Enough with the faux outrage. Gates was pretty clearly arrested for what’s commonly called “contempt of cop.” That *is* a stupid — and illegal — reason to arrest someone. Cops deserve no “benefit of the doubt” for such liberty-infringing behavior. Gates did nothing wrong except piss off a cop, which is not, in fact, a crime. Obama is right.
It would be nice if prosecutors would file charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment, use of a hand gun in the commission of a felony and conspiracy to commit the above felonies against all the officers at the scene when there is an arrest for “contempt of cop”. Then perhaps police might possibly stop doing this crap. Or at least one cooler head will prevail and convince the cop being an idiot not to be stupid because they don’t want to be sent up the river with their partner.
Until there is more than just a vague slap on the wrist for miss treating the public it will keep happening. People don’t automatically owe you respect just because you are a police officer. You have to earn that respect by doing your job correctly, diligently, and respectfully. You have a duty to the badge t to do your duty in a manner that is beyond reproach and by so doing you earn respect for yourself and everyone in law enforcement. On the other hand when you pull crap like this you encourage people not to respect police officers. And seemingly rightly so. If cops are just a bunch of capricious arrogant jerks what is there to respect. Honestly though, I think putting cops in squad cars instead of having them walk a beat. and the massive proliferation of automobiles and the attendant law enforcement issue that presents has served to significantly erode the relationship between law enforcement and the public they serve.
If there were old school beat cops in the situation above the incident would likely have gone, “Hello Professor Gates, having a good evening? We received a call that there was a prowler in the area.” “Not that I’ve seen, but lets look around back just to make sure.” … “well, looks all clear, sorry to disturb you” … “No problem, thanks for stopping by and making sure everything was all right, local officer that I know by name.”
At the very least the incident should have ended with Gates demonstrating he lived there and the officer apologizing for the interruption.
And now I feel like a grumpy old man…
A valuable analysis:
Much more at the link.
According to the police report, his arrest was precipitated by his “tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public” (which consisted of the caller and at least 7 unidentified passers-by). Assuming the police report is accurate, and without getting into whether his arrest was warranted under the circumstances, it’s pretty safe to say that Gates was acting like a stupid jackass.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying you’re breaking the law and should be arrested if you act like a dick to a cop. I’m just saying that it’s not very smart. You’re at a distinct disadvantage. The time and place to argue is in a courtroom.
I’m not saying you’re breaking the law and should be arrested if you act like a dick to a cop. I’m just saying that it’s not very smart.
While this may be true in practice, Joe, it’s distressing that you would choose to emphasize this point while de-emphasizing the fact that, not only does “act[ing] like a dick to a cop” not constitute “breaking the law,” but in fact, the act of arresting someone for nothing more than “acting like a dick to a cop” — i.e., arresting someone for something that is plainly and undeniably is not a crime — is ITSELF a serious, clear-cut violation of the law (false arrest, false imprisonment, etc.), not to mention of core civil liberties, by the cop.
It is utterly backwards to soft-pedal police wrongdoing — serious, liberty-infringing wrongdoing, such as blatantly using the power of one’s badge for bullying and intimidating purposes by arresting people for “contempt of cop” — while playing up the “dick” factor in cases like these. See my old post about the “three unique species of unfortunate comment-section creatures” who routinely comment on police-related controversies such as this one: 1) The “police can do no wrong” brigades; 2) The “police can do no right” brigades; and 3) The “well, yeah, but he was being a jerk” brigades. Your decision regarding which type of misbehavior to emphasize, and which to de-emphasize, causes your commentary to fit nicely into the third category:
You say, “The time and place to argue is in a courtroom.” I disagree. The time and place to argue is WHENEVER AND WHEREVER YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE, because this is America. Citizens have the right to “argue,” even to the point of being “dicks,” and they do NOT commit “disorderly conduct” (or “obstruction” or anything else) by doing so. THAT is the overriding issue here — not whether some professor is a jerk. Some professor being a jerk doesn’t restrict my freedoms. The license that cops feel to infringe citizens’ liberties by arresting them on bullshit charges for nothing more than “contempt of cop,” knowing they’ll get a slap on the wrist (at most) for this core violation of their employers’ (i.e., the citizenry’s) basic civil liberties, does.
