home

Gates-gate: The Police Dispatches Part 2

Second round for those who missed the argument discussion earlier. Here is how AP characterizes them:

The 911 caller who reported two men possibly breaking into the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. did not describe their race, acknowledged they might just be having a hard time with the door and said she saw two suitcases on the porch. . . . The officer who arrested Gates, Sgt. James Crowley, said in his police report that he talked to Whalen soon after he arrived at Gates' home. "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch," Crowley, who's white, wrote in his report.

Whalen's attorney, Wendy Murphy, said her client never mentioned the men's race to Crowley and is upset by news reports she believes have unfairly depicted her as a racist.

Perhaps someone can ask Officer Crowley about that.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Funny >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Question carried over from the last thread (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    In order to ensure his own safety, may a police officer kick down the door of my apartment and search every room because he doesn't like the color of the paint on my building?

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Glad to hear that (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    So what are the parameters, exactly? What was the extent of Crowley's privilege in Gates's house? Why shouldn't I conclude that he exceeded it?

    Parent
    Your scenario is silly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    A police officer, in your house, and if he has not established you as the resident, or may fear for his safety from you or others who may be hiding, (esepcially if he feels there is a crime in progress) certainly could look around enough to ensure his (and your) safety.

    Not saying that's what happened here, but your scenario makes no sense.

    Parent

    The problem is that that's clearly NOT (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    what happened in this case. Explain to me why it wasn't "end of story" when Crowley was satisfied that Gates was who he said he was.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    It clearly was not the case that Crowley objected to the paint color on the house either.

    Parent
    Duh (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    how do you know? (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    End of story would have been if (2.00 / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    Gates proved to Sgt. Crowley's satisfaction that Gates lawfully resided in the house, Crowley goes outside and Gates stays inside.  

    Parent
    And since he did, I think you have to agree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    that thereafter Crowley acted improperly, based on what we know.

    Parent
    As BTD says, no need to repeat (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    what we all know, i.e., IMO the arrest for disorderly conduct was not based on probable cause.  I would be interested to know how Cambridge PD's attorney has previously told members of the PD about when they have discretion to arrest under that statute, which seems unconstitutionally vague, but which has been narrowed by the courts.

    Parent
    Interesting question (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    I wonder if there's an entrapment element because Crowley apparently asked Gates to go outside.

    Parent
    According to Crowley, he told Gates (2.00 / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    Crowley was going outside and if Gates had any questions he could come outside also.  Seems reasonable to me.

    Parent
    That's essentially ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    the argument that Lowry makes at Reality Based Community.

    Parent
    Are you saying he didn't? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    this is a novel assertion.

    Parent
    Didn't what? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    Quoting YOU (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    "if Gates proved to Sgt. Crowley's satisfaction that Gates lawfully resided in the house . . "

    you saying he didn't?

    Parent

    Of course he did. Relevant question (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    is at what point in the incident did this happen.  

    Parent
    Probably after the arrest (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    right? At least you would have advised Crowley to write that in his report, correct?

    Parent
    Knock it off or I'll have to start (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    hitting the "1."  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    Even though the arrest was (2.00 / 0) (#147)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    probably a contempt of cop arrest, I don't think any of us know at what point during the interaction Crowley fully believed Gates was who he said. Fact is, it's entirely reasonable for the cops to expect complete cooperation, especially since the situation could be life threatening (police response to a potentially dangerous burglary). Any response that is uncooperative complicates an already dangerous situation. I'm guessing it wasn't "end of story" because adrenaline, testosterone and public disagreements make men disagreeable.

    Stupid is as stupid does. Some people have been stupid enough to pull water squirt guns on armed cops. Now they're Darwin award winners. Gates is complicit in making a dangerous situation worse, and his elitist criticisms and immediate assumption and accusations of racism make the rest of us less safe.


    Parent

    the story (none / 0) (#39)
    by souvarine on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    Crowley arrested Gates on disorderly, not on anything related to the 911 call. The story did not end once Crowley had established Gates's identity and left the house because Gates followed Crowley and continued to berate him.

    To me the only question is whether Crowley was justified in arresting Gates for yelling at him in public. My original supposition, that Crowley arrested Gates because he was black and was seen breaking into a house that turned out to be his own, is false given the facts. As far as I can tell the other officers present agree that the arrest was appropriate. I have not read an argument that the arrest was not appropriate that also takes Crowley's situation into account, except perhaps del Pozo's at Crooked Timber.

    Parent

    Contempt of cop (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    Tes tes that is the issue.

    My question is do you REALLY have a doubt here?

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by souvarine on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    I had no doubt the arrest was racially motivated on first reports, after all this is Henry Louis Gates. But the more I read, including Gates's own account, the more doubt I have that Crowley was unjustified.


    Parent
    Allrighty then (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    One person I have heard say that.

    Parent
    This IS a red herring: (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    As far as I can tell the other officers present agree that the arrest was appropriate.

    Based on what?

    Parent

    reports (none / 0) (#71)
    by souvarine on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:31:15 PM EST
    Based on the Cambridge police defending Crowley's action, and that I have not seen reports of police who were present refuting Crowley's action. Obviously the police have an interest in defending each-other, so we probably won't know their unguarded opinion.


    Parent
    Cambridge PD requested the (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    prosecutor's office not issue a complaint againt Gates.  That says it all on the opinion of the department as to whether the arrest was justified.

    Parent
    Because Gates, as has been reported, (none / 0) (#175)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    thought he was a victim of racial profiling.

    Parent
    Well, did you pass crim. pro? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    Haven't taken it (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    I'm genuinely interested in this though.

    Parent
    best to ask the experts: (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106990080

    "Examining Protocol in disorderly conduct cases" NPR interview.

    They also discuss private residences.

    Parent

    Not that this would stop them (none / 0) (#4)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    And you can get Holder to not be interested in prosecuting.

    Seriously, when can we see someone rob a wealthy Republican / Democrat and then use the 'It's too political to prosecute' defense?

    Parent

    Only if he doesn't like ... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    the paint on the trim, the main color is irrelevant, see:  Martha Stewart v. Acme Paints.

