Is Obama fueling the Gate's incident?

[Count Iblis]

BS. Every city I have ever worked in has had laws against disturbing the peace. If you stand in your yard yelling and screaming and refuse to stop at the direction of a police officer you will be arrested.
Here 'disturbing the peace' is close to this 'public misconduct' and probably used more often.

According to the law Prof. this was not applicable in the Gates case because of the way the Massachusetts Supreme Court has constrained the requirements the "disorderly conduct" charge.

 

[Evo]

There are obvious reasons for Crowley to take it outside. Gates is raving and making accusations, going outside might encourage Gates to stop raving. Also, inside there are no witnesses. If Crowley is not breaking any rules, it is in his best interest to be in plain view of witnesses. Who knows what kind of things Gates would have made up if there were no witnesses. Crowley would not want to take it outside if he was doing anything wrong. The fact that he did indicates to me that he was doing nothing wrong.

 

[arildno]

Back in 2007, we had an incident here in Norway, dubbed the "Ali Farah case":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Farah_case

It was a grave case concerning an ambulance crew that refused to take a Somali man with them after he'd gotten a head wound by a Ghanese in the Sofienberg park.

Based on the fact that Ali Farah subsequently were shown to have far worse injuries than the paramedics had thought, there was a huge outcry against racism in the paramedics.

This was actively fuelled by Ali Farah himself, and his girlfriend (daughter of a prominent Norwegian journalist), who lied through their teeth that the paramedics had left Ali lying on the ground.

Fortunately, a photograph turned up that clearly vindicated the paramedics' version, namely that he was fully able to walk when they left him.

They also had accurately judged him to be "high" after smoking cannabis, something blood tests had shown long ago, but brushed aside by the "Racist!"-screaming crowd before the damning photograph turned up.

 

[Hurkyl]

His offense appears to have been asking Crowley to identify himself.

I thought his offense appeared to be disorderly conduct. Or maybe being a black man in America, if you believe that version of the story.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now he saw himself displayed as "yet another of them black criminals" for the
whole nation in handcuffs complete with mugshots.

Whose fault is that? I mean that in all seriousness -- I highly doubt it was the Cambridge police department who decided to turn this into a national event.

 

[Hurkyl]

For what it's worth:

http://wbztv.com/local/Henry.Louis.Gates.2.1096348.html

A neighbor who claims he witnessed the incident told the Boston Herald Wednesday that Gates was screaming at police.​

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ashpoint_gatess_neighbor_captured_the_moment/

Carter said Gates was “agitated’’ as police led him off to face a charge of disorderly conduct.​

http://wbztv.com/local/Henry.Louis.Gates.2.1094433.html

his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree
...
"Professor Gates asked why are you doing this – because I'm an African-American and you're a police officer? Please give me your information," Ogletree said.​

I'm sufficiently convinced that Gates was accusing the officer of racism during the incident. That Gates did lose his temper during the event also seems more plausible than the alternative. (but I am mildly skeptical of the first quote)

 

[arildno]

It is quite evident that the only bigot and racist in this case is..Henry Louis Gates himself.

 

[Count Iblis]

If you can't verbally engage a police officer (regardless whether the point you are making is rightly or wrong) you don't have freedom of speech in the US.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you can't verbally engage a police officer (regardless whether the point you are making is rightly or wrong) you don't have freedom of speech in the US.

The first amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want. It doesn't give you the right to yell it in my face.

 

[Evo]

I'm surprised Gates wasn't charged for the criminal offense of interfering with a police officer and/or obstruction of justice. There is no doubt that he was interfering with the officer doing his job.

 

[D H]

If you can't verbally engage a police officer (regardless whether the point you are making is rightly or wrong) you don't have freedom of speech in the US.

False dilemma.

You are acting as if freedom of speech is an absolute. It is not and never has been an absolute right. You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. More to the point, you do not have the right to call people names (the fighting words doctrine), and you do not have the right to express your freedom of speech in a way that a reasonable person would find highly objectionable given the time and circumstances (disturbing the peace / disorderly conduct).

