Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Happy Birthday To Us! Previous entry: Post-Racial My Black Ass

The cops work for you, or they’re supposed to

We’re moving into the phase of the coverage of the Henry Louis Gates incident where people reprimand themselves for caring so much, but I’d like to point out that the reason the incident has captured the public attention is that it touches on so many extremely important issues of daily life in the United States that don’t get sufficient coverage, precisely because few things get the immediacy of news coverage like this arrest of Gates has.  With that in mind, I’d like to point everyone to this long, but involving post from Digby on one of the must frustrating aspects of the discussion about the incident—-the way a lot of people reflexively jump to “Gates was stupid to talk back”, instead of talking about the much more important issue, which is that the cop was not just stupid but malevolent in not dropping the case the second that he realized that Gates was in his own home, no matter what kind of hot-headed things Gates may have said  Now, let’s be clear about this: I think the likely truth is that the cop wildly exaggerated and even made up some parts of the incident when he wrote the report, knowing that he’d just tossed a Harvard professor in jail for not doing anything illegal. When I read bloggers reflexively assume that the police report is reliable in any way, I just get more upset because it’s just more evidence that a whole lot of people out there are more naive about power and authority than you’d think.  Is it really possible that so many of my fellow Americans have never been on the receiving end of unfair treatment from a bunch of asshole cops?  Same story with the people who chastise Obama for calling the cop’s move “stupid”.  Can you hear yourselves saying that?  Since when is it a given in America that we’re so slobberingly worshipful of police authority that it’s forbidden to call obviously stupid cops stupid?  Obama didn’t even say the cop was stupid.  He said the actions were stupid, which strikes me as an objective assertion of truth on par with saying that the sky is blue. 

But by and large, I’ve seen more concern out there with whether or not Gates was stupid for not staring at his shoes and apologizing for breathing the second a cop started speaking to him.  Since I’ve been blogging for a long time, on and off, about the politics of rape, I know this behavior when I see it—-it’s victim-blaming.  And it’s a particularly stubborn problem, because the people who do it really often do mean well when they say things like, “Well, she shouldn’t have been out drinking,” or “She shouldn’t have worn that skirt” after someone was raped.  They sincerely think they’re saying something that might help other women not get raped, and oblivious to the fact that they’re insulting women’s intelligence, pouring salt into wounds, and worst of all, reinforcing the notion that stopping gendered violence is strictly the responsibility of the women who are its targets.  Again, I realize they don’t see it this way.  They imagine they’re just being realistic, not realizing that they’re reinforcing the notion that rape is simply a force of nature and not something that individual men choose to do, and that the main people responsible for the choice to rape are the ones who make it.  (With some responsibility going towards other people who let it happen without holding rapists accountable.)

Victim blamers are often also telling a story about how they personally will never be raped, or in this case, arrested unfairly for doing something totally legal.  To blame Gates for being stupid is to say, “I would never get arrested for breaking into my house, because I have the sort of self-preservation instincts that this man is clearly missing.”  People enjoy the illusion of having more mastery of the world than they do, because it makes them feel safe, but it also contributes to an atmosphere where victim-blaming can flourish, particularly in situations that are loaded with racial or gender politics.

In case it’s hard to see why it’s problematic to focus on Gates’ choices—-which again, I strongly suspect were exaggerated and even lied about by the cop—-Digby has a really great retort.

Now, on a practical, day to day level, it’s hard to argue that being argumentative with a cop is a dangerous thing. They have guns. They can arrest you and can cost you your freedom if they want to do it badly enough. They can often get away with doing violence on you and suffer no consequences. You are taking a risk if you provoke someone with that kind of power, no doubt about it.

Indeed, it is very little different than exercising your right of free speech to tell a gang of armed thugs to go fuck themselves. It’s legal, but it’s not very smart. But that’s the problem isn’t it? We shouldn’t have to make the same calculations about how to behave with police as we would with armed criminals.


Emphasis mine.  Reading both accounts, I get the distinct impression that things started to spiral out of control when the cop in question was asked for his badge number and supervisor by Gates.  At this point, the cop decided to lure Gates outside to create an excuse to arrest him.  Asking for a badge and a name is your right as a citizen, but it’s also a reminder to the cops that they work for you, and I have zero doubt that this can infuriate a whole lot of cops.  It’s a reminder that the gun only makes you a servant, not an actual authority, and that the citizens who hired you are the authority, at least in theory.  But as Digby says, when you engage in the “mouthing off to the cops is stupid” discourse, you’re basically putting the cops in the same category as a group of thugs.  When you run into a group of armed thugs, yeah, they’re the authority because they didn’t take an oath to serve and protect.  Cops did, and in theory, they’re not authorities, but merely enforcers of the law, and when there’s not a law being broken, then they really are 100% out of line hiding behind the authority of the badge and the gun.

Digby links the growing acceptance of out-of-control police brutality, particularly the widespread use of Tasers (which Pam has done a lot of blogging about here), with the acceptance of other incursions on our liberal democracy, like the spying on U.S. citizens and flouting of the basic human rights laws of people that have been picked up as “enemy combatants”.*  She also engages arguments from a cop who blogged at Crooked Timber about why cops should have the right to use violence and force to keep people from being mouthy, neatly tearing the arguments apart while being cognizant of the fact that it isn’t easy to be a cop. 

It’s interesting to me that Americans have a long history of using unchecked police authority as a shorthand for totalitarianism that makes us feel superior to other countries.  If you’re writing a book or a screenplay that takes place in a country whose unjust dictatorial government is up for criticism—-which is a worthy goal, don’t get me wrong—-then it’s mandatory that you have scenes where your freedom-loving heroes come across some police forces that are drunk on power, who decide to fuck with you just because they can.  They could be the S.S. or the Stasi or the KGB or the Iranian police running around accusing women of walking with too much of a swing to their step.  If it’s someone else’s culture, we have no problem seeing the problems with making people adopt a submissive, humiliated pose merely because they’re speaking to the police, or that cops are given loosely defined laws and plenty of discretion, so they can just go on power trips and abuse people who they perceive as deserving of their oppression.  When it’s someone else’s country, the excessive use of violence, leering behavior towards women, and abusing racial or ethnic minorities seems so obviously wrong.  I doubt many people who are calling Gates “stupid” did anything but cheer, for instance, when reading the section of “Persepolis” where Marjane puts herself in danger by telling a cop to quit staring at her ass.  When it’s not our cops, it’s a lot easier to see that demanding perfect submission to police authority is fucked the fuck up. 

*Indeed, the only problem I have with Obama calling the cop’s actions “stupid” is that he doesn’t see that every minute that his administration continues with Bush-era policies that run over basic human rights, they’re being the same kind of stupid. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 04:39 PM • (121) Comments

Let’s not forget there was illegal activity.  The cop was required to identify himself when asked, and he did not.

So, a crime was committed.  By the cop.

Comment #1: James  on  07/26  at  06:23 PM

”*Indeed, the only problem I have with Obama calling the cop’s actions “stupid” is that he doesn’t see that every minute that his administration continues with Bush-era policies that run over basic human rights, they’re being the same kind of stupid.”

Exactly.  It’s been disappointing to see too much capitulation by the Democrats to the Reichwing.  But continuing immoral Cheney/Bush policies is…immoral…

Comment #2: MikeEss  on  07/26  at  06:43 PM

The good news is, on many moderate and lefty sites, when bloggers raise this contrarian crap, it’s getting hammered by the commenters.  I think a lot of people are tired of being treated—and have themselves, black or white, been treated—as a hostile force.

Comment #3: Mike the Mad Biologist  on  07/26  at  06:45 PM

We shouldn’t have to make the same calculations about how to behave with police as we would with armed criminals.

Yes.  Yes, yes and yes. 

A large part of the reason that we do have to make the same calculations is that our local politicians also fear the power of the police.  We have no effective Citizen Review Boards in a huge number of localities because Mayors & Councilfolks are afraid to go against the wishes of the cops.

Yeah, it’s a hard job that is underpaid in most places, but that’s no excuse to be a dangerous thug.

Comment #4: Jake Squid  on  07/26  at  06:45 PM

Great posts by both you and Digby.  I also disagree with the guy defending cops arresting people for failing to be deferential to them because chaos will ensue if we don’t.  He ignores shocking evidence that the opposite of his slippery slope is actually happening.  A six year old girl (African American) was tasered in Florida, for pete’s sake! 

In my interactions with police I have tended to be super-polite out of calculated self-interest.  On a few occasions, I’ve gotten off with a warning instead of a ticket.  But I haven’t been in the situation that Gates was in - exhausted from a 20 hour flight and locked out of his home.  I could see myself being pretty frosted after an ordeal like that and in no mood to prove to some cop that I live in my own home.

Comment #5: DonnaDiva  on  07/26  at  06:45 PM

I read Digby’s post and went on another rant there.  I am happy to have a couple of favorite blogs I can rant on, because I don’t know what I’d do with all of this if I didn’t. 

One thing that my bf said to me that I had not thought about, but I think he might be right, is that aside from everything both you and Digby (correctly I believe) point out, there remains the distinct possibility that this went sideways the second Gates asked if this cop knew who he was.  (I am assuming he really did say that, but I take nothing from the police report as fact, so if Gates doesn’t say he said it, then that’s another story).  But let’s say he said it.  Now you have a white guy who maybe doesn’t like the idea of a black guy getting so uppity as to thinking that just because he’s educated, or has a good job, or is considered a person of substance in the community, or even in the wider community of our country, that this means he isn’t still just a fucking black guy who can be arrested, beaten, tasered, or even shot by a cop.

Without knowing the cop, I can’t really say.  But I believe strongly that this was very much about race and very much about the authoritarian-loving country that we live in.  I think it’s really sick no matter how you slice it.  I despise hearing people teaching their children to “respect your elders”.  I always tell my niece and nephew to question authority and to respect people who respect them.  And I always, always, have conversations with them about adults not being the boss of them.  I think that to teach your children that they have to respect all elders, and are not allowed to talk back is a great way to leave them completely unprepared should they ever come into a predator’s orbit. 

Personally I think that Americans by and large are really f’d up.  On an up note, I just finished watching Prom Night on HBO, the doc about the first interacial prom in Charleston MS just last year.  I watched, not all, but many, even most, of these young people both black and white, raised in a terribly racist place by terribly racist people, rejecting it.  Isn’t that something?  Yeah, we are finaly moving beyond the hate, but it’s because of our youth.  They just aren’t accepting it any more.  And I hope I get to live to see the day that they come into their own, take over this fucking place, and you will see gays and people of all races with full equality.  It’s going to happen.

Comment #6: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  06:49 PM

And what annoys me is people defending the policeman’s actions with no acknowledgment of what Massachusetts law is.  When you request a policeman’s name and ID number, being told it verbally is not enough.  They are required to carry a card with all of that information and give it to the requester so that it can be written down.  A policeman saying that he told someone, but they didn’t hear him because they were talking, has by definition broken Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts law also holds that, in a legal sense, Massachusetts police officers cannot be “shocked or offended” by anything they see in the commission of their duties.  Thus a policeman cannot be the complainant in a disorderly conduct charge, only a citizen witness can be.

Comment #7: East of Weston  on  07/26  at  07:02 PM

I didn’t know that about MA law.  I think that’s a good law too, especially as a woman.  We’ve all read true stories of rapists and other criminals pretending to be cops and pulling women over. 

Those are both really good laws, and I haven’t heard mention of them with all of the hyperventilating going on over this.  though I do shut most of it off as soon as it starts, especially anything Chris Matthews start spurting, so in fairness I guess they might have reported on that.

