Reconciliation Homer Simpson Style
by Candice Watters on 07/31/2009 at 11:36 AM
Feel you were wrongly arrested? Maybe you can settle the matter cordially over beers! (Well, if you know the President that is). This today in the SFGate:
The black scholar and the white police sergeant who arrested him agreed to disagree and promised to talk again, a gracious conclusion to the first round of an eye-opening dialogue on race that allows President Barack Obama to get back to selling his health care plan to skeptical Americans.
After accepting Obama's invitation to discuss the July 16 incident over a beer Thursday evening at the White House, both Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. Joseph Crowley thanked Obama for the cold ones served on a patio near the Rose Garden. Neither they nor the president offered apologies for their roles in the affair.
I keep thinking of this verse Steve read to the kids last night:
It is not for kings, O Lemuel
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights
(Proverbs 31:4-5).
Does anyone else find this troubling?
1. Kelo said the following at 11:55 AM on Jul 31:
What is the "this" you find troubling? The fact that they drank beer? The fact that they didn't apologize?
I really can't tell.
2. BDB said the following at 12:11 PM on Jul 31:
From what I've read, it was Sgt. Crowley who suggested they all get together for a beer. He was probably joking, but hey.
I'm actually quite impressed by what President Obama did. He realized that he had poured gasoline on a volatile situation making it worse. The President is a very busy guy. He realized that his comments made the situation worse, and he took personal responsibility for his personal comments. It's a mark of good leadership to take responsibility when you blow it.
I remember something the late King Hussein of Jordan did. After a Jordanian soldier fired on and killed Israeli schoolgirls from Beit Shemesh, the King went to the family and asked for their forgiveness. (The gunman was shot and killed by another soldier.) From a leadership perspective, the King's apology was telling EVERY soldier that what happened was wrong.
At the end of George W. Bush's term of office, it was revealed that he had spent hundreds of hours with the families of those injured and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did it quietly. But what's important from a leadership perspective is that he was taking personal responsibility for his decision.
Bush didn't run away from the consequences of his decisions, and I hope that one day history recognizes that as Presidential leadership. I find it encouraging that President Obama seems to understand the importance of leaders taking responsibility for their words and decisions.
3. Holly said the following at 12:30 PM on Jul 31:
I was thinking more along the "blessed are the peacemakers" lines...
4. Julie said the following at 12:34 PM on Jul 31:
The President being involved in this incident at all is weird to me. It's like the CEO of a company jumping several levels of middle management so he can micromanage, methinks. I'm mostly commenting because Hey! I not only read that verse at breakfast this morning, but stopped to think about it besides!
5. Missy said the following at 12:34 PM on Jul 31:
It appears to me that the beer-drinking in this case is more of a conciliatory gesture, rather than an urge to satisfy a craving for alcohol. I wouldn't put much stock in this one meeting over beers. I would be more concerned, however, if the President had a pattern of settling matters over beer/wine/cocktails.
I suppose they could have met over coffee and doughnuts instead of beers, but then there might be an outcry from police about unfair stereotyping...
6. brx said the following at 12:39 PM on Jul 31:
Oh come now, he's much more of a party puppet than any kind of king...
And let us not judge by mere appearances without examining evidence... Did he drink more than one? Did he even finish the whole beer?
His tastes in beer on the other hand... oh boy...
:)
7. DP said the following at 12:44 PM on Jul 31:
seriously?
8. Chris said the following at 12:45 PM on Jul 31:
I think if people find it troubling, they're looking for clouds in silver linings.
What, exactly, is so troubling about this event? 4 guys sitting around a table, having beers, talking about race in America (I assume). No, they're not going to solve all our problems with 48 oz. of liquid refreshment, but think about what didn't happen.
They didn't yell at each other. They didn't threaten each other. They didn't take to an open microphone to cry victim to every sympathetic ear they could find. They didn't shout "racist!" They didn't engage in violence.
If a beer gladdened the hearts of these men to help them discuss an important issue, I see no problem with that.....
9. Josh said the following at 12:46 PM on Jul 31:
It's too bad this didn't happen on Bush's watch. I would have enjoyed the Boundlessline article praising him for being a down-to-earth man of the people, the kind of person you'd like to have a beer with.
10. Tiff said the following at 12:52 PM on Jul 31:
I, too, am wondering what about this is particularly troubling. The beer? My understanding is that they each drank one beer. Where's the problem?
11. James said the following at 1:13 PM on Jul 31:
Are you kidding? I thought it was great, for the reasons BDB stated. Makes me wish President Bush had taken the same approach with a certain high profile mother who pleaded to speak to him.
12. Adam said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 31:
Please tell me I am reading this post wrong. Please tell me that I am not reading a post that is bashing the President because he chose to have a beer to reconcile a situation where he was upholding the rights of the oppressed. Seriously?!?!?!?
13. Texas Craig said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 31:
I am with comment no. 1 by Kelo. I am not sure what you find troubling. Is it the fact that they drank beer? If so, are you troubled by everyone drinking beer?
As for me, I like the model given to us in this scenario. I do not like everything our president does, and I did not vote for him, but I also am not going to lose my objectivity and find a way to criticize everything he does (not that you are doing that, but many commenters I see on here seem to fall into that).
Getting two people who had a disagreement to sit down and talk (over a beer or over coffee, it makes no difference to me) is a very good thing, and I applaud the example given.
14. BDB said the following at 1:18 PM on Jul 31:
I think that today's XKCD comic depicts what Candice is concerned about.
http://www.xkcd.com/
15. Mike said the following at 1:30 PM on Jul 31:
I'm concerned that the President thought of this as a "teachable moment". Exactly what was being taught, and to whom?
I'd like to think he was "taking responsibility", but since there was no public apology for his public incendiary comments, I'm a little reluctant to jump on that bandwagon.
16. meganblaire said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 31:
I agree with BDB that it is a mark of good leadership to accept responsibility for our actions (though I don't necessarily believe that our president and the word "responsible" belong in the same sentence) and to face up to the consquences thereof.
The difference, however, is that instead of humbling himself and doing so consistently and quietly, he has chosen to do so in a very public, inappropriate way. That is very troubling to me.
What is equally troubling is that we have Christians who think it's totally ok, and voice those opinions, both in the "real world" and here on Boundless.
17. Hunter W said the following at 2:07 PM on Jul 31:
BDB -- #14 = AWESOME!
As for the verse -- did anyone else read the verse in context? It says that men really shouldn't spend their time and strength on women and that we should make poor people drunk so they can forget their troubles.
In an isolated context I have trouble with both of those concepts.
18. BDB said the following at 2:16 PM on Jul 31:
James (#11) - he DID meet with her - without going through the normal Secret Service background check or anything. She was demanding MORE meetings. One could argue that his original quick meeting was what created the following spectacle. But I'm glad he kept meeting with people.
19. BDB said the following at 2:20 PM on Jul 31:
Mike (#15) wrote:
>>but since there was no public apology for his public incendiary comments,<<
This business of every victim demanding a public apology has gotten way out of hand. It's a distraction that is more about posturing - it doesn't really solve anything.
In this case, the Professor's profession may have made him more likely to see racism in the actions of the police. He'd have no way of knowing that the arresting sergeant was actually the trainer to prevent precisely the kind of racial profiling many people fear. Plenty of overreaction to go around. Everyone take a step back.
20. Joel said the following at 2:22 PM on Jul 31:
I have to echo Kelo and ask which bit you found troubling, or perhaps it was C: All of the above. I'm resisting the urge to think the whole thing was a publicity stunt, but it is commendable if they were able to "agree to disagree" and perhaps interact civilly in the future. Doubtless this provided some good PR for Obama, but perhaps it also created an acquaintance that wouldn't have otherwise existed. Not necessarily a brotherly Christian resolution, but an amiable one.
As to the beer, I don't see a problem with it. It's not like they became drunk or something. In the Wall Street Journal coverage on the event they took input from the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which presumably is still in existence and still advocating temperance some 70 years after the end of Prohibition. I don't know that anyone was under the impression the president was a teetotaler. Unless he's sloshed all the time, he seems to be forgetting what the law decrees and depriving people of their rights just fine while sober. To be honest I was most disappointed by the fact he was drinking Bud Light.
21. Cassandra said the following at 2:51 PM on Jul 31:
I didn't find it troubling as much as I found it annoying. Obama made a major gaffe and ticked off a lot of police officers and he's trying to cover it up with this "let's just all have a beer together" thing that to me is so obviously a huge distraction and PR stunt.
Not concerned about the President having a beer. I imagine if I were the president I would need the occasional beer myself.
22. Mike said the following at 2:58 PM on Jul 31:
BDB (#19) wrote:
This business of every victim demanding a public apology has gotten way out of hand. It's a distraction that is more about posturing - it doesn't really solve anything.
I'm inclined to agree, but I was just referring to your comment that the President had "taken responsibility". I don't see him doing that. Instead, I'm suspicious of this "beer sit-down" and his comment about a "teachable moment" - in the context of his race-obsessed previous comments. Who is being "taught"? And what are they being taught?
Again, I don't think he's taking responsibility for his comments about the police behaving "stupidly". Publicly slamming the police (without any first-hand information) and then refusing to apologize doesn't add up to being "responsible" in my book.
Frankly, I think it's a publicity stunt. Or maybe...what was the word you used? "Posturing"? But that's just me.
23. Tom Neven said the following at 3:08 PM on Jul 31:
Professor Gates took a sip of his beer and said, "Tastes great!"
