Being a "black man in America" does not grant you the right to be obnoxious.
What a hullabaloo at Harvard! You would have thought the People's Republic of Cambridge in 2009 was the Deep South in 1959.
On July 16th, Harvard University Professor and literary critic Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his residence near the Ivy League School for disorderly conduct. His arrest followed a call to Cambridge Police reporting a break-in at Gates' home by two African-American males.
It turned out that Professor Gates, who had just returned from China filming a documentary for PBS, was having trouble entering his own home. The front door had somehow been damaged while he was out of the country. By the time Gates was able to access his home Cambridge Police turned up on the scene. What happened from that point is in dispute. Gates, through his attorney and Harvard colleague Charles Ogletree, said one thing. However, Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report. Gates contends Crowley refused to give him identification, while Crowley contends it was Gates who refused to provide identification by stating, "Why, because I'm a black man in America." Crowley also notes that Gates accused him of being "a racist police officer" and that "he wasn't someone to mess with."
Well, Gates was apparently correct about his latter statement. On July 21st, the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department issued a joint statement requesting the Middlesex County District Attorney not proceed with criminal charges and described the incident as "regrettable and unfortunate."
Apparently, the threat of the Reverend Al Sharpton being in attendance for Gates' arraignment was enough for the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department to back off. Sharpton said, "This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen."
But Gates himself makes Sharpton look conciliatory by comparison. In an interview Gates conducted with The Washington Post after the disposition of the incident, he said of Crowley, "This guy had this whole narrative in his head. Black guy breaking and entering." Gates went on to say that Crowley "should look into his soul and he should apologize to me." As for his future plans, Gates says he wants "to make a documentary about racial profiling for PBS." Gates also told The Boston Globe that Crowley is a "disturbed person" with a "broad imagination" but was willing to forgive him with certain conditions:
If he apologizes sincerely, I am willing to forgive him. And if he admits his error, I am willing to educate him about the history of racism in America and the issue of racial profiling . . . That's what I do for a living.
Quite frankly, Crowley doesn't need any favors from Gates much less a lesson in tolerance. If anything, it is Gates who should apologize to Crowley. Unfortunately, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department as well as the City of Cambridge could face a lawsuit from Gates. There could also be demands that Crowley and the other officers on the scene face disciplinary action.
If it comes to that then one must ask why we have police departments in the first place. What should Lucia Whalen have done when she saw this suspicious behavior? Should she have minded her own business? She could have chosen that path but she contacted the authorities instead.
Once that call is made an officer or officers are dispatched to the scene to investigate the situation. When the police respond to a situation they never know what they might find. They could find absolutely nothing. They could find themselves at the wrong end of a gun. They could also find themselves in a situation where things aren't what they seem and there is a genuine misunderstanding. That is the situation in which Sgt. Crowley found himself last Thursday afternoon.
Crowley investigated the situation and determined that Gates was in fact not breaking and entering. That should have been the end of it. But Gates instead escalated the situation, following Crowley outside to further the confrontation, and engaged in disorderly behavior. Gates was warned about his unruly behavior and refused to comply with Crowley's repeated instructions to calm down. He was placed under arrest. Is the law not applicable to Professor Gates? Is Henry Louis Gates, Jr. above the law?
The most ridiculous aspect of this entire episode is the notion that Crowley racially profiled Gates. When a member of the public calls 911 to report a crime in progress it is usually helpful to the authorities if they know who they are looking for. If the caller doesn't know the identity of the person allegedly committing a crime a general description of the person will have to do. How tall? What kind of build? What clothes is the person wearing? Are they male or female? And yes, the person's skin color. That Gates would accuse Crowley of having a "narrative" of a "black guy breaking and entering" demonstrates he doesn't have a clue of what is involved in law enforcement.
Instead of Professor Gates educating Sgt. Crowley about the history of racism in America and the issue of racial profiling, Sgt. Crowley should educate Professor Gates about what it is like to be a police officer and what it is to risk one's life to protect the public each and every day. That's what Sgt. Crowley does for a living.
Sounds about right. I don't know the exact sequence of events, and the recollections are likely not to be identical. But it sounds like Gates made an ass of himself.
Speaking personally, I maintain that this is also a story of elitism. Can you imagine if Gates were an adjunct professor, or a security guard, at Harvard? There would be no front page article, no statement from an attorney (why would an adjunct have an attorney, unless he's getting divorced?). There would be no sympathetic statement for a colleague, since neither the colleague nor the person who was breaking in are important people. And Al Sharpton (tireless advocate of the little guy) would have better things to do than to fly in for an arraignment.
