Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

BCEagle91 · July 23, 2009, 4:36pm

[I’m sorry, BCEagle, I saw your response–I just can’t glean whether it boils down to a “yes” answer to my question or not.]

"It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. … So I would like to apologize,

“I understand, of course, why people are upset; I would be upset myself,” … said. “I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future.”

Public Relations 101

Also don’t mess with those that have political clout.

TutuTaxi · July 23, 2009, 4:40pm

We have all heard about the police blue line. Actions always speak louder than words. Officer Crowleys pattern of arrest would be a means of evaluating his motivation in arresting Prof Gates. If he has a clear pattern of no nonsense in making arrest and this case fits his pattern than it probably wasnt racially motivated. OTH, if he has never or rarely made an arrest for verbal rudeness, than it was strongly suggest the arrest of Prof Gates was racially motivated. What is Officers Crowleys arrest history?

razorsharp · July 23, 2009, 4:48pm

The reason police officers are given so much credibility is that they usually don’t lie. When some do lie, it is sensationalized and the public begins to assume all cops are liars. From what I have observed about most State police is that they have very little tolerance for lying. The odds of lying by a police officer and getting away with it are small. Polygraph results are not admissible in most courts but they are usually part of internal affairs investigations. A police officer has nothing to gain from lying about a disruptive behavior charge.

As to the blue line, most internal affairs investigators could care less about protecting police officers who are lying.

BCEagle91 · July 23, 2009, 4:52pm

We have an equilibrium problem.

This is why priests in Boston were able to get away with sexual abuse of children for so long in the Boston area.

Do you have evidence for this? This sounds like pure conjecture.

Human behavior is often irrational.

Hanna · July 23, 2009, 4:52pm

“it would be a more difficult question whether the officer had a reasonable belief that he could justifiably arrest Gates for disorderly conduct.”

Based on the police report, I don’t see how such a belief could be reasonable. An old man acting grouchy when there are strangers on his porch is not disorderly conduct. This was no more of a threat to public safety than the iconic “Get off my lawn!”

Regarding the race of the backup officers, it’s irrelevant. People of all colors are susceptible to assumptions about the criminal status of a black man. Having black or Hispanic cops present doesn’t mean that the suspect’s race will be ignored.

Re the 72-year-old grandma, if you look back at that thread, I thought the policeman was overreaching in that case, too. But even there, he had a better reason to be concerned about the perp being a danger to herself or others when she kept wandering off the shoulder of a busy highway; the altercation was not on her front porch. Unlike Gates with his 2 IDs, the grandma had not proven that she was not a criminal at the time of the tasing. Gates also wasn’t yelling “Arrest me! Arrest me! I dare you!” as the grandma did. She was LITERALLY asking to be tased.

razorsharp · July 23, 2009, 4:57pm

Only my numerous observations. For example, I know of a state court judge who suspected a State trooper had lied about some minor detail so the judge banished the trooper from his court. The trooper had to be transfered to another part of the state. I have heard from several internal affairs and never once I have heard them tolerate lying or favor the police department.

BCEagle91 · July 23, 2009, 5:02pm

There were anecdotal posts of police lying earlier in this thread. Irrational stuff of course but it does happen.

On another note:

Charles P. Wilson, National Chairman of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, told ABC News that the officers involved “could have taken a different path on handling that case” but also said that the president could have used different language.

“I want the president of this country, regardless of who he is – a black man in the White House, a white man in the White House, or any other person in the White House – to be able to acknowledge and recognize there are still issues of race in America,” Wilson said.

[Obama</a> Defends Cambridge Police Criticism in Henry Louis Gates Arrest - ABC News](<a href=“Obama Defends Criticism of Cambridge Police in Arrest of Gates - ABC News”>Obama Defends Criticism of Cambridge Police in Arrest of Gates - ABC News)

MiamiDAP · July 23, 2009, 5:43pm

There is a problem when people are expressing their opinions without having all the facts. The facts as of now are know only to participating parties. The rest should keep their mouth shut before learning what has actually happened.

In regard to race, the problem has always existed, will always exist, it is unavoidable and it works against ALL races (black, white, yellow, green, purple, whatever) coexisting in one country. And again, who is to tell who to blame for this situation? it is very easy to throw a stone and put yourself in “innocent” position precisely becuase you supposedly “identified” the problem and point who to blame.

StitchInTime · July 23, 2009, 6:38pm

[Harvard</a> professor Gates arrested at Cambridge home](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html]Harvard”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html):

[John</a> Kerry: Do you know who he is?](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2004/02/15/INGI84V0CK1.DTL]John”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2004/02/15/INGI84V0CK1.DTL)

geeps20 · July 23, 2009, 6:56pm

…but he says the Cambridge police acted stupidly?..Just shut the heck up BO and stop playing the race card. Gates is a pompous jerk…no surprise he’s a friend of Bo’s.