 

[arildno]

And:

Precisely because police officers are law ENFORCEMENT agents, they cannot effectively be that without having added protection by the law, when they are exercising their function.

Without a prima facie deference towards officers of law, law enforcement as such is undermined.

Complaints are to be made&handled in the aftermath, not in the critical situation where the officer has the duty to make difficult decisions on the spot.

Misjudgments by police officers are far more likely to happen if we are licensed to stress them by yelling insults, resisting arrest and so on, than if we are compliant then and there.

 

[Count Iblis]

False dilemma.

You are acting as if freedom of speech is an absolute. It is not and never has been an absolute right. You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. More to the point, you do not have the right to call people names (the fighting words doctrine), and you do not have the right to express your freedom of speech in a way that a reasonable person would find highly objectionable given the time and circumstances (disturbing the peace / disorderly conduct).

The very reason why most Western constitutions explicitely mention that we have "Freedom of Speech" is precisely to prevent people from being arrested for insults or other types of highly objectionable statements. In the US you have even less restriction than in Europe. E.g. deeply insulting Nazi propaganda is legal in the US.

Disorderly conduct should refer to events in which people are disturbed by someone making loud noises or something of that sort. You can imagine te police being called when a drunken man on the streets starts to sing loudly on 3 am at night. It is understandable that the law on disorderly conduct would always be formulated a bit vaguely as the description of a drunk person singing loudly on the street could be very similar to, say, someone who is a bit drunk and singing at a party, in which case there is no problem at all.


There is an implicit understanding here that the police will not just use the letter of the law to get extra powers, especially not if it is only the police officer who is involved in a verbal dispute with someone. The police should always be part of the solution, and never become part of the problem.

 

[Cyrus]

The very reason why most Western constitutions explicitely mention that we have "Freedom of Speech" is precisely to prevent people from being arrested for insults or other types of highly objectionable statements. In the US you have even less restriction than in Europe. E.g. deeply insulting Nazi propaganda is legal in the US.

Disorderly conduct should refer to events in which people are disturbed by someone making loud noises or something of that sort. You can imagine te police being called when a drunken man on the streets starts to sing loudly on 3 am at night. It is understandable that the law on disorderly conduct would always be formulated a bit vaguely as the description of a drunk person singing loudly on the street could be very similar to, say, someone who is a bit drunk and singing at a party, in which case there is no problem at all.


There is an implicit understanding here that the police will not just use the letter of the law to get extra powers, especially not if it is only the police officer who is involved in a verbal dispute with someone. The police should always be part of the solution, and never become part of the problem.

...what?

 

[Count Iblis]

Misjudgments by police officers are far more likely to happen if we are licensed to stress them by yelling insults, resisting arrest and so on, than if we are compliant then and there.

Police officers are there to deal with the few percent of society who are criminals, or who have psychatric disorders like psychosis who cause problems, people who drink too much, people who use drugs and as a reult of that cause problems, etc. etc.

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit, then I wouldn't have much faith in that police officer being able to deal with, say, a person who has a sudden episode of psychosis on the street.

 

[Hurkyl]

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit,

Looks to me like he handled it quite well -- possibly even being too lenient -- he kept his cool, made several attempts to calm Gates down, attempted to remove himself from the confrontation, calmly arrested Gates after Gates pursued him outside to continue yelling at him, and took steps to ensure Gates' comfort and the security of his property.

 

[arildno]

Police officers are there to deal with the few percent of society who are criminals, or who have psychatric disorders like psychosis who cause problems, people who drink too much, people who use drugs and as a reult of that cause problems, etc. etc.

If a police officer cannot handle Prof. Gates raising his voice a bit, then I wouldn't have much faith in that police officer being able to deal with, say, a person who has a sudden episode of psychosis on the street.

Fantasy cops to your liking don't exist, Count Iblis.

Precisely because they are just the figments of your imagination, I have even less faith in them than in real cops.

