Viewpoint: The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest

By Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr.

Here is what the absurdist, typically stilted police language of Sergeant James Crowley's official report on his arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates really means:

Gates: You're not the boss of me!
Crowley: I am the boss of you.
Gates: You are not the boss of me!
Crowley: I'll show you. You're under arrest.

There is no crime described in Crowley's official version of the way Gates behaved. Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Nothing else, not a single threatening movement, just yelling. On the steps of his own home. Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. Not a single shouted word or action that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct. That is why the charges had to be dropped. (Read TIME's report: "Gates' Disorderly Conduct: The Police's Judgment Call")

In classically phony police talk, Crowley refers to " continued tumultuous behavior." When cops write that way, you know they have nothing. What is tumultuous behavior? Here's what it isn't: he brandished a knife in a threatening manner, he punched and kicked, he clenched his fist in a threatening manner, he threw a wrench or, in the Gates house, maybe a book. If the subject does any of those things, cops always write it out with precision. When they've got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing. Phrases like tumultuous behavior.

Unless you confess to a crime,or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here — cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.

We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped. (See TIME's 10 Questions for Henry Louis Gates Jr.)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html?artId=1912778?contType=article?chn=us

false arrest, harassment

where are the reich wingers to condemn needless government intrusion and abuses of civil liberties???

He didn't. Yes, he needed a warrant.

He had a report of a crime in progress from a witness who called and was on the scene. He had probable cause.

I wish you would read what you are responding to before you respond to it.

Were there any sign of forced entry, I'm sure this model officer would have included it in his report.

He did not have probable cause and that's why he tried to lure Gates outside from the moment he figured that out.

And I read just fine, thanks.

Read the police report, and do your homework this endless barrage of stupid emotional static from you is tiresome.

It's so funny that you're calling me "emotional" just like this freeper cop called Gates tumultuous.

There's not an emotional word in the post you're responding to. But, nice try.

She's just an uppity white lady who doesn't know her place. :sarcasm:

Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. -- by Charles Ogletree

This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.

Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

What do you think?

I personally have no idea what happened. Instincts tell me that 2 big egos collided.

We know 2 big egos collided, though I still have little sympathy when one ego with power subdues another using force.

I don't have any sympathy for either one of them.

If that's not force, I don't know what is!

That part tends toward police statism.

little white lies and polite fudging.

sense to smooth over social chafing points with polite words that are not exactly true. People who pride themselves on always insisting on saying the absolute truth in social situations have a name: boors.

If everyone told the truth all the time, we'd all spend all our time fighting with each other and getting our feelings hurt.

For example, you will no doubt be annoyed when I say what I consider to be the truth--that you are just being silly and deliberately contrarian. But if I kept that to myself, no matter how true I believe it to be, I wouldn't annoy you at all.

Polite omission and little white lies are social goods, not evidence that one is "a liar."

I notice the people on DU who make a habit of being contrarian, and I haven't noticed you doing that, so I have to assume you're just in the mood today.

Does Obama lie? Oh, definitely. Do all humans lie. Definitely. We are a social species, and polite lies are a social lubricant. But calling someone "a liar" is not the same thing as saying someone lies. Someone who deserves the label "liar" is someone who is deliberately mendacious, who tells lies unnecessarily, and often to malicious purpose, either to benefit himself or to harm others; or else it is someone who has a mental disturbance that prevents the person from being truthful, even when no benefit to himself (or no "useful" harm to another) will come from the lie.

Is Obama a liar? No--but he must inevitably "lie," as we all must. It is part of being human.

Dr. Phil, who is properly excoriated for making money by parading people with real problems for the entertainment of others, nevertheless has said some useful things.

One point he makes is that sometimes a situation or a relationship needs "a hero." He defines the sort of hero he means as the person who is willing to let go of the need to be right, to be vindicated, in the situation or the relationship, and who instead steps up to make it work, without demanding that his feelings or his "truth" and only his truth be validated.