And doesn't social justice mean that all people are treated the same under the law? What a great theory!
I lived in the same apartment building with a Harvard professor (white man) who was self-entitlement personified, though he was just one example.
"From a colleague." Sorry.
Picture this: next September, Gates is in China again and an African-American person breaks into his home. A neighbor hears commotion, sees an unfamiliar face through the window and makes a call to the police, but, wary of accusations of racism, declines to give a description. When the police arrive, the burgler escapes while Officer Crowley is apprehending a suspicious looking caucasian.
Thank goodness this English professor is off the streets. Still, I can't sleep easily knowing that thousands more remain at large.
Godspeed, Sgt. Crowley. Do be careful.
Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report…
And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports.
What sort of idiot does it take to be slow to offer identification after breaking (even for a good cause) a door open? Is Gates so completely unable to place himself in the officer's shoes that any request for ID is taken as an insult, and a racial one at that? All the officer knew is that there was a possible break-in in progress. Of course he needs ID, and of course he's going to be in a you-do-what-I-say mode.
I guess Gates thinks so much of himself that he thought the officer should have recognized the "famous" Henry Gates, who 99.99999% of America has never heard of until now.
His subsequent arrest may have been excessive, but I observe that if he'd readily supplied ID and cooperated with the officer, it would never have happened. This is just basic common sense.
Obama, admittedly not knowing all the facts, apparently knew enough to comment that the Cambridge police 'acted stupidly.'
Is this why he selects someone who has said repeatedly over the years that a wise Latina woman will come to a better judgment than a white male? Is this an example of how 'empathy' is going to play out now in our supreme court?
Judging by his knee jerk untelepromptered and revealing gush, he really did listen to sermons by his mentor and pastor Rev Wright over those years.
Bondholders got fleeced in order to benefit unions with the auto company nationalizations and now he tries to squash an honest hard working cop, involved with his community, because he messed with the wrong person.
If Crowley worked for ACORN instead of coaching youth sports he'd have gotten the same favorable treatment as the thugs with the weapons outside a Philadelphia polling location.
It's all about what side you're on now; it's certainly not about the truth, justice or the rule of law.
God help us.
Cronyism. If any word should lastingly stick to Obama, it's that one.
Never.
Let me see. We have an actual issue with actual facts, which some people have chosen to dismiss by pointing to other officers in other situations acting inappropriately. Which means, I guess, we can now dismiss what any scientist says about X by pointing to other scientists who falsify their individual studies. Just trying to be consistent in applying this logic to other situations.
The arresting officer taught courses in racial profiling (as in, how not to do it). POTUS has weighed in with his opinion that said officer acted “stupidly” without knowing the actual facts (a minor detail it seems, like knowing what’s in his own health care bill). And to point these two facts out, and slime the arresting officer’s integrity, we simply need to point to some City of Chicago police officers filing false reports, or a Philadelphia cop behaving badly, because Cambridge police officers are just like Chicago and Philadelphia cops, all of whom are corrupt don’t ya know.
So don’t argue the issue of what actually happened. Just point to other police departments and other arresting officers to make the case that there’s obviously something rotten in Cambridge. It’s so much easier to make your case this way.
For those actually interested in the details of the case, here’s what’s actually happening in this case, at the present time. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090724911_police_tapes_key_in_gates_case_officials_mull_release_of_recorded_evidence/srvc=home&position=0
Mounting pressure to get to the bottom of the controversial arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. is centering on recorded police tapes that may offer a dose of reality amid all the media and political noise.
Cambridge police brass and lawyers are weighing making the tapes public, which could include the 911 call reporting a break-in at Gates’ home and radio transmissions by the cop who busted him July 16 for disorderly conduct.
“It’s powerful evidence because the (people involved) have not had a chance to reflect and you are getting their state of mind captured on tape,” said former prosecutor and New York City police officer Eugene O’Donnell, who is now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas said last night he has asked City Solicitor Donald Drisdell to review the 911 tape, which has the potential to either bolster or impugn Gates’ stance that he is a blameless victim of racial profiling at his own home.
Further, Sgt. James Crowley noted in his report that he radioed police headquarters to let them know he was with the person who appeared to be the home’s lawful resident, but who was “very uncooperative.”
