KrauserKrauser hyperventilating(Obama's Gates comment)

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't see the problem with asking Crowley's name. The police are obligated to show people their badge number and ID if asked to do so, there's no legitimate reason for Crowley to have wanted him to come outside to do this.

If Gates was as hot tempered as the report is making him out to be then yes there is a legitament reason. That reason is safety. Being inside someone elses home is one of the more dangerous places you could be. He didn't force Gates to continue acting in that manner, right?

[Kamakazie Sith]

God but cops as a group are whiny bitches. Oh boo hoo the President commented on what a fucking idiot one cop is, we should all take this personally!

Yeah, those who are taking it personally are being very dramatic. I'd just prefer my president didn't make judgments based off one side of the story, but then again Gates is a personal friend of the president so it's not like this is that huge of a deal. This is something we'd all probably do. I think the entire matter should just be dropped instead of the show the media is making it out to be.

[General Zod]

I don't see the problem with asking Crowley's name. The police are obligated to show people their badge number and ID if asked to do so, there's no legitimate reason for Crowley to have wanted him to come outside to do this.

If Gates was as hot tempered as the report is making him out to be then yes there is a legitament reason. That reason is safety. Being inside someone elses home is one of the more dangerous places you could be. He didn't force Gates to continue acting in that manner, right?

Except we don't know that he was really acting in the manner the cop described.

[Master of Ossus]

Except we don't know that he was really acting in the manner the cop described.

I suppose that we don't, except that the second officer on the scene, who's black (I think multi-racial) seems to back up Crowley to the extent that he saw their interaction. If anything, You can read their reports, here.

Is it possible for a white police officer to arrest a black man without being accused of racism? Frankly, the people that black leadership chooses to be outraged about really bother me. There are racist police in this country, and they do arrest minorities who aren't doing anything wrong, but Crowley's not one of them and Gates isn't a victim. This is just another example of knee-jerk claims of racism whenever someone gets arrested.

[General Zod]

Except we don't know that he was really acting in the manner the cop described.

I suppose that we don't, except that the second officer on the scene, who's black (I think multi-racial) seems to back up Crowley to the extent that he saw their interaction. If anything, You can read their reports, here.

Is it possible for a white police officer to arrest a black man without being accused of racism? Frankly, the people that black leadership chooses to be outraged about really bother me. There are racist police in this country, and they do arrest minorities who aren't doing anything wrong, but Crowley's not one of them and Gates isn't a victim. This is just another example of knee-jerk claims of racism whenever someone gets arrested.

I don't think there was necessarily any racism involved here. . .but the entire incident is very suspect; the fact that the cop arrested Gates even after Gates provided proof that he lived there makes me question his judgment. It's possible his partner was backing him up on the sheer basis that cops turning on their own tend to face some rather nasty stigma.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think there was necessarily any racism involved here. . .but the entire incident is very suspect;

Precisely.

the fact that the cop arrested Gates even after Gates provided proof that he lived there makes me question his judgment. It's possible his partner was backing him up on the sheer basis that cops turning on their own tend to face some rather nasty stigma.

Did you read the reports? Gates was massively uncooperative and a total asshole when he should've been grateful to the police for checking on his house after getting a call about a burglary in progress. Also, can we please not just blindly back up Gates on this? How many witnesses have to come forward before we can all decide that Gates was in the wrong? It's also easy for police officers to write reports that fit between "backing up jerk cop" and "get stigmatized for criticizing fellow officer." That's not one of them.

[General Zod]

Did you read the reports? Gates was massively uncooperative and a total asshole when he should've been grateful to the police for checking on his house after getting a call about a burglary in progress. Also, can we please not just blindly back up Gates on this? How many witnesses have to come forward before we can all decide that Gates was in the wrong? It's also easy for police officers to write reports that fit between "backing up jerk cop" and "get stigmatized for criticizing fellow officer." That's not one of them.

It sounds like a massive fuck-up all around after reading it, especially the part where the person who originally called the police did it specifically because she saw two black men with backpacks. If someone's using their shoulder to try and wedge the door open, to me that usually suggests they're carrying a lot of shit; not that they're trying to break in. So racism probably didn't play a part on the officers but it sounds like it was the primary reason for calling them in the first place.

[Master of Ossus]

It sounds like a massive fuck-up all around after reading it, especially the part where the person who originally called the police did it specifically because she saw two black men with backpacks. If someone's using their shoulder to try and wedge the door open, to me that usually suggests they're carrying a lot of shit; not that they're trying to break in.

She saw two men with backpacks trying to wedge the door open and gain entry to the home. That's not normal behavior for people who have the house key, and Gates (presumably) wouldn't have been doing it if his door hadn't been damaged and they had been able to open the door normally. When I see people opening doors, it's not natural to assume that the door is damaged, and I sure as hell would like one of my neighbors to call the police if they saw two people trying to force open my front door.

