Those cases do not bode well for the officer's decision to arrest. However, it predict that all such analyses will do no good among conservative websites that have made the officer a heroic figure.

Typical super-legislature mumbo-jumbo. If the policeman says it's tumultuous, who are we to question it?

All this does is show that Gates would not be convicted in court and has a great shot at winning on SJ. But what this doesn't show is whether the PO was acting inappropriately.

I don't think there's any doubt that Gates and the officer are both assholes - Gates for not showing ID, and the officer for actually making the arrest.

As the police report makes clear, the officer asked Prof. Gates to step onto the porch after Gates had already produced identification, claiming that the "acoustics" were poor in the kitchen. Given the implausible explanation, it is not unreasonable to assume that the officer was trying to create the predicate for a disorderly conduct arrest, since there was no reason that he could not simply depart after he determined that there was no burglary.

The police report also says that passers-by were "alarmed," although none of the six or seven officers at the scene bothered to collect their names.

Anyone accustomed to decoding police reports will easily interpret all of this as the officer's attempt to justify an unnecessary arrest.

Regarding Prof. Gates's attitude toward law enforcement, see his comment on The Daily Beast (in an interview conducted by his daughter): "We depend on the police—I’m glad that this lady called 911. I hope right now if someone is breaking into my house she’s calling 911 and the police will come! I just don’t want to be arrested for being black at home."

I don't think there's any doubt that Gates and the officer are both assholes - Gates for not showing ID, and the officer for actually making the arrest.

Being an a-hole isn't a big deal unless you're using the power of the state to crap on people.

@A Law Dawg: Gates did show ID.

@ne1: If Crowley couldn't reasonably have suspected that Gates was guilty, given the information available to him (which, at that point, included the fact that Gates was in his own home), then he couldn't have arrested him in good faith. If you accept that yelling at cops is not comparable to prostitution or brawling in the street, then Crowley couldn't have suspected that Gates was guilty (unless he misunderstood the law, I guess - there's that "not clearly established" excuse potentially available to him).

@Carolina: Both Gates's reaction to Crowley, and Crowley's perception of Gates as uppity, are very likely influenced by racial history. You probably know, and Gates *definitely* knows, that while cops might arrest anyone for "mouthing off" or other vague or outright bullshit reasons, not everyone is equally at risk.

Let's hear the tapes. We can all better understand the time-line, who's at fault, once we've listened to the tapes, right? I hope Deval Patrick and the Cambridge Police Department will allow us to learn from and root out our intrinsic racism, once we finally hear the depraved lengths to which Officer Crowley went in order to arrest the immaculate Gates. Please, help us cleanse our collective souls.

Not to defend Gates, who seems like a world-class [expletive deleted], but what is the law when some cop shows up out of the blue and starts banging on the door of your own home without a warrant, and demanding for no obvious (to you) reason that you show him your ID??

If that ever happened to me, my inclination would certainly be to tell him to [bleep] off. (Of course, since I'm not a Harvard professor, I would probably have enough common sense to refrain from acting on my baser instincts.)

But what is the Law????

Just because the cop says that he investigating a burglary report, how do you know that he's not just looking for a pretext to get into your house to check out your marijuana garden or whatever? Are you legally required to let him in?

Here's an excellent analysis of the whole matter by Professor Maria Haberfeld.

I found this line a bit creepy

When an individual under suspicion becomes agitated, insults the officer and becomes aggressive, the majority of police departments would allow the officer to make an arrest.

That essentially makes "contempt of cop" a crime.

Here's an excellent analysis of the whole matter by Professor Maria Haberfeld.

Professor Haberfeld wrote:

Police officers arriving at the scene of a suspected burglary in progress do not put down their armor of suspicion just because somebody proved to them that they are the legitimate occupants of the dwelling.

That does not seem like excellent analysis to me, and I would expect that my many Libertarian friends would agree. Legitimate occupants of a dwelling should be left alone in their own homes. Property rights and all that. Right?

Haberfeld has an interesting biography:

Editor's note: Maria (Maki) Haberfeld is a professor of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. She has served in the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israel National Police, and worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration as a special consultant. From 1997 through 2001, she was a member of a research team, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, studying police integrity in three major police departments in the United States. She is the author of "Critical Issues in Police Training" (2002) and co-author of "Enhancing Police Integrity" (2006).

It is not hard to figure out which side she intrinsically is on. As to the racial aspect, she is clueless.

Some standard, huh?

"Legitimate occupants of a dwelling should be left alone in their own homes. Property rights and all that. Right?"

Yes, absent good cause. If my neighbors think my house is being robbed and I'm being threatened inside, I sure want the police to check it out, and if necessary force their way in to save me. I want the police to be very suspicious of anyone claiming to be the lawful resident.

I think that most of us would agree that a judge deserves respect and deference inside (but not outside) his courtroom. The threshold for contempt is pretty low, and we are well advised to mind our manners in court. That brings up the question: to what degree is a policeman, in the course of discharging his duties, entitled to deference? Surely not as much as a judge, but certainly some. If people are allowed to simply mouth off in any way short of violence or fighting words without consequence, we will ultimately inhibit law enforcement.

It is true that mouthing off can be dangerous, as this Washington Post article demonstrates. But it is the police officer, not the home owner (or renter), who has to toe the line, especially once it is determined that there has been no crime. At that point, the officer's presence becomes problematical.

me: "As to the racial aspect, she is clueless."

Cato the Elder: "As are you, troll_dc2. As I am not."

Okay, Cato, why am I, and why aren't you? Don't be cryptic; explain yourself. And be sure to tell me why my "but for" approach is wrong.

Several have commented that Gates acted like an a-hole (though I think the evidence for that conclusion is at least questionable). However, especially on a law-related blog, it's important to keep in mind that it is not against the law to be an a-hole, and as far as I know, nobody is proposing that it should be against the law.

And, for many of us, that's the key to this dispute. Faced with a lippy but non-criminal subject, the officer misused the powerful authority given to him by the state to arrest the man. Indeed, he could not "escape the ride." The police officer made the process the punishment.

Everybody loses in this scenario: the cop wastes time better spent chasing criminals; the defendant is put to unnecessary humiliation and expense; the already overburdened justice system is taxed anew; and the defendant (and others) are left to wonder whether about officer's motivations.

Specast, perhaps there is one winner, namely, the lawyers who will represent Gates in his false-arrest action.

That's not the standard. The officer needed probable cause to arrest Gates, not just a reasonable basis. So it has to be more likely than not (i.e., probable) that both the statute was violated and the First Amendment did not protect Gates' statements.

If it's just a tie, with both parties having reasonable positions, there's no ground for arrest.

Rosetta's Stones was right about the tenor of these sort of lawyerly spats; e.g., "was the footnote of so-and-so properly footnoted?" Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your perspective, especially since you Dilan see fit to allude to the Law quite often in your comments, but what concerns most people is the reasonableness of Officer Crowley actions as they would understand them, not necessarily under your legal standard, if it is indeed correct. I would only change my assessment of the incident if it were proven that Officer Crowley was or should have been trained and instilled into an appreciation of the significance of those differing standards - people make mistakes all the time on the job, and far be it from me or most to criticize police officers on their performance without an appropriate appreciation of its difficulty, especially since they voluntarily taken up the mantle of a job that requires much civic duty and self-sacrifice. I think they deserve at least a little latitude.

"If we breed contempt for policemen, then we will get more lawlessness. Criminals don't send their time reading law journals. To them the police is the law. The fear of what the police will do to them provides a deterrent to crime."

I find this logic disturbing. "Fear of what the police will do to you" -- especially when you've broken no law -- can severely restrict freedom and liberty. Indeed, most fascist states rely on it thoroughly.

I think this is pretty clear from EP's list, but these cases quite easily meet the "clearly established law" part to defeat qualified immunity. Isn't a "loud and angry tirade, which included profanities, directed at police officers as he was being escorted to police cruiser, even if spectators gathered to watch defendant" precisely what Gates did (under the most police-friendly version of events)? And which the courts have already held did not amount to a violation? This is pretty much an open-and-shut case of false arrest, and the "I misinterpreted the law" defense doesn't work when there is a factually very similar case directly on point from an appellate court.

Just because the cop says that he investigating a burglary report, how do you know that he's not just looking for a pretext to get into your house to check out your marijuana garden or whatever? Are you legally required to let him in?

How do you know? Well, assuming you haven't been smoking a garden-full of marijuana, you might remember that you just got finished forcing open your own front door in full view of the street.

Lots of apparently first-time commenters in this thread.

PatHMV: Yeah, I accounted for that one elsewhere. He could have been a terrorist, let's ship Gates off to Syria just to be sure. Can't be too careful. The question is: PC.

"I find this logic disturbing. "Fear of what the police will do to you" -- especially when you've broken no law -- can severely restrict freedom and liberty. Indeed, most fascist states rely on it thoroughly."

Not everything you don't like is "fascist." Having the police promote civilized behavior hardly makes the US a dictatorship.

It's worth noting that the policeman involved in this situation and his many, many supporters kept silence until they were forced to respond to the calumnies of Gates and Obama. Kudos to both their restraint and the tempered and manly way they are dealing with the PR antics of two jerks.

So what you're saying is that when one side engages in false arrest to punish rudeness and to "teach someone a lesson", they've shown restraint, and when the other side complains about police abuse, it's "calumny"?

Nice perspective you have there. Short of actually destroying his career and sending him off into the sunset in disgrace, there is nothing Gates could do to Crowley that would be as bad as Crowley walking around arresting people for "contempt of cop".

Not everything you don't like is "fascist." Having the police promote civilized behavior hardly makes the US a dictatorship.

Any police action taken that goes beyond their powers under the law is criminal abuse.

It doesn't make the US a dictatorship, but it makes the individual police officer a criminal thug who should be hounded off the force and out of the profession.

I think that most of us would agree that a judge deserves respect and deference inside (but not outside) his courtroom. The threshold for contempt is pretty low, and we are well advised to mind our manners in court. That brings up the question: to what degree is a policeman, in the course of discharging his duties, entitled to deference? Surely not as much as a judge, but certainly some. If people are allowed to simply mouth off in any way short of violence or fighting words without consequence, we will ultimately inhibit law enforcement.

The judge is only entitled to that respect in a courtroom (and indeed, in a courtroom, you can be cited for contempt for berating a police officer or even a common citizen too.

But outside the courtroom, you can berate a judge all you want, and it isn't contempt of court.

Not everything you don't like is "fascist." Having the police promote civilized behavior hardly makes the US a dictatorship.

Do we really want the police to "promote civilized behavior" through the use of their arrest powers? Then we empower the police to determine what constitutes "civilized behavior", which could have all sorts of unfortunate consequences.

Mahan Atma wrote:

I find this logic disturbing. "Fear of what the police will do to you" -- especially when you've broken no law -- can severely restrict freedom and liberty. Indeed, most fascist states rely on it thoroughly.

Oh, brother. Re-read the post by A. Zarkov, Mahan. It was specifically referring to criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

I am a mid-forties black man who has never been arrested. I've never even seen the inside of a police cruiser. Gee, how did "a black man in America" manage that? Easy -- I obey all laws that are most likely to endanger my freedom if I violate them. I don't sell drugs. I don't buy drugs. I don't steal. I don't vandalize. I don't riot. I don't get drunk in public. Life is easier when you choose not to do things like that. That's the best way to maintain your own freedom and liberty -- be a decent human being.

I can't honestly say that I have abided by speed limits 100% of the time. But the one time I have been caught (going 35 in a 25 zone), I was very careful not to provide the officer with a reason to click a lock behind me.

If Officer Crowley is telling the whole truth, Professor Gates -- no riff-raff he -- couldn't manage to do that. Shoot, I'm just a community college guy; maybe I should have went to Harvard. How tough could it really be if the professors don't even have common sense?

Gates' arrest can be lawful even if the policeman made a good faith error as to the nature of his behavior.

I am not sure what this means in this context. Gates' behavior occurred in front of the officer. There's no basis for him to claim that he made a good faith misjudgment about what Gates did. If the officer doesn't know exactly what Gates did, the arrest is illegal because it was warrantless and was claimed to be based on the personal observations of the officer.

If you are saying that an officer receives latitude as to whether Gates' observed conduct violated the disorderly conduct statute or wasn't protected by the First Amendment, that really isn't the case. It's a straight probable cause standard-- if the officer has probable cause to believe that the observed conduct was both violative of the statute and not constitutionally protected, the arrest is legal. If the officer lacks that probable cause, the arrest isn't legal just because of the officer's subjective misunderstanding of what the law requires.

Joseph Wambaugh said it perfectly. Gates was arrested for contempt of cop. [Under certain circumstances, this can be a capital offense--even in Massachusetts.]

"No. What law did Crowley break?"

The Fourth Amendment. The cop arrested Gates w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe he committed a crime. That's an illegal "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.

"The law allows to him exercise reasonable judgment and make an arrest. Gates' arrest can be lawful even if the policeman made a good faith error as to the nature of his behavior."

The cop exercised neither reasonable judgment, nor good faith. Even from his own police report, it is blatantly obvious that he arrested Gates solely because Gates was disrespectful to him. That's not a crime...

The arrest for disturbing the peace is just apparently how cops control the situation until things settle down.

Bruce, the way professional cops control a situation where a citizen is exercising his First Amendment right to abuse him but has committed no crime is by leaving.

Arresting the person for contempt of cop is not "controlling" the situation-- it's escalating it in a way intended to show the citizen who is boss and shut down his exercise of his First Amendment rights.

I also think you that you insinuate that since she is not Black, then that necessarily implies that she is unable or unwilling to comment on "racial aspects of the case", which sounds like BS Crit Speak if I've ever heard it.

I'm not black either, but that does not make me "unable or unwilling" to comment on the racial aspects of the case. You simply are denying that race had anything to do with it. Are you saying that a white man in Gates' position would have been arrested too?

-- I do wish we had Whit or some other police presence here to get their take on this. --
.
In another thread ...
whit @ 7.21.2009 2:52pm
whit @ 7.22.2009 2:49am
whit @ 7.22.2009 4:18pm

Yes I am saying that, troll_dc2. I am saying that an out-of-control White man, yelling on the street loud enough to bring the neighbors, would indeed have been arrested after a warning from a police officer. Does that shock you?

"If Crowley were that out of line, his department would discipline him."

You've got to be kidding me...

You've got to be kidding me...

In the People's Republic of Cambridge? You better believe it.

This guy nails it:

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.

No one who is familiar with law enforcement can miss the significance of Crowley's report. As so often happens with documentary evidence, a person seeking to create a false impression spends lots of time nailing down the elements he thinks will establish his goal, but forgets about the larger picture. Under color of law, Crowley entered a residence to investigate a possible break-in, and after his probable cause had evaporated, he continued to act under color of law, but without any justifiable purpose. And he covered it up with false charges. Figuring that his best defense was a criminal charge, Crowley did what bad cops do. He decided he would look better if Gates looked worse.

"Presuming, once again, that Crowley is being honest in his report, and Gates was indeed specifically warned he was about to be found in violation of the law as interpreted by Crowley, he continued with his disorderly behavior. At that point, Gates was asking to be arrested, and that's where my sympathy for him stops."

Did Gates commit a crime, or not? You seem to think he did. It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively and applies the language of the statute that he didn't.

It only implies that Gates was uncontrollable, yelling loudly enough to disturb the reasonable amount of err...peace that most any neighbor is entitled to expect within their residential areas.


