<p>In no way is this a case of racial profiling. The woman who called the police was unsure of the race, and even said one of the men may possibly be Hispanic, not black. </p>
<p>The arrest was made because Professor Gates was causing a disruption and not listening to the police officer’s orders. Gates assumed it was racial profiling and even refused to show his ID at first. I suppose if I were Gates I would have assumed the same thing, but if I were the officer I would have reacted the same way. </p>
<p>This entire case is not at all helping America get over race. It’s only infuriating it. In my generation racism is non existent. We need to stop creating a problem where there isn’t one.</p>
<p>By and large this is incredibly true, from all my interactions that I have ever had in life. But I think one of the reasons that racism has ebbed to such a rapid extent (because blacks only got rights like 40 years ago) is that people have conversations like this. Throughout this thread there has been the common theme from both sides that racism is inherently wrong. Which I think causes people to internalize the concept that viewing people based on their race is wrong, and therefore conversations about race accelerate the concept that racism is wrong and therefore reduces it’s occurrence. In which case this trivial incident functions as a positive in the larger scheme of things.</p>
<p>If the standard for the existence of racism were defined only by clearly tangible or concrete evidence of the same, there would “exist” far less racism in the world than actually exists. What I seem to gather over and over again during the course of these discussions about racism on CC, is that many people feel that only the Bull Conner, KKK, barred-from-the-lunch-counter manifestations of racism count as actual racism. But racism is a phenomenon that is complex, and deeply rooted in social zeitgeist. It’s manifestations can run the gamut from blatant to insidiously subtle. For most of the country’s history, its manifestations were blatant, and it’s effects undeniable. But as a result of great strides to eradicate the more obvious and ugly forms of the phenomenon, it’s manifestations have become more subtle, less well defined. And therein lies the problem. There’s sometimes (and sometimes often) imagined racism in the minds of persons who are, by virtue of their very real experiences of racism, continually on high alert for its presence. But then, there’s very real racism, skillfully practiced, and cloaked in the mantle of plausible denial, which is not imagined in the minds of those to whom it is directed.</p>
<p>I think that a lot of people, who would never in a million years think of themselves as racist, nevertheless use what they unconsciously (and even consciously) know to be true about race in America. It’s the reason that Charles Stuart, in an effort to cover up his own crime of murdering his wife, fell back on the knowledge that both the police, and the greater society at large, would instantly believe that an archetypical “black man” was responsible for shooting them both without provocation. Susan Smith knew the same thing. Stuart knew the ensuing sense of outrage would throw the police off his scent and garner him massive public sympathy. So did Susan Smith. And they knew that their whiteness would instantly imbue their stories with credibility, knowing the prevailing social archetypes surrounding black males, our nation’s long history of affording whites credibility over blacks, and the lingering, but nevertheless, prevailing zeitgeist of underlying racism. </p>
<p>I do not believe that Officer Crowley set out to violate Prof. Gate’s civil rights, nor do I believe he was motivated by feelings of racism in doing so. What I believe is Sgt. Crowley was willing to allow fear to drive him to exploit certain racial realities when writing up his report, in order to lend his actions justification, knowing (whether consciously, or unconsciously), that in the final analysis, his would be the story given greater credibility.</p>
<p>A person who relies on this knowledge (which I believe is often subconscious) does not have to be a “bad” person. He or she can be an otherwise stand up person, a hail fellow well met, compassionate person, a good parent, good neighbor, and productive member of our society. They don’t have to be “evil” by any standard. They just have to be aware on some level of the social advantage they possess over some, and, in a pinch be willing to use it in the interest of self-preservation. That is what I suspect happened with Officer Crowley, once he realized that he needed cover for illegally arresting The Prof. </p>
<p>Of course, I realize that many people here will vehemently disagree, and even feel personally affronted. To that I say that it is not my intent to insult anyone, merely to share my perspective from the vantage of my social position, and my own experience. To that, I say that I am as entitled to my own opinion on these matters as they are to theirs, without being accused of “playing the race card”:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Xiggi, I’m assuming that the police officer didn’t lie when he wrote that his initial assessment was that Prof. Gates “appeared to be a resident” prior to entering the home and “was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence” as Gates was on the phone asking “what’s the chief’s name?” That’s what the officer wrote in his report - the only “questionable assumption” I’m making is that he didn’t lie about that - and I can’t think of any reason why he would.