    ;)

    Parent

    depends on the color- (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    Is the color disturbing the peace?

    Parent
    If only (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    I could get a couple of neighbors charged on that basis.  Believe me, there are hues that are criminal and definitely disturb my peace.:-)

    Parent
    Actually there are some ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    places, historic districts primarily, where you have to get your paint color(s) approved.

    Parent
    I know, I'm in a historic district (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    by federal and state approval.  But you can do anything to your house in such districts without approval; you just don't qualify for tax credits then.  (I know a lot about this, as I have filed and qualified -- and have helped a lot of others who care about historical preservation to do so, as I served on a state board that oversees this.  Let it be said that, unlike Mrs. Obama, I did not file or do anything to do with my house while I served on such a board.:-)

    We are not in a city historic district, which has the power to do as you say.  I wish we were, but as you can guess, some neighbors have fought it off.

    Parent

    Any neighborhood with an HOA (none / 0) (#118)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    can dictate anything from what color you paint the exterior to what kind of plants you put in your front yard.


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    but fyi for others, a homeowner's association is not a historic district.  It can be, but it is not the same.

    Parent
    True enough.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    I think it's fairly rare you'll find an HOA in any neighborhoods that are more than 20-30 years old. Although, I'm noticing some of the older areas are trying to form those control groups.

    Parent
    Perhaps the President will (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    ask Sgt. Crowley to explain the discrepancy at the WH. At which point Prof. Gates will begin speaking.

    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    If Sgt.. Crowley really wanted to justify (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    his actions, he could have done a lot more in his report.  He never states he was at any time fearful for his safety or that of others, including Gates.  He never states he believed the crowd outside might become unruly as a result of Gates' behaviour.  

    Didn't lie enough ay? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    You are sure of his intent? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Actually, I should rephrase... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    You know for sure his intent was to lie?

    Parent
    Apparently. Just as Gates was sure (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    Crowley contacted him because of Gates's ethnicity.

    Parent
    "Convictions are a greater foe to truth (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    than lies"

    Parent
    for "disorderly conduct?" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    You know we're discussing (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    the part of Crowley's report where he said he talked to Whalen outside the home. Not the arrest, which as you also know I was one of the first to identify as illegal.

    Parent
    It was a play on the word (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    conviction.

    A nonsequitor to your assertion.

    Parent

    Ah, thank you. (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    Hey (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    It was your point. I was just accepting it.

    Parent
    Ask Oculus (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    She's the one saying he did not lie enough.

    Parent
    Ha. Obviously Crowley wrote his (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    report after the arrest. It seems pretty straightforward to me.  I don't see the Whalen black/not black issue as being important to justifying the initial contact or the unjustifiable arrest.  

    Parent
    Why put it in then? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    Especially if it is false?

    Parent
    Who knows? I think he made (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    a mistake.  You think he lied.  

    Parent
    Rinse repeat (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    Hell of a mistake don't you think?

    Parent
    Not to me. More interesting to me is (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    Figueroa's report, which independently describes what happened inside and outside the house.

    Parent
    you got a link? (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    I do find it interesting that you do  not think that is a hell of a mistake.

    Parent
    Of course I have a link: (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    arrest reports

    You'll need to scroll down.

    Parent

    Read it (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    Not particularly interesting.

    you know who I want to hear from? Lucia Whalen on what SHE heard standing outside the house.

    Parent

    I already asked steve m to do (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    telephone interviews of everybody present:  Whalen, the older female, all the people outside including law enforcement, Harvard maintenance person, and people who were there to looky-loo.  Let's get to the bottom of this.  (snk)

    Parent
    Were you not satisfied (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    with my telephone interview of Clarence Thomas?

    Parent
    I don't think it's a bad idea! (none / 0) (#123)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    Hey, it's obviously fascinating esp. with Harvard as the setting.

    Parent
    My ? is (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    what sort of institutional pressure is going to come down on her from Harvard about this.  You know Harvard is going to want to look good and certainly will be pressuring her to do what's right...for the college.  Which is to make the college look good.  I'll wait til I hear what she has to say if she says anything, but I think the college is going to try to control the situation through her.

    Parent
    Look at this: (none / 0) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    Dispatcher: 17 Ware Street . . . both SPs are still in the house, unknown on race. One may be a Hispanic male, not sure. . . .

    Officer 52(Crowley): Stand by. Can you have the caller come to the front door? . . .

    Dispatcher: It's not her house, she doesn't live there. She's a witness in this.

    What can we assume is Crowley's initial impression of the situation?

    What does the dispatcher say that changes that initial impression?

    What role might that have played in him not questioning Whalen?

    Hint: I've bolded the pertinent exchange.

    Parent

    Ugh (none / 0) (#88)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    One of the reasons why it causes me some dismay when race is brought into this is that seemingly inocuous interchanges take on different meaning.

    Anyway, i see nothing wrong with that dialog, and i believe no one would think to see anything wrong with that dialog if the initial accusations were not made.

    Parent

    But you have to ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    look at in context if you want to understand why (a) he didn't question her, and (b) later wrote in his report that he did.

    Parent
    Well I should step back (none / 0) (#95)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    And first ask what you think it means.  I didn't get the hint, I guess.

    I think it means nothing.


    Parent

    Nah, use the ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    Socratic part of your brain, and think it through yourself.

    Parent
    I get into a lot of trouble (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    When I try to put words in other people's mouths.

    Humor me.  I'll be the first to admit I'm not that bright.


    Parent

    What benefit was it to Sgt. Crowley (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    to write in his report Whalen told him two black men instead of two men?  

    Parent
    Imagine what the report ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    would have looked like without it.

    Parent
    Well, we still have a citizen's eye witness (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    call to 911 of a possible breaking and entry at the address to which Sgt. Crowley responded. If he thought the possible suspects were not black should he have ignored the dispatch?

    Parent
    That will be the message... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    his brothers and sisters in arms hear..."note to John Law self, spare no embelishment in reports for shady arrests"

    That is if they think we the people are finally taking a stand against stupid arrests...if I was an officer of the law I wouldn't worry to much about that.  

