<p>@Zoosermom, I guess that is a thorough and fair way to explain the incident. (Your former post not this one ^^)</p>
<p>
I don’t think that’s true. I think Professor Gates should be taken at his word from pretty early on that Officer Crowley wouldn’t hear the end of it. Once Professor Gates got his back up there was nothing Officer Crowley could do that wasn’t going to cause him major problems, even if he had walked on water to his patrol car. But the arrest was still unwarranted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would seem to be obvious. Crowley failed to diffuse the situation and allowed it to continue outside and escalate. Once he ascertained that Gates was the owner of the home, what was the point of continuing to interact with him? How about saying: *I don’t want to argue with you, sir. We’re leaving. Here is my name and badge number. If you have a complaint, contact my superiors." *</p>
<p>And unless he’s claiming that Gates was blocking the door and refusing to let him leave, Crowley should have walked out the door and left Gates to rant at the walls. Why assume that Gates, after a good night’s sleep and a hot breakfast, would decide to continue to complain about how the police handled their inquiry? And what if he did? Big yawn. This only turned into a credible news story because they decided to arrest him, waste time and effort taking him to the station to fingerprint him, book him, photograph him and question him. Only to drop the charges the next day. </p>
<p>Crowley has not won anything. This was a pretty big embarrassment for the Cambridge police department, imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which makes the cop lawfully wrong (now I wonder if there is enough of a case to sue). I think the issue is with how he approached Gates in the first place. I do believe that had Gates been white, the cop would have been concerned for his safety and would have approached Gates with that sort of tone. Instead, I believe he approached Gates as cops often do when blacks are involved. He wanted deference from Gates, and that caused Gates anger and fear. Ultimately, Gates decided to compel the cop by demanding his name and number. The racism exists here, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It is the sort of racism that gives the benefit of the doubt to whites, and denies it to blacks. I think the cop made coppish demands of Gates, and that this caused the whole thing to fall downhill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true. But Crowley would never have approached you as he did Gates. So you likely never would have felt compelled to respond to the cop as Gates did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. It has to do with racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. We are in a recession. People are losing their homes. If the black cop does not show complete agreement, he likely would be run out on a rail, and he knows it. His statement is without significance here.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Are they reading glasses or distance glasses?</p>
<p>Remember the football player who was held by a police officer in the hospital parking lot while his mother-in-law died? This is what I immediately thought of when I heard about the Gates’ case. I just think police are more apt to give you the benefit of the doubt when you are white.</p>
<p>Also have to comment on the # of hits this thread has received vs. the healthcare thread. This incident is just one big national distraction . . .</p>
<p>@Dross, if the black cop gave a statement in opposition to Crowley and then was mysteriously fired a couple weeks later, (almost) every person in the United States would hear about it and condemn the Police Administation in Cambridge. Then, he would win a lot of money out of the Police Department in an ensuing lawsuit (and rightly so, if this was the case). His job is protected by the media spotlight. Anyways, don’t you think he will get some backlash from many of his African American peers for siding with Crowley? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How did he approach Gates? Give me some proof that shows he instigated this whole dilemma…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yea, CNN gave the benefit of the doubt to whites, by calling it an “unfathomable arrest”. Anyways, you are talking as if this is a white vs. black fight, where only one side wins and receives all the spoils.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I am Lebanese, and I addressed that in a previous post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue is not so much about the ability of Prof. Gates to read a badge or name tag but about the reason for a police officer to decline vocalizing the information he is … wearing on his shirt. Prof. Gates’ steadfast allegation is that the police officer refused to disclose his name. Something that makes as much sense as all the remaining allegations of misconduct claimed by Gates. </p>
<p>Of course, it is not very hard to understand that someone who yells has problems hearing, and someone who is extremely mad and agitated cannot see clearly.</p>
<p>listen jazzy jazzy, it’s been written before that the called-in report had two people. Crowley had to investigate the second person also. That is also why he asked Gates to step outside.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This turned into a ‘credible news story’ when Gates started exploiting it to anyone who would listen.</p>
<p>
I bet you’re right. But to whom do black men give the benefit of the doubt when a crime is reported at their home?</p>
<p>I remember that case. Heartbreaking and appalling. THAT’S a perfect example of police misbehavior. Coming to someone’s house to protect it and its occupants is not. There are good reasons why a police officer could come to anyone’s house. I recently had one come by to ask if we had heard anything when a crime was committed. As professor Gates’ first thought was that he was in danger, my first thought when the police came was that something had happened to one of my kids. It’s really a shame that such stupidity caused yet more problems between the black community and the police. Who benefits from that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please - if the suspect had been described as white and the officer saw someone matching that description in the house, the tone would be no different. Stop assuming that everyone besides you is completely racist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet it doesn’t hold a candle to the Michael Jackson craze - talk about a national distration…</p>
<p>“The issue is not so much about the ability of Prof. Gates to read a badge or name tag but about the reason for a police officer to decline vocalizing the information he is … wearing on his shirt. Prof. Gates’ steadfast allegation is that the police officer refused to disclose his name. Something that makes as much sense as all the remaining allegations of misconduct claimed by Gates.”</p>
<p>Sure it is. A police officer is a public servant. Why decline such a simple request if he’s not on an ego trup.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Then why did you bring it up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are NO parallels between the Cambridge and the DFW cases. In Texas, the police officer was out-of-control and screaming and the professional athlete remained cool and composed. That, and the facts leading to the speeding and the chase, made it so easy to “side” with the abused young man. </p>
<p>Who is it again who lost control in Cambridge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow… No comment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Crowley has stated that he identified himself twice and was still asked for his name. Now, since we cannot automatically assume which report his correct, no one should be using this as evidence of police misconduct.</p>
<p>@Xiggi, I agree, posters keep providing irrelevant examples of how police have racially profiled African Americans. Guys, we believe these cases are accurate, we just don’t see the relevance to this specific case.</p>
<p>
The officer says otherwise. What if it turns out he is telling the truth?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Did he really decline to give his name? THAT is exactly what makes no sense, and what goes a long way to establish how little credibility the esteemed professor has in this case.</p>
<p>The officer had no reason to decline disclosing his name and no reason to lie about it. Gates, on the other hand …</p>
<p>Can someone please be kind enough to explain to me how the Prof’s behavior was disorderly conduct IN A PUBLIC PLACE? Does a private home become a public place if the cops are in it? </p>
<p>That is my question, not a statement. So if you know the answer please explain. Thanks.</p>
<p>Edit: I see some sort-of answers in the thread above…so the ‘public’ part comes from the argument being in the front porch? </p>
<p>I am still amazed that the story has generated so much interest. Too bad, the attention really needs to stay focused on health care. Obama is probably kicking himself for getting entangled in this. This is a rare slip-up in his Presidency so far, and I’m sure he’s learned from it. Well, not much harm done. Better than invading a country by mistake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s the story without the arrest? </p>
<p>*Harvard Professor Annoyed by Police Inquiry *</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s got legs. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
I think that part pertains to the screaming outside.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I was not saying that the police officer was wrong in responding to the call & going to the house. The “benefit of the doubt” I am referring to is when Gates produced I.D. and the police officer remained obdurate.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the only parallel I am making between the cases is that I believe if the football player had been a white man he would have had a greater chance of being believed in that parking lot by the officer, i.e. getting the benefit of the doubt.</p>