Comment #8: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  07:09 PM

In all seriousness, I have had false alarms go off.  The officer responding ascertained that I was the homeowner—and then asked me to step outside.  Not because he thought I was really a burglar pretending to be the homeowner, but to ensure that I could speak privately in case there was a burglar in the house, perhaps holding my loved ones hostage, and who had instructed me to shoo the cops away.  They also had me sign something, so that if I were really in trouble, I could write “Help me!” without alerting a burglar inside. 

It doesn’t seem beyond the pale that Gates assumed that Crowley assumed that he (Gates) was a burglar whereas Crowley was trying to ensure that Gates was outside the house and thus safe in case the real burglars were lying in wait inside.  It seems that both overreacted to some extent.

Comment #9: Susanne  on  07/26  at  07:12 PM

Really.  That’s very dramatic Susanne.  Very movie of the week.  Imagine if someone was inside holding your loved ones hostage.  I wonder what would happen when you left the house to go talk to the cop out of their hearing range?  I don’t know, maybe it’s the writer in me, but I see a flaw in this plot.

I never had a cop respond to an alarm going off anyway.  Central Station calls.  I guess I have had a different experience than you have.

Being white, I also presume I have had different experiences with cops than Gates has.  You know what first made me wonder about that?  It was when I found out the kind of jail time blacks in NY were doing under our Rockerfeller drug laws for having pot.  I couldn ‘t believe it.  Because I never thought anything of driving around in my car with a bag of pot in my glove compartment.  I did it all the time as a teen, and even into my very early 20’s.  Never gave it a thought.  Never had to.  Then I found out that my not having to think about that while some people with darker skin than I have were rotting their youth away in a prison was called “white privilege”.  That’s when I stopped thinking I knew shit from shineola about how a black person should feel in any situation like this.

Comment #10: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  07:17 PM

When I read bloggers reflexively assume that the police report is reliable in any way, I just get more upset because it’s just more evidence that a whole lot of people out there are more naive about power and authority than you’d think.  Is it really possible that so many of my fellow Americans have never been on the receiving end of unfair treatment from a bunch of asshole cops?

I think this is a real problem: most conservatives and moderates and large number of nice white liberals are just that naïve, or possibly willfully blind. So let me point to a nice academic paper by a nice tenured academic - Christopher Slobogin http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm .

The first clue to how common police lying and deceit are is the term “Testilying”. That term was invented by police to describe their commonplace habit of committing perjury while testifying. How commonplace: Let me quote from the article:

In one survey, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges estimated that police perjury at Fourth Amendment suppression hearings occurs in twenty to fifty percent of the cases. Jerome Skolnick, a veteran observer of the police, has stated that police perjury of this type is “systematic.”  Even prosecutors — or at least former prosecutors — use terms like “routine, “commonplace,”  and “prevalent”  to describe the phenomenon. Few knowledgeable persons are willing to say that police perjury about investigative matters is sporadic or rare, except perhaps the police, and, as noted above, even many of them believe it is common enough to merit a label all its own.

Follow the link to the article to see Slobogin’s sources for this.

Christopher Slobogin; ” Testilying: Police Perjury and What to do About It” ; University of Colorado Law Review Rev 1037;67; Fall 1996; http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm

While the article deals with a number of issues, and comes to conclusions I disagree with, there are two critical points I think it makes. One is that lying in police testimony and police reports is commonplace and routine. The other is that police officers routinely back one another up when lying.  So the triumphalism we sometimes see about other officers backing up Crowley is meaningless. It is even more common for officers to back up each other’s lies than to originate lies in the first place. It would be extremely rare indeed for a second officer to fail to support what the first says in an official report.

And it is rare indeed for a police officer for lying to get them in trouble, even when caught. Once case I’m personally familiar with was a local activist who was always the peacemaker at demonstrations. She spent a great deal of time trying to persuade protestors not to act like assholes. And in one case there was some civil disobedience where people were blocking traffic for not very good reasons. And she tried to persuade them to come back to the sidewalk. The police, who were excellently position to see what was going on arrested her for blocking traffic and (I think this was a while back) incitement. And the prosecutor went to trial with five officers testifying against her. Fortunately for Anna, the demonstration was videotaped from beginning to end. (Very fortunate -no cell phone cameras, cheap digital cameras at the time.)  So she was acquitted, and the prosecutor publicly admitted she was not guilty. (Olympia is a very unusual town.)  No one even considered for a moment charging any of the officers who testified against her with perjury. As far as I know they were never even reprimanded.  Police officers lie routinely. Those lies are usually believed, and even when they are not it is very rare for an officer who has provably committed perjury to suffer any consequences for doing so.

It is one thing to point out for the sake of discussion that even if every allegation made about Gates is true that he should have not been arrested. It is quite another, and seems to be commonplace among commentators, to assume the police reports are more reliable than Gate’s own testimony, and to assume they are true until proven false.

Comment #11: Gar Lipow  on  07/26  at  07:23 PM

A policeman saying that he told someone, but they didn’t hear him because they were talking, has by definition broken Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts law also holds that, in a legal sense, Massachusetts police officers cannot be “shocked or offended” by anything they see in the commission of their duties.  Thus a policeman cannot be the complainant in a disorderly conduct charge, only a citizen witness can be.

Wow.  Just wow.  That makes it so much worse!

As I’ve said over and over, even if you take Crowley’s police report to be 100% factual and not even slightly biased, the report still shows Crowley breaking the law. 

Now seeing these Massachusetts regulations…it’s even worse.  Crowley’s own report has him refusing to give Gates his information unless he steps outside, which is apparently a violation.  Then he provokes him with cuffs and arrests him of his own accord, again another violation.

Why is Crowley not suspended?  Why isn’t he being investigated?  His own report details violations—CROWLEY’S violations.  And Crowley’s report is as biased in his favor as you will ever see.

The reality is probably in the middle, i.e., Crowley’s report is NOT 100% factual.  But I never even go there because the report itself damns him.

Why didn’t he leave?  Why didn’t he give Gates his card and leave?

And why aren’t more media outlets asking those questions?  Those are the right questions…Crowley is admitting violations, so why did he commit them and why won’t he apologize?

Couldn’t possibly be RACISM, could it?  On not only the police’s part but the MSM’s?

No.  Not in post-racial America!

Comment #12: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/26  at  07:39 PM

Caton; perhaps the precautions the police took with Suzanne were just to see if she COULD. I don’t see a hostage-taker allowing anyone that amount of freedom myself, but easily see them forcing a homeowner to make up some excuse. Perhaps if there’s any excuse the police suspect something.

Comment #13: Mark Temporis  on  07/26  at  07:39 PM

This screed is wrong on so many levels, it’s difficult to know how and/or where to begin to address the absurdities. Operating from the premise that [in so many words if I may paraphrase] all cops are stupid, lying, power-hungry, authoritarian, stupid, “mere enforcers of the law” stupid cowards “hiding behind the authority of the badge and gun” does not lead to constructive nor insightful analysis of the Gates incident. Your knee-jerk assumption that the cop “wildly exaggerated and even made up some parts of the incident when he wrote the report” betrays a mind set that is prejudicial in the extreme.

Also, Digby did not engage arguments from a cop who blogged at Crooked Timber. She excerpted a few paragraphs from a posting (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/) by a doctoral candidate in philosophy at CUNY who also holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard and works as a police officer for the NYPD. (In other words, not a mere “cop.”) And like your straw man (“why cops should have the right to use violence and force to keep people from being mouthy”), Digby took the opportunity to address a pet issue (excessive use of Tasers and police brutality) in a construct that had little to do with what Brandon del Pozo’s (the “cop”) actually wrote.

Again, the Gates incident deserves better and more thoughtful analysis than “all cops are lying assholes, therefore anyone suggesting Gates’ behavior may have contributed to his arrest is a naive, totalitarian-loving, subjugated twit.”

Comment #14: Shevek57  on  07/26  at  07:42 PM

Oh, no way, Susanne.  Now you’re just grasping.  The cop made it clear in his report that he went inside the house, and knew Gates was safe, and believe me, with the self-pitying tone of the report, if he’d had any inclination to make the claims you’re making on his behalf, he would have made that up, too.

I’ve seen grasping at straws, but you really took it to a new level.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/26  at  07:44 PM

Maybe Mark, but let’s face it, if they presumed she was the homeowner and never suspected othewise, and then took further steps to ensure she was not in danger, then those things happened because of her race and gender.  That’s what I mean by having different experiences.  Just because that was her experience, doesn’t mean it was mine, and it definitely doesn’t mean it was a black male’s.  Or a white male’s for that matter.  Cops may sometimes be more deferential to the kind of white women who live in homes that have expensive alarm systems.  OTOH, cops may sometimes pick up women they perceive as vulnerable on the road, and then force them to strip and walk home in their panties, as happened where I live to several women a few years back.

Class, race, gender.  You just can’t know till you walked those miles in those shoes.

Comment #16: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  07:45 PM

Shevek, I suggest you go read Crowley’s report.

All my inlaws are Chicago cops.  I’ve been outraged at Crowley’s behavior from the start.  Now seeing that MA law has stringent requirements for giving one’s name and badge number, I’m even more irate.

Cops lie.  Cops also save people’s lives.  There are good cops and there are complete assholes who have no business walking a beat.

Crowley, in this incident, has shown himself to be completely incompetent, he exposed Cambridge to liability, and he doesn’t belong on the street.  You can get all this FROM CROWLEY’S OWN REPORT.

Crowley’s version of things is fucked up.  Crowley’s version of things admits violations—>by Crowley.

You don’t have to have been victimized by the police to see it.  Crowley’s own report damns him.

He’s a police officer and he has a duty to perform.  He failed that duty entirely and arrested the man who would have been the VICTIM, had an actual crime been occurring.

Comment #17: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/26  at  07:47 PM

“all cops are lying assholes, therefore anyone suggesting Gates’ behavior may have contributed to his arrest is a naive, totalitarian-loving, subjugated twit.”

Yeah, Amanda really shouldn’t have said that.

I don’t know what came over her when she didn’t write that.

Comment #18: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  07:48 PM

Shevek57-

Reading comprehension fail.

Comment #19: Antigone  on  07/26  at  07:48 PM

a whole lot of people out there are more naive about power and authority than you’d think.  Is it really possible that so many of my fellow Americans have never been on the receiving end of unfair treatment from a bunch of asshole cops?

Yes, yes it is possible.  Having grown up a suburban middle-class white girl, I was shocked when I moved to the inner city and saw how the police treated people in poorer, mixed raced nieghborhoods.  I suspect most of my middle class white co-workers have a similar lack of experience.

I had very little experience with the police at all until I moved into south Minneapolis and had that starry-eyed, “the policeman is your friend” belief.  Then I started to hear stories and saw a lot of crap with my own eyes. 

When I lost the privilege of living in white middle class suburbia, I fell under suspicion simply because of where I lived.  I assume my white skin still affords me a lot of more privilege than my darker skinned neighbors, though.

Comment #20: BadKitty  on  07/26  at  07:53 PM

I blogged about something similar yesterday—the NY Times had an article where they asked several cops from across the country about this incident, and while about a third to half of them called out Crowley for being thin-skinned, about as many took the attitude that cops shouldn’t have to take shit from citizens. One in particular referred to his fellow cops as “a band of brothers,” which tells me that he’s got the absolutely wrong mentality to be a cop, because he’s looking at himself as a soldier, not as a public servant. We’re not an occupied force, or we’re not supposed to be anyway.

And Shevek57, no one is arguing that all cops are like Crowley, but it doesn’t take all cops being power-hungry dickheads to give police forces in general a bad reputation. It only takes the department standing behind the few who are like that to make the reputation grow.

Comment #21: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  07/26  at  07:53 PM

However, another point is that you don’t have to believe that “all cops are lying assholes” to believe that perjury and lying is common in police reports and testimony. “Common” does not neccesarily mean a majority of cases, though of course it can. Again the article I linked multiple studies showing that it is widely admitted by prosecutors and even by many cops that this is so.