So racism probably didn't play a part on the officers but it sounds like it was the primary reason for calling them in the first place.

Nonsense. If someone saw me and a friend of mine trying to force entry into my own home I'd be glad if they called the police and warned me of it.

Moreover, if this is a "massive fuck-up all around," what did the police do wrong? Arrest a guy who was drawing a crowd of onlookers with his rude and (dare I say) disorderly conduct?

[Frank Hipper]

Is it possible for a white police officer to arrest a black man without being accused of racism?

Considering the history of white cops in regards to black men in this country?

No, not really.

[Haruko]

Here is the latest on Gatesgate, as Digby refers to it:

Black scholar agrees to beer with Obama, policeman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A prominent black Harvard University scholar has accepted an invitation to have a beer with President Barack Obama and the white police officer who arrested him in a racially charged case.

Professor Henry Louis Gates said Saturday he was willing to have a peace-making beer with Obama and Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sgt. James Crowley.

Gates was arrested last week at his home after a neighbor called police to say that a man was breaking into the house. Obama said Cambridge police had "acted stupidly," prompting an outcry from police groups and a resulting media blitz.

Obama later telephoned both men and, on Crowley's suggestion, invited the two to the White House for a beer.

"I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sgt. Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige," Gates said in a statement on TheRoot.com, an Internet newsletter he edits.

Gates said he hoped his arrest would help reduce racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.

[LMSx]

Ah Haruko, you beat me to it!
Food for thought

Gatesgate
by digby

I have been reluctant to really delve into the Gates story because well ... it just seems so obvious. And it's clear that it's just taking the wingnut bait. But since I write often about police abuse of power, particularly with tasers, some readers seem to be interested in a larger discussion of this incident so here goes.

First, I think that there is obviously a racial component here, but I don't see it as classic "profiling" at least in the traditional sense that someone is targeted for a police stop solely because of their race. The circumstance as I understand them are that the police responded to a call of a possible burglary with two black suspects. The idea that they wouldn't have responded to that call if the description had been two white suspects is not believable. It's what happened after that fits the racial narrative.

One racial component is the reflexive angry defensiveness that white people often feel at being called racist when they don't believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are. This cop, a man who we are told teaches other cops how to avoid racial profiling, may have felt he was being unfairly targeted as a racist and he got angry. The "angry black man" syndrome, whereby blacks' sensibilities in such situations are discounted as being a "chip on the shoulder" or somehow a function of an inherently angry temperament adds to the mix. Black people are assumed to be "dangerous" in situations where whites get the benefit of the doubt. I really don't think that's debatable.

Having said that, to me, this situation actually has far broader implications about all citizens' relationship to the police and the way we are expected to respond to authority, regardless of race. I've watched too many taser videos over the past few years featuring people of all races and both genders being put to the ground screaming in pain, not because they were dangerous or threatening and not because they were so out of control there was no other way to deal with them, but because they were arguing with police and the officer perceived a lack of respect for the badge.

I have discovered that my hackles automatically going up at such authoritarian behavior is not necessarily the common reaction among my fellow Americans, not even my fellow liberals. The arguments are usually something along the lines of "that guy was an idiot to argue with the cops, he should know better," which is very similar to what many are saying about Gates. He has even been criticized for being a "bad role model," thus putting young black kids at risk if they do the same things.

Now, on a practical, day to day level, it's hard to argue that being argumentative with a cop is a dangerous thing. They have guns. They can arrest you and can cost you your freedom if they want to do it badly enough. They can often get away with doing violence on you and suffer no consequences. You are taking a risk if you provoke someone with that kind of power, no doubt about it.

Indeed, it is very little different than exercising your right of free speech to tell a gang of armed thugs to go fuck themselves. It's legal, but it's not very smart. But that's the problem isn't it? We shouldn't have to make the same calculations about how to behave with police as we would with armed criminals. The police are supposed to be the good guys who follow the rules and the law and don't expect innocent citizens to bow to their brute power the same way that a street gang would do. The police are not supposed wield what is essentially brute force on the entire population.

And yet, that's what we are told we are supposed to accept. Not only can they arrest us merely for being argumentative as they did with Gates, they are now allowed to shoot us full of electricity to make us comply with their demands to submit.

There is a philosophical underpinning to all this that I am only beginning to fully understand. It was discussed in this very interesting guest post over at Crooked Timber by a police officer and philosopher who went through the various elements of the case and offered his perspective. Much of what he wrote was very thought provoking and made me think a bit about my reflexive recoil against police behaviors in so many of these situations. But some of what he wrote reinforced my belief that something has gone wrong:

The judgments of policing are obviously difficult and subjective, and are often marred when they are made in the face of people issuing inflammatory comments even as the police are rendering routine services with an obvious cause. It is in the collective interest of citizens and police to promote an environment where the police can conduct an investigation calmly and with mutual respect. It cannot become commonplace for people to be allowed to scream at the police in public, threatening them with political phone calls, deriding their abilities, etc. Routine acts like rendering aid to lost children, taking accident reports and issuing traffic violations could be derailed at any time by any person who has a perceived grievance with the police. The police service environment is not the best venue for the airing of such grievances.

