Henry Louis Gates Arrested in his own home

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

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...

Sigh. I will never understand why people feel the need to speak to one another like that. You don't have to be rude--especially when what I was actually saying is that it would be an understandable error under the circumstances, not that it exposes Crowley as a racist. However, you apparently wish you were debating with a shriller, less rational poster. I can't oblige you there.

More to the point, your objection is nonsensical on two counts. Crowley wrote the report, not the dispatcher, not the witness at the scene. The person at the scene, when she called, told the dispatcher that she didn't get a good look at the two men, and couldn't identify their race when she was looking at them--why would she suddenly be able to say definitively that they were black when she could no longer see them? EDIT: More importantly, Whalen denies ever having said this to Crowley. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1187224

However, I refuse to believe that you didn't already know that. Is it possible that the error is the dispatcher's and not Crowley's? Sure--but that takes some serious mental acrobatics. Essentially, what you're saying is that the dispatcher out of nowhere assumed that the people breaking in were black and passed that information along to Crowley. I think you'll agree that this doesn't make much sense. However, it is the only way the error could have been the dispatcher's and not Officer Crowley's. Is it also possible that the 911 caller changed her story before Crowley got there, and told him something different from what she told the dispatcher? Again, sure. However, this means that in her comment after the fact, she is lying about never having said that they were black. This is definitely possible, though I personally find it unlikely. EDIT: after listening to the tape, the dispatcher clearly says that the race of the men is unknown.

However, it's not confirmed by the facts, and Crowley's report clearly doesn't include some information that she DID give the dispatcher--quite notably that she wasn't even sure it was a break-in--that she thought it possible Gates might live there, and not be a burglar. Now either Crowley forgot to include it, or the dispatcher didn't tell him--who knows? Either way, it's a minor but important detail. EDIT: Sounds like the dispatcher didn't tell him.

Also, the call in no way contradicts Gates' testimony about entering through the back door after attempting to enter through the front and finding the door jammed.

If you want to be reasonable and have a reasonable debate, let's do it. I'm getting awfully tired of the "if you read the report" nonsense. I did read it--but I'm not particularly interested in proving it to you. If you want to keep playing "gotcha," go ahead--but do it with somebody else.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Here are the police transmissions...

Interesting stuff. Sounds like Gates identified himself right away, but seemed "uncooperative. Consistent with both accounts, really. Crowley doesn't say what sort of ID he was provided with. I'm not sure why Crowley says "keep the cars coming" at that point, but not being a police officer I'm not even really sure what it means.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Another minor detail, but one that might affect the assembly of a profile: the dispatcher says "men with suitcases." The report says "men with backpacks." Not major, but a thief is a lot likelier to carry a backpack than a suitcase. Also, the dispatcher clearly says that they have nothing on the race of the men, other than that one "might be Hispanic."

[Shawnski]

Two points IFF. I think that link to the police transmissions MAY have been editted down in length to leave out some silence, unlike their 911 tape. The reason I say that may be is that another site indicated it was 40 seconds from the time Crowley asked for the 911 caller to come to the door (and was advised it wasn't her home) and the time that Crowley indicated Gates was "uncooperative", yet it was only 13 seconds or so on the link above. FWIW anyway.

Secondly, yes, the suitcase thing is odd. But I would think that what Crowley put into his report was from his quick talk with the 911 caller outside the home, not from the 911 call itself. Perhaps different things were said then. Don't know.... That could explain the "two black men" part too, if she said that in person to Crowley (she was outside the building by that time... may have seen them.)

It is clear that you can hear Gates in the background (pretty loudly) at a couple points in the tape.

I will have to listen again for that "keep the cars coming" bit again as that doesn't appear consistant with the report (or what was said later... I forget...) Will do that when I get a minute.

Love armchair detective work, eh?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Two points IFF. I think that link to the police transmissions MAY have been editted down in length to leave out some silence, unlike their 911 tape. The reason I say that may be is that another site indicated it was 40 seconds from the time Crowley asked for the 911 caller to come to the door (and was advised it wasn't her home) and the time that Crowley indicated Gates was "uncooperative", yet it was only 13 seconds or so on the link above. FWIW anyway.