Sergeant Crowley sipped his and said, "Less filling!"
"Tastes great!"
"Less filling!!"
Next thing you knew, the handcuffs were out again.
24. Samantha said the following at 3:18 PM on Jul 31:
Can you imagine the reaction if George Bush had invited people over for a beer?
Personally, I think that racism will exist until we stop talking about skin colour as though it's as important as gender or age.
25. JB said the following at 3:47 PM on Jul 31:
Hmmm. I'm not totally sure, but I'm beginning to think Boundless is run by Republicans.
26. BDB said the following at 4:26 PM on Jul 31:
OK, perhaps a personal anecdote.
One night, about 10:30pm, I was in my dad's office, alone, with the lights off. I was working on a project for school, and there was space there. I didn't like to turn the lights on because people would think the office was open.
A police car pulled up sharply and shined a spotlight right on me.
So I slowly, calmly, went to the door and identified myself. While I was perfectly justified being where I was, I certainly wasn't going to do anything belligerent.
As it turns out, the officer knew my dad, recognized my dad's car, and didn't recognize me inside his office. So he stopped to investigate. It was a slow night, and we had a nice chat about policing in that city. For example, he was the best shot on the force because he was the only one who practiced. :/
Anyway, not everyone has friends on the police force, and in some communities, that level of trust isn't there.
Frankly, demanding that men apologize after a conflict is likely not a winning strategy. The fact that the President cleared time on his schedule was an admission that he realized he could have handled it better. More important than a public apology is setting an example, that when you're the person in power, and you realize you blew it, invite the parties to sit down and talk. We'd get a lot further if everyone did that instead of holding dueling press conferences.
I really like the way Gov. Mike Huckabee is doing this. He's done a good job of sitting down with hostile audiences while still sticking to his principles. I greatly prefer this approach. It shows a lot of maturity. And frankly, it's Presidential.
27. Mike said the following at 5:20 PM on Jul 31:
BDB - Dude, you act like the Prez is just a neutral mediator in a dispute between the parties. If that were the case, then he would be, as you say, Presidential.
Problem is, he thrust himself into the fray on one side. And he played the race card when he did it - without any clue what actually happened. And he hasn't accepted any responsibility for HIS part in the problem.
That's my issue with it. A far more appropriate response in the initial hours would have been, "We don't have all the facts, and I prefer not to issue a statement until we know more. Thanks." Instead, he jumped to the same conclusion as the distinguished (?) Professor Gates and assumed that the officer on scene was racially motivated, and tried to use it as a "teachable moment" about the state of race relations in America.
Playing diplomat is wonderful. Dodging responsibility for your own contribution to the blow-up isn't.
28. John Adams said the following at 5:33 PM on Jul 31:
It doesn't bother me, Candace. I think that Bible verse is referring to the abuse of alcohol, not its use, by kings. One beer doesn't make a man forgetful; one drink doesn't equal "crave."
29. Leah said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 31:
Who cares? Are they seriously going to drink so much they forget their responsibilities with a couple of dozen photographers standing fifty feet away?
Why is everyone complaining that Obama never apologised for his 'stupid' comments? I'm fairly sure I saw an article with him apologising for his comments... and I'm way over here in Australia.
Julie (4) - while I do think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, I think that was Obama's fault - for chiming in on it in the first place. I think his involvement in this reconcilatory meeting was owing to his chiming in on the issue.
30. edwige said the following at 5:59 PM on Jul 31:
JB (#25) wrote:
" Hmmm. I'm not totally sure, but I'm beginning to think Boundless is run by Republicans." = :)
yeah me too, nevertheless I love boundless, it's a blessing!
31. Jethro said the following at 7:06 PM on Jul 31:
JB (#25),
I am, and it is. Another cheap shot by Candice at the President. She can't help herself. None of the Boundless people can. Oh, but they're not Republicans, just Christians. And yes, I know you won't publish this. I just hope you read it.
32. Texas Craig said the following at 7:43 PM on Jul 31:
Tom Neven (#23):
Classic!!!! That gave me a good laugh!
33. Chris said the following at 8:26 PM on Jul 31:
Mike writes (#15):
I'm concerned that the President thought of this as a "teachable moment". Exactly what was being taught, and to whom?
Well, from what I read, they're planning to meet again. Maybe each learned a little bit about the other or about his point of view. Maybe they learned about disagreements they have. Maybe they learned about agreements. Maybe they learned they have a lot more to learn.
Seriously, what do you want? A 300 word essay from everyone involved?
Something tells me if the exact same thing happened, but someone like Alan Keyes or Michael Steele was there instead of Obama, a lot of people here would be falling over themselves to talk about what a great job he did instead of calling it a publicity stunt. (Maybe you wouldn't, in which case, I'd give you credit for that.)
Just get over your frustration with the President and realize that he can still do some good every now and then.....
34. BDB said the following at 9:15 PM on Jul 31:
Mike (#27) wrote:
>>And he hasn't accepted any responsibility for HIS part in the problem.<<
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that a transcript of their conversation had been published. Perhaps you can provide the cite for us. If you can't document your statement, I suggest that you are prejudging the situation without evidence. In other words, you are making precisely the same mistake President Obama made.
Presidents often create controversy with their statements. I'm not aware of another situation where a modern President invited private citizens to the White House so soon after saying something controversial.
There's plenty of distrust between minority studies professors and law enforcement. They tend to prejudge each other and sit in their warring camps. We're not going to get anywhere with dueling talking heads demanding the other side apologize. I swear all these people need a time out.
Interestingly, it seems that Boston has an annual event called "Beer Summit." Lovely. Sponored by Sam Adams beer. It seems that Prof. Gates drank Sam Adams light - an interesting choice given the controversy about others choosing foreign beers.
35. NeedACatchyName said the following at 11:22 PM on Jul 31:
I do find this extremely troubling. I mean, our president could arguably have just about any beer in the world and he chooses...a Budweiser? That shows awfully poor decision making from the most powerful man in our country. I hope Sgt. Crowley decided to use this as a "teaching moment" and allowed President Obama to have a sip of his Blue Moon so that he could see what a real beer tasted like.
:) :) :)
Incidentally, I couldn't tell from the pictures, but did Sgt. Crowley have a orange slice floating in his beer? That's the traditional way to serve a Blue Moon.
36. pass the ammunition said the following at 5:59 AM on Aug 1:
What this whole incident has taught me as a Black woman is the completely different reality my White brothers and sisters live in although we are in the same country.
Racial profiling is THE singular common experience of African American men.
Racial profiling is not always = "That man is Black, therefore I should arrest him."
It is often: "That man looks suspicious and/or dangerous."
The problem? Simply by being Black, people are more likely to think one is suspicious or dangerous, leading to arrests in situations where a White man come across as harmless. Did you know Black plainclothes police officers are often the victim of deadly shootings by other police?
I just don't get what is so difficult to understand?
37. dcresident said the following at 8:29 AM on Aug 1:
Candice your post doesn't make sense. What exactly do you find troubling? The president meeting with citizens to have a civil discussion about a highly-publicized incident? The fact that he drinks beer? The fact that he's not distributing beer and wine to people perishing and in anguish (see following verses) but instead enjoying it himself? I think you are completely mishandling the verses you reference.
38. Lauren T. said the following at 9:53 AM on Aug 1:
I wasn't troubled by the beer. I was more inclined to say, "Boy, that's a gimmick."
I appreciated the fact Mr. Bush used to meet without people without a fanfare. This particular meeting had so much heralding it almost became more a joke than anything else. The president did right to look for some way to calm things down after he foolishly helped escalate them, but this particular gesture was more like he was trying to get out of an embarrassing situation than really help settle the issue (hence, the lack of apology for speaking stupidly).
In other words: the beer drinking didn't bother me at all. The goofiness of the whole thing did. The willingness of the media to swoon all over about how this was apparently the most gracious and conciliatory act ever made by a president actually bothered me most: and in all fairness, President Obama can't be held responsible for that particular cascade of goofiness.
39. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Aug 1:
Shelby Steele has an interesting article that contrasts the Gates Incident with the Emmitt Till incident from the 1950's.
40. Courtney said the following at 5:30 PM on Aug 1:
Well what I find most bothersome is that this event was just exactly like something our president would do.
What do we expect when we have a guy in office who is there because he is a "party puppet" or can deliver a speach that is pleasing to the ears but says nothing.
While I personally disagree with the whole "let's have a beer" bit obviously no one was drinking enough to be influenced, so I'm sure no harm was meant.
The real harm is that we have a president that is worried about such a pr move. That our president even was involved in this... that he acknowledged this issuse that really shouldn't have ever even come up. If people whould act mature and get off the victim soap box, this would not be a problem. And I'll echo the choir heere that has said... who does President Obama think he is teaching a lesson to? I am certainly not racist all I learned here was that Obama jumped the gun and made race an issue when it wasn't.
And isn't it sad that those decision making skills are in a postion to determine the fate of unborn babies. All parties have their faults, but to hear a Christian defending a man that doesn't support life is enough to break my heart.
41. Leah said the following at 6:09 PM on Aug 2:
Mike said BDB - Dude, you act like the Prez is just a neutral mediator in a dispute between the parties.
No, he didn't. He said The fact that the President cleared time on his schedule was an admission that he realized he could have handled it better. That's hardly suggesting the President was a neutral mediator.