This is a form of blackmail similar to the CIA threatening to let terrorists kill us if they are held accountable for lawbreaking. It says that the police will not be willing to rescue lost children if they have to put up with yelling citizens. That is an abdication of their duties and the idea that they should then be given carte blanche to shut up all citizens by means of arrest, because it creates a social environment where someone might cause a distraction in the future, is Orwellian double talk.

And it makes a mockery of the first amendment. If police are to be shielded from public criticism when they are acting in their official capacity then we have an authoritarian state. If yelling at the authorities is a crime then we do not have free speech.

He goes on:

The police should not be cowed by threats of phone calls to people such as mayors, police chiefs and presidents of the United States, along with allegations that “you don’t know who you’re messing with.” It is traditionally whites who have had this type of crooked access and influence. These appeals to higher authorities are often meant to exempt the ruling castes from following the rules and laws that the rest of the community will be expected to follow. It happens, it is unfortunate, and it is not in the interests of justice for it to continue. Nobody trying to do their job fairly deserves to hear the equivalent of “My daddy donated fifty million to this university, and you’ll be getting calls from everywhere in the administration about raising my grade enough for this class to count as a distributive requirement.”

It is very rude of citizens to do that, to be sure. But it is not a crime. The idea that people should not get angry, should not pull rank, should be rude to others is an issue for sociologists and Miss Manners, not the cops. Humans often behave badly, but that doesn't make it illegal. For people with such tremendous power as police officers to be coddled into thinking that these are behaviors that allow them to arrest people (or worse) seems to be to far more dangerous than allowing a foolish person or two to set a bad example in the public square.

He continues:

It is possible for a person to commit disorderly conduct by unabated screaming and verbal abuse in a public setting. Without drawing conclusions about the Gates case, there comes some point where a person is genuinely causing public alarm, and where he is acting with a rage that exceeds what we can expect from a reasonable person in a heated moment. The mere presence of the police conducting a legitimate investigation should not provoke continuous rage and epithets from such a person. One response is that the police should just leave if the investigation has been conducted successfully, and that this will calm the person down. In practice, this is indeed often the best thing to do. On the other hand, it should be noted that it is just as much the responsibility of the citizen to see that his actions are an inappropriate way to relate to police officers who have not, in the specific case at hand, acted unreasonably. This point may be hotly contested, but I believe it is true: there is no obligation for the police to hurry in their activities or to leave as soon as possible because they have incited the rage of a person who is acting unreasonably. There is a distinction between hanging around to show them who’s boss and working at a steady, professional pace, to be sure. But in the end the mere presence of the police cannot be seen as an acceptable reason for disorderly conduct, and should therefore not spur the police to leave a scene simply to de-escalate it. A police strategy of “winning by appearing to lose” emboldens citizens to attempt to get the police to lose in more and more serious matters, including walking away from situations where a person is genuinely guilty of a crime.

At this point we are seeing a tipping in the other direction. Police are emboldened when they repeatedly get away with using bullying, abusive tactics against average citizens who have not been convicted of any crimes. This is the kind of thing that results:

Police say they struggled to get inside the home to speak with the man. When police managed to get inside the home, the suspect was placed in handcuffs. The complainant alleged that he was Tased three times by police - once to his wrist, the second to the small of his back and the third to his buttocks.

The ombudsman's report states that the suspect was tased only two times after an investigation. One of those tases, however, was in the buttocks.

The use of force "was after he was handcuffed," said Ombudsman Pierce Murphy. "And it was in the most senstive, private areas, and accompanied by threats."

The suspect can be heard pleading to the police several times that he couldn't breathe when officers were on top of him.

"I can't breathe - just let me up, I want to breathe," he says.

The officer quickly replied, "If you're talking - you're breathing."

The report also states that the officers used excessive language.

"If you move again, I'm going to stick this Taser up your (expletive) and pull the trigger," the complaint said. "Now, do you feel this in your (expletive)? - I'm going to tase your (expletive) if you move again."

It was determined that the cop had the taser literally pushed up against the man's anus.

In an earlier portion of his essay on Crooked Timber, the officer talked about how we need to allow police to have discretion and explained that it works as often as not in the favor of the suspect as a matter of common sense. (Police often let people go with a warning, for instance, rather than adhere strictly to the letter of the law.) And that's reasonable.

But when it comes to race we've got a terrible history of discretion not being extended in favor of blacks --- and the increased use of tasers is turning this concept of discretion into a license to torture. A policeman using his discretion to arrest a man in his own home because he was not deferential enough is just one more incident along a long road of creeping authoritarianism.

