November 21, 2009
Comments by dsbsh
Page 1 of 8 | Next
(Part 2 - writing too much, but about to leave for vacation and trying to get it all down :)
Regarding the law... (1) The key word is not inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; it's "public." An incident inside a private home is deemed private under the disorderly conduct law. And the police cannot be the ones to make the incident public (by moving the incident outside). (2) The law is designed to apply to complaints by private citizens, not police encounters, which attract attention and are almost by definition a “public disturbances,” meaning there's too much potential for abuse (by officers or suspects). (3) Most important, even if this incident could be considered public, there's STILL no violation. I'll spare you 50 years of 1st Amendment history and 20+ years of MA precedent, but virtually every legal expert to weigh in, including several MA prosecutors, agrees that even if everything happened exactly as Sgt. Crowley reported, there was no crime. It is NOT illegal to verbally abuse a police officer in MA. A stream of expletives screamed at an officer on a public street, by a suspect during arrest, or under questioning? Far worse than what Dr. Gates did, but sorry, still not a crime. There are constitutional limits on criminalizing "offensive" speech, and MA has some of the strictest limits in the country. That sucks for MA officers, but it is what it is, and they're taught what the legal limits are. Dr. Gates was wrong. But did he commit a crime? Under MA law, the answer is no, and it's not even a close call.
Do you want to argue that Sgt. Crowley should have made an arrest even though he knew (or should have known) that Dr. Gates had NOT committed a crime, that there would NEVER be a conviction, and that the prosecutor would almost certainly dismiss the charges? That officers should be able to make arrests, as you stated earlier, “law or no law?” That’s actually a far more interesting and complicated question.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Pops (Part 1)-- Why do you keep asking me to admit Dr. Gates was wrong? I agree with you! That Officer Crowley wasn’t Supercop doesn’t change that; it doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing.
You stated that "Officer Crowley did NOT lie, nor did he misstate facts in his report." I’ve been careful to call them “lies or misstatements” because I don’t know if they were intentional. But there ARE clear misstatements, and many questionable ones. He stated that Lucia Whalen, who made the 911 call, referred to two Black men, with backpacks, both in her call and again when he spoke to her at the scene. Ms. Whalen denied ever mentioning the word Black. She saw suitcases on the porch and never mentioned backpacks. ("Men wearing backpacks" creates a far more negative image). She also said she couldn't tell if they had a key and the door was stuck; and she said the men "might work or live there." (The arrest report left all this out and thus depicted a far more dangerous scenario.) And she flatly denied giving more details to Sgt. Crowley at the scene. Her version of the entire conversation: "I'm the one who called 911." "Ok, you stay here." Listen to the 911 tape, which has been made public; she was 100% accurate, and Sgt. Crowley was wrong. We can’t know for sure what was said at the scene, but her recollection is consistent with the call; his isn’t. In fact, for his report to be correct, she would have to have changed her story, then lied about it to the press. (Sgt. Crowley's statements are the source of Ms. Whalen being falsely labeled a racist. Has he apologized to her?) Less clear: Sgt. Crowley also exaggerated Dr. Gates' refusal to provide ID; the report claims he took a long time after entering the home, and only provided his Harvard ID, but he read information off both IDs to his HQ via radio shortly after entering the home. (Not as definitive, but troubling at best.)
I know Sgt. Crowley properly identified himself as an officer, but he refused to give his name and badge number when asked. I couldn’t find chapter and verse, but I don’t think that’s optional, even if the request is impolite. (I was unclear about what I meant earlier—sorry.)
lbc: If Dr. Gates had been arrested for something having to do with the Inkwell Foundation, your point might be remotely relevant. pops and I disagree, and I doubt we'll reach any resolution, but at least he's not doing the discussion board equivalent of jumping up and down yelling "nyah nyah nyha."
1 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
So, by your own admission:
(a) it doesn't matter to you if an officer lies, or at minimum misstates pertinent facts, in his arrest report;
(b) it doesn't matter to you if the officer refuses to identify himself when asked (which is required by police rules if not state law); and
(c) officers need not obey the law in determining whether or not to make an arrest.
There's nothing wrong with respecting the police, even giving them the benefit of doubt, but that's really troubling, particularly (a), which can't be excused by anything Dr. Gates might have said or done.
Of course officers have some discretion in making an arrest. But under the 4th Amendment their actions must be reasonable, and only an extraordinary circumstance (an emergency, which this wasn't) makes an unlawful arrest nonetheless "reasonable." Officers are trained to know the difference between verbal abuse and a legitimate threat, and there's no indication whatsoever that Sgt. Crowley was physically threatened, or concerned about his safety, when he sought to have Dr. Gates come outside. At that point in time he was (rightfully) angry and I'm sure wanted to calm Dr. Gates down. No problem so far. But why bring him outside instead of just leaving? As you wrote, "when he realized Gates was the homeowner, the matter was done." The only reason to was so he could arrest him. First problem: knowing no crime had been committed, he wanted to arrest and took specific steps to create the conditions to enable an arrest. (I get that you view that as reasonable; can you at least understand that someone else might disagree?) Second problem: under well-settled MA law concerning public disturbance or disorderly conduct crimes, an encounter with a police officer in one's home or even on one's porch, is not "public" simply because others can see/hear it; and a public disturbance complaint must be initiated by a private citizen, not by a police officer as a result of an official encounter with a citizen. Dr. Gates plainly did not violate the statute you cite; it's not even close. And officers get briefed on such rules and court decisions, so he should have known better.