Upon receiving Gates’ Harvard ID, Crowley wrote he radioed in to request “the presence of the Harvard University Police.”
In a radio interview yesterday morning with WEEI’s John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, Crowley, a 42-year-old father of three, said he hasn’t heard the tapes.
“One of my first transmissions was to slow the units down and I’m in the residence with somebody I believe resides here, but he’s being very uncooperative. So, that’s in real time,” Crowley told the sports-talk hosts.
“I’m not really sure how much you could hear from Professor Gates, you know, in the background. I, I don’t know. I haven’t heard the tapes.”
Haas did not share with reporters what can be heard on the tapes, but commented, “I don’t believe Sgt. Crowley acted with any racial motivation at all.”
Gates, 58, a world-renowned scholar and documentary filmmaker on black history, allegedly ranted to police at his Ware Street home, “This is what happens to black men in America!” and “You don’t know who you’re messing with!” in addition to verbally dragging Crowley’s mother into the fray.
“More often than not,” O’Donnell said, “as the facts come out, they are more favorable to the cop. It’s crucial in the sense that it provides independent evidence. There is no question it provides corroboration. He called the tapes potentially “crucial” to Crowley’s ability to defend himself against charges of racism.
Attorney Stuart London, who has defended countless cops in high-profile cases, including one of the NYPD officers charged in the 1998 beating and plunger torture of Abner Louima in 1998, said, “If (the officer is dealing) with someone who is not being cooperative and is unruly, (the tape) gives you more insight into the state of mind of the officer. That’s the most important part.”
“I don’t believe this officer did anything wrong, and given what we know, I don’t think he would be afraid to share the tapes at all, either,” said Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. “It’s public record. From dispatch to conclusion, it’s all on tape”
Of course, none of this matters to someone who judges the actions of an individual Cambridge police officer by what rogue Chicago and Philadelphia police officers do.
I’m willing to wait to see what’s on the tape before offering a judgment about the officer’s actions. And if it turns out the Harvard professor is indeed wrong, I won’t use that example to smear all other academics.
Dr. Jackson,
I'm not going to waffle from what I said before, but rather pose this thought: as I indicated in my post, I suspect a higher incidence of "self-entitlement" to Harvard professors than may be found in the general population. (It may be not that they feel more entitled than do "average" people, but that when they do feel entitled, they tend to be accommodated.) Someone else implies that police misreporting is acceptable to many police officers. Even if one or both of these is correct, it would be foolish to prefer these to solid information, as you note.
Would you agree though that generalizations can be valid if (a) they have been arrived at through some quantity of examples (in other words, are generally true) and (b) the person holding that view recognizes it as a generalization and is aware that his conclusions might need to be adjusted accordingly?
Suppose you had collected all of the available evidence and you still couldn't determine which party was in the wrong. The only tool left to be used is bias. If the bias has a basis in fact, the most intelligent option is to decide based on your bias.
Ruminator:
Some of the biggest a-holes I know are Ph.D.’s, so you’ll get no disagreement from me on your first point.
I am prepared to offer the following generalization that generalizations can indeed be valid — as long as one recognizes them as generalizations that can be refuted by specific facts when a specific case is being discussed, and when the generalized thoughts of the generalized statements are put in their proper context. “Most terrorists are Muslims” is a defensible generalization; while “most Muslims are terrorists” is not.
Living life is not possible without making generalized associations. If I see a dozen 15 year old girls approaching me in a dark ally, I do not have the same generalized response as I would if it was a dozen 15 year old boys. If the boys are dressed in scout uniforms, my generalized reaction is different than if they are wearing wife-beater shirts and have chains hanging from their belts. If the scouts are black I feel more secure than if the hoodlum-looking teens are white.
The issues in this particular case are threefold, as I see it.
1. Does Obama have any business offering a definitive judgment about the actions of the individual officer in question, given that he admits he doesn’t know the details of the case? No. To justify his remarks by pointing to the actions of rogue officers in other states is ridiculous.
2. Who acted inappropriately in this specific case — the officer or the homeowner? There’s not enough information available for me to offer a conclusion, but from what I’ve read and seen on TV, and understand about the officer’s background (vs., say, the Oklahoma cop who choked the paramedic and has a record of complaints filed against him), I’m unwilling to “generalize” that the cop is wrong. To invoke the actions of rogue officers in other states to offer a generalized point of view on this matter is ridiculous.