42. Mark W said the following at 8:25 AM on Aug 3:
I find it more troubling that we as a nation are more concerned with the obvious media shows and political posturing of our elected representatives than what they're doing to destroy the country and desecrate the Constitution (and I don't mean just Obama or any one particular party). The federal reserve has doubled the money supply in about six months making hyperinflation all but inevitable, but no one cares because "OMGZ!!!11!!! Obama's choice of beer is ____!! More on that breaking news at 11."
I also find it much more troubling that a man who had committed no crime was arrested because he made the mistake of wounding a police officer's pride. Yet this kind of abuse of power is becoming more and more normal and people will defend this police officer because "he's serving his community." How quickly we forget the lessons of our own founding.
43. Keith said the following at 10:19 AM on Aug 3:
Jesus is a king, and drank wine.....
I think the verse refers to leaders who make a habit of drinking, and who allow drinking to cloud their judgment. This certainly isn't the case....
If anything, I think this act is something to be praised. Sitting down to work things out, rather than bombing other people is the Christian thing to do. Just imagine if George Bush had been wise enough to forgive Osama Bin Laden, and invited him over for some beers....sure Osama Bin Laden is a really bad guy, but so am I and Jesus is going to drink wine with me one day at His banqueting table, and if I am no better morally than Osama, then I don't see why he couldn't also have been invited over for some beer....
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be call sons of God.
44. JB said the following at 11:14 AM on Aug 3:
Jethro,
"Oh, but they're not Republicans, just Christians."
Honestly, I'm concerned that they're no longer able to tell the difference.
45. Jeremy said the following at 3:12 PM on Aug 3:
JB (#44):
=) That made me laugh. It is sad how often that seems to be true, how many believers seem to see political conversation (not debate, since it is primarily nodding in agreement with Republican articles or talking heads) as a primary outworking of their faith.
46. S said the following at 4:05 PM on Aug 3:
And the rest of that passage is:
6 Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy."
So, where are you going with this quote?
47. Jethro said the following at 5:03 PM on Aug 3:
Mike (#27)
I seem to recall the President apologizing for reacting too hastily and inflaming the situation. I doubt they reported it on Fox News though, so I'm sure people on the right never heard about it.
JB (#44),
I had that concern a long time ago. Now it's just a sad reality as far as I am concerned.
48. Ted Slater said the following at 5:18 PM on Aug 3:
Jethro (#47) -- do you have a link to the President's apology? I haven't seen it yet.
I'd be interested in seeing something specific, where he acknowledges that he was wrong to denounce the police officers, since he didn't have the facts straight.
I'd even be interested in seeing a general apology, taking personal responsibility for having reacted too hastily and for inflaming the situation.
49. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:00 PM on Aug 3:
Ted, no, there hasn't been any apology from Obama for what he said, and you're not going to see one either. This is because what Obama said was absolutely 100% right. The facts would have justified Obama in going a lot further than he did; the only problem is that Obama's remarks carry so much weight that for him to go into a lot of detail might mess up any investigations or lawsuits.
The problem isn't that Obama criticized the police, it's that Crowley falsely arrested Professor Gates and filed a false police report. For example, Crowley says Lucia Whalen told him at the scene there were two black men with backpacks; no she didn't. She had a press conference later denying his claim, and during her 911 call she doesn't say that either man was black, and she says suitcases; she doesn't say backpacks. So in order to believe Crowley, you have to believe that Lucia Whalen said accurately told the dispatcher that they had suitcases, and then later she inaccurately told him they had backpacks, and then later she lied when she denied she said what he claims.
We can hear Crowley on the radio; we don't hear Professor Gates shouting. He claims he couldn't communicate in the kitchen; we can hear him fine.
His claim that Professor Gates's shouting kept him from identifying himself is a lie. He's required by law to provide his identification card when asked for identification; no amount of shouting would have kept him from doing that.
His description of Professor Gates's behavior on the porch is obviously meant to hide what is going on. He describes Professor Gates's conduct as "tumultuous" but conceals what Professor Gates is doing that's tumultuous. He says passersby appeared surprised and alarmed, but didn't talk to any of them and doesn't say how they exhibited this supposed surprise and alarm. An honest person gives full descriptions, a person trying to hide something gives vague, generalized descriptions.
Crowley arrested Professor Gates because Professor Gates asked him for his name and badge number. So no, President Obama isn't going to apologize for accurately saying that the police acted stupidly.
50. JB said the following at 6:16 PM on Aug 3:
When did everyone arrive at this consensus that Obama has something to apologize for? The police officer who arrested Gates *did* do something stupid. It is, on face, stupid to arrest a 58-year-old man who walks with a cane for "disorderly conduct" because he yells at you on his own lawn after you investigate him for breaking into his own house. Gates didn't act appropriately, but he should never have been arrested for being rude to a police officer. Apparently, the prosecutor assigned to that case agreed.
51. S said the following at 6:22 PM on Aug 3:
I believe this is what is referenced in #47-
"Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently."
"My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve it the way the wanted to resolve it," Obama added.
52. Jethro said the following at 10:03 PM on Aug 3:
Ted (#48),
I will track down for you, don't have time right at this second. More generally, do the police bear any responsility here?
53. Mark W said the following at 11:20 PM on Aug 3:
Ted (#48) wrote:
"I'd be interested in seeing something specific, where he acknowledges that he was wrong to denounce the police officers, since he didn't have the facts straight."
What are the mitigating facts that would make it "wrong to denounce the police officers?"
Even if race wasn't an issue (and I personally don't think race had anything to do with it), the officer in question still arrested a man who had committed no crime. That's false arrest, and is itself a crime. (Albeit, one that would never be successfully prosecuted in today's cops-can-do-no-wrong legal env't.) Gates certainly acted foolishly if his goal was to avoid arrest, and Obama wasn't at his most presidential when he commented on the issue; but when the facts are looked at, Obama's assessment of the officer in question is, if anything, generous.
54. Jethro said the following at 12:13 AM on Aug 4:
Ted (#48),
The President said "Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically and I could have calibrated those words differently." (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/24/cambridge-police-unit-demands-apology-obama-stupidly-remark/).
Seems to me like taking responsibility for inflamining the situation. Now whether he actually did the wrong thing, is something we can disagree on.
55. James said the following at 12:40 AM on Aug 4:
Jethro(47) yes, the Presidents follow up briefing on this issue is available for all to see. I don't know of the policy of posting video links here, but with a little effort it can be found. And that's really what I find most troubling about this blog and some of the comments here, from people who should know better. The apparent inability to give our President any benefit of the doubt on anything is something I have to shake my head at. Being the President is about more than just the big things, it's also about the little things such as this. I thought it was fine gesture on his part.
56. Ted Slater said the following at 9:29 AM on Aug 4:
Jethro,
I need to say up front that I don't have a problem with the President getting together over a beer with these two men, with the stated goal of bringing some reconciliation. I think that's fine.
I also need to say that, regardless whether the President *ought* to apologize or not, he has in fact *not* apologized for defaming these police officers. He simply offers the typical politicians' non-apology apology.
Obama says his words "gave an impression" that he was maligning the Cambridge Police Department. No, Mr. President. You in fact *did* malign the Cambridge Police Department by clearly saying that they "acted stupidly."
And you know what, maybe they did.
The thing is, Jethro, even the article you referenced says in the first sentence that "President Obama stopped short of an apology."
Not to be cynical, but I frankly don't expect sincere apologies from anyone any more. I've come to expect elusive non-apologies instead. We don't see real apologies modeled, and so we just don't know how to do them. I don't know the last time a politician of any party truly apologized for something he or she said or did.
I'm sorry if you disagree. ;-)
57. Jason said the following at 10:15 AM on Aug 4:
Ted (#48): Here's a link, although I don't know if you'd consider it a general apology.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2447761120090724
Also, for those of you who were questioning what the "teachable moment" here is, it's "don't forget your keys" (lifted from Larry Wilmore on the Daily Show)
58. nickinkansas said the following at 2:07 PM on Aug 4:
I generally like, and usually agree with the blogs/views/articles of boundless. However, this blog is somewhat confusing to me.
I feel like Candice was pointing out the fact that the president had a beer(GASP!), was wrong. Maybe you could clarify, Candice?
Whether or not the President drinks an occasional beer (with or without company) does not by any means make him a bad example for others. I consider myself a strong Christian man who happens to enjoy an occasional beer. Just because someone does this in public does not give any of us the right to judge one another (or the President for that matter). Actually, you could say, he drank responsibly by not getting drunk.
Either way, I was a little turned off by this blog. Sorry.
59. Mike said the following at 4:52 PM on Aug 4:
BDB (#34) wrote:
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that a transcript of their conversation had been published. Perhaps you can provide the cite for us. If you can't document your statement, I suggest that you are prejudging the situation without evidence. In other words, you are making precisely the same mistake President Obama made.
He publicly defamed the officers without facts, in what was likely a staged opportunity to whine about racial profiling. Sitting around the table in private doesn't balance the scales.
Stop covering for him.
Chris (#33) wrote:
Well, from what I read, they're planning to meet again. Maybe each learned a little bit about the other or about his point of view. Maybe they learned about disagreements they have. Maybe they learned about agreements. Maybe they learned they have a lot more to learn.
In other words, you're speculating that the President took them both to the woodshed. Here's a newsflash: This was a LOCAL matter. He had no business sticking his Presidential nose into it.