Interesting. So you're saying that the reason Prof. Gates was such a menace to society was that people heard him yelling outside? The same people who *were already there*?* The ones who might have been there because of the appearance of those cruisers and officers? Hmmm.... if Officer Crowley didn't want the neighbors disturbed by the loud yelling, why didn't he let Gates continue ranting in his acoustically suspect kitchen, instead of asking him to come discuss (yell) outside)?

*Remember- he was arrested almost immediately after stepping outside.

If Gates sues under federal law (Sec. 1983), he will not be able to get punitive damages from the city (or quite possibly from the police officer), but can he get such damages under Massachusetts law?

At that point, Gates was asking to be arrested, and that's where my sympathy for him stops

This issue isn't having sympathy for Gates, the issue is preventing cops from yielding to the understandable tempation to unlawfully arrest people who are belligerent with them.

A. Zarkov says;

If Crowley were that out of line, his department would discipline him. That's the point. This whole thing is a judgment call, and people will differ as to whether Gates behavior crossed the line into disorderly conduct.

Officers are rarely if ever disciplined for arresting for contempt of cop. And no, this whole thing is not a judgment call when there is a case right on point. People may differ. Reasonable people who know what the legal standard for disorderly conduct is in Mass. will not differ.

In Halpin v. City of Camden, No. 07-2711 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2009), the Third Circuit recently upheld a denial of qualified immunity to a police officer who had arrested a young woman on a disorderly conduct charge on the basis of an allegedly obscene outburst in a police station:

The District Court found that Gibson was not entitled to qualified immunity. The statute under which Halpin was charged is unconstitutional when applied to anything less than language that would incite the hearer to immediate violence or cause an immediate breach of the peace. That has been the state of the law for more than 20 years. The District Court found that it was unreasonable to believe that Halpin’s words in the police station would incite someone to violence. Therefore, Gibson lacked probable cause to arrest Halpin. The District Court then found that no officer could have an objectively reasonable belief that he could arrest someone simply for using foul language when the statute had been found unconstitutional more than 20 years before. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Halpin, there was no probable cause and no reasonable mistake of law or fact. Accordingly, Gibson was not entitled to qualified immunity.

(Slip op. at 2-3 (citations omitted).) That case is currently set to go to trial in New Jersey in two weeks.

A different set of facts was presented in Nolan v. Krajcik, 384 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Mass. 2005), where a federal judge in Massachusetts granted summary judgment to police officers:

The undisputed facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Nolan, could cause reasonably competent police officers to conclude that Nolan’s words and gestures constituted “fighting words.” Although Nolan’s conduct did not in fact provoke a physical confrontation with any members of the audience, his challenge to the audience to “come on down and make me sit down,” combined with his gesturing and calling the audience members “assholes,” could reasonably have been perceived by an objective police officer as a “direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” The fact that Krajcik did not expect Nolan’s conduct to cause a fight or that Nolan’s expression may in fact have been entitled to constitutional protection is not sufficient to defeat qualified immunity where the police officers’ actions were objectively legally reasonable.

(Slip op. at 33 (citation omitted).)

With respect to the Gates/Crowley incident, I personally would prefer that there be no lawsuit, but if there is one, the officer may have some legal exposure.

Mahan Atma

Did Gates commit a crime, or not? You seem to think he did. It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively and applies the language of the statute that he didn't.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, but I presume that if charges were dropped, it was determined they couldn't convict Gates of a crime. If I were a Massachusetts resident and a juror in a Gates suit against the Cambridge department, I might be convinced to rule in his favor, but only if he could be limited to receiving a cash award of the cost to make him a spare house key at the local locksmith.

My objection to this circus goes deeper than the legalities of the incident, and more to the elitist, entitlist ("You don't know who you're messing with") and toxic racist attitude of Professor Gates, who hurled what seem to be unwarranted accusations of racism against the officer knowing that he -- a Haarvaard Professor with a chip on his shoulder the size of his head -- could ruin this cop's career for the fun of it.

Obama's jumping into the fray against the police is no surprise to me; Anybody who knows anything about ACORN's history knew very early in Obama's national emergence that his post-racial schmooze was all smoke-and-mirrors. Now that he's President, his protection of and legislative attempts to enrich ACORN racketeers and his AG's dismissal of slam-dunk summary judgments against voter-intimidating Black Panthers speak volumes louder than his "kumbaya" scripted words.

A. Zarkov wrote:

We don't expect the police to be lawyers. We do expect them to act reasonably under the circumstances. Obviously we need more evidence to determine if Crowley really went beyond the police rules and procedures that apply here.

Showing with the leisure of hindsight and the aid of Westlaw, that Gates' would not have been convicted does not in itself prove that Crowley acted out of line.

Agreed. Especially considering that the dismissed disorderly conduct case most closely resembling the Gates incident (Com. v. Mallahan) was decided only last year. I expect that Mallahan will be specifically cited in the future as both a reason for the dismissal by Cambridge and as the basis of a suit by Gates.

LN Smithee says;

Presuming, once again, that Crowley is being honest in his report, and Gates was indeed specifically warned he was about to be found in violation of the law as interpreted by Crowley

Telling someone you're going to arrest them does not make Gates action fit the definition of the crime, as pointed out above. However, more importantly, where do you see in the police report that the officer warned Gates that he was going to arrest him? Even under your lessened, "if the cop warns you the arrest is okay even if it's not for a crime" standard, shouldn't there be a, you know, warning?

Whit:

Your posts are excellent and especially so today as they bring real life experience into the discussion. I have one question: why don't you capitalize your sentences your otherwise well written sentences?

Just curious.

whit is absolutely right about the fact that-- unless we came up with a fact pattern where an officer's orders were simply clearly illegal, e.g., a male officer "orders" a female civilian to strip naked and masturbate-- you have to, as a practical matter, obey orders of the police because if you are wrong about the unlawfulness of those orders, you can get yourself validly arrested.

But that, of course, gives rise to a corollary point-- police officers' privilege to arrest people for obstruction gives rise to a heightened duty NOT to make orders without a legitimate law enforcement purpose and NOT to make orders that are unnecessary or unwise.

Because citizens will, as a practical matter, be forced to obey orders even if they aren't lawful, officers have a tremendous power that others do not have to force people to do things they are otherwise entitled to refuse to do.

The fact of the matter is that the entire problem of "contempt of cop" is a problem that arises from police officers who do not understand that they have that duty. People go on power trips, especially when they get insulted.

If we are ever going to solve the "contempt of cop" problem, it is going to be through internal discipline of police officers. It's really hard to get past qualified immunity in these cases, and often the victims don't want to sue. But a good police chief can simply announce that this crap isn't happening in his or her department, and that anyone found to have arrested someone because the arrestee insulted the cop will need to find another job.

Whit:

"... a long time ago i was injured and it was difficult to reach down for the shift key, so i developed the stylish lower case thang."

I suspected something like that. Have you considered voice recognition software. There's Dragon for the PC and Dictate (or Mac Dictate) for the Mac. Both work extremely well-- not expensive at all. Hint: I'm trying to encourage you to comment more because common sense, intelligence and experience cuts through bullshit every time.

FWIW, my impression from reading the cases is that police often intentionally blur the distinction between a request (which you are free to decline) and a demand (which you are not free to decline). If you say "yes," you have consented to a search, and waived your Fourth Amendment rights. If you say "no" you risk criminal liability for obstructing lawful police action. Of course, the police report (often the most credible evidence of whether it was a request or a demand) is written by the policeman after the fact

My own view is that this, and similar police tactics, while effective in the short term, are counterproductive in the long run. Subjecting the population to abusive bullshit is no way to win friends and influence people. I can see why individual policemen use these tactics, but they seem so pervasive that I wonder if they are not, at least informally, doctrine approved by police commanders. I'd be interested to know if this is so.

hattio1 wrote:

where do you see in the police report that the officer warned Gates that he was going to arrest him? Even under your lessened, "if the cop warns you the arrest is okay even if it's not for a crime" standard, shouldn't there be a, you know, warning?

From the police report:

...Due to the tumultuous manner in which Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates' outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest...

I said that Gates was at this point asking to be arrested. I say that because according to all accounts I have seen and read thusfar, Gates was shouting loudly that he was being persecuted because he is black. OK, Perfesser, you're saying you already have one strike against you because of your skin color. So whaddaya do? You follow an alleged racist cop as he is leaving your residence and talk about his mama.

Way to win friends and influence people, huh?

-- Subjecting the population to abusive bullshit is no way to win friends and influence people. --
.
That's true. In the several encounters I've had with LEO (and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them), I've never had a serious problem, even when being cited. A calm, collected demeanor works wonders - or at least the wisdom to calm down / shut up when told to. I've been stopped/detained for "nothing" more than once [motorcycle in the back of a pickup at 3AM, yes it was mine and I could prove it; burning rubber out of a toll booth, which is perfectly legal], identified myself, cleared the suspicion in a matter of minutes (less than 5), and went on my way.
.
It didn't take Dr. Gates to teach me that hollering "You racist!" to a cop is counterproductive. But then again, subjecting the police to abusive bullshit is, as noted here, legal, and likely to win friends/cred among fellow race-baiters.

-- An actual warning is "if you keep this up I will arrest you for disorderly conduct". And the cop didn't say that ... --
.
I don't assume that Crowley didn't specifically mention a threat of arrest. The report may contain shorthand, where "he was warned" is shorthand for exactly what YOU think constitutes sufficient warning. The report likely contains a mix of shorthand and direct quotation.
.
My sense is that Crowley would have much preferred Gates to calm down/de-escalate - the sooner the better. One thing that would work in Gates favor would be that his only question, as he exited the house, was continued demand for Crowley's identification details, so he (Gates) could file a properly cited complaint to the department.

Angus says, "Those cases do not bode well for the officer's decision to arrest. However, it predict that all such analyses will do no good among conservative websites that have made the officer a heroic figure."

Right, and it shows the great Gates to be nothing but a two-bit homie with the judgment of a 'hood rat. Quite the show for Harvard's great African Scholar!

Mahan Atma, you'll want to see this: "What's Missing from this NYTimes article about Henry Louis Gates"

-- It is possible that the report contains shorthand. But I doubt it --
.
That's fair enough. I'm just not inclined to make an assumption either way. If Crowley wasn't being direct with the threat of arrest, he merits criticism and discipline for not using tools that are proven effective at de-escalating a tense situation. "Command and consequences" is a reasonable requirement.
.
-- And this isn't about what "I" think is a sufficient warning. --
.
I know that. I just used "YOU" as representing that if the report is shorthand, that the full expression used may represent exactly what you expect. Surely what you would expect would be sufficient, in your eyes. Of course - it's a tautology!
.
-- Remember, while Gates was probably out of control, it actually isn't his responsibility to calm down and deescalate. --
.
My speculative point was that Crowley would probably have preferred things calm down, rather than heat up.
.
-- The cop was free to leave at any time. --
.
In hindsight, it would have been best if he hadn't shown up.

Lots of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here. Some (hopefully non-repetitive) thoughts about this whole brouhaha, which might be salient because of my close proximity to the whole affair.

1. I think it was more a town/gown (or class) thing than a black/white thing. I know Cambridge well enough to know there's a not-insignificant amount of tension between the townies (with their Suffolk/BC/U.Mass./CRL educations) and the Harvard folk. I've had interactions with the CPD both when my Harvard affiliation was clear and when it was unknown, and the experiences were noticeably different. Also, with all due respect, I've seen first-hand Prof. Gates being an arrogant pr**k to those not his intellectual equal. An incendiary combination, especially if Prof. Gates was tired, jet-lagged, and sick.

2. The story nobody's talked about too much... who called the CPD on him? While there's an apartment bldg. next door, I can't help but thinking the neighbors would have recognized him from daily activities. If there's racism at play, THAT'S its most likely location.

3. Concur with whit's post about knowledge disparities &experiential biases. Also concur that police reports are written to shade facts into the best light possible. But with the # of witnesses present (many of whom are Harvard-affiliated &generally feel more loyalty to the institution than the city), it'd be ill-advised to fabricate too much objectively-verifiable information.

4. DA's office is political, so dropping the charge is meaningless with respect to whether Sgt. Crowley had probable cause, etc. Gerry Leone pictures himself in Sen. Kennedy's seat in a couple of years (or AG Coakley's, if she's tapped to fill it), and authorizing the prosecution of Prof. Gates would be toxic to those ambitions. The case was radioactive. As an aside, there's no love lost between Leone &Cambridge's city manager, Robt. Healy (who was on the losing end of a multi-million wrongful termination / discrimination suit recently). As a final note, Harvard voluntarily contributes a LOT of money to the City; I have a hunch money might dry up if the city fathers encouraged such a prosecution.

-- ET!

If people are allowed to simply mouth off in any way short of violence or fighting words without consequence, we will ultimately inhibit law enforcement.

How? A professional can discharge his duty in face of mouthing off just fine.

Oren:

The problem is that one has an obligation to comport himself with the dignity and professionalism even in the face of patently obnoxious behavior.

I'm sure there's a valuable lesson in that for everyone, but until I hear it from somebody who agrees with me, I reject it.

"Mahan Atma, you'll want to see this: "What's Missing from this NYTimes article about Henry Louis Gates""

In the cop's report, he admits he realized Gates lived there before the cop went back outside. Furthermore, it would have been blatantly obvious by Gates' appearance that he wasn't a burglar.

So why didn't the cop just leave?

An unconstitutional disorderly conduct statute resulted in the landmark decision under Indiana's free speech clause in Colleen Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind 1993). Can't seem to find it online. While the case showed promise of the Indiana court starting to take it own constitution seriously, it's rarely been relied on since outside other disorderly conduct cases.

Gates is a drama queen.

Could Gates have had a few too many belts at the faculty club before his racial stereotyping? Did the cop actually cover for Gates' tipsiness? Is there any evidence that Gates had been drinking?

"defendant did not make any threats or engage in violence, and his speech did not constitute fighting words. Com. v. Mallahan"

If calling someone a damned racketeer and a facist were fighting words (from chaplinski) would accusing someone of being a racist be the same? Facist is not that much worse than racist.

"So it was "clearly obvious" Gates wasn't a Burglar??? Why? cause he wasn't wearing a little black mask??"

We're talking about a 50 or 60-something year old man with a gray beard, in a polo shirt, little round glasses, with a Harvard ID (and according to Gates, a drivers' license with his address on it).

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell this person isn't a burglar, you have no business being a cop. But of course, we know the cop knew it was Gates' residence at that point because he said so in his report.

So tell me again, why didn't he leave at that point?

"thats exactly what I'd wear if I didn't want to make people think I was a burglar"

You'd make yourself 58 years old?

If calling someone a damned racketeer and a facist were fighting words (from chaplinski) would accusing someone of being a racist be the same? Facist is not that much worse than racist.

I am not the first person to observe this, but Chaplinsky, even though it is good law on the subject of fighting words being unprotected, would come out the other way under modern caselaw. Fighting words must provoke an IMMEDIATE breach of the peace, and calling someone a racketeer and a fascist doesn't do that.

Oh, and Whit, unless those people were obstructing your duties or actually disturbing the peace (i.e., THEY caused the disturbance, not the police), you don't have the right to shut people up by brandishing handcuffs. They have every right to insult you.

Whit, if you put it in your police report as a "warning", you would be filing a false police report.

utter rubbish. a "false police report"... lol. and of course i would give a verbal warning as well. i was referring to my actions primarily with people who pretend they don't understand english. they ALWAYS understand "mr handcuffs".