Secondly, yes, the suitcase thing is odd. But I would think that what Crowley put into his report was from his quick talk with the 911 caller outside the home, not from the 911 call itself. Perhaps different things were said then. Don't know.... That could explain the "two black men" part too, if she said that in person to Crowley (she was outside the building by that time... may have seen them.)

It is clear that you can hear Gates in the background (pretty loudly) at a couple points in the tape.

I will have to listen again for that "keep the cars coming" bit again as that doesn't appear consistant with the report (or what was said later... I forget...) Will do that when I get a minute.

Love armchair detective work, eh?

I couldn't hear Gates; I'll take another listen. Hard to assess his demeanour from what amounts to snippets of audio just a couple of seconds long, though. Crowley, FWIW, sounds pretty calm throughout.

I did wonder if some silence had been edited out--otherwise, the whole series of events would have to have taken place in just over two minutes, which seems unlikely to me.

As for the 911 caller, she has commented on the record, and denies ever having said that the two men were black, including when she spoke to Crowley outside the home. I think her 911 call bears this out--why would she be unwilling to tell the dispatcher, but willing to tell Crowley, after she can no longer see the suspects, even from a distance.

I'm speculating, but I think it's at least as possible that Crowley got the information about the race of the two men from talking to Gates, and then in the heat of the moment the info got "misfiled" in his brain, so that he ascribed it to Whalen when she never said it. It's the sort of mental error we all make all the time, and is very understandable. But it should serve as a reminder that a police report is merely one person's account, and is as vulnerable as any other to inaccuracies or erroneous recollections.

The suitcase thing is weirder--and Whalen's comments can't enlighten us there. But if Crowley was thinking "thief," maybe his mind replaced that detail with something more consistent with the profile he had in his mind... I don't know. But to me there's a big difference between suitcase and backpack in this context, because a suitcase is so much less practical for a thief to be using.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As for the 911 caller, she has commented on the record, and denies ever having said that the two men were black, including when she spoke to Crowley outside the home. I think her 911 call bears this out--why would she be unwilling to tell the dispatcher, but willing to tell Crowley, after she can no longer see the suspects, even from a distance.

Got another twist for you!!

Her lawyer is now indicating she never talked to Crowley outside the home....

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gat...est/index.html

I hear circus music...

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I couldn't hear Gates; I'll take another listen. Hard to assess his demeanour from what amounts to snippets of audio just a couple of seconds long, though. Crowley, FWIW, sounds pretty calm throughout.

I did wonder if some silence had been edited out--otherwise, the whole series of events would have to have taken place in just over two minutes, which seems unlikely to me.

As for the 911 caller, she has commented on the record, and denies ever having said that the two men were black, including when she spoke to Crowley outside the home. I think her 911 call bears this out--why would she be unwilling to tell the dispatcher, but willing to tell Crowley, after she can no longer see the suspects, even from a distance.

I'm speculating, but I think it's at least as possible that Crowley got the information about the race of the two men from talking to Gates, and then in the heat of the moment the info got "misfiled" in his brain, so that he ascribed it to Whalen when she never said it. It's the sort of mental error we all make all the time, and is very understandable. But it should serve as a reminder that a police report is merely one person's account, and is as vulnerable as any other to inaccuracies or erroneous recollections.

The suitcase thing is weirder--and Whalen's comments can't enlighten us there. But if Crowley was thinking "thief," maybe his mind replaced that detail with something more consistent with the profile he had in his mind... I don't know. But to me there's a big difference between suitcase and backpack in this context, because a suitcase is so much less practical for a thief to be using.

That is exactly why a good thief would enter a home with a suitcase.... much more likely to not arouse suspicion...

Plus, look how much more loot you can stuff into a large suitcase than you can into a little ol' backpack. Who are you more likely to call the police on if you observe someone you don't recognize leaving a home on your street?

Not all burglars are dumb.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Got another twist for you!!

