Crowley vs. Gates

Remove all ads!

I disagree. A cranky old man doesn't draw a crowd. A cranky old man doesn't follow the police out of his house yelling at them. A cranky old man doesn't ignore two warnings. His arrest was insturmental in calming the immediate situation, in instilling the seriousness of the situation on him (not talking about street rep, just the fact that the police had authority), and of neutralizing a potential threat (and yes, from their perspective he was a potential threat). It worked much the same way as a slap across the face would, except without the whole "police brutality" and assault charges thing.

Not always, no, but they often are.

 

Isn't that the same approach we take for criminals?

As a citizen you should always do the same. Just because some guy comes to your door in a costume doesn't mean he isn't a threat to you. A lot of women rape victims fall for this all the time. The fact remains, as a citizen you are in more danger than a cop is. As somone pointed out, cops have badges and guns to hide behind; all you have as a citizen is your common sense and your wits - never trust anyone until you've a chance to assess the situtaion.

No, you are wrong. You should take the time to read the mission statements of your local police department. While it varies, they are typically there to serve the public in a variety of ways. This one is for HPD:

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/mission.htm

It's always reassuring to see good cops, those who take the time to help a stranded motorist, or someone locked out of his/her car or home. Lazy cops who just want to "enforce the law" are not so reassuring to the averge citizen. They are great a handing out tickets and generating revenue for the government. There are some great cops out there, that deserve our gratitude and repect; while there are those who are no better than common criminals or thugs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32224489/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

You never know who you are dealing with....

 

Not really. I mean to say that his opinion is subject to a great deal more scrutiny than yours or mine. Sure, he could have just said "no comment" to the question, but that could have been newsworthy, too. Obama was right to speak on the matter, but should have probably chosen his words more carefully.

I remain convinced that the media storm has a lot more to do with the media itself than the opinion of Barack Obama on the arrest of a man who, if the fact that the charge was dropped is any indication, broke no law. That said, Obama still shares some of the blame for failing to see that his words on the matter would create a media frenzy.

 

For good reason ... as you accurately mention later in your post.

 

There are not "some" good cops out there, most are good cops. There are "some" bad cops out there, just like any other profession. There are also cops out there that do good everyday, responding to many calls and doing their best to help the public and end up getting labeled as "bad" cops for the smallest of infractions, while trying to uphold the law, for the most part they try and do service the public well everyday. I feel labeling all cops together goes along the line of thinking as those who believe in racist views. It's quite a limited way to think. Not that I think that you think that way Chandos, as your posts are always very well thought out and researched, just making the comparison as to what it could seem like.

 

Well, thanks, BoV. Cops are human, just as the rest of us. And sometimes just because they make mistakes, does not make them bad cops. There was an instance where a cop pulled my wife over. He went through all the typical stuff like checking her DL and insurance and checked out the outside of her care. After all that, he said although she was doing nothing wrong, they were doing "spot checks in the area." Then he came to his point. "And I just wanted to get a better look at you," he said. After a moment of awkward silence, and her lack of any response, he just let her go. You never know.

 

Well, If she is really hot, you can't blame 'em!..... just kidding.... That guy is scumbag for doing that, let alone telling her so.

 

I think he's scum for doing it, though I think slightly better of him for admitting it.

As to Obama and the media, I'll agree that it's 99% media frenzy and about 1% Obama's statement, but that statement acted as the condensing factor for all that media hype. I'll agree that a simple "no comment" statement could have been just as bad, but I think a statement to the effect of "I haven't had a chance to review all the information on the topic yet, and as such I have avoided forming opinions. I think we in America today are often too quick to rush to judgment before facts have been considered, and I don't want to make that mistake" would have really shut them up.

 

@NOG

I think we'll just have to disagree then here too.

I don't have all the facts so it might be that the arrest was acceptable but to me it seems like he just could not take few insults from an cranky old man and chose to arrest him in order to protect his street cred, after not acting in a very polite fashion to the owner of the house, who then threw a needless tantrum to which the police officer answered with an even more needless arrest.

In any case since it seems that Obama has again brought peace to the land I think this issue has been settled and does not warrant any further discussion.

 

One of the things I'd really like answers to is how politely the police acted to begin with. The police report paints it as a very calm encounter on their end, but that's not 100% reliable. Gate's initial account paints a very different picture, but that's hardly reliable either, especially considering his confirmed actions.