Oh, and Whit, unless those people were obstructing your duties or actually disturbing the peace (i.e., THEY caused the disturbance, not the police), you don't have the right to shut people up by brandishing handcuffs. They have every right to insult you.

and i've never denied that. i've given numerous instances on this website where i've been insulted . i've never arrested anybody for insulting me. nor did crowley arrest gates for insulting him. i am a stronger defender of the first amendment than anybody i am aware of. i have never claimed people don't have the right to insult police. i think it's hilarious that gates was such a dumbass that he made the mama comment to crowley. stop putting words in my mouth. i never said people don't have the right to criticize the police. the situation I ALREADY MENTIONED was when i was interviewing a domestic violence victim and the suspect's mother came over and started insulting HER, and calling her a liar. that's OBStRUCTING. and as i said, a clear warning that she would be arrested if she didn't knock off her idiocy and get her arse back to her trailer worked to gain voluntary compliance, which is what we are all about. so try reading for content next time. hth

zarkov:

I want the police to be very suspicious of anyone claiming to be the lawful resident.

Trouble is, the scenario you're describing is not what Crowley described in his report. Crowley did not say 'Gates claimed he was the resident, but I remained in the residence because I was suspicious of this claim.' Rather, Crowley said that shortly after he entered the residence, he came to "believe" that Gates was the resident. The key word there is "believe." Crowley has admitted that he was not suspicious. So what further business did he have inside the residence?

His requests to Gates were entirely reasonable. … Crowley had to make sure that Gates was not under duress. To do that, he needed for Gates to come out, or for him to go in.

Trouble is, the scenario you're describing is not what Crowley described in his report. Crowley did not say 'I entered the residence because I had to make sure that Gates was not under duress.' If this is why Crowley entered the residence (as you are suggesting), then why didn't he say so? Crowley pointedly neglects to tell us how, why and when he entered the residence. That's because he had no right to do so. Everything he needed to accomplish he could have accomplished while standing in the doorway. There was no need to ask Gates to step outside, and there was no need for Crowley to enter the residence.

What law did Crowley break?

The law that requires him to show his ID upon request. (See also here and here.)

Obviously we need more evidence to determine if Crowley really went beyond the police rules and procedures that apply here.

Wrong. We already have enough evidence to conclude that Crowley broke the law that requires him to show his ID upon request.

It's not as if Gates were just sitting quietly on his porch and suddenly got arrested for doing nothing.

What is it exactly that he did? There's a lot of yelling about his alleged yelling, even though there is a distinct lack of evidence (aside from the self-serving police report) that Gates ever raised his voice prior to his arrest. Have you seen any such evidence? There might be some, but I haven't seen anything I consider reliable.

================
bruce:

it appears to me that a lot of what went on was routine police work, and party was done to protect the single officer responding to a situation where two people had been reported, and where he had no idea of where the other person was. The arrest for disturbing the peace is just apparently how cops control the situation until things settle down.

You are suggesting that at the time of the arrest, Crowley was a "single officer," and was acting to protect himself. This glosses over the fact that by the time of the arrest, there were several other officers at the scene, including both Cambridge police and Harvard police. And the police report indicates that there was another officer inside the house with Crowley, obviously prior to the arrest. So the arrest was not "done to protect the single officer."

================
cato:

The officer's actions, as I understand them, were neither right nor wrong

There is no question that it was wrong for Crowley to violate the law that required him to show his ID. By Crowley's own account, Gates asked Crowley to show ID. By Crowley's own account, Crowley did not show ID.

================
dilan:

a good police chief can simply announce that this crap isn't happening in his or her department

In this instance, the chief said that "Crowley followed proper protocol and procedures in making the arrest." In other words, the chief has communicated to his cops that the law requiring them to show ID can be safely ignored.

================
smithee

according to all accounts I have seen and read thusfar, Gates was shouting loudly that he was being persecuted because he is black

Let us know if you can find any "accounts" that are based on a source other than the self-serving police report.

================
enjoin:

The story nobody's talked about too much... who called the CPD on him? While there's an apartment bldg. next door, I can't help but thinking the neighbors would have recognized him from daily activities. If there's racism at play, THAT'S its most likely location.

The person who called is Lucia Whalen. Her role was discussed at length in the prior thread, starting here.

But with the # of witnesses present

Many or most of the key events happened inside the house, where the only witnesses were Crowley and another cop.

================
mahan:

In the cop's report, he admits he realized Gates lived there before the cop went back outside.

Not just before he went back outside. Crowley made several statements which indicate that he realized very early in the encounter with Gates that Gates lived there.

================
drackman:

So it was "clearly obvious" Gates wasn't a Burglar??? Why? cause he wasn't wearing a little black mask?? … thats [Gates' attire] exactly what I'd wear if I didn't want to make people think I was a burglar

It doesn't matter if you would have been suspicious that Gates was a burglar pretending to be a resident. Or if you think that Crowley should have had that suspicion. What matters is that Crowley has admitted that he did not have that suspicion, as of very early in his encounter with Gates. Which means Crowley had no further business on Gates' property, aside from making his ego feel better.

- Why were the Disorderly-Conduct charges so quickly dismissed ?

- Who exactly dismissed the criminal charges made by Officer
Crowley... and ordered Gate's rapid release from custody ?


____________________

-- [jukeboxgrad seems] to be obsessing over the whether Crowley properly identified himself. I submit that's nitpicking at this point because that would not justify Gates' alleged disorderly conduct outside the house. --
.
Somewhere in the mess of discussion on the Crowley/Gates war, I commented that it would augur in Gates's favor, if his yelling while following Crowley out the door was persistence in obtaining the officer's identification details. That would be evidence of persistence in filing a properly cited complaint relating to the initial contact, etc. One of Gates's chief complaints is lack of proper showing of ID, and the more persistent he was in seeking that, the more credible his self-serving after-the-fact report.

Gates Charges Dropped - July 21

{ "The City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department have recommended to the Middlesex County District Attorney that the criminal charge against Professor Gates not proceed. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office has agreed to enter a nolle prosequi in this matter." }

____________________________

So Officer Crowley's very own police co-workers &friends in the Cambridge Police Dept 'Court Prosecutor's Office' ... readily determined that Crowley falsely arrested/charged Gates -- because the charges were legally unsupportable.

Crowley couldn't even convince his police buddies on his side of the story.

If the Cambridge Police Chief &Police Union are now so sure that Crowley acted correctly -- then they absolutely should file the disorderly-conduct charge with the court. That they have not done so, tells you all you need to know about the "facts" of the case.

From Powerline:

A Minneapolis attorney writes to add a note on the matter of Harvard Professor Henry Gates. When asked to come out of his house to talk to the police in connection with the report of a possible break-in, Gates exclaimed: "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" Our correspondent suggests otherwise. He writes:

I know that this Gates incident is getting plenty of play in all quarters right now, but I have yet to see the proper context set out for the police response. In a past life (both before and during law school), I was a Minneapolis cop for eight years. I left in 2002 as a Sergeant supervising a dogwatch shift (9:00 pm -7:00 am), to take my first legal job at a Minneapolis firm.

In the Gates incident, the police were not dispatched to simply "check on a couple of guys acting suspiciously around a home." They were almost certainly responding to a report of a "burglary of dwelling in progress." This is typically one of the highest-priority calls that an officer will encounter during a shift.

Let me explain, and I know this will require a huge leap of faith for certain segments of the population. The vast majority of police officers are deeply, deeply committed to protecting the public from the type of criminal that would force their way into someone else's home. When a "burglary of dwelling in progress" call comes over the radio, officers literally drop everything (yes friends, even doughnuts . . .) and risk life-and-limb driving as fast as possible to get to the scene as quickly as possible.

Cops don't do this simply out of desire to catch "bad-guys." They do it because -- due to prior experience -- they assume that the "dwelling" in issue is occupied, and they have seen first-hand the devastation left behind when an innocent family is confronted with a violent home-invasion, burglary/rape scenario, or something similar.

Sergeant Crowley responded out a desire to ensure the safety of Gates's home and its inhabitants without regard to the race of the homeowner. Period. In return, he was subjected to abusive race-baiting from a purported "scholar" that apparently didn't rise above the intellectual level of a playground taunt. Gates is, quite simply, a jerk.

"There is no alleged disorderly conduct, at this point. Nolle prosequi, requires the court to find the Gates not guilty of disorderly conduct." (-SusanV)

________________________

Crowley, the Cambridge Police, and his supporters are certainly loudly declaring that Crowley's official actions were still correct. That would, of course, include Gate's arrest & disorderly-conduct charge.

A nolle prosequi filing is basically an administrative court action -- ending that specific prosecution. But Cambridge City &Police can easily reinstate the disorderly-conduct charge and prosecute Gates again.

If Gates acted criminally, as Crowley officially stated, Cambridge authorities have a solemn duty to prosecute Gates... if they really accept Crowley's side of the story.

I'm surprised at how libertarian the law is. Given the Massachusetts cases cited above (especially Mallahan), I don't see any coherent argument that Gates was acting "disorderly" as that term is defined in Massachusetts law.

I also don't think this was an example of racism. The cop had a duty to check out the complaint. The cop had the (unfortunate) right to demand ID. Gates provided the ID. But Gates (stupidly) kept yelling at the cop.

Even though this wasn't racism, the cop was doing what too many cops do when citizens exercise First Amendment rights obnoxiously. This shows why it's unwise to mouth off to a copy even where youhave the right to, but it's still legal. Cops should know better. This cop should have risen above Gates' rudeness and walked away. Instead, the cop became a bully and abused his power.

Neither Gates nor the cop is entitled to any credit for their behavior in this incident.

Probable cause was required for Sgt. Crowley to enter and Sgt. Crowley did not have that probable cause to enter. A witness's statement that someone is trying to force a door is not probable cause in and of itself. Sgt. Crowley should have asked for Gates' id BEFORE he came in. If Gates refuses, then Sgt. Crowley has probable cause. If Gates produces (with Gates in and Crowley out), then Sgt. Crowley never gets probable cause to come in.

Problem is, according to the police report, Sgt. Crowley never asked for id before he came in. He just went in without probable cause. He was in violation of the Fourth Amendment at that point, and a trespasser.

Besides the fact that the police report does not even try to establish PC for the initial entry (presumably assuming that a person trying to force a door is automatic PC to enter, which it is not), there is another glaring omission, which is this:

We know Sgt. Gates talked to the witness Ms. Whalen prior to going to the door. What we do not know is what she said when Sgt. Crowley asked her:

What happened to the two black men with backpacks who were trying to force the door?

It seems pretty likely that Ms. Whalen's answer would have obliterated any previously existing support for probable cause even before Sgt. Crowley even started talking to the home's rightful occupant.

I can't wait for the civil suit. I hope Prof. Gates wins big.

And another thing:

even if the Gates conduct on the porch at the end met the elements of disorderly, isn't there a necessity or justification defense as far as trying to attract the attention of (non-police) witnesses?

Look at it this way: what do you think the charges would have been if the only witnesses were the police officers? At least assault. Probably worse since they knew they had his fingerprints on the cane. Gates needed those witnesses, bad.

Public_Defender

"The cop had the (unfortunate) right to demand ID."

Unfortunate? What would you have the policeman do at Gates' house if he were not authorized to demand an ID? Without an ID the cop would have had to take Gates into custody. Or I suppose the policeman could just leave. Do you want that? How would you like it if home invaders could easily pose as the legal resident while you were held hostage in another part of the house?

A. Zarkov writes "...If Gates did not think he got a correct oral identification or forgot, then he could get it from the police report."

... or from the nameplate on Crowley's uniform.

Some comments suggest cops in uniform and on call —holding a bank robber at gunpoint for instance— must immediately present an identification card if asked; and further, that failure to present ID invalidates any and all charges placed. The claim is at odds with precedent and good sense.

A. Zarkov

How would you like it if home invaders could easily pose as the legal resident while you were held hostage in another part of the house?

There are two problems with that.

First, there is Sgt Crowley's prior interview with Ms. Whalen. While it is not known what was said, no argument has been raised by Sgt. Crowley, that it contained anything to arouse his suspicions.

Second, and most important, Sgt. Crowley never stated that he suspected Gates' to be other then the lawful resident, or that he was under any coercion or duress.

This is a good example of one of the rules of cynical report writing. Always be sure to remember what you saw and what you thought, before you saw it or thought it. It makes it easier to get the facts right.

[/cynicism]

DennisN:

Listen to the interview with Crowley on WHDH. He explains the sequence of events and why he did what he did.

"While it is not known what was said, no argument has been raised by Sgt. Crowley, that it contained anything to arouse his suspicions."

Not true. Crowley was dispatched to a burglary in progress as reported by a witness. Crowley makes it clear that he was suspicious as he should have been.

If it worried him, he should not have his back to the door, he should protect himself and her by doing something differently.

@ A. Zarkov:

Do you really want the police inhibited from investigating possible home invasions? Do you realize the kind of horrible things done to people in home invasions?

Not at all, and I never argued that Sgt. Crowley's actions in entering the premises were improper. But he never stated that he was attempting to extricate Gates from a potentially hazardous or coercive situation. I would expect that, if after entering the house, Sgt. Crowley suspected that Gates was in danger, he would have reported it, as well as reporting how that suspicion was resolved, or at least noting the fact that it was resolved.

As the situation stands in his report, we have Sgt. Crowley arresting Gates and then doing nothing to ensure there are no burglars in the house.

I'm not suggesting that Sgt. Crowley endangered or acted improperly in the tactical situation. I am suggesting that his suspicions were resolved early in the game, and the subsequent arrest was a matter of bullying. His paperwork was an attempt to justify his actions - no surprise there.

I believe that Gates "had it coming," but that no more justifies an unjustified arrest for Contempt of Cop than it would justify an on-the-spot correction with a sap glove.

DennisN:

"But he never stated that he was attempting to extricate Gates from a potentially hazardous or coercive situation."

Listen to the interview. Crowley says he was attempting to do just that. He was worried that others could be in the house and wanted Gates outside. Even then in many places the police will search an entire house just to make sure the owner is not acting under duress.

Lesson learned. When someone reports what looks like a home invasion, it could very well trigger a intrusive investigation. Be prepared for that.

EH writes: "Hey, why stop there? Just put your gun to their face."

Why stop there? Because he'ss a cop doing his job; not a sadistic, power-tripper who gets a thrill taking cheap shots at cops doing their job.

subpatre:
Some comments suggest cops in uniform and on call —holding a bank robber at gunpoint for instance— must immediately present an identification card if asked; and further, that failure to present ID invalidates any and all charges placed. The claim is at odds with precedent and good sense.

You don't know what you're talking about.

@EH - As previously mentioned, Slate and and similar 'journals' are poorly regarded as legal cites. One reason is authors, like your 'freelance writer living in NYC', may know little or anything about law.

This ignorance results in your ownership of the claim "police ... cannot force you to identify yourself". ( Hiibel )

The ID of the Sgt Crowley isn't a real question, it's an excuse to reach for a technical red herring. It isn't surprising the first in-thread suggestion that cops in uniform and on call must immediately present an identification card when asked was EH.

