Crowley vs. Gates

Remove all ads!

We should start a poll on what kind of beer they'll be drinking...

 

I loved the comment of "I don't want government run health care, and don't touch my Medicare!"

EDIT: They already know Blades. Crowley drinks Blue Moon, Gates evidently doesn't drink beer and is more of a wine guy, and Obama is a Bud man.

 

BUD!?! Ok, that's it! I'm taking back my vote.

 

Ummmm, Blue Moon? Is that the beer that's served with a orange slice? Gates like wine, talk about a prof stereo-type! Does he puff a pipe too? But Obama is the funniest of all, a cigarette smoking, bud drinking Prez we got there, you gotta love that!

 

...it's better than Lone Star.

 

Most definitely T2, I just find it comical that our Prez has those attributes on his portfolio. They in no means override all his good qualities, it just cracked me up for a moment, seeing him in that light... seems like something you would find in a Simpsons episode.

 

You just planted in my mind the menacing and disturbing image of an agitated middle aged Harvard professor, standing on his porch, ranting, rousing the high five or six digit income per year rabble (i.e. presumably lawyers, businessmen, academics) in an up scale area where a Harvard professor chooses to live to become an angry mob and to turn on the police. Scary. I will dream of that.

I now see that the police had every reason to pre-empt that dire threat by arresting Gates.

Seriously, the scenario of Gate agitating against the police, and especially speaking of 'rabble rousing', is utterly absurd.

Yes? Let me casually go through the list ... in order to meet the statute Gates must have

• caused a disturbance (+) yes, Gates engaged in tumultuous behaviour
• that created a public hazard (-) no; I find it very hard to conceive what hazard he created - other than abstractly, at best, challenging the police by ranting at them.
• or physically offensive action (-) certainly not, much less by what LKD called 'rabble rousing'
• that served no legitimate purpose (?) doubtful; the police were on his property. If he wanted the police off his property, that is legitimate.

I don't see it as as iron clad a case for the police.

 

It seems like there is a general consensus here that blame can be spread evenly, if that is the case I must say that the blame then lie with the police. The police was on duty, he was working, he is a trained officer who should be used to dealing with situations. Gates was probably pretty pissed off to begin with due to needing to break into his own house to then be approached aggresively by a police officer accusing you of being a burglar I can understand his ire. We have no demands on the behaviour of Gates, he is a private citizen and as long as he is not breaking the law he is not doing anything to be arrested for, being a peeved off at the police is not illegally for the time being. We can and should expect policeofficers to stay cool and be able to defuse situations such as this, to take the higher ground. Every time a police officer acts "humanly" he is in my opinion doing a very poor job of being a police officer. I do not want to be a police officer, I do not want to deal with all the bumholes in the world on a daily bases which you have chosed to do if you become a police officer. They can not let their emotions rule them, they can not arrest someone because they call him a facist pig or a racist swine especially if it is the police, no matter how unknowingly, who have made a pretty big mistake.

If we can't expect and demand that the police act correctly in all situations then what can we expect of them? Mistakes will happen and tempers will flare and those are things that needs to be dealt on a case by case bases but when those things happen it is police who is in error

 

He had also recently come out of his kitchen. It takes one tick to pull a knife and stab someone in the back, and acting openly belligerent in public is commonly a precursor to physical violence. It'd have been phenomenally stupid, yes, but then so was cursing out the police on your front lawn.

Those were "or"s, Rags. If he meets one of them, they have an ironclad case. Read the law again.


As to the police report, I am not surprised it mirrors the wording of the law in the accounting, I would expect it to. Yes, it is certainly the officers' words and nothing more, but until we hear a concrete claim opposing it (and best from one of the many witnesses rather than Gates, as his word is no better, and in my mind slightly less trustworthy) it's all we have.

 

NOG - Are you comparing cursing at someone in your front yard, to murdering someone in cold blood? I think you've seen w-a-y too many movies. Get a grip, dude.

 

I think it is quite a leap to assume any, however abstract causation, between Gates harangue and an increase in violence directed against police officers. Yes, it *could* be. Many things *can* happen. It is, however, very very unlikely, that the non-arrest of an identified Harvard professor at his home encourages the gang bangers down town to engage in crime and violence that can get policemen killed.

