<p>
</p>
<p>A man lost the use of his Constitutional right to free speech. I think it ought not be trivial to anyone who claims to be American, however one sees the rest of this issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. What you don’t seem to have noticed, is that the man who lost that use was Officer Crowley. Seems his fellow officers spoke up for him because he has been muzzled by the politicians in Cambridge. Watch that video and notice the part where the CNN reporter observes that Officer Crowley has been told he is not allowed to speak!</p>
<p>Or do his rights not matter to you?</p>
<p>The fact that other Cambridge police officers support Crowley’s actions only reinforces my opinion that the ENTIRE FORCE could use training in basic Constitutional principals. It may very well be that Crowley’s error stems from poor training and working in an environment where police are encouraged to cross legal boundaries; after all, police officers don’t attend law school. It is up to their supervisors to make sure that they have the training to know the boundaries they may not cross. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it may take a lawsuit against the city of Cambridge to accomplish this - certainly that is what has happened in many other cities, often with lawsuits brought by the ACLU or similar organizations.</p>
<p>^^^Perhaps his employers or his lawyer urged him not to speak about the case lest he manage to talk himself out of his job. In any event, he is not being told to shut up or he’ll be cuffed and hauled down to the pokey for a few hours. There’s a difference, you know.</p>
<p>I found the video of Crowley’s police colleagues, black and white, defending him to be touching in that they clearly care about him and do not want to see this incident, this one mistake, to be the ruin of his career. I wouldn’t want to see that either. But to say that Gates *deserved * to be arrested is just wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A man’s right to remain silent in order that one might protect oneself against possible self-incrimination is now being called in and of itself, a violation of that man’s rights? Man, you really don’t know the law do you, MBA? Do you think the advice of his legal counsel might not have something to do with his decision to remain silent during that interview CNN conducted with his fellow officers? Was his right to free speech removed, or did he choose not to speak? Think about it. I know you’re probably a young man, but I assure you, the answer to this question is readily available if you choose to pursue it.</p>
<p>Tossing out assumptions again, are we?</p>
<p>Watch the tape and see how the reporter phrases it - ‘you’re not allowed to speak’ is how I heard it, so no it was not by his choice, and it seems that Dr. Gates is under no such restriction. But then, the police officer does not have friends in high office, hmmm?</p>
<p>“Not allowed to speak” is the interpretation of the news commentator, and a euphemism for “muzzled” by advice of legal counsel. Honestly MBA, hyperbole accomplishes nothing. The man has the Constitutionally protected right to speak of this matter all he wants and I’m sure you know it. He has wisely chosen to remain silent while the formidable PR machine of his impassioned fellow officers does battle for him. Any fool in his position would know to stand silently and gratefully aside and let it work its magic.</p>
<p>If he has been told not to speak publicly it is because his superiors and/or legal counsel are concerned about liability in the event of a lawsuit – meaning they KNOW he screwed up and don’t want him to make the situation worse.</p>
<p>It’s pretty normal for the cops to circle the wagons to protect fellow officers, even in cases of police brutality and police shootings. You see it again and again, even in cases where video later surfaces that clearly shows the police overstepped their bounds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Four things:</p>
<p>Firstly, as I have already said here, when it comes to being a cop, there is a great difficulty to be anticipated in rejecting a fellow officer. This is especially true of black cops in essentially white venues.</p>
<p>Secondly, these black cops are obviously responding to Gates’s claims of racial profiling and of Crowley being a rogue cop. Well, I have said all along that I do not think racial profiling existed here. I also said, I think he was being influenced by societal racism as he initially confronted Gates. Indeed, had Gates been white, he would not have interpreted Gates as he did (and Gates likely would not have interpreted the cop as he did). And I think my opinion here is supported by how easily the white cop employed racism in his police report. FROM THE BEGINNING I said that Crowley was being dishonest in his report – and I was right. But it is the nature of the dishonesty that most concerns me. Crowley was relying on social racism to marginalize Gates, and now I am even further convinced that if he could do this in his official report, then he could certainly rely upon it elsewhere.</p>
<p>Thirdly, as a black guy, I have seen more than my share of black people who rally behind racists, even overt racists, because they wish to acquire the respect and honor of those racists and those who identify with them. I have seen blacks reject being black (hah!) to extol the confederacy and even claim they wish the South had won the Civil War, this, so that they might enjoy the honor of being called an honorary white person. This is, in fact, a significant part of our history here in America. Now, I am not saying here that Crowley is an overt racist. And I do not think, therefore that the blacks involved here are as flaky as the blacks I have described. But I suspect that some of this is at play with these black officers, particularly with the black woman officer.</p>
<p>The fact is, Crowley inserted the notion of two black men into his report when he had no fit justification for it. He did this for a reason. It is this reason that underlies my claim that he was being impacted by racism.</p>