Boston policy clearly makes police officer self-identification separate and distinct from a 'lawful request' for the state card.

jukeboxgrad writes, among much else:

"There's also an interesting discrepancy between Crowley's interview and Crowley's police report, with regard to what Crowley did once he saw Gates' Harvard ID. In the interview, Crowley said that once he saw Gates' ID, Crowley wanted to get on the radio because he 'did want to start clearing all the responding units, because they were probably needed other places in the city' (see the video at 7:48). In other words, he decided there had been no burglary. But in his police report, Crowley said that right after seeing Gates' Harvard ID, Crowley 'radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University police.'

"Huh? What? If 'all the responding units' were no longer needed here, why was Harvard police needed here? How does that make sense?"

I find it astonishing that someone could even ask such a silly question. There is a huge difference between city policemen, who routinely deal with crimes of violence and other felonies, and campus policemen, who spend most of their time keeping order among non-criminals. A possible burglary in progress will naturally attract several carloads of city policemen, since burglars are often armed and sometimes assault people they find in the place they are trying to burgle. When it turns out there is no burglary, city-police backup is no longer needed, and there is plenty more crime in Cambridge for the backup to deal with instead. On the other hand, you still have an obnoxious jerk making a huge scene who happens to be a Harvard employee living in a Harvard-owned residence a block from campus, with a door that has been broken down. Is it really so unreasonable to think that the Harvard police might be interested in coming around to help out in a Harvard-related non-emergency situation? If nothing else, they can help keep an eye on the place while the door is being repaired so Gates (even if he doesn't have to be somewhere else like a police station) can get on with his professorial work and not have to guard the door himself.

The "discrepancy" is purely in jukeboxgrad's imagination. He seems determined to make Crowley look like a liar, and is none too scrupulous about how he does it.

I have a question about police IDs. Wouldn't Officer Crowley have had "J. Crowley" embroidered on his shirt pocket? Most policemen I've met have their names printed on their uniforms.

The show-ID rule seems to be designed for situations where you need to know whether someone you are dealing with is in fact a policeman, and Gates could not possibly have been in doubt about that. What I mean is that if a plain-clothes detective in an unmarked car knocks on your door and asks to speak to you about some crime that you may have committed or witnessed or know nothing about, you will naturally want to make sure that he is a detective, not just some criminal who's found a clever way to get people to unlock their doors in the middle of the night.

Tziabatz:

The events in question took place in Cambridge, a university city with a black mayor in state with a black governor in a country with a half-black president. Do you really think such a police force could exist in this day and age with the federal DOJ really to pounce? Come on.

weevil:

Is it really so unreasonable to think that the Harvard police might be interested in coming around to help out in a Harvard-related non-emergency situation?

If there was a need for Harvard police "to help out in a Harvard-related non-emergency situation" then the Harvard professor who lived in that residence was perfectly capable of summoning them himself (aside from the fact that they didn't need to be summoned at all, since they were already there). Why did Crowley take it upon himself to summon them? And if for some weird reason Crowley felt a need to summon them, it was clearly a "non-emergency situation," so he had no need to summon them immediately. So why didn't he leave the residence and summon them while standing on the sidewalk? Why did he have to summon them while lingering in Gates' kitchen? And what was Gates supposed to think while he was hearing Crowley summon Harvard police, without any explanation offered by Crowley as to why such a summoning was warranted?

And how was Harvard police going to "help out?" Fix the door? Harvard has another department for that. And how the door got repaired was none of Crowley's business.

And even if you put all that aside and claim Crowley had a valid reason to summon Harvard police while standing in Gates' kitchen, there is still a discrepancy. Crowley mentioned this in his police report, but not in his interview, even though both accounts are detailed and lengthy. Why did his story change? Did he realize that he had no good reason to summon Harvard police, and he would like us to forget that he admitted doing so?

If nothing else, they can help keep an eye on the place while the door is being repaired so Gates (even if he doesn't have to be somewhere else like a police station) can get on with his professorial work and not have to guard the door himself.

What a joke. If Gates needs someone to "help keep an eye on the place while the door is being repaired," he's perfectly capable of arranging that on his own. When did making such arrangements become part of Crowley's job description?

Wouldn't Officer Crowley have had "J. Crowley" embroidered on his shirt pocket?… if a plain-clothes detective in an unmarked car knocks on your door and asks to speak to you…

Read the statute. It applies to "every full time police officer." It does not care whether you are in uniform or not. It does not care whether you have your name embroidered on your shirt. The statute applied to Crowley. He violated the statute. Deal with it.

==============
zarkov:

You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with regard to the police ID

I'm sorry you think that paying attention to Crowley's unlawful behavior is "[making] a mountain out of a molehill." It's highly relevant, because it gave Gates a legitimate reason to be angry.

If you think that Gates didn't misbehave, that's ok-- we can differ on our interpretation of the available evidence.

I have asked several times for "evidence" that Gates yelled (prior to his arrest). Aside from Crowley's self-serving report. The silence is deafening (speaking of yelling). The absence of an answer is a highly revealing answer. Where's the "available evidence" you're talking about?

By the way, Gates claims that he returned from China with a severe bronchial infection. Do you think he was in any condition to yell?

You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with regard to the police ID in an effort to direct people away from the central issue: Gates's behavior. Failure to get the ID does not give him license to throw a tantrum. End of story. It's a red herring. If you think that Gates didn't misbehave, that's ok-- we can differ on our interpretation of the available evidence.

The problem is that people are allowed to "misbehave." Cops are not people's parents, and do not get to discipline them for misbehaving.

The issue is the person who broke the law -- not by the ID thing, as JBG keeps harping on, but by making a bad arrest.

And if for some weird reason Crowley felt a need to summon them, it was clearly a "non-emergency situation," so he had no need to summon them immediately. So why didn't he leave the residence and summon them while standing on the sidewalk? Why did he have to summon them while lingering in Gates' kitchen?

Maybe he preferred air-conditioning to a hot summer day. Why do you harp on trivialities? Did Gates demand he leave immediately, and Crowley refused because he was making this call? That's not in either party's version of events, so there's no basis for thinking that. In the absence of such a demand, there is no requirement that the officer turn and sprint out the door the moment Gates shows him ID.

Gates doesn't say that he's mad that Crowley didn't leave immediately. (Actually, Gates doesn't mention this summons at all. He just says that he asked Crowley for his name and badge number several times, that Crowley didn't respond, and that Crowley then left the house.)

And even if you put all that aside and claim Crowley had a valid reason to summon Harvard police while standing in Gates' kitchen, there is still a discrepancy. Crowley mentioned this in his police report, but not in his interview, even though both accounts are detailed and lengthy. Why did his story change? Did he realize that he had no good reason to summon Harvard police, and he would like us to forget that he admitted doing so?

I can't get the video to play, but from what you describe, that's neither a "discrepancy" nor a "story changing." Not mentioning every single fact in every description of events is not a contradiction. Unless one is reading from a script, one does not say exactly the same things every time one talks about an event.

And while we're on the subject, your attempts to play "gotcha" with the police report are no more valid. A police report is not a second-by-second narrative of every word spoken, every thought of the officer, every time someone coughed. It's a summary of events.

Jukeboxgrad harps on Massachusetts Chapter 41, but failed to mention one part:

Section 98. Police Officers; Powers and duties.
The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process. They shall suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder.

Not 'disorderly conduct', not 'disturbing the peace'; plain and simple disorders and disturbances. According to that, Crowley performed his job.

nieporent:

You don't know that [If Crowley had complied with Gates' lawful request to see Crowley's ID, Gates would not have followed Crowley out]

By all accounts, Gates was persistently making requests for ID information (name, badge number, showing of photo ID). By all accounts, Crowley refused to show his photo ID, as required by law. It is reasonable to conclude that Gates followed Crowley outside because Gates hoped that Crowley would finally comply with Gates' lawful request.

you have a habit of saying things to be true when you don't know them to be.

What a joke. Carefully documented examples of you doing precisely that are here and here.

Gates doesn't say he asked to see ID

Crowley said that Gates asked Crowley to show ID. Crowley said this in his police report, and he said this in his WHDH interview. Are you claiming that these statements by Crowley are false?

the fact that the statute requires that officers carry ID and show it does not mean that the statute requires that officers drop whatever they're doing and show it instantaneously

The problem is not that Crowley didn't show it "instantaneously." The problem is that he didn't show it at all.

I've already explained this. Have you read the thread?

How do you know what Crowley knew?

I don't know for sure "what Crowley knew." I also don't know for sure that Crowley is not a cyborg from Planet Xanax. But it's reasonable to surmise that Crowley knew, or thought, that a DC arrest outdoors would be more plausible than a DC arrest in Gates' kitchen.

The issue is the person who broke the law -- not by the ID thing, as JBG keeps harping on, but by making a bad arrest.

It's true that Crowley broke the law by making the arrest, and it's true that this unlawful act is more significant than any other issues with what Crowley did (like his failure to show ID). I'm glad we agree on this. But his failure to show ID was also unlawful, and it should be noted. Especially because Crowley may have withheld his ID specifically to provoke Gates into following Crowley outside.

Maybe he preferred air-conditioning to a hot summer day.

You think Gates left his AC on the whole time he was in China? I think Harvard tries to be greener than that.

Did Gates demand he leave immediately, and Crowley refused because he was making this call?

As far as we can tell, Crowley entered the house without Gates' consent. Crowley had an obligation to stay no longer than necessary, regardless of a specific demand by Gates.

I can't get the video to play

I had a lot of trouble getting the video to play on a Mac. Then I was able to get it to play via Windows, running Firefox and Windows Media Player.

Unless one is reading from a script, one does not say exactly the same things every time one talks about an event.

It's not a superficial variation. It's a material discrepancy.

A police report is not a second-by-second narrative of every word spoken

I don't expect it to be. But I expect it to be free of glaring omissions. For example, Crowley said nothing about why, when or how he entered the residence.

A neighbor was quoted in the paper as saying that Gates yelled. He doesn't explicitly say when in the sequence of events it happened, but he says it happened. So yes.

The report I think you're talking about is this:

A 55-year-old neighbor who said he witnessed the incident but declined to give his name, however, said that Gates was in fact yelling loudly, as indicated by a photo taken by another neighbor. “When police asked him for ID, Gates started yelling, ‘I’m a Harvard professor . . . You believe white women over black men. This is racial profiling.’ ”

I find that statement highly suspect. The part that sticks out like a sore thumb is "when police asked him for ID." From the police report and the WHDH interview, we know that Crowley asked Gates for ID, and Gates provided ID, when the two were in Gates' kitchen. Was the witness in the kitchen? Of course not. So how could the witness know that Gates yelled "when police asked him for ID?" This only makes sense if Crowley "asked him for ID" using a voice loud enough to be heard out on the street. Which would mean that Crowley yelled at Gates before Gates yelled at Crowley.

The statement by this unnamed person makes no sense.

And the part about "as indicated by a photo taken by another neighbor" is also suspect and a sign of confusion (by the reporter, perhaps), because the photo was taken after the arrest, not before. Therefore the photo is not very helpful.

==================
scott:

Without double-checking everything, the cop has just allowed me to continue robbing my former home

Any further double-checking could have been done after Crowley left the residence. And Crowley indicated no need for further double-checking. So the issue you're describing isn't relevant to the instant matter.

==================
subpatre:

They shall suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder

Let us know how this explains why Crowley refused to show his ID, as required by law.

Not 'disorderly conduct'

The alleged offense was "not 'disorderly conduct?' " Really? Then you better tell Crowley to correct his police report, because it indicates that the offense was disorderly conduct. And it references the DC statute, not the statute which contains the "all disturbances" language you're making a fuss about.

I'm sure this was just a minor oversight on his part, and hopefully you will set him straight.

==================
zarkov:

You might not be convinced that he actually had a tantrum

I guess this is your oblique way of admitting that you can't find any evidence (other than Crowley's self-serving report) that Gates ever raised his voice prior to his arrest.

I guess this is your oblique way of admitting that you can't find any evidence (other than Crowley's self-serving report) that Gates ever raised his voice prior to his arrest.

Well, sure...

Well, besides the witnesses, I suppose.

Details, details, details...

Jukeboxgrad claims: "By all accounts, Gates was persistently making requests for ID information (name, badge number, showing of photo ID)."

Only if 'persistently' means one time.
By all accounts, Gates bellowed for Crowely's identification one time in a defiance of Sgt Crowley's legitimate request for Gates' ID. Later, when proceeding outside, Henry 'You-don't-know-who-your-messing-with' Gates continued to yell demanding Crowley's name.


loki13 claims "The Boston policy does not mean what you think it does" yet the (of code's plain text) supports my representation and supports the Boston legal interpretation, not your spin.

Supply a citation —a court case— of an officer convicted for failing to comply with Section 98 ID. Over the last century there have been dozens of police convicted of everything from murder, extortion, and felonious assaults to spitting in the street and disorderly conduct; yet not a single 'failure to identify'.

Cite a cop failing to produce the magic ID.

Shorter subpatre:
I don't read the police report carefully, so first I will claim there is no request for indentification: Source

Shorter subpatre:

I don't read the police report carefullu, so first I will claim there is no request for identification: Source.

Then I will be corrected on that. And I will realize that even in the LEO's report, he wes asked for his identification: Source

However, I will double down by changing "demanded" to bellowed. Because what are a few facts between friends?

Then I will bring up continue making snarky references to the slate article "not being a legal citation", despite the fact that it has been pointed out to me that it is hyperlinked to the relevant laws.

Then I will bring up a random *Boston* police department rules and regulations. I will claim this "backs me up". I will not provide anything else. I will do this despite the fact that:
1. Legally, PD rules and regulations do not overrule *state statutes*.
2. The rules and regulations require "Any officer, acting in his official capacity, shall give his name, rank and badge number, in a civil manner to any person who may inquire unless he is engaged in an undercover police operation and his physical safety or the police operation would be jeopardized by his making such identification." *IN ADDITION to showing of the picture ID card... and there was never a giving of the badge number.
3. One more time since I am geographically impaired.... Boston is not Cambridge. I am sure that Seattle has some interesting rules and regulations for their life guards, and I am eagerly researching them now.

Finally- little known fun fact! subpatre is latin for "big tool!" (No, not really.)

"This is, that there is case law on point to show that Gates's actions, even if exactly as described in Crowley's report, do not meet the standard for 'tumultuous behavior', and hence 'disorderly conduct', under Massachusetts law."

Cops regularly get charges wrong, and the wrong charges sometimes get past DAs, counsel, and judges. People can be surprisingly sloppy about reviewing complaints and charging statutes. They caught the error here, well before arraignment. The catch usually happens at that first charging/bail appearance.

None of which, of course, has a damned thing to do with racism, which is Gates's charge. The cop overreached, as cops sometimes do. They do it with white defendants too.

A. Zarkov:

"But he never stated that he was attempting to extricate Gates from a potentially hazardous or coercive situation."

Listen to the interview. Crowley says he was attempting to do just that.

He may have stated it subsequently in an unofficial manner, but it is not in his official incident report. Follow-on statements are often embellished once the individual has time to refine what he must have thought.

Sgt. Crowley stated "Sinnce I was the only police officer on location andhad my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further."

That is the only reference in the official report to potential danger. As an aside, If I were Sgt. Crowley's superior, I would have torn a strip off him for turning his back on the most likely axis of threat.

Even then in many places the police will search an entire house just to make sure the owner is not acting under duress.

And there is no evidence from Sgt Crowley's or Patrolman Figueroa's reports that a search was actually conducted. That burglar may still be in there. ;-) Seriously, I would not want to conclude and do not conclude that Sgt Crowley and Patrolman Figueroa were derelict in their duties by leaving the premises while they believed there was a criminal inside. I contend they had no such belief.

