Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrested

Parent Cafe
1221

<p>Oh, and in case I hadn’t made myself clear in prior posts, I’d like to try to do so now: I think Officer Crowley is a good, if imperfect police officer who made many serious judgment errors in the course of conducting this case. There’s every reason to believe that most of the time he is very good at his job, and takes pride in the image he holds of himself as a good and upstanding police officer. But, I also believe he doctored The Official Police report in relating certain details in order to attempt to CYA. At some point, he had to have realized that he overstepped the bounds of his authority in arresting Prof. Gates, and that citizens have the right to behave like asses on their own property without fear of arrest. He understood that the worst he made the Prof. look, the more people would support his actions as justifiable under the law. And that has certainly turned out to be true.</p>

<p>I also believe that Prof. Gates overreacted and sensed danger where non initially existed. I understand, given his history (which I believe perfectly encompasses the Faulkner quote: “The past is not dead. It’s not even past”), why it is he might have believed yet another challenge to his right to occupy his own domicile might be imminent, that this past may well have skewed his perceptions and caused him to launch into full defense mode in the absence of the anticipated threat. His own ire challenged the ego of the responding officer, and set into motion a cascade of events that should have been prevented. I was not in the room with the two players in this drama. I cannot give an opinion was to how the interacting tones of voice, facial expressions or body language of the two men served to ratchet up the conflict. No tape has surfaced which gives an account of the exchange inside the prof’s. house from start to finish. So, I’ll admit that like virtually everyone else here, I’m engaging in conjecture in an attempt to explain what happened in that scant (six minutes!:eek:). All I can say is that cooler heads should have prevailed, and the head with the legal responsibility to remain most cool was that of Officer Crowley. His failure to do so lead ultimately to the violation of a citizen’s civil rights, which to me is the crux of the issue at hand.</p>

1222

<p>

</p>

<p>Kinda sad when it’s stupid to expect a police officer to act legally. But I can’t deny that it is indeed stupid…</p>

1223

<p>A heartfelt “thank you” to kluge for post #1193. Our constitutional rights were secured at a high price. It is incumbent on every generation of Americans to pass on these rights untrammeled to the next.</p>

1224

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL. Well, poet. If you think Crowley did this, then he is not good. You are, after all, claiming that he decided to exploit societal racism against Gates, even doctoring official state documents to do so, this, because he knew white folk would believe a white man over a black man. This is the nasty truth about the whole country because Crowley was correct in this assessment of everything. I think vast numbers of white officers know that once they put something in their Gospel Report against a black man, it is just good and done because whites across the land will accept it as “the facts”, just as they have done here in these forums. I suspect Crowley has done this before, perhaps several times, especially against generally powerless blacks and Hispanics. I think his not knowing Gates permitted him to do it yet again, being unaware that things might be a bit different with him. However one slices it, there is racism all in this thing. But, I think you do best to tell the folks here that their man is “good”. It will reassure them that all is well and that nothing fundamental has changed about the world.</p>

1225

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, Gates was, after all, jailed. He was jailed and put through a great deal of suffering, simply for speaking his mind. That tells me that our rights are not secure (well, at least mine aren’t). Good ol ‘Muricans have raged them away because a black man happened to use them. It is odd how these same people rant on and on ad nauseum against Marx and the so-called “police state” when they are doing all they can to ring it in.</p>

<p>Have a nice night!</p>

1226

<p>

</p>

<p>It doesn’t need to involve race. He expected everyone to accept his story becuase he’s a police officer.</p>

1227

<p>In case my brevity in #1223 made the point unclear in any way: I’m saying that our generation has the obligation to pass the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and by the Articles in the main body of the Constitution on to the next generation, without reduction or deletion. I am not saying we’re doing well at this!</p>

1228

<p>I’d just like to point out … in all my posts – I don’t think I’ve ever said this was racist or racial profiling. I’ve hammered on the fact that it was flat out wrong in terms of the cops duties & Gate’s constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 14th amendments) – and I am 100% convinced of that. I also think the cop lied / embellished/ fudged to the extent he thought necessary to justify what he did – and I find it telling that an article by a seasoned prosecutor shares that view. </p>