I look at it this way. If Officer Crowly was polite and patient, yet cautious, as he should have been, Gate's arrest, though not 100% necessary, was entirely defendable. Sometimes people just need a reality check. If Officer Crowly was unnecessarily rude and aggresive to begin with, then Gate's actions, though inappropriate, were provoked and no 'reality check' was needed. In that case Officer Crowly needs whatever discipline the department usually uses for officers that act that way. I still don't think the arrest was legally faulty, but there it was inappropriate.

 

What do you make of the fact that the higher courts have already ruled that edit: this particular application of the law was unconstitutional? That does concern Crowley because to enforce the law you need to be informed about relevant case law about the laws constitutionality and relevant interpretation by the courts. Police officers are taught that.

The edit: application of the disorderly conduct law edit: on getting loud with police officers was judged unconstitutional. Do you like to see edit: law applied in an unconstitutional way? Or doesn't it matter all that much because it hit the right guy (this time)? Are you simply defensive about a cop because you, perhaps for good reason, dislike Gates? That's the impression I am getting.

You crack me up. He was arrested for making a disturbance by getting vocal with a cop. The reason why he was arrested was his tirade. Considering that the cases state that he could have even insulted Crowley in his tirade and not commit a criminal act - because the Massachusetts public disturbance law is unconstitutional - I find it hard to accept that Gates, for less offensive content, committed a public disturbance anyway.

And also, am I the only one to whom it occurred that Crowley probably set up Gates? When the tension after the initial confrontation eased, Gates got vocal, most certainly to the great annoyance of the cops. I wonder why Crowley asked Gates to step out of the house. I have a hunch: Ranting in your living room is arguably not a crime even under the more obscure laws in Massachusetts. By relocating the affair into the public, Crowley could arrest him for public disturbance if he persisted, and even have witnesses. For an annoying, obstinate and overbearing customer, a law professor to boot, a lesson from a sly cop?

edit: That would also explain why the charges against Gates were dropped. It wasn't because the police were trying to defuse the situation. It was because Gates had done nothing illegal.

 

Was the entire law judged unconstitutional and never re-written? Because what you posted seemed to deem unconstitutional a part of the law that wasn't there. I'm assuming it was edited and re-written so as to be constitutional, and was then applied.

To quote your own post:

As to the accusation that I dislike Gates, I know nothing about him except that he acted like an idiot. He may be a wonderful person, but I don't know and don't really care because it's not the issue at hand. I'm not here to judge his character, just his actions. If you've gotten another impression from my posts, I don't have any idea where you got it.

The part that was deemed unconstitutional was the part that specifically said you could be arrested for your speech. You can still be arrested for speech, but now it isn't the speech that gets you arrested, but the consequences thereof. If you rail against Bush (or Obama) in your bed room, or even in the police station, you can't be arrested for it. If you do so at an Anti-Bush (or Anti-Obama) rally that is on the verge of mob-hood already, you can be arrested for inciting a riot. It isn't the speech, but the setting, and the consequences, that make the crime. Gates wasn't breaking the law when he cussed out the police in his home, because it was private. He did break the law when he did it in public in such a way as to draw a crowd and alarm that crowd. This isn't a hard distinction to make.

Yes, Ragusa, you are the only one. Gates was asked to step out of the house before his identity was ascertained because any setting that the suspect is more familiar with than the police officer is dangerous to the police officer. Crowley didn't know where the knives where in that house, or where any guns may be. Gates, as the owner, most certainly did and, as a possible burgler who was already in the house, may have. It's standard procedure. You don't think it's telling that Crowley was leaving when Gates persisted to heap abuse on him?

 

NOG,
what part of that is it that you're not getting?

So I was being imprecise (and for that reason edited my previous post). Let me make it clear: Massachusetts disorderly conduct law in itself is not unconstitutional. The courts didn't declare the law unconstitutional. It is what disorderly conduct includes what they took issue with. The courts said that the law is being applied in an unconstitutional way when people who, say, direct angry, profanity-laced tirades against police officers, are arrested and charged for 'disorderly conduct'. This particular application violates the Massachusetts constitution, and Crowley, when applying it in that way on Gates, violated Gates rights.