I said the other night that I thought Gates was lucky he didn't get tased and I really think he was. People all over this country are "subdued" by means of electricity every day, probably more blacks than whites, but it doesn't seem to be particularly limited to race. We are accepting this kind of thing as if it's just an inevitability because of the attitudes this police officer very thoughtfully lays out in his essay: we are told that we must defer to authority or risk all hell breaking loose.

And I would suggest that it is just that attitude that led to people in this country recently endorsing unilateral illegal invasions, torture of prisoners and the rest. You remember the line --- "the constitution isn't a suicide pact." To which many of us replied with the old Benjamin Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The principles here are the same. Sure, we should treat the cops with respect and society shouldn't encourage people to be reflexively hostile to police. They have a tough job, and we should all be properly respectful of people who are doing a dangerous and necessary job for the community. But when a citizen doesn't behave well, if not illegally, as will happen in a free society, it is incumbent upon the police, the ones with the tasers and the handcuffs and the guns, to exercise discretion wisely and professionally. And when they don't, we shouldn't make excuses for them. It's far more corrosive to society to allow authority figures to abuse their power than the other way around.

Henry Louis Gates may have acted like a jackass in his house that day. But Sergeant Crowley arresting him for being "tumultuous" was an abuse of his discretion, a fact which is backed up by the fact that the District Attorney used his discretion to decline to prosecute. Racially motivated or not he behaved "stupidly" and the president was right to say so.


* And by the way, if anyone wants to see some real incoherence on this subject, consult the right wingers who are defending the policeman today, but who also believe that anyone has the right to shoot first and ask questions later if they "feel" threatened in their own home. By their lights, Gates should have been arrested for behaving "tumultuously" but would have been within his rights to shoot Sgt Crowley. This is why conservatives have no standing to discuss anything more complicated than Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

[Master of Ossus]

LMSX, that entire article is based on the misperception that Gates was arrested for mouthing off. That's not accurate: he was arrested for disorderly conduct. Had he told the police officer to fuck off and get out of his house, he would've been well within his rights (and, indeed, the officer left the house to try and get away from him). Only after he went after the police officer in public and created such a scene and... disorder... was he arrested by police. Make no mistake: Gates did act like a jackass, and that makes it hard to sympathize with him, but he wasn't arrested for being a jackass; he was arrested for attracting a crowd that gathered to watch his unruly behavior.

Frank Hipper: That's a sad commentary about the whininess of minorities in America. This is precisely the same thing that happened with the Jena 6. There's a knee-jerk reaction that the police are racist, but once the furor dies down and the facts come out, it's clear that the "victims" are really the bad-guys.

[Gil Hamilton]

I realize this, just as Gates side of the story is damning to Sgt. Crowley. Here you have two people that are respected members of the community. Sgt. Crowley sounds like a respectable officer, and Gates sounds like a respectable man. I agree with Obama's overall assessment that both could have taken action to de-escalate.

Being mad isn't a crime. Acting in such a manner that your behavior meets the elements for disorderly conduct is a crime. Though I do think Crowley went overboard by booking him into jail. I'd have just issue the guy a misdemeanor citation, if I really felt compelled to do so, and then left. Really, someone like Gates acting in such an immature manner isn't worth our time.

"Disorderly conduct" is so absurdly vague a crime that it might as well be called "the catch-all excuse to arrest someone who isn't commiting an actual crime". Give that Gates almost certainly was not publically intoxicated, what crime is there in yelling at a police officer who may very well been rude to him?

[Gil Hamilton]

LMSX, that entire article is based on the misperception that Gates was arrested for mouthing off. That's not accurate: he was arrested for disorderly conduct. Had he told the police officer to fuck off and get out of his house, he would've been well within his rights (and, indeed, the officer left the house to try and get away from him). Only after he went after the police officer in public and created such a scene and... disorder... was he arrested by police. Make no mistake: Gates did act like a jackass, and that makes it hard to sympathize with him, but he wasn't arrested for being a jackass; he was arrested for attracting a crowd that gathered to watch his unruly behavior.

On his front lawn? How is yelling at a cop on his own walk way creating any societal disorder? No, "disorderly conduct" generally IS arresting someone for mouthing off. It's the catch-all that allows police to haul people who are being aggravating but not otherwise committing a crime. That or they are publically intoxicated, which Gates almost certainly was not.

[Master of Ossus]

On his front lawn? How is yelling at a cop on his own walk way creating any societal disorder?

Among other things, the police reports noted that the guy was being SO loud and SO obnoxious that a crowd of onlookers gathered to watch the proceeding.

No, "disorderly conduct" generally IS arresting someone for mouthing off.

And, yet, mouthing off isn't enough to get one hit with a disorderly conduct charge. Even after the officer in question tried to calm him down and warned him twice that he was being disorderly.

It's the catch-all that allows police to haul people who are being aggravating but not otherwise committing a crime. That or they are publically intoxicated, which Gates almost certainly was not.