Caren and Amanda’s point are of course primary: even if every word of Crowley’s report is true, he showed at minimum bad judgement and may have broken the law. But the high probability that he shaded the facts or even outright lied is worth noting, and Amanda noted it.  But anybody who doubts her Amanda on this secondary point, follow the link in my post upthread, read the article and look at the studies cited.

Comment #22: Gar Lipow  on  07/26  at  07:54 PM

You’re the one making knee-jerk assumption, Shev.  I don’t automatically assume a cop is lying.  But I can tell—-and psychological research demonstrates that people usually can—-when a written statement is bullshit.  And that police report stunk of it.  Don’t assume, in that knee-jerk way, why I think what I do.  It’s because the report sent off 15 different kinds of bullshit detectors, starting with the laughably improbably comments about the cop’s mother.

Comment #23: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/26  at  08:02 PM

Also, what Caren said.  Even in the very unlikely event that events transpired as the cop said, he was still in the wrong.  Which is something I’m sure he knew, and something that fueled his self-pitying nonsense.

Comment #24: Amanda Marcotte  on  07/26  at  08:03 PM

This piece over at NRO by an LAPD cop goes pretty far in confirming everything said above:  http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQ3NDZmZWFhM2M0YTQzY2YyY2I3NmNkZjBlMTRlMjQ=

He’s basically saying that if you insist on your rights being protected by the people hired to protect your rights then he’s just going to have to shoot you.

Comment #25: pennylane  on  07/26  at  08:09 PM

I just get more upset because it’s just more evidence that a whole lot of people out there are more naive about power and authority than you’d think.

I disagree with this point.  People are not naive.  People want the police to act the way they do.  I still remember in the days shortly after 9-11 the fear people had over another attack.  There was a certain comfort in knowing that we’ve got people on our side who are just as bad asses as the terrorists/criminals.  If that means a few random innocents are rounded up and abused by the law, well that’s just fine, as long as our 60” TVs are safe.

A functioning police state needs no police.  - William S Burroughs

Comment #26: Todd  on  07/26  at  08:17 PM

But I haven’t been in the situation that Gates was in - exhausted from a 20 hour flight and locked out of his home.

I have been…  Fortunately for me, it was more than 20 years ago, before cops carried tasers and the like.

I was flying back from a friend’s birthday party in London to Newark, and shortly after takeoff, one of the engines malfunctioned severely.  (Technically, it was a “blow back,” a supercombustion of fuel.  Practically, it was an explosion inside the engine.)  We had to abort the flight and return to London.  There were no other flights that day.

Do you know what your hosts are doing the day after you visit?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  I generally assume they’re cleaning up…  As I had no place to stay that night, I tried calling them.  They were out…  And I didn’t have enough cash for a hotel in London on short notice in July, so I slept on their porch.  Suffice to say, when I landed in Newark the next day, 26 hours late, I was extremely tired and extremely unhappy.  So, when the Port Authority cop pulled me over for failure to stop at a painted line in the empty parking lot (This was 1985, when Terminal C at Newark was brand new, and had one or two flights per day…  The parking lot was usually empty, if you can imagine that.)  I was more unhappy.  He asked for license and registration.  I handed him my license and said, “hold on, let me find the registration.”  He went back and wrote up tickets for failure to stop and failure to present registration.  By the time he came back with the tickets, I had the registration in hand.  He said I had to show it to a judge.  I said no way was I taking that ticket.  He then called that resisting arrest.  I made some comments implying oral sodomy and trans-generational heterosexual incest and got hit with abuse of a police officer…

This went to court.  Newark courts tended to get serious crimes at the time.  Add to this, Port Authority cops are considered second-class cops, not real cops, at least compared to Newark police who are arresting drug dealers and other violent criminals.  So, this is an unusual case on the docket.

Cop told his story.  I told mine.  Judge said that under New Jersey law, I can present the registration at any time during the traffic stop, and it is valid.  He tossed that ticket.  He then said that it was not unlawful to resist an unlawful arrest, and tossed that.  Then, words I will remember to my grave, “Under the circumstances, the defendant’s description of the police officer in question was accurate.”  Tossed that, said I admitted to rolling through the stop line and charged me $10 in court costs.

Anyway, that was 1985.  No doubt, today, I’d have been tasered when I refused the ticket…

Comment #27: James  on  07/26  at  08:27 PM

I’ve got quite a lot of privilege when it comes to authority figures- I’m white, my dress and accent SCREAMS middle class, and to top it off, my dad’s a federal officer.  We had the sheriff of my town over to my house to eat dinner in the place we were from.

My godfather’s pretty high up on the Minnesota State Police to boot.  I’m covered, in practically every way I can be covered.

And I’ve STILL had to deal with asshole cops.  I like to take walks at night, when it’s cool and no one’s around.  If I’m with some guy, I’m okay.  If I’m by myself, cops never fail to flash their lights on me and ask what I’m doing and where I’m going.  Most of the time a pointed “I’m walking, what’s it look like I’m doing?” gets them to go to fuck away.  Sometimes, they insist on being more nosy then that, and demand I produce id.  I then start quoting state laws at them, that they don’t need to see my id when I’m walking, in public, in a place I’m allowed to be.  That takes out everyone else.

And that doesn’t even get me started at how cops like to fuck with the college students.

So, yeah- all the privilege in the world, and I still have dealt with asshole cops.

Comment #28: Antigone  on  07/26  at  08:40 PM

“People are not naive.  People want the police to act the way they do”

Todd I agree with this.  I think this is correct.  Take Sheriff Joe Arapio, an animal, and a sadist, and a torturer.  He enjoys strong civilian support.  It’s my great hope that the Holder justice dept will take this guy out under federal civil rights violations before the end of this first term.  I have my fingers crossed, but it won’t change the fact that the sadist mf’er has strong support. 

Then, think back to that young American kid who was convicted of painting graffiti! in, was it the Phillipines?  Well, wherever, he was sentenced to a public whipping, and Clinton at first tried to get his sentence commuted, but the American public went apeshit and broke out into their favorite song “these kids today! the problem is they’re not beaten to a bloody fucking pulp enough!  strip him and whip him and put it on teevee!”.  And unfortuntely Clinton backed down, though he did get the kid less whips than he was first sentenced to. 

This is who we are.

Comment #29: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  09:13 PM

“Then, think back to that young American kid who was convicted of painting graffiti! in, was it the Phillipines?”

Singapore…

Comment #30: MikeEss  on  07/26  at  09:17 PM

Ah Singapore, thanks!

Comment #31: Lady Vader  on  07/26  at  09:44 PM

Susanne’s point may be movie of the week, but the reality is that what we hire these guys for - to be there and do the right thing when movie of the week happens.  Yes, for probably their entire career as an officer they’ll never see that happen… But they should be prepared for it.

Still, Amanda and Digby are right.  It’s completely wrong that we must treat officers with kid gloves.  They are there to protect us.

I found myself yelling at an action movie last night, pointing out each officer or security guy shooting his gun ‘cause I’ve been thinking of how my father died - shot by a policeman for the crime of not hearing him.

And that’s wrong.  And shouldn’t happen.

Comment #32: Crissa  on  07/26  at  10:21 PM

Digby’s post directly addresses Brandon’s discussion at Crooked Timber. As I said there, I am surprised at how many people were thanking him for his honest participation when it is clear he is strangling truth on a leash. He is just another policeman arguing that submission and tolerance are required by the civilian population when cops are doing their job.  He says “I have had hundreds and hundreds of encounters with every type of innocent person from every walk of life in every context, and the vast majority ended amicably. They ended this way, however, not only because I acted with dignity and restraint, but because the citizen did as well.” In other words, if I am obsequious in my interactions with police I will be let go. Just like if I don’t talk back to the gang around the corner I can come and go. Sure makes me feel good. Sounds like what Digby said.

The only correct action on the part of the police was showing up to make sure everything was OK. Every other part was typical police bullying. I think people who defend this sort of behavior mostly grew up in areas where police interaction was unusual.

Comment #33: Don N  on  07/26  at  10:36 PM

It doesn’t seem beyond the pale that Gates assumed that Crowley assumed that he (Gates) was a burglar whereas Crowley was trying to ensure that Gates was outside the house and thus safe in case the real burglars were lying in wait inside.  It seems that both overreacted to some extent.

OK, Susanne, please please please READ. THE. POLICE. REPORT.

It’s a lovely little fantasy up there.

Crowley admits he believed he was talking to a “resident” albeit a “very uncooperative” one.  So what?  Gates doesn’t have to be very cooperative.  He’s tired.  The cop shows up, and instead of telling him they’ve found the person who’d burgled his house before, questions whether or not Gates himself is a burglar.

Crowley was IN THE HOUSE at this point.

Gates gave him his IDs and asks for his.  He may have been rude.  But under MA law, Crowley is required to give Gates his ID in writing.  Crowley admits that he gave the information twice, but ONLY verbally and that Gates was talking over him and didn’t hear it.  When requested a third time, instead of complying with the law and giving Gates his written info, he tells Gates he can only have the info if he leaves the house.  Crowley is breaking MA law at this point, and trying to get Gates outside so he can arrest him.  Had Gates remained in the house, Crowley couldn’t have arrested him.  THAT is Crowley’s motivation for getting Gates outside. 

Please, just go read the report and stop making up plausible excuses that don’t even fit Crowley’s version of the facts.

Comment #34: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/26  at  10:38 PM

I’ve been pondering this one for a while - I like how you added the bit about reprimanding ourselves for caring too much grin.

Here’s something I’ve been pondering. As I understand it, the power to arrest someone is either that they’ve committed a crime too serious for a mere citation, or to prevent them from committing further crimes, or to secure them to allow full investigation of the crime, or some other compelling purpose that overrides their right to freedom (however temporarily their rights will be over-ridden). There are a lot of lawful reasons that *allow* an arrest… but the theory behind an arrest is more than just “the cop is allowed to do so.”

People have jumped on Obama’s case for saying the cop acted “stupidly” and I can kinda-sorta see how they can feel that way legitimately. (But if you look around, you’ll see a lot of them howling in delight because they think it’s something they can use to attack him.) When Crowley acted, he did, in fact, act in a manner that must not generally lead to second guessing. That is: if he were disciplined for making the call to arrest Gates, you’d have other officers second guessing their instincts in other, similar situations. (“Ah, shit, (local important person) is drunk and disorderly; am I going to get fucked over if I put (local important person) into the drunk tank to sober up?”)

But Gates’ arrest did not serve one of those purposes that mandates an arrest. And, hell… had Crowley done so much as asked another officer (and there were several officers at the scene) to make the call about arresting him, he would have avoided a lot of the ugliness that followed. At least no one would say that it was Crowley power-tripping that caused the arrest, since another officer’s name would have been listed on the arrest report.

In that sense, yes, Crowley acted stupidly. He needs a lot more than “he was really loud and obnoxious!” to convince me that the public trust was served by arresting a 58 year old man who walks with a cane. No, he shouldn’t have to face discipline for having made a call to arrest someone when the arrest can be legally justified. But at the same time, he still shouldn’t have made the arrest.

And I think that’s what bothers me. It’s not safe to say that - that you think that it was stupid to arrest someone, that there was no compelling need to - if you depend on public support.

Comment #35: LongHairedWeirdo  on  07/26  at  10:44 PM

“But I can tell—-and psychological research demonstrates that people usually can—-when a written statement is bullshit.”

I’m sorry Amanda, but even the most cursory examination of the relevant literature (cf. http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173793 or http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.8106 or http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8S-4TWTBXW-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e8bb3dd04c5bd866749e37f551f4b47b) tiy==) negates your personal claims of perspicacity.