I read that Crowley was an experienced officer and iirc even a trainer. Considering that the interpretation and application of disorderly conduct laws is an everyday aspect of his work, I expect him to be fully familiar with it. He knew perfectly well what he was doing.

So I stand with this: Considering that the cases state that he could have even insulted Crowley in his tirade and not commit a criminal act - it is disingenuous at best to assert that Gates, for less offensive content, committed a public disturbance anyway.

Gates did not commit disorderly conduct. If he was arrested for disorderly conduct anyway, then the arresting officer violated his rights.

PS: For those who're interested, an excerpt from Commonwealth v. Lopiano:

 

No, he's not. I think there was a bit of baiting on both sides.

That's your assumption. Ragusa researched and proved his point - you did neither. I don't expect you to research the law as carefully as Ragusa, since he is a lawyer, but in this instance you are only making assumptions against hard research. It would be interesting to see if you can find a court ruling or opinion that defines "free speech" as how you presonally envision it should be.

I think it's mildly ironic that you are making the same argument that the Iranian government is against the protestors in their own country.

 

I think everyone here realizes attorneys win cases by presenting their side of the argument very well -- often at the exclusion of an impartial presentation of the facts and relevant precidents.

A key factor excluded in Ragusa's arguments is the whole idea of "fighting words" which can make a big difference in how the courts look at a disorderly conduct case. The application of "fighting words" is is allowed in most states both to show disorderly conduct and as a defense (albeit, I think this entire thing is ridiculous). The repeated use of the term 'racist' may actually qualify.

 

T2 - Would we have had meaningful change in the 60s if the courts ruled against every black person who cried racist? I realize that you are in no way, shape or form a racist, but such a notion can provide cover for real racists. At least, that's how I see it.

 

Ragusa, thank you for the clarifying exerpt at the end. There's a huge difference between being arrested for your speech and being arrested for the consequences of your speech (such as inciting a riot, you don't have to tell people to be violent to be arrested for it, as I understand it), but if the legal determination clearly exempts any form of speech from that statute, then it's the speech that is the legal issue, not the consequences thereof.

I think there's a big difference between 'baiting' and a set-up.

I assumed it was so specifically because the law was still being applied, and because the current law, as I found it, was different from what Ragusa posted (thus showing it had been revised). It seems my assumption was correct, but the nature of the change needed more clarification from the ruling, which Ragusa applied. As to my envisioning of "free speech", I said at the time that I was only giving a rough principle, not the actual law.

And the same arguement that has been made against many rioters and those stirring up riots. The principle is sound. Simply because someone else can stretch it to ridiculous levels doesn't invalidate the idea that speech can be dangerous under certain circumstances.

Chandos, context is a wonderful thing. Thankfully, the courts can recognize it. A man standing in court and calmly saying a police officer acted with racist intent is not disturbing the peace. A man standing on a podium with a megaphone and a molotov coctail in front of a crowd of angry and armed people may be.

 

To some extent I agree Chandos -- but there is a difference between a person stating someone is racist and screaming it in there face, following them out the door and taunting them with the accusation. There are certainly contexts where a statement is simply a statement and others where the statement is intended to cause harm.

 

What are you people smoking?

I can think up many contexts, but this is about Gates. The idea that Gates, as he suggested the police was being racist towards him, wanted to cause harm doesn't persuade me. You probably err when you think that Gates was motivated by anything but his own, strongly felt grievance. And if he wasn't, that doesn't matter. Why?

Imagine the police did act in a racist way towards Gates. How do you expect Gates to express his being not pleased about it? How else, if not by vocally complaining, is a citizen to protest unjust treatment by the police?

By zipping it and filing a written complaint with the responsible authorities? Get real. According to your and NOG's standard, in such instances all reasonable citizens have to remember their autogenics, discipline their minds, suppress all emotion, take a deep breath, and tell the officer calmly but firmly that they are dissatisfied with the officers recent actions and intend to file a complaint, for which they need the name and ID of the officer, and by the way, how often again they have been tasered, just for the record. That's your responsible and cooperative American model citizen? I am painting this particularly stark, in order to drive down the point that it is borderline delusional to hold citizens to that standard.