Even though that means I will do my best to my tongue and act with deference towards an officer of law, even if I think I am being unjustly treated.


(I will then have all the more credibility when suing him to hell later on. )

 

[Hurkyl]

Hrm. First, Sgt. Crowley was a racist cop lying through his teeth in a police report, then he's punishing Gates for the crime of asking for identification, and now he's being accused of impinging Gates' right to free speech! It's almost as if people are desparate to avoid contemplating the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a black man tried to get revenge against a white cop by falsely playing the race card.

(Or, at least, made an honest mistake in hastily jumping to the assumption that racism was involved, and is too prideful to back down)

 

[ThomasT]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

There is a race/ethnic problem among human beings. We are, naturally, inclusionary/exclusionary. It's the way we're built. We're animals after all.

And, yes Obama is fueling the controversy, which might turn out to be a good thing. At least it's better than being bombarded with Michael Jackson stories.

 

[arildno]

the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident

Absolutely not.

 

[lisab]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

There is a race/ethnic problem among human beings. We are, naturally, inclusionary/exclusionary. It's the way we're built. We're animals after all.

And, yes Obama is fueling the controversy, which might turn out to be a good thing. At least it's better than being bombarded with Michael Jackson stories.

That's pretty much how I see this, too. Two men got into a stressful situation, and each of them thought that the other should be acting more respectfully, and things got out of control.

I would add that yes, we may as a species have a tendency to group together with our own "kind," be it race/ethnicity/religion/whatever, but that tendency shouldn't be used as an excuse for that behavior (not that I read that intent in your post, Thomas ).

 

[Astronuc]

As in any country in the world, the making, administration, and enforcement of laws is done by ordinary people. Stressful situations sometimes bring out the best in us, and sometimes the worst, but usually it's somewhere between.

My two cents on this is that both men could have handled the situation a bit better. Gates lost it. Not good, but after identifying Gates as the homeowner, the officer should have just left -- whether Gates was yelling at him or not. End of incident.

My guess is that the officer, like Gates, just couldn't let it go.

Crowley couldn't let it go because Gates didn't let it go. Gates was demanding the officer's name and ID. The officer, who was communicating with his department and others, indicated that he was stepping outside, and invited Gates to discuss the matter. But rather than discuss it calmly, Gates took his rant outside into public - and persistent when told not to.

Gates is wholly out of line, and the cop appears to have acted by the book as he is supposed to. Maybe the problem is that Gates didn't get preferential treatment then? Certainly Crowley had the discretion to let it go and release Gates. But Gates wouldn't let go.

The OP is about Obama's reaction. And Obama was out of line and so much has conceded that. Obama should apologize. Period.

 

[arildno]

As a matter of fact, Obama should apologize, noting that he let his own racial prejudices impair his judgment.

It would be a courageous thing for a President to say, that he is also liable to such hasty labellings, in order to underline the insidiousness of racialism and how none of us should ever feel above others as being wholly unprejudiced.

Or something along those lines, hopefully with a more elegant phrasing.

 

[Astronuc]

The bottom line is that Obama should have remained neutral, especially not knowing the facts. All he had to say was that it was an unfortunate incident and that not knowing the facts, he would decline to comment further. That is his responsibility given his position.

I'm sure Al Sharpton is going to step in and add another ring to the circus.

 

[lisab]

The bottom line is that Obama should have remained neutral, especially not knowing the facts. All he had to say was that it was an unfortunate incident and that not knowing the facts, he would decline to comment further. That is his responsibility given his position.

I'm sure Al Sharpton is going to step in and add another ring to the circus.

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

 

[Count Iblis]

Looks to me like he handled it quite well -- possibly even being too lenient -- he kept his cool, made several attempts to calm Gates down, attempted to remove himself from the confrontation, calmly arrested Gates after Gates pursued him outside to continue yelling at him, and took steps to ensure Gates' comfort and the security of his property.