Brendan: There are two problems: the actions of the police officer in these cases are highly constrained, and the “citizen” involved is usually deliberately attempting to provoke a response from the police.
If someone acts like a jerk to me or you, we have many responses we can make, up to kicking his ass. A police officer cannot. He basically has two choices: ignore the behavior (which often leads to public disorder and makes it much more likely that a similar incidence will occur in the future) or give the jerk several warnings to stop his behavior and if he doesn’t detain him.
In this particular case, by all accounts (except of course Prof. Gates), the police arrived on the scene and were immediately met with non-compliance and abuse. After the police were finally shown proof of identity and residence, they left. Prof. Gates then followed them out of his house and continued to abuse them and disturb the peace. He was warned about his behavior several times. He ignored the warnings and continued the abuse.
Do you really want to live in a society in which it’s open season to abuse police officers while they are attempting to do their duty? Don’t you realize that as soon as the criminal elements realized that this was possible whole neighborhoods would become impossible to police?
The reason I commented on Gates’ behavior is because it was the most glaringly obvious fact from the police report. I don’t know enough off the top of my head about the subtleties of disorderly conduct to know whether it’s automatically unlawful to arrest someone on such a charge if they’re on their own property but outside their residence, if they’re in view of the public, if members of the public are on their property, if the only conduct in question is speech, etc. But I do know when someone is acting like a jackass, and Gates was. I also know that not acting like a jackass is hardly “an almost impossible standard” to live up to. A citizen’s behavior need not be “totally and completely above reproach throughout the entire incident.” One doesn’t need to be a saint to avoid police misconduct. I’ve done my share of mouthing off to a few cops upon getting pulled over for speeding in my younger, stupider days and managed to escape without my civil liberties trampled upon.
The time and place to argue is WHENEVER AND WHEREVER YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE, because this is America.
That’s all fine and good, but in America we have cops who are human beings, and those human beings are fallible, and many times the human beings who become cops do so for less than noble reasons. That’s just a fact of life. I’m not saying you don’t have the right to argue whenever and wherever you damn well please, I’m just saying what you have the right to so and what is smart to do are not always the same thing.
Brendan: What about the “Resisting a Peace Officer” type of charges? Most states have laws making it a misdemeanor to use force to interfere with a peace officer executing his/her duties.
It seems like cops might use the “Disorderly Conduct” in place of this charge because it’s administratively easier for them. I have no problem with that. In practice, cops will always have and exercise a certain amount of discretion beyond what we might consider the strict limits of the law. For example, they’ll pull you over for going 1mph over the limit not for this violation, but because they consider you “suspicious” for other reasons.
We don’t want cops abusing such powers, sure. But the Gates case doesn’t feel like abuse to me. It feels like a guy using his race as an excuse to blow up over a fairly normal encounter with police. Nobody likes getting pulled over or detained by police for a lax reason. But it’s a necessary evil, and Gates was not subjected to it due to his race. He screwed with a cop, and that will always have consequences.
Oh — and don’t forget that Gates is black, which means he was probably high on crack and PCP and packing multiple stolen firearms.
I’d recommend Carlos Miller’s blog, Photography is Not a Crime, for some rather egregious examples of police officers “exercising a certain amount of discretion beyond what we might consider the strict limits of the law.” I’m afraid I am not nearly as sanguine about this as you are, Casey. I think such abuses absolutely must not be tolerated. And while I certainly don’t suggest that these examples indicate that all, or even most, cops behave in this fashion, I do believe the prevalence (geographic and otherwise) of such examples, and the near-universality of “slap on the wrist” type punishments, indicate that the system allows the “bad apples” to continue being bad without adequate consequences, as dcl says.
