Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Someone has a potential burglar in the house and the cop has to go through the paperwork of getting a warrant?" </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.

</p>

<p>How does that work, exactly? Does the burglar holding a gun to my kid in the upstairs bedroom let me take phone calls? “Uh, excuse me, Mr. Burglar, but the police are on the line and they want me to give them permission to search the house, so if you’ll excuse me for a moment, I need to take this phone call”? Aren’t you getting that these are split second decisions / calls that the officers have to make? And the demeanor of the homeowner (calm = all is well and it’s a true false-alarm situation, agitated = hmmm, maybe something’s not right or the homeowner is in danger) is all they have to go on at that point?</p>

[calmom]

<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.

Do the cops ASK you if its ok to look around? If so - and you say yes – that’s fine. But if you tell them no and they insist on barging in any way – then your rights are being violated. </p>

<p>Its got nothing to do with white or black. It has to do with this:</p>

<p>

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

</p>

<p>Dr. Gates had a right to be secure in his house. That right was violated by the cop. A crime occurred that day, and the cop is the one who committed it.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Pizza, I apologize for being blunt. I am sorry.</p>

<p>However, the law is what this is about. The highest law of our land, the consitution, which mandates that people should be secure in their homes and should not be subject to warrantless searches. That is part of what the Revolutionary war was about. On July 4, what did you celebarate?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

So in the end all those people who were defending officer Crowley left in the face of evidence of his lies rather than just admit that the man was a liar. Classy.

</p>

<p>Nothing like that! Reasonable people just gave up trying to make others understand what was important in this incident. Reasonable people just gave up on the delusional souls who cling to smallest of discrepancies in an effort to find any kind of probable cause for the behavior of Prof. Gates and spew more vitriol about racism. </p>

<p>Twist and churn the smallest details all you want, and you still can’t establish anything that comes remotely close to racial profiling by the police force. Regardless of what Officer Crowley had been told before addressing Prof. Gates, it remains that Prof. Gates exhibited a behavior totally unbecoming to his stature and intelligence. The black resident versus white cop was not the police officer narrative; it was all Prof. Gates’ performance. </p>

<p>The only question is if he did “it” with an ulterior motive or simply because of his inability to control his tempers. </p>

<p>Pick your poison! It makes no difference. All that remains is a silly incident entirely created by an obnoxious primadona who should not be messed with … as he says.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

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>

<p>No, dbate, I’m not insulting you. I’m being sarcastic, though. I’m pointing out that if you truly believe that I (as a white woman) am “privileged” in terms of how much the cops care about my safety, then you’d see why a cop who responds to a false alarm at my residence doesn’t just take my word that I’m the homeowner for granted, but gets me out of the house or otherwise ascertains that I’m not being coerced, and perhaps walks around either inside or outside the house to ensure no one is hiding and I’m not really in danger. See, a cop’s job is <em>not</em> to just take my word at face value, because for all I know I’m saying everything’s fine because the burglar has a gun pressed to my kid’s neck upstairs. And he can make one of two mistakes. He can question me further, ask me to step outside and offend my precious sensibilities to ensure my safety – or he can just take things at face value in which case I’m plumb out of luck if I’m really in trouble. I guess I’d rather err on the side of being questioned further and asked to step out than err on the side of having the officer say “sorry to disturb you, ma’am” and whaddya know, there’s a burglar crouching behind my basement door. </p>

<p>And if they take my safety that seriously – well, then I expect them to take a black person’s safety just as seriously, of course. So it would be negligent for them to just walk away from a suspected b&e call with a homeowner who is not acting like a typical false-alarm type of homeowner. </p>

<p>I said this before and few people reacted to it, but I’ll say it again. So if my neighbors hear loud voices and suspect that someone’s being knocked about, they send the cops, my husband answers the door, he says, “I’m the homeowner, I belong here,” the cop should just say, “Sorry sir,” and leave? Well, sucks to be a domestic violence victim, I suppose. But hey – if that’s the standard you want – I’m the homeowner, get off my property – I think a lot of battered women aren’t going to appreciate that standard.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Who couldnt control his temper? The cop who arrested someone because he was p***ed off? Of a man who yelled in is own home. A cop who was on the job, and getting paid to what? To violate peoples rights?</p>

<p>Pizza, I dont see the relationship between a visibly battered woman (who the police have been know to protect?) and a situation which after 30 seconds, was clear police were not needed.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

“Pick your poison! It males no difference. All that remains is a silly incident entirely created by an obnoxious primadona who should not be messed with … as he says.”

</p>

<p>Yes, of course your right xiggi.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

The highest law of our land, the consitution, which mandates that people should be secure in their homes and should not be subject to warrantless searches.