And, oh, by the way: Sgt. Crowley has been a racial profiling prevention instructor for 5 years. He also gave CPR to a black athlete who had collapsed on the court. To suggest that, automatically, he's a racist because he arrested a black man is ludicrous.
JB (#50) wrote:
When did everyone arrive at this consensus that Obama has something to apologize for? The police officer who arrested Gates *did* do something stupid.
President Obama misused his authority as President to stick his nose into a local matter. He also made accusations against local law enforcement, maligning people he didn't have any reason or call to malign. That is way outside his purview as President. The fact that the person who instigated the confrontation is a personal friend of the President's only makes it worse; it stinks of Chicago-style favoritism.
It is, on face, stupid to arrest a 58-year-old man who walks with a cane for "disorderly conduct" because he yells at you on his own lawn after you investigate him for breaking into his own house.
No, it isn't. First of all, he didn't just "yell" at the officer. He started in with his foolishness about being "profiled" before he complied with the officer's request to show ID. Then, he pursued the officer onto the porch as the officer was leaving, raising a ruckus and deliberately trying to attract attention. That is a textbook case of disorderly conduct. Once the situation is resolved, here's a hint: Shut up. If you want to file a grievance with the officer's superiors later, do so, but failing to control your temper and deliberately trying to attract attention in the middle of an encounter with the police is a sure way to get yourself into trouble. You have the right to petition the authorities for redress of grievances; you don't have the right to make a jerk of yourself and disturb the peace.
The honorable (?) Professor Gates has been a race hustler his whole life. He defended 2 Live Crew's rap music - which advocated the rape and beating of black women - against obscenity charges on the grounds that white people couldn't understand the "art" so involved, and to rule it obscene would be racism, because it had to be put "in the context of black culture" (see here). It's not too much of a stretch for us to think it was Gates, not Crowley, who overreacted. It was Gates who followed Crowley out of the house onto the porch. He didn't get arrested until then.
Please don't tell me that dropping the charges is indication of Crowley having done something wrong. That was political, not factual. Crowley was within his authority to preserve the peace by arresting him, both from the standpoint of the civil law and from the standpoint of Gates's failure to submit to the civil authority under God's law.
60. BDB said the following at 4:59 PM on Aug 4:
Over-the-top comments like #49 are why I don't care about who apologizes publicly. It's much more important that people sit down and talk and realize each other are human beings.
The reality for me is that if I lost my keys and broke into my front door, one of my neighbors probably would call the police if they didn't recognize me. An if the police came, I would say, "Gosh, it's so great to live in a neighborhood where people look out for each other!" And I'd probably jabber on and on about whatever stupid thing I did that caused me to lose my keys.
Heck, I think I have one neighbor that calls code enforcement on another neighbor when they don't put their trash cans behind the fence (which is required in this town.) One day I found the code-enforcement guy in front of MY house, so of course I stopped and asked what he was doing. It was the feuding neigbors.
The reality is that both professors and police sergeants have egos the size of small countries. Prof. Gates likely overreacted because, as a Black Studies professor, his career is based on finding racism everywhere. The Daily Show did a hilarious segment on this, with their "Senior Black Correspondent" pointing out how this Harvard Professor summers in the Hamptons, etc., and now he FINALLY has a story about being oppressed!
Sgt. Crowley is apparently the instructor who teaches how law enforcement avoids making the mistake of racial profiling. So, having Prof. Gates accuse him of being a racist was likely way more insulting than just the normal way that professors say all white people are racists (and yes, some professors do this. Had a few on the faculty at both my undergrad and grad school.)
I'm convinced that the "beer summit" was worthwhile, and whatever was said was adequate, simply because the rhetoric has been toned down by both participants. Both Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley have issued measured statements about how while there is still disagreement they intend to meet privately, perhaps dinner with their families. That would go a long ways towards finding another way to handle these things. I'm sure they're both thinking, "How in the world could this have happened to me?"
And since they both are engaged in a profession where they think critically about interactions between law enforcement and minority communities, hopefully they will be able to identify where they could have altered their actions and words to prevent the situation from escalating. Heck, I can see them being guest speakers at each other's classes.
61. Zusanne said the following at 5:30 PM on Aug 4:
Jason (#57) that's funny!
62. Zusanne said the following at 5:30 PM on Aug 4:
pass the ammunition #36: Unfortunately, those of us who are white can only know that we can't understand all that we can't understand what it's like to be black (sorry about the grammatical tangle). We don't think of the racial element first because we're rarely--if ever--faced with our race; it's not thrown at us very often. I think it's why many white people aren't as sympathetic as we could be.
To echo what you said, I appreciate what Brent Staples says in "Black Men and Public Space." While he's not a threat, after his first encounter with a woman who showed fear in his presence, he said, "I was surprised, embarrassed, and dismayed all at once. . . . I was indistinguishable from the muggers who occasionally seeped into the area from the surrounding ghetto. . . . And I soon gathered that beeing perceived as dangerous is a hazard in itself." After several horrific examples(including the death of a reporter), he continues, "Over the years, I learned to smother the rage I felt at so often being taken for a criminal. Not to do so would surely have led to madness. I now take precautions to make myself less threatening."
He calls his "ability to alter public space in ugly ways" his "unweildy inheritance." Those of us who don't have to deal with this issue every time we face the public really have to understand that we see things differently.
-----------------------
Here's my two cents on the rest of the issue:
1. It doesn't really matter to me what they're drinking. Well, as long as they're not trying to drive home.
2. If the President wants to have the police officer and the professor over for a beer, whatever. It seems rather silly, but okay. Don't care which party he's from, either.
3. Next time one of the President's friends has a problem, he should probably keep his involvement less public.
4. Next time the President is asked a question and he doesn't know all the facts, he should refrain from commenting. Or at least stop with, "I don't know all the facts."
5. The other officer facing some serious heat for this event is the black officer who was present at the arrest. Because he's shown support for his colleague, he's being hassled. That seems incredibly unfair to me.
And, just for fun:
Jethro (#47): I saw the President's speech. On Fox. I'm a dedicated channel surfer, but I saw it. They played it. Several times. Seriously?
James (#11) I've read the book of the mother you referenced. While I find it important for those who disagree to sit down together and discuss their positions, in that situation, I would have acted in the same way as the current President.
63. Mike Toreno said the following at 8:13 PM on Aug 4:
Ted, President Obama never said he was going to apologize and never claimed to apologize. Why are you looking for an apology from President Obama? Why aren't you more concerned with getting Crowley to apologize to Professor Gates? Crowley falsely arrested Professor Gates and then wrote a false police report.
64. Ted Slater said the following at 1:31 PM on Aug 5:
Mike Toreno (#63) -- I was responding to Jethro, who said in comment #47 that the President apologized. I was pointing out that he had in fact *not* apologized.
In my comment #56 I express doubt about "whether the President *ought* to apologize or not." On one hand, I do believe the President was wrong to insert himself the way he has. On the other hand, the police officers seem to have behaved inappropriately (toward someone who also behaved inappropriately).
65. Mark W said the following at 1:46 PM on Aug 5:
Mike (#59) wrote:
"Crowley was within his authority to preserve the peace by arresting him, both from the standpoint of the civil law and from the standpoint of Gates's failure to submit to the civil authority under God's law."
No, he wasn't. And you're missing the point. Gates did not break any laws. Even if he was yelling and screaming obscenities, his behavior would not constitute disorderly conduct unless he was in danger of starting a riot. There is no evidence that this was the case, other than Crowley's testimony, which has already been documented to be false in numerous ways (see #49).
Furthermore, in America, police officers are not the civil authority, the law is. You are not legally required to submit to any and every order by a police officer. And unless you have committed a crime, they have no authority to arrest you. Therefore, when Gates refused to come to the door, he was not breaking any laws. When Gates exercised his right to free speech by criticizing the officer, he was not breaking any laws. When Crowley falsely arrested Gates, he was abusing his power and breaking the law. It was Crowley who was not submitting to the authority of the law by committing a false arrest.
I agree that Gates acted foolishly. If you're trying to avoid arrest, you should never say anything to a cop except direct answers to their questions. But Gates didn't commit a crime. Being foolish or annoying does not warrant being arrested.
66. BDB said the following at 3:36 PM on Aug 5:
DO NOT TAKE MARK W'S ADVICE!
The reality of the situation in Cambridge is that both men should have known to de-escalate the situation.
If the comments Gates was reported to make (speaking disparagingly about Sgt. Crowley's mother, etc.) he should be fired as a professor. There's absolutely no excuse for a professor to be engaging in that kind of uncivil behavior. None.
As a practical matter, do I think either of them should be fired? No. I think they've both realized that they should have been able to de-escalate. This was not the stereotypical conflict between the stereotypical gang-banger and the stereotypical rookie cop.
I appreciate the way that left-leaning satire like The Daily Show and Colbert Report are skewering both sides by speaking the truth. The people trying to fix 100% of the blame on one person or another need to knock it off.
67. Mike said the following at 4:06 PM on Aug 5:
BDB (#60) -
Well, in general, I can agree with much of what you wrote, in that it was very insulting to Crowley to be accused of racial profiling - since he's been teaching people how to avoid exactly that charge for at least the last 5 years and has an exemplary record of not doing so himself, in that Gates looks for racism everywhere, etc.
I know a LOT of cops. My ex-wife used to work for the police department, and I correspond regularly with many of them. SOP in a situation such as this one - a burglary call - is to enter the residence and ask for ID. That's the officer's job. How does he know who lives there, or whether the person he's confronting and who claims to live there actually does? (And, let's also remember that burglars, when confronted, can often turn violent to avoid being arrested.)