But the tone of Sgt. Crowley's report indicates that he quickly decided that Gates was legitimate and in no danger. "While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behaviour he exhibited toward me." Not alarmed, not made to feel threatened, not believing Gates was in danger or duress. He had no justification to remove Gates from the residence and doing so would arguably have the potential to escalate the issue by bringing the onlookers into the incident.

Sgt. Crowley attempted to defuse the, at this time only embarassing, situation by leaving the residence. At thgis point it is unclear whether Gates followed the officers outside and continued to taunt them, or whether he was yelling from his porch. I tend to believe that Gates was not in Sgt Crowley's face, as that fact was not noted in the Police Report.

Based on the statute and caselaw cited supra, I believe it was not a fair bust. I think it is also questionable enough that Sgt. Crowley's "punishment" should be limited to having some strips torn from his arse by his superior officer, an event that has probably occurred, and which pales in comparison to the strips torn off him in the National Press.

In re-reading the Police Report, I am mildly alarmed by one statement by Sgt. Crowley that "the caler was outside as we spoke." He ratted out Ms. Whalen for no reason, subjecting her to possible retaliation. That is very disturbing.

Lesson learned. When someone reports what looks like a home invasion, it could very well trigger a intrusive investigation. Be prepared for that.

Absolutely. My response would be and has been to offer the officer coffee. Given the quality of my coffee, that might open me up to a charge of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer.



Baelln1:

Crowley could easily have knocked on neighbors' doors and asked those neighbors to describe the residents living in Gate's house -- that would have calmly solved the identification problem... and ended the story.

That would have been a completely unreasonable course of action that would have left Gates in danger and the burglars free to escape. Sgt. Crowley acted perfectly properly by essentially asking Gates, "Who are you, is this your house?"

Gates chose to be a race baiting agitator.

"I don't think I've ever heard of it happening to a prominent white college professor."

I don't see how that person would get away with the racist slurs that caused the publicity in this case.

"The sergeants identity is recorded in a sheaf of documents available to the defendant."

This is a particularly silly claim on Gates's part.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the cop refused to identify himself, he was readily identified anyway (which is why I don't believe that he refused to do so). Gates didn't need to throw a tantrum to secure that information, and only undercut his own position by doing so.

Gates knew his own name. He knew his own address. He knew the date. He knew the time. He knew that the Cambridge Police Department was the investigating agency.

So -- again, assuming for the sake of argument that the cop defied Gates's requests for his ID -- what does a minimally sentient person do with all this abundant information if he wants to ID officers involved in the stop?

Go to the Cambridge Police and get a copy of the incident report.

Refusing identification would therefore have been futile (and destined to complicate any complaint against the investigating officer). For this reason, I find completely credible the sergeant's statement that he did respond to the request, and Gates was just shouting over his response.

It seems at this point, in this thread, that Crowley's supporters assume more facts not in evidence than Gates' do. That party lines have been drawn in terms of personalities than the actual law (relevant in the jurisdiction, pace subpatre) speaks to the prejudices of the commenters more than their legal expertise and dispassion.

Right. Given that fact, inevitability of identification, and consequences if the cop failed to state ID, Gates's account is neither credible nor coherent.

Again, assuming all facts in light most favorable to the arresting officer (aka his report), Gates was not in violation of the crime for which he was charged. So... you seem to want to lock people up for speech you (or the arresting officer) disagrees with. While that is not the law, I hope you are consistent when they come after speech you approve of.

Aside to DennisN- I'm fairly positive subpatre is Latin for "the sandwich eaten by the ballplayers of San Diego"... but it's been awhile.

inevitability of identification

Also, trotting out that canard (inevitability of identifaction)... that's true in every state. Because of the difficulties of that, and a desire to heighten the accountability of LEOs to their citizens (us), some states such as Massachusetts require the LEOs to provide that information at the time, and not force the citizen to wait and then go to the police station and request the records.

"some states such as Massachusetts require the LEOs to provide that information at the time, and not force the citizen to wait and then go to the police station and request the records."

Assuming that you are genuinely confused (and not trolling), I said that several facts about controlling law and availability of public records made Gates's claim that the cop refused to identify himself not credible. I plainly said that even assuming for the sake of argument that the cop did defy lawful requests for his ID, that ID would inevitably be determined, making any refusal futile and damaging to the cop.

Having dealt with MA cops and public records for years (as both prosecutor and defense counsel), I think Gates is fabricating a story full of obvious problems for anyone who actually knows how these things work. There's no way the cop would get away with not identifying himself, and no point to even trying. It therefore could not only do him no good, but it would do nothing but harm during any grievance process. I therefore believe the cop when he says that he did respond, and Gates was just shouting over the response.

That happens when people get mad at cops.

Finally, I have never claimed that I felt any charges were warranted. I have simply stated that for many reasons, I do not credit Gates's account.

1. Good, we agree that the LEO had no business arresting Gates. Given that you, me, and anyone reasonably acquainted with the law knows that, I am sure the LEO knew that as well.

2. I do not credit Gates account. I *also* do not credit the LEO's account fully. Since you claim expertise with LEOs (which I do not doubt) then you are aware that the arrest reports are written after the fact, and that they are often, to use a polite term, shaded. First, the use legally conclusory language to match the statutory language (which I don't have a problem with and is necessary)- hence, the description of Gates' tumultuous behavior. But more importantly, by the time Crowley wrote his report, he *knew* there was major heat on this case.

So- do I think Gates downplayed what a tool he was? Yes.
Do I think Crowley (as I explained in an earlier thread) had the chance to identify himself and did not do so? Yes. Which he shaded in his report.

Why? Because it's a common fact in both accounts, and it's just common sense to me that this aggrieved professor who is doing his best to make this LEO's life hell would be doing his best to get the officer's ID.

Do I know any of this? No. And neither do you. That's what litigation is for.

Federal Dog:

I said that several facts about controlling law and availability of public records made Gates's claim that the cop refused to identify himself not credible. I plainly said that even assuming for the sake of argument that the cop did defy lawful requests for his ID, that ID would inevitably be determined, making any refusal futile and damaging to the cop.

The demand and supposed refusal to provide ID appears to have no eye witnesses other than the two principals, so we are left with a peeing contest, and forced to make suppositions.

Looking at this from a tactical POV, I can see Sgt. Crowley making a reasonable decision that it would be risky to provide his ID card under the tense situation of the moment. We have an agitated and confrontational subject demanding an ID card. The cop is not required to give his ID card to the subject, merely to produce it so the subject can read it. That may be easy to do when you have a terrified woman in a traffic stop suspecting a police impersonator. You hold the card up against her closed window with your finger. This of course presupposes the woman can tell a valid police ID from a baseball card.

In the situation at hand, there is a very reasonable risk that the subject would grab or grab at the ID card, and a fracas would ensue. This would invariably result in the subject being arrested for felony assault on a police officer or resisting arrest. I can see Sgt. Crowley wanting to protect this a'ole from himself, and spinning out the demand for ID until the situation was stabilized. Gates had an obligation to not allow himself to become agitated to the point he broke the law.

You don't have to be facing the extreme example of an armed bank robber for it to be tactically unsound to be handing over your ID card. As an officer you really don't want to get into a physical fight, not even a tug of war with an ID card, with an agitated subject, even an old man.

I think that refusing to show your ID card to an agitated subject is more likely to defuse the situation than to escalate it. Given that, I find no fault with that aspect of Sgt. Crowley's actions.

"so we are left with a peeing contest, and forced to make suppositions."

We can also draw reasonable inferences from facts alleged.

"so we are left with a peeing contest, and forced to make suppositions."

We can also draw reasonable inferences from facts alleged.


Yes. It's interesting that your reasonable inferences (dealing with LEOs and living in Massachusetts) are different than my reasonable inferences (dealing with LEOs and living in Massachusetts). The only thing we agree on is that no arrest should have been made, and that an arrest was made.

Since we agree on that, and I think it's reasonable to believe the officer knew that, and since the officer wrote his report after the fact *knowing* what a shinolastorm was ensuing (really- the Herald and the Globe and WHDH have called, and Ogletree is downstairs??)... well, I would hope that reasonable officer would dot his i's cross his t's, and CYA.

"since the officer wrote his report after the fact *knowing* what a shinolastorm was ensuing (really- the Herald and the Globe and WHDH have called, and Ogletree is downstairs??)... well, I would hope that reasonable officer would dot his i's cross his t's, and CYA."

So, on your understanding, the black cop is selling Gates out to cover for the white guy? Despite, as you stress, the massive, public, and specifically race-based attack that Gates unleashed to justify his own misconduct during a simple threshold inquiry?

So, on your understanding, the black cop is selling Gates out to cover for the white guy?


Federal Dog-
I am unfamiliar with this testimony. Figueroa (the only other officer in the report) is not black. Could you please point me to this officer's official statement or police report where he sells out Gates? I'm not sure how to view it (given the clear pressures he'd face) but I'd like to read it.

jukebox,

Gates baited Crowley into the arrest. In hindsight Crowley should not have taken the bait. Still, it's beginning to look like Gates saw a window of opportunity to create a national scandal and thereby generate publicity for himself. Crowley did not appreciate this and walked right into the trap.

Actually, I take it back: He's an idiot if he goes to any meeting without a tape recorder.

A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."


Huh. Okay, so you have one black officer that is gong to have to work with the rest of the LEO's there for the rest of his life.

He gets two comments:
1. He says that Gates was probably tired and surprised and acted a little bit stranger than he should have. Tired and surprised is hadly the image of an out-of-control madman.

2. Asked if Gates should have been arrested... he says he supports Crowley 100%.
Objection, non-responsive. I mean, cmon. What else is he going to say. Note he doesn't say- "I'd have arrested him!" Or... "The arrest was completely justified." Just a statement of support for his fellow police officer.

Wow- excusing the victim, and a statement of support for your fellow officer.
*That's* selling Gates out? That is about the least he could have done.

— Even from Gates account, it appeared that, for whatever reason, he immediately went into "the cop is racially profiling me mode". —
.
That conclusion varies depending on what constitutes "going into mode," and what constitutes immediately.
Statement on Behalf of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. — by Charles Ogletree
The Root's Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr. talks about his arrest

It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, "What is your name, and what is your badge number?" and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, "You're not responding because I'm a black man, and you're a white officer."

subpatre:

"Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification."

What part of "shall" do you not understand? As for citing case law, I'm not aware of any case law interpreting it, but it has been used as evidence in cases going to motive (showing that a cop was enraged by a request to produce his identification depsite being legally obligated to do so- Nydam v. Lennerton) since it's rarely dispositive as a legal matter.

Loki13 asks What part of "shall" do you not understand?

"...Massachusetts require the LEOs to provide that information at the time, and not force the citizen to wait and then go to the police station and request the records..." --comment by Loki13

First you lied and claim the law says 'immediately' or "at the time", then you cover and shift goalposts by emphasizing another word. There is no requirement of time or immediacy.

What part of "shall" do you not understand?

I don't see any time frame in that rule. Do you seriously take it to mean "the very instant it is requested"? So if I'm an LEO, and I'm trying to keep some miscreant from grabbing my gun after I watch him hit a guy with a 2x4, I have to stop trying to keep myself from getting killed, and reach for my freaking card?

The officer has a right to some measure of personal safety, doesn't he? Isn't it more logical to allow the officer to get the information he's requested from whoever he's talking to, and THEN give his card?

And isn't that exactly what happened?

Because merely "shouting about what a racist you are" (if that's what Gates actually did) is not a crime.

That is hardly what I suggested. You stated quite plainly that you believe it was the demand for Sgt Crowley to show his identification that led to the arrest. I simply suggested that it was the insulting, self-aggrandizing tirade on Prof. Gate's part that caused it.

Should Crowley have arrested Gates? Probably not, no.

Was it a blatantly illegal arrest that violated Gate's rights? Probably not, no.

Simply because the Sgt was not 100% right doesn't make him some sort of monster. Discretionary power is a double-edged sword. Had gates been ranting about his bitch of an ex-wife, I doubt Crowley would have arrested him.

I disagree with bloggers who are positive that this wasn't a case of profiling and I understand Gates' uneasiness.

Gates provided his driver's license and his Harvard ID. The police report states that the officer radioed Harvard security. The request for Harvard security was to authenticate the ID. Crowley has been on the force for seven years, so it's reasonable to presume that he had seen a Harvard ID before this incident. Unless he always contacts Harvard security to verify an ID, this does give the appearance of profiling (i.e. Gates couldn't possibly be a Harvard professor and the ID is false).

According to the police report, Crowley's first word to Gates was a command to step outside his home. By his own admission, Officer Crowley didn't identify himself until Gates refused to exit and demanded to know who the officer was. This isn't even in dispute. It was reasonable for Gates to be frightened.

After establishing the identity, Crowley wanted to know who else was in the house. How could anyone not feel under attack? There is a strange man with a badge and a gun standing in your house and questioning you as a suspect.

Crowley could have handled this differently. He could have identified himself before he started issuing orders. It would have set an entirely different tone. He could have told Gates that he was asking about other people in the house because he wanted to make sure Gates was safe. He isn't legally required to do any of this. As a police officer, he is allowed wide discretion. But, he has to take responsibility for the outcome of that discretion or lack thereof.

I also disagree with bloggers who assume Gates played the race card. His fear was not unreasonable. Witness Abner Louima (the Haitian immigrant that New York police sodomized in the police station), Amadou Diallo (an unarmed man who died in the vestibule of his building when four plain clothes police officers literally emptied their guns because they thought he was a criminal; he wasn’t), NFL player Ryan Moats (the police officer drew his service revolver on Moat in the hospital parking lot, because Moat rolled through a red light; Even after Moat explained that his family member was dying, the officer detained him), and Rodney King (no identification needed).

The only people I hear calling Crowley a great cop are his fellow police officers. Am I the only person who has heard the term The Blue Wall of Silence?

Huh. Okay, so you have one black officer that is gong to have to work with the rest of the LEO's there for the rest of his life.

I said, I said, get back on plantation and keep at it, Negros!

Huh. Okay, so you have one black officer that is gong to have to work with the rest of the LEO's there for the rest of his life.

I said, I said, get back on plantation and keep at it, Negros!


Ahhhh... Cato the Elder. You are nothing if not predictable. As I wrote above
"Ladies and Gentleman, Your 2009 Republican Party!". It is so *hard* to be you, eh?

No, Cato, you're a *victim*. Heh.

Good luck with that!

I am a mid-forties black man who has never been arrested. I've never even seen the inside of a police cruiser. Gee, how did "a black man in America" manage that? Easy -- I obey all laws that are most likely to endanger my freedom if I violate them. I don't sell drugs. I don't buy drugs. I don't steal. I don't vandalize. I don't riot. I don't get drunk in public. Life is easier when you choose not to do things like that. That's the best way to maintain your own freedom and liberty -- be a decent human being.
-

Gates didn't do any of these things either. He was in his own house minding his own business.

jukeboxgrad:

this is a key problem, because Crowley has admitted he was asked to show his ID, and he has admitted (implicitly) that he did not show his ID, as required by law.

The MA Statute simply says, "shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification." It says nothing about how much time must transpire before the officer exhibits his ID. In a tactical situation, and a confrontation with an agitated, confrontational provocateur, there is no way I would give the subject the opportunity to grab my ID. Sgt. Crowley saved gates from a felony rap, there.