Few human "truths" are absolute. I think Crowley behaved abominably, and I don't doubt that like many white people, perhaps especially white LEOs, he probably harbors some degree of racism, whether he is conscious of it or not. He was a dick in this situation, and he probably has been a dick in many other situations, but that doesn't mean that he has never behaved in a way that would justify calling his service as an LEO "outstanding." I imagine he has done many impressive, "outstanding" things as a police officer, even if he did a truly obnoxious and dumbass thing this time, and no doubt on other occasions as well.

Few people are all one thing or another. In this instance, President Obama just decided to step up and be the hero in the situation by validating the partial "truth" that Crowley is an "outstanding" officer rather than the partial "truth" that he is a stupid dick. Obama is so serenely self-confident that he does not need for his own narrow view of things to be the only one to be validated all the time.

(And in case you want to harp on my saying "his own narrow view," I am working from the reality that everyone's view of things is of necessity relatively narrow, since one person cannot know everything that goes into making up any complex situation.)

I don't think either one of them are evil men. Probably not either of thems best day. I think Obama spoke with Gates and privately Gates told him that he had been quite the ass to Crowley. I think that's when Obama came out with his outstanding officer comment, followed closely by Gates saying that it was time to move on and accepted the invite to the WH. That's just my opinion. It doesn't make Crowley look any better, he still overreacted and let a citizen get under his skin.

David

The burden of proof is upon the government to demonstrate imminent threat of crime in order to justify entering without a warrant or consent.

Had the cops done their work properly, the charges against Gates would not have been dropped.

His job was to investigate a possible break-in in progress. Finding a person on the premiss his job was to find out if the person had a right to be there or not. The 911 call of a possible break-in in progress is all the probable cause necessary as it should be.

and no sign of forcible entry. Probable cause after examining the scene itself goes out the window.

That's ALL that's necessary. Once he observed Gates through the side window of the door his JOB was to find out if Gates had a right to be there. That's his JOB... to find out if the person he observed was a legal resident of the property, an invited guest or a robber. Luggage on the porch doesn't mean anything. Luggage COULD be filled with stolen items from the premesis by Observed Person the possible house robber. Wisely, Crowley suspected from his observations that Gates was probably legally allowed to be there, but his JOB is to find that out for certain. He asked Gates to come outside so he could determine if he had a right to be there - which is his JOB - because at that time he was the only officer on the scene.

Suppose Gates didn't live there and was robbing the house. Are the police supposed to observe the robber in the course of robbing the house and then leave to go get a warrant and come back to present to the robber with the assumption the robber would still be there??? That's what you are suggesting police procedure should be and it's utterly absurd.

at all, no, what I'm suggesting is not utterly absurd in any way. Crackpots call the PD every day with wrong reports. That's why officeers go to the site, to see for themselves.

If someone made a 911 call which alleges that the corner shopkeeper is a child molester that does not give grounds for police to enter his home or to arrest anyone without some evidence that a crime is imminent.

The facts in Cambridge simply do not constitute ''probable cause'' no matter how the cop supporters try to twist it.

Investigate, yes, but entering the home requires a reasonable belief that there is a burglary in process. By his own report it appears clear that Crowley did not believe there was a burglary in progress when he entered the house.

The driver had also damaged the front door when he was able to force it open, again according to Gates attorney.

that clearly belonged in the police report.

In all my years of being ferried back and forth with my comedian husband, no limo driver has ever taken my luggage upstairs.

for no reason?

Anyone would clearly notice luggage in my 3 foot by 3 foot foyer. I'm no Harvard professor and I'm certainly not paid as well. If the officer did notice the luggage then he should have been less suspicious of a B and E actually having occurred. Although some people leave their luggage out for quite some time and sometimes people who have recently returned from trips are the victims of B and E.

david

apologize for oppressing white men during the hearings. i'm sure privately she was thinking something else.

just look at what happened to Gates when he said what he really felt.

to tell Crowley and the department that he didn't intend to malign them.

I think he might have changed his mind about Crowley after personally speaking with Gates.

He said he could have "calibrated" his language differently, but, he didn't take it back.

Thanks

for your wonderful thread :)

Thanks!