CIA · July 23, 2009, 6:58pm

Didn’t know being a “pompous jerk” was a criminal offense. Thanks for the enlightenment, Geeps!

geeps20 · July 23, 2009, 7:00pm

disorderly conduct is. The police ask you a question…you answer it. There was a reported break in, the police were there to help.

Novelisto · July 23, 2009, 7:23pm

To help by arresting the man who owns (and proves with I.D. that he owns) the house? Let me guess…you also thought it was okay to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

mousegray · July 23, 2009, 7:35pm

Re police lying, I have had cops lie to me in small matters.

Once, my son, then 14, was mugged and had his backpack stolen. The cop in charge wanted to take him to the same locale and see if my son could spot the perpetrator. When I expressed concern about my son being seen doing this (and suffering the consequences), the cop assured me that my son would be staying in the police car and would not be visible. Afterwards, my son told me that this was not the case, that he was taken out of the car and had to stand around in full view with the cops while they looked around.

Now, this is not a big lie, but it eroded my faith and confidence in my local police. I entrusted my son to them and they did not honor my trust. You could say it was merely a lie of convenience in favor of the big picture which was to find the perp, but it’s hard to appreciate that when you’re being lied to after expressing a mother’s concern. I can actually also appreciate why he lied to me, after all, how effective would he be if he was doing a lot of handholding? But I won’t ever forget the lie.

I’ve also seen a lot of unnecessary bullying and unfair treatment of non-whites by non-white police officers. The first time this happened, I was shocked. Now, I’m sorry to say it just reinforces my cynical attitude towards the cops. I do want to believe that most cops are good, decent people, but the rare times I do see evidence of decency, I’m always surprised. I think that’s sad.

yourworld · July 23, 2009, 7:48pm

drosselmeir and others like you discredit yourself when you prefaced your comment with this,

Were you a witness ? How do you know ? In fact THIS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. YOU DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A WHITE OFFICER with the facts. You already convicted the cop and excused Gates.

Whites have no such hangup and are much more willing to give someone, especially a minority, the benefit of doubt. Lets discuss why any and everything to a black is: black vs white. That is the central issue.

geeps20 · July 23, 2009, 7:51pm

You don’t know the facts…just like Obama, probably best to keep quiet.

3bm103 · July 23, 2009, 7:54pm

Neither do you.

marite · July 23, 2009, 7:57pm

There is a strict definition of disorderly conduct, and what Gates did and said does not qualify. He may have been pompous, may have been unpleasant, but he did not commit an offense that should have caused him to be arrested. Here is a perspective from someone apparently versed in MA law:

The criminal prohibition against “disorderly conduct” can be found in Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, under a category that penalizes “crimes against chastitity, morality, decency and good order.” It is penalized under Section 53, which provides fines and possible imprisonment for “Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure.”
I do not think you need to get far, if at all, into nuances of First Amendment law in order to discern that a “disorderly conduct” is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one’s behavior in one’s own home.
In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen “disorderly conduct” charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of “disorderly conduct” occasioned by tone or speech in one’s own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, “disorderly conduct” aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than “disorderly speech.” In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as “disorderly” and risk criminal prosecution and penalties?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of “disorderly conduct” as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): “It is our opinion that “disorderly” sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): ‘A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public’ means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility,” and penalizes one who “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
In a 2008 case, the state’s Appeals Court revisited the matter and reiterated “[t]he “public” element of the offense [may be] satisfied if the defendant’s action affects or is ‘likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.’” Id.

[The</a> Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan](<a href=“When Is Conduct "Disorderly"? - The Atlantic”>When Is Conduct "Disorderly"? - The Atlantic)

garland · July 23, 2009, 7:58pm

Wow. I’ve been away for two weeks, both from CC and from American news in general. And I came back to this discussion. I haven’t read it all; what I have read is really, really dispiritng. When even Hunt (whom I’ve always found congenial) is saying things like “I’m sorry, but there are a lot of elements of Gates’ statement quoted above that strike me as very weaselly” and in general excusing this incident, I find myself wondering why I am still here. Or back here. I’d say that nothing changes on CC, but reading some of the comments here is like change, but for the worse.

It is perhaps time to move on.

crescent22 · July 23, 2009, 8:02pm

I might suggest that an officer with a history of racial disproportion in his arrests for similar acts would not be teaching courses in racial profiling at the police academy.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

CONNECT WITH US