“Don’t assume, in that knee-jerk way, why I think what I do.”

I’m not interested in in the why of your thought processes. I was responding to what you wrote and what you wrote (“I think the likely truth is that the cop wildly exaggerated and even made up some parts of the incident when he wrote the report, knowing that he’d just tossed a Harvard professor in jail for not doing anything illegal”) is not a substantive nor fair assessment of the Gates incident. (And, as I noted, reveals a prejudicial mind set.) Neither you, nor any other commenter in this thread, witnessed and/or took part in the events of that day. You don’t know (nor do I) whether Crowley wildly exaggerated or made up parts of his report. You are assuming your interpretation of Crowley’s report is the whole, unvarnished truth and that others who might lend the officer’s account some credo are naive:

When I read bloggers reflexively assume that the police report is reliable in any way, I just get more upset because it’s just more evidence that a whole lot of people out there are more naive about power and authority than you’d think.

And we follow that gem with this gem:

Obama didn’t even say the cop was stupid.  He said the actions were stupid, which strikes me as an objective assertion of truth on par with saying that the sky is blue.

Because, of course, acting foolishly or stupidly is the sole domain of stupid people (e.g., cops).Intellectuals (like Henry Louis Gates) are incapable of acting foolishly or stupidly, no? Obama, at least, has had the opportunity to engage in conversation with both Gates and Crowley. As Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler notes:

For our money, there were three key words in Obama’s restatement (click here). Here they are: “Two good people.”

As far as we know, that assessment is right. In our experience, most people are basically decent.

For ourselves, we don’t know what happened that day. But sometimes, good people will have bad days. They sometimes may have them together.

Do you think Obama has “never been on the receiving end of unfair treatment from a bunch of asshole cops?” Or, is he just naive?

Comment #36: Shevek57  on  07/26  at  11:23 PM

Operating from the premise that [in so many words if I may paraphrase] all cops are stupid, lying, power-hungry, authoritarian, stupid, “mere enforcers of the law” stupid cowards “hiding behind the authority of the badge and gun” does not lead to constructive nor insightful analysis of the Gates incident.

But that’s exactly what Brandon del Pozo is arguing, though he puts it in a way that’s a little more palatable.  He’s arguing that the public should always treat cops with as much deference as possible or else even a good cop may decide to handcuff them and take them down to the station for talking back.  In fact, he’s arguing that it’s the duty of cops to arrest people for not being deferential enough because otherwise the disrespect will get out of control.

It’s a siege mentality that makes cops view all civilians as potential criminals and pressures good cops to cover up for bad ones because, hey, if anyone admits that cops screw up sometimes, the whole system collapses (supposedly).

Remember the guy who was shot in the back by an Oakland transit officer over the New Year even though he was laying facedown on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him?  They couldn’t even arrest the officer until he resigned from the force because he’d shot someone in the line of duty and couldn’t be arrested until after an investigation.  That’s fucked up.

And you know who’s paying for his defense?  His fellow police officers.  That’s even more fucked up.

Comment #37: Mnemosyne  on  07/27  at  12:05 AM

jumpin jim,

Let’s pretend that your scenario is correct.

In MA, officers are required to provide written information of their name and ID when requested.  It’s the law.  The “acoustics” are irrelevant, since Crowley needed to provide his name and badge in writing.  He admits in his police report that Gates requested the info 3 times and that he NEVER GAVE IT TO HIM IN WRITING.

By not providing the info in writing, Crowley broke the law.

Gates provided both his Harvard ID (which has a photo) and his DL.  Boom.  Not a break in.  Incident over.  Officer needs to leave the premises with a “Sorry for the inconvenience, I’m glad you’re not harmed.  Good evening, sir.”

Yes, the officer needs to be respectful to the citizen even if the citizen isn’t polite.

Since the citizen and lawful resident was requesting his ID, Crowley also needed to give that info before leaving.  Crowley never complied with the law.

There was no burglary in process.  Had there been (another) burglary, Gates would have been the victim.

You leave out the part where Crowley brought out his cuffs to provoke Gates further once he was on the porch.  And how Crowley wouldn’t move the cuffs to the front, even though Gates needs a cane to walk, though he let another officer move them.

Was Gates rude?  Did he overreact?  Maybe.  But Crowley broke the law.  Repeatedly.  He had no justification for arresting Gates.

Crowley fucked up.  Read the damn police report.  The crowd was gathered because even after Crowley had determined there was no burglary in process, he continued to call for backup.  A bunch of cop cars around a house cause a disturbance.

It can’t be a case of both men behaving badly b/c Crowley has a job, responsibilities, and training.  Gates has rights, namely the 1st and 4th in this case.  It was literally Crowley’s job to handle this incident better.

Crowley needs to be suspended, if not fired.

Comment #38: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/27  at  12:30 AM

Plus his entire adult life is one fixated on racial grievance.

Wow.  Way to dismiss the entire life’s work of a distinguished professor from Harvard.  Plus, it’s not jumping to conclusions on your part, or anything. 

Isn’t your name Gorgon on Jesse’s thread?

Comment #39: DonnaDiva  on  07/27  at  12:34 AM

The problem is that Gates has loudly and publicly claimed that this cop is racist.  Why a highly intelligent Harvard professor wouldn’t calm down and let his lawyers handle this is behind my comprehension.  If he cannot prove that Crowley is racist to a reasonable level he could lose a defamation suit.  Maybe Crowley is a jerk, but just being a jerk doesn’t make someone a a racist.

Comment #40: Seth  on  07/27  at  12:45 AM

If he cannot prove that Crowley is racist to a reasonable level he could lose a defamation suit.

how is he supposed to prove Crowley is racist? it’s not like every racist has a white hood in his closet or spiderwebs tattooed on his elbows.

I’m like 50/50 here serious and snark, certainly I think insisting Gates prove Crowley is racist is absurd, but I’m also at a loss for how you provide solid material evidence of racism, as word of mouth obviously isn’t good enough here.

Comment #41: jessilikewhoa  on  07/27  at  01:00 AM

When, other than at the time of the arrest, has Gates claimed that Crowley is a racist?

Comment #42: DonnaDiva  on  07/27  at  01:09 AM

If Gates wanted to be a man about this, he’d apologize to Sergeant Crowley.

Fuck.  That.  & Fuck You & your police brutality-enabling victim-blaming scumbaggery.  You type like you’ve got Sgt. Crowley’s dong lodged firmly between your tonsils.

Gates IS being a man about this.  He’s standing up for himself against the cops for stepping WAY over their authority.  If Sgt. Crowley wanted to be a man about it, he’d but on his big boy underoos & admit he fucked up royally & apologize for his behavior.  As it stands, I don’t see Sgt. C. spraining his jaw doing either, & his behavior both during the incident he esclated insetad of defused (his FUCKING JOB, after all) & after it is reflecting very poorly on the Police Department as a whole.

Good cops are there to help out the citizenry.  Lousy cops are there because they’re getting off on getting paid to bully people.  Sgt. Crowley’s actions leave zero room for speculation re: what side of that devide he’s on.  Shitbird.

Comment #43: Smartpatrol  on  07/27  at  01:30 AM

Plus his entire adult life is one fixated on racial grievance.

Um, I’m not sure you know much about Henry Louis Gates.  He’s a literary critic.  He made his name in the late 1980s writing about things like how the techniques of literary theory can be related not only to French postwar philosophy but also to African American culture, in things like insult games and wordplay.  In fact, time was that Gates was being criticized for being insufficiently radical.  I haven’t kept up with his writings since I was in college and he still had Wunderkind status in lit-crit circles, but “fixated on racial grievance” doesn’t ring true to me in the least.

Comment #44: FlipYrWhig  on  07/27  at  02:08 AM

jessilikewhoa- Gates could have his lawyers take a look at Crowley’s record, interview his associates, etc.  They would be looking to establish evidence of a pattern that Crowley treats black subjects differently than white subjects.

DonnaDiva-  Check out the audio of the interview with Gayle King over at Oprah radio.  He accuses Crowley of racial profiling.

Comment #45: Seth  on  07/27  at  02:29 AM

Crowley didn’t kill or injure anyone with his mistake.  So maybe firing is too much.  Heck, I’m of the opinion making them lose their entire retirement for being bribed or making a lethal mistake - when those mistakes could happen any day to one guy or other - doesn’t make them less likely to make the mistakes.  Tho if they accidentally kill someone, maybe they shouldn’t be police officers… But we learn from our mistakes, supposedly.

What makes them less-likely to make mistakes is good training and being able to live where they police, not any implicit or explicit threats.

Comment #46: Crissa  on  07/27  at  02:32 AM

Gates clearly jumped to erroneous conclusions as to why the police were on his doorstep. He was likely high strung from his long distance flight and pissed off when his front door would not open. Plus his entire adult life is one fixated on racial grievance.
If Gates wanted to be a man about this, he’d apologize to Sergeant Crowley.

I think Crowley would have been within his rights to turn around, look at Gates, and say, “If I’d been called to a possible burglary involving two white men jimmying that front door, and I then saw one of them wandering around in the foyer, I’d have asked him for ID too.” But arresting Gates? Nooooooo. Just. No.

Crowley knew this was the home-owner. He knew there was no crime there; being a dick is not illegal. He broke out the cuffs as a threat, to intimidate Gates, which just ended up pissing him off even more.

If the “acoustics” in the house were so bad, Crowley could have written down his information for Gates instead of having Gates follow him out to the porch.

Gates’ porch is not a public space. He was on his own property – and, what’s more, he could use words (or, depending on the law, even force), to eject other unwanted trespassers.

By that point, Crowley was pretty much trespassing.

Gates doesn’t owe Crowley an apology. He doesn’t owe him anything. My own personal dream scenario for this would be that Crowley and Gates agree to sit down together for coffee and discuss each point of view calmly. They could develop some new procedural recommendations for cases like this.

Then, perhaps, something good will come out of this.

Comment #47: Nil  on  07/27  at  02:46 AM

If Gates wanted to be a man about this, he’d apologize to Sergeant Crowley.

Fuck.  That.  & Fuck You & your police brutality-enabling victim-blaming scumbaggery.  You type like you’ve got Sgt. Crowley’s dong lodged firmly between your tonsils.

Gates IS being a man about this.

Can we halt the gendered language and insinuation that fellatio is degrading?  Thanks.

Comment #48: Ursula  on  07/27  at  03:02 AM

first:
a cop CANNOT legally enter a house that is occupied without either A WARRANT or PERMISSION. this cop NOT ONLY entered the house WITHOUT WARRANT OR PERMISSION, but STATED THAT HE HAD DONE SO IN THE REPORT.

second:
as has been stated above, it is REQUIRED IN MASS. that when a person asks for a cop’s ID and badge number, that the cop GIVE IT TO THEM IN WRITTING. cop, again in his OWN report, admitted that he ONLY stated his name and number outloud, twice - and the third time, REFUSED. he broke state law there - and broke FEDERAL law, which REQUIRES law enforcement to SHOW THEIR BADGES when ID is requested of them.

third:
a person’s front porch IS NOT “PUBLIC” - it is still their own, PERSONAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY. ALL of the land owned there is PRIVATE PROPERTY. the COP arrested a man FOR YELLING ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. which, in case no one caught this the first time (jim) is PRIVATE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE COP WAS STILL TRESSPASSING.


but, hey, don’t let those pesky little laws and federal regulations get in the way of your power-trip and corruption-roller-coaster.


although, while i’m at it (and i don’t know why i bother, sometimes) the phrase “Be a MAN” is bullshit sexist language. especially when what you are *meaning* is “Act like an Adult”. which is not at all the same thing as “being a man” - especially the way our society has been constructing man-hood. anymore, “being a man” really means “give in to testosterone poisoning and act like you are the king of all you survey”.

