Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

MBA_Grad_2009 · July 27, 2009, 5:39pm

Not really. In emotional situations <a href=“and%20surely%20we%20can%20at%20least%20agree%20this%20is%20one%20of%20those%20situations”>i</a>* people can make mistakes in details. There is doubt in several peripheral areas, peripheral in that they do not address the substance of what happened, who was involved, or the sequence of events. At this time the only thing we can honestly say is that there is a discrepancy between Whelan and the officer. If he is wrong, that is more serious because it establishes grounds to challenge other statements he made, except for what is corroborated by the tape. However, we do not know that the officer is wrong, and the firestorm set off by the media would certainly intimidate a lot of people - in this day and age, it’s personally dangerous to be labeled a ‘racist’ on national television. That does not mean that the woman ‘lied’, she could have said one thing to the officer and remembered it later differently when she spoke to the media.

My point is that “facts” are different than just what someone says. The tape is factual, the statements made by the officer, the professor, and the complaintant are not necessarily factual. It is important to keep that distinction in mind.

binx · July 27, 2009, 5:41pm

I haven’t read this thread all the way through - it moves too fast for me to keep up. But I am interested in the various takes on it. I’m trying to wait out the facts.

I just listened to the 911 call on YouTube posted on Google news (clearer than other recordings I’ve tried to listen to) and the caller agrees to meet with the police when they arrive. She says she’s standing outside and “I guess I’ll wait.”

I’m still trying to not rush to judgement. But I wonder if she talked with another officer at the scene (and Crowley was writing a composite - knowing in hindsight that the men were black, but not accurately remembering or feeling the need to record the specifics of when he learned it). Also, she says she was calling on behalf of another resident, “an older woman” - and I wonder if there was any information from that woman - someone whose name hasn’t yet been revealed. Would the police have known at that point who made the 911 call, or have had any reason to specify who mentioned race to them?

I also looked for, and didn’t find, any suggestions on how this situation should have been handled differently. If the cop and resident were both white, or both black, and the resident tried to blow off the cop, would it have had a different result (assuming something equally provocative was being shouted - “You hate women” “You hate gays” whatever)?

(I have a quick temper, and I am unfortunately not very fond of authority - especially macho authority. I have been pulled over 3 time in my life, and each time left me feeling abused. I’ve also had the privilege of riding in the backseat of a police car. I feel for Prof. Gates - he is far used to being in authority than I am, so it would have been quite a humbling experience for him. But I’m aware that cops have to be in control all the time. That’s what makes it so unpleasant for me, but that’s reality.)

The 911 caller indicates that the people “pushing in the screen door” were still inside the house. At that point, apparently no one knew what color they were. So it could not become racial profiling until after they began talking to each other, and it went downhill quickly from there.

Regardless of what was real, I worry that Prof. Gate’s house and neighborhood may now be a little less protected. No officer in Cambridge is going to be eager to pursue any suspects of color any time soon. What happens if someone really does try to break into his house. Will his neighbors be silent this time?

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 5:41pm

Yes, MBA grad pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. No lie here, just mistakes. Back to fantasy world.

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 5:45pm

No Crowley clearly states that Whalen spoke directly to him and he would have to know who she is for her to be identified.

From CNN Crowley’s own words:

She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," the report says. “She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”

[911</a> caller in Gates arrest never referred to ‘black suspects’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/]911”>911 caller in Gates arrest never referred to 'black suspects' - CNN.com)

Please stop trying to defend him. He lied.

BCEagle91 · July 27, 2009, 5:46pm

[That does not mean that the woman ‘lied’, she could have said one thing to the officer and remembered it later differently when she spoke to the media.]

She vehemently claims that she didn’t speak to Crowley at all. That is different from mis remembering what she said to him. If she did speak to him, then someone should recall it. Someone snapped the picture of Gates in handcuffs. Given how easy it is to take pictures today and the level of security cameras around (I would expect them given the many high-rise buildings in the neighborhood), I’d expect people to start looking for evidence that they spoke.