In both, he (inadvertently) makes it clear that he had plenty of time to show his ID.

I disagree. First of all, the law does not define what a reasonable time is. Second, as long as Gates was acting agitated and potentially violent, I would argue that it would be improper to show him anything. Arguably the offense, if any, occurred after Gates had been cuffed and stuffed in the cruiser. At that point, it is nothing more than a minor technical violation.

Baloney. Gates is 5' 7", 150 lbs. There is nothing in Crowley's police report or TV interview suggesting any physical aggression whatsoever by Gates.

Baloney back atcha.

Gates size has nothing to do with it, nor the subject's age. He was agitated and being provocative. Under those circumstances, it would be foolish to produce an ID or anything else. All Gates had to do would be to grab Sgt. Crowley's ID or grab at it, and he would be up on a felony rap. Sgt. Crowley saved Gates from a serious charge.

The odds are very high that any "subject demanding an ID card" is going to be "agitated and confrontational." The very act of asking for the card is "confrontational," virtually by definition.

Not at all. "Officer, I need to see your departmental ID. Thank you." There. No confrontation.

In the end Gates probably does have a technical beef about the ID, but there is no way a charge could be made to stick given the circumstances, and I'm not aware of any penalty for failing to comply.

There is no reason to think that Gates ever left the porch. According to Crowley, he made the arrest on the porch. And if Gates "was yelling from his porch," it's odd to notice the almost complete absence of non-police witnesses who have come forward to support that assertion''

I agree. That is one reason the charge was dropped. Politics was the other. But likewise the situation is ambiguous enough, or has been managed to be ambiguous enough, that a charge of false arrest is also unlikely to stand.

It's apparently a standard cop stunt.

Unfortunately, one of the people who seems to have not "caught the error" is Commissioner Haas. He said "Sergeant Crowley followed proper protocol and procedures in making the arrest."

He's supporting his people and supporting the use of a standard cop tool. One that may be illegal, but is useful and won't be given up without a fight.


jay jay:

I also disagree with bloggers who assume Gates played the race card

It was Gates who immediately started screaming about Black men in America and playing the role of provocateur.

Gates size has nothing to do with it, nor the subject's age. He was agitated and being provocative

Translation- he was angry that the officer was staying in his home despite ascertaining he was the rightful inhabitant and being asked to leave, and he expressed that displeasure using words and threatening administrative retribution; moreover he provoked the officer with words and demands for identification.

loki13:

Translation- he was angry that the officer was staying in his home despite ascertaining he was the rightful inhabitant and being asked to leave, and he expressed that displeasure using words and threatening administrative retribution; moreover he provoked the officer with words and demands for identification.

It doesn't really matter why Gates was behaving in an agitated manner, or even if he was justified in doing so. The officer is under no obligation to comply with any demands, lawful or not, until the situation has de-escalated. The subject has a certain obligation to behave in a calm and controlled manner if he expects any cooperation at all.

but his conduct were so clearly within the code's prohibited acts that conviction is inevitable.

No matter after that —appeals, constitutional questions,or federal motion— the cop acted squarely within established law, procedure, and policy


I had my doubts before, but now I know. The sandwich eaten by San Diego ballplayers is a troll. Given that the OP and original comments were about what the code meant (IOW, whether it was constitutional to arrest Gates given those facts).... wow.

Jay Jay said:

The events in question took place in Cambridge, a university city with a black mayor in state with a black governor in a country with a half-black president. Do you really think such a police force could exist in this day and age with the federal DOJ really to pounce?
--
All the presidents, most of the mayors and governors have been white up until now. Based on that logic are you saying that whites can't be victimized?

Unwarranted racial profiling is best characterized as a transgression against a group - Blacks. Well, it ultimately afflicts individuals, but the ultimate and illegitimate motive that the Law judges is that it is unfair to impute group characteristics, which are tremendously difficult for any one person to change, onto to distinct individuals who vary widely amongst themselves. Yes, directly from the analogy you give, I would agree with Zarkov that Whites indeed could not be victimized with the same motivations as you feel precipitated Gates' arrest. More precisely, simple observation of this country's history implies that they could not be subjected to racial profiling as a body.

Failure to get the ID does not give him license to throw a tantrum.

A citizen doesn't need a license to throw a tantrum at a police officer. Indeed, the original understanding of the First Amendment was precisely that citizens would not need to obtain licenses to express themselves.

It was Gates who immediately started screaming about Black men in America and playing the role of provocateur.

Sez who?

And since I know JBG likes to jump on words, when I say "asked the officer for ID," I mean, asked the officer to identify himself, not asked the officer to show his ID card.

No he can't. Gates —in collaboration with his attorneys— made a public statement the issue was resolved:

"This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department. All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances."

Gates may believe the 'resolution' to be legal only, reasoning that public trashing of the officer(s) involved isn't covered by the previous public statement. But any legal movement on Gates' part negates the nol pros agreement; risking reinstatement of the charges.

At trial not only will Gates' race-baiting be paraded for the world [the most powerful incentive to Gates and friends] but his conduct were so clearly within the code's prohibited acts that conviction is inevitable.

No matter after that —appeals, constitutional questions,or federal motion— the cop acted squarely within established law, procedure, and policy. There will be no punitive damages or legal fees.

Now you've gone from bad lawyering to delusion. You're wrong on the disorderly conduct issue, and you're wronger on the nolle prosequi issue.

David M. Nieporent said:

You're wrong on the disorderly conduct issue, and you're wronger on the nolle prosequi issue.

Could you expound on this?

David M. Nieporent said:

You're wrong on the disorderly conduct issue, and you're wronger on the nolle prosequi issue.

I'm very certain on the disorderly issue (Posner cites the wrong statute) but could you expound on the nol pros? I've seen charges reinstated, so why not here?

Jay Jay, Crowley has been told not to make further statments- CNN was interviewing fellow officers- Crowley was present but not talking.

Based on that logic are you saying that whites can't be victimized?"

You question contains a planted axiom: symmetry. Black politicians have more sensitivity to accusations of police abuse (against blacks) than white politicians (against whites). As such they are going to act as more careful guardians for their constituency.
----

I can't tell you how interesting it is that people relate victimization to skin color. The blogger's orginal comment indicated that a black person couldn't be victimized because of the abundance of black public officials. It is a idiotic premises. I don't think badge heavy cops spend a lot of time thinking about what the governor or mayor is going to say.

Police have absolute power, and we know the old saying about absolute power. That means they can harrass anyone, regardless of skin color and regardless of who is mayor.

A. Zarkov,

Contrary to your article assertions, Obama is very aware of police activity and profiling. When he was in the state senate he sponsor a law that requires officers to complete papers that identify the ethnicity of all who are stopped by the police, whether an arrest was made or not. He also sponsored a law that required that police interviews surrounding capital offenses be videotapped

Incidently, Illinois stats don't jive with yours. In fact, they demonstrated that blacks were stopped more often, but arrested less.

Your article also seems a little biased, and, dare I say it, racist. Most people, regardless of color don't argue with the police when they are stopped. And it just plain stupid to believe someone on a lonely road is going to argue with the police because of Obama's statement.

No one objects to police doing their job. The objection has to do with abuse of authority. That seems to be an issue with a lot of people, regardless of color.

jay jay:

"Incidently, Illinois stats don't jive with yours."

They are not my statistics. Mac Donald probably got them from NYPD or the US Department of Justice Statistics.

"In fact, they demonstrated that blacks were stopped more often, but arrested less."

You will have to be more specific here. What are the numbers? Mac Donald's numbers are consistent with those from the National Victimization Surveys done by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"Your article also seems a little biased, and, dare I say it, racist."

How can data be racist? Black crime rates are 7-10 higher across all categories of crime. As such blacks are going to have more contact with the police, which is going to lead to a higher rate of accusations of police abuse.

"Most people, regardless of color don't argue with the police when they are stopped."

Most everyone won't argue with a policeman when stopped. A few hotheads do and they risk arrest.

Dilan Esper:

"But as long as he isn't severely disturbing the neighbors..."

How do you know he wasn't?

Gates lives at 17 Ware Street. Go to Google Maps, type in the address, and select "street view." This will give you a feel for the neighborhood. If you rotate, you will see an apartment building across the street. I can imagine that someone having a severe tantrum on the porch, would attract a crowd and upset people on either side and across the street.

federal:

So, on your understanding, the black cop is selling Gates out to cover for the white guy? … The guy's name is Leon Lashley. His statements have been made to the media. He states that he fully supports how Crowley handled the incident, including the arrest, given Gates's conduct.

Yes, Lashley said "I know what he did. I support what he did 100%" (see video at 0:28). Trouble is, Lashley also said "I stayed out" (see video at 2:17). That is, he stayed outside the house. Since he was outside the house, how is he in a position to say "I know what he did?" Many or most of the key events, such as Crowley violating 98D, and allegedly refusing to give his name at all, occurred inside the house. Lashley is relying on hearsay to evaluate those events. This is not good for his credibility. And presenting him as a witness as if he was inside, even though he wasn't, also isn't good for your credibility.

I find it interesting that loki … posits that that witness is not being candid

I find it interesting that you posit Lashley as candid even though he is claiming to know things he is not in a position to know.

================
loki:

I'm not clear about what it is in Gates' own account which indicates that he acted like a jerk.

Even from Gates account, it appeared that, for whatever reason, he immediately went into "the cop is racially profiling me mode".

I'm primarily interested in what Gates actually did ("acted") and said during the event, as distinguished from his thoughts about the incident (as expressed after it). His accounts are here and here. He admits to making one racial statement before the arrest:

It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, ‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything. He turned his back to me and turned back to the porch. And I followed him. I kept saying, “I want your name, and I want your badge number.”

Does that statement ("you’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer") amount to "acted like a jerk?" I think the answer might be yes, but it depends on things we don't know, and probably will never know, like the attitude Crowley presented to Gates (and attitude is communicated not just by words but also by tone and body language). So I think claiming that Gates acted like a jerk requires assuming a bunch of facts that are not in evidence.

I wish he had been a garden variety jerk instead of pulling the racial profiling angle; then, the focus could properly be on the rampant misuse of these types of laws to enforce "contempt of cop" violations without allowing the bedwetting Law&Order crowd* to cry racism.

You're summing up a key aspect of what makes the situation interesting and complicated. There are indeed two potential angles: racial profiling, and police abuse of power more generally. And most of the media attention is being focused on the former, and not the latter. I agree with you that this is unfortunate. I think the "bedwetting Law&Order crowd" is indeed taking advantage of the situation by crying racism, to distract attention from the broader issue. I agree that it probably would have been better, overall, if Gates had kept the racial angle out of it. Even though I also think Crowley's behavior may have been influenced by race, at least to some extent. But in this situation that would be hard to know and hard to prove, so discussions of the race angle tend to become a waste of time.

2. Being tired from a long trip.
3. Being frustrated by not being able to get in his house.

Indeed. Also, having a severe bronchial infection.

================
jimbo:

Gates baited Crowley into the arrest

Yes, especially the part where Gates used mind control to get Crowley to violate 98D by refusing to show his ID, as required by law. And also the part where Gates used mind control to get Crowley to say that any further discussion regarding the ID (or anything else) needed to take place outside. A place where Crowley would be in a better position to make a DC arrest. Yes, all that mind control was quite diabolical.

================
subpatre:

I'm glad to hear you 'deal with LEOs' that should make providing that case cite real easy ... or not.

There's no need for a "case cite" to comprehend the plain language of the statute:

Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

What do you think "shall be exhibited upon lawful request" means? "Exhibited" months later? How do you interpret the word "upon?" The relevant definition is as follows: "immediately or very soon after."

The statute does not say 'shall be exhibited eventually.' It says "shall be exhibited upon lawful request." For those who have trouble speaking English, that means 'shall be exhibited immediately after lawful request, or very soon after lawful request.' And it's not just that Crowley failed to show his ID immediately. It's that he failed to show it at all. So how is it possible to construe his behavior as being in compliance with the statute?

First you lied and claim the law says 'immediately' or "at the time", then you cover and shift goalposts by emphasizing another word. There is no requirement of time or immediacy.

The law does stipulate "immediately" or "at the time." That's what "upon" means. But feel free to tell us about the special GOP dictionary where "upon" is defined as 'eventually' or 'much later' or 'whenever the officer feels like getting around to it.'

By the way, here's some similar language from another MA statute:

Upon request by a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority police officer, a passenger shall make themselves known to police by personal identification or any other means for the purpose of issuing a non-criminal citation.

Are you really claiming that "upon" at the beginning of that sentence means something other than "immediately or very soon after?" Because if it means something else, then it's perfectly fine for the passenger to delay his response, right? What if first he wants to use his cell phone for a while (like how Crowley decided he needed to use his radio, instead of responding to Gates' lawful request)? What if he needs to trim his nails? Go home and spend a few days reorganizing his lint collection? The passenger has not violated the statute, because "upon" means something other than 'right away.' (And because the statute allegedly does not define a "time frame," as scott said.) Right? That's funny. Now tell us another one.

(I see loki produced a similar example.)

the cop acted squarely within established law, procedure, and policy

Naturally. And the people who drafted 98D put the word "upon" in there even though the word has no meaning whatsoever. And the OP and various comments about the constitutionality of the arrest also have no meaning whatsoever.

Secretary of Public Safety for Massachusetts —over State Police, Corrections, National Guard, Fire Services and other assorted criminal justice and public safety agencies— where he had the major leadership role ... to ensure that police departments were not engaged in racial profiling ... Masters in Criminal Justice Administration and is finishing a PhD in Law, Policy and Society at Northeastern U.

Yes, Haas has a great resume. All the more reason to expect him to know better than to give Crowley a free pass for violating 98D. So why did Haas give Crowley a free pass for violating 98D? Is it possible that Haas has the same impairment you have regarding the plain meaning of the word "upon?"

Crowley's on perfectly solid ground; Gates put himself within the violation. It would be just too strange for the Commissioner and union (especially the union!) to take stands without reassurance of their legality.

If there was an actual "violation" and the arrest was "on perfectly solid ground," then why did Haas allow the charges to be dropped?

HUPD promotes the idea that they have exclusive jurisdiction on Harvard property ... as if Harvard were a different city

If true, so what? Who cares? How does that explain or justify any of Crowley's bad acts, like his violation of 98D? How does it have any relevance whatsoever to your ipse dixit claim that "Crowley was acting according to department policy?" (I'm happy to note that nieporent made the same point. We do agree occasionally.)

I'm very certain on the disorderly issue (Posner cites the wrong statute)

That's hysterically funny, since you said it was "not 'disorderly conduct,' " and you cited "the wrong statute." As I explained to you here. Naturally you didn't respond.

================
scott:

I don't see any time frame in that rule.

You must have the special redacted version of the statute where the word "upon" cannot be seen.

Gates asked Crowley to show ID roughly ten days ago. As far as we know, Crowley has still not complied with that request. Is Crowley still within the proper "time frame?" When the drafters of the statute said "shall be exhibited," do you think they meant 'shall be exhibited at any time prior to the end of the current century?'

Do you seriously take it to mean "the very instant it is requested"?

I seriously take "upon" to mean what "upon" actually means, which is 'immediately or very soon after.' What a radical notion: paying attention to the actual meaning of the actual words that appear in the actual statute.

So if I'm an LEO, and I'm trying to keep some miscreant from grabbing my gun after I watch him hit a guy with a 2x4, I have to stop trying to keep myself from getting killed, and reach for my freaking card?

