Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

According to both cops at the scene, it was a crime....and he got arrested for it.

Cops don't make the law, whether something is illegal according to 'the cops at the scene' is completely irrelevant.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Cops don't make the law, whether something is illegal according to 'the cops at the scene' is completely irrelevant.

Semantics. Both cops felt they were in the right(100%) to make the arrest.

They felt it was a crime. Especially in 'view of the public.'

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Semantics. Both cops felt they were in the right(100%) to make the arrest.

They felt it was a crime. Especially in 'view of the public.'

Semantics? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

The law is the law, if something isn't illegal it isn't illegal, regardless of what cops may think to the contrary. The right to arrest may give leeway to reasonable belief, but it doesn't make legal conduct any less legal.

[Shawnski]

Have read this lengthy (and circular) thread, but may have missed the following:

To his eventual embarrassment, he wrote in his Yale application:

"As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself."

Quoted from an Associated Press article.

Would be curious to hear both sides opinion of that tidbit.

[monkeyman]

I just wanted to add that while I don't think this case was racially motivated, It's good to see so many good people on here that will stand up against such things.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Have read this lengthy (and circular) thread, but may have missed the following:



Quoted from an Associated Press article.

Would be curious to hear both sides opinion of that tidbit.

You want opinions on a sentence he wrote years ago in a college application as quoted in a third-party article?

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by fatso

You want opinions on a sentence he wrote years ago in a college application as quoted in a third-party article?

Yup. I do.

[metallicat]

I think it's a bunch of BS that someone even THINKS they can write that, white or black or yellow or whatever. I hate real racism just as much as the next guy, but you are just asking for that sort of attention when you write something like that.

I mean if I wrote something like that on a college application, I have no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have been let in.

[fatso]

to what end? as evidence of his character? i ask because i genuinely don't get what the point of that is in this thread.

Are you asking if it's evidence that he has always had this seething disdain for whitey? Or simply that he's a guy who stays stupid things he later comes to regret? Either way, one sentence, extracted from the past like that isn't really going to prove either.

edit: Actually, why am I even responding to that? Seems to me, Shawnski, if you want to generate a discussion on that phrase you could contribute to it by sharing your opinion or elaborating on the context of the article.

[Weiser Wonder]

When one looks at a case like this and Gates reactions to it, they must remember that the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago and while the United States has come a long way, there is still a ton of racism and a ton of anger out there. Without a good grasp of American history and culture, it's very difficult to understand why race is such a huge issue for Gates and why he immediately turned to the defensive. Many of you are treating this incident as if it happened in Canada, where the history and context of the situation would be much different.

Secondly, in regards to Gates interaction with the officer, the constitution has set out rights for the accused and using them is not rude or unhelpful. The police do not have the upper hand in these proceedings and have to follow strict protocol because they are dealing with a free citizen who has rights. Gates knowing and using his rights is smart and what every person should do. Berating the police is another thing altogether. But, as I've stated earlier, berating an officer in his own home when the officer is there uninvited for a non-existent crime, is entirely legal.

[Azure]

Well, the thing is how much of the 'berating' did Gates bring upon himself by being an ass?

The officer was doing his job....and Gates made it that much harder.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, the thing is how much of the 'berating' did Gates bring upon himself by being an ass?

The officer was doing his job....and Gates made it that much harder.

My point is, you should make the officer's job harder, when harder means not consenting to your rights being taken away.

This isn't about interactions between neighbors, this is about actions between a citizen and a government agent (someones like a term Tower would use, lol) which means being an ass doesn't bring anything upon you unless it's illegal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

My point is, you should make the officer's job harder, when harder means not consenting to your rights being taken away.

This isn't about interactions between neighbors, this is about actions between a citizen and a government agent (someones like a term Tower would use, lol) which means being an ass doesn't bring anything upon you unless it's illegal.

Oh sure. I absolutely agree.

While I'm not familiar with the legal side here, I would suspect that the officer had grounds to go into the home, considering that Gates was not providing proper ID, and that it was a B&E investigation.