3. Are there generalized comments we can make about this incident (not the details, but the hulabaloo surrounding it)? Yes. There’s a tendency for certain people with certain political agendas (like POTUS and other commentators) to ignore, downplay, or disregard the actual facts of the case), and immediately launch into a condemnation-by-generalized-association of the officer’s actions. This, in fact, is what Mr. Goldstein’s article pointed out in the first place.
The problem with the thought that “Would you agree though that generalizations can be valid if (a) they have been arrived at through some quantity of examples (in other words, are generally true) and (b) the person holding that view recognizes it as a generalization and is aware that his conclusions might need to be adjusted accordingly?” is that (a), the “other examples” are usually generalizations about generalizations, particularly when a specific issue is being debated that should stand or fall on its own merits, and (b) people who offer generalizations as a substitute for addressing specific the facts of a case are unlikely to adjust their generalizations in light of new evidence. Instead, they simply repeat the generalization again, or offer new links other generalizations to debate the issue.
Ruminator: Re. your point #12. You've just given a practical definition of "common sense". The key phrase, though, is "Suppose you had collected all of the available evidence …", vs. beginning with a conclusion and working backwards.
I don't necessarily disagree with your judgment about Gates. Further, I even have my suspicions about what motivated him (his innate arrogance, or a wider political agenda). I'm just not prepared to link to, say, the plagerism, academic fraud and false accusations of Ward Churchill to support my case, which is something other commentators (not you) have done.
"(b) people who offer generalizations as a substitute for addressing specific the facts of a case are unlikely to adjust their generalizations in light of new evidence."
This is a generalization. But I'm not saying it is not generally true.
Ah, Dr. Jackson. Back so soon? Hope you enjoyed your vacation!
As the article you cited notes, "the 911 tape… has the potential to either bolster or impugn Gates…" We don't actually have the tapes yet, so we'll have to see what they say. We do have what appears to be the actual police report: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates2.html (The link in the article above never worked for me.)
Even assuming it's 100% accurate, it gives a solid picture. Gates was rude and uncooperative… but did provide identification and it was clearly established that he was in his own home. The officer decided to arrest him anyway, 'acting stupidly'. That's not to say that Gates behaved well – there's plenty of stupid to go around – but the officer clearly overreacted.
There's no evidence in the police report that Gates posed any threat to the officer or the onlookers. There's no allegation of physical threats on his part – just a rude, angry tirade. And I'm sorry, but police don't get to arrest someone just because they think they're being an a**hole. Even based on the report, the arrest was purely retaliatory.
Oh, and by linking to many other cases of police filing false reports in the past, I wasn't claiming that meant that this report is automatically false. I was pointing out that it's hardly unthinkable that it could be. Scientists, too, falsify research (here's an example from just a couple days ago) but that's why studies need to be repeated and verified. And sadly, police testimony can't be automatically trusted, especially when the situation gets politicized.
What's interesting here is that even the police report doesn't justify the arrest. That doesn't mean that the officer is racially biased – he may just have his own sense of entitlement from being a police officer. Frankly, that seems to be a much more plausible motivation than race from what I've seen of this case.
Ruminator: I said that generalizations are acceptable, if they are about generalizations. You just can't offer conclusive judgments about specific cases by citing generalizations.
This is the sum total of Raymond’s comments before I offered mine.
“Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
I rest my case.
You CAN be arrested for being an a-hole.. it's called disorderly conduct, which was Gate's charge:
"A disorderly person is defined as one who:
- with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
- recklessly creates a risk thereof
- engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
- creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Conviction for Disorderly conduct in MA can be punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months.
Disturbing the peace also falls under Chapter 272, with similar penalties. Some Massachusetts towns also have specific ordinances relating to disturbing the peace."
LI Mike – And you know Gate's "purpose" was "to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm", or that there was "a risk thereof"… how? The report doesn't substantiate that. At most – again assuming the police report is entirely accurate – Gates intended to cause 'inconvenience' or 'annoyance' to the officer, not the public. The report claims Gates behaved in a "tumultuous manner", but offers no evidence for it. All the officer reports is that "Gates continued to yell at me". That, by itself, isn't 'tumultuous'. We'll have to see what's "on the tape" for that – though even the officer apparently isn't all that sure what's there.
'Being a "black man in America" does not grant you the right to be obnoxious.' Being an American, on the other hand – within very broad limits, of course – does.