    Parent

    You know, I resemble that comment. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:21:53 PM EST
    all this speculation that "maybe Crowley thought the real burglar was hiding in the closet" or whatever is silly, because if Crowley really did continue the encounter because of suspicions like that, he certainly would have included that information in the police report.

    The tenor of the police report is that Crowley came to believe very quickly that Gates was the resident and that this was all just a misunderstanding, and he just wanted to verify he was right and be on his way.  I see no basis for speculation that Crowley was afraid for his safety or what have you.

    Heck, people are making crazy statements like "how does he know Gates doesn't have a gun?!?" when what Crowley did after seeing Gates' ID, according to the police report, is turn his back on Gates and exit the house.  Yeah, sounds like he was really terrified that this 58-year old guy with a cane might gun him down.

    Parent

    No no (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    You have not seen oculus' REVISED version of Crowley's report.

    Parent
    Now now (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    Oculus is a straight shooter in my book.  Don't h8, just litig8.

    Parent
    Why thank you steve m. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    I must admit I am rising to the defense of law enforcement here.  Too many years in the saddle I guess.  And, lest anyone forget, IMO the disorderly conduct arrest was for contempt of cop.

    Parent
    I;m just messin with her (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    How boring it would be (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    if we all agreed with each other all the time.

    Parent
    You got me so fired up I flaked (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    out on yoga class again.  

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    You need it more than ever today!  

    It's all good, it's all good, it's all good!  :)

    Parent

    I am taking my 11-year old tutoree (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    and his nine-year old nephew to the Air and Space Museum this afternoon.  Simulators.  Should be fun.  And I bet they've never heard of Gates or Crowley.

    Parent
    Oh, I well recall taking my son (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    at that age and my daughter to D.C., a wonderful trip -- except that he wanted to go to the A&S museum every single day.  We did go a lot of times as a compromise, it was their trip.  Btw, another favorite of an 11-year-old male was the house across from Ford's Theatre (then closed for work, or he would have liked it, too) where Lincoln was taken after being shot, with his blood still on the pillow.  Blecch.

    But that and trips to Williamsburg and Springfield, Illinois, and other such treks turned him into a history major, in the end.  Just as a family trek to Springfield did so for me.  So good for you, grow us some more history majors, oculus!

    Parent

    These boys are very bright and very (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    curious.  They are good company.  

    Parent
    Saddens me these boys will never have (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:20:22 PM EST
    the opportunities our kids had.  I forgot to inquire if they've heard of Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley.  But I did ask if they knew Pres. Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to SCOTUS.  Big huh.  Teaching moment.  

    Parent
    Have they had civics class yet? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:59:03 PM EST
    An informal poll of my college students turned up similar results.  And they have had civics class and ought to know the three branches of government, etc.  

    Parent
    And if all that is true (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    (which I think it is) why more cars?

    Parent
    I am thinking that the president, (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    once again, has set the stage for keeping this story going.

    Getting together with Gates and Crowley must not look like such a great idea today.  Picture the staff meeting listing possible topics of conversation...and those to avoid.  

    Add alcohol, you say?  Terrific.

    Photo ops?  Interviews after?

    Hooboy...

    No kidding (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    We'll have an idea how it went (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    if the post-meet up Rose Garden photo op shows a smiling Obama, who gives a prepared statement, and Crowley and Gates are standing mute with crossed arms.

    Parent
    If they all (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    come out smiling, we know that they've had more than just one beer

    Parent
    By all means... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    keep this story going...who knows when the next time somebody connected is going to be the victim of a stupid arrest...it happens to Joe and Jane Blow everyday, but its kinda rare for the connected.

    I hope this iron stays hot all year.

    Parent

    Yeah, keep it going (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    Then we won't notice how we're being $crewed on the health care bill they're going to pass.

    Parent
    We were getting.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    screwed on that regardless jb.

    I doubt that if Crowley kept the cuffs on his belt where they belonged we'd be having this glorious in-depth national discussion of healthcare...and at least this is an important issue too (our national arrest fetish).  Usually the distraction is something lame.

    Parent

    And I (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    feel that if Gates had not started off with rantings about Crowley being a racist cop and just answered Crowley's questions, none of this would have escalated to an "abuse of power".  

    C'est la vie.

    Parent

    That's right, and (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    Gates would not have a prison record :)

    "Because of the capricious whim of one disturbed person . . . I am now a black man with a prison record,'' Gates said.


    Parent
    The Prof. seems inclined to (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    exaggeration, at least in this instance.

    Parent
    Exaggeration, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    profiling and name calling.


    Parent
    We don't have to answer... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    questions in our homes or on our stoops if we don't want to jb...I thought this was one of our most basic principles....as well as the freedom to be as sweet or sour as we want without fear of violent repercussions from the state.

    We're both free to feel whatever we want, but there was only one criminal act committed here, I don't think that is up for debate.  And the perp was Crowley.  You can even argue Crowley's crime was justified if you want...as long as you acknowledge the crime...kidnapping.

    Kidnapping according to wordnetweb

    kidnapping (law) the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment

    At least how I understand this language of ours...

    Parent

    You are so right, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    But, if we don't want our life energies being used on aggravating events, we don't have to stir up emotions by being disagreeable.

    Parent
    I understand the point.... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    believe me...when I cross paths with cops I get on my knees and pucker up and get the f*ck outta there, I'm allergic to chains...but nothing excuses the chains.

    Parent
    Hypothetical: Crowley receives dispatch (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    re possibly breaking and entering.  He goes to the correct address.  He tries to contact person inside the residence, who refuses to speak with the officer and/or provide positive id this is his residence.  May the officer enter the residence w/o a warrant?  Yes, if the officer has an objective reasonable belief a felony is in progress.  How does the officer enter?  Probably with a drawn firearm and probably after back up arrives.  The possibilities for harm to Gates were immense.  

    Parent
    In reality, every single scenario (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    so far shared by everyone on this event has been a hypothetical. It'll be awhile before all the bits and pieces used to justify each theory laid out are pulled together and presented as an accurate report of just what really happened between all those people.