Comment #49: denelian  on  07/27  at  03:22 AM

Seth:
saying someone is using racial profiling is not the same thing as saying someone is racist. further, many many many US law enforcement agencies DO use racial profiling, and STATE that they use racial profiling - hence the many many jokes about it, and all the various committee and other meetings where various law enforcement agencies said things along the lines of “if you take away our ability to profile, we can’t stop another 9/11!”

Comment #50: denelian  on  07/27  at  03:26 AM

We should take jumpinjim’s statement that he is an antiblack racist seriously and accept that nothing Gates could have said or done could possibly have been viewed by him as appropriate.

Seriously, anyone capable of writing about Gates’s career in those dismissive tones just doesn’t care for black people very much and could have saved us a lot of time by saying, “The uppity Negro deserved whatever he got for being uppity.”

Comment #51: Punditus Maximus  on  07/27  at  05:23 AM

If the “acoustics” in the house were so bad, Crowley could have written down his information for Gates instead of having Gates follow him out to the porch.

In MA, Crowley is legally required to write it down.  His verbal responses were inadequate and a violation.  Crowley’s own words damn him.

Determining that Gates was not a burglar was his job, and he was allowed to enter the foyer to do that, but without a warrant he had to leave when asked.  Apparently, this pissed him off.

It doesn’t matter if Gates was racist or rude or grumpy or jet-lagged or disrespectful or “very uncooperative”.  He was in his own home, there was no crime, and he wanted the cop to leave—and he has every legal right to order him out of his house.

Had Crowley done his job, the incident would have been over and no one would be calling him an incompetent or a racist.

If Gates were actually overreacting and yelling, Crowley should have left him in the house where he wasn’t causing any disturbance.  MA law prevents police officers from being victims of a “disturbance” while doing their jobs, so nothing Gates said to Crowley was criminal.

Goading the man onto his porch, when he knew he was innocent, and then provoking a known innocent citizen with handcuffs in order to be able to say he was “tumultuous” in public is abuse of authority.  Why didn’t he simply order Gates back in the house?

Why didn’t Crowley give him his written info and leave?

Crowley escalated the situation and made a bad arrest.  His behavior was not only inappropriate, it was illegal under MA statutes. 

Crowley has a greater responsibility because he is a police officer and trained to respond.  You cannot simply dismiss this case as two racists behaving badly.  Crowley is a cop, and, at least in this case, he was a shitty cop who fucked up his job royally.

Remember, had their been an actual burglary, GATES would be the victim.  He was victimized this way recently by a burglary that’s still unsolved and that’s why his door was jacked up.  Being irritated at being accused of breaking into his own house when he was tired and when the cops have failed to find the real burglar is not a crime.  A police officer refusing to give his info in writing IS a crime in MA.

What is wrong with this country?

Comment #52: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/27  at  08:39 AM

It’s funny to hear all these right-wingers complain about “racial grievances” when that’s been the basis of their politics for the last 40 years: somewhere a person of color might be getting something these crackers once took for granted.

Comment #53: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  07/27  at  09:45 AM

Let me just reiterate on this thread that if this or any other office of any law enforcement agency stepped on a white man’s property in certain parts of this country, Idaho for instance, they would have been shot dead.  The shooter would have previously been instructed by right wing hero G Gordon Liddy to go for “head shots” when law enforcement comes knocking.  JumpingJim and Gorgon and all of right wing radio would hail the shooter a hero, and blame Obama for the police believing they have the right to trespass on a white man’s property.

And that is the way it is.

So arguing with these fools, liars, racists and thugs, is pointless.  It’s pointless. 

That is who they are.  But…they are a dwindling breed.  These are their death rattles.  They’re load, but a death rattle often is.

Comment #54: Lady Vader  on  07/27  at  09:46 AM

Wouldn’t the absolute rock-bottom least that we want from the police be that they not make the situation worse?
Crowley failed by that standard.
It was his responsibility, his job, to de-escalate the situation if possible and, failing that, at least not to deliberately escalate it.  It was not Gates’ job to tippy-toe over his sensibilities.  Their obligations were not symmetrical here.

Comment #55: Ledasmom  on  07/27  at  10:28 AM

The biggest and most telling problem with this situation is the bald refusal of people defending Crowley—or should I say, blaming Prof. Gates—to acknowledge what the facts of this situation. The willingness of apologists to play with hypotheticals, particularly racist hypotheticals (the *real burglars* could have been inside! you know, the two scary black men the passerby reported about!) in this situation is hilarious. Why do you need to resort to hypotheticals? The cop was within his rights because Gates could have… Gates deserved to be arrested because he should have…

The facts of the case are knowable. Prof. Gates committed no crime, he was in his own house, there was no burglary, there were no scary black men to be found on the scene, and the man in question had a chest infection, walks with a cane, and rides around on an adult tricycle in Martha’s Vineyard every summer. Threatening, right. And how does the Cambridge police department now know who all the dozen-plus University Professors at Harvard live? They’re holding much of the capital in the region, you know. If anyone is going to go around robbing houses in the middle of the day, that’s where you’ll find the loot. It’s absolutely marvelous to see how willing we are to consider any random black person a criminal in exactly the situations where we’re not willing to assume that about ourselves. The judgment in the Sean Bell case is pretty relevant, here. Police in some places, and some judges, and some of us, apparently, believe that the cops have a right to arrest us and use force if they feel their own lives are threatened. Now, I may have skipped that episode of the Wire, but I’m pretty sure it’s the cops’ job to be in life-threatening situations. They’re supposed to put their lives on the line to protect ours, not the other way around.

Comment #56: serena kitt  on  07/27  at  10:53 AM

You mean the minute someone asks a police officer for his name, the officer is supposed to drop everything and get out a piece of paper and write his name and badge number down for the requestor?

I can’t speak for all cops, but the one time I asked (cop knocked on my door about 5 am because several cars on the street, including the one in front of my house were broken into), the cop just handed me a preprinted card with his name and badge number.

If it’s a law that it has to be done in writing, it makes sense to have something like that ready.

Comment #57: Susa  on  07/27  at  11:16 AM

Fuck off, wrong.

I can’t even begin to tear that statement apart.  I’m quivering with rage here.

Comment #58: speedbudget  on  07/27  at  11:21 AM

...gendered language and insinuation that fellatio is degrading…

Ursula: Point taken.  I would say that parroting the lanuguage/vocabulary favored by abuse-of-power apologists is an effective means of skewering such attitudes, & that Power Tools like jumpingjim do believe that fellatio is degrading, that they really enjoy being degraded, & that they enjoy degredation so much that they want to see eveybody, everywhere being degraded all the time forever & ever & ever, which is why they twist themselves into a pretzil-knot of obfuscation & illogic in their attempts to defend the indefensibe & deny the goddamn obvious.

Comment #59: Smartpatrol  on  07/27  at  11:36 AM

How about we put Crowley in prison for such egregious behavior?

That’s the 1st non-dipshit thing you’ve typed this whole thread.

Comment #60: Smartpatrol  on  07/27  at  11:40 AM

Wrong:

Rape is not a crime of desire. Try again.

Your diatribe also insinuates that it’s appropriate to analyze a victim’s mode of dress, as if it is ever an invitation for rape.

And speaking as the daughter of a victim of stranger rape: seconding the suggestion for you to fuck off.

Comment #61: Mandolin  on  07/27  at  12:00 PM

Shorter wrong: Blaming Gates for his own arrest is not like blaming a victim for the crime perpetrated against him, because I like doing that in other circumstances.

Comment #62: Mandolin  on  07/27  at  12:03 PM

“Spoken like a true intellectual!”

Well, your comments about rape were far more exposing than you clearly comprehend.  I just shook my head.  I assume you are a man.  It is possible you are a self-hating woman.  But I figured you were probably a man and I just thought to myself, thank God I never got mixed up with a moron like that, and I moved past the post.

I’ve never been raped.  Perhaps if I had been I would have felt the desire to smash your stupid face in and then I would have written a post that said fuck you, because I would have no other way of putting my rage into written form, and it’s simply not possible to smash someone in the face on the internet.  Though, it is often desirable.

Comment #63: Lady Vader  on  07/27  at  12:22 PM

Let me have a go? This is like therapy for me. (Reading this sort of crap raises my blood pressure, I have to get it back down by responding.)

1st that book cover and now this. Arrggggh!

This has been covered at length; Amanda did not choose those images.

Comparing this incident to rape is racist!

Amanda’s actually comparing the reactions to both types of incident, but your irrelevant comment has revealed some really disgusting things.

The vulgar icon of a black male jumping out of the bushes on some blond is tired. Most rape defendants know their attacker. They are not strangers. Crowley and Gates did not know each other.

I believe you mean “plaintiffs” or “victims”; also, relevance?

Unlike women’s use of dress and behavior to communicate to men, blacks do not use their color to attract cops or send signals to law enforcement. Blacks use 911 like everyone else.

Oh, I don’t know. If he didn’t want to be arrested, he shouldn’t have been walking around with such dark skin! How was the cop supposed to know he didn’t really want to be arrested?

Rapists rape a woman because they desire her.  Wanting to fuck is a biological function. Wanting to arrest is not.

So very, very wrong. I can link you the relevant studies, but you’re obviously a troll so I don’t know why I’d bother.

“No” can mean “No” only if you actually say it.  What about screaming “cracker, get off my lawn” says mixed signal?

What part of “the absence of ‘no’ is not a ‘yes’” do you have a problem with? Why do you assume that every woman alive wants to fuck you?

I’ll tell you, I really hope you don’t have a partner.

While women ARE interested in being fucked, Blacks are NEVER interested in being arrested.

You have friends and family, don’t you? And I’m sure you exchange gifts for birthdays and holidays. What do you mean, that doesn’t mean a thief can rob you of everything you own?

Comment #64: Rebecca  on  07/27  at  12:56 PM

In taking the view that not all cops are like this, Shevek57 is missing a number of huge, huge points:

* This sort of occupying army and no consequences behaviour is getting more and more common amongst American police officers.  What used to be an anomalous behaviour is now routine.

*  There are fewer and fewer restrictions on this sort of behaviour:
** Fewer IA cops are charging, fewer administrative and criminal sanctions are being sought and those that are sought are usually tossed.
** What few civilian review agencies do exist are being gutted.
** Even the most shocking, egregious and horrifying cases of misconduct and incompetence and outright criminality are not merely glossed over, but lauded by the command structure of the force.  (Hello, Atlanta.)

* There are huge disincentives built into the system to being a “good cop”.  The traditional ostracism was bad enough, but the bogus disciplining, firing and sometimes criminal charging of whistleblowers is becoming disturbingly routine.  (The best tipoff for this is when a whistleblower with a spotless record suddenly finds himself on the receiving end of a slew of bad reviews and disciplinary charges.)

* The increasing militarization of American police forces.  If you had looked at most cops at the height of the 1960s’ disturbances and said that the solution was to turn each and every police force in America into an army of body-armoured musclemen using AR15s and tanks and assault teams they probably would have looked at you as if you were nuts.  Now, in a far, far more stable and peaceful era it is considered “normal”.

* The increasing harshness of drug laws and aggressiveness in their enforcement at a time when the public’s attitudes towards soft recreational drugs is becoming increasingly tolerant and liberal.  Put colloquially, more people are going to jail for things that more people don’t even want to be illegal.  But who cares what the public wants, right?  Alcohol prohibition eventually collapsed under the realization that most of the public didn’t want it there. Drug prohibition, by contract, is getting stronger and stronger.