(Oh, and Dr. Jackson – what am I charged with?)
>(Oh, and Dr. Jackson – what am I charged with?)
The usual. Your entire analysis before my comments consisted of two links to other activities of other police in other cities.
Once I point this out, you now delineate what you supposedly were (and weren't) claiming when you limited your entire commentary to what other police in other cities did at other times.
By your links alone we should have all intrinsically known that you thought that:
> “We don't actually have the tapes yet, so we'll have to see what they say.” And,
> “That's not to say that Gates behaved well – there's plenty of stupid to go around …” And,
> And by citing Goldstein’ comment “Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report…” and then saying “And, of course, police never ever file false incidence reports”, we should all have known that “I wasn't claiming that meant that this report is automatically false.”
Only when I point out the silliness of a comment stream that consists entirely of two links to unrelated activities by other police in other cities do you back peddle and claim that what you really meant to convey by this was bla bla bla.
Once again, the limitations of a real conversation with you are plainly evident.
There was a crowd gathering, he was repeatedly asked to calm down but it seems that Gates was trying to incite those gathering with his 'this is what happens' rantics. He wasn't speaking to the officer, he was clearly attempting to incite 'the public.'
What difference does it make if I'm speeding 5 miles over the limit, and the cop doesn't like me for some reason? Don't break the law and you'll have no problems. Who cares what Crowley's motivation was?
And the charges were dropped on Tuesday.
If my son had done what Gates did in some fashion, I'd be sending coffee and donuts to the precinct.
opps – antics, or rantings – take your pick
LI Mike: Just link to another case where someone was arrested for Disorderly Conduct and the issue will be settled. And if anyone challenges your scholarship, retroactively list the things you obviously meant to imply by providing that link to blunt the criticisms of your observations. That should put the subject to rest.
Dr. Jackson – At first, I only commented on one point of Mr. Goldstein's article. I don't expect anyone else to conclude from that my opinion on any other part, nor did I ask anyone to. If I thought you were telepathic I wouldn't have bothered to explicitly lay out my opinion on other aspects later.
Regarding those initial comments – the only thing I'd expect you to conclude from my examples of other police reports that turned out to be false was… that false police reports exist, and indeed are far more common than they should be. Pointing out that police reports aren't automatically true is not the same thing as claiming they are universally false. Goldstein's analysis, however, seems to proceed entirely on the basis of the officer's version of the story.
Perhaps I was too elliptical… or at least, given how many words get shoved in my mouth around here, perhaps I should have known better. All kinds of interesting positions get assigned to me that I never claimed or stated. Ah, well.
Oh, and LI Mike: In the report, the officer doesn't claim Gates was addressing the crowd, he says Gates was yelling "at me". And so far as the reports I can find indicate, the "this is what happens" bit came after he was arrested, no?
"Who cares what Crowley's motivation was?" The law you cited does. I quoted that part specifically to you.
All this is, of course, ignoring the point that 'disorderly conduct' charges are much harder to press on someone who's acting in their own home and their own front yard. People have a lot more legal latitude on their own property than, say, on public grounds.
This is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine.
“Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
Now, having offered my comments, Raymond wants to retroactively tell us what he really implied by giving us two links, so as to respond/refute what I actually said about the subject.
It's an interesting approach. Say nothing of substance, and when challenged, offer the substance we all should have intrinsically understood from the non-substantive comments.
I rest my case.
I can't believe I typed this all out – no pasting of a pdf of a police report.
Raymond – have you read the police report?
From Crowley’s report:
As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied ‘no I will not,’ He then demanded to know who I was. I told him I was Sgt Crowley from the Cambridge Police’ and that I was ‘investigating a report of a break in progress’ at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, ‘why, because I’m a black man in America?’ I then asked him if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number (he goes on to explain Gates was making a call to someone and telling that person he was being harassed by a racist police officer, get the chief, what’s his name, etc).
He finally gets Gates’ photo ID, prepares to leave, sees Officer Figueroa show up, Gates asks again for his name which he gives him again, and he’s leaving and they can speak outside if he has any other questions, then the ‘I’ll speak with your mama’ line, and at that point other officers from Cambridge and Harvard show up as Crowley is now outside and there are at least 7 others plus the woman who made the 911 call as well as the police.
Gates is still going on with his tirade, still outside – racial bias, he’s not heard the last from him.
