<p>I’m not a lawyer, but I work with many. Just a mention that it’s against the law in many states to claim to be a lawyer if you have not in fact passed the bar. Not saying such a thing would be enforced in CC, but I suspect it’s out of bounds,</p>
<p>I would be surprised to find that many credentialed lawyers in the subject matter of this thread, since it would come under trial and constitutional law. In my experience, most lawyers don’t spend time on college chat boards and most lawyers are credentialed in contract law; there’s little money in being a courtroom lawyer these days unless you are the very best, and those fellows have far too many clients to spend time in a chat board.</p>
<p>Caveat Emptor as they say, especially in a board where anyone can claim to be anyone.</p>
<p>Makes it hard to claim that loud talk about racism could “incite” the crowd around the house. Unless Crowley means to argue that the many police officers there might become incited and that actually Gates was taken into protective custody…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if he’s placed under arrest immediately upon stepping on the porch, how was he creating a public disturbance or threatening to incite something…They had their hands on him as soon as he walked out the door. Bogus charge, false arrest, whatever you want to call it. I’m back to agreeing with Obama’s first comment: the officer acted stupidly by making this arrest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This alleged misbehavior is that Gates said some things the officer didn’t like hearing. Wow. </p>
<p>Crowley should have listened to the little voice that was telling him that this arrest would be not merely controversial, but would blow up in his face. “No choice” is ridiculous. He had a much smarter choice. Say good day at the door and leave.</p>
<p>It doesn’t take a law degree to understand the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. These protect some of our most cherished freedoms.</p>
<p>Some people here seem to think that Gates should have been able to “push the envelope” as far as he could and still suffer no repercussions. Whether or not Crowley had a legal right to make the arrest, I don’t know (and I came out early on to say that I thought making the arrest went too far–and I still do think that). </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there are many, many things that people should have the ability or the right to do, but in reality those things may come with unpleasant repercussions. This is where common sense and emotional intelligence come into play. One technically should be able to walk outside at 2 in the morning in a high-crime area and get where he’s going without being the victim of a crime. And yes, one should be able to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech, repeatedly confronting a police officer who was acting professionally and calling him a racist and making other very insulting and unfortunate comments and not be arrested. Unfortunately, there is discretion given to police officers to act when they feel that a situation may be spinning out of control, and there are risks to behaving in a confrontational manner toward law enforcement.</p>
<p>I am much more worried about arrests that are made that have even less basis than Gates’s arrest. Many people do not have the resources to call a friend and get a case dropped or have the POTUS speak out on their behalves. Those are the people who concern me the most. </p>
<p>Even though I do not think the arrest of Gates was necessary, I was not there and am therefore unable to speak to the tenor of the situation as Crowley saw it. From the rest of what I’ve read/observed, I am more than willing to give Crowley the benefit of the doubt. Gates was the one who instigated the entire event.</p>
<p>Oh, and as an AfAm scholar of his caliber, Gates knew better. Much better. Unfortunately, Crowley got caught up in his blatant manipulation and is now suffering for that.</p>
<p>Well, perhaps you should rejoice in the fact that some are willing to recognize the difference between your expressed opinions and the ones that are simply playing the race card with every key on the keyboard.</p>
<p>Sounds pithy, but what exactly do you mean by that? Who, exactly are you saying is guilty of Pot/Kettle hypocrisy and in exactly what regard? If you disagree with kluge and Calmom’s legal analysis, rebut them with examples culled from The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, case law, and legal precedent. Otherwise, you are merely placing forth your own very subjective opinions based on your obvious desire to absolve Officer Crowley of all wrong, and to place the oneness for his arrest entirely upon Professor Gates. Did Officer Crowley not make any mistakes on the afternoon in question?</p>
<p>"I am much more worried about arrests that are made that have even less basis than Gates’s arrest. Many people do not have the resources to call a friend and get a case dropped or have the POTUS speak out on their behalves. Those are the people who concern me the most. "</p>
<p>The publicity and discussion over what happened to Gates may help prevent some similar things happening to people who aren’t as famous or connected as Gates. </p>
<p>In addition, it indeed has been routine for cops to fudge info in police reports, such actions no longer will be considered appropriate for police to do.</p>
<p>“The publicity and discussion over what happened to Gates may help prevent some similar things happening to people who aren’t as famous or connected as Gates.”</p>
<p>Not if this is made out to be a racial incident (which I do not believe it was). I am an extremely law-abiding caucasian and have had a couple of negative interactions with caucasian “bad cops.” This is not just a minority issue…it is an Amercian issue, pariticularly in certain areas of the country. Making this inciddent into a racial one does not help the cause for everyone–only distracts from it.</p>
<p>(Incidentially, from all that I’ve seen and read, I do not think that Crowley is a “bad cop.”)</p>