<p>But I don’t know and don’t even want to guess whether it was “racist” or not. I can’t know what was in the cop’s minds, and some cops are just bullies when they put on the uniform and treat everyone equally callously. It’s possible that he would have approached a white guy in the same manner, and reacted just as badly if the white guy had started mouthing off… and then invented some other identifying detail to insert into the police report, whether race or an item of clothing. Maybe the cop just expected trouble, and would have assumed any male he found on the premises to be suspect. </p>

<p>Crawley is probably a capable cop who takes short cuts. If it were up to me, I’d want to see the entire Cambridge police force get some training in Constitutional law and limitations on police powers – because the fact that others have backed up Crawley tells me that either they are circling the wagons to protect a bad decision, or else they all are equally poorly trained. </p>

<p>This isn’t really a judgment call. The cop should have known that at the point he realized that he was dealing with the occupant of the home, that he had to leave if asked to do so, and that he had no right to demand ID or enter the premises. He should have known that standing and yelling on the porch is not "disorderly conduct’ within the meaning of the Constitution or Massachusetts law. He should have known that there is a law on the books in his state that requires him to carry an ID card and show it to a citizen when asked. </p>

<p>He should have known all of these things just like cops need to know the Miranda rule, and that they have to stop asking questions of a suspect in custody as soon as the person asks for a lawyer, no matter how inconvenient or frustrating that is. </p>

<p>I do certainly understand how and why Gates would perceive it as racism, and believe that he was being treated disrespectfully because he is black. But it could equally have been because that particular cop likes to throw his weight around and gets nasty to people who challenge his authority. </p>

<p>The point I’m trying to make is: the race question may or may not supply motive, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the bottom line fact that the cop was legally in the wrong. I think that’s what Obama meant as well, when he said the police acted stupidly – as a former Constitutional law prof, I’m sure all the 1st & 4th amendment violations were glaringly obvious to him. (This isn’t complex stuff – any law student should be able to spot all these issues if presented on an exam question) </p>

<p>And I conclude that the cop was legally wrong from his own report and his own words on the dispatch tape, assuming that everything he said was true (even though I don’t believe it). The point when he could identify Gates as the occupant was the point that he had to defer to Gates, and lost the legal right or ability to order him about. </p>

<p>I would add that Gates probably acted stupidly as well… but not illegally. Sometimes common sense involves keeping your cool. I mean, if a robber came and pointed a gun to my head and demanded all my money, I would certainly have the legal right to protest and refuse… but that wouldn’t be smart. There are people who have been shot & killed by cops with less provocation-- and its small consolation if the cop later gets discharged from the force or put on trial.</p>

1229

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Drosselmeier… almost all cops do CYA in their reports. They always slant things to try to cover up their mistakes. </p>

<p>I know that isn’t what people want to believe, but its just how things work. The cops make mistakes because they are human, and some of them quite frankly aren’t all that bright – and then they try to write their way around them. </p>

<p>But the fact that a cop lies in a report doesn’t make him a racist. It just makes him a typical cop. The frequency with which a cop bends the truth depends ultimately on how competent he is. The more mistakes he makes on the job, the more often he needs to do the CYA thing. (Keep in mind that his career is at stake: a truth-telling cop who writes reports detailing all his mistakes isn’t going to be in line for many promotions. )</p>

1230

<p>klug, calmon and poetsheart – thank you for your insightful posts!</p>

1231

<p>

</p>

<p>Let us assume he doctored the report merely as a result of CYA Syndrome. Take a look at the nature of the doctoring. Why would he use those particular “facts” if he did not think they would be effective? The answer is, he knew they would be most effective. He knew that simply mentioning two black guys would cause everyone to think he was justified in approaching Gates as he did. I suspect he did likewise with the “yo mama” statement, suspecting that most whites would accept the caricature because it is such a hackneyed sterotype. Basically, he tried to paint Gates as an angry black man because he supposed it would marginalize Gates, and justify Crowley.</p>

<p>So then how do we classify this if it is not racism? I never have claimed his racism is the sort exhibited by the KKK. I think it is the sort harbored by most Americans, which is why Crowley ran to it so rapidly and so easily. He knew that even with Gates denying ever saying the things of which Crowley accused him, people would dismiss Gates. And they did.</p>

