News Is Obama fueling the Gate's incident?

[Count Iblis]

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.

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police, but then in the US you have 1% of the population behind bars.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police, but then in the US you have 1% of the population behind bars.

What can I say, we are awesome. We are the best at everything we do.

 

[Evo]

Well, you're defending the US rules of engagement for the police,:

Because this was in the US, perhaps?

 

[Evo]

According to the police report, Crowley invited Gates outside to 'talk' with him. If that is the case, then Crowley certainly did not ignore Gates. With other police officers present, it should have been clear that Crowley was indeed a police officer. I have seen no evidence that Crowley refused to produce ID.

Crowley could probably have handled it better, but then it was in the heat of the moment. I don't think an officer needs to stop in the middle of an investigation to provide ID to a suspect.


And Obama should have remained neutral.

As you can see, all officers have their badges prominently displayed.

And as you can see Gates' yap is wide open.

 

[Cyrus]

Hahah, even Crowley's hand is placed in such a way suggesting Gates calm down. That black cop is also a racist, BTW.

 

[Esoteric]

As you can see, all officers have their badges prominently displayed.

And as you can see Gates' yap is wide open.

So now you can gather from that picture what he's saying and how he's saying it?

Beside that, showing a picture of a man WRONGLY arrested isn't exactly helping your point...a wrongly arrested man is going to be upset.

Also, Police officers are required by law to state their badge number when it is requested, Crowley refused. He just offered his name when repeatedly asked by Gates. The only law that was broken in this incident it seems.

Just to respond to a few more points that have been posted. It doesn't matter one bit if Gates was being disrespectful, that isn't grounds for an arrest. Period. To imply that Gates "had it coming" because of his minute, harmless actions towards the cop is asbolutely assinine.

The officer arrested him on trumped up charges. Gates broke NO laws. Sure he may have acted like a jackass, but how does that lend any amount of credence to the officers actions? Being a jackass isn't an arrestable offense.

Great Time article that some of you should read.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912778,00.html?artId=1912778?contType=article?chn=us

 

[Astronuc]

I can't tell from that picture if any of those officers is Crowley. I haven't seen a picture of Crowley at the time of the Gates's arrest.

If Crowley was in uniform like those officers in the picture, then ostensibly Gates could have seen the badge, and possibly the number.

 

[Evo]

So now you can gather from that picture what he's saying and how he's saying it?

Beside that, showing a picture of a man WRONGLY arrested isn't exactly helping your point...a wrongly arrested man is going to be upset.

But he wasn't wrongly arrested. And show me where I said what he was saying. I said he had his yap open, and he does.

Gates wasn't arested for being "disrespectful". I'm really surprised that he wasn't also charged with interfering with a police officer on top of disorderly conduct.

How Does a Court Determine if Non-physical Interference Constitutes Resisting or Obstructing a Police Officer?

As long as the facts show a good amount of interference with police, it's still possible to be charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer.

What are Some Examples of Non-physical Interference Charged as Resisting or Obstructing a Police Officer?

The following examples come from actual cases where resisting or obstructing a police officer was found:

■Questioning an officer's authority
■Giving an officer false information
■Using profanity directed at an officer
■Advise or incite others in their dealings with an officer
■Refusing to accept a parking ticket or speeding citation

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...g-a-police-officer-absent-physical-force.html

So, yes, he broke the law.

 

[Esoteric]

But he wasn't wrongly arrested. And show me where I said what he was saying. I said he had his yap open, and he does.

Read the Time article i linked.

 

[Esoteric]

I can't tell from that picture if any of those officers is Crowley. I haven't seen a picture of Crowley at the time of the Gates's arrest.

If Crowley was in uniform like those officers in the picture, then ostensibly Gates could have seen the badge, and possibly the number.

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

 

[Evo]

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

He started to and was cut off by Gates' ranting. Whether crowley vrbally responded doesn't change the fact of Gates' abuse, disorderly conduct and interference with an officer. the first words out of gates' mouth in response to the officer's request for ID was "Why, because I am a black man in America? hoo boy.

Read the Time article i linked.

That's a biased personal opinion piece. And a really poorly written one at that.

 

[berkeman]

Astro you're a gentleman and a scholar, however, you should be aware that that an officer is required by law to STATE their badge number when it is requested. Crowley didn't do that.

Could you please provide a link for that? Does it vary by state? We like to see real links here at the PF (you may be right, I'd just like to see it). If you're wearing a badge with a number, you're still required to say it out loud when demanded during an arrest?.

 

[Astronuc]

Could you please provide a link for that? Does it vary by state? We like to see real links here at the PF (you may be right, I'd just like to see it). If you're wearing a badge with a number, you're still required to say it out loud when demanded during an arrest?.

Back in turbo's post #139 of this thread, he cited an article that links to the Massachusetts State General Laws

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

CHAPTER 41. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS

POLICE OFFICERS

Chapter 41: Section 98D. Identification cards

Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

So yes, Crowley is required to present his identity upon lawful request.

It's not clear to me whether he did or did not. Perhaps he hadn't gotten around to it because of Gates's outburst and disorderly conduct - outside of the house.