As for establishing street cred, it is one thing to pick up some gang bangers and rigorously enforce the law. It is another when you find out that there is no crime, in the process pester and piss off a citizen, and then arrest him because he gets angry and his getting angry lessens your street cred? Give me a break here. A citizen is not to me made an example of, an object lesson to demonstrate state power. Period. That would violate his fundamental rights. You wouldn't like an officer to take a minor infraction on your part as a welcome opportunity to establish some street cred for himself and his local police department.

Or maybe you do, I don't know. Hear yourself talking. Is that really your attitude towards the police, that they are to be obeyed? Policemen are not your superior officers. They are of flesh and blood. They make as many mistakes as the average citizen. Eventually, policemen are civil servants. Nothing less, but certainly nothing more.

That is totally fictitious and speculative stuff that you draw up. Like T2 in his street cred argument, you speak of abstract dangers that *can* or *could* happen, perhaps, perhaps not, but merrily ignore the fact that all that in the case of Gates is exceedingly unlikely and far fetched.

It it also conceivable that a meteorite could have fallen out of the sky and killed the police officers. Face it, it *could* happen, no matter how remote the possibility. That, linked to them being there during Gates harangue, would probably be interpreted as a punishment from heaven and that would have discredited the police even more. All the more reason to arrest Gates before something like that ever happens?

Now, that many things *can* happen in your or my rich fantasy life doesn't mean that anything in the endless array of speculative consequences of Gates' harangue *will* ever happen, is probable, and makes letting Gates rant on on his porch in the absence of the police dangerous enough to justify an arrest.

 

Exactly. I'd prefer my police force to be something that ordinary citizen don't have to or need to fear. The should be tough on criminals but soft on ordinary citizen. Their street cred is to me irrelevant and really no excuse to make needless arrests. The only place when I find needless arrests understandable is during riots when people who really have not done anything but just were at the wrong place at the wrong time might get arrested.

 

Alright Ragusa -- when the video of an old black guy shouting insults and harrassing the police hits youtube just how will the average gang banger know it was a Harvard professor? How will that affect the next meeting between police and the gang banger? I believe such a video would bolster confidence and lead to dissent. But then that's just coming from years studying human nature as a casual observer.

Morgoroth perhaps you have added insight to determine the difference between an ordinary citizen and a criminal... none of the police officers I know can spot the difference with a glance. Some professors have committed crimes, being a Harvard professor does not mean the man is incapable of violence -- and the police must assume anyone they encounter is capable of harming them. As 'ordinary citizens' we need to realize the police are used to dealing with monsters and are quick to subdue any situation -- at the end of the day they want to go home, not be in a body bag. It may not be right that police are quick to assume potential threat, but it is certainly reasonable and should be expected. As citizens it is our responsibility to ensure we do nothing to put law enforcement in a defense posture, unless we wish a tour of the local jail. I believe it's the say way pretty much everywhere.

 

I think we differ pretty strongly there, it is not the job of the citizens to put the police at ease but it is the job of the police to put the citizens at ease. If the policeofficer is scared and easily going on the defensive he is in the wrong line of work. Scared people just like scared dogs are dangerous. If a person lacks the personal confidence and security to not go on the defensive even in dangerous situations then he should not be a police officer. Any risk is part of the job as a police officer and it should be acknowledged and accepted and if it isn't it is time to look for another line of work.

I used to work in a mental institution with often violent "lunatics", it was not something I enjoyed. I did not find it acceptable to now and then have to wrestle and use violence even when the personal risk was small so I quit. The main reason was not out of fearing for my own safety as the personal risk was small but that I just really loathed having to use force on other people no matter how nescessary it was.

 

It has nothing to do with movies and everything to do with police reports.

No, Ragusa, it isn't fictitious. It is speculative, but based on very real actions of other people who were equally vocal in similar situations (except for being professors). And yes, I do speak of (definitively not abstract) dangers that *can* and *could* happen, because that's what police have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. The moment you ignore those things simply because they haven't happened yet on this watch is the moment you get shot in the chest on a routine traffic stop. The simple fact is: police work is dangerous, and they deal with a lot of very stupid people, even well educated ones.

That is the most nonsensical thing I've seen in this thread yet, and it ranks high among the most nonsensical things that have ever come out of your mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be) on these forums. Yes, a meteorite could fall on them, but it could do that anywhere, at any time, through any protection. There's nothing they could possibly do to alter the (astronomically small) odds that something like this could happen, so why worry about it. On the other hand, there is plenty they can do to reduce the odds of being stabbed by an irate man freshly out of his kitchen. They should take appropriate precautions in this case.