    Parent
    Nothing hypothetical about ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    the arrest or the fact that the CPD dropped the charges.

    Parent
    The arrest, and handcuffs (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    are not a "scenario" for what led up to anything.

    Parent
    We have multiple ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:09:25 PM EST
    conflicting scenarios.

    And being humans, who have the power of reason, we can intuit a lot from them.

    That's what happens in a court of law.

    Why can't it happen on a blog?

    Parent

    It can happen on a blog (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    but, shouldn't the hypotheticals really start out with, "what if..." or "let's assume..." rather than coming across as though they are known facts and accurate accounts of the incident?

    So many inaccuracies have been stated over and over as fact that the topic now needs to be untangled before the truth will ever make sense to many. There will be people who never will be able to get the "neighbor" out of their head.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    nothing hypothetical about cold steel, the back of a squad car, the mugshot, the fingerprint file (coming soon DNA!), and the cage.  

    Not to mention the awful company...outside the cage:)

    Parent

    At least three Harvard professors (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    came to the detention facility and each visited with him.  

    Parent
    And the baloney sandwiches! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    And,nothing hypothetical about (none / 0) (#181)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    911 being called, Crowley responding to a legitimate police call, etc. There's a difference between what is a known fact, and what is assumed to connect those facts into a full story.  That, is a hypothetical scenario. But, I'm positive you know that.


    Parent
    Does MA law mandate DNA (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    for arrest only, in case of arrest for disorderly conduct?  That would surprise me.

    No report that anyone drew a gun on Gates, BTW.

    Parent

    No. Felony convictions only. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:53:30 PM EST
    I don't disagree that the subject (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    needs a lot more attention than it gets.  I was pointing out that the president's political instincts are not as sharp as they once were...and that twice now on this single event (in which he had NO reason to insert himself) he has put himself in an awkward position.

    Axelrod must be pulling his hair out...(what's left of it).

    Parent

    I hear that... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    and Obama tried to make it all about race, when it is really all about authoritarian abuse of power with a only a side of race.

    Parent
    And a 'side' of class and perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    also, a 'side' of something called 'short guy syndrome?'

    This whole sideshow is a mindless guy thing from which Obama should extricate himself as soon as possible.

    Maybe he could catch the flu tonight and put off the beerfest for a couple months...or fly off to Afghanistan or some hotspot needing his attention.  Detroit?  Nah...bad idea...thinking, thinking...

    Parent

    Detroit has enough problems (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    Please!  :)

    Parent
    The disagreement... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    between two free men appears to have boiled down to a d*ck swinging contest...I agree.  It happens.  But that is not my concern...the chains and the cage are.

    I'd have no beef with Crowley if he put his gun and badge in the car, went in the yard with Gates and settled this johnson contest the old fashioned way...when he used the powers granted to him as a police officer as a weapon in a personal dispute he went way over the line into Tyranny-ville.

    Parent

    FWIW...my 2 cents says that (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:46:59 PM EST
    everybody went 'way over the line' here and everyone needed (and needs) to dial it back.  I have no expectation that they will do so, however.

    Well, kidz, I've had enough fun for one day, so I'm off to Habitat4youknowwhat to get some work done.

    Parent

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    but only one guy crossed the line into criminality.

    Habitat for Humanity?  Good for you oldpro, say hi to the peanut farmer for us:)

    Parent

    Yup .... H4H...every Tuesday (none / 0) (#192)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:22:47 PM EST
    at a minimum.  It's a local branch -- building our 20th house in ten years in my little, tiny town.  Amazing volunteers...but haven't seen Jimmy or Roslyn yet!

    Parent
    Axelrod needs to earn his paycheck :) (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    amen sista (none / 0) (#84)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    The Police Report = Lies? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by BigElephant on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    Too many discrepencies in the report:

    1. Whalen never mentioned the men were black.  In fact she didn't know the race, as can be heard on the 911 call.
    2. Whalen claims she never had the discussion with Crowley that Crowley puts in his report.  This despite Crowley saying that the woman he talks to claims to have made the 911 call.
    3. The supposed witness on the street doesn't tell the copy that one of the men left in a towncar?  Seems like an odd omission -- did the witness go inside for a while?  Did Crowley actually speak to someone on the street?
    4. The report says the men had backpacks.  Yet in all of the audio we've heard the men have suitcases.  Men with suitcases sound a lot less interesting than black men with backpacks.

    I'm not saying Crowley is a racist.  But either everyone is conspiring against Crowley, or he has the worst powers of observation ever, or he did some "embellishment" of his report to make it more compelling.  

    Something just smells fishy here.

    The Report Was Fiction (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    Or should I say, carefully worded to justify an wrongful arrest.

    The confusion comes from the fact that Whalen was walking by the house and an elderly neighbor of Gates stopped her to tell her that something odd was going on at the house in question.

    In a way Whalen was just helping an old lady cross the street, in a manner of speaking. The old lady, obviously had the description of two black men, etc.

    Crowley, in an attempt to write a concise and coherent fiction, elided Whalen with the old lady. He thought, imo, that including the two women would make his report harder to sell.

    To CST from the last thread: (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    Ha! I believe I had something to do with that! (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:13:53 AM PST

     

    Although last week I learned that Italian isn't white either, so who knows.

    My point was...that there's not just a big box full of "white" people. That [to many people] there's white and then there's white. And it has a lot to do with ethnicity, privilege, etc. That some people assess other people as "white" but not "white like us."

    Take your North End residents for example. (My dad spent some years there as a child. He's Italian-Irish, both his parents were right off the boat.)

    And I'll go further in that that is the reality of most if not all ethnicity/races in America.

    For example Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Haitians are all Hispanic but for many(most of them?) the others are not "Hispanic like us."



    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    I was gonna try and stay out of this one entirely.

    That post was somewhat toungue in cheek.

    I will grant you there are certain cultural groups within racial groups that maintain a distinct identity.