Anybody who was not present is only speculating what did or did not transpire.

I can only go on the police report, and I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of assumption that his is being truthful.

 

[Esoteric]

He started to and was cut off by Gates' ranting.

Uh no. Crowley was able to state his name three times over Gates "ranting", yet not his badge number? really? I just doubt a Harvard Professor would need to keep asking him for his name and badge number if he received it...it SEEMS like he would have written it down and moved on to telling him what was going to happen to him due to his actions.

As for the link you posted...context, Evo. He was in his home when the "rants" occurred. That was not a crime because he was in HIS house. When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

 

[Esoteric]

Back in turbo's post #139 of this thread, he cited an article that links to the Massachusetts State General Laws

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98d.htm

So yes, Crowley is required to present his identity upon lawful request.

It's not clear to me whether he did or did not. Perhaps he hadn't gotten around to it because of Gates's outburst and disorderly conduct - outside of the house.

Anybody who was not present is only speculating what did or did not transpire.

I can only go on the police report, and I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of assumption that his is being truthful.

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

 

[Evo]

When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

If you read the police report you will see that there were grounds for arrest on at least two counts. There were witnesses, both police and civilian. These witnesses have made statements as to Gates' behavior and they back up the officer. No one that witnessed the event backs up Gates' version.

 

[Astronuc]

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

No. There is no indication that Crowley broke the law.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

Such a link is a unofficial transcript of Gates's view. The statements therein appear to contradict the police report.

Of course there are two sides to this story/conflict.

At the time Gates made his request for the officers ID, he was a suspect. Was his request lawful? If Crowley did not produce his ID at that point, was Crowley in violation of the particular Mass. General Law? Were there mitigating circumstances, e.g., the officer was in the middle of an investigation, in which case Gates's outburst was an interference with the law?

 

[Esoteric]

No. There is no indication that Crowley broke the law.

Such a link is a unofficial transcript of Gates's view. The statements therein appear to contradict the police report.

Of course there are two sides to this story/conflict.

At the time Gates made his request for the officers ID, he was a suspect. Was his request lawful? If Crowley did not produce his ID at that point, was Crowley in violation of the particular Mass. General Law? Were there mitigating circumstances, e.g., the officer was in the middle of an investigation, in which case Gates's outburst was an interference with the law?

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Uh no. Crowley was able to state his name three times over Gates "ranting", yet not his badge number? really? I just doubt a Harvard Professor would need to keep asking him for his name and badge number if he received it...it SEEMS like he would have written it down and moved on to telling him what was going to happen to him due to his actions.

Have you ever dealt with this sort of situation before? As an authority figure? I have and can assure you its not uncommon.

As for the link you posted...context, Evo. He was in his home when the "rants" occurred. That was not a crime because he was in HIS house. When Gates stepped outside he merely asked another officer at the scene for Crowleys name and badge number. Not grounds for arrest.

According to the police reports and witness accounts Gates followed Crowley outside and continued ranting at him and/or his audience in general.

So we agree Crowley broke the law? yeah seems about right.

There's two sides to every story Astro. I suggest you read Gates side also, not just the police report. The "outbursts" occurred AFTER Gates requested his badge number and he refused to state it.

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

And there is nothing detering Gates from making the story out any way he pleases. The police officer could lose his job for falsifying any information in his report.

 

[Phrak]

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

The moral of the story: always pack a lawyer.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

From what I read of the report Gates asked for Crowley's name. I did not see any reference to a request for badge number but I will take a look and see... nope. Just says he asked for a name. And according to Crowley he furnished it but Gates apparently did not hear because he was busy ranting. Gates made a request for Crowley's ID before furnishing his own. At that point Crowley may not have been obliged to show it, the law states it is to be furnished upon "lawful request". I am unsure what exactly constitutes a lawful request. How about you? I am pretty sure that while questioning a suspect in a possible burglary, before they have properly identified themselves with ID, an officer is not likely under any obligation to show ID other than a badge which is usually worn in plain view on the uniform.

 

[Astronuc]

Crowley is required by law to state his badge number, he did not(the police report makes no claim that he did).

Gates request of Crowleys name and badge number occurred AFTER it was established that Gates was the owner of the home. How is he still a suspect? Crowley conceded Gates request was lawful when Crowley stated his NAME. If the request was unlawful why state his name and not his badge number? he is required to state both.

If the latter part of your post is fact(the "Outburst" that occurred outside, Evo says witness agree), then both broke the laws that day. Both are equally to blame for this escalation.

I wasn't there, and neither was anyone else from PF. I have read a lot of a claims in this thread based on speculation about specifics.

The police report acknowledges a univeristy ID, but does not mention a drivers license. Officer Crowley's report indicates that the resident (later identified as Gates) was uncooperative. Gates was apparently on the phone calling someone else. If Crowley was in uniform, then perhaps he was wearing his badge where Gates could see it. Perhaps Crowley never got a chance to present his ID because he had to deal with Gates's outburst (disorderly conduct).

There appears to be contridictory statements from Gates with respect to the police report. I guess we'll have to wait for Gates to file a suit.