<p>Lastly, in being quiet, Crowley merely wants to keep his job. He has no fear of being sent to jail for speaking his mind-- unlike Gates. You are confused.</p>
<p>“His racism is of the sort that we breathe and eat daily, with such regularity that many of us cannot detect it.”</p>
<p>No…his “racism” is the sort that you imagine daily because you spew it with such regularity and relentlessness that you can detect it, even though it is not even there.</p>
<p>(Not saying that racism does not exist, of course, but that you diminishing its very real impact by applying it where it is not a factor.)</p>
<p>purpleflurp, do you know what it’s like to walk around knowing that everyone suspects the worst of you because they’re trying to be ‘safe’?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And become principled along the way?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be impossible to corrupt your position more than it is. Indeed, you never claimed “abject racism” … you simply spew it in every sentence.</p>
<p>I truly feel sorry for you and your children.</p>
<p>
Xiggi, I’m disappointed that you are apparently unable to divorce your assessment of the incident from your dislike of Prof. Gates. I’m not “justifying” Prof. Gates’ behavior. I would not advise anyone else to react to the situation he was in as he did. But I take a hard line on drawing a distinction between “ill-advised” and “criminal.” And nothing he did - as reported by Officer Crowley - was criminal. On the other hand, Officer Crowley - who may otherwise be a fine, outstanding man, clearly broke the law, in my opinion, based, again, on his own report of the event. </p>
<p>What bothers me is that you seem to be OK with Crowley breaking the law (which I think you’ve acknowledged in previous posts) because you’re blinded by your rage at Gates’ perception of the event being racially driven (not to mention your poorly-concealed class-envy at his socio-economic prominence.) Well, Gates may be wrong about the racial aspect of the event - he may even be a jerk. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that an agent of the government, with a gun and a badge, arrested him when he had committed no crime.</p>
<p>Even jerks have rights. Violation of those rights is a crime. I don’t know if Prof. Gates is a jerk, but I do know that his rights were violated by Officer Crowley - and the Cambridge Police Dept’s insistence that he “followed policy” and his insistence that he has nothing to apologize for have destroyed their credibility with me. All he needed to say was “It wasn’t racial, but I realize now that I shouldn’t have arrested him” and I’d be OK with it. People screw up, heat of the moment, etc. But he’s not. He’s insisting that if a gimpy old man says mean things to him he can (and should) arrest him and haul him down to the station in handcuffs. I can understand why his fellow cops are shoulder-to-shoulder with him on that - but the rest of us shouldn’t be. </p>
<p>Everybody seems to want to need a bad guy and a good guy here. But I don’t see that. I see two guys who are both probably “good guys” who ran into each other at a bad time for both of them. The difference is, one of them hauled the other one off in handcuffs for saying mean things to him. If that had not happened, then no, we wouldn’t still be hearing about this. But since it did - an apology is in order.</p>
<p>^Very well said, kluge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For someone who is so eager and ready to judge the positions of others as well as their moral character, perhaps you ought to try reading what people *have *written as opposed to merely relyng on assumptions and lazy speculation. Again, you’re entitled to your erroneous opinions, but not to your own facts! It is one thing to join a conversation late and another to attempt to represent the position of others with a semblance of authority. Shame on you!</p>
<p>A few hundreds posts ago, someone claimed I had prior issues with Gates, and you seem to err along the same path. In this thread, I have been consistent about my rejection of one issue: and that is only the use of racial profiling to JUSTIFY the action of Gates. I have further expressed my steadfast belief that someone of his intellect and stature SHOULD have used better judgment in this case, and surely used a line of communication more becoming of one our leading scholars. </p>
<p>Now, I am now coming to the main reason to answer your latest post, namely that inexcusable and absolutely uncalled for line, “not to mention your poorly-concealed class-envy at his socio-economic prominence.” Simply stated, may I remind you that you know absolutely nothing about me and my socio-economic class or prominence, and that you are in no position to discuss “my poorly concealed class envy” with any degree of legitimacy. </p>
<p>I demand an immediate retraction and apology.</p>
<p>"What bothers me is that you seem to be OK with Crowley breaking the law (which I think you’ve acknowledged in previous posts) because you’re blinded by your rage at Gates’ perception of the event being racially driven (not to mention your poorly-concealed class-envy at his socio-economic prominence.) "</p>
<p>There he goes again!</p>
<p>I’d point out that it precisely the people who act in ways that are unpopular or potentially offensive, but not illegal, who most need the protection of the Constitution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That I live in a supposedly free country, where citizens suddenly turn into jackbooted thugs simply because a black man should use his Constitutional right to speak his mind, leaves me sorry for my children and me also. I feel sorry for us that we are pulled over without cause by cops enabled by people so beastly and ignorant of human rights, of history, and of law, that they approve of and even applaud such barbaric behavior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yes. The facts are contained in the officer’s police report.</p>