    That doesn't mean that Italian is not white.  It just means that as you put it - there is no big box of "white" people.  However, to ignore the role that pure, basic, skin color/ethnicity plays - is a bit unrealistic.  It is still significantly better (socially) to be Italian than hispanic/black.  Or, for that matter, Portuguese.  Especially in the North End.

    Parent

    Especially in the North End! (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    My comment regarding the possibility that Sessions might not consider Alito "white" (like him) was also pretty much tongue in cheek, but I hoped it opened up the idea that, as you agree, "there is no big box of "white" people."

    fwiw, back in the day, I worked in the San Joaquin Valley in CA. Huge number of rambling homes and big mostly dairy farms and they all had surnames like Bettencourt. (Portuguese immigrants).

    Much of the entire (massive) CA table grape industry is still run by the descendants of the Croatian immigrants who planted the first vines, back in the day.

    This stuff fascinates me. I'll stop now...


    Parent

    It's cool (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    We are all a product of our environments.  I spent the most of my youth thinking that the majority of this country was Catholic, since everyone around me was Catholic.  Which is perhaps also why I find the Italian comment funny.  I have never lived in a place where Catholic was out of the norm.

    My sister, who's a teacher, once had a student ask her if she was white.  She is fairly tan (olive-skinned?), has frizzy hair, "junk in the trunk", is not very tall, and speaks pretty fluent spanish with a p.r. accent.  They thought she was hispanic.  Other friends (black) have told me they would think she was mixed if they didn't know we were sisters (as I am beyond pasty myself).  I even get it sometimes from my friends that I'm not really "white" because of my hair, figure, and upbringing.  We were the Jewish-looking kids who went to public school and grew up in the "hood".

    That being said, they are all wrong.  But yea, there is no big "box" of any race, white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever.  That doesn't mean there is no race though.

    Parent

    Yeah, I've seen that claim on TL. I'm not sure completely understand it.

    Parent
    my grandparents on my mother's side (none / 0) (#146)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    both moved here from Sicily sometime shortly after WW1...

    I remember my grandfather faintly (he died when I was young) and he was olive-skinned with black curly hair...he grew up in Saint Louis (where there is a large italian/sicilian community, including our claim to fame Yogi Berra who grew up right down the street from where I live now)...

    anyway, I remember when I was young my grandfather lived in a small town just south of Saint Louis and in this town people used to think my grandfather was black (b/c of his skin-tone and hair)...I also remember my mother telling me that people used to treat him pretty badly because on first glance they did think he was black (although I'm not sure it would have made a difference if they knew he was sicilian)...

    nothing important here, just a personal side to the conversation (I don't have the problem myself, considering I'm only half-sicilian and didn't inherit the black curls but I am thankful for the olive skin, he he...quite strangely my brother is often identified as Jewish because of his brown curly 'fro' and sicilian nose---man we are all racist, but I think at the root it's just the minds basic need to categorize things so that it can file it away in a certain place in memory)...

    what we do with it after our brains categorize and file is all human, though...

    Parent

    Wha? (none / 0) (#59)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    For example Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Haitians are all Hispanic but for many/most of them, the others are not "Hispanic like us."

    Haitians are Hispanic?  Don't they speak French?

    Parent

    Good question. (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I don't know how Haitians self-identify.

    Parent
    Self-identification is important (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    but how you are processed in the system (as white, as light-skinned, as dark-skinned) is in many respects just as if not more important.  Esp. when it comes to career outcomes.  For ex.

    Parent
    Thanks, very interesting. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    "By examining skin tone bias from a social psychological perspective, we are exploring the interpersonal and intergroup factors involved in these stereotypes.
    I don't doubt it's true.

    I see it every day just in just how people look.

    For example, some people walk around with a sour-puss look on their faces and get treated with bias, from a social psychological perspective, compared to sunny-looking people.

    I used to work with a guy who had a big, deep, vertical "frown" line between his eyes, and he told me stories about how he'd get into altercations at bars and stuff becuase people thought he was giving them the stink-eye when he was just minding his own business.

    I don't doubt for a second that there are social biases based on the tone of black person's skin. Look at the Creoles in New Orleans.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    but an unpleasant looking white person is still going to be treated better than an unpleasant looking or pleasant looking black person.  That's the point.  Here is an example of a study on career outcomes.  Interesting and unfortunate.

     

    Parent

    Sure, (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    I'm making no claims of degree of (mis)treatment based on skin tone or looks.

    I'm agreeing that it exists and am expanding on it.

    Parent

    Neither do I (none / 0) (#121)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    I suspect however they believe they are black.  My post was poking fun at your post a bit.

    Parent
    Yeah I got it, (none / 0) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    I did some googling.

    Apparently Haitian immgrants do not consider themselves "black" like American blacks, and American blacks don't think they are either.

    Parent

    Yeah well, I coulda told you that :-) (none / 0) (#135)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    nobody considers themselves American black, except American blacks, so I hear.  Never heard that the other way around tho.

    Parent
    Yep. Just found this on some blog... (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    Another point that needs to be established is that Hispanic is not synonymous with Latino. Hispanics refer to only Spanish speaking Latinos. This brings me to another point. Spanish speaking Latinos are the only group of Latinos that are givin official status as a group, Hispanic! Those that speak Portuguese aren't givin their own distinct label, nor are those that speak French! Seems a bit discriminatory doesn't it! Even Hispanic is a vastly misused and misunderstood term. Hispanic technically means Spanish and the vast majority of Spaniards, some 99.99 percent are White! Hispanic derives from Hispania, the Roman name for Spain. As the Spanish dialects diverged, it soon became Espana.

    Another point of importance is that the term Latin America was coined by the French in reference to their own colonies in the Americas! Thus, French/Spanish speaking Cajuns and French speaking Canadians can rightfully be called Latinos!



    Parent
    Words are funny things (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    for the life of me I can't figure out why we call "Deutsch" German, and "Nederlands" Dutch

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    And someone from Ghana is Ghanarian.

    (A joke from my Ghanaian physics TA in college.)

    Parent

    You've peaked my curiosity (none / 0) (#157)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    I know somebody who has a Haitian-born, French-speaking mom. I'll have to ask her how they identify.

