Crowley vs. Gates

Remove all ads!

Gates arrest them? Yeah, right. The day he swears in and pledges his life and honor to protect and serve I will turn into a pumpkin. He is entitled to sue them, if he wants to pursue the matter, but I highly doubt anything would ever come of it.

It doesn't matter how long something takes to "sink in", you don't get aggressive with the police. Period. Especially when they are leaving. That's just plan old stupid, no matter how you look at it. The police are trained to make judgement calls in the heat of it and if they think someone is breaking the law, they are fully within their right to make the arrest or detain the suspect. If their superiors think otherwise or think the situation is now in control, they will let the arrested/detainee go, as was the case. I'll reiterate, that is just basic, everyday police work.

 

I think you missed Rag's point. He was saying that Gates has no recourse in such a situation. Needless to say, I agree with Rags here - the police are the ones who need to take the high road. They ARE the ones who took an oath to honor, protect, and serve, and in this case failed miserably by arresting someone who committed no crime (and it was obvious that he didn't commit a crime because they had already established his identity at the time of his arrest). The police "acted stupidly".

 

Just saw this:

"Street cred" is exactly what I'm talking about. Once the police have a reputation of lacking authority the crime rate increases, the indcidents of open defiance increase, and the job of the police officer gets much more dangerous. 'Disorderly conduct' is a valid criminal charge and is specifically applied to those who question (or openly defy) the authority of the police. The law is there for a very specific reason and that is to ensure the authority of the police is absolute. Period.

A police force cannot allow citizens to openly question their authority when on duty. There is a time and a place to question an officer's actions -- publically, while investigating a 911 report, is NOT one of those times.

Gates was justified in being agitated. He may have been justified in mouthing off to the officer in his home. But he was NOT justified in taking his argument out the door and making it public in that forum. Gates, especially given his background, should have known better -- and he should have known what to expect next (perhaps he did).

An excellent article was published in the Chicago Sun-Times.

 

You entirely miss the point. Gates personality is not what this is about.

Gates as a normal citizen was not in a position to do anything against the police when they arrested him. When the cops want to arrest you, wrongly, you do have the choice to suck it up and litigate, or to fight it out and risk getting beat up, or tasered or shot or any other variety of 'having been subdued'. That is not a trivial matter.

My point is that police exercises state power. As far as power is concerned, Gates is in a weaker position, and that is why police is bound to rules. It is absolutely legitimate to question whether the police stuck to the rules or overreacted. That is so because any police overreaction is a violation of citizen rights, and we don't want the police to violate rights in the West. That's what we so much like to bemoan, say, in Iran. You may want to re-read my post in light of these not particularly hidden revelations.

 

Some people feel that verbally abusing an officer is a verbal assault, and assault is a crime. So is rabble rousing, if Gates was encouraging the crowd to turn on the police.

I don't think that police have to "suck it up" in such situations. God knows they risk their lives, why should they put up with some jackass calling them racists when they were only doing their jobs. Police are not there to be whipping boys every time someone decides to throw a hissy fit.

Gates' rights were not infringed, so he's got nothing to complain about.

 

I'll have to agree with Ragusa here. There was no harm or threat to the police. The police is there to protect and serve as they say, to serve law abiding citizen, this man in question was a law abding citizen and the officer should have apologized and leaved and sucked up the verbal abuse. The police made the initial mistake here, not mr. Gates. The police are not out there to arrest people who get on their nerves or just annoy them, when they actually disturb their work, then they'll have the right to make the arrest but not before. I haven't read all the details so if Gates followed the officer say a 100 meters from his yard or tried to physically prevent the police from leaving then the arrest was the right call to make, otherwise I'll have to disagree with what he did and hope that he was atleast verbally reprimanded for his actions.

 

Now it becomes a matter of free speech. Don't forget that the police were on HIS property. Now he can't even speak his mind while in his own frontyard? What is this? Iran?

 

I agree with this for the most part. In evaluating police actions in general it becomes obvious that, in any given situation, the police will come out as the immediate victors. This is the way it has to be and Gates should know this (he's a smart guy and this is his specialty).

The police, on the other hand, should realize that when a he said/she said type of argument sits before a judge a well respected Harvard professor (and one of the 25 most influencial men in America) is going to carry a hell of lot more weight than an 11 year veteran. Not much thought was given to the arrest, it was simply a response to a situation (and a normal response at that -- the arrest was not unusual, but the person arrested was).

Had the person arrested been an average, middle-class, male of any ethic background, there would be a trial on the charges (which would stick) if the police chose to press the issue (they are often dropped if the person is contrite). That's because, in most cases, this was not an overreaction by the police -- it is standard procedure to detain in disorderly conduct situations. Yes, the police take an "oath to honor, protect, and serve" but their authority must be absolute in order to fulfill that oath effectively.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that. The police pressing charges, would have brought a counter suit, of false arrest and illegal detention. Maybe one of SPs lawyers would know better. My dad claims that when he performed a "get even" arrest (disguised as disorderly conduct) he never pressed charges. He just took the offender (contempt of cop) for a ride downtown.