:applause:

We should all go out and put Larry O'Donnell's theory to the test. We should all go out and call a cop the most appropriate or rudest epithet we can think of on the spot, and see how that goes. Of course, since it's Larry's idea then he should go first.

to get arrested.

it's your idea, isn't it?

Lead the way, by all means.....

And even in being right, they're willing to bite the bullet to shut the moronic "shiny object" media up and "have a beer" so that all the white male right-wing idiots in this country can say "hey, that was cool - I'd have done the same".

:eyes:

This country is more fucked up than I ever thought it was - those who support this "don't mess with the cops, especially if you're black" mentality - even here on DU!! - are not fit to judge another human being's actions. For shame. For shame!

Or I'll get my revenge by luring you outdoors where I can bust you for disorderly conduct!

The minute Gates displayed his ID and proof of home address, Sgt. Jim Crow-ley should have thanked Gates for his cooperation and left--after all, there are REAL criminal out there. The hell with all of this trying to turn it into some kind of racial guilt trip. Thanks, Laurence!

x(
rocktivity

That's what so many of us have been trying to get through some people's heads. ya:think:


Side note.. "Ten Questions for Gates" from Time mag..

<snip>>

"What were you doing the night Barack Obama was elected? Rick Klein, LA CROSSE, WIS."

"I was at my friend's house in Cambridge, Mass. Everyone kept saying, "He's winning, he's winning," but I wouldn't let myself celebrate until Wolf Blitzer said he was President. Then I cheered, and we all cried and drank about another gallon of champagne."

I couldn't even watch..I was too freaked out:bounce: My son had to call me from Kaua'i and tell me he ran out of gas and was picked up by a guy who asked him .."How does it feel to have a Black man as President?" Turns out he just happened to be a mccain supporter.

I still didn't trust it and asked my son to call me back when he got home with more verification. I was numb with happiness.

haven't been here long, have you? :rofl:

Is it going to rain tomorrow?

I think Obama is pretty good at this sort of thing though - so it's likely to fade away after that.

Forty years ago, I was living on Ware Street in Cambridge (yes, the same Ware Street), and a neighbor called the police to complain that the party my roommate and I were hosting was too noisy. So the cops showed up, saw a bunch of people sedately drinking mulled cider and stringing popcorn and cranberries to decorate a Christmas tree, kind of shrugged and asked us to turn the stereo off by 11, and left.

A few years after that, my husband and I were having a loud argument in a parking lot. A couple of cops stopped and asked if there was a problem, we told them no we were just yelling at each other, and they left.

Police are supposed to be able to assess situations like that. They're supposed to know when things are out of hand and when they aren't. And I swear to you that no burglar apprehended in the act is going to stand on his dignity and start cursing out the cops for treating him as an intruder. It's just never going to happen, and the police know this better than any one.

No number of phone calls from neighbors or suitcases on the porch are going to change that. The police officer *knew* with absolutely certainty that Gates was the legitimate resident before he asked him to step outside and arrested him. And there is no grounds for arguing that he still had to treat Gates at that point as a potential suspect.

.... for drinking mulled cider and stringing popcorn. In 1969 you were supposed to be tripping and being groovy, not posing for a Christmas card.

Rejection of high-priced, over-commercialized, boozed-up holiday celebrations was *very* 1969. Those popcorn-and-cranberry garlands were a statement of authenticity and ecological sensitivity.

So there. :P

We had just moved into a somewhat rundown (essential to the youth experience) and chilly third floor walk up. We were decorating for Christmas and singing Our House (CSNY). Once it was all decorated, had a few friends over and played Our House (Madness) for a very nice not-inebriated dinner.

Of course, New Years was another matter.

Strangely, some seem to think it's not due to the color of their skin but their "wisdom" in how they behave towards cops. Go figure. :shrug:

arrested, taken to jail, and beaten senseless!

instead of handcuffing folks so that you can show them whose boss while wearing a gun.

When these loonies refused to obey the cops and feds, the far right lunatics defended them and said they had every right to use weapons under the Second Amendment to fight off the authorities. Isn't strange (no, not really) when the victims are black such as Prof Gates or the move Cult how these far right radicals defend the cops and refuse to defend the Constitutional rights of the victims?