Her lawyer is now indicating she never talked to Crowley outside the home....



http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gat...est/index.html

I hear circus music...

Wow!

This situation just keeps getting odder, doesn't it? Now that's definitely not consistent with Crowley's report--but it's also not the sort of thing one misremembers. Could Crowley have talked to the older woman who asked Whalen to call the police? I don't know--I feel like I'm reaching a little.

The other officer, who arrived later, also reported talking to Whalen, but nowhere in his report does it say that she said anything about race, only that Gates was yelling about it from inside the house prior to being arrested on the deck.

Personally, I think the race aspect of this is probably overblown anyway--if Whalen was there when Gates was arrested, I would like her to clarify some of the differences between Gates' account and Crowley's, if she can. I suppose that's unlikely.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

That is exactly why a good thief would enter a home with a suitcase.... much more likely to not arouse suspicion...

Plus, look how much more loot you can stuff into a large suitcase than you can into a little ol' backpack. Who are you more likely to call the police on if you observe someone you don't recognize leaving a home on your street?

Not all burglars are dumb.

Thieves using suitcases? What's next, cats marrying dogs? Oiler fans without mullets? Canuck fans without Abercrombie & Fitch?

My world is collapsing!!

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Rerun

That is exactly why a good thief would enter a home with a suitcase.... much more likely to not arouse suspicion...

Plus, look how much more loot you can stuff into a large suitcase than you can into a little ol' backpack. Who are you more likely to call the police on if you observe someone you don't recognize leaving a home on your street?

Not all burglars are dumb.

You are confused. Thieves wear black and white stripes, facemasks, and carry big sacks.

[peter12]

That NYT article posted awhile back really says it all for me... an academic elitist, in the truest sense possible, gets slightly harassed by a multi-ethnic team of police officers outside of his upper-class home in Cambridge and all of a sudden becomes Al Sharpton's new banner. Meanwhile, the ghettos are still festering with hate, drugs and poverty.

Something inside of me thinks that Gates should shove it, get back to teaching upper-class Americans about their ancestors' sins, and let the rest of America get back to living their real lives.

Identity politics is a cancer and people like Gates, and even Obama in this circumstance, are more responsible than they would like to think for the continuing self-victimizing that has come to characterize the political community of American blacks.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Yeah, good point. But in this case... what's race got to do with it?

[Shawnski]

OK, I have listened a couple times. I can hear Gates in the background (unclear what he said) when Crowley said he was uncooperative. This is when he also asked for the Harvard police (which is before seeing the ID apparently.)

I hear him again when Crowley first radioed in that it was Gates. Again couldn't hear what he said. Then a third time I hear him when Crowley clarified his name again. This time I can hear "Now I want yo..." Would this not be when Gates asked for his name and badge number? Seems to hold true on both accounts.

I heard Gates a fourth time when the second officer radioed in that he was at the house on Ware St.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

That NYT article posted awhile back really says it all for me... an academic elitist, in the truest sense possible, gets slightly harassed by a multi-ethnic team of police officers outside of his upper-class home in Cambridge and all of a sudden becomes Al Sharpton's new banner. Meanwhile, the ghettos are still festering with hate, drugs and poverty.

Something inside of me thinks that Gates should shove it, get back to teaching upper-class Americans about their ancestors' sins, and let the rest of America get back to living their real lives.

Identity politics is a cancer and people like Gates, and even Obama in this circumstance, are more responsible than they would like to think for the continuing self-victimizing that has come to characterize the political community of American blacks.

I think it's definitely true that if Gates weren't "famous," we wouldn't be talking about this at all. But really, doesn't that just point more starkly to the social problems that we should be addressing? I can see your point, but I don't think anyone is advocating attention to HL Gates at the expense of attention to the poverty and misery among poor blacks in America. However, you are right in the sense that it seems like our attention can only be fixed on one thing at a time, and bigger events seem to kind of suck the oxygen out of the room a little bit.

