Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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.

First, I never suggested I wasn’t interested in the comment. I think, though, that when someone wants to adduce past character evidence to confirm (in this case) or refute (as in Crowley past article) allegations about someone, they should at least explain why they’re bringing that evidence in and what relevance they think it may have. To just throw it in and say ‘discuss’ strikes me as poor form, especially in a heated thread like this, but justly you probably don’t care what I think.

Second, I’m still suspicious of what that quote would prove. Is it evidence of Gates as some Machiavellian race baiter? Hardly. At most it’s evidence of someone who has had an axe to grind, but even then...

Let’s not forget we haven’t seen the application in its entirety. Further, it’s an application that he wrote when he was, what, a 17-year old kid? And, as the AP article notes, he went through an educational system that was in the immediate shadow of segregation. Was his point in the essay that the American educational system has precluded blacks from being successful? That is hardly a contentious statement considering the Supreme Court effectively said the exact same thing in 1954, just before he started school. Could his words have been chosen better? Almost certainly.

But moreover, so what? He guilted Yale into letting him in? Give me a break. What about his time at Harvard and his professional success? They’re just going to give him a job or throw millions of dollars and effort into his DuBois’ institute because they’re scared of the race card? He’s gotten everywhere in life because people are afraid of him labelling them racist? Or, what if, as the article alludes, he’s an actively engaged individual who cares deeply for his country and wants to make it better? Or what about the notion that he’s probably an excellent prof, whom the students and colleagues (who are, numerically, primarily white) appreciate and value? It seems to me, if you want to bring in that character evidence, you should look at more of his life than just a line on something written years ago.

And, fundamentally, even if Gates does is playing race cards like Mats Sundin on that commercial, it doesn't prove or disprove whether or not Crowley racially profiled him in that exchange.

The idea that he is some kind of diabolical genius who pulls out the race card to advance his own racist aims is doubtful imo. That’s not to say he hasn’t done it or that it’s even impossible. But I have a very hard time seeing how that one quote you provided proves that it’s his default M.O. as he moves through life.

And, for the record, as I have said in this thread, I do NOT think this was a case of racial profiling, and I think Crowley probably was just doing his job, though it seems like they both made some behavioural mistakes throughout the exchange.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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.

That is the most interesting part of what you had to say I think. So you submit an application with an obvious shot at white people, with the knowledge that if they turn you down, you could turn it into a huge racial event in the media. Either way, you are putting the Yale people in a terrible spot. Maybe he wasn't qualified to enter Yale, but what do you do when you get a guy acting like a buffoon on his application?

I really don't understand how throughout this entire thread, there are still people slamming the police. There is absolutely nothing to suggest racism or racial profiling played a role in his actions whatsoever. This was another damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the police.

I bet looking back, Crowley wishes he could have just said "screw it" and walked away without arresting Gates. His character has gotten thoroughly thrashed in the media, on the Internet, and by the freaking President. It has even come out that he is a highly respected educator on racial equality, but none of that has mattered.

[Calgaryborn]

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.

I conclude that you and Gates are cut from the same cloth. It is no wonder you are so zealous in defending that pompus race baiter. Gates thinks he knows what racial profiling looks like when he has only ever read about it. You think you can read a little bit of Massachusetts case law plus a police report and know more than several police officers with years of experience upholding Massachusetts State law.

More than likely all you are doing is parroting what some liberal talking head from MSNBC told you would have saved Gates in a trial. It amounts to the defence's best argument given without complete knowledge of the Prosecution's case against Gates. That would include the testimony of the other witnesses(including officers) and whatever case law the Prosecution would site. It is pretty easy to win a case when you are the only one presenting arguments.

Gates is trying to put the incident behind him now that it has backfired on him and exposed his own racial hypocrisy. Maybe you should too.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I conclude that you and Gates are cut from the same cloth. It is no wonder you are so zealous in defending that pompus race baiter. Gates thinks he knows what racial profiling looks like when he has only ever read about it. You think you can read a little bit of Massachusetts case law plus a police report and know more than several police officers with years of experience upholding Massachusetts State law.