I am not suggesting that we try to prosecute away human frailty and imperfection in the police corps, but surely we can do better than we’re doing in terms of holding rogue cops accountable for trampling people’s rights (and indeed, in terms of training them not to trample people’s rights in the first place). We can start by removing any semblance of acceptance of the legitimacy of using “disorderly conduct” as a catch-all excuse for arresting people who annoy cops, whether for reasons of “administrative ease” or otherwise. I don’t expect police officers to have a lawyer’s understanding of the exact, nitpicky parameters of any given crime — that’s the prosecutor’s job — but I do expect, or rather demand, that cops only arrest people for conduct that is at least remotely somewhat arguable as fitting within the umbrella of the general type of conduct the law in question is supposed to criminalize. And cops simply MUST be trained that pure speech, unaccompanied by any “conduct,” can NEVER constitute a crime. That is a non-negotiable requirement of a free society.
Having said all that… I will agree that, if the police’s account is accurate (which none of us should accept as presumptively true, by the way — one of the biggest weapons police have in maintaining the system that tolerates abuses of power is that many people tend to believe them unquestioningly, ironically the very same people who otherwise tend to remind us that cops are “human” and fallible, which of course makes them quite capable of lying through their teeth, particularly when their ass is on the line), Professor Gates’s case is by no means the best or most egregious example of police abuse. Also, gahrie makes a decent point about the counterfactual dystopian situation if my position were taken to its extreme. I do think this arrest was unjustified under the law, even if what the police say is correct. But there are certainly far worse cases of improper arrest (involving far less prominent people who don’t have a friend in the White House to defend them). This is a relative blip on the radar screen of police misconduct.
P.S. Oh, and Casey, as to your initial question: if “force” is involved, it’s a completely different ballgame. Not even the same discussion. Since there’s no allegation of force here, that’s a non-sequitur.
“And cops simply MUST be trained that pure speech, unaccompanied by any “conduct,” can NEVER constitute a crime.”
C’mon Brendan….you KNOW that this isn’t true. There is plenty of speech that is in fact a crime.
I said “pure speech.” Generally, when speech is not protected, it’s because it is regarded, for one reason or another, as a form of “conduct,” and thus is not “pure speech.” I suppose that’s somewhat circular. I guess I should have said “pure protected speech” or something like that, though I don’t know if that’s much of an improvement. I’d have to go back and review my terminology from Professor Garnett’s First Amendment class. 🙂
The point, though, is that, in the vast majority of contexts that police officers encounter on a day-to-day basis, speech alone is not enough to constitute a crime, particularly an open-ended crime like “disorderly conduct” or “obstruction” or whatever. In order to constitute a crime, speech has to be either accompanied by conduct, or uttered in one of those exceedingly rare contexts in which the speech itself is constitutionally unprotected and/or itself considered to be a form of “conduct” (e.g., incitement, obscenity, etc.). Such categories are extremely narrow, indeed so narrow that I wonder if it’s even necessary to include them in the training. (How often do police officers encounter someone revealing troop movements or the location of ships still at sea?) In any event, some guy saying rude things on his front porch certainly doesn’t qualify.
Another good article about some of these issues: http://www.slate.com/id/2223379/
Police abuse of power is something that makes me very… Annoyed…. Yeah, that’s the word I’ll use. That’s not to say that they always abuse their power. In fact I would guess most don’t. But some do. And it has to stop. Law abiding citizens should not be afraid of police officers for any reason. They should feel they can go to them for help and will get a responsible response from them.
I think we can, more or less, all agree that once Gates identified himself to the officer the situation should have ended right there. I can’t think why Gates would ask for name and badge number unless the cop did something after that.
Unfortunately none of us were there and there is no recording of the incident. So there is no way to say for sure what went on that night. I will say I’ve meet a lot of extremely arrogant professors and also ones that act entitled and holier than thou. But I’ve not meet any that are just down right stupid. At the level of Professor Gates I think we can safely assume he’s not stupid. The problem for the officer is that for his description of events to be accurate Professor Gates would need to be stupid. That seems rather dubious to me. On the other hand Professor Gates’ description of the events seems a bit questionable, or at least self serving so the answer must be some place in between.