Is there any argument that Gates followed the officer out of his house, yelled at him, and collected a crowd of bystanders who watched him berate and scream at the officer, in an orderly manner? If not, then I don't see what's objectionable about this. Frankly, I don't even think that this has to do with Crowley being a police officer, at that point: if an officer observed someone chasing someone else out of a house onto a public street and continue to argue with him to the point where a crowd of onlookers ran over to see what was going on, I'd hope that the officer had the power to arrest the guy if they concluded that he was creating the problem. Clearly it's not the worst crime that's ever occurred, but let him cool his heels for a couple hours and be done with it, even if the DA doesn't ultimately charge him with anything. That seems reasonable, to me.

The article that LMSX posted went so far as to suggest that this arrest raises constitutional issues. Assuredly it does not: it regulates the MANNER in which people can express their opinions (e.g., not screaming at an officer in a public area such that a large crowd gathers in response), but does nothing to prevent Gates or anyone else from criticizing the police: a distinction that completely escaped the author.

[Gil Hamilton]

Among other things, the police reports noted that the guy was being SO loud and SO obnoxious that a crowd of onlookers gathered to watch the proceeding.

So what? If he was being equally loud and obnoxious from his doorstep, he could have attracted a crowd too. Saying that disrupts the fabric of society and causes disorder is a stretch. Lots of things can attact a crowd; people love a spectacle.

And, yet, mouthing off isn't enough to get one hit with a disorderly conduct charge. Even after the officer in question tried to calm him down and warned him twice that he was being disorderly.

Baloney. If you claim that cops have never issued "disorderly conduct" charges for people mouthing off to them, I've got some beach front property in Tuscon to sell you.

Is there any argument that Gates followed the officer out of his house and yelled at him, collecting a crowd of bystanders that watched him berate and scream at the officer, in an orderly manner? If not, then I don't see what's objectionable about this.

He didn't gather anyone. Screaming and berating someone is NOT a crime. It still is free speech.

[Master of Ossus]

So what? If he was being equally loud and obnoxious from his doorstep, he could have attracted a crowd too. Saying that disrupts the fabric of society and causes disorder is a stretch. Lots of things can attact a crowd; people love a spectacle.

Things can attract a crowd that are orderly, but Gates' behavior wasn't orderly and it was disruptive.

Baloney. If you claim that cops have never issued "disorderly conduct" charges for people mouthing off to them, I've got some beach front property in Tuscon to sell you.

And, yet, mouthing off at an officer isn't sufficient to support a disorderly conduct charge. There has to be more than that.

Moreover, this isn't about all cops in the history of the planet: this is a specific incident. Do you not think that Gates behaved in a disorderly manner?

He didn't gather anyone. Screaming and berating someone is NOT a crime. It still is free speech.

Not in and of itself. I have made this point several times, and you have consistently ignored it. Gates' speech was fine, but he was being so loud and obnoxious that a group of onlookers ran over to watch the guy. That's not orderly conduct.

[Gil Hamilton]

Things can attract a crowd that are orderly, but Gates' behavior wasn't orderly and it was disruptive.

Who's order was it disrupting exactly?

And, yet, mouthing off at an officer isn't sufficient to support a disorderly conduct charge. There has to be more than that.

Moreover, this isn't about all cops in the history of the planet: this is a specific incident. Do you not think that Gates behaved in a disorderly manner?

Again, baloney. Mouthing off to cops has FREQUENTLY been more that sufficient for a cop to issue a "disorderly conduct" charge or a citation in the past and present. That is the nature of the fact that "disorderly conduct" statutes are written so overbroad that a police office can decide "Well, shit, he's disrupting MY peace!" and haul a person in. It's a get-'em charge.

Not in and of itself. I have made this point several times, and you have consistently ignored it. Gates' speech was fine, but he was being so loud and obnoxious that a group of onlookers ran over to watch the guy. That's not orderly conduct.

If being loud and obnoxious in public was a crime, then justice would be done and Gilbert Godfrey would be sent to jail for the rest of his life.

Seriously, I'm failing to see where the crime is. The volume of his voice is part of his speech, no? He didn't shout fire in a theatre, he was exercising free speech at a cop. I fail to see how the presence of onlookers affects that at all. Does a person stop having free speech in front of a crowd?

So again, whose order was he disrupting?

[Big Phil]

Things can attract a crowd that are orderly, but Gates' behavior wasn't orderly and it was disruptive.

Who's order was it disrupting exactly?

Are you a lawyer or a police officer, or just a rules lawyer second-guessing how the police interpret and enforce the law? Ossus' point is absolutely correct - someone screaming at a police officer on his or her front lawn will, more often than not, be arrested for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, or at a minimum be given a citation of some sort if they don't calm down. Given that disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace are (I believe) misdemeanor offenses, a District Attorney who didn't dismiss them against someone as well known and respect as Henry Louis Gates would be extremely suspect.