Gates not being calm wasn't really an issue. The police officer could have agreed to disagree in this verbal engagement and left. Gates stepped outside to say the opposite of goodby. So what? To interpret that as disorderly conduct is just ridiculous.

Astronuc:

Crowley couldn't let it go because Gates didn't let it go. Gates was demanding the officer's name and ID. The officer, who was communicating with his department and others, indicated that he was stepping outside, and invited Gates to discuss the matter. But rather than discuss it calmly, Gates took his rant outside into public - and persistent when told not to.

Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

 

[waht]

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

Actually Al Sharpton jumped first on the racism train just before this incident gained national attention.

From July 21:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1186039

“I’ve heard of driving while black, and I’ve heard of shopping while black. But I’ve never heard of living in a home while black,” said Sharpton, a New York minister who has made a national name for himself by seizing on cases of alleged racism.

 

[Astronuc]

Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

Of course, Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage, so why bring it up?

Crowley wasn't in a position to leave the scene. Crowley had called other officers including officers from Harvard.

Crowley did step outside, and there he found other cops. Gates came outside and made a spectacle (rant) - then began 'disturbing the peace' (disorderly conduct) and ignoring warnings of the officer. When one persists in violating the law, it doesn't leave an officer much choice but to make an arrest.

 

[Evo]

Oh I hope Al Sharpton stays in his hole, and keeps out of this!

The media and administration keep referring to this incident as a "teachable moment." Perhaps the lesson is that even a man who is well-educated and generally reasonable and rational can have his judgement temporarily clouded due to emotion, when it comes to issues of race. (Hint: that man's initials are B.H.O.)

No, Gates said that he wants to "teach" that policeman at the White House meeting.

Professor Gates said in an e-mail message afterward that he was “pleased to accept his invitation” to come to the White House and meet Sergeant Crowley.

I am determined that this be a teaching moment.”

Gates appears to have no intention of apologizing and is intent on making matters worse, from what I've read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25gates.html?_r=2

 

[turbo]

Please recall that Crowley never presented his PD identification to Gates, which he is required to do under law. Crowley showed up at Gates' door and didn't ask if he was OK or if his belongings had been disturbed. He treated Gates like a suspect in a B&E. Gates told him that he was a Harvard prof and when Gates turned to get his wallet, Crowley followed him into Gates's home uninvited. After Gates presented his ID, Crowley continued to question him, at which time Gates demanded Crowley's PD ID. Crowley refused to provide that, and when he ignored Gates and exited his house, he arrested Gates for creating a "public" disturbance. Sick.

I would have been pretty ticked if a cop treated me this way. BTW, for those that have not seen a response to this situation by an ACLU lawyer, here goes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2284526&postcount=139

 

[Cyrus]

Gates not being calm wasn't really an issue. The police officer could have agreed to disagree in this verbal engagement and left. Gates stepped outside to say the opposite of goodby. So what? To interpret that as disorderly conduct is just ridiculous.

Astronuc:
Gates wasn't holding Crowley hostage. He could have left anytime. He somehow missed the fact that Gates was angry, which is strange given what he wrote in his report.

Anyone who has experience dealing with people who are angry about some issue should know that changing the topic of the discussion and starting a new confrontational discussion about that would surely lead to a huge escalation.

There's always reality, and then there's your opinion. The two don't necessarily agree. Funny how you want to set the rules on how a police officer should do his job. A bit pompous, IMO.

 

[lisab]

No, Gates said that he wants to "teach" that policeman at the White House meeting. He said he wants it to be a "teachable moment". He needs to shut up and let Crowley teach him some manners. Pompous wind bag.

Hmm...I didn't know that comment originated with Gates. I agree, I think he should stop talking now. The more I hear from him, the less impressed I get.

 

[arildno]

He is worse than a pompous wind bag, Evo.
Gates is a racist wind bag.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure HAVARD is loving the attention Gates is getting. I find it hilarious that a Harvard professor stooped to "Yo momma" comments to a cop.

 

[arildno]

Gates deserves to be put into the shame game of being branded as a racist over and over again, until he begs for mercy.