Crowley then states that because of his tumultuous behavior inside the house, and now outside, in view of the public, he warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignores, the police and citizens gathered seem alarmed by his behavior, he’s warned a second time, ignored and continues to yell, then he’s placed under arrest.
Officer Carlos Figueroa’s report:
He arrives as Crowley is already in the house asking Gates for ID and Gates stated, ‘NO I WILL NOT!’ The gentleman was shouting out to the Sgt that the Sgt was a racist and yelled that ‘THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!’ As the Sgt was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted, ‘You don’t know who you’re messing with!’
He gets a statement from the reporting person, returns and there are now a group of onlookers. The Sgt and the gentleman are now on the porch and again he was shouting, now to the onlookers, ‘THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!’ The gentleman refused to listen to why the Cambridge Police were there. While on the porch the gentleman refused to be cooperative and continued shouting that the Sgt is a racist police officer.
I don't disagree with the difficulty in getting a conviction for disorderly conduct. Police though are hit with situations and have to make calls. They didn't shoot the guy, or harm him physically. They helped him with arrangements to make sure his door would lock, went in and got his cane, etc.
Gates lost his mind and I suppose the cops could have said, 'have a nice day' and left him there barking on his porch.
No argument – it certainly could have been handled that way and a lawyer could probably get the guy off easily as well.
I think anyone treating a situation as did Gates could have been arrested though. It's not like it's clearly an abuse of power, and it certainly doesn't appear to be racist.
Phil,
Welcome back.
Don't get back into a p*ss*ng match with Mr. Ingles. He has already embarked upon his modus operandi of making a point that he subesequently parses away until it is unrecognizable.
He is still wondering why people call him dishonest, by the way.
MM: Naw, nothing to worry about here. I can cite Raymond's own words and rest my case.
Of course, we can all just start linking to dishonest scientists every time he makes a point to refute what he says, following the example he's provided above.
Either way, it doesn't require writing a lot of comments that he'll just ignore anyway.
Thanks Raymond Ingles for the link to Police report. I get the feeling that Gates was calmer and more communicative immediately following the arrest than he was in the minutes leading up to it. If true, this is surprising, unless he intended to get arrested.
I wonder when the extreme political polarity and required logic contortions are going to backfire for Obama.
Before his back pedaling last night on ‘the Cambridge police acted stupidly,’ if you read the MSM accounts, talked to your stupid neighbors, you got the impression the white police came close to tasering a poor old Gates inside his own home for disrespect, that this is an ongoing racist factor in our country, and we’re so very fortunate to have a wise and uniquely qualified man in the White House.
He certainly did cut the legs out from under all those who were defending him and maligning white cops with his statement last night, at least on the basis of the actual events of the arrest – he betrayed his defenders. Just prior to his reversal, he had information going out that the motivation behind the police across the country coming to Crowley’s defense was politically motivated – they endorsed McCain!
I suppose now he’ll get press and defenders saying he rose above it all, is bringing healing to the nation even while in the midst of rescuing us from (blah blah blah yakity shmakity).
Gates Gate – the alternate ending
An officer arriving at the scene of the burglary call, discovered two men inside the back door, which showed signs of having been broken open.
Upon asking the men what they were doing there and if they had identification, one of the men claimed to be the owner of the home. When the officer, Sgt. James Crowley, insisted on ID that showed the address of the home, the man, who was black, began calling the officer, who is white, a “racist.”
The officer maintained that he was doing his job and was there to protect the property and homeowner, but the black man began insulting the officer and the officer’s mother.
Seeing the man was upset and fearing a formal complaint of racial profiling and a potential public statement from Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson, the officer backed down, apologized for the intrusion and left the scene.
Two days later, professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the owner of the home returned from a trip to China to find his home burglarized, many of his personal items, some very valuable and irreplaceable, gone.
Professor Gates called the Cambridge Police Department to report the crime, learning that police had responded to the burglary two days prior. It was explained that because the suspected perpetrator was a black man charging racism, and due to the investigating officer being helplessly white, the investigation was halted on the scene and the black man in the house was taken at his word.
Professor Gates responded with anger, claiming the officers acted “stupidly,” but soon settled down and appeared to be perplexed. He then apologized for his outburst.
“Now that I think about it, I realize the white officer had no choice,” the professor said. “I couldn’t expect the officer to take a chance pursuing the matter under those circumstances, not with the long history of racial police profiling and injustice perpetrated on blacks by white officers. Sgt. Crowley did the right thing.”