I just read that Whelan stated that there were two suitcases there and that they might just be having problems with their keys (from the 911 call). I have read nothing whatsoever of the two backpacks in her accounts. She did state that she thought that one might be hispanic. Someone earlier said that the driver was not black. Doesn’t it seem inconsistent that there would be two blacks with backpacks mentioned anywhere?

interesteddad · July 27, 2009, 5:48pm

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you would listed to Crowley’s interview, most of the specualtion here would be rendered moot.

Crowley said that he did not know if the initial 911 had any racial information – remember, the dispatcher still had Whalen on the phone while Crowley was driving to and arriving at the scene.

When Crowley arrived, he requiested from the car that the 911 women come out of the house. He was told that the 911 woman didn’t live there and that she was already outside on the sidewalk.

As Crowley walked onto the porch, he saw a woman with the phone standing on the sidewalk, just a few yards away. He leaned that the suspects seen were still in the house (all he really cared about at that moment) and did not want to stand on the porch with his back to the front door in case there were armed intruders. You can hear from his radio calls that any conversation with the woman on the sidewalk was very brief. He called in his initial report of talking to the suspected homeowner only about 30 seconds after arriving on scene. You can hear somebody talking loudly in the background during this first call (presumably Gates).

When, Officer Figeroa arrived, he talked with Whalen and took her report. Keep in mind that Whalen intially called at the behest of an unidentified older woman. It is quite possible that the older woman was also there giving what she saw. Within six minutes, there were multiple CPD and Harvard police units on site and eight bystanders, counting Whalen.

We don’t know, but after Gates was taken away, one or more officers may have continued taking information. It doesn’t really matter. Crowley said that, as soon as he saw Gates, he figured Gates was not a burglar because he was well-dressed and never made any effort to conceal himself. Crowley was just trying to clear up whether there had been a break-in, saying that he expected the whole process to take “maybe 14 seconds”. He was not expecting any kind of confrontation. He was wary and trying to protect himself in case there were intruders, but it’s not like he approached the house with weapon drawn as he would have done if he felt in great danger (actually, he probably wouldn’t have approached the house at all without backup). He was just trying to talk to the middle-aged well-dressed man standing at the front door to find out what the heck was going on. He had, after all, repsonded to a 911 call of a break-in in progress.

Again, the far more interesting question is “where did the driver go?” and why didn’t Whalen tell anybody he had left (if indeed he had left)?

Drosselmeier · July 27, 2009, 5:49pm

I already answered this. If you have personally suffered trauma from some black guy, multiple times, then it would be perfectly understandable that you would feel circumspect around black guys. It is a natural reaction. Even white women raped by white guys often have difficulty feeling comfortable even with their white husbands. But none of this happens generally where blacks are concerned. It is an entirely separate issue. With blacks, people who have never had an interaction with blacks at all are fed racist reports, many from lying police officers, that they take as gospel. When I sat there in Jersey with that cop rummaging through my car, and people rubbernecking at the scene, probably five hundred whites saw it, and it just added to the notion of the Fearsome Black Crimminal, though I was absolutely innocent and had not even once in my life so much as held a cigarette, let alone drugs.

I do nothing to perpetuate harmony with the continued insistence on telling lies either. I just happen to think we will not get past racism unless we can see it for what it is, how ubiquitous it is, how it infects virtually everything we do here in the cursed country.

I never linked you with anything, PG. But I apologize nevertheless. I do not wish to harm you. I should note, however, that slavery existed in the North and was codified into law in the North even before it was codified in the South.

NCL · July 27, 2009, 5:50pm

I listened to the police radio transmission carefully. The recording is 4:37 long.

(4:47) The dispatcher began to issue the call.
(3:40) A policeman (Crawley) arrived at the scene and asked the dispatcher to send the caller to front door;
(3:25-3:21) Dispatcher told him caller does not live there, is a witness in this.
(2:59) Crawley reported the gentleman seemed to reside here but uncooperative.

Only 22 seconds elapsed between Crawley learned caller being a witness and reported Gates being uncooperative.

It is clear that Whalen told the truth.

BCEagle91 · July 27, 2009, 5:51pm

[She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," the report says. “She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”]

Why would she mention two suitcases but no backpacks in the 911 call and then two backpacks and no suitcases to Crowley? I always carry a backpack with me when I travel. I’ve never carried two of them - it makes no sense as you can only wear one.