* The increasing numbers of police, the increasing numbers of laws and the vastly disturbing integration of criminal law enforcement with regulatory authority(1) increases the interaction of police determined to find “crimes” with people who have traditionally not been lawbreakers.  This has two effects:
** Law-abiding members of the public are increasingly the subject of police attention and charges.  This, not unnaturally, causes them to dislike the police.
** Law-abiding members of the public dealing this way with the police for the first time tend to be more insistent on the police conducting themselves properly and demanding that their rights be respected.  This in turn causes an increased likelihood of bullshit arrests for what is, in reality, not obsequiously respecting the cops’ authori-tah.
————————————————————
(1) That’s actually an area that I think that progressives and liberals tend to miss, to be frank.  We tend to forget that another thousand laws and bylaws and regulations dealing with minor stuff in our lives (are there enough no smoking signs in your bars?  have you secured your garbage in exactly the right way???) just mean that the cops tag along with the man with the civic ticket book and engage in grossly unconstitutional searches, seizures and provocations.  SWAT and drug squad teams accompanying liquor inspections?  C’mon.  You might want to ask the folks at the Rack-and-Roll about that.
————————————————————
(When I was in high school in the early 1980s I did a satirical newspaper article about the police embracing racial neutrality by rousting, arresting and beating up white people for no reason.  It was funny then because it was a ludicrous concept; it’s rapidly becoming SOP now.)

[continued]

Comment #65: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:06 PM

[continued]


* The increasing use violent tactics against non-violent offenders.  SWAT teams are used to break up for-stakes poker games among ordinary folks, for example.  Harmless dentist Sal Culosi was gunned down by some ignorant SWAT asshole who didn’t even know how to handle his sidearm over just such a poker game.  The matter could have been handled by phoning the guy to turn himself in.

* The increased use of video cameras is showing us that a lot of this stuff can arguably be said to be not new at all, it’s just that the cops are getting caught more often.  And, like sulky, spoiled children, they resent you for catching them rather than being ashamed of being caught.

* The police, when faced with evidence of their own misconduct never move to end the misconduct, they move to destroy the evidence.  The perfect example? When the BART cop shot an unarmed and helpless, prone man in the back the reaction of many of the officers present wasn’t to assist, it was to turn on the witnesses and try to confiscate the cellphones with cameras.  For years cops and trial lawyers have accurately worked on the maxim that, usually, people who are hiding something have something to hide and now they whine because their own conduct proves it?

What disturbs me greatly is that there used to be a middle ground between cop-haters on the one hand and badge-lickers on the other. For the most part the vast majority of the (white) populace didn’t have a problem with cops because cops didn’t have a problem with them.  Now the cops DO have a problem with them, and people who notice this and respond are gravitating to one side or the other.  Normal folks are noticing that the police are increasingly out of control, and badge-lickers are getting nastier and more open about their fascistic tendencies.  This is NOT good.

Comment #66: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:07 PM

Since when is it a given in America that we’re so slobberingly worshipful of police authority that it’s forbidden to call obviously stupid cops stupid?

It’s been building for a while.  Since Ray-gun, probably, but the more relevant answer is 9-11.  National authoritarian psychosis excuses torture, spying, aggressive war, and blatant plundering of the treasury; surely it can excuse putting an uppity black man in his place.

Comment #67: libdevil  on  07/27  at  01:14 PM

jumpinjim:
“You mean the minute someone asks a police officer for his name, the officer is supposed to drop everything and get out a piece of paper and write his name and badge number down for the requestor?”

There is a new invention called a “business card”, jim. 
(No, wait, they’ve been around for over a hundred years.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_card  My bad!)
I can’t speak to American forces but police officers carry them here in Canada.  I have held them in my hot little hands and can tell you that they give the officer’s force, name, badge number, current assignment and contact information.  Gasp!

Crowley could have said, “here, sir”, handed over a business card and that could have been that.

Have you noticed the consistency of your reasoning?  At every point it is the citizen’s responsibility to obey and back down.  Whether the cop is right or wrong, acting correctly or improperly or illegally, it doesn’t matter to you, does it, badge licker?

Comment #68: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:15 PM

“Once arrested, Gates no longer needed the officer to respond to Gates’ request for the his name. Gates learned of Crowley’s name during the arrest process and subsequent summons to appear in court, so Gates did eventually get the first responding officers name in writing.”

Are you FUCKING SERIOUS????  The correct way for an officer to obey the law is to falsely arrest somebody and then they can get information that they were legally entitled to in the first place by reading the documentation about their own false arrest????????????

Comment #69: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:17 PM

he increasing harshness of drug laws and aggressiveness in their enforcement at a time when the public’s attitudes towards soft recreational drugs is becoming increasingly tolerant and liberal.  Put colloquially, more people are going to jail for things that more people don’t even want to be illegal.  But who cares what the public wants, right?  Alcohol prohibition eventually collapsed under the realization that most of the public didn’t want it there. Drug prohibition, by contract, is getting stronger and stronger.

You can’t necessarily blame the police for that one.  In Canada, at least, many cops are all for decriminalization of pot (and there’d be more if there was something like a breathalyzer to do a field test for sobriety); one told me that if he could legally offer people pot in exchange for their booze he’d do it in a heartbeat, knowing which one causes him the most work.

The drug war is largely a political problem.

Comment #70: KeithM  on  07/27  at  01:18 PM

Ooooooooooh!
http://www.everyonewins.biz/fcbc/cards/stowell_01_20090119.jpg

Must be a mirage.

Comment #71: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:22 PM

Oh, I’d agree with you KeithM.  I’m Canadian myself and have seen the same thing.*

That attitude, outside small organizations like LEAP, doesn’t exist in American police forces and their funders.  I will self-quote:

The marijuana laws exist for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is to take something normal and useful and safe (the WD40 of the drug world) and make it illegal. Its very ubiquity and utility guarantees a demand for more and more enforcement, “necessitating” harsher laws, more police, more raids, etc. ; it also serves as a backup justification for any other mistakes they make. (A raid of the wrong house magically becomes a righteous raid because, almost inevitably, some cop is going to find a joint.)

Marijuana/cannibis isn’t illegal because we need protection from it. It’s illegal because many forces within the state need it to craft a growing, authoritarian, moralistic, anti-constitutional police state. If cannabis had never existed it would be something else.

Marijuana is not the End which necessitates the Means of an aggressive police state. It is the Means by which the End of the aggressive police state is created, justified and maintained.

* My old partner, a criminal defence lawyer tells the story of when he realized that police attitudes were changing in Toronto.  One of his clients was enjoying a joint and a sunset on Toronto Island when he became aware of someone behind him.  He turns, and finds a Toronto cop staring at him.  The cop take the joint from the unresisting hand, takes a very brief toke, hands it back, says, “you roll then WAY too tight”, and walked away.

Comment #72: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  01:27 PM

“It’s been building for a while.  Since Ray-gun, probably, but the more relevant answer is 9-11.  National authoritarian psychosis excuses torture, spying, aggressive war, and blatant plundering of the treasury; surely it can excuse putting an uppity black man in his place.”

Civil Rights marches in the 60’s, the ‘65 Watts Riots, the ‘68 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where (Democratic) Mayor Richard Daley turned the cops loose on the protesters, protests against the Vietnam War and police response to them, the Kent State shootings, the New York City blackout of ‘77, the Jonestown Massacre, McMartin Preschool Trial, the LA Riots, JonBenét Ramsey murder,  countless serial killers, kidnappings and murders, etc., etc., etc.  All these incidents and many many more have lead to the current American bunker mentality.

The trend toward embrace of the police state has been going on for a long time.  It’s certainly accelerated since since 2001, but the seeds have been growing in the American psyche for quite a while…

Comment #73: MikeEss  on  07/27  at  01:50 PM

Part of the problem is that the structure and staffing of police forces really haven’t changed compared to the society around them. The American model for a police officer has always been a fairly blue collar guy who operates in a blue collar workforce whose primary purpose has always been to keep other blue collars and coloureds in their assigned, subservient social places.  (It’s what Orwell called acting as bodyguards to the propertied classes.) 

Now police officers operate in a highly complex society which is constantly in flux and where they are supposed to deal with a wider variety of challenges and sophistication than ever before in human history.  Yet, despite this, police forces still hire big guys who like to throw their weight around and who get pissy if you assert your rights.  (Don’t forget, until fairly recently the targets of police interest, the poor, the accused and different races, had no real, enforceable rights; Miranda is younger than I am, for example, and I ain’t that old… and cops still hate the Warren Court.)  They simply aren’t selected, trained, monitored or post-hiring educated to handle any of this shit.  It’s one of the reasons why there is often such resentment against agencies like the FBI which don’t have the same resistance to the concept of education and perspective that more blue-collar forces do; the “I hate eggheads” dynamic, as it were.

The sense that “only a beat cop should move up the ladder” tends to produce command officers who fall into one of two groups: those who identify with the blue grunts to an excessive degree; and those amoral, smooth political operators who rise like shit to the surface of a pond no matter what organization they’re in, the guys who really don’t give a damn about anything except politics, the ones who don’t even have the saving grace about caring about their men.

European police forces get around this problem the same way that armies do: lateral entry for officer-track candidates and accelerated promotion into positions of responsibility for which they have better training.  It also means that a measurable number of the street-level officers like Crowley are educated themselves, and so less likely to be burdened by class bias than Crowley appears to have been.

By way of illustration within one organization it is interesting to note that Canada’s RCMP has a serious case of BPD in that it wants to be both a “boots on the ground” force for much of Canada on the one hand and Canada’s FBI on the other.  The result?  A command structure which rewards morons and bullies who hate thinking and a severe staffing crisis because the young men and women who could be the next Sam Steele don’t want to go anywhere NEAR the Mounties.  (It’s no coincidence that almost all of the big fraud cases involving Canadians were broken by the American authorities; SEC and Treasury have young men and women who do this thing for a living whereas it is a throwaway interest for the Mounties.)  If you are smart, educated, trained and ready for say, intelligence analysis or white collar crime work why on earth would you join the Mounties where they’ll send you to break up bar fights in Iktyiuyttuikukville for ten or fifteen years before they let you anywhere near a decent case?  And get commanded by retrograde dinosaurs who despise everybody under their command to boot?  Or risk losing your promotion because one of those smooth bastards decides that a political promotion will gain him favour in Ottawa?  There’s no sane reason. 

There’s also the reluctance of N.Am police forces to divide their “enforcement” and “intelligence” arms.  There really is no reason why, say, a corporate fraud specialist also has to be a trained and armed officer.  Accountants doing accountancy so that officers can arrest is a superior model to training officers to do basic accountancy and hoping for the best.  In this day and age a police force’s unarmed specialist investigators should outnumber the boots on the ground by a very great deal, but they don’t, and they won’t.  The “closed shop” mentality will prevent it.

In short, it means that officers like Crowley are surrounded by nothing but other officers like Crowley.  I speak to men who’ve been in the military and one of the consistent themes is that one is constantly facing the challenge of dealing with, as colleagues, people who are very different from you.  American police forces, by way of contrast, are very conformist, self-reinforcing places.

Comment #74: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  02:28 PM

shorter jumpingjim:

Black scholar arrested without cause, dragged in cuffs into baseless custody, and publicly humiliated?  Fuck off.  One white woman gets her fee-fees hurt?  A tragedy demanding an apology.

Comment #75: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  02:29 PM

Caton:

I despise hearing people teaching their children to “respect your elders”.  I always tell my niece and nephew to question authority and to respect people who respect them.

I am so tired of this crap on the left. Kids aren’t adults, with the ability to control themselves that most adults (theoretically) have. They are not my social equals.

If they’re running around in the supermarket screaming their heads off, they are not going to get the “respect” of any random adult. Let alone convince “The village™” to help raise them for their overly indulgent parents.