The matter appeared to be settled, but just moments later the professor became angry again. This time he accused Sgt. Crowley of racism.
“Now that I think about it even more, that white officer is a racist,” professor Gates charged.
“But the officer believed the homeowner was black,” police officials replied.
“Exactly my point,” professor Gates shouted. “It’s just another case of racist white cops not giving a damn about crimes committed against black folks.”
“But, but….
Sorry -
“But the officer believed the homeowner was you,” police officials replied.
A study of this situation reveals three issues for discussion;
1. A difference of ‘class’ as opposed to a difference of race. “You sir, are nothing more than a ‘public servant’ while I am a Harvard Professor. Your station sir; is subservience!” Professor Gates believes his analysis of this situation is inherently superior just by comparing the difference of the parties ‘achieved’ stations in life.
2. As a member of a recognized, previously aggrieved race; Professor Gates’ belief is that he cannot possibly be anything other that the ‘wounded’ party here. Such a mindset almost automatically confers upon Professor Gates the ability to say absolutely anything he wishes. Any statements he makes cannot be racist because a minority cannot commit racism. They may voice the most revolting rhetoric with impunity, because they are just venting frustration at their perceived continued exploitation at the hands of the ‘white man’. In fact, one may actually state that such a system exists where the ‘aggrieved’ party may literally spin the vitriol to unimaginable heights, while the targeted party’s only choice is to accept all without any comment.
3. The conclusions reached in items one and two confers upon Professor Gates, in his own mind, that he cannot possibly over-step any boundary. His lofty status as a Harvard Professor, coupled with his membership in the most bona fide of victim’s groups; demands that he push the envelop in this confrontation. It has now become his job to ‘take down’ this white public servant and put him irrevocably in his proper place. So certain is he of his dual status, that he believes he will verbally browbeat this man into complete subservience.
A white police officer requiring identification from a black Harvard Professor on his own property! Truly a ‘teachable’ moment.
Nick – Your alternate history is curiously missing a key fact: Gates did, in fact, produce ID – even Crowley's police report confirms that. To keep it relevant, let's retain that fact and see what happens.
When the officer, Sgt. James Crowley, insisted on ID that showed the address of the home, the man, who was black, began calling the officer, who is white, a “racist.”
The man does produce ID at that point. It does not show that he's a resident at the home, however. The other man similarly cannot verify that he's a resident either. The officer arrests both for trespassing, and then…
Oh, wait. That doesn't make the point you were trying for. I see why you went with your version.
Dr. Jackson – To paraphrase "The Princess Bride": "You keep using my words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean."
To paraphrase myself (and actually address the issue I actually addressed in the first place, instead of the endless series of addional issues/distractions offered to dodge, avoid, or mis-direct the issue I originally addressed: "I am not a mindreader"
This is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine.
“Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
Now, having offered my comments, Raymond wants to retroactively tell us what he really implied by giving us two links, so as to respond/refute what I actually said about the subject.
It's an interesting approach. Say nothing of substance, and when challenged, offer the substance we all should have intrinsically understood from the non-substantive comments.
I rest my case.
A reasonable take on the situation:
Thomas Sowell
'A Post Racial President?'
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072809.php3
Re: post #13 There is a fourth issue: unequal outcomes under equal laws. Gates got to mouth off to a cop and the charge was dismissed, because he is a bigshot. Not just because he's black.
I'm not saying I know what should be done about it, nor whether anything can be done.
Here's why question #40 is interesting: This means that both an elite conservative and an elite liberal will press their advantage to tilt the legal system in their favor. And it's equally unfair to rank-and-file liberals and rank-and-file conservatives (not to mention the public's safety).
This question is never discussed because no resolution is envisioned (although it was discussed after the O. J. Simpson verdict).
So it appears that I'm straying off the subject. That's exactly the point. This question is never the issue, and always the issue.
Ruminator – A fifth question: Should 'mouthing off to a cop' be illegal? It isn't in the 9th district, at least: http://www.theagitator.com/2009/07/27/the-first-amendment-and-insulting-cops/
Yes that's a relevant question. Kozinski's view seems to be at odds with disorderly conduct, which states that any offensive speech which would be likely to provoke a violent reaction in an ordinary person in a public place is a violation. (Gates was not in a public place, not at first.) So disorderly conduct law limits free speech.