<p>Very compelling, in that it supports my contention that race was not what motivated Officer Crowley during his actions that afternoon. He obviously has the passionate respect and support of many of his fellow officers, both white and black. </p>
<p>But, that does not mean he was legally right to arrest Prof. Gates. That is determined by law. What does the law say?</p>
<p>This case ONLY happened because one party was famous and connected, and was exceedingly willing to flex his muscle. There were no lessons worth learning in this pathetic encounter. </p>
<p>The efforts to find any justification for the behavior of Gates are exactly what are so pernicious in this case.</p>
<p>It is not just as racist for a black man to, without foresight, react in fear to a white cop who is treating him as a suspect, especially if the black man has encountered this sort of treatment before. When Gates first moved to Cambridge he visited the police to introduce himself, so that they would not do the sort of thing that eventually happened to him. Obviously then, this sort of event was important to him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, okay. I don’t exactly receive this as breaking news, pizzagirl. But if you wish to know, how I feel about you is entirely unimportant to me. It is in fact so unimportant that it has not yet occurred to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His racism is of the sort that we breathe and eat daily, with such regularity that many of us cannot detect it. It is still racism, and the thing that hurts me most is that it is harming children. It is why black kids are interpreting their own value against white value and finding themselves inferior even before they can talk. It is suppressing academic imagination, and therefore performance. It is causing a great deal of fear in teens and in adults. It is why a small thing like a false arrest of a rich guy in Cambridge, has caused all of this nonsense. It is why the arrest of a man in California who allegedly murdered his ex-wife and her friend caused such sensation even before its trial, when in reality it was just a garden-variety husband-wife murder. It is why when whites write books “proving” the intellectual inferiority of blacks, those books become bestsellers, and it is why blacks are deeply wounded by them. It is why blacks even fear talk of IQ, because deep within many of them, they have accepted the white terms of that particular debate and now fear they will confirm the beliefs of their enemies. Many of us think that because the Klan no longer lynches blacks, that the real battle against racism is essentially over. It has not yet begun. The racism I speak of here is the essential evil spirit that fueled the Klan. It still exists unharmed, destroying black lives even before they begin.</p>
<p>I believe that any number of police officers on the Cambridge Police Force, as well as around the country, without regard to skin color could see himself doing what Crowley did that afternoon. That’s why they stand behind him so passionately. They understand the job and the tremendous pressures that come with it. </p>
<p>But I submit that they would all be guilty of making the same mistakes, and violating the same laws. Application of our Bill of Rights is not contingent upon whether or not the person whose rights have been violated is viewed as “worthy” of its protections. Obviously, for some, it is all about the “outrage” of Prof. Gates’ allegation of racism on the part of Officer Crowley, and he’s being seen as such a despicable example of a human being, that some people here are quite comfortable with endorsing the abridgment of his civil rights. If that’s so, why not just come out and say so. But, be prepared to defend this stance with more substance than, “The man deserved what he got.”</p>
<p>That is because you have corrupted my position. I never have claimed “abject racism” was at play in this Gates-Crowley affair. Indeed, I have said here repeatedly that it was not abject racism, but a racism that is craftier and yet more devastating than all other racisms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with all of this. I have a right to be cynical toward the Cursed Country. Yes. And many people, myself included, agree with the notion that when a police officer questions a minority, he does not necessarily do it because of racism. You said nothing here of value to me, since I have never disagreed with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not the only one who understands because I am not the only one in it (duh!).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You ought to just listen to the stupidity here. It is such obvious stupidity that instead of underscoring it, I will leave it for you to figure out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More rank stupidity. You treat racism here as if the various remaining forms are not that important, compared to the sort of overt racism that gets people killed. It is the great problem with our view of the issue. A man can literally lose his right to speak his mind, and if societal racism was at play, we would dismiss it because we are blind to it, looking instead for something that is “more important”. </p>
<p>(LOL - snipped the rest of your whining nonsense…)</p>
<p>Of course. Yes, and this is very dangerous, you see. If the officer can assume these racial signals and caricatures can be used as weapons against blacks in this way (and he is correct in this knowledge), then imagine the sort of societal racism that now exists all around us, racism that he may call upon to assist him simply by use of a pen. That is the racism that comes after my children every single day. It comes after me every single day. It is the filthy core that generated slavery, Jim Crow, Black Codes, miscegenation laws, housing and job discrimination, lynching. And not only are cops calling upon it by use of racial symbolism. As you have mentioned, average citizens also call upon it. Susan Smith represents just one of the more sensational episodes. But average people are calling upon it with impunity. It is everywhere around us, upholding whites, and condemning blacks. It gives an enormous advantage to whites, and creates a most insurmountable disadvantage for blacks.</p>