This is what I'm trying to say. Thanks, T2.

Either we're actually talking about two completely different situations, or you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure it's the former, as you generally show yourself to be intelligent. When I (and I think T2) talk about a "defensive position", I'm talking about an intellecual, rational position of preparadness, not an irrational, reactionary position of fear. A police officer in a defensive position isn't going to randomly strike out at the first thing that moves, but is going to watch all movement carefully for the first sign of things going wrong. This is the guy that pulls you over on the road, walks up to the door smiling, and asks for your driver's license and registration, all the while resting his hand on his holster in case you try something stupid. 99% of people never know where that other hand is, or what kind of reaction is just one bad move away, but since the 1% who do learn intend on killing or seriously injuring the officer, it's perfectly reasonable.

There is a huge difference between the two. First of all, you are in a much more controlled setting and probably outnumber the patients (in any individual encounter, not overall), whereas the police are in a distinctly uncontrolled setting and are often outnumbered. Secondly, you probably knew pretty certainly that the patients didn't have anything more dangerous than their fists, or maybe a tray or somthing, while the police have to deal with the very real possibility that anyone could have a gun or knife. Waiting for someone else to act and then wrestling them to the ground is not a solution. Not unless you're going to defend high acceptable losses on the police force.


Anyway, overall, I believe Gates's actions made him subject of a legitimate (if not 100% necessary) arrest. Could the police have been more polite in the beginning? Maybe, I'm still not at all convinced on this one. Did the police do anything that warrants more than a review of procedures? Absolutely not.

 

You say that like the cops can just tell with a crystal ball who is the ordinary citizen and who is the criminal. Please! Every criminal is innocent in theire own eyes and plead it to the cops. That arguement is stale. The average law abiding citizen has nothing to fear from the police. Gates didn't either. He chose to make the scene and accusations, not the cops. Who didn't arrest him for it. That's the difference. When the cops walked away, he chose to continue with the banter, again provoking a police response. If you try to say the cops should of known better, then so should of Gates, at the least.

 

I don't think we differ that much at all on this. I probably misused the word 'responsibility' and should have phrased it differently. To put an armed man -- complete with pepper spray, baton, and multiple guns -- on the defensive is a stupid act. The police officer is human, he/she wants to go home at night. The courts have repeatedly upheld the police officer's right use of force in defense (even in cases where such a lethal defense may not be acceptable for an ordinary citizen).

I think you're dead on in stating a skittish person should not be a police officer; nor should a person prone to violence or overreaction. Unfortunately, these people do become police officers (as do the bullies from high school) and we only find out about these tendancies after a tragic incident has occurred.

But this was not such a tragic incidence. Sgt Crowley showed great restraint. Here in Chicago I believe Gates would have been body slammed to the ground (by nearly any police officer, race is not an issue), but then we have a certain ... history in Chicago.

In most large US cities you simply do not act disrespectful to the police -- it's a lose/lose situation. At best, you'll be read the riot act while police officers, with weapons brandished, get in your face and let you know just how stupidly you behaved. Most likely the person will be forced to the ground, handcuffed and taken in. In some cases, you can count on have some bodily damage done to you. Is such retaliation right? Probably not, but the court uphold much of this time and time again. Once that police officer feels threatened there are very few holds barred.

Given the high fatality rate for police officers, I don't hold such precautions and quick action against any reasonable police officer. It sucks if it happens to me (and I have had the riot act read to me while looking down the barrel of a gun), but then I try very hard to ensure I don't incur the ire of any police officer.

 

Gates was warned twice that his behaviour was not acceptable and disruptive. He kept going, planning to use his race, status, and friendship with Obama as a shield. That's despicable.

And while police are civil servants, they are civil servants charged with keeping the peace. They have every right to expect people who are disrupting the peace to cooperate. That's not a police state, that's just common sense governance. As a law professor, Gates knew perfectly well that he had lots of recourse beyond throwing a hissy fit. But we all make mistakes, law professor or not.

If Crowley is found to have violated Gates' rights, then he should be punished. No special privileges for being a cop. But by the same token, if Gates is found to have committed an offense, then he too should be punished -- no special privileges for being Black or for being a Harvard Professor -- the way people are throwiing his academic credentials around as if they give the guy the right to act like an <expletive> boggles my mind.