 

The police were on his property to PROTECT his property, hence the response to the 911 call. They did not intrude. I do feel the whole situation was very unfortunate and could of been avoided, but most if not all of the blame is on Gates, not the cops. Even if you don't like the arrest, it was still justifiable. It is a judgement call on Crowley's part and he didn't have to arrest him, but he did without breaking a law and with a valid reason. The more I think about this instance, if I was a cop who responded to this type of call and as an upstanding member of the community and one who protects and serves with distinction, as is the case with Crowley, then encountered a belligerant and uncooperable man(regardless of race), I see how he made the arrest. He was there to protect the fella's life/possessions/whatever and that is how he is treated? With disdain and accusations of racism? Especially after there was a resolution and the police were leaving. Crowley asked the questions and followed the procedures he is trained to do. If Gates didn't like it, he should, as a educated man, realized his complaints should not be aimed at Crowley, but at police porcedure itself. Which should be brought up in another forum, not publicly dressing down a cop. Having the right of Freedom of Speech is one thing, abusing it is another. That is not what our forefathers intended. I have no problem with the advocation for Freedom of Speech, but there is a line and Gates definitely crossed it. Hence, the arrest for disorderly. Man, this one makes my brain hurt!

 

That's a decision that Gates would make. It's his property. While I agree that I would want the police to check out a 911 call regarding my property, I would not want some cop hassling me in my own yard if I'm going about my lawful business. Anybody can make a phone call, and be wrong about the info they are giving. In this case the caller had more sense the police.

In fact, the police did absolutely nothing to protect Gates from the previous break-in and instead, come and arrest the homeowner. Maybe the real crooks can return while Gates is down at the station.

 

Yelling at a police officer from your front porch and calling him a racist is protected speech. Attempting to incite the crowd to commit some act of violence against the police (or anyone else for that matter) is most assuredly NOT protected speech and is absolutely a criminal act. However, there is no indication that Gates did the latter of those two things.

I'm not sure I agree with this. While neither of us can know for sure what the forefathers exactly intended, I would think that the right to speak out against figure(s) of authority is EXACTLY the kind of speech that our forefathers wanted to protect. And if you look at it that way, then Gates didn't cross the line. There is nothing in the Constitution where freedom of speech is limited to just speech against the government. Further, in case law, instances where speech has been restricted the courts have been very explicit that such speech is restricted only in certain very defined parameters.

Of course, I cannot read Jefferson's, Hamilton's, et. al.'s mind, so perhaps that isn't what they intended. But if we just go by what was written and how courts have ruled on such cases historically, there's nothing obvious to suggest such.

 

Well, we will find out if a lawsuit from Gates ensues. But I believe, if there was going to be a lawsuit, it would of been leaked via the media by now. If there is no lawsuit, the little devil on my shoulder is telling me it's because the cops didn't break the law or violate his rights. If they did, I'm sure he would be suing the pants off of them.

But I will also say that if there is a lawsuit and Gates is found to have had his rights violated by the cops, I would not cry out against it. I respect the law and our courts, as what they stand for is very core to my personal beliefs. But I will also still hold great respect for officer Crowley and all the good cops across our nation, as they have a job that seems to me to have more and more unnecessary obstacles thrown in their path while trying to do what is right and provide safety and comfort for all.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 52 seconds later... ----------

"Lawful business", That's the rub isn't it. I think it's readily apparent that Crowley and the other officers thought he wasn't once he started his tirade in public.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The police do not need to be respected by the populace, and hurling insults at them, even in public, even in front of a crowd, is not a legal offence. On the other hand, if doing so rises to the level of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, it is the officer's discression whether or not to arrest you (unless it rises to the point of seriously causing trouble, such as riots, in which case it's their job to arrest you). Per Massachusetts law:

Now, I haven't seen tapes of him coming out or anything, but he may have caused a "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" and it sounds like he may have "engaged in threatening behavior", all without "legitimate purpose". As I've said, I'd want a more detailed report of what happened outside the house to be sure, but it sounds like he may have warranted that arrest.

Ok, I'm confused now. I've been talking about this particular case the whole time, but it sounds like you may be talking more about principle, in which case we may be talking about two completely different situations.


EDIT:
After reading the police report, it seems their claims of Mr. Gates's actions do meet the Massachusetts definition of Disorderly Conduct, which he was warned of twice. If Gates's claim of what happened is substantially different, I'd really like to see any sort of video recording, though I'm thinking I'd be more likely to believe the cops than Gates under the circumstances.

 

I very much doubt there will be anything whether it's video or pictures that we haven't already seen on this other than the police report and the story's of Gates and the officers present. But that little bit about the MA law on what constitutes Disorderly Conduct is very interesting. Seems to me Crowley was in his rights to arrests Gates. The police log backs that up.

 

In this case there was absolutely no reason to actually take him to the station if all they were trying to do was get him to calm down. I said earlier that there must have been a better way for the police to deal with this, and here it is. Since he calmed down as soon as they put the cuffs on they could have easily then taken him aside, spoken to him calmly now that he had calmed down, removed the cuffs, bid him a good night and gone off. I think it telling that they didn't do this and instead decided to take the arrest all the way through. If this was only about preserving their authority and making sure Gates ceased shouting then that's where everything should have ended.

 

You could be and are probably right there Ziad. The one thing I would like to know is what are the procedures for the Cambridge police in that instance. Once cuffed, is it department policy to bring him in? Is it MA law that insures that the cops have to bring him in? Are they allowed to or is it against department policy to let him go, once the process reaches the cuffing stage? Those little details can explain alot about the actions of the arresting officers and shed more light on the situation. These are the little details that get lost in the media hoopla....

 

While we are all trying to hash this out, Gates and Crowley are getting ready for their "beer summit" at the White House. Man, if I'd only known that yelling at a cop would get me an invite to the WH and a beer with the Prez....