While at it, mind that in civil law cases, and some criminal offences, non-protest is often seen as tacit consent or admission of guilt (with negative consequences for possible later litigation). Protest sends a signal that a line is being crossed. So, if there is police abuse, to demand non-protest from the citizen subjected to it, or to allow protest only under the narrow and restrictive criteria of what T2 and NOG feel is civilised and reasonable, only aggravates previous injustices. In the Bible injustice cries to heaven. But it is public disturbance to yell at an officer over real or perceived injustices?

When we are there, we can as well address the idea of an 'abstract danger' that Gates allegedly posed by accusing the police of racist conduct, in public. What if what the citizen says is true and there has been racist conduct? Is it then so that it must not be spoken out aloud anyway, because of some abstract danger? For all practical purposes, it means that police can be racist (or act criminally), and then arrest i.e. punish a citizen for complaining about it aloud - after all calling the police racist, even rightly so, diminishes its credibility and thus endangers citizens and policemen alike by causing people to resent it. That is a perverse result.

I am willing to take bets that this perverse result is what made the courts rule the application of disorderly conduct law on angry protest against police actions to be unconstitutional. They didn't accidentally invoke Massachusetts' constitution's Freedom of Speech clause. The clause has a purpose.

And then there is the silly notion of 'escalation potential' justifying Gates' arrest that has been floating around.

As far as context is concerned the courts are obviously way ahead of you. So, according to you, a man standing in court and calmly saying a police officer acted with racist intent is not disturbing the peace while a man standing on a podium with a megaphone and a Molotov cocktail in front of a crowd of angry and armed people may be.

Are you really so tone deaf that you cannot perceive the (very obvious and unmistakeable) difference between a man who is angry about recent police treatment, on his porch, and a revolutionary agitator with a megaphone and a Molotov cocktail on a podium in front of an angry, armed mob? A little reminder for you: There was no demonstration. There was no megaphone. There was no podium. There was no Molotov cocktail. There was no crowd, much less an armed crowd. And, let's add that, there was no danger either. What you say is basically that in another, completely different, case speech can be curtailed - which is, amazingly, utterly beside the case of Gates.

A man standing in court and calmly saying a police officer acted with racist intent is not disturbing the peace. A correct understanding of the court rulings suggests to add that a man yelling angry profanities at a policeman for perceived racism on a public square is not disturbing the peace either. Considering your reluctance, that appears to be a point that to accept must cause you physical pain.

All human interaction carries within the abstract danger of escalation. Speech is no exception. If one side says something or does something the other side doesn't like or finds otherwise offensive, things escalate. Easily. Don't we all know how quick someone, after a vocal exchange, can get a knife and stab someone? Aren't we all familiar with how easily a vocal tirade turns a peaceful vegetarian audience into a frenzied, cannibalistic mob that leaves cops dismembered, squad cars burning, neighbourhoods devastated and families mourning - and little puppies unfed? The logical conclusion is, accepting the premise that all human interaction carries within the risk of escalation, that, in order to prevent escalation, all human interaction in public (and considering the known risks of domestic violence, at home as well) is to be banned. And in order to not be sorry later, arrest everybody now.

Prevention of 'abstract dangers' and the stemming of 'escalation potentials', both in scope limited only by the imagination and/or paranoia of the people who formulate them, cast a very wide net. Again, why did the Massachusetts courts invoke the Freedom of Speech clause? Because under Massachusetts' constitution the web cast by applying public disturbance laws on protest against police treatment was a web cast too wide.

 

...[/Rant]

Ragusa -- I simply disagree with you. Making things personal never helps in arguments. Many of the things you state may be correct, but they are the wrong thing for people to do. In an ideal world people would be able to state whatever they want without fear -- but I live in the real world. Most police are level headed and understand when they show up people are usually on edge (for a variety of reasons) -- every now and then you get the police officer who should not really be on the job.

It is not clear that either man committed a crime. To me the evidence points more to Gates, to you it points to Crowley -- your comments on the case appear to be based on your beliefs and the arguments are solely to support your perspective (which is normal in any argument). I believe, if you chose to prosecute rather than defend, you could find precidents which supported Crowley; even in the case you presented. The decision to dismiss the charges appeared more political than legal to me -- often charges are dismissed based on public opinion in visible, but rather minor, cases.

Arguing with the police and creating a disturbance in response to a perceived wrong is dangerous for many of the reasons you state. You seem to be advocating that people can and should do such things -- I believe people should be able to do this, but I also believe it to be an ill-advised course of action. But feel free to follow your own advice....