The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Emily Bazelon & Farai Chideya)

[Bloggingheads]

I see the lady diavloggers discussed the case of arrested professor. Roger Clegg at the corner has a plausible explanation of what transpired: Never Waste a Good 'Racial Incident'

Originally Posted by Roger Clegg

I suspect that, as soon as the police arrived, Professor Gates realized he had been handed a great opportunity to play the victim and advance his agenda, and he decided to milk the incident for all it’s worth. And he’s still doing it. That’s too bad, since the last thing African Americans need in 2009 is to buy into more victimology.

BTW, I should add that I have a lot of sympathy for the police, and not much for people who make it harder for them to do their jobs and who aren’t willing to cut them some slack. Here’s a good article on that from today’s Washington Post, of all places.

[popcorn_karate]

of course, cops could make it easier for themselves by not being abusive, racist, assholes - and maybe they could even learn about some of the laws they are there to enforce, like private property rights.

[piscivorous]

If you look at the good professor's on recantation of the deeply psychologically traumatic event you will notice that, a police officer responding to a possible burglary call from a neighbor, asked the good professor for his ID, which would prove he lives there, upon seeing requested ID the officer leaves the house. Is followed out of the house by the by the hysterical professor shouting discrimination, discrimination, discrimination. Granted I don't know what events transpired inside the house other than the professor properly identifying himself so that the officer felt free to leave the house, as the professor doesn't really mention anything that I have yet seen, but it doesn't look much like a black man getting rousted by the cops to me.

[T.Moran]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

If you look at the good professor's on recantation of the deeply psychologically traumatic event you will notice that, a police officer responding to a possible burglary call from a neighbor, asked the good professor for his ID, which would prove he lives there, upon seeing requested ID the officer leaves the house. Is followed out of the house by the by the hysterical professor shouting discrimination, discrimination, discrimination. Granted I don't know what events transpired inside the house other than the professor properly identifying himself so that the officer felt free to leave the house, as the professor doesn't really mention anything that I have yet seen, but it doesn't look much like a black man getting rousted by the cops to me.

I live in Boston and while there are racial issues in the city, what cities don't, I live in a very mixed neighborhood. I'm white my neighbors are both African Americans and Haitians as well as Africans. As in most neighborhoods we are all cordial and respect our spaces. Are we friends, no, were neighbors. I will say this, I have more conversations with the non-white neighbors then with the white ones. Some of whom I find to be real pigs. So go figure. I will also add that a lot of cops live in my area.

The Gates arrest is not only one sided. I think Professor Gates is playing the victim card way to much. He did mouth off to the cop. The police officer in question also over reacted and should have let it drop and given Mr. Gates the information he wanted. Arresting him was a huge mistake and over reaching under any circumstances. This story is more about race, class and Harvard and how these three entities intersect. A lot of local people have a lot of issues with Harvard, they are not good neighbors to the residents of Cambridge.

[skonny]

I see the lady diavloggers discussed the case of arrested professor.

If the condescending tone isn't intentional, you should be aware that it's there.

Regarding Clegg's analysis, it's hard to know where to start.

First off, I'll admit that being arrested in the night (in your own home, for no good reason) is indeed a "golden opportunity to play the victim". I'd suggest to NRO/The Corner that seeing the world through such a lens raises serious doubts about the sincerety of your self-proclaimed distrust of the state. Not to mention makes you something of a monster.

"The last thing African Americans need in 2009 is to buy into more victimology".

Far be it from me to question the priorities NRO sets for american blacks(!!!), but it seems to me that the victimization itself might be a bigger problem than (and the primary cause of) the "victimology". Just something to consider for next time you opine on what black people need.

Originally Posted by skonny

If the condescending tone isn't intentional, you should be aware that it's there.

Yes, it was deliberate. I am so glad you noticed it.

Originally Posted by skonny

Regarding Clegg's analysis, it's hard to know where to start.

First off, I'll admit that being arrested in the night (in your own home, for no good reason) is indeed a "golden opportunity to play the victim". I'd suggest to NRO/The Corner that seeing the world through such a lens raises serious doubts about the sincerety of your self-proclaimed distrust of the state.