</p>

<p>Well, again, I’m not a lawyer. But I see a distinction between “the cops knocked down my door and just began looking for pot or a meth lab” and “the cops came to my home investigating a burgler alarm that had gone off or a neighbor’s call that cast reasonable suspicion that a burglary had just taken place.”</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

“He can question me further, ask me to step outside and offend my precious sensibilities to ensure my safety – or he can just take things at face value in which case I’m plumb out of luck if I’m really in trouble. I guess I’d rather err on the side of being questioned further and asked to step out than err on the side of having the officer say “sorry to disturb you, ma’am” and whaddya know, there’s a burglar crouching behind my basement door.”

</p>

<p>I think you are being a bit irrational. The copy didn’t ask to search the house after he determined Gates was the homeowner. And if you don’t like it, as a homeowner you can tell a cop to leave and they HAVE to leave legally regardless if your safety is at jeopardy or not. That is the law. </p>

<p>

“I said this before and few people reacted to it, but I’ll say it again. So if my neighbors hear loud voices and suspect that someone’s being knocked about, they send the cops, my husband answers the door, he says, “I’m the homeowner, I belong here,” the cop should just say, “Sorry sir,” and leave? Well, sucks to be a domestic violence victim, I suppose. But hey – if that’s the standard you want – I’m the homeowner, get off my property – I think a lot of battered women aren’t going to appreciate that standard.”

</p>

<p>The law functions the way it does to prevent abuses from those who are empowered via the system i.e. cops. So in the course of doing so someone like a battered woman could be jeopardized but that doesn’t change the fact that the law is the law. That Crowley should not have arrested Gates, and acted in a manner not befitting an officer of the law by asking him to step outside simply to arrest him. Racism or not, Crowley should be reprimanded and was in the wrong. Even if Gates was arrogant and said terrible things about him, as a cop he has no right to arrest anyone.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Who couldnt control his temper? The cop who arrested someone because he was p***ed off? Of a man who yelled in is own home. A cop who was on the job, and getting paid to what? To violate peoples rights?

</p>

<p>Is that a question that still needs to be answered? This was established about 1,000 posts ago. </p>

<p>By the way, is there an antonym to the word uncooperative?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Who couldnt control his temper? The cop who arrested someone because he was p***ed off? Of a man who yelled in is own home. A cop who was on the job, and getting paid to what? To violate peoples rights?

</p>

<p>I agree that both men lost their tempers. Who lost his temper first, though? Listen to the tapes. </p>

<p>

Pizza, I dont see the relationship between a visibly battered woman (who the police have been know to protect?) and a situation which after 30 seconds, was clear police were not needed.

</p>

<p>Sigh. The relationship is that things aren’t always what they seem, and it’s unfair to expect officers to know what they’re walking into. If they had ESP, well, then you wouldn’t need police officers in the first place.</p>

<p>Look, the officer who gets called on the domestic violence call doesn’t KNOW whether he’s walking into an innocent the-TV-was-loud situation or a real woman’s-in-trouble situation. And if he just takes everything at face value (well, gee, the guy says he’s the homeowner and it was just a loud TV), and walks away - you may have a battered victim who could have been saved.</p>

<p>Just like in this situation - Crowley who got called on the suspected b&e didn’t KNOW whether he was walking into an innocent door-got-stuck situation or a real burglars-are-waiting-in-the-house. And if he just took everything at face value and walked away, and there HAD been burglars in wait who then harmed Gates - well, that would have been bad, too, no? And the news story would have been “Cambridge police don’t even bother to investigate; they don’t value the life of a black man.”</p>

<p>Look, if you want the standard to be as-soon-as-the-homeowner-shows-he’s-the-homeowner, cops-gotta-leave-even-if-the-guy-is-surly-and-uncooperative, then just say it. And understand that those are the consequences for domestic violence victims.
I’m personally willing to be “inconvenienced” by the minor trivia of walking out my front door to ascertain that I’m not in harm’s way, because I understand that inconveniencing a thousand people like me might save one person who is really in harm’s way.</p>

[lockn]

<p>

I’m personally willing to be “inconvenienced” by the minor trivia of walking out my front door to ascertain that I’m not in harm’s way, because I understand that inconveniencing a thousand people like me might save one person who is really in harm’s way.