No. First I have to do what's needed to make sure I'm not "getting killed." But upon doing that, I do indeed have to "reach for my freaking card." And if you're not sure what I meant by "upon," look it up.

And was Crowley unable to exhibit his card because he was so busy keeping himself "from getting killed?" I don't think so. Try dealing with the actual circumstances of the instant matter, and not some circumstances you've pulled out of your imagination.

The officer has a right to some measure of personal safety, doesn't he?

Indeed. Trouble is, Crowley said nothing in his lengthy police report or in his lengthy TV interview to give the slightest indication that he viewed Gates as a threat to his "personal safety." As I said, try dealing with the actual circumstances of the instant matter, and not some circumstances you've pulled out of your imagination.

Isn't it more logical to allow the officer to get the information he's requested from whoever he's talking to, and THEN give his card? And isn't that exactly what happened?

Wrong. That's exactly what didn't happen. I reviewed the events here. Crowley didn't "give his card." Ever. Period. Even after he was able to "get the information he's requested from [Gates]."

You stated quite plainly that you believe it was the demand for Sgt Crowley to show his identification that led to the arrest. I simply suggested that it was the insulting, self-aggrandizing tirade on Prof. Gate's part that caused it.

Trouble is, there are no reliable non-police witnesses who assert that Gates ever delivered an "insulting, self-aggrandizing tirade." On the other hand, Crowley's own statements make it clear that Gates repeatedly asked for various forms of ID information, and that Crowley did not respond to those lawful requests in a lawful manner (at the very least, with regard to one of those requests). Therefore it is indeed reasonable to believe that "it was the demand for Sgt Crowley to show his identification that led to the arrest." At least indirectly, because Gates had a legitimate right to be angry because his lawful request had been denied.

simply because your ID says you live there doesn't mean you should be there … Trust, but verify.

This is a pure red herring. By his own account, Crowley did indeed "trust" (shortly after arriving) that Gates "should be there" (and it doesn't matter if you think this was bad judgment on Crowley's part). And in any case, if Crowley didn't trust that Gates should be there, Crowley could "verify" very easily via the Harvard police who were standing outside. They knew (or could easily find out) that Harvard owned that building, and that Gates "should be there."

By the way, I notice you're ducking my question about witnesses. You said there are "witnesses." What witnesses?

================
dennis:

The MA Statute simply says, "shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification." It says nothing about how much time must transpire before the officer exhibits his ID.

Someone else who learned to speak English without ever being told the meaning of "upon."

In a tactical situation, and a confrontation with an agitated, confrontational provocateur, there is no way I would give the subject the opportunity to grab my ID. Sgt. Crowley saved gates from a felony rap, there.

I suspect that Crowley was not bending over backwards to make sure that Gates was not victimized by some kind of unfair "rap." Just a hunch. And to protect Gates from "a felony rap," all Crowley had to do was decline to press "a felony rap;" i.e., Crowley could apply discretion and generously forgive any gratuitous ID-grabbing that might ensue as a result of Crowley acting in compliance with 98D. Crowley was under no obligation to bring "a felony rap," even if there had been a veritable orgy of ID-grabbing on his watch.

Also, has there been a rash of ID-grabbing? Have perps been grabbing IDs and using them to assault cops? Are there a bunch of cops in the hospital as a result of assault with a deadly ID? Exactly what harm would come to Crowley if the aging, diminutive college professor suddenly transformed himself into a crazed, rampaging ID-grabber?

I don't think the dog really ate your homework, and I don't think Crowley violated 98D in order to protect Gates from "a felony rap."

as long as Gates was acting agitated and potentially violent, I would argue that it would be improper to show him anything

If Crowley viewed Gates as "potentially violent," then why does he say nothing in his lengthy police report or in his lengthy TV interview to give the slightest indication that he viewed Gates as "potentially violent?"

Under those circumstances, it would be foolish to produce an ID or anything else.

"Anything else?" Really? Crowley was perfectly comfortable using his radio while standing in Gates' kitchen. Didn't Crowley realize that at any moment, Gates could have grabbed the radio? Who knows what sort of unspeakable things might happen if a "potentially violent" person like Gates managed to get hold of a dangerous object like a radio. And wasn't Crowley concerned that this could lead to "a felony rap" for Gates? How could Crowley be so careless?

And if "it would be foolish to produce an ID," then why did Crowley say "I did start reaching for a photo ID that I have?" What happened? Did it take him a moment to realize that he was about to take the terrible risk of showing his ID to a "potentially violent" person?

Not at all. "Officer, I need to see your departmental ID. Thank you." There. No confrontation.

How do you know that's not exactly what Gates said?

He's supporting his people and supporting the use of a standard cop tool. One that may be illegal, but is useful and won't be given up without a fight.

How reassuring to know that Cambridge has a police commissioner who doesn't mind encouraging his people to do things that "may be illegal." (And the word "may" there is unjustified.)

It was Gates who immediately started screaming about Black men in America and playing the role of provocateur.

Your bias is obvious when you uncritically accept Crowley's uncorroborated claims while rejecting Gates' reciprocal claims.

The officer is under no obligation to comply with any demands, lawful or not, until the situation has de-escalated.

What "situation?" In his TV interview, Crowley explained that after seeing Gates' ID, Crowley was eager to get on the radio to tell "all the responding units" that they were not needed at the scene. So there was no "situation" at that point. That's why he called off the other units, and that's why he prepared to leave. So at that point, what was preventing him from complying with Gates' lawful request?

================
nieporent:

Gates asked the officer for ID, and instead the officer left.

Indeed. And as he was leaving, Crowley told Gates that any further discussion needed to take place outside. In my opinion, this tends to create the impression that Crowley intentionally lured Gates outside in order to set him up for a DC arrest.

And since I know JBG likes to jump on words, when I say "asked the officer for ID," I mean, asked the officer to identify himself, not asked the officer to show his ID card.

But according to Crowley's own account, Gates did both of those things. Gates did indeed "[ask] the officer to show his ID card." In his police report, Crowley said that Gates asked Crowley to "show him identification." There seems to still be undue confusion on this point, even though loki explained it days ago, here.

The same fact is established in Crowley's TV interview. He said "he asked me for identification … I did start reaching for a photo ID that I have" (see video at 6:07).

Crowley understood that Gates was asking to see Crowley's "photo ID." But Crowley makes no mention (either in his police report or his TV interview) of ever showing it to Gates, and says nothing to explain why he failed to show it to Gates. Crowley's own words are enough to establish that he violated 98D.

================
johnny:

Crowley has been told not to make further statments

I don't know when he was told that, but he gave a long interview pretty recently. And I think he hung himself in various ways.

================
leo:

maybe you can tell us if jet fuel burns hot enough to melt a grassy knoll.

Good one.

Don't tell anyone, but the grassy knoll is exactly where Obama's Kenyan birth certificate is hidden.

================
zarkov:

I can imagine that someone having a severe tantrum on the porch, would attract a crowd

Crowley said there were "at least seven" people standing there, when he came out on the porch. Some "crowd." He also said there were "many" Cambridge and Harvard officers. And who knows how many cruisers. I think it's likely that cops outnumbered the "crowd." And I wonder if you think a scene involving "many" officers would not be more than sufficient to attract a "crowd" (especially if "crowd" is defined loosely as "at least seven" people).

Where is there any evidence at all that the "crowd" was attracted by Gates, and not by the presence of so many police? Why shouldn't we believe that it was the police, by their numbers, who were disturbing the peace? Shouldn't Gates have made a citizen's arrest of them, for the sake of protecting the peace and quiet of Ware St?

And if there was a "severe tantrum" that was witnessed by a "crowd," where are the witnesses? It's a surprise that they are so well-hidden, since every reporter in Boston is chasing this story. And plenty of reporters have flown in from other places for the same purpose.

In this case blacks have only twice the rate of whites despite the popular delusion that most serial killers are white.

Hm. I thought La Griffe du Lion had indeed shown that in one of his articles.

Cato The Elder:

Hm. I thought La Griffe du Lion had indeed shown that in one of his articles.

La Griffe du Lion cites Walsh, African Americans and Serial Killing in the Media. Walsh dispels the popular idea that whites have the highest incidence rate for serial killing. So how come the pubic thinks otherwise? Wash says

The mass media (newspapers, television, movies) are the major
sources of public information and perceptions about crime and criminality (Jerin & Fields, 2005). The media are the gatekeepers of what the public is entitled to know,and the media are very anxious not to attract accusations of racism by zeroing in on heinous crimes committed by African Americans with the same zealousness it exhibits when such crimes are committed by Whites (Greek,2001; Perazzo, 1999). Charges of racism and all the negative consequences that accrue when such charges are made may feature prominently in the maintenance of this double standard. As Walsh(2004) opines, “Even the most conservative media types
will be exquisitely sensitive to charges of racism under such threats [boycotts, demonstrations]and will maintain the‘conspiracy of silence’ about such matters” (p. 53)

La Griffe du Lion sets up a mathematical model to explain why the serial killing rate for blacks is only twice that of whites instead of the usual factor of 8 for general homicide.

loki13:

"So - just to make sure- your claim isn't all crime, it's certain type of violent crime."

I think it's all violent crime.

"I checked out the DOJ site and couldn't see where you were coming up with it."

Try the Department of Justice Statistics, their homepage is here. From there you can go down two routes. Surveys of victims, and pick your favorite year. This is a good route because it concentrates of what victims say, and is independent on arrest and incarceration data. In particular look at Table 42 which gives the victim's perceived race of the offender. But note the following in using these tables.

1. Before 2005 the "white" category included some Hispanics. This has the effect of increasing the white crime rate. Best to use tables after 2004. You learn this from a footnote buried somewhere in the methodology section.

2. The rates are estimates for the general population which are extrapolations from a large representative sample of the US population. Again read the methodology section to see how you get the confidence intervals.

3. You won't find homicides in the tables because the victims are in no condition to report what happened.

4. Some kinds of crime have such a small incidence rate that zero counts appear in the sample and no estimate is possible with the methodology they use. For example, white male rape of black females is so small in the general population zero cases appear in the sample. Had they used a Bayesian methodology they could have gotten an estimate.

The second route is to look at incarceration statistics. Look at Prisoners in 2005, Tables 10 and 12. You might also look at Criminal Offender Statistics-- Lifetime likelihood of going to state of federal prison. In particular note

Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.

This is a pretty amazing statement. Essentially 1/3 of black men will spend time in jail at sometime in their lives. This is why the race industry makes such a fuss about policemen.

There are many other sources for crime statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics provides a huge compilation from 100 sources and presents 1,000 tables.

One thing comes through loud and clear no matter how you look at the data. Black crime rates compared to white are gigantic. White crime in the US is comparable to Europe and is stable (see the Trends section in BJS). If you want to understand crime then you need to study who commits the acts. Using highly aggregated statistics for inter-country and interstate comparisons can be very misleading. Unfortunately European governments refuse to report crime enumerated by race, making analysis difficult.

Finally, I'm not surprised you are skeptical. The race industry has intimidated the press to downplay non-white crime and the public does not realize the magnitude of the disparities.

David Tomlin writes:"Posner cites 'Mass. G. L. ch. 272, s. 53'. Near the top of Crowley's report, ..."

You are correct. I apologize to Posner and anyone alarmed by this.


Although it seems odd for that charge to be placed, it also means a Disorderly Conduct charge can be placed —reinstated— with or without DA concurrence by Crowley [or any on-scene cop].

So subpatre goes back to his pet theory that inconvenient words in statutes (like "upon") should be ignored. I notice you haven't bothered telling us what you think that word means. But that's no surprise, because you've also been ducking lots of other questions.

And Crowley was "in the middle of a gunbattle with bank robbers?" I had no idea. And since he wasn't, what is the point of raising your extreme example?

And "upon" doesn't mean "immediately." It means 'immediately or very soon after.' 'Very soon' is subjective and would vary with the circumstances, but as a matter of common sense I would expect it to mean 'as soon as possible or practical.' And as a matter of common sense that would mean not until the officers' safety is assured.

Is that simple enough, or are you still determined to be obtuse?

More emphatic language from Whalen that contradicts Crowley:

“This woman is 100 percent clear on what she said,” said attorney Wendy J. Murphy, who is representing 911 caller Lucia Whalen. “She never said she saw two black men. She said, ‘It never crossed my mind that there were two black men.’ ”

Mysterious.

It doesn't fit the jukeboxgrad narrative claiming: "I think she was unduly influenced by the fact that the two people at the door happened to be black."

Silly me. I did indeed make the mistake of thinking that when Crowley said "she [Whalen] went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males" that it was actually true that Whalen actually "observed what appeared to be two black males." In other words, I assumed that Crowley was correctly recounting a true statement made by Whalen. Live and learn. Now I know that either Whalen or Crowley has stated a falsehood, which means their various other statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

It doesn't fit jukeboxgrad's narrative that "I think Whalen was relatively new", when in reality she worked there for 15 years.

Yes, I assumed she was new because I find it hard to understand why a person who had spent a lot of time 100 yards away would be totally clueless about the identity of who lived in that house. Especially since Gates is a Harvard celebrity whose photo has been published many times in the magazine Whalen works on. I did find that hard to understand, and I still find that hard to understand.

When there's a Massachusetts law with an accepted meaning to thousands of judges, lawyers, and police

Where is your evidence that "thousands of judges, lawyers, and police" believe that the word "upon" in 98D should be ignored? And when are you finally going to tell us what you think that word means?

Jukeboxgrad suggests "is Whalen fibbing?"

Either Crowley conveyed a falsehood, or Whalen conveyed a falsehood. There are no other possibilities. Do you know which one told the truth? If you do, I hope you'll tell us, because I don't.

Dude, the UnderFather is here for more unintentional comedy!

Let's see...
1. Calls out the OP for cititing the wrong statute. OOPS!
2. Doesn't understand the wording in legislation of "Upon....shall..." OOPS!
3. Quotes a police regulation. Doesn't realize that:
a) a police regulation doesn't supercede a statute.
b) the police regulation still required information Crowley did not provide.
c) the police regulation didn't apply because it was a different jurisdiction.
OOPS!
4. Misunderstands the difference between civil causes of action and criminal complaints, gets called on it, and, uh, well.... let's just forget about it.
OOPS!
5. Keeps talking about the statute as being understood in a certain way by judges, lawyers, and police officers EVEN THOUGH the OP and commented have shown him that BY CASELAW it could not be applied as used here, hence the nolle prosequi.
OOPS!

UnderFather's first rule of Wrongness- When in doubt, Be Wronger!

Why didn't Whalen see the driver leave? That's been bugging me, and I haven't seen the question raised in any of the discussion that I've read.

In the TV interview Crowley explains why he asked for the caller to meet him at the door. He says he was under the mis-impression that she was inside the house.

subpatre:

Jukeboxgrad suggests "is Whalen fibbing?"

No. JBG points out that this is one alternative to the obvious inference that Crowley's report is inaccurate.

I apologize to Posner and anyone alarmed by this.

I didn't ask for an apology, but I wonder why one is due only to those 'alarmed', and not, say, to those mildly annoyed by an obvious falsehood cluttering an already very long thread.

Although it seems odd for that charge to be placed,


'Disorderly conduct' is a routine stand-in for 'contempt of cop', as has been pointed out many times on this and other threads.