Meanwhile, the OP is about Obama's response, while most of the arguing is about what Crowley or Gates did or did not do, which is all based on hearsay, with the exception of the police report, which is the only legal document presented with respect to the event in question.

Let's wait until Gates is deposed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Heres his side
http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,1

It's certainly colorful! The fact I hadn't seen a report like that was one of the biggest pieces missing from the hypothesis that Gates' doesn't have a legitimate claim that he was mistreated.


The thing I find most interesting about his report is that once he made his first request for the officer's name along with his threat, he looks like he goes into a panic and starts yelling "I want your name and badge number" over and over, with the "I'm a black man and you're a white cop" included somewhere in the middle.


The two accounts (at least the part I'm about to describe) fit surprisingly well

...
*Gates' provides his ID*
*Crowley studies the IDs, then turns his attention to his police radio to call for Harvard police*
Gates: "I want your name and badge number so I can file a complaint about how you treated me at the door"^*
Gates: *goes into panic*
Gates: "I want your name and badge number."
Gates: "I want your name and badge number."
*Crowley finishes his radio call, and focuses back on Gates*
Gates: "I want your name and badge number."
Crowley: "I'm off--"
Gates: "You're not answering me because I'm a black man and you're a white cop!"
*Gates continues his panic, not really noticing what Crowley's saying*
*Crowley tries to leave*
...

 

[Phrak]

It's certainly colorful! The fact I hadn't seen a report like that was one of the biggest pieces missing from the hypothesis that Gates' doesn't have a legitimate claim that he was mistreated.

Gate's laywer is a master in penmenship.

Legitimate means legal. That's irrelevant to the facts. I don't think you have a full appreciation of the asocial dynamics. When is the last time you were encouraged to withdraw from a black history class?

 

[Hurkyl]

When is the last time you were encouraged to withdraw from a black history class?

 

[Sorry!]

Man things like this make me scared of being WHITE, lol.

Imagine a black officer had talked to Gates. I'm sure the officer would have acted the same way at the beginning... Then Gates would have gone into his house, probably happy the police are doing a great job of protecting his neighbourhood.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Man things like this make me scared of being WHITE, lol.

Imagine a black officer had talked to Gates. I'm sure the officer would have acted the same way at the beginning... Then Gates would have gone into his house, probably happy the police are doing a great job of protecting his neighbourhood.

I know that I am not a police officer but I have actually had an opposite experience myself.

I have very rarely had any trouble with black people in my job. I've actually had the most trouble with white people (I am white myself). When I worked at the college half my coworkers were black and probably about a fourth of the students were black. It seemed to me that the black students gave my black coworkers a harder time than they gave me. From what I could tell it seemed that they felt my black coworkers should be more amenable to their protests. Similarly the white students often gave me a harder time than they gave my black coworkers.

Many times I have thought over my experiences in my job and considered the interesting differences in people and the way they react to me. I don't often talk about my thoughts though because I am worried people may think I am racist. It just seems that people of different cultures have rather different attitudes towards authority figures.

 

[turbo]

Apparently turbo was there and witnessed the whole thing.

Very funny. The difference between you and me is that I give credence to Gates' version of the events, because it makes more sense. Gates answered the door, while talking on his portable phone to arrange to get his door repaired, and a cop was on his porch and asked Gates to come outside. Gates refused, and said that he was a Harvard professor, and that he lived in the house. Crowley demanded ID, and when Gates turned to go to get his wallet, Crowley followed him into the house uninvited. Being treated as a break-in suspect in my own home and having a cop come into my home uninvited with no warrant would have ticked me off. Think of how Gates must have felt. Here he is, an older man who walks with the aid of a cane, who answers the front door to find himself a suspect in a break-in.

Is that logical? If he were a burglar, would he have been making phone calls from the place he broke into, and would he have answered the door instead of laying low? Those are pretty good indications that he lived in the house, and was not a burglar. Still, Crowley treated him as a suspect, not as a possible victim of a break-in. Gates had a pretty good reason to feel that race might have been a factor in his treatment, because seeing a ~60 year old white man or woman calmly answering the door while making a phone call would probably have prompted the officer to stand down and ask if there had been a break-in or a robbery or any other trouble at the house.

 

[Astronuc]

Gates says it's time to 'move on' from his arrest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090726/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_disorderly

It's time to move on.

 

[ThomasT]

re the Time opinion piece linked to by Esoteric:

That's a biased personal opinion piece. And a really poorly written one at that.

I thought it was well enough written. Police routinely abuse their positions.

Keep in mind that the first duty of every citizen in a free society is to question authority. Our Constitution, our system of government, is based on the notion that those who are given the authority to make, administer, and enforce laws can't be trusted. Any disrespect they're shown has been earned many times over.

After doing what he was sent there to do, and assessing that Gates was no threat, the officer should have just left. The alarming thing about the incident, to me, is that if Gates wasn't a famous person, he would be caught up in a system that, in practice, has little to do with justice.

Keeping the system under constant close scrutiny is why any incidents like this should be fueled.

It's time to move on.

Yes, that's what the officer should have done after he did what he was sent there to do -- ie., assessing whether or not Gates was a threat.

That's what RoboCop would have done.