Otherwise I'm sure the officer wouldn't have the full support of his co-workers and the police department.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh sure. I absolutely agree.

While I'm not familiar with the legal side here, I would suspect that the officer had grounds to go into the home, considering that Gates was not providing proper ID, and that it was a B&E investigation.

Otherwise I'm sure the officer wouldn't have the full support of his co-workers and the police department.

He probably would otherwise. It's pretty normal protocol for an officer to walk the legal line in a case like this and enter the home when it's iffy on the legality because if Gates turns out to be an intruder then it will hold up in court as reasonable cause to enter the house. If he's not, all Gates can really do is yell at him. However, if the officer was to walk in and find some weed or something, that's where it would get interesting.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Actually it is if it is done in a public place. It has been posted many times on this thread that it is. Why can you not accept that fact? He was acting disorderly in a public place.

I guess you still haven't familiarized yourself with the relevant Massachusetts case law regarding disorderly conduct...

FYI, the courts in MA have held that disorderly conduct generally only applies to behaviour designed to incite a riot. Using the word "tumultuous" in a police report a bunch of times doesn't really meet the legal standard. In particular, political speech is always protected--since if it weren't that would be in violation of another little legal guideline that they like to follow down there.

I'd say "why can you not accept that fact?" except.... well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[HOZ]

An article on Gates by Steyn. Funny as always.

Obama knows 'stupidly' when he doesn't see it

Last year I had a minor interaction with a Vermont state trooper, and, 60 seconds into the conversation, he called me a "liar." I considered my options:Option a): I could get hot under the collar, yell at him, get tasered into submission and possibly shot while "resisting arrest";
Option b): I could politely tell the trooper I object to his characterization, and then write a letter to the commander of his barracks the following morning suggesting that such language is not appropriate to routine encounters with members of the public and betrays a profoundly defective understanding of the relationship between law enforcement officials and the citizenry in civilized societies.
I chose the latter course, and received a letter back offering partial satisfaction and explaining that the trooper would be receiving "supervisory performance-related issue-counseling," which, with any luck, is even more ghastly than it sounds and hopefully is still ongoing.
Professor Gates chose option a), which is just plain stupid.

[HOZ]

Crowley should be glad he isn't in Canada with our HRC's where possible intent, not real intent gets you in trouble


A human rights tribunal verdict of racial profiling against a Toronto constable sets "an impossibly high standard" that will be challenged in court, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said yesterday."We're not denying the existence of bias or the possibility of racial profiling," Blair said in an interview with the Star.
He said the tribunal's decision last month that Ron Phipps, who is black, was a victim of racial profiling by Const. Michael Shaw, who is white, means "you can have the best of intentions and be totally without bias but none of that matters if someone wants to believe you are biased."

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I guess you still haven't familiarized yourself with the relevant Massachusetts case law regarding disorderly conduct...

FYI, the courts in MA have held that disorderly conduct generally only applies to behaviour designed to incite a riot. Using the word "tumultuous" in a police report a bunch of times doesn't really meet the legal standard. In particular, political speech is always protected--since if it weren't that would be in violation of another little legal guideline that they like to follow down there.

I'd say "why can you not accept that fact?" except.... well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Why do you never include all the elements of a certain subject you are talking about? That is only one of many elements of the offence. As has been posted multiple times in this thread, it can include many things, not just potentially inciting a riot.

I am done talking about this. You only pick and choose what you want out of the police report. You fail to recognize all the other factors the officer put down in his report, you only focus on the word tumultuous. Why? I have no idea. But for some reason you think that is all the officer wrote and the entire report is based on that one word.

Here is an unbiased look at what may have happened if charges went to court.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/7/25/185529/493

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am done talking about this.

Forgive me for not weeping over your departure. You claim I am selective, but utterly fail to disprove or even address the basic problem in your argument. The Massachusetts law has not been constitutionally tested. If it is found to limit political speech, there will be a problem. This is why it has been applied, historically, in a very limited manner.