More than likely all you are doing is parroting what some liberal talking head from MSNBC told you would have saved Gates in a trial. It amounts to the defence's best argument given without complete knowledge of the Prosecution's case against Gates. That would include the testimony of the other witnesses(including officers) and whatever case law the Prosecution would site. It is pretty easy to win a case when you are the only one presenting arguments.

Gates is trying to put the incident behind him now that it has backfired on him and exposed his own racial hypocrisy. Maybe you should too.

I'm not going to get into the rest of it, but reading what Mass courts have defined a crime as is a much stronger indicator of what the law is than anything a cop may think.

[HOZ]

It wasn't Crowley doing the racial profiling. It was Gates. The man has been in the Ivory Tower so long he no longer knows how to interact with real people. Like many of his ilk. He goes for the powerplay right at the start. Give me your name and badge number, I am a Harvard Prof, Barrack is my friend, and the ultimate power...Oprah.

He is either so arrogant or so prideful that he is unable to take a step back and say, "Sorry I was an ass."



Patterico's Pontifications

Form an image of a racist in your mind: someone who watches a TV report about a crime committed by a black person, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how black people are: they’re all criminals.” Is this racist attitude justified if the racist says:

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about black people, but I have seen and heard bad things about black people all my life. I know they commit a lot of crimes, and in fact, I have been robbed by three separate black people in my life.

Now, form an image in your mind of a black person who watches a TV report about police brutality, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how those white cops are: they’re all racists.” Is this attitude justified if the black person says:

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about white cops, but I have seen and heard bad things about white cops all my life. I know they hassle black people, and in fact, I have been mistreated by three separate white cops in my life.

For some reason, people who would never accept the racist’s justification of his racist attitudes, will nod their heads in approval as black people expound on why they believe all white cops are racists based upon their own personal experiences.

[missdpuck]

I can picture Gates being condescending towards a police officer more readily than a police officer (with Crowley's background) being racist towards Gates.

However that is based upon my personal experience with several Ivy league grads.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by HOZ

It wasn't Crowley doing the racial profiling. It was Gates. The man has been in the Ivory Tower so long he no longer knows how to interact with real people. Like many of his ilk. He goes for the powerplay right at the start. Give me your name and badge number, I am a Harvard Prof, Barrack is my friend, and the ultimate power...Oprah.

He is either so arrogant or so prideful that he is unable to take a step back and say, "Sorry I was an ass."



Patterico's Pontifications

Form an image of a racist in your mind: someone who watches a TV report about a crime committed by a black person, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how black people are: they’re all criminals.” Is this racist attitude justified if the racist says:

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about black people, but I have seen and heard bad things about black people all my life. I know they commit a lot of crimes, and in fact, I have been robbed by three separate black people in my life.

Now, form an image in your mind of a black person who watches a TV report about police brutality, and says: “I’m not surprised. That’s how those white cops are: they’re all racists.” Is this attitude justified if the black person says:

I’m sorry I have this bad attitude about white cops, but I have seen and heard bad things about white cops all my life. I know they hassle black people, and in fact, I have been mistreated by three separate white cops in my life.

For some reason, people who would never accept the racist’s justification of his racist attitudes, will nod their heads in approval as black people expound on why they believe all white cops are racists based upon their own personal experiences.

OMG, I actually agree with a HOZ post

[Rerun]

Normally I would just provide a link to this story, but I think its a fairly balanced and accurate analysis of what happened that I'm going to post the whole story.... as sometimes with links, a lot of people don't bother to click on them.... and that would be a shame with this story.