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 5:52pm

Actually the scene you are describing is completely circumspect. We are somehow to deduce that all the information about two black men and officer Crowley speaking directly to Whalen is a big mistake? Huh. Let’s be rational, Whalen was pointed out clearly as the person spoken to, not an elderly woman. And officer crowley wrote the report, not another officer and in it directly referenced a direct conversation by saying “She told me”. Although Whalen vehemently denies that she even spoke to him. This just adds up to a lie.

MBA_Grad_2009 · July 27, 2009, 5:52pm

And a statement like this advances the discussion how?

** sigh **

Have you stopped to think this situation through?

There are all kinds of possibilities here, you know. Maybe the officer was racist, maybe the professor was racist. Maybe neither was racist but they each took a strong dislike to the other one. For all the noise, at some point we really need to recognize that when we don’t know the whole story, that’s the point - we should not assume what we do not know.

The officer drives up answering a call in a nice neighborhood. What does he gain by provoking an incident where if he’s wrong he could easily get fired? It’s not as if this was some downtown incident and the man accused was mistaken for a member of the Crips.

I’m not defending him half so much as I’m trying to remind you - unsuccessfully, it appears - that assumptions do not make facts.

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 5:54pm

And consequently that Crowley was a liar.

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 5:55pm

We don’t have to assume just look at the time breakdown. I don’t know about you, but 22 seconds is a little short to carry on a conversation, even an imaginary one. Crowley lied, and you denying a fact.

Drosselmeier · July 27, 2009, 5:55pm

hehe - They just keep wrecking it.

BunsenBurner · July 27, 2009, 5:55pm

Hiding from the MSM vultures.

binx · July 27, 2009, 5:57pm

Dbate (interesting handle) - Actually, I’m not trying to defend him, just trying to understand. Passing judgement ahead of time isn’t something I’m comfortable with.

I just read the police report, and he clearly states that Whalen approached him (in a way that fits what the 911 report said - that she was already outside.) Yet her lawyer (who wasn’t there) says she didn’t speak to Crowley. That smells funny to me. She said she would wait outside, and Crowley says she waved him down.

The report says he didn’t know it was Whalen till after the fact. Maybe it wasn’t Whalen. Has anybody checked? If she is telling the truth, then maybe Crowley talked with a woman who said she was the one who reported it - and maybe it was the older woman who reported it to Whalen? That’s a reach - I still think it seems more likely that Whalen talked.

I don’t know if you’ve ever had the opportunity to write out a conversation after the fact, and then compare it with a recording. I used to have to do this as part of my nurses training. It’s not easy. It’s easy to let later “knowledge” interfere with what you thought was said earlier. I’m not saying that is what happened here - only that it does happen.

Of course, it’s much easier to skip the trial and go right to the verdict.

calmom · July 27, 2009, 5:59pm

Legally, once the cop ascertained that the person inside the house was the resident, and the resident was refusing to talk to him, he had to leave. It’s not a matter of “should” – if a cop knocks on your door to inquire about a possible crime, and you tell him to go away, he’s got to leave. He doesn’t get to keep asking questions, or to force his way into the house, or even to demand ID. He is stopped at the threshold by the 14th amendment.

The police radio tape makes it very clear that Crawley believed Gates to be the homeowner (or tenant) when he said that Gates was “uncooperative”. At that point, Crawley’s continued presence on the property was illegal - assuming that Gates had asked him to leave. It was a violation of the 14th Amendment and also a trespass.

This is the United States, not a police state or a dictatorship, so cops are bound by the limits of the 4th amendment and probable cause. Crawley’s ability to investigate a possible burglary stopped at the door to the house. (If he believed Gates to be a burglar, Crawley could have sat in his patrol car in front of the house and called for other cops to watch the back of the house and waited. Real burglars eventually come out. )

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 6:00pm

She must have been talking extremely fast in 22 seconds then.

binx · July 27, 2009, 6:01pm

She was excited. I can say a lot in 22 seconds. I just typed this in less.

Dbate · July 27, 2009, 6:02pm

Yeah, except for the fact that in those 22 seconds he had to speak to her AND speak to gates to identify him as the homeowner. And unless Crowley is the flash then there is NO WAY he did both in 22 seconds.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

CONNECT WITH US