Now, in that situation, suddenly, he's being accused of racism. Hmn. That's a little odd, for someone who claims he lives there. Two possibilities: Either the individual has a chip on his shoulder and is looking for (and finding) racism, or he's really a burglar accusing the cop of racism to muddy the waters and get the cop off the mark. If you're the cop, what do you do?
You can't walk away. That would be dereliction of duty. You HAVE TO pursue the matter and get an answer as to whether or not this person belongs in this residence.
Now, the person finally presents ID, and you establish that he does, in fact, live there. Okay, so the tip of a burglary was mistaken. At this point, you understand the upset of the person you've confronted, who's hacked off about being accused of burgling his own house. (Yeah, I'd probably be a little perturbed, too.) But, by the same token, you're hacked off about being accused of racism, given that race had NOTHING TO DO with your decision to enter the premises and do your duty. So, with your pressure cooker on simmer, you turn to leave.
The resident now pursues you onto the porch, screaming and yelling that you're a racist, and that he's been unjustly accused of something, and basically trying to attract as much attention as he can to the situation. Under the "disorderly conduct" statute (conveniently provided by Mark W):
------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
In your judgment as the officer on scene, you've had enough. You make the arrest, based on this individual making a public nuisance of himself.
Now, this is a judgment on your part. It can, like all such judgments, be second-guessed later...and, as it turns out, it will be.
And we pay cops about $35,000 or $40,000 a year to put up with this nonsense. Any volunteers?
Mark W -
Furthermore, in America, police officers are not the civil authority, the law is.
The police enforce the law, and hence are agents of the civil authority. Don't be obtuse.
You are not legally required to submit to any and every order by a police officer. And unless you have committed a crime, they have no authority to arrest you. Therefore, when Gates refused to come to the door, he was not breaking any laws.
But he was when he left the house, moved onto the porch and created a public annoyance for the purpose of calling attention to himself. Thanks for the cite that demonstrated that point.
:-)
Gates wasn't engaging in "free speech" any more than a person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater is engaging in free speech. He was deliberately trying to stir up the neighborhood to garner support for how he was the victim of non-existent racial profiling. And that, according to the plain language of the law, is disorderly conduct. The fact that Crowley's supervision caved is what's stupid, not the fact that Crowley didn't let Gates get away with it.
68. Mark W said the following at 4:53 PM on Aug 5:
Thanks for the shout out BDB. Exactly what advice should people not take?
"If you're trying to avoid arrest, you should never say anything to a cop except direct answers to their questions" is the only advice in my comment. The rest of my comment deals with what is and is not technically legal. I am not saying that behaving like Prof. Gates will prevent you from being arrested. I'm also not saying that behaving like Prof. Gates is wise or mature. What I am saying is that Prof. Gates didn't do anything illegal, and thus it was illegal for Officer Crowley to arrest him.
In short, I'm not telling people how to interact with cops, and I'm not placing all the blame on one side. I think Gates and Crowley both acted like idiots. Nevertheless, Crowley is the only one who committed a crime. That's a statement of fact, not my opinion on who is most to blame.
69. BDB said the following at 5:37 PM on Aug 5:
Mark W (#68) wrote:
>>Nevertheless, Crowley is the only one who committed a crime. That's a statement of fact, not my opinion on who is most to blame.<<
No, the Jury is the finder of fact, you've stated an opinion. As Mike's analysis in comment #67 points out, it was the Professor who committed the crime, not the officer.
Whether the jury backs the cop or the professor will vary by community. In my community, they'll likely back the cop.
A couple of years ago there was a case where a black deputy told a Hispanic Air Force airman to "get up," and when he did, shot him three times. This was caught by an amateur video recording.
The next day, I was having dinner with a white man who is in a supervisory role with a local law enforcement organization. He met up with a few other supervisory-level law-enforcement guys at the restaurant. They all agreed that both the deputy and the agency he worked for were toast, the deputy was clearly in the wrong.
The Jury disagreed. They acquitted the officer for shooting an unarmed guy. Afterwards the jurors excused his behavior, saying that he was probably nervous after chasing them at 100 mph. Yesterday the case was settled for $1.5 Million, not out of line with other police shootings. But pretty low for one caught on video of a deputy shooting an unarmed guy - especially because the guy was complying with the deputy's order at the time.
In the Cambridge case, filing a false police report is what would happen if the guy was normally entering his apartment, and the neighbor called to say someone was breaking in. But it would not be the officer, it would be the person who called who would be guilty of filing the false report.
I can assure you, in this community, if an officer responded to a 911 call and found two guys who had engaged in forcible entry, his report would include the race of the guys he found at the location. They DID commit forcible entry; it was is home so it was not illegal. If the incident happened here, the jury would say the professor deserved to be thrown in jail.
But the proper reaction from the professor would be to say simply, "Really, one of my neighbors called 911? Wow, I'm glad they're watching out for my place while I'm gone. Here's my ID. Thanks for responding so quickly."
70. Mark W said the following at 5:46 PM on Aug 5:
Mike (#67) wrote:
"The police enforce the law, and hence are agents of the civil authority. Don't be obtuse."
I was not trying to be obtuse but to make an important distinction. The police are not themselves the law, and therefore, if you disobey an order from a police officer, you are not necessarily breaking the law (or the command of Romans 13). For instance, if a police officer asks to come into your home, demands entry into your home, or wants to see what you've got in your trunk, you have the right as an American citizen to demand to see a warrant first. When a police officer asks you a question - any question at all, you have the right to refuse to answer. Whenever you're involved in any altercation with a police officer, you have the right to demand that they give you their name and badge number. The officer most likely won't like any of the above responses (and I generally wouldn't recommend trying any of them unless you're willing to be tased/go to jail/etc.), but them's the rules. We need more real Americans who will stand up for these rights, not more sheeple who submit to the martial law mindset.
Mike (#67) also wrote:
"But he was when he left the house, moved onto the porch and created a public annoyance for the purpose of calling attention to himself."
Outside of Crowley's statement which is known to contain numerous errors, please provide any evidence that this occurred.
71. JB said the following at 7:07 PM on Aug 5:
Mike #67,
Protesting government actions in front of your neighbors is the entire point of free speech. The day we can't talk back to the police and draw attention to their actions is the day we might as well shred the First Amendment. Political speech shouldn't need to be polite. I think it's telling that your defense of the police officer's action in your scenario rests on his personal feelings of annoyance. That's precisely it. Gates wasn't arrested to protect the public, he was arrested because he annoyed a police officer. And that's stupid.
72. Chris said the following at 7:58 PM on Aug 5:
Mike writes (#59):
Chris (#33) wrote:
Well, from what I read, they're planning to meet again. Maybe each learned a little bit about the other or about his point of view. Maybe they learned about disagreements they have. Maybe they learned about agreements. Maybe they learned they have a lot more to learn. (bold quoted text is mine)
In other words, you're speculating that the President took them both to the woodshed. Here's a newsflash: This was a LOCAL matter. He had no business sticking his Presidential nose into it.
Uh, no, I'm not. How do any of those statements imply he took them out back and took a rod to them? You seem intent on wanting to know what was discussed yet are quick to decide what actually occurred.
My point was not about whether or not the President should have been involved. It was in response to your statement (#15):
I'm concerned that the President thought of this as a "teachable moment". Exactly what was being taught, and to whom?
You seem to think that President Obama whipped them into line. Fine. Support your position with statements from the meeting. What's that? You can't? My point exactly.
And, oh, by the way: Sgt. Crowley has been a racial profiling prevention instructor for 5 years. He also gave CPR to a black athlete who had collapsed on the court. To suggest that, automatically, he's a racist because he arrested a black man is ludicrous.
Where did I suggest he was a racist?
73. Mark W said the following at 9:05 PM on Aug 5:
BDB #69 wrote:
"No, the Jury is the finder of fact, you've stated an opinion. As Mike's analysis in comment #67 points out, it was the Professor who committed the crime, not the officer."
So Mike's analysis is correct (because you agree with it?), but my analysis and Mike Toreno's (#49) is opinion because a jury could disagree? I'm sorry, but this just sounds like "I'm right and you're wrong, so there."
The jury is not the finder of fact. The jury is the renderer of a verdict. Obviously, yes, if this went to trial, a hypothetical jury would determine what happened to Gates and Crowley, but I hope you're not implying that their position makes their decisions infallible. In either case, I think this discussion comes down to whether you believe Officer Crowley's official report (which contradicts the testimony of both Prof. Gates and Lucia Whalen) and how you interpret Massachusetts' disorderly conduct statute.
If Gates was in fact, intentionally trying to cause a scene and "cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" then Officer Crowley could legitimately arrest him for disorderly conduct. (I'm ignoring the "violence" clause that Mike highlighted as even Crowley's official report does not allege that Gates was violent in any way.) However, there is no indication in the report that Gates was causing any kind of public disturbance other than the statement "which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates's outburst."
If this statement is true, I'd like to ask a few questions: (1) How do you define "alarm" in the disorderly conduct statute? Does it mean fear for one's safety/property/etc. (i.e.: the kind of alarm that would cause real personal distress), or does it extend to the kind of alarm you have when you see a car crash? I tend to agree with JB that the former interpretation shreds the 1st amendment by making any potentially offensive political demonstration "disorderly conduct." (2) Where are the citizen witnesses that Crowley refers to who could easily corroborate his official report and put the whole matter to rest? (3) Which is more likely: that Crowley was arresting Gates out of concern that he was legitimately "disorderly" and thus posed a threat of alarm, or that he was angry to be talked back to and didn't want to deal with Gates anymore?