And, yet, mouthing off at an officer isn't sufficient to support a disorderly conduct charge. There has to be more than that.

Moreover, this isn't about all cops in the history of the planet: this is a specific incident. Do you not think that Gates behaved in a disorderly manner?

Again, baloney. Mouthing off to cops has FREQUENTLY been more that sufficient for a cop to issue a "disorderly conduct" charge or a citation in the past and present. That is the nature of the fact that "disorderly conduct" statutes are written so overbroad that a police office can decide "Well, shit, he's disrupting MY peace!" and haul a person in. It's a get-'em charge.

You're raising the red herring of overly broad statutes being abused, and ignoring the question of whether Gates' behavior fit the charge. As Ossus has pointed out and you continue to ignore, based on the officers' reports Gates was engaging in disorderly conduct.

Not in and of itself. I have made this point several times, and you have consistently ignored it. Gates' speech was fine, but he was being so loud and obnoxious that a group of onlookers ran over to watch the guy. That's not orderly conduct.

If being loud and obnoxious in public was a crime, then justice would be done and Gilbert Godfrey would be sent to jail for the rest of his life.

Seriously, I'm failing to see where the crime is. The volume of his voice is part of his speech, no? He didn't shout fire in a theatre, he was exercising free speech at a cop. I fail to see how the presence of onlookers affects that at all. Does a person stop having free speech in front of a crowd?

So again, whose order was he disrupting?

Ah, lovely... rules lawyering again. Tell you what, you tell me where you live, and I'll come by your house, stand on the sidewalk in front of it, and scream obscenities at you. When the cops arrive (because your neighbors will call them), you be damned sure you come out and defend my First Amendment right to free speech. Perhaps they'll be impressed enough by your passionate defense of my free speech rights that you'll get to accompany me to jail.

Seriously dude, I know you're an fatty Internet nerd who likes to argue, but arguing that people have the right to rant and rave on their front lawn without consideration for their neighbors is pretty ridiculous. You would have a stronger leg to stand on if you were arguing that the police report was falsified and that Gates wasn't being a douchebag, but was arrested simply because the cop didn't want to be embarrassed or made to look foolish.

[Master of Ossus]

Who's order was it disrupting exactly?

Uh... the neighborhoods? Or do people running around in your neighborhood screaming loudly enough to draw small crowds of onlookers not disrupt anyone?

And, yet, mouthing off at an officer isn't sufficient to support a disorderly conduct charge. There has to be more than that.

Moreover, this isn't about all cops in the history of the planet: this is a specific incident. Do you not think that Gates behaved in a disorderly manner?

Again, baloney. Mouthing off to cops has FREQUENTLY been more that sufficient for a cop to issue a "disorderly conduct" charge or a citation in the past and present. That is the nature of the fact that "disorderly conduct" statutes are written so overbroad that a police office can decide "Well, shit, he's disrupting MY peace!" and haul a person in. It's a get-'em charge.

Firstly, that doesn't apply to this situation at all and you damn well know that. That was the whole point I was making: Gates was screaming at an officer so loudly that 7 onlookers (in addition to the other cops) gathered around to watch, and refused to quit even after being warned repeatedly. It's not an issue of the statute being written so overbroadly that the police officer decided that Gates was disrupting HIS peace and then hauled Gates in. Gates was fucking with the whole neighborhood and refused to knock it off.

I have no doubt that some cops are racists. I have no doubt that some cops abuse their authority, and abuse charges like disorderly conduct by applying them to people who didn't deserve to get hit with them. But that didn't happen here. So why has every black leader in the country (including Obama, who has consistently billed himself as an essentially race-less candidate who happens to be black) and his grandmother and her angry dog come out of the woodworks to defend Gates? Why are you defending him? Why can't black leaders find someone who legitimately deserves sympathy and who was unfairly treated by the cops to lcall attention to legitimate problems with police behavior and to racism in the country? Why is it always Gates or the Jena 6?

Regardless, are you arguing against the existence of a catch-all statute like this that allows officers to take people into custody who are carrying on and making such a scene that the neighbors come out of their houses to watch? Or are you arguing that Gates' conduct didn't fit within the definition of a reasonably written disorderly conduct charge? Or are you simply claiming that disorderly conduct is so broadly drafted that it can't be applied even to people like Gates, whose behavior inarguably fits any reasonable definition of disorderly conduct?

If being loud and obnoxious in public was a crime, then justice would be done and Gilbert Godfrey would be sent to jail for the rest of his life.

Again, you fail to grasp the fact that there is more to what Gates did than merely being loud or yelling at an officer. A stand-up comic is not in any way disturbing the peace or being disorderly simply by virtue of his act (although some comedians have crossed the line, in the past, and I could agree that Gottfried ought to be arrested for disorderly conduct if he held an impromptu show in the middle of a fucking residential neighborhood without telling anyone what was going on) because people aren't gathering to watch them solely because they're loud and obnoxious--they watch them because they're funny. Are you ignoring this distinction without realizing it or are you just trying to falsely equate entirely different behaviors in totally different contexts?