Small-government conservatives consider law enforcement one of the few legitimate functions of the state. Attempts by race hustlers or some other type of liberal activists to prevent officials from carrying out this basic and gravely important business of the state are frowned upon.

Originally Posted by skonny

Far be it from me to question the priorities NRO sets for american blacks(!!!),

I guess it was either that or telling Blacks to jump into the lake.

Originally Posted by skonny

but it seems to me that the victimization itself might be a bigger problem than (and the primary cause of) the "victimology". Just something to consider for next time you opine on what black people need.

If you allow me to put myself in the shoes of white Obama voters, it must be bitterly disappointing to see black victimization alive and well after electing the One.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by JoeK

Small-government conservatives consider law enforcement one of the few legitimate functions of the state. Attempts by race hustlers or some other type of liberal activists to prevent officials from carrying out this basic and gravely important business of the state are frowned upon.

yet even with the fixation on private property rights you really don't mind if a black man is dragged out of his own home for no legitimate reason, right?

I hope you get the pleasure of experiencing first hand the joy of police abuse at some time your life, joe, it will undoubtedly make you a better person to feel just how much "freedom" you have when even one cop decides he doesn't like you.

Originally Posted by JoeK

If you allow me to put myself in the shoes of white Obama voters, it must be bitterly disappointing to see black victimization alive and well after electing the One.

no, not really. we didn't figure electing Obama would make racists magically disappear and stop trying to victimize minorities.

He wasn't dragged out of his own home. He wasn't arrested in his own home.

John McWhorter's thoughts:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwho...-he-isn-t.aspx

My thoughts are that Prof. Gates should have acted liked John did in his incident, i.e., remain respectful even if disgusted by the treatment.

Prof. Gates might ought to apologize to the Cambridge police instead of him asking them to apologize to him. The man esteems himself too much, I think.

[popcorn_karate]

if a cop walked up to you and said "lick my boots" would you?

and if you did, would you be pissed, or just figure " the cop said so, its ok"

just wondering if their is any limit to the extent that you automatically defer to authority.

The cop has got to ask you to do something that is within his authority to ask you.

So no, I wouldn't lick his boots.

Why is this even relevant? Did this police officer go this far? Did he overstep his authority?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by JoeK

I see the lady diavloggers discussed the case of arrested professor. Roger Clegg at the corner has a plausible explanation of what transpired: Never Waste a Good 'Racial Incident'

Yessuh, massah suh! I's sorry I backtalked you, suh. You jest put them cuffs raht on me suh. Yessuh! You jes' tell me how I's s'posed to behave here in my house, suh. Yessuh!

[DenvilleSteve]

Democrats dont seem to like to deal with details. They tend to contradict their grandiose thought experiments. ( see Obama, health care, negatively affects too many voters, crash and burns )

In regard to the recent Henry Louis "Big Entitlement Baby" Gates, Jr. vs. professional police officer case, what did the officer do wrong, what should have been done differently? If the objective is to learn and improve, democrats should provide specifics to their complaints.

It is dangerous for a police officer to respond to a call of a possible burglary in progress. The ruling class has taken down from the web the signed report of the event by the police officer in question. When I read it, I did not see anything that the officer did wrong.

Steve Sailer has a good blog post on the subject:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/w...-thoughts.html

Here is the police report the BG took down from its site:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%2...s%20arrest.PDF

( also, if you go to Sailer's site, there is interesting reading on how Asian HS students appear to be gaming the quota and requirement system and are crowding out whites from the California University system.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/h...-your-kid.html

"...Asians tend to be harder working, more organized, more conformist, and more devoted to gaming the system. In contrast, white Americans tend to have a touching faith that experts have no doubt devised fair methods for selection, so it wouldn’t be sporting to try to find an edge … an assumption that immigrants find most amusing. ..."
)

[popcorn_karate]

the cop had been shown ID and knew Gates was in his own home before he called yet more cops to the scene. Shouldn't he have offered an apology and left when it was obvious that he was trespassing in someone's home?

Gates was then arrested for "yelling" - on his own front porch. wtf

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

the cop had been shown ID and knew Gates was in his own home before he called yet more cops to the scene. Shouldn't he have offered an apology and left when it was obvious that he was trespassing in someone's home?