    Parent
    A friend of mine, a Haitian (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    with a surname both French and English, but he also is Spanish and African, teaches in an Africology Department.  From what he has said and written, I don't think it's an isla that fits into our American categories at all.:-)

    Parent
    The discrepancy here (none / 0) (#25)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    I can certainly see why Whalen would be motivated to declare for the record that she never mentioned to Crowely that they were African American.

    We exist in a world where race is always with us and someone merely describing someone as african american when they call in to have the police investigate a potential crime in progress would have to think twice about doing so for fear that they be branded a racist if it turns out there is no crime.

    Wait up (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    Are you saying she is lying?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out that what i've learned from this incident is that simply describing someone as african american when you call the police to investigate a potential crime is enough to get you called a racist.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    Well, if you say so.

    HArd to imagine that is true but no question who "brought race into it" now right? Wasn't Whalen.

    Parent

    I believe Crowely wrote his report (none / 0) (#46)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    After Gates brought it up.


    Parent
    I meant the part about (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    the "witness description."

    Parent
    Taken in it's entirety (none / 0) (#66)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    As I understand it, if the witness did not describe them as African American then the answer to the question "Who brought race into it?" is clear.

    Parent
    My comment might give the wrong impression (none / 0) (#110)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    I believe, even if the witness did describe them as african american, in my view that does not make the incident a racial incident, one motivated by racial bias.

     

    Parent

    Whether someone is described as black (none / 0) (#103)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    or white, or olive-skinned is really irrelevant.  What's more important is what police (or any of us for that matter) do when staring at the person to be confronted.  We'll never know what was in the good Sgt's mind & heart when he looked at Gates.  However, his "embellishments" do not help the argument those in support of Crowley seem to be making that race didn't matter.  It appears that with all his training he (apparently) couldn't make the connection as to why Gates was a bit miffed at his presence on his doorstep.  The now obvious discrepancies make claims by Gates that race was involved more credible.  Being mad & resentful that race comes into all our lives daily doesn't help matters.  Better use of your energy would be to consider the other perspective.

    I wouldn't say Gates was a "bit miffed" (none / 0) (#112)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    nor mildly perturbed either.

    It's true that lying never helps your cause in any way shape or form.


    Parent

    Well my description was a bit of a joke (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    I'm sure he was extremely pissed.  However, IMO, it is not unreasonable to see why he would react the way he would.  His own life experiences dictated his response.

    Parent
    One of the things we agree is good and right (none / 0) (#125)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    And while we struggle daily with these things, we endeavor to not let our past experiences with race infect too much of a situation in the here and now and we do our best to assess a situation on it's own.

    I too understand why Gates reacted the way he did.


    Parent

    Endeavor to not let our past experiences..... (none / 0) (#129)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Take em as they come, totally agree.

    Parent
    Why is this a "teachable" moment? (none / 0) (#126)
    by esmense on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    While Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell were not?

    This was a "contempt of cop" arrest and should be condemned as such. But the argument that it was racially based seems weak -- certainly too weak to make it a usefully "teachable" moment. The African American officer who later arrived on the scene has said that he would have arrested Gates for the same behavior he witnessed -- stressing that a determing factor in the arrest was the fact that a crowd was beginning to form (rightly or wrongly, cops are especially likely to react poorly to having their authority questioned when a situation appears to be escalating and attracting wide attention). The same officer has also said that he thinks Gates would not have reacted as he did if the responding officer had been African American. Which, frankly, implies that possibly Gates too, or even solely, was reacting from preconceived notions and prejudice.

    If only there were as many affluent white people as interested in the death of someone like Sean Bell, or the many, many real and serious injustices our justice system metes out daily to people too poor to merit the media's attention, as affluent white people just freaking outraged that an affluent and powerful man was the victim of a condemnable, but not especially unique or rare, over-reaction on the part of a cop who felt abused and disrespected.

    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    Young black kids who leave a strip club/bar who get chased by a mixture of black & white cops unfortunately, doesn't resonate w/the country as much as a person who is arrested on his/her front lawn for mouthing off at a cop.  That race may have come into play on both sides is, to me, a good thing, in that it allows us all to explore numerous issues as a nation.  With Obama as president it was only a matter of time.  I'm glad that it was something like this as opposed to something worse.

    People can rationalize Amadou Diallo with, "well he reached for his wallet," or "he didn't understand the officer's request."  I'm not saying I agree w/it.  I live in the Bronx and went to a club as a twenty-something not too far from where he was shot.  Can't do much rationalizing when the "criminal" is someone who was arrested for talking back.

    Parent

    That's interesting (none / 0) (#158)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    I, personally, have more compassion when the victim is a low-income, non-native English speaker. And, of course, when that victim ends up dead.

    Parent
    IMO Sgt. Crowley was verbally (1.00 / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    abused and disrespected by Prof. Gates.  Which, of course, did not justify the subsequent arrest.

    Parent
    You also opined (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    he made "mistakes" in his police report.

    Parent
    Yes I did. And you opined (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:18:11 PM EST
    Sgt. Crowley lied in his report and Prof. Gates was the target of racial profiling.

    Parent
    Where did you get the AA cop's reaction? (none / 0) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    I'd like to read it, he hit on the exact same points I raised in a previous comment...

    Parent
    He gave a television interview (none / 0) (#138)
    by esmense on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    I can't remember for sure now whether it was CNN or MSNBC -- I think CNN

    Parent
    Crowley's State of Mind (none / 0) (#150)
    by PinotSwillingLiberal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    Why is it so implausible that Whalen may have told Crowley "two black men" were trying to get into the house?  She already sounded uncertain on the dispatch call ("I dunno, Hispanic").  Clearly she didn't think the "suspects" were white.  Maybe Crowley just filled in the blanks for her on his report...maybe in his mind he already profiled the caller and speculated that someone would ONLY make that call if it was non-whites trying to break into a house thru the front door, in that neighborhood.  So one could assume he arrives on the scene already thinking that people of color are forcing their way into a house.  Given that assumption, he still handled the situation without any apparent prejudice (he didn't draw his firearm or seemed alarmed in any way).  Only after Gates started yelling at him did Crowley make the arrest.