Comment #76: Nobody in Particular  on  07/27  at  02:36 PM

From the story linked to:
“In an interview last night, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas said it was ac curate that Whalen did not mention race in her 911 call. He acknowledged that a police report of the incident did include a race reference. The report says Whalen observed “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the front porch’’ of a Ware Street home on July 16.”

So, Ms. Whalen didn’t mention race, but the cops just assumed that the call was about black guys?  Jumpinjim, you’re not really supporting your contention that this wasn’t about race, now, are you?

Comment #77: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  02:38 PM

They are not my social equals.

When it comes to right-wingers, most kids are their social *superior*. They’ve actually learned skills like how to share with others…

Comment #78: BlackBloc  on  07/27  at  02:57 PM

The pigs work for organized crime because organized crime pays much better.

Comment #79: mnsr  on  07/27  at  02:58 PM

I haven’t read the law and I would be appreciative if you had a link for it, but I would bet there is a degree of discretion involved when to provide it.

To quote Tom Friedman:
<a >Suck on this</a>

Comment #80: James  on  07/27  at  02:58 PM

Oh, and I’m sure that the police waited over a week to admit that she didn’t mention race had NOTHING to do with the cops wanting to establish a false narrative and let her to take the heat for their possibly racist and certainly unprofessional fuckup.  They just forgot to mention it.  Slipped their mind.

Comment #81: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  02:59 PM

@Nobody

The “respect your elders” line Caton is talking about comes with the implication that you just don’t question those who are older than you, know more than you, have more experience than you, etc. (I recall phrases like “I’ve been ____ longer than you’ve been alive…” There’s often an unspoken “Who are you to question me?” included in that statement.)

You can teach politeness and respect without teaching blind obedience to authority figures.

Comment #82: sangetencre  on  07/27  at  03:04 PM

what sangtencre said. 

It has been my experience that many people who insist on overt displays of respect are those who are least inclined to show respect to others.

Comment #83: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  03:19 PM

Interesting that the drug war gets mentioned in this thread, because one of the things going on in this incident is drug warrioring on the part of Crowley.  His report acknowledges that before he entered the house, he knew he was dealing with a resident.  Nevertheless, he decides to enter the house and take a look around anyway—no telling what he might find . . .

They do this at every opportunity and when ever they ahve the slightest excuse.

Comment #84: rea  on  07/27  at  03:31 PM

a cop CANNOT legally enter a house that is occupied without either A WARRANT or PERMISSION.

That’s not strictly true.  A cop can enter a house if he or she has probable cause, such as a legitimate concern that a crime may be in progress.  Before Crowley ascertained that Gates was the legal resident of the house, he had every right to enter the house.  Of course, as other have noted, he had no right to stick around once Gates provided his ID.

Comment #85: keshmeshi  on  07/27  at  03:32 PM

The pigs work for organized crime because organized crime pays much better.

“The police is the Klan is the Mafia.”
- MDC

Comment #86: BlackBloc  on  07/27  at  03:44 PM

OMG, the new reports about the actual transcript of the 911 call are absolutely damning, in terms of Crowley’s conduct.  The caller did not volunteer a racial description of the people she saw attempting entry, but when pressed by the dispatcher, said one of the men might be Hipanic.  The caller also said tht the men had what appeared to be luggage (not backpacks, as previously reported), and told the dispatcher that it might simply be residents of the home having trouble with their lock.

In other words, Crowley had no reason whatever to assume that any burglar was black, and Crowley knew along along that he was probably dealing with a resident of the home.

Comment #87: rea  on  07/27  at  03:46 PM

It’s no coincidence that almost all of the big fraud cases involving Canadians were broken by the American authorities; SEC and Treasury have young men and women who do this thing for a living whereas it is a throwaway interest for the Mounties.)

Have to defend the Horsemen (Horsepersons?) on that one.  The major reason the Mounties don’t go after securities fraud a lot is because it’s a waste of effort: members of the squad have stated that they’ll go build a solid case and then have the Crown Prosecutor and securities people make a joke out of it, if they bother to do anything at all.  The problem with Canadian securities is a systematic one, and the RCMP have simply responded rationally to it

If you are smart, educated, trained and ready for say, intelligence analysis or white collar crime work why on earth would you join the Mounties where they’ll send you to break up bar fights in Iktyiuyttuikukville for ten or fifteen years before they let you anywhere near a decent case?

That’s not how it works.  Remote postings (and since I live in one, I know) are usually only for a year or two, after which the member in question usually has the option to stay on longer if they want.  And not every Mountie ends up in one simply because there aren’t that many.  Otherwise, all members have to do a three year stretch as an ordinary police officer before they get the chance to specialize in the sexy stuff.

And really, that’s no different from many organizations.  You usually don’t get to do the high profile stuff right away as a prosecutor, FBI agent, or military officer either.  And, I’d argue, that’s a feature, not a bug, of the system.

Comment #88: KeithM  on  07/27  at  04:00 PM

Le latest: Whalen’s 911 call released, and it in some ways contadicts the cop report:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html

Comment #89: Ranylt  on  07/27  at  04:03 PM

seeker, I like most of what you wrote in this thread, but Crowley’s report did not say that the 911 call identified the two potential burglars as black.  He said a woman met him at the scene and told him that.  I have come to doubt anything Wendy Murphy (Walen’s attorney) says. 

For people who have been giving Gates slack for being so exhausted, note that he said in his interview to Root that he arrived in Newark on a Wednesday and didn’t fly to Cambridge (Boston Logan?) until Thursday, implying he had at least a night’s sleep.  Gates admits he thought from the time he saw a cop on the front porch that he was being targeted as a black man.  The arrest was unjustified in my view, even accepting the truth of Crowley’s report.  But it is not unfair to judge Gates critically, too, for his own prejudices, from which he has not backed down since the incident, at least publicly. 

. . a person’s front porch IS NOT “PUBLIC” - it is still their own, PERSONAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY. ALL of the land owned there is PRIVATE PROPERTY. the COP arrested a man FOR YELLING ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. which, in case no one caught this the first time (jim) is PRIVATE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE COP WAS STILL TRESSPASSING.

denelian on 07/27 at 02:22 AM

I’m not sure about Massachussets on this point but in my somewhat more southern original 13th state you would be incorrect.  An arrestable public disturbance can be made from one’s own property.  Also one can be (and a few have been) arrested and successfully prosecuted for being drunk in public on one’s own porch if one is visible by the public.

Comment #90: MiddleageLiberal  on  07/27  at  04:07 PM

Le latest: Whalen’s 911 call released, and it in some ways contadicts the cop report:

Cue wingnut: This actually is central to my point.

Comment #91: BlackBloc  on  07/27  at  04:10 PM

Susan is right.  It may sound movie of the week but they do do that.  I set off my cousin’s alarm once when I was dog sitting and the DC police had me step outside - they explained later that the purpose was to see if I was ok and not under duress.  I am black and so were both cops.

This is not to defend the dude in MA.  If I had yelled at those guys and been a cranky asshole, I would not have expected to be arrested for it.  That is just nonsense.

Comment #92: Weezie Jefferson  on  07/27  at  04:26 PM

“Have to defend the Horsemen (Horsepersons?) on that one.  The major reason the Mounties don’t go after securities fraud a lot is because it’s a waste of effort: members of the squad have stated that they’ll go build a solid case and then have the Crown Prosecutor and securities people make a joke out of it, if they bother to do anything at all.  The problem with Canadian securities is a systematic one, and the RCMP have simply responded rationally to it”

KeithM:
Sorry, but gonna have to disagree with you on that.  first of all, involving the securities people and the Crown at the investigation stage is a necessary part of a white collar investigation.  Going, “oh, hey, look what WE did, is it good enough?” just doesn’t cut it.  The investigations are hideously complex and cross-jurisdictional; the fact that the Mounties handle them like a burglary in Saskatoon only goes to prove, not disprove, my point.  (But to concede one point the fact that we have provincial securities laws instead of federal [because Quebec wouldn’t agree to a joint fire department if its kids were on fire] is a huge handicap for them.)  Securities fraud, though, is only one part of white collar crime.  The best that I can say for the mounties, though, is that they share with other urban police forces a rather shocking lack of allocation of resources to white-collar stuff.  Most cops want to be cops, not accountants, and most white collar crime is just accountancy put to criminal ends.  Trying to get some police forces interested in fraud is often a wasted effort.  Thirty-dollar stickup? That they will leap to.  thirty thousand dollar accounting theft?  Yawn.

Re: remote postings and assignments.  Funny, part of the problem that I’ve seen with the Mounties is what I noted so perhaps the truth lies in between.  One fact neither of us has mentioned, though: urban, suburban and rural policing are all very different beasties.  The notion that you can slide an officer who is trained in one into another as if you were moving a widget around is indicative of the problems of the force.

What I’ve seen in the Mounties (and which was devastatingly chronicled by MacLean’s) is a rotted command structure which gives sexist, racist, anti-intellectual, small-minded neanderthals command positions from which it is impossible to dislodge them and makes sure that the most promising officers either quit or burn out before they move up the ladder.  (And that doesn’t even mention the corruption at the top which recently resulted in the fist civilian commissioner in, what, over a hundred years? because no senior officer was untainted or trustworthy.)  Maclean’s detailed quite clearly that the mean morons make sure that the bright sparks don’t move up the chain; this isn’t the normal management BS that goes on in every company, but rather the problem hitting pathological and near-ubiquitous levels.

Your response leaves unaddressed the issue of lateral entry.  By comparison to the mounties the entire FBI is lateral entry.  (RCMP cadets weren’t, until recently, even paid, did you know that?  Can you imagine going years without a paycheque just for the privilege of getting a job?)  Worse, one of the consistent problems that the RCMP shares with other N.Am police forces is that even if you do “pay your dues” there is zero repeat zero guarantee that you’ll even get a shot at the job that you are best qualified for; the seniority/blue collar/ best buddy rule often applies to a scary extent in a way that was (largely) weeded out of the military ages ago.  In the Army, infantry officers go into the fucking infantry, they don’t get told that, if they’re good enough, they might be eligible to apply to be tank repairman down the road.  I’ve met a ton of really, really bright ex Mounties who got out simply because their chance of having their considerable skills recognized let alone rewarded were next to nil.  (This highlights another flaw with the Mounties: sometimes when you do get a posting that you are good at they leave you there forever, with no chance at promotion and increasing responsibilities.  The rate of burnout and breakdown in the specialty units is phenomenal.  Good people aren’t moved into command; command breaks them and then replaces them with somebody who isn’t as good.)

[continued]

Comment #93: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  04:34 PM

[continued]


My point is not that people don’t move instantly into neato positions; that is just a recipe for a different disaster.  My point is that the current structure has no real way of moving specialists in at all, rather it tries to find somebody within the ranks who can, it is hoped, be trained to do the job.  Sorry, but if I’m investigating securities fraud I want a securities specialist, not a cop who is trying ever so hard to learn something that he didn’t want to do in the first place.

I’m not convinced, Keith, that the Mounties’ model of trying to be both Scotland Yard and the local sheriff department is a sustainable one especially in light of their hiring, training, promotion and command practices.  And, unfortunately, the rot uncovered by Macleans’s would seem to prove me right.  That is a SERIOUSLY broken organization and it has to be completely restructured.

Comment #94: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  04:34 PM

middleaged liberal:

FWIW re Mass. law.  It was noted in one of the earlier threads on this (sorry, no time for a link, mea culpa) that that said state’s public disturbance law is one based on a disturbance not in front of other people, but designed to involve other people.  In other words, not so much “cop, you’re an jerk!” but riling up passers-by to do something unlawful.

Comment #95: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  04:37 PM

Thanks for the clarification, seeker.  That makes sense.  But it’s still true that one could violate that law from one’s own property, even from the front porch.  It is obviously clear to most people, though not to the cops present who support Crowley’s arrest, that Gates was not disturbing anyone’s peace except Crowley’s.