Gates was then arrested for "yelling" - on his own front porch. wtf

What kind of country doesn't let an old man yell on his own front porch?! THIS IS AMERICA!!!111!

I can understand his anger. It was his house, etc... but he brought the arrest on himself.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Lyle

I can understand his anger. It was his house, etc... but he brought the arrest on himself.

This is a Rorschach test of a case: which side you take has nothing to do with what you know, and everything to do with who you believe -- the cops, or Gates. And who you believe suggests a lot about the kind of person you are. Something else that reveals a lot about the kind of person you are is the intensity with which you insist your assumptions must be correct.

I haven't said my assumptions are correct. Like you said, it is all about who you believe. If I chose to believe the guy who lied, I chose to believe the guy who lied, and my assumptions will be unjust. I'll admit Gates was right and the police officer wrong.

The fact you assume the best of Gates and the worse of the cop, says something about you as well Twinswords. I'm not particularly ashamed about being on the side of some no name cop though over the esteemed Prof. Gates.

I like Prof. Gates by the way, and even if he's lying about the cop's animus towards him I won't think any of less of him, because we all make mistakes and we all misjudge people at some point in our lives.

Not that big a deal really, unless this cop gets canned for being a racist when he isn't, which he probably isn't being that he's a Cambridge police officer.

[seancrapola]

"I like Prof. Gates by the way, and even if he's lying about the cop's animus towards him I won't think any of less of him, because we all make mistakes and we all misjudge people at some point in our lives."

Really? If he's lying you won't think any less of him?

No, cause people lie. Maybe I'll think a little less of him, but everyone makes mistakes, even esteemed, kindly Havard professors.

Prof. Gates is a good man and he's done a lot for a lot of people. And like McWhorter argues, he's not a race monger like Cornell West. I appreciate Gates for this.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Lyle

I haven't said my assumptions are correct.

Lyle, the point is that you are making assumptions. Do you know what assumptions are?

Originally Posted by Lyle

Like you said, it is all about who you believe. If I chose to believe the guy who lied, I chose to believe the guy who lied, and my assumptions will be unjust. I'll admit Gates was right and the police officer wrong.

That's a no brainer, isn't it? You're basically saying that you will admit your error if evidence forces you to. You will not deny reality once it becomes impossible. But in the meantime, lacking evidence apart from the cop's own testimony, you will make assumptions that favor the cop. We both know what you are doing and what it says about you.

Originally Posted by Lyle

The fact you assume the best of Gates and the worse of the cop, says something about you as well Twinswords.

Um, wow. Please point out where I assumed the best of Gates, that is, took his side in this controversy.

What does it tell you about your cognitive ability that you think I took a position I have not taken?

Originally Posted by Lyle

I'm not particularly ashamed about being on the side of some no name cop though over the esteemed Prof. Gates.

Of course you're not.

Originally Posted by Lyle

I like Prof. Gates by the way

This is the card you play over and over and over, in all your debates, pretending to be the reasonable wingnut in the hopes that your fake expressions of reasonableness will somehow mitigate the intensity of your wingnuttyness. The funny part is that you think it works. I'm tell you: everyone sees right through it. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Originally Posted by Lyle

and even if he's lying about the cop's animus towards him I won't think any of less of him, because we all make mistakes and we all misjudge people at some point in our lives.

You must be one of those compassionate conservatives.

Originally Posted by Lyle

Not that big a deal really, unless this cop gets canned for being a racist when he isn't, which he probably isn't being that he's a Cambridge police officer.

Unlike you, I don't claim to have information that I don't have. But from the news reports I have heard today, racism is pretty rampant in the Boston area, and on the various police forces in the region. You're an apologist for some of the worst elements in American society – and proud of it.

Twinswords,

So you don't believe either Gates story of the police officer's? Is that your view?

We are all speculating here to some degree. The diavloggers, McWhorter, Gates, me, you, and everyone. Nothing wrong with any of it.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Twinswords,

So you don't believe either Gates story of the police officer's? Is that your view?

Lyle,
I don't have any idea what really happened. I have no reason to automatically believe the cop, as you do, or Gates, as others have. The truth is clearly unknowable, at least given the information I have seen. If someone makes an assumption about what happened, they are exposing something about themselves. And the intensity with which they adhere to their assumptions is also quite meaningful.