Apparently Gates felt differently. Why should he be arrested?</p>

[kluge]

<p>This is really disheartening. Aside from the accusations of racism and attention-seeking and predictable political potshots - are Americans as a whole as ignorant and indifferent to the rights which were considered important enough to our nation’s founders that they put them in the Constitution? Calmom has printed out the 4th Amendment twice, and people still don’t get it.</p>

<p>You have the right to refuse the police entry into your home unless thay have a warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress. Period. Is that so difficult to understand? It’s your home - it’s your right. Doesn’t matter if the police are there to “help” you or not. Once the officer thought the lawful occupant of the home was asking him to leave, he became a trespasser.

@Interesteddad

A warrantless entry into the house was totally permissable under the exigent circumstances provisions of a specific 911 call reporting two intruders entering that specific address. A policeman is certainly justified in entering the house to investigate a 911 call. The whole point of the exigent circumstance exceptions are to cover situations when there is no time for a warrant – such as two intruders reported entering a house.

Nice spin. But since the officer had already concluded that he was talking to the lawful occupant of the home, there were no “exigent circumstances.” And a 911 call from an unknown source doesn’t trump that. “Probable cause” means actual probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress. That did not exist here.

You simply do not have the right to yell at police officers especially after they tell you to you are becoming disorderly. It’s illegal.

This is just sad. Do we have to tug our forelocks and kowtow, too? Wake up, Americans - you have the right to criticize the police. Even yell at them, and call them names! Mind you, I don’t recommend it - but it is your right, and if you choose to exercise that right - you can’t legally be arrested for doing it. That’s why it’s a “right.”

The officers had an option to arrest him based on his causing a scene during investigation of a potential crime.

The “option?” Seriously? “Causing a scene?” We fought a war over this stuff, folks! Whatever side of the racial/attention/political overlay you find yourself on, try not to lose sight of basic American freedoms and rights. The police cannot legally arrest you for “contempt of cop.” They might do it, but if so -* they are breaking the law.* The police do not have the right to come into your home against your wishes. They may do so, but if they do - they’re breaking the law. Officer Crowley may be a wonderful human being,as free of racial prejudice as a newborn - but he broke the law. When asked for his name and ID he should have - immediately - handed Gates his card with that info. (All officers around here carry such cards -I assume they do in Cambridge as well.) Failing to do so was a violation of the law. As soon as he had satisfied himself that Gates was the lawful occupant and was unhappy with him, he should have left the property - immediately. When he didn’t, he broke the law. When Gates yelled at him on the porch, he should have left immediately. By arresting Gates on the entirely unsupportable charge of disturbing the peace, once again - he broke the law.</p>

<p>There’s a reason we have laws. And there’s a reason those laws should apply to everyone - black, white, police, civilians. There’s no question that officer Crowley violated the law, in more than one way. There’s no basis for any assertion that Gates violated any laws at all.</p>

<p>The whole Miss Manners question is a different issue - I completely get the premise that Gates was cranky and impolite to Crowley, for a variety of reasons. But that’s not breaking the law.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>"Apparently Gates felt differently. Why should he be arrested? "</p>

<p>Apparently because the cop felt that the DC warranted it. And he must have felt very comfortable in that as he didn’t give any thought to what color Gates was, just that he was dealing with an irrational, uncooperative and abusive guy. Crowley is seasoned enough to know that a frivolous arrest of a black guy would be a huge mistake. If nothing else, Crowley has maintained a calm resolute demeanor throughout the entire incident and the aftermath.</p>

[kayf]

<p>To those who say Gates should have been more polite, I say thank you for standing up for everyone who doesnt have a job that they could stand up for their consitutional rights. Officer Crowley must go.</p>

<p>Gates has done more for constituional law than any professor at HLS. Obama should NOT invite Crowley to the White House. The CPD should invite Crowley to a hearing.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>I have never argued he should have been arrested, so why are you suggesting that I have? I think the arrest was an overreaction as well.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

"If nothing else, Crowley has maintained a calm resolute demeanor throughout the entire incident and the aftermath. "

</p>

<p>So Crowley was calm when he broke the law. Still the fact remains that he broke the law, cops are not supposed to arrest people because they don’t show deference toward them. And using Gates “arrogance” as a justification is stupid. You can be as rude and arrogant toward cops as any other person in society. Last time I checked firefighters don’t get to abuse people’s rights because they were rude to them.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>I’m not saying that it’s a justification. I think it’s perfectly valid to hold the opinion that Crowley overreached in making the arrest, but also that Gates’ “instincts” led him to behave in a manner that wasn’t particularly productive in the first place.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>^^That doesn’t matter, though. So bring it up would simply be a justification. Crowley was in the wrong.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>So was Gates, though. YK, don’t go complaining about how you got sprayed by the fire extinguisher when you lit the match to the kerosene. Both men need to own their overreaction, IMO.</p>