If Lucia Whalen's statements are correct, then Crowley is at least guilty of filing a false report. If other details in the report are misrepresented and it turns out that Prof. Gates is not guilty of disorderly conduct, then he's also guilty of false arrest.
So, yes, you're right that this is somewhat subjective in that it's a question of who do you believe? But Crowley either did commit a crime or didn't. Gates either did commit a crime or didn't. And that's not a matter of opinion.
"But the proper reaction from the professor would be to say simply, 'Really, one of my neighbors called 911? Wow, I'm glad they're watching out for my place while I'm gone. Here's my ID. Thanks for responding so quickly.'"
I don't think anyone is holding Gates up as the paragon of graciousness, wisdom, or discernment. The question isn't what the proper reaction to a police officer asking you step outside is. The question is, was a crime committed? Because as far as the law is concerned, Gates could have told the officer to "[expletive] off," but if no crime was committed, then it's illegal for Crowley to arrest Gates (that, of course, doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't do it anyway). And that's not a matter of opinion either.
74. Mike Toreno said the following at 10:24 PM on Aug 5:
Mark W:
"But he was when he left the house, moved onto the porch and created a public annoyance for the purpose of calling attention to himself."
Outside of Crowley's statement which is known to contain numerous errors, please provide any evidence that this occurred.
True, but never mind that; a more fundamental point is that such conduct is not illegal, no matter how much Mike wants to make any behavior he doesn't like, or behavior by people he doesn't like, illegal.
75. BDB said the following at 10:50 PM on Aug 5:
Mark W (#70) wrote:
>>if a police officer asks to come into your home, demands entry into your home, or wants to see what you've got in your trunk, you have the right as an American citizen to demand to see a warrant first. <<
Under U.S. law, sworn members of law enforcement can do all those things without a warrant when they have probable cause. In the instant case, a 3rd party called in and reported a burglary in progress, which is adequate probable case to enter the property and apprehend the reported burglar, at a minimum to enter and demand identification from anyone found there.
If no one had called, they'd need a warrant.
Likewise, if a driver is pulled over for speeding, and he officer smells pot smoke, they have probable cause to search the car without a warrant.
76. Mike Toreno said the following at 10:56 PM on Aug 5:
BDB, whether my analysis was over the top or not isn't important, the question is whether my analysis is correct. I notice you didn't try to explain how Crowley claimed that Lucia Whalen told him there were backpacks, when she didn't tell the dispatcher that, and when she denies having said anything about backpacks. When I first heard about this case I wasn't sure it was racial profiling, I thought it was just a policeman abusing a citizen because he didn't like being questioned or challenged, but the fact that Crowley lied about what Lucia Whalen said to him and turned suitcases into backpacks suggests that there may have been a racial angle after all.
A close examination of Crowley's police report reveals additional lies. Check this out:
"With the Harvard University identification in hand I radioed my findings to ECC and prepared to leave." Finished, right? Nothing more to do, right? Finished communicating with ECC and had no problems doing it, right?
Now he says that Professor Gates asked him for his name and he started giving it to him, and then Professor Gates started yelling over him, saying he's a racist police officer, etc. He notices Figueroa standing behind him, Professor Gates asks for his name a third time; he says he's given it twice and if Professor Gates wants to continue speaking, he'll speak to him outside. Now, Crowley is obligated by law to give an identification card when asked for his information. Instead of doing what the law requires him to do, he claims that he attempted to give it verbally and was prevented from doing so by Professor Gates. Why didn't he hand over his ID card, as required? Why would any amount of shouting make that impossible?
OK, now Crowley says:
"As I began walking from the foyer to the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reasons for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit information to ECC or other responding units."
Nope. Crowley has finished communicating with ECC, he's done. He just completed his report, from the house, without any difficulty (you can listen to him on the radio if you want). He's done. He's finished. He's leaving. Then Professor Gates starts asking for his ID, he says he starts giving it to him (in an improper way) and now suddenly he needs to leave because he can't radio from the house, when he could radio from the house just a few seconds ago and doesn't have any more information to send.
People who lie about what they're doing and why they're doing it, are doing improper things for improper reasons.
Now, Professor Gates's story is that he demanded Crowley's information and Crowley didn't respond, he repeated his request and Crowley told him he'd give the information outside.
Whose story makes more sense? The story Crowley tells, where he is prevented from verbally giving information he is required by law to give nonverbally, and has to go outside to use the radio when he doesn't need to use the radio anymore? Or Professor Gates's story?
Also, Crowley and Figueroa didn't get their stories straight. Professor Gates said "No I will not" in response to Crowley's initial request that Gates come out of the house; Figueroa (who was not there when this exchange took place) says that Professor Gates said "No I will not" in response to the request for ID. Crowley doesn't say what Professor Gates said in his supposed initial refusal to produce identification, but asked for Crowley's identification; Figueroa doesn't say anything about Professor Gates asking for Crowley's identification, even though he supposedly provides an exact quote.
Crowley has Professor Gates saying "This is what happens to black men in America" after he's given Crowley his identification and has asked Crowley for his own information; Figueroa has this coming before Professor Gates has given his ID.
So, just from looking at the police report we can tell that Crowley lied, and that Crowley and Figueroa got together and cooked up a story. Figueroa was just a little sloppy, though; he understood basically what he was supposed to say happened, but didn't sufficiently nail down when the various events happened and when Professor Gates said one thing or another. If Crowley and Figueroa were telling the truth, their stories would line up.
But they don't.
77. BDB said the following at 11:01 PM on Aug 5:
JB (#71) wrote:
>>Protesting government actions in front of your neighbors is the entire point of free speech. The day we can't talk back to the police and draw attention to their actions is the day we might as well shred the First Amendment.<<
Fair warning: please don't move to my town because no one here wants to see this attitude in their neighbors.
It is NOT the point of free speech to hurl insults at police officers that are responding to a legitimate call from a neighbor. People who react to such legitimate inquiries should be encouraged to move to a different city. It is certainly not acceptable on my street.
The purpose of 1st Amendment protections does include protection for political speech. This blog entry is protected speech, as are those entries that are critical of the President. Indeed, one of the most impressive press conferences I've ever seen was when George W. Bush was in China, and the press was firing questions at him, which he answered calmly. The Chinese President even remarked that he was not used to that kind of challenge from the press.
But no, it was never intended to make disparaging comments about a police officer's mother. Those kinds of insults are considered fighting words under American Constitutional law are are not protected speech. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that excluded this kind of speech from Constitutional protection.
78. Mike Toreno said the following at 12:29 AM on Aug 6:
Mike:
"Gates wasn't engaging in "free speech" any more than a person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater is engaging in free speech. He was deliberately trying to stir up the neighborhood to garner support for how he was the victim of non-existent racial profiling. And that, according to the plain language of the law, is disorderly conduct."
You're not serious, surely? He was deliberately trying to stir up the neighborhood to garner support for and you say that *this* is disorderly conduct? The fact that Crowley's report was all lies don't even enter into it. You have no understanding of what free speech is. The police are not entitled to dictate what viewpoints people are and aren't permitted to express. You say that there was no racial profiling; how do you know? Who's to decide? What if he was protesting police corruption and the police denied that they were corrupt? Would stirring up the neighborhood against non-existent police corruption constitute disorderly conduct?
Your analysis is faulty. Your reasoning is:
The disorderly conduct statute prohibits something.
Professor Gates did something.
Therefore, Professor Gates violated the statute.
But just doing something doesn't violate a statute; you have to be doing the thing that the statute prohibits. And even if you take Crowley's false report as true, Professor Gates didn't do anything prohibited by the statute.
79. pass the ammunition said the following at 6:23 AM on Aug 6:
Zusanne 67: You have no idea how much I appreciate your comment. You were the only one who really addressed the issue at hand.
80. Mark W said the following at 9:00 AM on Aug 6:
Correction re my earlier comment #73:
That should be "I tend to agree with JB that the latter interpretation shreds the 1st amendment by making any potentially offensive political demonstration 'disorderly conduct.'"
81. Mike Toreno said the following at 9:39 AM on Aug 6:
BDB:
>>Protesting government actions in front of your neighbors is the entire point of free speech. The day we can't talk back to the police and draw attention to their actions is the day we might as well shred the First Amendment.<<
Fair warning: please don't move to my town because no one here wants to see this attitude in their neighbors.
******
But that's what the First Amendment is for. Popular speech doesn't generally need any protection. For example, in Mississippi in 1964, people didn't need to invoke the First Amendment to argue in favor of police murders of voting rights activists.
And don't worry, if the community you live in is the one that thought it was OK for a policeman to shoot an American soldier who was lying face down on the ground, we don't want to live there either.
82. Mark W said the following at 9:40 AM on Aug 6:
BDB (#77)
It's interesting that you bring up the idea of fighting words. This idea was engaged head on by attorney Harvey Silvergate in this article. I'd recommend you read the whole thing, but the most pertinent excerpt is below:
Silvergate raises another very important point which I think is relevant to your very restricted view of the first amendment. If the first amendment only protects speech that no one has a problem with, and doesn't make people angry anyway, then what is the point of the first amendment? As Silvergate writes:
83. Mike Toreno said the following at 11:06 AM on Aug 6:
Zusanne:
"5. The other officer facing some serious heat for this event is the black officer who was present at the arrest. Because he's shown support for his colleague, he's being hassled. That seems incredibly unfair to me."