Again, the guy was provoked and by all accounts is an outstanding officer. But he's human.
Question for further discussion... if we take race out of the Gates incident, his argument is actually politically CONSERVATIVE, or more properly libertarian: a person in his home has heightened protection, even from the police. This includes protection against electronic scans, consent to enter and search, even aggressive behavior towards the "intruder." If an officer knocks on my door and demands to see ID, must I comply? Can he enter without my consent or a warrant? Can he order me onto the porch so I'll be in public view? Of course the answer depends on the circumstances, but the conservative position, certainly as expressed by Justice Scalia, is that the law's presumptions lie with the citizen, not the government. Sadly for Alonzo's situation, those presumptions are different regarding cars. But it's interesting how race distorts the issue and prevents discussion of equally or even more important questions.
Actually, women of culture drink FOREIGN beer. And that would cause all sorts of problems (at least according to the "quality journalists" on cable).
pops-- Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, and frankly its been an interesting discussion. I just don't think your opinion regarding Sgt. Crowley squares with the facts. I'm actually pretty familiar with MA law on these issues, and they don't have the same discretion as police in MO. In my last post I listed four specific concerns with Sgt. Crowley's behavior; each is based on clear facts from the incident. I'd really like you to explain why none of these are of the least concern to you. I'm not being sarcastic; it would help to understand your position.
lbc-- I realize you came to this discussion already convinced that President is a racist, but what exactly did he say in the press conference? That the police "acted stupidly by arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Exactly how is that racist? That racial profiling, "independent of this event," (his words) has existed in this country? Do you dispute that fact? Where's the racism in his statements? Mr. Imus called a women's college basketball team "nappy-headed hos." I wouldn't have fired him, but are you seriously claiming Pres. Obama's comments were equally offensive? "Isn't it interesting that the media has chosen not to inquire further into Inkwell Foundation?" Are you kidding? Relevance? Why not inquire into where the two men get haircuts? Why is it so important to you that one guy be perfect and the other evil?
1 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
pops & lbc: I don't appreciate dumbed down, factually inaccurate oversimplifications of events.
Where in any of my posts have I said, or even implied, that Dr. Gates was not at fault? I've said repeatedly that he acted badly. My point was much more modest: both of them share some fault here. And I don't think this was about race, at least with respect to Sgt. Crowley's behavior. I think he got angry at an angry, uncooperative citizen and overreacted. That's speculation on my part. But my issues with Sgt. Crowley's actions are based on the facts. For the last time:
-- he arrived to investigate a possible break-in, but after having verified Dr. Gates' ID, confirmed that he lived there and there was no break-in, he refused to identify himself and chose not to leave;
-- he convinced Dr. Gates to step out onto the porch with the express purpose of being able to make an arrest, and he did so after already knowing no crime had taken place;
-- he made multiple false statements in his police report-- intentionally or not; and
-- MA has different laws and rules governing police behavior than states like MO; they are not supposed to "arrest the situation" by arresting citizens absent a violation of law. And under MA law, being verbally abusive to an officer is NOT a violation of law.
That the other officers agreed with Sgt. Crowley's version is consistent with police behavior; they support their own (as they usually should). But it's irrelevant regarding our discussion, because I'm not defending Dr. Gates' behavior.
1 of 6 people thought this was a good comment.
lbc: "Without knowing anything" indeed. Pres. Obama did not cry racism, but you did. Never mind that his "acted stupidly" comment was specifically regarding "arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home" (direct quote). Never mind that most people's first instinct would be to defend a longtime friend; no, it had to have been racism. Never mind that Sgt. Crowley, by all accounts a very good police officer, in this case made an illegal arrest which his own department dropped rather than defend.
I'm guessing you've never met Dr. Gates or Sgt. Crowley, and that you weren't there at the time. And you obviously didn't listen all that carefully to the President's remarks. But you've chosen sides; "your guy" was 100% right; the other guys are racists. That's your right, but in the real world events are rarely so black & white (pardon the pun), and progress only comes with an open mind. I'm guessing there will be apologies all around at their meeting today; that's how grown-ups act.
Page 1 of 8 | Next
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
Coleman, Intel join forces
(87 comments)
Clubhouse makeover continues
(7 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(77 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 21, 2009
(17 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(87 comments)
Clubhouse makeover continues
(7 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(77 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 21, 2009
(17 comments)