The same could be said about our attention to Michael Jackson's death at the expense of attention to the Iranian elections--or looking farther back, our attention to the genocide in Bosnia while a much larger-scale genocide went on practically unnoticed in Rwanda. That's not to say that we shouldn't have been in Bosnia--but the West's total inaction in Rwanda ought to be (in my view) a stain on our conscience that will last a long time. And it can be partly explained by the fact that the attention of the media (and the Clinton administration) was on Bosnia.

As for calling him an ivory-tower elitist... well, he pretty much is one, by definition. He has a driver, for pete's sake. OTOH, I wouldn't call being arrested without proper cause "lightly harassed"--that's pretty much the highest extent to which you can be harassed by police, short of tasers in the bum.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's definitely true that if Gates weren't "famous," we wouldn't be talking about this at all. But really, doesn't that just point more starkly to the social problems that we should be addressing? I can see your point, but I don't think anyone is advocating attention to HL Gates at the expense of attention to the poverty and misery among poor blacks in America. However, you are right in the sense that it seems like our attention can only be fixed on one thing at a time, and bigger events seem to kind of suck the oxygen out of the room a little bit.

The same could be said about our attention to Michael Jackson's death at the expense of attention to the Iranian elections--or looking farther back, our attention to the genocide in Bosnia while a much larger-scale genocide went on practically unnoticed in Rwanda. That's not to say that we shouldn't have been in Bosnia--but the West's total inaction in Rwanda ought to be (in my view) a stain on our conscience that will last a long time. And it can be partly explained by the fact that the attention of the media (and the Clinton administration) was on Bosnia.

As for calling him an ivory-tower elitist... well, he pretty much is one, by definition. He has a driver, for pete's sake. OTOH, I wouldn't call being arrested without proper cause "lightly harassed"--that's pretty much the highest extent to which you can be harassed by police, short of tasers in the bum.

An academic elitist who has made his career and his reputation by exploiting and inflaming America's racial tensions and history. This guy is no wise philosopher or teacher, but someone who has an axe to grind and has used other's misfortunes to further his own career.

Not exactly an enlightened academic either, as it appears from Steyn's article that he has very little understanding of his own subject matter, English. Unfortunately, Gates' persona is exemplary of the sad state of American universities when it comes to the radicalism and faux socialization that students have become subject.

This "event" has inspired him to make a documentary on racial profiling. Please... maybe he can get some pointers from Obama next time they meet for a beer. The attainment and proliferation of wisdom is not Gates' intent.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, good point. But in this case... what's race got to do with it?

I think it's pretty clear that race has nothing to do with the issue of whether Gates could or should be arrested for disorderly conduct in this case. Here's a good (to my untrained eye) legal analysis, though:
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/le...e-law-say.html

Notable quotes:

Firstly, the specific constitutional limits that convictions under the disorderly conduct law must satisfy.

In a 1976 decision, Commonwealth v. Richards, 369 Mass. 443, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the First Amendment prevents application of the disorderly conduct law to language and expressive conduct, even when it is offensive and abusive. The one exception would be language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Secondly, the specific criteria given to juries in a jury trial, in which it's pretty clear Gates' actions don't meet the standard.

Jury instructions used by the Massachusetts courts spell out three elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of disorderly conduct:

1. The defendant engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose.

2. The defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public.

3. The defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

Finally, the porch issue--in which it's quite clear that the fact that the offense occurred on Gates' porch would likely have sunk the whole thing.

The SJC has also said that for a defendant in Gates’ situation to be found guilty, his actions must have been reasonably likely to affect the public in a place to which the public had access. Where much, if not all, of the alleged conduct occurred on Gates’ property, it appears that legal requirement would prove fatal to the DA’s case.

None of these issues is particularly about race. But they do seem germane to a deeper question: what rights do we have in expressing ourselves to police? If we can be arrested because a cop doesn't like us, then that seems to me to impose a drastic and nearly fatal exception on any freedom-of-speech law.

Indiana lawyer Joshua Claybourn has this to say about the disorderly conduct statutes more generally.

Nevertheless, there remains an unfortunate arrest for “disorderly conduct,” and arrests of this nature are far too common. Massachusetts defines the crime as fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm.