Gates' conduct went well beyond that and you damn well know it.

Seriously, I'm failing to see where the crime is. The volume of his voice is part of his speech, no? He didn't shout fire in a theatre, he was exercising free speech at a cop. I fail to see how the presence of onlookers affects that at all.

It demonstrates how fucking out-of-the-ordinary Gates' actions were. People don't stop to watch someone yelling on streetcorners unless the guy's really going nuts. Moreover, it demonstrates that passersby in the area were being disrupted--it wasn't just the officer, as your argument suggests--the whole neighborhood turned out to watch Gates act like a total jackass and bust out the race card. Again, had he quietly told the officer to go fuck himself, called the guy's supervisor to complain, and told him quietly that he was a racist, nothing would've happened. But he didn't--he followed the officer into public, made a big scene, and went into a whole long song and dance about how The Man was keepin' him down. Later, he showed that he's just as much of an asshole as he seemed when he made the situation even larger and called in all of his celebrity buddies to complain about how horribly unfairly he was treated, and how no white Harvard professor could possibly have been arrested under similar circumstances.

Does a person stop having free speech in front of a crowd?

So again, whose order was he disrupting?

The fucking neighborhood's! You know, all those people who came out of their quiet little homes to see what the hell was going on.

[Themightytom]

I realize this, just as Gates side of the story is damning to Sgt. Crowley. Here you have two people that are respected members of the community. Sgt. Crowley sounds like a respectable officer, and Gates sounds like a respectable man. I agree with Obama's overall assessment that both could have taken action to de-escalate.

Being mad isn't a crime. Acting in such a manner that your behavior meets the elements for disorderly conduct is a crime. Though I do think Crowley went overboard by booking him into jail. I'd have just issue the guy a misdemeanor citation, if I really felt compelled to do so, and then left. Really, someone like Gates acting in such an immature manner isn't worth our time.

"Disorderly conduct" is so absurdly vague a crime that it might as well be called "the catch-all excuse to arrest someone who isn't commiting an actual crime". Give that Gates almost certainly was not publically intoxicated, what crime is there in yelling at a police officer who may very well been rude to him?

It was probably the only thing Crawley could come up with at the moment. in the interview on WBZ he said he was trying to get Gates to come out of the house because the report had mentioned TWO black men in back packs, so either gates was one of them and another was hiding nearby, or Gates had no knowledge of them period and they could still be hiding enarby. ultiamtely Gates went on a tirade and didn't let Crawley do his job instead of going on a Dave Chapelle style rampage. Crawley can't really say this outright with Gates and his lawyer circling, because if he he states he took him into custody on weak charges to protect him, the second part will probably get lost in the furor. Gates for his part seems not so eager to push the issue and risk the tapes of him ranting in the background coming to light.

Everybody screwed up, I think having a beer on the whitehouse lawn is not a terrible solution actually. it would be nice to see something solved in a normal casual way that does not involve litigation and Al Sharpton

I will say that we have a lot of ground to cover on cultural issues.

My dad was pissed off the other day because he thought some black lady was getting uppity at me and being rude when she was just being loud and rhetorical. She said something to the effect of "Oh you DON'T mess with ME sir, Don't come HERE with that..." after I made a comment supportive of Global warming and DESPITE the fact that my DAD agrees with the LADY he was offended by her adversarial atitude.

I REGULARLY work with hispanic women who are comparatively aggressive, and when you point it out They WILL say "Oh see you're messing with a latino woman, we don't take that..." I go with it, recognize it as rhetoric, and i don't really let it affect what i'm doing. The POLICE on the other hand are in a very diferent situation. They walk into family situations, close neighborhoods, and as the outside, need to represent the law. they CAN'T be as tolerant when people start giving them shit because it makes the situation that much more dangerous for the next officer. They never back down, at least not where I live and work, and I don't expect them to. Gates is a harvard professor, he knows full well that he doesn't "need" the officer's badge number, he can make a complaint to the station and the dispatch knows exactly who was where at what time. he wasn't doing anything rationally, he let himself get riled and took it out on Crawley.

If we mistreat minorities for generations, and in order to achieve competitive success they learn as a group to over advocate for themselves, we can't flip a switch and make them stop. Just because we have a black president now doesn't mean its over, it means a lot of suppressed righteousness is going to come boiling out at WHITE people who are caught between respect for diversity and self advocacy.