    Whoa (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    With friends like you, Crowley does not need enemies.  

    Parent
    Maybe... stop swilling the Pinot? (none / 0) (#153)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:20:36 PM EST
    Because sometimes misinterpreting facts comes close to just plain making stuff up.

    Parent
    Just Trying to Fill in the Gaps (none / 0) (#156)
    by PinotSwillingLiberal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    Sorry if I'm misinterpreting the facts, but the radio dispatch transmission shows the dispatcher telling Crowley "one may be Hispanic male, not sure."  I'm only trying to point out that Crowley had information about the suspects before approaching the house, yet he didn't do anything that pins him as a racist or racial profiling.  

    Parent
    Seemed like you were pinning some blame on Whalen (none / 0) (#159)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    Why is it so implausible that Whalen may have told Crowley "two black men" were trying to get into the house?  She already sounded uncertain on the dispatch call ("I dunno, Hispanic").  Clearly she didn't think the "suspects" were white.

    Except that -- from what's been presented so far -- she didn't tell Crowley they were black.

    I have no idea what was going on inside Crowley's head when he got to the house -- none of us are mind readers. But I read the transcript of the 911 call and, IMO, it clears Whalen of any racial motive. Crowley... I have no idea. All I know is he, apparently, told one story to the news media and one story on his police report and that puts his credibility in doubt.

    Parent

    Correction: One story on his police report (none / 0) (#161)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    juxtaposed against the facts of the dispatch call. And the only one that offers the semblance of truth is (what was heard on) the dispatch call. I'm not trying to hang the cop, I don't necessarily think he is a racist. But I certainly think he's been dishonest.

    Parent
    Racial Motive (2.00 / 0) (#165)
    by PinotSwillingLiberal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    That's my point - based on the dispatch reports, the officer did nothing to prove he was a racist, as he had ample opportunity to do so, since he approached the house knowing there were non-whites involved.  Yet because of Gates' accusations of racism (which were made before any hostility or arrest by the officer), now the officer (and all of CPD?) is tainted as racists.  To me, that is the most damaging aspect of the entire situation.

    Parent
    OK, I understand you, and don't entirely disagree (none / 0) (#171)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    But, as someone who lived in and attended school in Boston, those cops don't have the best repuatations on race to begin with. (Neither do the residents, by the way.) Now, that's no excuse at all for Gates throwing around charges of racism against Crowley. I'm just pointing out that a charge of racism would be nothing new for either the Boston or Cambridge police departments, and I suspect that's why they have instituted programs in their depts. dealing with racial profiling. Sadly ironic, that Crowley is head of that program for Cambridge.  

    Parent
    Police Reports Accuracy (none / 0) (#162)
    by SomewhatChunky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    Lots of stuff comes up if you google topics relating to the accuracy of police reports.  Hint: They are not always accurate.  Lots of studies have been done on this. Two obvious sources of inaccuracy are (1) Deliberate misstatements and (2) honest mistakes.  Another is just describing what you know poorly in writing.

    1. How accurate would any of us be if we had to write up the "facts" of a stressful incident (or a number of incidents that day) after the fact.  Would we get it all "correct?"  I doubt it.

    2. Try it sometime.  Create an "incident" at home or at work and then ask everyone to write up their version of it later.  See how much the accounts disagree.  Especially if you ask everyone to say who said what and when.  We all "fill in the blanks" when communicating more than we think.  Could Sgt Crowley "truly" think this or that was said.  Of course.

    3. Sure cops are trained at this.  It doesn't mean they aren't human or that they don't make mistakes.  I'm amazed how often I have completely different recollections of the same conversation or experience with friends and family members, often the same day.  I recall many times when I have dug myself a deep hole when I am positive I am right.  We all see the world from our point of view.  And these are in non-confrontational relationships.

    4. Do I think cops makes stuff up or embellish sometimes.  Maybe lots of times.  Sure.  No doubt about it.

    5. Any organization always presents the "facts" as they want them to be to make themselves look good.  Look no farther than the "projection" made by our beloved Congress as they rationalize their latest pet programs they want to pass.  Anybody think those are accurate?  Anybody doubt they make projections which they know are false so they can get what they want through the legislative process?   We're talking big bucks and big impact here.   Is this OK?

    One can jump to conclusions about the accuracy or inaccuracies of various reports all they want.   It seems to me that people do so based on what point they are trying to make.  If disputes are not resolved, that's why we have trials, arbitrations etc etc...  I would think that if any group knows that eyewitness accounts are sometimes wildly inaccurate, it would be a group of lawyers.  I don't think things are ever as clear cut as some would like to claim.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    Obama's plan, proposed as a Senator, was to have all cops wear a head camera that gets turned on when engaged in dealing with a civilian.

    Great idea, would cut through a lot of Cop BS.

    Oh, and a PO report is not anywhere the same as

    Any organization always presents the "facts" as they want them to be to make themselves look good.

    or any of your other examples. It is a report by the government that is believed by juries, prosecutor and is used to take the freedom of a citizen away, whether it is biased or not.

    Big difference than your Police centric apologetic remarks.


    Parent

    Baloney (none / 0) (#164)
    by SomewhatChunky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    I said Cops make stuff up.  Maybe a lot.

    Are you so anti-cop that anybody who makes a point like the above must have a "Police centric apologetic" viewpoint?

    Somehow I think if you were on a jury you might be skeptical of the police report....

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    Your examples all are cases where equals are bargaining. The police are not equals as your examples suggest. They represent false analogies when it comes to a police arresting a citizen.

    And no I am not anti-cop. I just believe that your analogies are inappropriate.

    Parent

    True, but it misses the point (none / 0) (#170)
    by SomewhatChunky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    My point is that it is possible that there are many reasons things can be inaccurate.   Some, but not all, are intentional.

    This has nothing to do with the power relationship between the individuals.