I’m inclined to believe that Gates was a bit pissed off, arrogant, and indignant with the officer about being asked for identification. But he did provide the requisite information. After he does that it’s all on the cop. The officer could have ended the situation at any time by providing name and badge number and walking away. So him trying to pass this off on Gates is at best a half truth.
Again, the officer, up to that point doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong, so has nothing really to fear form providing the information.
Now, however, the officer needs to have the book thrown at him. This stuff needs to stop. The only way it will stop is if it is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I will agree that, if the police’s account is accurate (which none of us should accept as presumptively true, by the way — one of the biggest weapons police have in maintaining the system that tolerates abuses of power is that many people tend to believe them unquestioningly, ironically the very same people who otherwise tend to remind us that cops are “human” and fallible, which of course makes them quite capable of lying through their teeth, particularly when their ass is on the line), Professor Gates’s case is by no means the best or most egregious example of police abuse.
That was obviously directed at me, so I’ll respond. Far from believing the police “unquestioningly,” I agree that it’s entirely possible that the police would lie in a police report. In fact, my first thought upon reading the police report of Gates’ arrest was that the account might be made up or embellished since I found it hard to believe that Gates could’ve been behaving like such an asshat. I mean, he appears to totally fit the part of the stereotypical race-baiting cop-hater – not even going out to speak with the cop when he first responded to the reported break-in (which wouldn’t have been the first attempt at Gates’ residence), initially refusing to show ID, and yelling completely asinine accusations of racial motives and verbally abusing the officer throughout the entire incident. But considering that several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers arrived on the scene, it’s doubtful that Crowley was lying in the report. Making stuff up in a police report when you’re the only cop there is one thing. When there are several officers present, including some from a different organization (Harvard) with which the arrestee is prominently affiliated, and when there are at least 7 bystanders also nearby, and when the arrestee is also supposedly on the phone with the chief of police, then it would be much more difficult – and foolish, quite frankly – to try and “lie through your teeth” in the police report. If Crowley’s report is inaccurate in any material way, my guess is we’ll definitely hear about it from someone other than Gates. I’m not holding my breath though.
My second thought was that maybe Crowley slyly was asking Gates to speak with him outside because he knew that once Gates was outside his residence and in view of the public, then it would “at least remotely be somewhat arguable” that Gates’ tumultuous behavior was “fitting within the umbrella of the general type of conduct the law in question is supposed to criminalize.” A cursory review of Mass. G.L. c. 272 sec. 53 and the definitions of “disorderly” and “public” indicates that the conduct in question must be “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof” and must be affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access. Perhaps Crowley purposely lured Gates outside because a crowd had gathered that could potentially experience inconvenience or alarm, and he therefore set Gates up for a violation of law. But if that’s the case (which it may not be – I’ve only briefly read the statute and know nothing of the relevant case law), then the issue becomes whether Crowley unlawfully set Gates up, and not whether it’s impossible to be lawfully arrested for disorderly conduct under the circumstances (because it would be possible, which is why Crowley would’ve endeavored to set Gates up).
Whether Gates was unlawfully arrested is heavily fact-dependent. And in any event, to the extent race was a factor, it appears to have been injected into the incident by Gates, not by the police. “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA?!” No, douchebag . . . a black man in America can be elected President and use the bully pulpit to insult the police who arrested his friend immediately after admitting in the same breath that he doesn’t know the facts.
gahrie…your said:
“In this particular case, by all accounts (except of course Prof. Gates), the police arrived on the scene and were immediately met with non-compliance and abuse. After the police were finally shown proof of identity and residence, they left. Prof. Gates then followed them out of his house and continued to abuse them and disturb the peace. He was warned about his behavior several times. He ignored the warnings and continued the abuse.”
That is exactly the point….obviously they did NOT leave after being shown proof of identity…IF they had left then nothing would have happened. All they had to do was to immediately walk down to their car and drive away once they ascertained it was his house…they did not have to stand around outside and speak with him anymore or arguably take the abusive language he may have been using…because if they had simply left his property the whole thing would have been over.