Why can't you clearly discern the difference between what you know to be true and what you assume to be true? And how can you invest so much energy and effort into defending what amount to nothing more than your guesses about what transpired?

Your insistence that your assumptions are probably true says an awful lot about you Lyle — none of it good.

Originally Posted by Lyle

We are all speculating here to some degree. The diavloggers, McWhorter, Gates, me, you...

Please identify the assumptions I have made about which version of events is correct.

I asked you before to provide support your assertion that I "assume the best of Gates and the worse of the cop." Can you do that?

If you cannot prove your assertions, why do you make them?

Are you always such a sloppy thinker? Or is it dishonesty?

Twinswords,

I haven't always been speaking to you, but to the event and what other people think about it. The diavloggers discussed it, America is discussing it. People are taking sides. Prof. Gates has a side, the cops have a side.

You don't have to have an opinion on the matter if you don't want to, but I have one, just like a lot of other people have one. Just like McWhorter and the diavloggers, you and I can all have opinions on the matter

What's the point of having a thread about it, but to not talk about it?

If I inadvertently put words into your mouth though, I apologize.

[claymisher]

Over at the RBC somebody who knows what he's talking about breaks it down. Even if you accept the cop's version 100% the cop still screwed up:

Sgt. Crowley's report almost certainly contains intentional falsehoods, but even accepting his account at face value, the report tells us all we need to conclude that Crowley was in the wrong here, and by a large factor.

The crime of disorderly conduct, beloved by cops who get into arguments with citizens, requires that the public be involved. Here's the relevant law from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, with citations and quotations omitted:

The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of "disorderly" contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of "disorderly" includes only those individuals who, "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or ... (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.' "Public" is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

The lesson most cops understand (apart from the importance of using the word "tumultuous," which features prominently in Crowley's report) is that a person cannot violate 272/53 by yelling in his own home.

Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.

But for the sake of education, let's watch while Crowley makes it worse. Read on. He's staying put in Gates' home, having been asked to leave, and Gates is demanding his identification. What does Crowley do? He suggests that if Gates wants his name and badge number, he'll have to come outside to get it. What? Crowley may be forgiven for the initial approach and questioning, but surely he should understand that a citizen will be miffed at being questioned about his right to be in his own home. Perhaps Crowley could commit the following sentences to memory: "I'm sorry for disturbing you," and "I'm glad you're all right."

Spoiling for a fight, Crowley refuses to repeat his name and badge number. Most of us would hand over a business card or write the information on a scrap of paper. No, Crowley is upset and he's mad at Gates. He's been accused of racism. Nobody likes that, but if a cop can't take an insult without retaliating, he's in the wrong job. When a person is given a gun and a badge, we better make sure he's got a firm grasp on his temper. If Crowley had called Gates a name, I'd be disappointed in him, but Crowley did something much worse. He set Gates up for a criminal charge to punish Gates for his own embarrassment.

By telling Gates to come outside, Crowley establishes that he has lost all semblance of professionalism. It has now become personal and he wants to create a violation of 272/53. He gets Gates out onto the porch because a crowd has gathered providing onlookers who could experience alarm. Note his careful recitation (tumultuous behavior outside the residence in view of the public). And please do not overlook Crowley's final act of provocation. He tells an angry citizen to calm down while producing handcuffs. The only plausible question for the chief to ask about that little detail is: "Are you stupid, or do you think I'm stupid?" Crowley produced those handcuffs to provoke Gates and then arrested him. The decision to arrest is telling. If Crowley believed the charge was valid, he could have issued a summons. An arrest under these circumstances shows his true intent: to humiliate Gates.

http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/cr...are_street.php

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Over at the RBC somebody who knows what he's talking about breaks it down. Even if you accept the cop's version 100% the cop still screwed up:


http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/cr...are_street.php

Nice post, clay.