This sort of definition is relatively similar to that found in most states, and in almost every instance it is fraught with vagaries, giving far too much discretion to police officers. In short, “disorderly conduct” can easily become a euphemism for whatever a particular police officer doesn’t like. That kind of environment runs counter to fundamental ideals of the American system.

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2..._conduct_laws/

Edit to add:

All of which brings us back to the Cambridge dust-up. Sgt. Crowley was understandably carrying out his duty to investigate the report, and from the quotes attributed to Gates, the professor was unfair in his comments to an officer doing a good job. But being rude, unfair, or disrespectful should not be illegal, and that’s essentially the effect of most disorderly conduct laws. Our American society increasingly hands more responsibility and control to the great Nanny State. Heightened arrests under disorderly conduct laws enable this frightening progression.

President Obama would have been wise to avoid this controversy, particularly since he admits to lacking all of the facts. But ultimately I cannot disagree with the thrust of his statement. Arresting Prof. Gates under the circumstances was stupid and Americans in every state would do well to scale back the reach of disorderly conduct laws.

This may not be about race at all--but it does seem to me that there's a constitutional issue here, or at least the beginnings of one--depending on how common this sort of arrest is.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

An academic elitist who has made his career and his reputation by exploiting and inflaming America's racial tensions and history. This guy is no wise philosopher or teacher, but someone who has an axe to grind and has used other's misfortunes to further his own career.

He is an English Professor...I am sure that he is really grinding his axe when people indicate "there lack of knowledge" as opposed to "their lack of knowledge".

Quoting an internationally recognized bigot like Mark Steyn as an authority on the English language is just laughable, what they hell does that prick know about the English language?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

An academic elitist who has made his career and his reputation by exploiting and inflaming America's racial tensions and history. This guy is no wise philosopher or teacher, but someone who has an axe to grind and has used other's misfortunes to further his own career.

Not exactly an enlightened academic either, as it appears from Steyn's article that he has very little understanding of his own subject matter, English. Unfortunately, Gates' persona is exemplary of the sad state of American universities when it comes to the radicalism and faux socialization that students have become subject.

This "event" has inspired him to make a documentary on racial profiling. Please... maybe he can get some pointers from Obama next time they meet for a beer. The attainment and proliferation of wisdom is not Gates' intent.

I've never thought particularly highlyof Gates as a scholar, to be frank. But I do think that he should have a right to behave as he chooses in or in front of his own home--and that he should be free to express whatever opinion he wants, however hurtful or even wrong that opinion might be.

As for a documentary on racial profiling, that could be very good or very bad. I think it's a topic that needs to be brought out into the light--and we should be clear that racial profiling is NOT the same thing as "racism"--and that cops who use it are not necessarily "racists." I hope Gates is clear about that.

It seems to me important to make a clear distinction between racial profiling as a matter of policy or trained procedure, and a police officer who might happen to be a racist. The first one is (according to my sense, anyway) pretty common. The second one is much more rare.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

He is an English Professor...I am sure that he is really grinding his axe when people indicate "there lack of knowledge" as opposed to "their lack of knowledge".

Quoting an internationally recognized bigot like Mark Steyn as an authority on the English language is just laughable, what they hell does that prick know about the English language?

Steyn only mentions Gates' apparent ignorance of Shakespeare.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

This "event" has inspired him to make a documentary on racial profiling. Please... maybe he can get some pointers from Obama next time they meet for a beer. The attainment and proliferation of wisdom is not Gates' intent.

Although this woman (in hindsight) has got it wrong regarding racial profiling from the neighbours I like what she has to say at the end about his so called documentary.

"I'm fed up with the cookie cut conversations that we want to have about racial incidents.

Rarely does the conversation save black poor people's lives, whilst making a handful of pseudo black leaders rich..... and important..... Whilst in the meantime black and white scholars make tons of money on the discussion about race that we have.

Already Henry Gates is talking about a documentary about black men and white cops....

Well you do that provocative documentary Professor Gates. You'll call it racial justice, I call it racial pimping ........ Peace"

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-303137