Obama provided his birth certificate, thats all that needed to happen. The birthers are doing what the far right always does, they use fear and mis-information to try and scare people into hating and doubting things, rather than provide a message of their own to follow. Why? Because they have nothing to offer.
Damn, wrong post.
Just for the record, he did not provide his birth certificate, which is why some people refuse to let the issue die. He did provide documentation from the state of Hawaii about his birth however.
He provided the documents that the State of Hawaii provides for demonstrating birth in the United States and therefore citizenship. The document is sufficient to the requirements of the State Department for the purposes of obtaining a passport. There is no additional documentation that he can provide as he has provided an official copy of the document that Hawaii provides and Hawaii does not offer any other document. There is nothing further he can do. Nor is there anything further he should have to do as it is a fake controversy. But totally par for the course for Republicans.
Well then, just to suggest a Grand Unification of this now-bifurcated thread, I Theorize that in reciprocity for showing his ID & residence documents the perfesser should have demanded to see the copper’s Birth Certificate; and if offered a flimsily-photoshopped mere Certification of Birth in lieu thereof, made a Citizen’s Arrest of the constable for Contempt of the Crimson. ;>
“…You [the cop] have a duty to the badge to do your duty in a manner that is beyond reproach…” ~dcl
[the Never-diss-the-PO-leece people] “… pose an almost impossible standard on the victims of police misconduct: unless the citizen’s behavior was totally and completely above reproach throughout the entire incident…the whole thing is really the citizen’s fault,…” ~Brendan
“A citizen’s behavior need not be ‘totally and completely above reproach throughout the entire incident.’ One doesn’t need to be a saint to avoid police misconduct.” ~Joe Mama
What do we look like here, Caesar’s Wife? No one, in uniform or civvies, can ever be completely Above Suspicion, aka, Beyond Reproach. / ~Joe Loy ;}
“…the actions of the police officer in these cases are highly constrained, and the “citizen” involved is usually deliberately attempting to provoke a response from the police.”
Gahrie, just to be Fair & Balanced here wouldn’t that be, the actions of the “police officer“ versus those of the “citizen”? Let us avoid the maldistribution of invidious Quotation marks. Otherwise we So-called Citizens may have to sue for misPunctuation Reparations. ;>
“…cops are ‘human’ and fallible, which of course makes them quite capable of lying through their teeth, particularly when their ass is on the line.“
Brendan, this imagery is so anatomically compelling that I think, as an experiment in my own human fallibility, I’ll Try it. My plan is to Sit down on the Line in the middle of Hartford Avenue and when the Newington PD arrive, see if I’m quite Capable of telling ’em the Truth about Why (veracity being, of course, that the great Eloquence of My Son the Lawyer’s previous Remarks made me Do it :). / Then again I might End up (so to Speak) Lying through my Ass & it getting a free ride Downtown just like Professor Gates’s did but I’m sure I’ll still emerge with me Teeth in me Mouth; the Newington PO-leece are very Professional and Above Reproach.
🙂
But semi-seriously folks, it appears to me that Politically, what happened yesterday was this:
Lynne Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times (who has covered Obama for a lot longer than most reporters & presumably knows him pretty well) hit him with a healthcare-utterly-unrelated Closing question for which he was Not Prepared — and he blurted forth exactly what popped into [or was randomly rattling around inside] his head about it. IOW on this issue he hadn’t politically & tactically Vetted his Rhetoric. / Today’s result ~ reportedly to the White House’s Surprise, which if so is much to MY surprise ~ is a bigfat Kerfuffle, Flap & Hooraw, such that the President has had to Walk it Back to an appreciable extent. Meanwhile Healthcare is out of the Headlines. / Therefore, I think it’s time for Joe Biden to take Barack out back to the Woodshed for a stern lesson in how to smoothly Finesse a journalist’s question when you’re not Ready to answer it yet. :>
Interesting take, Joe. At least one person disagrees: