The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"
reason.com
reason.com
* The police report states that Whalen said "two black men". In reality, Whalen said "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all.". The "black" aspect was entirely invented after-the-fact by the police.
* The police report states the responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, spoke to the Whalen at the scene. According to Whalen, this conversation did not occur.
* Crowley claims that Gates was belligerent and yelling racial epithets. However, Gates had returned from China with a bronchial infection[3], and was unable to yell or raise his voice. This has been confirmed by his physician.
* Gates showed Crowley two forms of identification, his driver's license and Harvard ID. He did not refuse to show identification.
* Gates was arrested on his front doorstep, after following Crowley out of the house. Gates claims this is because he demanded to see Crowley's identification, which he is allowed by law.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion and misinformation being spread regarding the event.
[1] http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_L...
Just pointing out what I did above.
* The police report never says the officer heard the 911 call (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...)
* The conversation is one's word against the other and Whalen is clearly trying to distance herself from the whole incident so she has the more reason to lie
* That's just silly. I had a bronchial infection and I could still yell (albeit with vastly less capacity)
* The report doesn't claim Gates refused to show ID only that he initially did. In fact it says...
. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
* Your last claim could be right. No one can tell. But it's at the root of the two claims so the only way you can believe it's a proven fabrication is if you believe Gates without question (since he has as little proof as Crowley does as to what happened)
During the phone call the caller clearly states "hispanic". The police report says that the officers heard her say "two black men" at the scene of the incident (not during the phone call). We do not have any recording of that conversation. Whalen's lawyer says that she never talked to the police at the scene of the crime. But the lawyer also says that she never mentioned race at all, when she very clearly did: "She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color." Lots of contradictions all around.
Crowley claims that Gates was belligerent and yelling racial epithets. However, Gates had returned from China with a bronchial infection[3], and was unable to yell or raise his voice. This has been confirmed by his physician.
From my reading of the Gates interview, the physicians report confirms that he had a bronchial infection, not necessarily that he could not yell.
A photograph from the scene clearly shows Gates with mouth agape in a yelling fashion: http://www.theroot.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large-... This seems to contradict Gates' testimony.
Also, the report of officer Carlos Figueroa, who arrived on the scene after Crowley, confirms the report that Gates was yelling: "As I stepped in, I heard Sgt. Crowley ask for the gentleman's information which he 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!"
Someone is lying. Either Gates is lying, or two police officers are both fabricated their reports. If the police are lying they would have had to actually premeditate the lie and synchronize their stories. That would be very serious, certainly grounds for termination. Maybe I'm just an apologist for the Man, but I think it's unlikely that an otherwise very well regarded police officer ( http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/07/henry-louis-gates-jr.h... ) would completely fabricate his report. While unlikely, though, I do think that Cambridge city government should investigate the matter further.
Keep in mind you can also decline a search or ask a questions like "do you have probable cause", "am I being detained", etc without being a jerk. Taking the high road costs nothing, might avoid a lot of trouble, and might even teach a police officer that not everyone who believes in their civil liberties is a ranting-and-raving asshole.
When it comes out after the fact (in this case by Gate's own admission) that you've said some not nice things to the officer you really loose a huge amount of credibility no matter how right you are. Not to say that you should let a police officer who is acting inappropriately trample all over you but there is a right way and a wrong way to assert yourself and yelling and insults is not the right way.
By all accounts, the officer was being respectful while Gates was not, yet this article complains about the officer and the police.
Of course, if Gates was white, this would never be brought up even if the exact same thing happened in the exact same way.
I remember the day the professor of criminal law and criminal procedure law in my law school told the second-year students, "In actual practice, contempt of cop is a crime," meaning that if you piss off a police officer, you can expect trouble to follow.
After edit:
The lesson I take from that in my daily life is what mattmaroon says in his reply,
There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced really.
Yes. I'm sensible enough not to get into an argument with an armed man who has legal authority to use his weapon. Maybe there is some misunderstanding when a police officer stops me (that happens very rarely in my life), but if there is, I can stay calm and explain my point of view without looking or sounding threatening. I've not had any trouble with police officers, ever.
My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to Officer Crowley's actions. I also think that the office was wrong in arresting Professor Gates for being rude to him.
The responding officer invented conversations which never took place, which contained racial components. For example, it was claimed the 911 caller had said "two black men", that Crowley had spoken to the 911 caller before entering the house, and that Gates had spoken racial insults to Crowley -- all later proven to be fabrications. I can't think of any reason for the officer to lie about such particular things without racial reasons.
Furthermore, it's notable that conservatives are largely defending Crowley on racial grounds. While I would expect a "conservative" to be against illegal arrests, many (if not most) are choosing to blame Gates for the events.
"two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure"
So the officer did transpose the correct race in his memory but the reality is the 911 caller was the one who injected race. In fact, if anything it was race bating on the other end. The reason the story came up in the first place is because the caller felt the need to distance herself from using the term "black" as if "black" is any better or worse than using hispanic.
(all this is from here: http://hiphopwired.com/4706/henry-louis-gates-jr-arresting-o...)
I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims. I did find the "Crowley claims to have talked to Whalen claim" here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/27/141815/821) but again there's no proof the conversation didn't happen. And if anything I believe the officer only because Whalen has shown she refers to people by race (see above). So if someone who referred to a person (on tape) as "kind of hispanic" got a closer look and realized they were african american it stands to reason she would refer to them as "black"
Basically I find the whole "crowley lied" scenario dubious since I don't think a lying police officer warrants an invite to the White House. For President Obama to invite both I have to think he sees a misunderstanding and not one side being at fault.
The problem is not the caller's racial biases or lack thereof, but that the official police report contains fabrications.
I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims.
From <http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ >, and from your link:
* Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.
"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone.*
So that's two confirmed fabrications in the police report. Both are rather large, considering they report words which were not said and events which did not occur.
Again, as far as the conversation taking place its Whalen (the caller) vs Crowley (the Officer) since they were the only ones there. So the only way you can claim that’s a fabrication is if you just decide to believe her over him (which as I point out above isn’t really the logical conclusion given she’s claiming not to use racial identifiers when she clearly does)
So again, I see no fabrication here. At least no provable one.
The cop was doing what cops always do. The solitary difference is that he came up against a professional racist.
Cops have a dangerous job and a lot of bullets are preceded by yelling. They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because who knows where it might go from there.
The iPod dancing wierdos getting arrested is a total ad-hominem too.
No they shouldn't, preventative arrest is wrong and crosses a line that should not be crossed. If you can't handle angry citizens then you have no business being a cop. The day we can be arrested for merely speaking out against the government is a day we should not allow to ever come.
I was a cop, I put up with plenty of verbal abuse from people, it's part of the job. A cops safety is not more important that citizens rights.
1. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a dangerous line of work. Ability to dissent from police is good - abusing police really, really isn't. The vast majority of police are really nice people, and will work with you and help you on a wide range of things. Like in other professions, some cops suck or are incompetent to varying degrees, but most are pretty good sorts. The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere.
2. The article did gloss over it, but yes, it is really impractical to get hostile to anyone that has power over you - even including the electric company. People are people - you remember the last time someone was seriously a jerk to you? Remember how you felt? Now, do you remember the last time it happened in relation to your work? Would you say you worked harder to please that person afterwards, or would you say you held at least a bit of an "F you" attitude? That's just a practical point. Police officers are people. They undergo training to react more sensibly and less emotionally, but they're going to react way more friendly and cooperative with people who are friendly and cooperative with them. Yeah, sure, it shouldn't be like that. I guess technically an employee at the electric company should work doubletime to get your power back on even if you're cursing and raising your voice at them and calling them names. But the world doesn't work like that.
So many places like to list every police misconduct incident in the last xyz years every time something happens. They don't mark down or just pay lip service to all the lives saved, and all the officers killed in the line of duty doing good work. Police and citizens are fundamentally "on the same team" - less tension and more respect between both groups would be a good thing. Articles that go hard to one side don't promote that.
The 911 caller has claimed several parts of Crowley's report are false[1]. Given this, I trust Gates' version of the events over Crowley's. According to Gates, he was arrested after following the officer onto the house's porch, when he demanding the officer's name and identification number (which Crowley was legally obliged to provide).
Furthermore, as Gates had a bronchial infection at the time[2], he wouldn't have been able to yell / abuse the officers in the way they claim occured.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html
To me, it appears more as "-1:I Disagree" votes, which IMO ought to be avoided when possible.
If anything, perhaps it would be better to instead vote up jmillikin's rebuttal.
When I was a teenager, I had some anti-police/anti-law angst like a lot of people in free countries feel and express. After traveling, and seeing how police operate in the second and third world, I can confidently say we have some pretty outstanding officers in the United States. A good friend's father is a policeman as well, so I've gotten to hear a few stories of how policework goes.
Here's the points I made:
Point #1: Abusing police is not okay, gets in the way of their work, and at some point, is no longer protected speech but instead a crime. I don't know where that line is, but it's somewhere.
Point #2: Being rude and insulting to any people with power over you is likely a bad play, and they'll probably make your life harder.
Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but really doesn't give much respect to the vast majority of officers who are doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing.
I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees philosophically or factually, and hopefully I'll learn something.
Every time you criticize creationism, make sure you also point out all the really good things Christians do.
Every time you criticize a movie, make sure you also point out all the really cool films Hollywood puts out.
Every time you criticize a politician, make sure you also point out all the really good things that the government does.
...
The article is not about whether the police are good or bad. The article is about whether the police have too much power.
2: That's true, but the whole point of the article is that even though it might be inconvenient to you to challenge the police when they abuse their power, it is still an abuse of power. This whole question is specifically addressed in the article.
3: This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power. That's a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the police who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether the article's argument is true.
In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article completely. Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially contradiction by assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses discussed in the article could ever be considered interference with police work). So that's a very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted down.
> 1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two.
I was trying not to. In the original comment, I wrote, "I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere." I'm not sure where the line is, and I'm not making a judgment call on Gates' arrest. I did mention the officer wrote in his report (which may be false or falsified - I don't know) that Gates followed him into the streets yelling at him. At some point, a person doing that is crossing a line from protected speech into interfering with police work. Again, I don't know where that line is - it's a particularly sticky subject. Police should probably err on the side of letting people air their thoughts in the form they choose.
> 2. ... This whole question is specifically addressed in the article.
Very briefly - and I get worried that some young person here, who is really idealistic, gets into trouble by asserting their rights to an officer while in college or whatever. For my part, I can't stand customs officials who go over the line and search me repeatedly and generally waste my time, but I'm extremely friendly and respectful and talk about the local sports even though I can't stand that scum. Y'know why? Because they'll mess with you if not. My part of the comment isn't an apology for bad policework, it's a practical note so people whipped into a frenzy don't get into trouble. [Also note - the two times I mouthed off to customs officials, I got an arduous, detailed search afterwards. I learned that real life lesson the hard way]
> 3. This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power. That's a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the police who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether the article's argument is true.
Right! Systematic - that means happening all over the place. I don't think it is - the article points out a few brutal abuses of police power and doesn't give statistics for how common it is or put it in context of other nations. Our officers in the USA are pretty good. I'm a big rights guy - very big - but implying there's a huge problem when in fact it's a few isolated incidents would be a bad thing. Or who knows - maybe there is a systemic problem, but the article just has a few anecdotes and no statistics. And certainly, all of those anecdotes and no statistics are hostile.
> In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article completely. Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially contradiction by assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses discussed in the article could ever be considered interference with police work). So that's a very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted down.
Well, I'm voting you up for taking the time to respond. Thank you for the discussion, and I look forward to more whenever you please.
Amnesty international does that.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/page.do?id=1011100
This article was focused on the issue of how little most Americans care about the excessive powers granted to their police. Your own reaction only serves to emphasize the point.
If you really don't see anything wrong with having the largest prisoner population in the world (beating out Russia and China both in absolute and per capita terms) the second highest rate of executions, hundreds of people being tased to death by officers, officers being able to arrest people in their own homes for exercising their rights, and widespread surveillance on citizens without warrants, then reason.com may not be the site for you.
The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European countries. More criminals means more people in prison.
The American legal system is like the bad parent who alternates between being over-lenient and being violently strict. Much of the time policing is actually far too lax. Most people selling drugs are never caught, most gang killings are never tracked down, and most home burglars are never captured. This lax policing allows too much crime, and eventually the police are forced to react. They do so in a blunt and ham-fisted manner. Cops break into the wrong homes in an attempt to make headline grabbing drug busts.
Think of it in terms of math: which has a higher prisoner population, the country that catches the perpetrator of 98% of crimes, or the country that catches perpertrators only 10% of the time? The answer is the second country has a much higher criminal population. The lower probability of getting caught increases the amount of crime, which means total jail population is much higher.
Asian countries like Singapore and China on the other hand are the consistently stern parent. In Singapore there is a 99% chance of getting caught if you murdered someone. Thus there are virtually no murders, and a very small prisoner population.
Both sides of the law and order debate need to realize that American law enforcement is simultaneously too tax and too heavy handed. This is not a contradiction, its the reality.
Many American cities (Philadelphia, Baltimore) have homicide rates that have been unseen in Western civilization since medieval times. This is a huge problem. It needs to be addressed. Any proposed reform that tries to lower police abuse without also lowering the crime rate will result in failure ( and by increasing crime, will in the long term actually increase police abuses).
That's a natural result of outlawing so much victim-less behavior. If for example, drugs were legal, much of that crime would simply disappear and our prisons would be much less crowded.