Analysis: What they saw during the Gates arrest

By JESSE WASHINGTON (AP) – 2 hours ago

Henry Louis Gates Jr. felt the hairs on the back of his neck stand up as he looked across the threshold of his home at Sgt. James Crowley. Looking back at Gates, Crowley worried about making it home safely to his wife and three children.
Fear was the only thing the white police officer and black scholar had in common. Soon their many differences would collide, exploding into a colossal misunderstanding.
How could things go so wrong? How could two by all accounts decent men start a fire that drew comparisons to the O.J. Simpson case and knocked President Barack Obama off his racial tightrope?
Part of the answer lies in the truth seen through each man's eyes during the episode, which ended with one of the most influential men in America charged with disorderly conduct.
If this really is to become a "teachable moment," as Obama hopes, then we have to examine what they saw, according to their public statements — and why they saw it that way.
___
It's early afternoon on Ware Street in Cambridge, Mass., a few blocks from the campus of Harvard University. Gates and his car service driver, a large black man, are trying to force open Gates' jammed front door. Lucia Whalen, a 40-year-old white woman who works up the street at the Harvard alumni magazine, is passing by and calls 911.
According to Crowley's police report, he arrived to find Whalen standing on the sidewalk in front of the home. She told Crowley that "she observed what appeared to be two black men with backpacks on the porch ... her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door," the report says.
No one is blaming Whalen, who has not spoken publicly since the story broke.
"It wasn't her fault," Gates said.
We don't know how she sees the world, what types of experiences color her vision.
But had she shared just one or two different details with Crowley — or if the sergeant had gleaned something else from their conversation — things might have happened differently.
Gates, 58 and gray-haired, says he was dressed in a blazer and walking with a cane. He says his driver was wearing a black suit jacket and matching pants. After they forced open the door, Gates says, the driver carried Gates' luggage into the house, then drove off in the vehicle.
None of that was on Crowley's mind when he walked up the steps to Gates home.
"Witnesses are inherently reliable," he said later. "She told me what she saw."
___
Crowley is on the porch, alone; Gates is inside his home. They apparently notice each other through the front door window at about the same time.
Crowley sees the unknown: "I really wasn't sure exactly what I was dealing with," he said later.
The sergeant is 42, a decorated 11-year police veteran who grew up attending diverse public schools in Cambridge. All three of his brothers work in law enforcement. He's an instructor in a police academy class on how to avoid racial profiling.
He asks Gates to step outside.
"I was the only police officer standing there and I got a report that there was people breaking into a house. (The request) was for my safety, because first and foremost I have to go home at night, I have three beautiful children and a wife who depend on me," he said later.
"So I had no other motive other than to ensure my safety, because this gentleman either could have been one of the people breaking in, or he could have been the homeowner who was unaware that there were people in his house unauthorized. I just didn't know."
Gates, meanwhile, is a renowned scholar of black history who has spent most of his life literally cataloguing the sins of the past in volumes like "Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience."
"I know every incident in the history of racism from slavery to Jim Crow segregation," he said recently.
He knows some of it firsthand. About 1989, hired by Stanley Fish to teach at Duke University in Durham, N.C., "one of the first things Gates did was buy the grandest house in town," Fish wrote in a recent blog on The New York Times' Web site.
"During the renovation workers would often take Gates for a servant and ask to be pointed to the house's owner. The drivers of delivery trucks made the same mistake."
"The message was unmistakable: What was a black man doing living in a place like this?" Fish wrote.
So when Gates hears Crowley ask him to step outside, he sees history. How could he not?
"All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger," Gates said later. "And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, 'No, I will not.'"
___
Crowley asks Gates to prove he lives there.
Looking out his front door, Gates sees someone who should be asking, "Is everything all right, sir?" He sees someone who would not doubt that a 58-year-old, gray-haired Harvard professor lived in this home — if he were white.
Gates sees a racist.
Gates leaves the front door to get his identification. Crowley follows him inside. Gates says he provided a driver's license with the address of the home they were standing in; Crowley's police report only mentions a Harvard ID.
"Now it's clear that he had a narrative in his head," Gates said. "A black man was inside someone's house, probably a white person's house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."
Gates demands that the sergeant provide HIS identification.
Crowley sees someone who should be grateful, but instead is yelling and falsely accusing him of being a racist. He sees a problem — "something you wouldn't expect from anybody that should be grateful that you're there investigating a report of a crime in progress," he said.
Neither man understood what the other one saw.
___
Gates continues to demand that Crowley provide his name and badge number.
Crowley said in his report that he had already told Gates his name, twice, but Gates was yelling too much to hear him. Gates said Crowley ignored his demands.
Gates doesn't let up. Crowley says he'll talk to Gates outside. Then he says something Crowley understands perfectly, boiling down his 2,095 pages of "Africana" down into one cry of resistance:
"I'll speak with your mama outside," he said, according to the police report.
Gates denies making the remark.
Should Gates have realized that you can't antagonize the police? Should Crowley have understood what it means to suspect a black man of breaking into his own home? Arguments will persist for years.
Once he recovered his balance, backing off his statement that Crowley acted "stupidly," Obama assumed his traditional position of racial referee and said that both men overreacted.
"My hope," the first black president continued, "is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other ... and that instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...9lE8gD99MH3381

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

That's a great summary, Rerun. I think it pretty aptly characterizes what happens and--crucially--makes the effort to understand what both men were thinking and why their reactions were understandable. Thanks for posting that.

I also think Obama's final comment--about spending a little more time listening--is exactly right. That's probably the tone he should have struck in his first comments, I think we can all agree.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I conclude that you and Gates are cut from the same cloth. It is no wonder you are so zealous in defending that pompus race baiter. Gates thinks he knows what racial profiling looks like when he has only ever read about it. You think you can read a little bit of Massachusetts case law plus a police report and know more than several police officers with years of experience upholding Massachusetts State law.

More than likely all you are doing is parroting what some liberal talking head from MSNBC told you would have saved Gates in a trial. It amounts to the defence's best argument given without complete knowledge of the Prosecution's case against Gates. That would include the testimony of the other witnesses(including officers) and whatever case law the Prosecution would site. It is pretty easy to win a case when you are the only one presenting arguments.

Gates is trying to put the incident behind him now that it has backfired on him and exposed his own racial hypocrisy. Maybe you should too.

I really should no longer be surprised, or even outraged, when your "contribution" to a thread such as this one takes the form of this kind of nonsense.

Firstly, let's address the substance of your argument. Essentially, you don't bother refuting my claims at all, instead imputing to me actions that are not mine (watching MSNBC) and opinions I don't have (that I know more than a cop about Massachussetts law) when the truth is you know nothing about me at all. This is known as the ad hominem fallacy. It's particularly common among people who know that they have no chance of winning an argument on the merits, so I'll draw my own conclusions there.

Essentially, when you participate in a converation like this with the sole purposes of delivering "zingers" and "scoring points"--then you're not really contributing at all. Really, there are two types of posters: interesting and boring. Those that are interesting provide some sort of grist for the mill--that is, they bring something to the table that others can digest and either respond to or re-interpret--and we can form a stronger total opinion as a result.

To his credit, jolinar did (finally) do a little research and provide something useful. I don't always love his tone, but I recognize that it's hard to measure that sort of thing on the internet, so credit where credit's due--he provided a useful link that helped me tto understand this issue a bit more profoundly.

All you've provided so far is an ad hominem attack, an inaccurate statement about Gates' biography, and a link to a story that had already been linked.

That places you pretty firmly in the "uninteresting" category. And I think in future, that's how I'll treat you. It's sad, because I sense that you really are smart, and could, were you so inclined, be a valuable contributor to a community such as this one. There's nothing inherently wrong with your political views--but you have no idea how to talk about them with people who don't agree--and that's kind of sad. As a result, you tend to seem shrill and irrational rather than measured and thoughtful. A key test is this: are you capable of changing your mind if presented with a compelling argument? Changing your mind is hard sometimes--but I've done it in this very thread, as you'll see if you look at my first post, which takes a very different stance than I've since taken on the issue.

But if, as I suspect, no argument will ever convince you that you've made an error, then you have to ask yourself if you're thinking rationally at all. One of the main ideas of debate is that we present ideas that may be logically tested, and discarded if they are found wanting. I've noticed that when you make an argument that is exploded, you usually just find a different one, generally one that is equally vulnerable to an attack on strictly logical grounds.

I do want to add one last thought--and that is sincerely to apologize if this post came off as insulting. I honestly don't mean to impugn you. I don't know you at all--perhaps you're a great guy. But your contribution to threads like this isn't valuable at all right now. And that's not because of your beliefs; it's because of your rhetoric.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Stanley Fish

I flashed back 20 years or so to the time when Gates arrived in Durham, N.C., to take up the position I had offered him in my capacity as chairman of the English department of Duke University. One of the first things Gates did was buy the grandest house in town (owned previously by a movie director) and renovate it. During the renovation workers would often take Gates for a servant and ask to be pointed to the house’s owner. The drivers of delivery trucks made the same mistake. The message was unmistakable: What was a black man doing living in a place like this?