Well, “everyone” who has no respect for the Fourth Amendment, perhaps, but those of us who think the Constitution matters don’t necessarily agree. The officer had a right to come to the door. Unless he had probable cause to believe that Gates was a burglar he had no right to enter unless invited in by Gates. What’s troubling in this instance is that there’s no explanation (from anyone) of how Crowley came to be inside the house. Seriously - a police officer has no more right to enter your home (absent probable cause to believe a crime is taking place) than anyone else has. They have to ask permission from the homeowner - just as you would. Gates went to get his ID, the officer “followed.” Gates was obviously unhappy to be engaging with the officer - Crowley’s report makes that clear. So given that there was no evidence of any crime happening, and he believed that he was confronting the lawful resident of the property who was visibly unhappy with the officer’s presence, there’s really only one legally correct thing for the officer to do: leave. As to why he didn’t just do that, well, the only person who really knows is officer Crowley.</p>
<p>The primary function of the bill of rights is to keep government in check - to keep the agents of government from trampling our individual rights. None are dearer or clearer than the right of a person to be “secure in [his] house.” And nothing could be clearer than that Officer Crowley violated Prof. Gates’ constitution rights in this incident. Prof. Gates may have been rude or even abusive in the event - but you know what? He has a right to be rude to a police officer. The fact that some police officers will abuse their authority if you commit “contempt of cop” doesn’t mean they have a right to do that.</p>
<p>I’m really disappointed in some CC posters who seem to be unable to move past their personal agendas to recognize that, if nothing else, this is a case of a police officer abusing his authority. His refusal to apologize, and his departments insistence that he did nothing wrong, and followed policy, are even more disturbing.</p>
<p>No, we do NOT have legal opinions. We do not have a SINGLE legal opinion. What we have are expression of the personal opinions of people who happen to make a living by practicing law, or at least say so on College Confidential. </p>
<p>And, that makes a world of difference. Unless the same person would come back here and state that they just offered a legal opinion to the entire internet community?</p>
<ol>
<li> Explanation by a judge or group of judges of a decision rendered by the court.</li>
<li>An official statement by an attorney with regard to what is legal.</li>
<li>The statement of a bond counsel that a municipal bond issue is legal under the laws and restrictions of the issuing jurisdiction, and which indicates whether interest on the bonds is exempt from federal income taxes. A legal opinion is generally necessary to bring an issue to market. See also ex-legal.</li>
</ol>
<p>PH, perhaps, the “Rubber? Road!” should be reviewed in the context of these two posts and the defnition of “personal agenda”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is the personal agenda, that clearly started with the very first post of this thread with the allegations of racial profiling, more legitimate than the one (if that constitutes a personal agenda) that rejects it because of its blatant vacuity and lack of factual evidence?</p>
<p>Rubber meets road? Hardly! It is, however, interesting that the person who has NOT played the race card in this entire discussion takes the time to explain that expressing her opinion is not akin to play the race card. Other who do with relentless abandon do not seem capable of such integrity.</p>
<p>Please explain, those of you who disagree with all the lawyers here on the legality of Officer Crowley’s actions on that afternoon, what your legal opinion is on the events of the incident. Please include Constitutional and case law to back up your stance. I’d especially be interested in hearing why you feel it was legal for Officer Crowley to enter the home of the Prof, (whom he has stated a number of times that he believed from the start, was the legal resident of the domicile), without that resident’s express permission. He apparently neither asked, nor received permission to do so. Officer Crowley’s report indicated that he believed Prof. Gates was engaging in behavior that fit the legal description of “disorderly conduct” even as he yet remained inside his home. How is that possible? According to case law, can that be an accurate assessment? Professor Gates was arrested virtually the moment he stepped beyond the threshold of his front door. How is it possible that speaking loudly on one’s own front porch in this circumstance constitutes a danger to “incite riot”. Riot? Really?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl posted:
"We get it; we just don’t agree with it, that’s all. And some of us are finding incredible hypocrisy in a stance which says that it’s ok for some blacks to proceed under the assumption that all whites / white cops are out to get them until proven otherwise, while simultaneously decrying (and for good reason) the tendency of some whites to proceed under the assumption that all blacks are criminals / up to no good until proven otherwise. </p>
<p>Here’s a concept. Just because some are, doesn’t mean that everyone is." </p>
<p>A huge thumbs up for this very reasoned and rational response. Your posts have been some of the very best on this thread, and like MBA Grad 2009, I appreciate your efforts on behalf of those of us who feel the same way you do.</p>
<p>I hope you’ll use some of your wonderful time at Yale to walk to one of the libraries, and ask any of the legal students to explain the difference to you.</p>