Here in Taiwan, there are some very strict drug laws on the books, and yet weed and club drugs are pretty common, as they are in Singapore. Unlike the US, though, enforcement of drug laws isn't a high priority. There are people in jail for drug selling and production, but very few for casual use.
The U.S. is the same way: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm "The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study of their inmate population. They discovered that out of 47,000 inmates, only 15 people were incarcerated on first-time drug possession charges."
Furthermore, police in the US have the power to seize cars, seize money, and quite number of other things without warrant, based upon the suspicion of drugs being involved. They can't do that here.
If you want to see less criminals, start requiring that crimes have actual victims. Consenting adults trading goods and services, whether they be drugs, sex, or anything else, should not simply be declared criminals.
How Singapore and China deals with the issue isn't even slightly relevant to the issue.
Imagine the crime rates if we declared coffee drinkers criminals. We'd have to jail a lot more people and build a lot more prisons because you cannot stop people from engaging in victim-less behavior that they enjoy.
One would think that they should particularly err on that side if people are angry because they were just falsely accused of breaking into their own home.
I don't think anyone is defending hurling insults at random police officers. However, if you just invaded someone's home and treated them like a burglar in their own home, I think the police officer should realize that the cause of any angry behavior here is himself and just apologize and leave.
You must be white.
There is really nothing special about the cop person deserving of more or less respect compared to other normal people. It's only the cop's mission that deserves deference and should define possible criminality of any communication initiative. For example:
If a cop is aiming a sniper rifle to kill a hostage-taker, complimenting the cop on his uniform is interference, and should be a crime - it impedes the execution of the law.
If a cop is walking down the street, hurling insults and making faces at him is not really impeding the execution of the law (uncivilized as it is), should not be a crime or grounds for arrest. Getting in the way may be a crime if the 5 seconds that took to sidestep the perp can actually impede the execution of the law. Asking for a badge number is interference, but is specifically enumerated as a trade-off worth making and not a crime.
Now, sometimes cops are obligated to work with people who are being jerks. This problem is also well-known to DOL, USPS employees and even many people in private sector. There could be a separate law created that says "if by law we must work with you, by law you must behave or pay a measured fine". Such law then could provide deterrence against verbal abuse for all people who are not able to get out of obligation to work with nasty people. I doubt that arresting the insulter would be as a remedy in such law, at worst I see 10-minute detention to identify the person's name and address where the $250 fine could be mailed to, akin to a traffic ticket. And this protection should not be specific to only police, or even government employees - an ambulance worker, or someone assisting disabled people may also be not in a position to turn away the jerk, but then they should get protected as well.
Overall I am in favor of measured responses, Powell's military doctrine should not be applied to your own citizenry.
As an example, take a look at E.R. doctors. They treat a lot of people who are insanely abusive, both physically and verbally. Do they refuse to treat these patients? No, they are required by law and by their hippocratic oath to care for their patients. I work at UCSF, and residents tell me their war stories about drugged up patients who scream profanities at the doctors endlessly. Should a resident retaliate in any way, they would be pulled from their program. This process forces E.R. doctors to have thick skin and learn to cope with assholes on the job.
If we are to give police officers this insane amount of power to the public, we should expect nothing less than their ability to withstand some idiot's verbal tyrades.
Crowley seems dodgy and Gates seems a bit too eager to blow this up using it as a platform. I don't have much respect for either attitude.
After all the police was checking up to see if Gates wasn't about to lose a part of his property. Once you start asking police for their badge numbers you are effectively escalating the confrontation, which puts you in the drivers seat. You then also should take part responsibility for the consequences of that.
This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.
I'm a libertarian, and I support that "be nice to the guy with the gun" stance. I know liberals and conservatives both who agree. I think it probably has more to do with having some kind of experience in law enforcement or the military, but I'm just speculating. It's definitely not just a conservative position.
No matter who you are -- even without one person having the gun and authority -- being polite is always a good strategy in any discussion. If you're ugly to people, they're most likely going to find a way to be ugly back to you.
I think this article misses the difference between political theory and practical human experience. In theory, I should be able to hurl profanities at people I don't like. In practice, they have a tendency to punch me in the nose. I'm all for the theory -- in fact, as far as the photographing of police, it should be a felony to stop someone from videotaping a police officer in the line of duty. But in practice I live in a world where politicians have passed so many laws that are so open to interpretation that if the cops don't like you, they can find some way to mess with you. That's just life.
I don't like the current state of affairs, but that doesn't mean I should be blind to reality either. Instead of whining on about how the real issue should be control of police powers, I think a more practical position would be to single out certain areas (like the videotaping) where small changes can have a big effect. This turns a rant into a call for action.
But we didn't get that.