwood. I love quoting that movie...not sure about the ending though.

But yes, I get your point. After all, there was the case of Eleanor Bumpers several years ago, and the police were thrown in the middle of an awful situation, and IMO reacted accordingly.

My only concern is, when the police say 'we followed procedure', that in and of itself may not be good enough. After all, it could be that the procedure needs to be changed.

 

QFT

About the only thing you have to do as far as speech, according to the Supreme Court, is identify yourself. Other than that, you've both the right to talk or clam up.

Please do not try to hide the ball. It doesn't matter whether his answers were "typical" as it applies to the disorderly charge. And asking someone to step outside is different from an order.

 

Except that's both correct and incorrect depending on the situation. In this situation, Gates wasn't asked to incriminate himself beyond identifying himself. In fact, had he simply stayed silent and not continued to yell at everyone in earshot, none of this would have even happened.

There are 4 generally 4 levels for any police contact.

1)Consensual. This is when it's 2:00 on a Sunday afternoon, and the officer on foot patrol in the park simply asks "how is it going?" Again, most people would probably just talk about the weather, or their dog, or generally make small talk for a couple of minutes before both parties just go on their way.

On a numerical scale, this would be a 0.

For those who simply can't be nice to police, this is when you can swear at them, tell them that you hate them, or whatever else makes you feel better and walk away.

2)Reasonable suspicion. Developed from the Terry v Ohio SC case, also known as a "Terry Stop." This is less than probable cause, but more than a hunch. On a numerical scale, this would be about 30%.

It might be nothing more than a person wearing a long trench coat on 90 degree day hanging out at a park. It might be a person walking home from a date, but cutting behind a business at 2:00 in the morning. Now, 30% is a pretty low number, and the Terry Stop is the first level were police can detain you, including using force, to conduct a brief investigation.

This is probably the level where most problems arise, because if you're stopped at 2am for cutting through a business parking lot, and you tell the police to go screw themselves when asked what you're doing there, even if you didn't do anything else, you're probably going to be arrested for trespassing or other charge.

3)Probable cause. This is the level where you can be taken into custody or an arrest warrant issued. On a numerical scale, it's 51% certainty that a crime has been committed. Again, 51% isn't a huge percentage. This is also the level where any and all force can be used, including deadly force if needed to carry out the arrest.

This level is probably more cut and dried than the Terry Stop, because at this stage people recognize what they did, and/or why they're being arrested.

4)Beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the actual threshold for conviction of a crime. On a numerical scale, it's about a 90% certainty.

0---30---51---90

Anyone can see how the scale progresses. Simply put, trouble arises when people try and jump steps. But most people just act normally, and any contact ends positively.

EDIT-added this:

Please do not try to hide the ball. It doesn't matter whether his answers were "typical" as it applies to the disorderly charge.

Sure it does. Gates' answers have everything to do with the situation, because the police were there investigating a potential crime. "Acting normal" vs "acting defensively" is exactly the line between any cause that the officer developed in his mind.

And asking someone to step outside is different from an order.

Nope, you're incorrect. The legal requirement for the person to comply is the same.

 

Anyone staying long enough to see what he was doing would have seen he had a key, and arguably had his own luggage and had the taxi driver with him. Whoever called was ignorant of these facts and that speaks volumes. He had also entered the house from the back already. Forcing the door was necessary and justified.

One doesn't simply react without resentment when accused of breaking into his own house, and a badge is not license to accuse with impunity. "Disorderly conduct" is not specifically defined, therefore it is whatever a police officer wants it to be.

 

Henry Louis Gates: Deja vu all over again

 

Anyone staying long enough to see what he was doing would have seen he had a key, and arguably had his own luggage and had the taxi driver with him. Whoever called was ignorant of these facts and that speaks volumes. He had also entered the house from the back already. Forcing the door was necessary and justified.

But what speaks volumes is paragraphs like this. It's interesting to see all of the logical hoops being thrown around to explain away how forcing open one's door is perfectly natural and routine, as if no one ever uses the door knob anymore.

It doesn't matter what skin color a person has. If you start prying open the door to a home, it's going to garner some attention. O-E, I don't even know what you look like-white, black, blue, Vulcan, whatever- but if you go out right now and start kicking your front door in, I'll bet someone is going to show up to see what is going on.

All you have to say is that you're conducting a social experiment for TF.N and you live there because that's what is actually going on. I'll bet the entire experience will be over within minutes. The mere presence of the police doesn't mean that anyone is being accused of any wrongdoing, except it seems for the few people who really seem to have problems with anyone in a uniform.

One doesn't simply react without resentment when accused of breaking into his own house, and a badge is not license to accuse with impunity. "Disorderly conduct" is not specifically defined, therefore it is whatever a police officer wants it to be.

Except again, he did break into his own house. It would be more than strange to have the police ignore a report of someone prying open the front door to a house. If it's the simple matter of the homeowner forgetting a key/the door is jammed/no laws are being broken, then the same police are going to leave just as quickly, as I know they have better things to do.

It's the people who have this strange mentality like "as soon as the police show up, I'm just going to start swearing at them" or "I'll just stand there stone faced and only give my name when asked why I just kicked my door in" who complicate matters, as such actions don't even make sense from the standpoint of basic human nature.

 

One thought I've had is that Gates is a black man in his 60s, who has moved through the academic ranks enough to become a college professor. My father is 60, a white man who grew up in the South, and has told some stories about segregated schools and the Civil Rights era. That was Gates' world, and there is no telling what odds he overcame to become a professor at Harvard. That's why the blog I posted, from a former co-worker of his, speaks volumes.

Not excusing mouthing off at the police, but I can understand why he's a wee bit touchy.

 

But the goal of race relations is to move forward, not stay anchored to the past. It's probably even more important in this regard since Gates himself is a professor of African-American studies, and is in a position to promote this idea.

So Gates's answer to past discrimination is to treat every police officer as a card carrying member of the KKK, regardless of the individual's actual beliefs and/or actions? How is that any different than the reverse?

It's an idea which is especially ironic considering that Crowley was called to Gates' house to protect Gates' own interests from a possible break-in. What did Gates want? Should the police ignore any future burglary reports at his house and just assume that the door is still broken?

Again, no matter who was right or wrong, who over-reacted and who ended things, none of this would have even happened if Gates simply said a variation of:

"Heh, you're right officer, it must look strange for me to pry open my door, but it's just broken. No harm no foul. Thanks for coming out, would you like some tea?"

It happens every day across the country, and it doesn't involve swearing, insults against anyone's mother, or accusations of any number of "-isms."

 

So far that I can tell gates overreacted and the cop did what he should have. And speaking of social experiments. I have looked over each major 24 hour news channel and they have been covering this to death. There is a clear divide on who is on who's side, and it is unfortunate that skin tone seems to follow that divide.

 

I actually agree with you, Gates grossly overreacted and I don't think the cop had much choice. I'd be mad as **** if my neighbors accused me of breaking into my own house, but that's not the Cambridge Police Department's fault.

But that being said, I still feel sorry for Gates, even without condoning or agreeing with how he behaved.

I'm probably most upset that Obama got asked about this. There was no reason to ask the President of the United States a question about a local police matter.

 

I'd feel more comfortable saying people should react like 'normal' if police weren't able to abuse normal for their own ends.

You ignored, Mr 44, my point about the police blurring the line between asking and ordering because I'm pretty sure you know it's true.

"Can you step outside?"
"Can we step inside?" Which one of these can you say no to? The police don't inform you of your where the line is and they're more than willing to rely on you 'acting normal' and to get away with abrogating your rights.

Most everyone would know you have a right not to face illegal search and seizure, but they don't know what constitutes an illegal search or what counts are permission and police will abuse that imbalance of knowledge mercilessly.

That's why I love that police report. It reads like the words of someone who knows exactly the minimum required to make an arrest and is highlighting the key points as he justifies it using exactly the right words.

 

I didn't ignore it, it's just that your point didn't make much sense. Let me ask you how does basic human behavior fit within your above paragraph?

Let's set aside this Gates example, and use a more basic, straightforward situation.

Let's say someone is pulled over for speeding, and the cop asks for their driver's license. Are you actually going to sit there and ask "if this just a request, or if it's an order, and could you explain the difference between the two because I mistrust cops anyway?"

The majority of the population will simply provide their license without incident, so the encounter never moves up to the "ordering/compliance" stage. That's basic human nature. The basic idea of "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" certainly holds weight here.

The important point here is that the officer's simply worded request doesn't negate the driver's duty to comply. (in this case, handing over their license.) I'm referring to the legal duty to comply here. It's only when the driver refuses, that the "directness" level increases.

You seem to be suggesting that if a police officer asks for your license, or asks you to step back, or put your hands up, it's optional as long as there is a please before it. Your point only makes sense if every police officer walked around with their gun out and barked out orders while doing their best impression of a Marine drill instructor, just so the public doesn't get confused on which requests they have to follow.

 

But what speaks volumes is paragraphs like this. It's interesting to see all of the logical hoops being thrown around to explain away how forcing open one's door is perfectly natural and routine, as if no one ever uses the door knob anymore.

It doesn't matter what skin color a person has. If you start prying open the door to a home, it's going to garner some attention. O-E, I don't even know what you look like-white, black, blue, Vulcan, whatever- but if you go out right now and start kicking your front door in, I'll bet someone is going to show up to see what is going on.

I am white and I live across the street from a police officer who has never mistaken me for being anyone other than the rightful resident of my home. Doors are not foolproof--he tried the key and doorknob already. I also have a gate that leans over considerably and is difficult to open. It requires considerable lifting of the structure to get the gate open. That has never garnered attention.

 

I am white and I live across the street from a police officer who has never mistaken me for being anyone other than the rightful resident of my home. Doors are not foolproof--he tried the key and doorknob already. I also have a gate that leans over considerably and is difficult to open. It requires considerable lifting of the structure to get the gate open. That has never garnered attention.

Right, and I think you're missing the point.

Do you think it's a strict either/or process here? That either every single person across the country calls the police on their neighbor who has a broken door, or no one does?

Doesn't it make sense that if your friend recognizes you, he's not going to call the authorities? But it's not like you can extrapolate the idea that because your neighbor recognizes you, that every other person in every other neighborhood recognizes their neighbors.

And your illustration certainly doesn't factor in that if your neighbor actually did call the police on you for lifting your gate up one night, that the responding police would automatically know you as "Joe Smith with the broken gate" through some sort of telepathy or other extra-sensory power.

 

Does anyone know how long Gates has lived in that house?

That's the one thing that struck me as really weird. Even having the thought that I would be mad if my neighbors called the police on me for trying to get into my own home, it's a moot point. They wouldn't do it, because I've had the same neighbors for the entire five years that I've lived here, and if they saw me messing with my doorknob, they would know that I was just trying to get into my own house.

 

Plenty of people don't know or care to know who they live by. I've lived in my house for several years and still don't know who lives next door, much less everyone who lives down the street. Heck I even asked out a girl once and it turned out she lived 3 houses away and had never seen her before that.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but some of us are so busy with our own little lives that we miss a lot of stuff like that.

You know what, it is possible that she wouldn't have called the cops if it had been a white person. There is no proof of it, and one would hope they would always bother to call the cops, but it is something we could try using social science to study. Stage an experiment and see how people react to different races doing equally suspicious things. I don't think we have enough evidence at this point to say whether her actions were race based or not, and I doubt she even thought she was being racist, but maybe if it had been a white person she wouldn't have noticed. That to me is an interesting question. Just as interesting as how a white person would be treated walking in a majority black ghetto.

But from the cops perspective, this is nothing than a very rich, very well connected drama queen overblowing a situation that he created. The cop wasn't driving down the street, spotted a black guy in a nice house and decide he better make sure that the black man was invited into the home.

 

Ah, but when we're examining the officer's actions you are all about the historical context. "A lot of people breaking into their own homes are involved in a domestic" etc etc.

It's typical police union speak meaning "good enough for thee but not for we." And, like teachers' unions, police unions are an albatross on the neck of the rest of society.

You are also trying to fudge by saying a non-standard answer to the questions re: the break-in figure into ProbCause for the disorderly.

 

It doesn't have to because the police are not there to enforce basic human nature. Simply because most people unthinkingly buckle for authority doesn't mean authority gets it's way. Police disguise orders as questions because it helps them get away with things they would not otherwise legally be able to do.

Absolutely I'm going to. I'm going to clarify what I'm legally required to do and not just comply with anything the officer asks. I probably won't put in the codicil about "because I mistrust cops" though. A badge and a gun do are not inherent justification for me giving away my rights. Hell I have been told enough time "they died for your rights" I don't see why I should join you in giving them away so easily. I'll comply with orders but I'm not going to roll over anytime I'm "asked".

 

Farraday, all of the above is getting rather bizarre, so I'm not sure even how to respond.

All I was claiming was that if you just got done kicking in your door and the police respond to a report of someone kicking in the very same door in question, you have 2 options.*

1)You can run around swearing at everyone, calling everyone within earshot racist, or communist, or a porn star until the sun sets, and then stay up all night worrying about if the police just asked you to do something or ordered you to....

OR

2)You can just say "thanks for coming out. My door was broken, but everything is fine. What a nice day, eh?"

Option 1) will probably keep the police, who you obviously don't like anyway, all up in your business, because it's included in the job description- especially since I'm sure the officer just put a fresh coat of Armor All on his baton, and is dying to try it out.

Option 2) will allow the police to quickly get out of there and go hang out at the doughnut shop where the ones with coconut are 1/2 price.

If you think the boogeyman is around every corner, you'll actually see it there, regardless of if it is or not.

*=Unless, of course you were under some sort of diabolical mind control spell or KGB zombie drug and you had no control over what your legs were kicking in... Then you're probably on your own as KGB zombie drugs exceed the resources of most police departments.

 

Your accusation that I'm seeing boogeymen is all the more amusing for your earlier argument that Gates could have pulled out a shotgun or attacked someone with a kitchen knife.

As long as you argue police should treat people as if they're secretly homicidal lunatics I will argue you should treat every encounter with a cop as if they're looking for a reason to arrest you.

It's a simple matter of unequal knowledge, a point you refuse to even address. The police know the law and you don't. For anyone reading this your best response is to comply only to within the extent of the law and always force them to clarify what you're required to do rather than simply unthinkingly obeying and giving away your rights on accident.

Mr 44 can attempt to paint me as some sort of crazy loon, so if you're looking for more information check out the ACLU or talk to a friendly lawyer.

Despite what is being portrayed here your only two options are not to obey a shiney badge withotu question or rant crazily.

 

Can I dispense some free legal advice? If you ever find yourself in a similar situation to Gates, do the opposite of what Gates did. All of this talk about protecting your rights is nonsense when you have a simple misunderstanding to clear up. Sure, if you find a dead body and there is some suggestion you were responsible for it then clearly you need to be careful about what you say and what you do. Tell the cops you intend to co-operate fully but would like a lawyer present to ensure the process adheres to the law.

But this Gates situation? All you do by creating a fuss is to raise the cop's suspicion thereby ensuring that the cop resorts to 'offical' mode rather than just seeing the situation for what it is. Cops tend to dislike lawyers but they dislike wannabe lawyers even more. Don't act like a jerk and if you have done nothing wrong then the cop will lose interest in you and leave you alone. You know, you don't have to treat every encounter with the police like an episode of Law and Order.

 

Yes, innocence is the best way to keep cops from treating you like dir... no wait it isn't. After all if you've got nothing to hide....

That's terrible advice LoH. What are you, a prosecutor?

 

No prosecutors love it when defendants remind the police constantly of their rights and the correct process that must be adhered to. Often such action ensures that the police actually do follow the proper procedure where they might otherwise have not. It means that if charges are subseqwuently laid, the advice of the defendant to the police at the time ensures the charges will actually stick. It's like telling a firing squad how to properly load their rifles and then giving them some pointers on accurate aiming techniques. Prosecutors love it.

You think my advice is terrible? Well at least it's free.

 

But LOH's point also mirrors my own. I just don't understand what your concerns actually are.

If a police officer comes to your door and says "Hey, we got a call about a break in here, is everything ok?"

Why not just answer back, "yes everything is fine- I feel silly because my door is broken." Because after all.. wait for it...everything is fine because your door is broken.

It's not a concept that has to be particularly over-analyzed.

Instead of going off on this big rant how you're not going to answer questions if you're just asked, you have to be ordered to instead... and what exactly is the difference between the two... and how you're unsure about which rights are being violated, because you have a feeling that some are... because too many people have died for them for you to give up... at the same time wondering what the motivation of the officer really is because all cops are power hungry jerks, racists, or both... and what hidden word play is being used to try to trap you if you actually do say anything, because you have nothing to hide, but you might, so there...

I don't want to co-opt LOH's words, but everything in this thread can be summarized by the idea of You know, you don't have to treat every encounter with the police like an episode of Law and Order.

That statement all but gift wraps itself.