Leon Lashley was wise not to put his "observations" into an official police report. But he should have either:
1. Not gone on the TV machine
OR
2. Told the truth while on the TV machine.
He understood what he was supposed to say, but again, he and Crowley didn't coordinate it well enough. He has Professor Gates talking about being arrested while Professor Gates is still inside the house. Nobody else heard that, and it makes no sense.
Lashley also says Professor Gates said "I'm being placed under arrest in my own home because a white woman called the police." Nobody else said that Professor Gates said anything about a white woman calling the police, and there was no way for him to know who the caller was at this point.
So Lashley lied on TV to support another officer's unlawful arrest and now he's taking heat for it. Cry me a river.
84. Zusanne said the following at 12:22 PM on Aug 6:
Mike Toreno:
Lashley isn't being hassled for his support of the police report; he's being given a hard time for supporting a white man over a black man--without consideration of the facts, before the facts were even known, before the 911 tape was released . . .
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. You're assuming the police report is a lie--therefore all the police officers and the bystanders were lying--while the homeowner was telling the truth. I haven't seen your version substatiantiated. Do you have sources? The news sources I've seen (channel/web surfer) either have ignored the sequence of events or substantiated the police report.
Since the facts seem unclear, look at the character of the two men. Crowley's record seems clear; his interviews appear consistent with what he's done in the past. I can't say the same of the professor. He seems like he's a nice person (he's well-liked, has powerful friends and a good job), but he's allowed his anger to motivate his response--at his home and in the media.
One more thing: did his Harvard ID have his home address on it? Otherwise, it's just a picture and a name. That doesn't prove residency.
85. Mike Toreno said the following at 2:03 PM on Aug 6:
Zusanne, my information comes from:
Lucia Whalen's 911 call.
Crowley's radio communications.
Crowley's police report.
Figueroa's police report.
The Massachusetts requirement for a police officer to furnish his identification card when asked for his information.
Lashley's CNN interview.
The only additional information I use is the knowledge that Lucia Whalen denied having said anything to Crowley about two black men with backpacks.
I don't need to know what Professor Gates said, I don't need to assess the personal credibility of Crowley, Figueroa, Lashley, or Professor Gates, all I need to do is look at documents and watch and listen to recordings.
Crowley's report doesn't add up.
Figueroa's report doesn't line up with Crowley's.
Lashley's report doesn't line up with Crowley's and Figueroa's.
Crowley says Lucia Whalen told him two black men with backpacks, but we know she didn't tell that to the dispatcher, she said two men with suitcases, maybe they were having trouble with the door, she doesn't know. How, in the space of 2 or three minutes, did she change the suitcases to backpacks and then tell Crowley backpacks? She didn't see the backpacks after getting off the phone with the dispatcher because there were no backpacks.
Almost all my analysis at 76 comes from just reading the reports. I don't assess credibility in reading the reports, I just read the reports and see if what is said adds up, and it doesn't.
And oh yeah, another thing about Lashley, he supports Crowley's decision to make the arrest 100% but he, like Crowley, is vague about what Professor Gates was supposedly doing. People who are telling the truth give full descriptions; people who are hiding the truth give vague, generalized descriptions.
86. BDB said the following at 3:25 PM on Aug 6:
Mike Toreno #85 wrote:
>>People who are telling the truth give full descriptions; people who are hiding the truth give vague, generalized descriptions.<<
Not if what they were saying cannot legally be said on TV. The euphemisms being used suggest some rather vile statements were made by Prof. Gates in the heat of the moment. Civilized people do not repeat vulgarities before TV cameras.
If they were to go to trial, then yes, they would repeat what was said precisely. Of course, I doubt Prof. Gates would want his words repeated before a jury. That tends to make juries find in favor of law enforcement.
87. BDB said the following at 3:39 PM on Aug 6:
Mark W (#82) wrote:
>>If the first amendment only protects speech that no one has a problem with<<
I never stated this. You're setting up a straw man so you can knock it down.
I state that the jury is the finder of fact, and in communities which back law enforcement, the officer's actions in this case were entirely acceptable. That means if the arrested person were to file a lawsuit to seek damages for unlawful arrest, the jury would tell him to pound sand, he should have been respectful to the officer.
Remember - in my community a deputy SHOT a guy who was complying with an order, and the jury acquitted the black officer of wrongdoing. Sgt. Crowley was much, much more restrained than that.
Ultimately, it's irrelevant what a bunch of leftist 1st Amendment lawyers at the ACLU think if the jury wants law-and-order that comes from expecting everyone to respect the police.
88. Mark W said the following at 5:53 PM on Aug 6:
BDB re 87,
I don't understand why you think your community is meaningful to this discussion. We're not talking about what the jury in your town thinks. We're talking about the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
"Ultimately, it's irrelevant what a bunch of leftist 1st Amendment lawyers at the ACLU think if the jury wants law-and-order that comes from expecting everyone to respect the police."
I am not by any means a leftist (I would hope my comments on abortion/Obama/tax-related articles would make this rather clear). I can't speak for Mr. Silvergate as to his political views, but hopefully this is more a discussion of law than it is politics.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be espousing is "might makes right." Because the jury can tell someone to "pound sand" if they're falsely arrested, that means the plaintiff has no legitimate complaint and the jury is morally justified. Because the police officer can slap handcuffs on someone who gives him lip, that means it's the right thing to do. And his role as a police officer means that you should shut up and take it.
Yes, if a community wants to they can ignore the first amendment and give the police all the powers of the military during a time of martial law. Does that make it Constitutional? Does that make it right? Does that excuse a police officer who arrests someone who has committed no crime (or for that matter, murders an unresistant criminal)? Hopefully it doesn't take "leftist 1st Amendment lawyers at the ACLU" to realize that the answer is obviously no.
Ultimately, it's irrelevant what a bunch of deranged jurists in your town think. The law is the law. The Constitution is the Constitution. And being a police officer (or a jurist) does not give you the legal authority or the moral right to disregard it.
89. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:19 PM on Aug 6:
BDB, you're right. Whatever the jury says, that's what the truth is. J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant killed Emmett Till in 1955 and were acquitted.
From FBI records:
"According to *, Till was beaten with fists, and anvil was used to strike his head, his skin was pierced at multiple places with an awl, and * used a brace and bit (a hand operated drill) to drill a hole in Till's head. Drilling wounds were located on the head about one inch above Till's right ear, as well as on other parts of Till's body. Additionally, most of Till's teeth were knocked out, the right side of his face was caved in, and there were scraping wounds along Till's ribs."
The jury acquitted the men who did it, so according to you, the jury's action defines what happened to Emmett Till as an appropriate punishment for what he did. He violated the norms of the community, and the jury's upheld those norms by its actions.
I don't understand what point you think you're making by pointing out that a jury in your community acquitted a police officer who shot an American soldier who was lying face down on the ground. What lesson are we supposed to take away from the example? The lesson I take away is that there are communities so craven and degraded that they will excuse the most horrible crimes. The case doesn't put your community in a good light, and the fact that your community did such a thing doesn't indicate to me that such behavior is acceptable. My view was not contradicted when I looked up the case and found out what community this happened in. Your community is not generally known as an earthly paradise.
90. Mike Toreno said the following at 6:25 PM on Aug 6:
BDB:
"Not if what they were saying cannot legally be said on TV. The euphemisms being used suggest some rather vile statements were made by Prof. Gates in the heat of the moment. Civilized people do not repeat vulgarities before TV cameras."
Now you're just making stuff up. The truth conflicts with what you want to believe, so now you're just making up objections out of air. Never mind that the supposed vile statements and vulgarities that exist only in your imagination don't amount to disorderly conduct, the fact is that neither Crowley, Figueroa, nor Lashley, whether in police reports or on the TV machine, tell us what Professor Gates is supposed to have done. They use words that amount to giving their opinion of it, rather than describing it. People do that when they want to conceal the truth.
91. Mike said the following at 6:51 PM on Aug 6:
Folks, all these First Amendment arguments are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Here's why:
Gates wasn't arrested for what he was saying, or for who he was saying it to. (Believe me - police officers put up with way worse than that on a daily basis. One skill criminals teach each other in prison is how to induce vomiting without actually having to touch their gag reflex, so they can throw up on a cop in the hopes of getting away - or maybe just in retaliation for being arrested.) Gates was arrested for the manner in which he was conducting himself. It makes not a hill of beans bit of difference if he was cursing Crowley, complaining about racial profiling, or citing the Gettysburg Address. So can we please get off the "free speech" bandwagon?
Mike Toreno:
He was deliberately trying to stir up the neighborhood to garner support for and you say that *this* is disorderly conduct? The fact that Crowley's report was all lies don't even enter into it. You have no understanding of what free speech is.
On the contrary, I do. It is NOT the right to make a jerk of yourself and create a hazard. It is the right of civil discourse. Allow me to quote the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You have the right to peaceably assemble. You have the right to speak your mind - but not to incite riot, or disturb your neighbors' rights to a peaceable existence. Disorderly conduct statutes are there to prevent conduct that is intended to, or runs the risk of, inciting riot or otherwise disturbing the peace. This wasn't a peaceful protest, and you can't just drum up a riot on demand and call it "free speech".