Comment #96: MiddleageLiberal  on  07/27  at  04:48 PM

yup

Comment #97: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  04:51 PM

Had Crowley done his job, the incident would have been over and no one would be calling him an incompetent or a racist.

I completely agree with you. You’re preaching to the choir smile I think what Crowley did was complete bullshit. In the very least, some retraining and a new look at police procedure are in order. (It’s unfortunate this stuff really only comes to light when it happens to people with connections. Had Gates just been an average guy, he’d probably still be facing charges.)

Comment #98: Nil  on  07/27  at  05:21 PM

Bob Somerby has totally jumped the shark on this issue. Check out today’s Daily Howler to see him whine about that uppity, arrogant, cop-sassing Gates who’s getting a free ride from the media because of his class.


Wrongsideofthetracks, you hateful misogynistic fool, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Men rape the women they know, when they’re drunk, because that’s when their self-entitlement and love of domination takes over—not because they’re overcome with lust. Men rape because they can, which is why elderly and disabled women are more susceptible to rape than young healthy ones.

I’m not saying this for your edification, since you’re not capable of being edified. I’m saying this for the benefit of anyone else who’s reading.

Comment #99: LR  on  07/27  at  06:14 PM

When underage men (the stronger sex) drink copious amounts of that sexual impulse inhibiting liquid known as alcohol.

No, dipshit—when underage men get women drunk and roofie them so they’ll be helpless.

Comment #100: LR  on  07/27  at  06:21 PM

And, oh, by the way—rape happens all the damn time within abusive relationships, and it’s exacerbated by alcohol, but it quite obviously has little to do with plain old sexual desire. It’s part of an abusive dynamic that uses sex as a tool of domination, and it happens to women over the “sexy” age of 24, all the damn time.

What do you think happens to 25 or 26 year old women, wrongsideofthetracks? Think they automatically hit menopause and stop being sexy? Think again—they’re more sure of themselves and less trusting of male partners, and are less likely to put up with men who want to dominate them and are therefore more likely to rape them.

Comment #101: LR  on  07/27  at  06:25 PM

Just a note for Caren’s benefit, though it will be depressing. I’m recently a former MA resident* and, while most interactions I’ve had with the police haven’t been negative (I am white, middle-class, etc), I’ve also been a young person in a college town, where the police believe that it is perfectly appropriate to respond to loud parties and underage drinking with violence and forced entry, and where closing a door on a cop’s booted foot is “assaulting a police officer.” I have never, NOT ONCE seen a cop so much as respond when asked for their name and badge number. Not even when they are on tape. It’s unfortunate, but it just highlights the fact that the police face very few consequences, if any, for breaking the law, causing personal or property damage, and so on. It’s institutional to the point that the cops have absolutely no fear whatsoever of any consequences for misbehavior. That’s pretty horrifying. Believe me, I appreciate that police work is difficult and I accept a need for police. I’ve been grateful for a police presence when I’ve felt threatened. But the tolerance for abusive and incompetent police behavior is readily apparent to a well-behaved middle class white kid who’s never been arrested. And we’re talking about Massachusetts, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

* sigh…

Comment #102: grolby  on  07/27  at  07:52 PM

Wrong, please read Abel’s and Barbaree’s studies before you open your sexist snout again.

Comment #103: Rebecca  on  07/27  at  10:44 PM

(Sighs)  We used to get a better class of troll here.

Comment #104: seeker6079  on  07/27  at  10:55 PM

I miss Rugged in Montana.

Comment #105: Rebecca  on  07/27  at  11:01 PM

Hey, wrongsideofthetracks, guess what? Erection != rape! Most erections don’t lead to rape, most rapists are perfectly capable of getting themselves off without raping anyone, and many rapes happen without erections! And men can get hard because they want to hurt, punish, and dominate a woman. They can stroke themselves to get hard so that they can rape someone. They can induce lust in themselves because they want to rape. In your ignorance, you assume that a guy can only have an erection if he sees a woman he spontaneously finds hot—and that THIS is what leads to most rapes. It’s not, and you’re full of shit.

Comment #106: LR  on  07/27  at  11:15 PM

Damned threadjack but we’ve stopped getting comments on the topic, so….I’ve read for years that rape is a crime of power rather than of lust.  Since I haven’t raped anyone and haven’t been raped myself, I cannot testify to it.  But I have never quite understood what difference it makes what the motive is.  It is an evil and heinous act either way.

Comment #107: MiddleageLiberal  on  07/27  at  11:20 PM

(RCMP cadets weren’t, until recently, even paid, did you know that?  Can you imagine going years without a paycheque just for the privilege of getting a job?)

No.  But then, neither do the RCMP.  The cadet training was 24 weeks, not “years”.

And while they should have received pay (hell, I was paid as a military officer-cadet) a long time ago, it really isn’t that huge an issue.

Comment #108: KeithM  on  07/28  at  12:15 AM

the reason advocates for rape victims, and anyone who wants to stop rape from happening, really push on the “rape is a crime of power, not a crime of lust” is mostly because, just like with domestic violence, if you let people think rape is about “lust”, they aren’t going to really think that the RAPIST did something wrong.
they are (and fucking *DO*) going to say that the VICTIM did something wrong by being “so sexy” that the rapist was overcome with lust and had no choice but to rape her.

no rape would ever happen if the rapist did not have the power to rape. period. sure, there’s some lust mixed into that - there’s lust mixed into most torture, too - but people aren’t going to say that a torturer *had* to torture his/her victim because the victim was just *SO* attractive.

(DV - it’s no longer “wife beating” because “wife beating” is still an accepted thing to lots of old people - like, older judges, who think “he was just slappin her around to learn her some” when they hear that a man hit his wife - but when they are told “this man committed domestic violence”, they are more able to *see* that an actual crime happened)

re: porch and private property. i will conceed that if Gates had been doing something big and huge on his front porch, that there *might* be a case for “Public Disturbance”. maybe - i have see *HUGE* parties that cover the entirety of a person’s property, inside and out, and the property owners successfully sued to have all of their land be considered “private” because it *IS*. further, and this was really my point, the COP WAS TRESPASSING. he had been asked to *LEAVE*. going and standing on someone’s porch is *NOT* leaving their property - and being yelled at for NOT leaving someone’s private property is *NOT* a “Public Disturbance”. rude, maybe, but not against the law.

Comment #109: denelian  on  07/28  at  12:31 AM

And Shevek57, no one is arguing that all cops are like Crowley, but it doesn’t take all cops being power-hungry dickheads to give police forces in general a bad reputation. It only takes the department standing behind the few who are like that to make the reputation grow.
Incertus, Nacho Daddy on 07/26 at 06:53 PM

Sounds sort of like the RCC coverup of the pedophile priests.

Comment #110: phylosopher  on  07/28  at  01:52 AM

I completely agree with you. You’re preaching to the choir smile I think what Crowley did was complete bullshit. In the very least, some retraining and a new look at police procedure are in order. (It’s unfortunate this stuff really only comes to light when it happens to people with connections. Had Gates just been an average guy, he’d probably still be facing charges.)
The Devil’s Advocate v 1.1 on 07/27 at 04:21 PM

What’s really unfortuanate, DA, is that Crowley is a trainer of other officers in racial interaction.  At least, he should be suspended from that position, as he OBVIOUSly doesn’t get it.  Yet the fundernuts cite this as proof that his actions aren’t racist.

Comment #111: phylosopher  on  07/28  at  02:24 AM

Shorter Wrongsideofthetracks:  “Will someone please kick me in the nuts & smash my face in with a cinderblock?  Really, I’m just BEGGING for a dogpiling beatdown.  Honest.”

Comment #112: Smartpatrol  on  07/28  at  03:58 AM

Wait Wrongsideofthebed ... because alcohol removes inhibitions, its understandable a horny guy rapes a sexy college girl? (I guess I don’t have to fear rape being a 36 year old, overweight mom of three. Yay me!)

So, let’s say I’m drunk, and I read one of your assholish troll posts and shoot you, that would be acceptable? Because, after all, anger can be just as strong of a motivator as lust, and my inhibitions were down…

Or just MAYBE thinking, breathing human beings with a conscience don’t immediately commit criminal acts because their “inhibitions are down” We know murdering someone is wrong, even if we’ve had a few to drink. Why do you devalue young men so much as to think they are completely controlled by their dicks the second they get a bit of alcohol in them?

Comment #113: TheRealistMom  on  07/28  at  05:17 AM

“Sounds sort of like the RCC coverup of the pedophile priests.”

Exactly

Comment #114: jefft452  on  07/28  at  11:25 AM

Wrong, please read Abel’s and Barbaree’s studies before you open your sexist snout again.

Comment #115: Rebecca  on  07/28  at  11:51 AM

I see you still haven’t bothered to read the various scientific studies that disprove everything you’re saying. Can’t say I’m surprised, though. Can we get a banhammer in here?

Comment #116: Rebecca  on  07/28  at  12:58 PM

WSOTT:

  I am a little surprised no one has pointed this (I apologize if they have, I am a little angry right now) but men do not need an erection to rape. The man who raped me (he was 20 and I was 22) could not penetrate me at first because I had my legs squeezed together and was trying to back away. He lost his semi-erection, kicked off one of his shoes and forced his feet in between my legs. He ended up penetrating me with the front part of his very dirty bare foot; I ended up needing stitches and got a raging urinary track infection. I also needed to have regular AIDS tests for over a period of time . He did not ejaculate and his erection did not come back at any point. After he finished he looked down at me gasping and crying and slipped his shoe back on and walked out. I did know him before this happened, this was after a Christmas party, and I was crashing (alone) in a friend’s bed and there had been no sexual contact (or even flirtation) between him and me on this or any other occasion. Many women in my same age group have similar stories; I have heard quite a few as a rape crisis counselor.

  It took me a long time to recover from what happened and I still have some lingering issues but I do not hate men or have some kind of a vendetta against rapists. I can also say that the way I felt afterwards did not differ from women who I spoke to who had been raped by dates, boyfriends or husbands sober, drunk or stoned.

  Let’s say you ignore the power aspect of rape; is it your assertion that rape is less important because it involves (in your opinion) lust and lack of impulse control? The immediate personal outcome for the survivor is the same despite the motivation.

  You pointed out other crimes involving “want” and I can only say that I have had my house burglarized on three occasions and I have been raped on one and the crimes in no way felt the same or had the same effect on me. I believe the jail time for those two crimes should be different. Someone stealing the antique pocket watch my father gave me for graduation and being raped cannot be equated. Shoplifting and rape cannot be equated.

Comment #117: HooksInMyHead  on  07/28  at  01:48 PM

I can’t believe I’m going to address anything this alleged person said to me in his reply, but here goes.

I had my three children in the course of my marriage. I was married for seventeen years, from the time I was eighteen years old. My youngest child is almost ten. Oddly enough one of the reasons he filed for divorce was the fact I wasn’t “putting out” anymore, because I didn’t like feeling like I had to “give him” sex as some kind of entitlement when he ignored me the rest of the time. So honestly at the end of things I don’t know if I was found to be “sexy” at all, just available. After three kids and back surgery along with severe clinical depression… yeah. I’m so glad to know that at 5’5” and 200lbs I will never have a chance of a sexual relationship again according to people like you. -snerk-

But are you seriously saying that “sexier” people are more at risk of rape in general, not just from drunken frat boy power play? Tell that to the 85 year old woman who gets raped at knifepoint, or the mousy gal who just wanted to get home from work… the rapists spotted a target they could overpower, because it’s all about control and rage, and they are cowardly bastards who take what they perceive to be easy targets.

Rape is not about being horny. Period.

Comment #118: TheRealistMom  on  07/28  at  02:38 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.