Those of you who have never experienced this sort of thing might not realize the kinds of things he has gone through in his entire life and those incidents probably shaped the way he reacted.

But I will say he was wrong in being overly confrontational with the police and I think the officer genuinely should not be needlessly blamed for this. He is not a racist, he was merely confronting someone who was not cooperative and displaying agressive behavior. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, it's just a bad situation which gets people talking about many of these latent issues that have built up over years of racial tensions in America.

If you remember, I posted a few months ago about an African-American co-worker who felt she was racially profiled or abused by a transit officer. She has actually gone back to the US now because of that experience has left a bad taste of Calgary in her mouth (in addition to seeing those Klan demonstrations awhile back as wel). For those who are wondering, they did goto mediation and the transit cop was disciplined for his actions which they ruled were out of line.

[Shawnski]

Couple of interesting notes on this story.

First, the 911 caller did NOT indicate the race of the two suspected individuals attempting to break into the house.

She denies any indication they were two black men.

In an interview last night, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas said it was ac curate that Whalen did not mention race in her 911 call. He acknowledged that a police report of the incident did include a race reference. The report says Whalen observed “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the front porch’’ of a Ware Street home on July 16.


That reference is there, said Haas, because the police report is a summary. Its descriptions- like the race of the two men - were collected during the inquiry, not necessarily from the initial 911 call, he said.

Secondly, the police released copies of the 911 and police radio transmissions to the media this morning. Haven't found anything regarding the detail yet, but it shouldn't be long. Stay tuned.

Edit, here is the first link developing about the tapes...

[Shawnski]

Here is the 911 call

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Now THAT's an interesting wrinkle, though I'm not sure what to do with it other than to say "Hmm."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Now THAT's an interesting wrinkle, though I'm not sure what to do with it other than to say "Hmm."

That definitely puts the kybosh on my comments earlier regarding blaming at least some of this on the neighbor that made the call.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Those of you who have never experienced this sort of thing might not realize the kinds of things he has gone through in his entire life and those incidents probably shaped the way he reacted.

But I will say he was wrong in being overly confrontational with the police and I think the officer genuinely should not be needlessly blamed for this. He is not a racist, he was merely confronting someone who was not cooperative and displaying agressive behavior. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, it's just a bad situation which gets people talking about many of these latent issues that have built up over years of racial tensions in America.

If you remember, I posted a few months ago about an African-American co-worker who felt she was racially profiled or abused by a transit officer. She has actually gone back to the US now because of that experience has left a bad taste of Calgary in her mouth (in addition to seeing those Klan demonstrations awhile back as wel). For those who are wondering, they did goto mediation and the transit cop was disciplined for his actions which they ruled were out of line.

Sorry no. Gates experiences in life don't excuse his bad behavior during and certainly after the event. He is at fault.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That definitely puts the kybosh on my comments earlier regarding blaming at least some of this on the neighbor that made the call.

Well, in fairness you were going by what was widely reported. You can't blame yourself for that. It goes to show that it's probably wise for all of us to wait for all the facts before getting indignant about these things!

Otherwise, I'm not sure how it affects the merits of each side. It does mean that there is at least one factual error in Off. Crowley's police report, but I think under the circumstances it's an understandable and forgiveable one.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sorry no. Gates experiences in life don't excuse his bad behavior during and certainly after the event. He is at fault.

There's a difference between "excuse" and "understand." There's no excuse for being a jerk, but it may help sometimes to understand why someone acts the way that they do.

You also probably shouldn't be arrested for being a jerk, but that seems like pretty well-traveled ground by now.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, in fairness you were going by what was widely reported. You can't blame yourself for that. It goes to show that it's probably wise for all of us to wait for all the facts before getting indignant about these things!

Otherwise, I'm not sure how it affects the merits of each side. It does mean that there is at least one factual error in Off. Crowley's police report, but I think under the circumstances it's an understandable and forgiveable one.

Again if you read the actual report, you would notice that the 911 caller told the officer AT THE SCENE she saw 2 black males...so I am not sure what "error" you are suggesting...also the 911 caller seems to expose Gates notion that he entered through the back door with his key...

[Shawnski]

Here are the police transmissions...