Nice link. Thanks for that. No thanks for the continued snide remarks. Come back when you develop a sense of humour about yourself. You really are very funny, if you only knew it.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by fatso

to what end? as evidence of his character? i ask because i genuinely don't get what the point of that is in this thread.

Are you asking if it's evidence that he has always had this seething disdain for whitey? Or simply that he's a guy who stays stupid things he later comes to regret? Either way, one sentence, extracted from the past like that isn't really going to prove either.

edit: Actually, why am I even responding to that? Seems to me, Shawnski, if you want to generate a discussion on that phrase you could contribute to it by sharing your opinion or elaborating on the context of the article.

Let's take a look at this for you....

First of all, I (and all of us) are looking at this from a 20-20 hindsight perspective. In doing so, we are not only enabled, but in my opinion, allowed to look at the past actions of the characters involved to see how they interact with society.

I find it interesting that previously posted information indicates Crowley was the person trying to save a black basketball star by giving him mouth to mouth recessitation a couple decades ago (but is being accused of rasicm) yet a Harvard professor showed he is willing to play a race card ON A FREAKIN' YALE APPLICATION. There is in my mind, NO excuse for that one. If anything, it shows that this very brilliant individual is capable of using a race card to put people in a "Damned if I do, Damned if I don't" scenario. Not cool in my books.

How could you not be interested in that item of his past? He may not be proud of it now, but it is there for all to see. Are there other instances? From what I am seeing of this one he appears to have tried to put Crowley in the same damned if I do/don't boat.

Yes, I have seen the CNN interview. How many have listened to the Oprah radio interview though? (Another link that I don't think has been discussed here.)

At about 5:08 Gates indicates that "(on the stuck front door) turns out the lock had been jimmied")

Gates has said he said "No" to the request to "Can you step outside" for one reason only; he could have been arrested for suspected breaking and entering (and as Gates says "I know I am in danger" 5:43 of the Oprah link). Any SANE person who knew that wasn't the case would have not worried about that. They would have had no fear of it. THAT is my BELIEF. "Hey, I live here, let me get you some ID, I have it in the kitchen." is how I would have handled it.

As IFF et al have indicated that when Gates went to get the ID, Crowley followed him into the residence. To me, I am still OK with this as his identity was yet to be proven, and it is due dilligence to keep the suspect in site.

Now Gates claims that his Harvard ID and Drivers License were both visable at the same time (well, "you can't see one without the other" so maybe they were back to back) when presented to Crowley. So after he provided them to Crowley, Crowley tried to ask him a question, but Gates interupted (didn't even hear what Crowley was trying to ask) That is when he said "That's enough... I want your name and badge number") 7:07 of the Oprah link. He goes on to say how he thinks Crowley was trying to find a way to backtrack on everything. Gates doesn't give him a chance to elaborate on the call.

Now, the other oddity I have noted is that the 911 caller said the two black men were wearing backpacks.

OK, I know I am one of those dumb business analysts that is determined to look into as many "what if" scenarios as possible to find solutions for clients... shoot me.

What if.... door has been jimmied (fact) witness just called 911 indicating two black men with backpacks attempting to enter (call is factual). Since Gates has said they didn't have backpacks, is it possible that there was a break in attempt, Gates came home and said attempt was aborted? Or worse, they got in and were still there? Cop didn't know. I don't know. Hell, with all the fuss, I don't think the house was ever searched...

That IS a scenario the police would have had to consider. But with the arrest and all, did they have the inclination to push the envelope and search his house? I doubt it. Perhaps we have witnessed the luckiest B&E pair in such an international adventure we have ever known.

Perhaps Crowley does walk away after getting the ID, says nothing and Gates is killed upon stumbling onto these others. We don't know, and neither did Crowley. He wasn't given a chance.

If it were me, I would have asked the police to check out my place just in case. Not Gates. He played the race card ASAP.

Fascinating case story. Gates says so himself and wants to use it for educational purposes. Personally I think his take on it is so off base it isn't funny, but then again, he did have that Yale application. If that is how he wants to portray himself to people he should impress...