<p>If you care what I think. I believe that when Crowley walked onto the porch, somebody in the gathering crowd of looky-loos on the sidewalk (maybe Whalen, maybe someone else like the old lady who initially asked Whalen to call 911) called out that the intruders might have been two black men. I suspect that Gates, already standing at the front door, heard this and went code red before the first word was exchanged with Crowley, who was caught in the cross-fire just trying to figure out if there were any intruders (since the 911 call was a report of a break-in in progess). He didn’t have the benefit of hearing how tentative and pathetic Whalen’s 911 call had been.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is illogical to give the officer this benefit. You see, the suspicions against the woman only existed BECAUSE of the now obvious dishonesty (or mistake - for Crowley supports) of the officer. We simply accepted this aspect of the report, giving him the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. I think it was a benefit he did not deserve, since she says she never talked with him, and never reported what he claims she reported.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the key, interesteddad. There was a meme that no one thought a black guy could live in such a fancy schmancy house and if a black guy was in one, he was clearly up to no good. We now have the EVIDENCE that within 30 seconds of his arrival, Crowley clearly identified that he was satisfied that Gates was the homeowner and had the right to be there. So it wasn’t the cop-thinking-the-black-guy-had-to-be-a-robber meme at all, turns out. Meanwhile, Gates mouths off. Crowley may have overreacted to the mouthing off, but how is that racist? It’s just unfortunate.</p>
<p>The first person who made an assumption about the motive of the other person was Gates. He made the assumption that Crowley was out to get him. Given that Crowley ascertained pretty quickly that Gates was the lawful homeowner, doesn’t seem as though he was ascribing motive to Gates (until Gates mouthed off).</p>
<p>Sorry, listening to tapes I have to agree with interesteddad’s versions of things. And I agree with him on PRECIOUS little, LOL.</p>
<p>coronax2, I have never faulted the woman who placed the 911 call–even before any of the later-breaking information came out, which has made me feel sorry for her.</p>
<p>One other aspect of this that puzzles me: I have the impression that Officer Crowley commented that he had the “perp,” after he had arrested Professor Gates. Is this correct? If so, what do you make of his reference to Professor Gates as the “perp”?
The “perp” of “disorderly conduct”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Is that police procedure if an occupant refuses to let the person in? For the officer to just sit … and wait … and wait? Meanwhile, if it really is a burglar / hostage situation, goodness knows what could be going on inside while the officers sit … and wait … and wait. No thanks.</p>
<p>
Right. Which means that at 32 seconds the cop should have been off the property. </p>
<p>As soon as the cop formed the belief that Gates was the lawful occupant, he needed to leave when Gates made clear he didn’t want to have a conversation.</p>
<p>That’s the LAW. There is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for the cop sticking around and entering the home, much less arresting Gates, after that point – because the cop became the lawbreaker when he refused to leave.</p>
<p>
Yes, that is the LAW. A police officer cannot enter on private premises without probable cause. Crawley ADMITS on his police report and ON TAPE that he BELIEVED Gates to be the occupant of the home, almost immediately after the initial encounter. So that is the point at which Crawley lost the legal right to continue an on-premises investigation.</p>
<p>If he had personally witnessed something to give him probable cause to believe that there was a crime in progress, he could take action – but he did not. </p>
<p>If he believed based on what others told him that there was a crime in progress, the cops could have sat guard while a cop went for a warrant – based on probable cause as set out in their affidavit – but they did not do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Crowley was probably embarrassed when Gates was berating him and just wanted to show his power. I bet Gates knew what was up, problem was Gates was well connected. If he wasn’t this would have been just another example of police abuse of power and no ramifications would have occurred. I guess Crowley messed with the wrong man.</p>
<p>So I guess tough toodles if someone breaks into my house, threatens me and my loved ones, the cops show up and the burglar tells me to get the cops away or he’ll shoot my loved one. I wonder, why, then, whenever I’ve had false alarms it’s been quite explicit that they (the officers) don’t take me immediately at face value but do a little look-see to check the house and make sure I’m not in danger from someone hiding.</p>
<p>I guess this scenario never happens, which is why the burglar-alarm companies make alarm systems that are designed precisely for the scenario of burglar-overpowers-you-and-makes-you-turn-off-the-alarm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So help me understand the logistics. Someone has a potential burglar in the house and the cop has to go through the paperwork of getting a warrant?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I am black and our house alarm has gone off before, the officers came my parents explained what happened and left. For the most part cops (of any race) are upstanding guys, although there are a few bad apples. And in all honesty being rude is a sure fire way to turn a good apple bad. But I am never rude to cops.</p>
<p>
From what I know (which is rather limited) they tell you to hide and you give the officers permission to enter via the phone. Unfortunately the young lady was not the homeowner and therefore could not confer the right to enter.</p>
<p>
It’s Gate’s house. He gets to call the shots. The cop had every right to go up to the house, knock on the door, and ask if Gates was ok. Gates had every right to tell the cop to leave. Gates’ house, Gates’ rights.</p>
<p>That’s what it means to live in a free country.</p>
<p>“It’s Gate’s house. He gets to call the shots. The cop had every right to go up to the house, knock on the door, and ask if Gates was ok. Gates had every right to tell the cop to leave. Gates’ house, Gates’ rights.”</p>
<p>The cop was investigating a report of possible burglary. If Gate’s had cooperated one iota with the investigation of that suspected crime, this would have been an entirely different story. What is an investigator to make of an uncooperative occupant? That he may be being coerced by some intruders inside is one thing that comes to mind.</p>
<p>Geesh.</p>
<p>Wendy Murphy was on PBS. She said that Crowley drove up, she flagged him down (or waved him down), she identified herself as the caller, he told her to stay there and then went up the porch. That sounds consistent with 22 seconds and the rest of the evidence so far.</p>
<p>If you were a pair of burglars, would you carry two suitcases to rob a place or two backpacks? The two big black guys with backpacks sounds like a cliche’. Someone asked why would Crowley lie when there was no reason to? Well, he didn’t find out who Gates was until a few days later (I read that in an article), so there no reason to think that he wouldn’t get away with changing the story a little.</p>
<p>Pizza girl, </p>
<p>Go to law school. Yes, exigent circumstances such as what you describe can justify a search without a warrant. That is not what happened. The cops KNEW 30 seconds into they should have left. By NOT firing the cop, it is open season on warrantless searches of blacks (maybe of all of us). Obama was wrong to back down quickly and should demand an investigation and should not invite the cop ot the white hosue. </p>
<p>The police officer should be fired. Next time it happens, it wont be to a Harvard prof.</p>
<p>Dbate – I’m white. Maybe I’m average – I live in very white/asian suburb and have a nice office job. I don’t beleive the cop for one minute.</p>
<p>I’m with binx. I came back and found that minds are no more open to facts than before. Rather nasty atmosphere here, in fact.</p>
<p>kayf, no need to be nasty. I have never pretended to be a lawyer.</p>
<p>Dbate:
</p>
<p>Well, I guess it’s because I’m white that they value my safety more; that’s why they took a look-see around and ensured that I wasn’t in danger; whereas your family is black, so they did a cursory investigation and left. Maybe the cops should treat false alarms / potential b&e’s with black homeowners as seriously as they do white homeowners … oh never mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re a little late, we stopped caring about y’all denying facts a few pages back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand are you trying to insult me? So are you saying the cops were racist because they didn’t come into my home, I really don’t understand what you are saying.</p>