The police are not entitled to dictate what viewpoints people are and aren't permitted to express. You say that there was no racial profiling; how do you know? Who's to decide? What if he was protesting police corruption and the police denied that they were corrupt? Would stirring up the neighborhood against non-existent police corruption constitute disorderly conduct?
If we were peaceably assembling, then he's within his rights. If he's creating a public hazard, then he's not.
Allow me to relate another disorderly conduct story with which I'm familiar. There was an individual here in Georgia who was arrested for disorderly conduct for - initial reports alleged - carrying a pistol exposed into a convenience store, in a holster. Now, this person had a carry permit, so it was legal for him to do so. Unfortunately, people don't react very well to pistols on the belts of individuals who are not law enforcement in uniform, so the police were called. They arrived, questioned the individual, and arrested him for disorderly conduct on the basis of his having handled the butt of the gun (that's the handle part, for those not familiar with guns) several times. He never drew the weapon, but the officers based the DC charge on (1) handling the gun as though he might draw it, and (2) the fact that this alarmed individuals in the store.
That, to my mind, was a much bigger stretch of the DC statute than what we're discussing here. The case went all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court, who overturned the arrest and conviction. But it took an appeal that far before a court agreed that the officers pushed the envelope too much.
Disorderly conduct statutes are there to maintain a state of civil order in a society. They are - necessarily - somewhat vague. (As much as I dislike vague laws, it's still the case sometimes.) If you behave yourself like a civilized human being instead of a hyperactive jerk, you'll have all the rights to "free speech" you want. But those rights come with the responsibility not to make a public hazard of yourself.
92. Mike Toreno said the following at 9:21 AM on Aug 7:
"Because the jury can tell someone to "pound sand" if they're falsely arrested,"
This is actually not true in civil cases. If the jury turns in a verdict contrary to the law and the facts, it will be overturned. It is only in a criminal case, because of the prohibition against double jeopardy, that a jury's decision of acquittal is unreviewable.
93. Mike Toreno said the following at 11:23 AM on Aug 7:
Mike, now you're just making stuff up. Creating a hazard? There was no hazard. And your idiosyncratic analysis of the First Amendment is irrelevant; what's important is the actual state of constitutional law. The controlling authority is Brandenburg versus Ohio, summarized this way by Wikipedia:
***
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
***
Does anybody say Professor Gates was trying to incite any lawless action? Does anybody say he was about to incite any lawless action? No, even according to Crowley's false report, the extend of the "hazard" was that people were sort of looking over in Professor Gates's direction.
Always remember this. The certainty with which you express a viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the viewpoint. You make a lot of claims about the state of constitutional law, and you make them with great certainty, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are all wrong.
94. Eliza said the following at 1:57 PM on Aug 7:
Mike,
Prof. Gates was neither "assembling" nor "public". He was 1) by himself 2) in his own home. IF there was shouting (which is a big "if" in my mind) there was no way it could have been construed to be inciting a riot. The thought that he was making a public hazard of himself is ridiculous. The fact that there is so much speculation just emphasizes how few witnesses there were, which further proves how private this event actually was.
Disorderly conduct is for rowdy teenagers and public misbehavior. Not for middle-aged men frustrated at their jammed front doors.
95. BDB said the following at 2:45 PM on Aug 7:
Mike Toreno (#92) wrote:
>>This is actually not true in civil cases. If the jury turns in a verdict contrary to the law and the facts, it will be overturned. <<
In Federal Civil Court, the 7th Amendment addresses this issue. Specifically, the jury is the finder of fact, the jury determines what the facts were. By definition, the jury decides what the facts are:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The judge can choose to dismiss a case even if the jury finds the person liable, but it doesn't work the other way. The judge cannot impose a penalty after the jury finds that the respondent is not liable.
96. Mike Toreno said the following at 3:59 PM on Aug 7:
BDB:
"The judge can choose to dismiss a case even if the jury finds the person liable, but it doesn't work the other way."
Yes. It. Does.
"The judge cannot impose a penalty after the jury finds that the respondent is not liable."
Yes. He. Can.
See, for example, the California Code of Civil Procedure sections on post trial motions.
The standard for having the court just enter a verdict is very high, but it can happen. The judge can also order a new trial if the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The California courts have referred to the judge's role in new trial motions as essentially sitting as a 13th juror.
I'll say the same thing to you I said to Mike: the certainty with which you express a viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with the validity of that viewpoint.
97. Mike said the following at 4:16 PM on Aug 7:
Eliza -
Disorderly conduct is for rowdy teenagers and public misbehavior.
Yep. And Gates was (1) in public, and (2) misbehaving.
Sorry, but you just proved the point.
Gates was way more than just "frustrated that his door was jammed". He was creating a public nuisance of himself. He wasn't arrested in his home; he was arrested when he left his home and went outside. At that point, he's in the public hearing.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say your neighbor calls the police, saying there's a break-in. The police show up, and immediately, before they can even start investigating, the individual they confront in your foyer starts yelling, cursing, screaming that "this is how it is for black men in America", etc., etc. What would you want the police to do? Walk away? Or investigate further?
Now, the cop turns to leave. The individual in the house follows the cop outside, continuing to scream obscenities and make uncomplimentary marks about the cop's parenthood. Your children are listening. Your neighbors are gathering. The individual is now keeping you awake. Would you want the cop to act? Or let this nincompoop keep on creating a scene?
Disorderly conduct is a statute created precisely for this sort of situation. This is not about the content of his speech; it's about his neighbors' right to a peaceful existence.
Mike Toreno -
Your ability to pull irrelevant Supreme Court precedent is impressive. Operative word being "irrelevant". Because if the precedent were relevant, there would be no such thing as a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace statute anywhere in the country.
I said it before, I'll say it again: Get off the "free speech" bandwagon. This has nothing to do with Gates's right to free speech. It has everything to do with his neighbors' rights to live in relative peace.
Gates was trying to create his own little impromptu public demonstration right there in his front yard...which isn't an appropriate expression of his rights. He violated the law, and got arrested for it. As someone else said earlier, cry me a river.
98. Mike Toreno said the following at 10:35 PM on Aug 7:
Mike:
"Your children are listening."
So?
"Your neighbors are gathering."
So?
"The individual is now keeping you awake."
It was quarter to one in the afternoon. I'd probably turn on some music.
"Would you want the cop to act? Or let this nincompoop keep on creating a scene?"
If I didn't want my children to see what was going on, I'd tell them to go inside. If I wanted to sleep at 1 in the afternoon, I'd, you know, fix my room so that sounds and light were blocked out. I'm not entitled to get the police to enforce a zone of perfect quiet so that I can sleep at one in the afternoon.
If you don't want to hear stuff or see stuff, go do something else. You don't have the right to enforce an undisturbed existence. For example, I don't want you to keep expounding on subjects about which you are totally ignorant, but I'm not entitled to get the police to force you to discuss only subjects you know something about.
"Your ability to pull irrelevant Supreme Court precedent is impressive. Operative word being "irrelevant". Because if the precedent were relevant, there would be no such thing as a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace statute anywhere in the country."
Uh-huh. Right. How could it possibly be irrelevant? If you would learn first, and talk second, you might know that the application of disorderly conduct statutes is seriously constrained by Brandenburg. Legitimate applications of disorderly conduct statutes are, for example, arresting someone for public urination. That's what "creating an offensive condition" means. Noise can be covered too, but noise, the volume of sound, not its content.
Nobody said Professor Gates was too noisy. The police report says people were looking over in his direction. Oh, wow, people were looking over to see what was going on. Ooohhh, call out the National Guard. Basically, Crowley is trying to fake up a case for disorderly conduct, but he can't get it done. Even the lies he tells, and the lies he suborns Figueroa to tell don't make out a case for disorderly conduct.
Before, you said he was stirring up a riot. How could that not be related to the content of his speech?
"Gates was trying to create his own little impromptu public demonstration right there in his front yard...which isn't an appropriate expression of his rights"
Yes it is. What on earth are you talking about?
You keep characterizing what Professor Gates was doing, not describing it. When you say he was creating a public nuisance you're saying how you feel about what he was doing, not telling us anything about what he was doing. What was he doing that was creating a nuisance? What was he doing that was creating a hazard? What was he doing that was inciting a riot? Tell us what specifically he was doing that violates the law.
Again, try this procedure:
1. Learn.
2. Speak.
99. Texas Craig said the following at 12:06 AM on Aug 8:
FWIW, it does appear that Mike Toreno is not addressing the other Mike's point. Freedom of speech is a right that has many limits. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You cannot slander people. You cannot, by your free speech, violate noise ordinances. Simply put, Professor Gates' right to free speech does not guarantee him the right to say anything he wants to the police officers nor refuse to comply with lawful directives. Whether he violated the law is uncertain in my mind, but there are valid arguments on both sides and the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech does not resolve the issue.
100. Texas Craig said the following at 12:29 AM on Aug 8:
There is a lot of misinformation on here! :-)
As noted previously, the police need only probable cause for arrests and (in most cases) for searches without a warrant. And, if probable cause is shown, the police conduct is lawful, regardless of whether the suspect engaged in unlawful behavior. Moreover, the standard for detaining (before arresting) you is even less: "reasonable suspicion."
So, the best advice you can follow is "comply with all police directives." Otherwise, you run the risk of getting yourself a criminal conviction for resisting arrest when you might otherwise have not been subject to any criminal sanction.