    A comment on your viewpoint of my analogies is far less inflammatory than your previous statement type casting my point of view.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    Although, from my point of view, your analogies were arguing for the Police. Sorry to appear inflammatory.

    I believe that police are always looking to expand their powers. If it were up to them we would be living in a police state, aka fascism.

    I believe it is our duty as citizens to both respect the necessity of police but to always check their tendency to expand their powers.

    Parent

    On their head (none / 0) (#167)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    wait...are you snarking?  I did recall he wanted to videotape all police interrogations, which I strongly agree with.

    Parent
    Are You Joking (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    That police have video cameras running in their cars have prevented many injustices already.

    It is not in the least bit unwieldy for a police to have a small camera attached to his or her head, or anywhere, it is just that the head is most practical. If miners can do it so can police.

    It is already common practice in the UK.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#174)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    You're right.

    The picture of one on the head of a policeman is...something.

    But this is the quote that caught my eye:

    According to the guidelines officers are to wear a sign and to announce: "I am video recording you."

    UK population is growing more and more diverse. Will this sign have to be multi-lingual?

    Parent

    Arrest reports are not submitted to juries. (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:22:27 PM EST
    Gates & Crowley Are Cousins (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    Both men's trace their roots to an Irish fourth century warlord: Niall of the Nine Hostages, who was wildly energetic and fearless, both on the battlefield and in the bedroom.

    abc

    Maybe Colin Powell is, too (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    and get the cousins to kiss and make up.  Or maybe not.  He is on CNN agreeing with Oculus here.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    Typical winger-light stance, imo.

    Parent
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    a significant supporter of Obama for the AA community.  It's getting more complicated for the president.  Maybe Colin wants to be at the beerfest, too.

    Parent
    Also noting his Irish heritage (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    as is obvious with that name.  Powell is descended from Irish nobility a few centuries later than ye olde Niall of the Nine Etcetera -- but actually British nobility in one of their first incursions on the Irish, stealing their lands and enslaving them.  

    Interesting to note in the discussion here of "race" -- and the Irish "race," as the English labeled them in their first enslavement of others that they justified by labeling them as inferior . . . just a practice run for what they would do in the Americas.  

    And what they would do in the first genocide, as historians call it, by the English against the French in Acadia.  But those "English" actually were British Americans in, to bring the story back to this episode, Boston.  I.e., Cambridge.

    Parent

    Two things caught my eye above. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    1.  Big Tent the lawyer after looking at the oculus link to the 3 page statement by the police says "not particularly interesting."  Perhaps there is a chronological statement by Gates that refutes in detail the police statement and is more interesting to Big Tent?

    2.  A lot of people question whether the Whalen woman was on the street to talk to the officer.  Both officers (both!) in the report indicate speaking to her.  

    But the most important thing (as I understand it) is that the dispatch transcript (between Crowley and HQ - not the 911 person) says that Crowley indicated that (someone, I myself believe it to be the self proclaiming "non-racist" Whalen or some other interested person on the street) said that there had been 2 black males at the house and "I am going on up" to the house.

    Crowley knew the truth/or suspected as much before he made his move!

    Whether there were suitcases or backpacks I don't think is important in this day and time where bags can be quite general purpose and carried or toted many ways.  i.e. the backpack with the built in handle and wheels for example.

    What I think I can  be positive about is that Crowley had found out/ divined/ ascertained/ deduced/ concluded, whatever, correctly that there had been two black males involved before the brave cop approached the door of the house "without a gun drawn, without SWAT having arrived."  

    A good competent policeman, I would say.

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    that treating the reports of two police officers as corroborating each other, as if they were prepared independently with no knowledge of what the other report might say, is a bit questionable.

    Parent
    These aren't cookie cutter reports. (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    Entry . . . (none / 0) (#195)
    by rea on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    In his report, Crowley says that he first spoke to gGates on the porch, determined that Gates was probably a resident of the house, although uncooperative, and then followed him into the house.  You can't do that . . . no probable  cause + exigent circumstances.

    No -- read again (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    I just did.  It states that Gates was in his foyer.  Crowley was on the porch.  It is not clear in Crowley's report when he entered the residence.  That's what I read.

    Parent
    Obama still owes Crowley an apology (none / 0) (#202)
    by JohnRJ08 on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    This is not entirely accurate. The officer said that when he arrived at the scene, he was approached by citizen in front of Gates house who identified themself as the person who had made the call. The officer assumed she was Ms. Whalen. In any case, whether or not the caller or the person at the scene said that they had seen two black at the door is completely irrelevant. The point is that the officer had been dispatched to what he thought was a possible crime in progress. He wasn't sent there to check ID's or verify ownership of the home. When Crowley looked through the glass panes by the front door, he saw what he thought MIGHT BE JUST ONE of the possible suspects. He didn't know who Gates was, so he followed police department procedure from that point forward. If Professor Gates had been Asian, Hispanic, Caucasian or whatever, he would have done the same exact thing. The only person whose behavior inflamed what should have been a simple misunderstanding on the part of the initial caller was Professor Gates, who decided the second he saw a white police officer on his porch that he was the victim of racial profiling by a racist cop.  Three warnings later, Gates was in cuffs. Of course, if the officer had just ignored Gates' behavior and let him rage on, this would have been a non-news event. But Sgt. Crowley had every right to arrest the professor for disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor offense.

    Get the sequence of events straight (none / 0) (#203)
    by JohnRJ08 on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:12:49 AM EST
    By the way, Professor Gates never showed the officer a license with his address on it. He waved his Harvard ID card in Sgt. Crowley's face once they were both inside the home. At that point, Sgt. Crowley had to call the Harvard Campus Police to verify the professor's identity. At the same time, Crowley understood that the caller had reported seeing two people go inside the house, and he had no idea who or where that second person was. It was, at best, a confusing and potentially dangerous situation for any officer responding alone to such a call. Gates was screaming so loudly at the officer that he couldn't hear his shoulder radio, so he stepped outside and Gates followed, continuing his rant. Once they were outside and the officer saw that there were people gathering in the street, Gates was warned three different times to calm down and he refused to comply.  Hence, the disorderly conduct arrest.