I will say that Obama ironically was the one acting stupidly. Whats the point of a carefully planned press conference to build popular support for healthcare if your going to fire off your mouth responding to a tangental question and bury your message in witless commentary? I give him credit for how he addressed the mistake afterwards but I really thought he was more savvy than that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Deleted post. Nothing new was added.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is a form of blackmail similar to the CIA threatening to let terrorists kill us if they are held accountable for lawbreaking. It says that the police will not be willing to rescue lost children if they have to put up with yelling citizens. That is an abdication of their duties and the idea that they should then be given carte blanche to shut up all citizens by means of arrest, because it creates a social environment where someone might cause a distraction in the future, is Orwellian double talk.

This guy totally missed the point that officer was making. I'll make it simple. It's hard to do an investigation when someone is motherfucking you. Is that clear? The cop was not saying that we're going to walk away from an investigation and refuse to do it just because someone is being mean. However, we will take care of the problem so the investigation can continue. It is not a right to interfer with an investigation.

And it makes a mockery of the first amendment. If police are to be shielded from public criticism when they are acting in their official capacity then we have an authoritarian state. If yelling at the authorities is a crime then we do not have free speech.

Not really. It keeps the first amendment reasonable. Just like not being able to shout fire in a theater.

It is very rude of citizens to do that, to be sure. But it is not a crime. The idea that people should not get angry, should not pull rank, should be rude to others is an issue for sociologists and Miss Manners, not the cops. Humans often behave badly, but that doesn't make it illegal. For people with such tremendous power as police officers to be coddled into thinking that these are behaviors that allow them to arrest people (or worse) seems to be to far more dangerous than allowing a foolish person or two to set a bad example in the public square.

Again, he missed the point. It's not about declaring your intention to report the officer to his supervisor, or calling him a racist. It's about derailing an investigation with those comments. Instead of answering a question related to the investigation you decide to make judgments on the officers morality. This doesn't help the investigation.

At this point we are seeing a tipping in the other direction. Police are emboldened when they repeatedly get away with using bullying, abusive tactics against average citizens who have not been convicted of any crimes. This is the kind of thing that results:

Then we jump into a red herring. He continues to blatantly ignore the point that officer made with his posts.

Police say they struggled to get inside the home to speak with the man. When police managed to get inside the home, the suspect was placed in handcuffs. The complainant alleged that he was Tased three times by police - once to his wrist, the second to the small of his back and the third to his buttocks.

I like how he starts his example not at the beginning but at where the use of force began.

The ombudsman's report states that the suspect was tased only two times after an investigation. One of those tases, however, was in the buttocks.


The use of force "was after he was handcuffed," said Ombudsman Pierce Murphy. "And it was in the most senstive, private areas, and accompanied by threats."

It sounds like he was drive stunned. The buttock is a valid target area. The anus, however, is not. Also, threatening the use of a tool is a valid tactic to gain compliance.

The suspect can be heard pleading to the police several times that he couldn't breathe when officers were on top of him.

"I can't breathe - just let me up, I want to breathe," he says.

The officer quickly replied, "If you're talking - you're breathing."

True statement.

The report also states that the officers used excessive language.

A policy issue and not a crime. Also used as a method for gaining compliance.

"If you move again, I'm going to stick this Taser up your (expletive) and pull the trigger," the complaint said. "Now, do you feel this in your (expletive)? - I'm going to tase your (expletive) if you move again."

Certainly not the best choice of words. Still, if this man was trying to move after being told not too then it would be a valid threat.

It was determined that the cop had the taser literally pushed up against the man's anus.

I guess we'll have to take his word for it. Though I'd like to know how they determined that.

I said the other night that I thought Gates was lucky he didn't get tased and I really think he was. People all over this country are "subdued" by means of electricity every day, probably more blacks than whites, but it doesn't seem to be particularly limited to race. We are accepting this kind of thing as if it's just an inevitability because of the attitudes this police officer very thoughtfully lays out in his essay: we are told that we must defer to authority or risk all hell breaking loose.

Actually you're being told that you don't have a right to interfer with the investigation of a crime. In Gates case you don't get to act in such a manner that brings a crowd and causes annoyance and alarm.

[Vendetta]

This guy totally missed the point that officer was making. I'll make it simple. It's hard to do an investigation when someone is motherfucking you. Is that clear? The cop was not saying that we're going to walk away from an investigation and refuse to do it just because someone is being mean. However, we will take care of the problem so the investigation can continue. It is not a right to interfer with an investigation.

Except the investigation had concluded, because the man had provided identification that showed that he was the legal owner of the home, and therefore not a burglar.

[Elfdart]

Did you read the reports? Gates was massively uncooperative and a total asshole when he should've been grateful to the police for checking on his house after getting a call about a burglary in progress. Also, can we please not just blindly back up Gates on this? How many witnesses have to come forward before we can all decide that Gates was in the wrong?

Being an asshole is not a crime, which is fortunate for you.

Gates made the mistake of demanding the officer's badge number when the officer was in the wrong and knew it. Obama made the mistake of not being servile enough towards the police, which gave the media an excuse to have one of its binges of mass hysteria whenever a public official doesn't observe the unhealthy fetish this country has for the police and armed forces.