1232

<p>I heard they released of 911 recording of this incident. Did anyone hear it?</p>

1233

<p>Maybe that’s why he wanted to know about the other person. So he could pull the “two blacks and a backpack” routine. I guess that he didn’t know that the other was Moroccan. It could have been a black and white with two backpacks or a black and hispanic with a backpack if that fit what he thought about the situation. It could just be stupidity and not overt racism but just CYA with whatever he thought would work.</p>

<p>One thing that I though interesting is that he lives in Natick and works in Cambridge. I guess he hops on the Mass Pike and goes to Brighton and then cuts into Cambridge. Not the most enjoyable of commutes IMO. He also used to teach at the Lowell Police Academy at Middlesex Community College in Lowell. Again, not easy to do if you’re thinking about logistics. Funding for the LPA was cut in the Governor’s budget. There were attempts to reinstate the LPA - I don’t recall how it turned out.</p>

1234

<p>GFG - a link wth 911 audio was posted hundreds of posts ago. Here’s it is again: [Cambridge</a> releases Gates arrest 911 tapes - BostonHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090727cambridge_to_release_gates_arrest_911_tapes/srvc=home&position=0]Cambridge”>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090727cambridge_to_release_gates_arrest_911_tapes/srvc=home&position=0)</p>

<p>Supposedly it has the rest of the incident too, but I couldn’t hear much.</p>

1235

<p>

</p>

<p>He never had to to do that. Gates admitted to that little detail. And there is the pesky issue of haf a dozen witnesses. </p>

<p>And, by the way, how long before we can drop the ludicrous allegations of racism and racial profiling and stick to the pedestrian truth?</p>

1236

<p>Some of the words on the Jefferson Memorial: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” A man is entitled to be angry when his Constitutional rights are being violated.</p>

<p>(I appreciate that there are problems with quoting Jefferson in the context of this thread. I do think of him as a defender of liberty, despite some tragic shortsightedness and indefensible actions. However, it is clear that–ultimately–rights that are not held by all of us are not really held by any of us.)</p>

1237

<p>Looks like the well respected professor might be running a scam charity to funnel money to his friends.</p>

<p>

[quote]
It reported no activities until 2007, when it raised $205,543 and spent $27,600, state and federal filings show. The payments to Kendall and Wolf were among the foundation’s largest — only four of 23 Inkwell grants exceeded $500.
…
Gates volunteered that the foundation’s second-largest grant, for $6,000, went to his fianc</p>

1238

<p>^^^Yeah, because that is entirely relevant.</p>

1239

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course you know precisely what I mean, but here decide to employ nonsense. Crowley was employing what is now to many whites the angry black archetype (LOL) so that everything he said in his little narrative would be supported by it. The falsity is transparent to anyone willing to see the truth.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is no “we” here at all, Xigster. You may drop it as you please. You know racism is here, but wish to run, which is most typical of the vast majority of Americans. Two blacks entered that report from somewhere, and Crowley’s official gospel witness categorically denies having ever said anything like it. Indeed, on the 911 tape we do hear Hispanics being mentioned, yet Crowley SOMEHOW dug up two black men. We really do know why he did it, and we know how he did it. But some of us are compelled to seek some other explanation, despite that none of them are in the least bit plausible.</p>

1240

<p>

</p>

<p>No, friend. There is no problem at all in quoting Jefferson. He was a man well above his time and sphere of influence. He could easily have denied the natural rights of man altogether, as did most people of his day. But despite his extreme personal failings, he pressed the issue and understood that it applied equally to all men, including Indians, blacks, and even Indian women. He was not successful in getting his complete view codified, and he was not successful in giving up personal comforts in view of his philosophy, but he at least codified his view in essence. Because of this, abolitionists were able to come along later and insist that America hold true to Jefferson, which gave the country the philosophical requirement to end slavery. Lincoln was able to come along and also use Jefferson to give political might to Jefferson, eventually ending slavery. And MLK would come much later and use the same Jefferson to cause America eventually to seek full engagement of blacks in society. So, I say, lay aside Jefferson’s flaws and let us criticize them harshly, but separated from his greatness. His greatness was so great that we should accept it on its own terms.</p>