[piscivorous]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Over at the RBC somebody who knows what he's talking about breaks it down. Even if you accept the cop's version 100% the cop still screwed up:


http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/cr...are_street.php

This individual "that knows what he's talking about.< Get it wrong in the 5th paragraph "by yelling in his own home." As the professors own telling story places him out side the house in which the professor has already acknowledged that he understood the difference, in how he could be treated by the cops with his original refusal to step out of the house demonstrates.

Yep that's the reality based community all right!

[cragger]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

This is a Rorschach test of a case: which side you take has nothing to do with what you know, and everything to do with who you believe -- the cops, or Gates. And who you believe suggests a lot about the kind of person you are. Something else that reveals a lot about the kind of person you are is the intensity with which you insist your assumptions must be correct.

Pointing out the simplest and most obvious things as you've done here sure does wind up some folks doesn't it.

Louis CK on "the n-word":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqwj--wGEgY

on being white:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

[popcorn_karate]

anybody have thoughts on jury nullification other than, "hell yeah!" ?

seems like the trump card the people get to play when the powers that be get out of hand.

[piscivorous]

While it has been some time since I last looked into jury nullification but from my earlier curiosity I seem to remember it as being historically grounded in English Common Law. And that it has been so vilified by the current legal profession, it usurps their power, that even to mention the fact that in our justice system the jury is superior to the judge, the lawyers and even the lawmakers can in some jurisdictions get you in trouble.

[popcorn_karate]

true - i've heard you can get kicked off a jury for mentioning it, and the fear it elicits in judges does indeed show the potential power of the concept.

[BigM]

This is appalling. A cursory reading of the police report shows that there was no racism involved, that Mr. Gates behaved belligerently toward a policeman who was only doing his job. A potential break-in had been reported by a neighbor; in fact, in the police report, Gates says clearly that he had suffered a previous break-in, and because of it could not secure his own front door. The policeman immediately accepted Gates as the resident and did not treat him badly. Yet Gates persisted in loudly attacking the man, to the point where he was rightly arrested for disorderly conduct. These two educated journalists immediately accept this as a racist incident without taking the slightest step toward investigating what actually happened; they chortle over what the Harvard bigshots are going to do to these poor policemen. There is indeed bullying going on here, but it is not directed at Mr. Gates

[pampl]

Originally Posted by BigM

ThThe policeman immediately accepted Gates as the resident and did not treat him badly. Yet Gates persisted in loudly attacking the man, to the point where he was rightly arrested for disorderly conduct.

So basically you're saying it's OK for police to go into the home of anyone they want and arrest them as long as they claim the person was noisy. I'm not sure this approach to policing is a very good way to decrease resentment towards the police. Perhaps the police should stick to arresting people who are committing crimes, rather than accosting old men in their own homes then, upon finding out that they're both innocent and an upstanding member of society, arresting them anyway. Might cause less hard feelings IMO.

[pampl]

Does anyone the approximate date when that one right wing gun nut shot and killed two policemen in his house? I vaguely remember some people offering excuses for a psychotic cop killer who was actually breaking the law who now don't seem to be offering excuses for an innocent black man, but I'd like to make sure.

Pampl,

He wasn't arrested inside the house. The disorderly conduct was made while outside of his house while in public view. Read the police report. And don't forget Gates neighbor was worried and called the police. The police weren't like, oh look a black guy is in that house lets go arrest him.

[pampl]

Originally Posted by Lyle

Pampl,

He wasn't arrested inside the house. The disorderly conduct was made while outside of his house while in public view. Read the police report. And don't forget Gates neighbor was worried and called the police. The police weren't like, oh look a black guy is in that house lets go arrest him.

I did read the report. The cop went into his house first, then when he found out that Gates wasn't a burglar and was actually an upstanding citizen the cop decided to haul him off.

I don't even think this was some big racial deal, sometimes cops are just dicks. Looking at the way people rush to excuse thuggish abuse of power reveals an awful lot about them, though.

No, that is not what happened. Prof. Gates wasn't arrested until he was outside of his house. He admits this himself. He was arrested on and "hauled off" from his porch.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by Lyle

No, that is not what happened. Prof. Gates wasn't arrested until he was outside of his house. He admits this himself. He was arrested on and "hauled off" from his porch.

Gates had already established his identity and residence before stepping outside so the only reason to arrest was out of racial spite. Stop trying to rationalize racism.