The alternative you suggest is worded as a directive to police officers, not a prohibition on the conduct of citizens, so I don't see how it could be the basis for a criminal charge. (This is a good time for me to say IANAL.)

it also means a Disorderly Conduct charge can be placed —reinstated— with or without DA concurrence by Crowley [or any on-scene cop].

Given all the other things you've gotten wrong, I don't know why anyone would take your word on such a matter.

Jimbo,

I see you've already missed the point. People who start talking about the race industry and key on "rate of racial violence" without at least trying to tease out, inter alia, poverty have already reached a conclusion and are just grasping at supporting facts.

If I told you that whites are more likely to commit "financial crimes" and statistics back this up (which they do) because whites have a propensity to rip people off... and the "white priviliege industry" is trying to distract us from this... well, how credible do you think I would be?

The 911 tape has been released. The tape, or part of it, can be heard at

http://www1.whdh.com/news/main/local/

Video in upper right corner.

Listened to the 911 tape. Backs Whalen's account.

-- It just sheds light on what happens when an officer makes a bad decision and then justifies it afterwards with an "interesting" narrative. --
.
How did/does "Whalen told me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of 17 Ware Street" assist Crowley's narrative?

David Tomlin whines: "...[Juke-is Whalen fibbing-boxgrad] points out that this is one alternative to the obvious inference that Crowley's report is inaccurate."

Given that the her lawyer has access to the tapes, that Commissioner Haas concurs, that the lawyer also made the claim, and that public access to tapes or transcripts is forthcoming; it's an 'alternative' that's extremely remote and unseemly. Especially ridiculous when you look at Jukeboxgrad's obsession with accusing Whalen of racism, stupidity (possibly excused by naivity), or more racism.

If you think Jukeboxgrad's fabrications about the ID law are better than his fabrications about a decent and public spirited employee of Harvard whom Gates himself praised; then so be it. But nobody's produced one cite where police ID must be exhibited immediately upon request. Guess that doesn't fit 'the narrative' either.

UPDATE: Tomlin's suggestion that Whalen is lying was "one alternative" —even a lukewarm defense of same— is now proven to be outrageous and categorically untrue.

subpatre-
Why do you keep showing your ignorance? First, you clearly do not understand the meaning of words like "shall" and "upon". Second, you do not understand how to read statutes. Third, you don't understand why this sort of statute has little value in cited appellate decisions. Fourth, I did provide a case for you where it went to evidence of the officer's motive (in a 1983 case) - he was enraged when someone asked him to provide ID, and beat him, and the statute was introduced to show that he had a legal duty to do so.

What more do you want? Skywriting?

subpatre:

David Tomlin whines . . .

Poor subpatre seems to be suffering an emotional meltdown.

911 Dispatcher: 911, [Eliza Corder??], what's the exact location of your emergency?

Ms. Whalen: Hi, I'm actually at um, at Ware Street in Cambridge, and the house number is 17...Ware Street.

911 Dispatcher: Ok, ma'am, your cell-phone cut out, what's the, what's the address again?

Ms. Whalen: Sorry, it says, 7 Ware, that's W-A-R-E, Street.

911 Dispatcher: So, the emergency's is at 7 Ware Street, right?

Ms. Whalen: No, it's 17, I'm sorry, some other woman was talking, next to me, but it's Seventeen, 1-7 Ware Street.

911 Dispatcher: What's the phone number you're calling me from?

Ms. Whalen: I'm calling you from my cell phone number.

911 Dispatcher: Alright, what's the problem, tell me exactly what happened.

Ms. Whalen: Uhm, I don't know what's happening, I just had an elder women, uh, standing here, and she had noticed two gentlemen, trying to get in a house, at that number, 17 Ware Street...and uh, and they kinda had to barge in, and they broke... the screen door, and they finally got in, and when they had looked, they went, further closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen who were already in the house; I noticed two suitcases -- so I'm not sure if these are two individuals who actually worked there, I mean, who lived there, sometimes --

911 Dispatcher: You think they may have been breaking--

Ms. Whalen: I don't know, 'cause I have no idea --

911 Dispatcher: So you think the possibility might have been there -- what do you mean by barged in, did they kick the door in? --

Ms. Whalen: Ahm, no, they were pushing the door in, like uh...uhm, like, uh the screen part of the front door, was kinda like cut --

911 Dispatcher: How did you know yourself that the lock was off?

Ms. Whalen: They...I didn't see a key or anything, so I was a little bit away from the door, but I did notice that they pushed their --

911 Dispatcher: And what did the suitcases have to do with anything?

Ms. Whalen: I don't know, I'm just saying, that's what I saw, I just --

911 Dispatcher: Do you know the apartment they broke into?

Ms. Whalen: No, just the first floor, I don't even think that it's an apartment; it's 17 Ware Street, it's a house, it's a yellow house......Number 17.

Ms. Whalen: I don't know, if they lived there...[fade out]

My tentative text transcript of the 911 call, if any of you would like.

Well... here's the analysis:

(from boston.com):

"One thing the tapes didn't show: any obvious background sound that indicated Gates was shouting during the incident. Another voice can be heard in the background of at least three transmissions, but what the person is saying isn't intelligible."

So- suck it, trolls! ;)

Len,

I apologize if the wink did not indicate the gravitas of my statement. There was a time, many, many eons ago, when a certain species of humanoid (we shall call them the "troll" upon hearing this phrase) would occasionally say variants of the following:

1. Just wait until the tapes are relased- then we'll see how out of control Gates was!

*or*

2. The Cambridge Police have heard the tapes, and they must be pretty damning against Gates for them to back a cop. I mean, why would the LEO union back a cop unless there was clear and convincing evidence? Just wait for those tapes!

(So I was being sarcastic. Since fire cannot travel through the intertubez, just large truckz, trolls will never be killed.)

len:

Gates is saying that something about putting the encounter in view of that public posed such a direct threat to him that the danger made his hair stand up.

Except that's not what Gates said.

When the officer asked Gates to step outside, thus opening the encounter to public view, Gates then knew that he was in danger and all the hairs on the back of his neck stood up on end.

Gates didn't say the danger was a consequence of "opening the encounter to public view." Gates' statement seems to indicate he was instinctively fearful of following instructions being issued by an unknown man with a gun who started issuing instructions without bothering to say who he was or why he was there. Especially when the instruction was for Gates to leave the safety of his own home and approach the man with the gun.

Yes, Crowley was dressed like cop. But not everyone who is dressed like a cop is actually a cop. And even if the man dressed like a cop turned out to be an actual cop, it's actually the case that actual cops are sometimes up to no good.

Therefore a well-trained cop will normally identify himself and his purpose, to try to establish trust, before issuing instructions. In this regard it's interesting to notice how Crowley's story has evolved. In the narrative he conveyed via his police report, Crowley said his name only after asked to do so by Gates, which was after Crowley asked Gates to step outside. Whereas in the narrative he conveyed via his TV interview, Crowley said his name before asking Gates to step outside.

I expect that Crowley will continue to polish his narrative, as time goes by.

And it was never necessary for Crowley to ask Gates to step outside, because Crowley was perfectly capable of requesting and inspecting Gates' ID while they both stood at the doorway.

===================
tomlin:

The 911 tape has been released.

I didn't know. Thanks for speaking up and providing the link. I just found some links that I think are more complete:

Whalen's conversation with 911 operator (link).
Police dispatcher's radio conversation with Crowley (link).

Tapes of the radio traffic are also being prepared for release.

That's the second link. Maybe later there will be more.

These tapes clarify some things. I was wondering why Whalen would jump to the conclusion that she was observing a burglary. But in the tape, she communicates appropriate doubtfulness. She didn't jump to a conclusion. She says she noticed suitcases, and this made her think that maybe the men live there. Was this doubtfulness conveyed to Crowley by the dispatcher? Not clear.

I was also wondering why Whalen didn't recognize Gates, given that for 15 years she worked 100 yards away (and given that his picture had been in her magazine many times). But now we know that she didn't get a good look at them. She wasn't close enough to know they were both black, so therefore she wasn't close enough to recognize Gates' face (and if she had asked a coworker to help her recognize the unknown men, that coworker wouldn't have been close enough, either).

So those questions are answered, but a new one pops up: why did Crowley say that Whalen told him the two men were black?

(Cato, nice job with the transcript.)

===================
loki:

Let me be clear: She [Whalen] never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene

Wow. I hadn't seen that. Here a link:

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene. "Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

Wow. So it's not just that Whalen didn't say they were black. It's that Whalen didn't even have a conversation with Crowley at the scene. But Crowley said he did have a conversation with Whalen at the scene. Quite a major discrepancy.

===================
len:

unenlightening

The tapes are definitely unenlightening, to the extent that we hoped to hear Gates (but maybe other tapes will emerge, made during the period when Crowley used his radio in Gates' kitchen). But the tapes are important because (along with the statement from Whalen's lawyer) they create a major credibility problem for Crowley.

===================
cboldt:

How did/does "Whalen told me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of 17 Ware Street" assist Crowley's narrative?

To the extent that someone else told him that the suspects were black, he had somewhat more justification to view and treat Gates as a subject. To the extent that he was advised "race unknown" (and we hear the dispatcher saying those words to him), then it looks more like he was applying his own bias that a black person would probably be a suspect. Racial profiling.

As Tom Maguire said:

As to why we care - Crowley's defenders, and others, have pointed out that he could hardly be accused of racial profiling if he had been told to look for two black intruders.

Presumably you are familiar with Maguire's politics.

===================
subpatre:

it's an 'alternative' that's extremely remote and unseemly

What I said before is that either Whalen or Crowley is looking like a liar. It's not "unseemly" to point this out. It's merely logical. What's "unseemly" is to lie, or to defend a liar.

I look forward to your explaining how you reconcile the contradiction between Whalen and Crowley. This is one of many questions you're ducking.

Jukeboxgrad's fabrications about the ID law

What "fabrications?" The one who pretends the law doesn't say "upon," or that this word has no meaning, is you.

his fabrications about a decent and public spirited employee of Harvard

Except that I expressed no "fabrications." I expressed speculation and opinion that was consistent with the information that was available at the time. I'm glad to see new information that sheds light on the questions I was trying to answer.

nobody's produced one cite where police ID must be exhibited immediately upon request

If 'upon request' doesn't mean 'immediately or soon after the request is made,' then what does it mean?

Tomlin's suggestion that Whalen is lying was "one alternative" —even a lukewarm defense of same— is now proven to be outrageous and categorically untrue.

If it's categorically untrue that Whalen is a liar, then it's categorically true that Crowley is a liar. Unless you have some clever way of reconciling the contradiction between the two accounts. As loki said, you seem to be ackowledging that Crowley lied.

Cato, thanks for doing the work on the transcript.

There's another transcript here.

It includes the end but for some reason omits the beginning.

Cato, thanks for doing the work on the transcript.

There's another transcript here.

It includes the end but for some reason omits the beginning.

So she does say one "looked kind of Hispanic." Don't know how that got turned into Crowley's report of two black men, though I think police assume that people can't accurately discern whether someone is a dark-skinned hispanic or light-skinned black at a distance.

Crowley's report says nothing about the 911 tape. It says that Crowley heard a 'broadcast for a possible break in progress at [redacted, presumably 17] Ware Street.'

The report attributes the descriptions of the suspects entirely to the alleged conversation with Whalen.

You know, it's worth saying that even if we look past Crowley's obvious exaggerations and believe his claims that Gates was actually involved in disorderly conduct, he still shouldn't have arrested him. The reality is that even in cases where the guy is disturbing the neighbors, if the incident can be defused by the police leaving, that's the proper solution.

We have to remember that disorderly conduct is a very minor offense, that should not consume huge amounts of police resources in investigating and prosecuting. The police are not protecting anyone in Cambridge when they arrest Gates for disorderly conduct. They are just protecting their own egos.

Officers should be instructed in no uncertain terms to NEVER arrest someone who is talking back to them unless a serious crime is actually committed or they literally cannot do their jobs or cannot end the disturbance in any other fashion. Police officers who disobey this directive should be kicked off the force. Society needs to take a very strong stand against ANYONE in a police department who thinks his badge gives him the right to arrest people for backtalk.

Possibilities:

1. Whalen added the "two black males" embellishment because the other witness told her that after she made the call.

2. She never said that to Crowley, and he simply made a mistake.

We don't have to assume anyone is lying including Gates. Ever hear of false memory? Human memory and cognition are fallible, and that's why witness testimony is often in error.

BTW this thread seems to be degenerating into uninformative name calling. Why don't you guys act like adults and stop insulting people just because you might disagree about something?

Until now, Gates was the only person disputing the accuracy of Crowley's report. Now Whalen, through her attorney, is alleging that the report contains a huge inaccuracy that is hard to explain other than by outright fabrication.

This is what the report says:

'As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.'

There has been no indication that there was more than one 911 call, so it doesn't seem likely that Crowley spoke to another woman whom he later confused with Whalen.

Dilan Esper wrote: "Officers should be instructed in no uncertain terms to NEVER arrest someone who is talking back to them ... "

LEGISLATURE

Prosecutable laws will be used by the police. Will be used. The way to 'instruct cops' is to retain laws that need enforcing and eliminate laws that don't. Ya know, that libertarian stuff.

Dilan Esper continues:"... unless a serious crime is actually committed ..."

There ya' go again. Aren't there already laws for 'serious crimes'?

Are you basing that on the bit of the 911 tape when Whalen says 'she was a concerned neighbor, I guess'?

Yes; that's what my reference was to.

That's not a firm basis for concluding that the other woman lives in the neighborhood. She could have been another worker on lunch break. A vast number of commenters have wrongly characterized Whalen as a 'neighbor' of Gates, and some continue to do so.

I think one could use the word "neighbor" loosely to describe someone who works in a given neighborhood as well as someone who lives there. (Certainly in this context, in which JBG was arguing that people who work for Harvard magazine should know who lives in Gates's house, the distinction is immaterial.) I guess a stronger objection might be that we don't know that she really was a neighbor; that description was rather tentative.

Most said things along the lines of the notion that cops feel like they need to command respect among the public, and that if they let things like this go, they'll lose face with the public.

I have to say, the first thing that strikes me as is a convenient excuse for them to do something they want to do anyway.

And the second thing I would say about it is it is the sort of thing that surely isn't applicable to every situation. One can certainly imagine some tense situation where a crowd is about to riot and an officer needs to command respect. But 95 percent of the time, there's no benefit whatsoever conferred to the public based on whether the officer is commanding respect or disdain. The only benefit is to the cop's ego.

So, should the suspect get two shots at the cop before he does something, or just one?

No shots. But all the verbal abuse he wants to heap at the police.

"No shots. But all the verbal abuse he wants to heap at the police."

But now you put the cops in an impossible place. If they stop things *before* there are shots, then they are Gestapo. If they stop things *after* there are shots, they are incompetent.

If you are willing to say "no shots," then you have to be willing to allow them to use judgment about when they believe things are getting a little dicey and when to step in to stop that first shot.

But now you put the cops in an impossible place.


We don't put cops in an impossible place. The First Amendment, as incorporated against the states, allows us to criiticize police, even (goodness forbid) in negative language, even (heavens!) to their face. Some states (such as Massachusetts) require police officers to provide identification, including their badge number, to inquiring citizens.

If you think this makes the job of the police officer impossible, then I suggest-
1) Making sure the legislature of you state allows police officers to remain anaonymous on-duty, so citizens will have to go to the police station to find out the identity of any officer they may have an issue with. (Yes, the police station where that officer is working)
2) Repealing the 1st Am., or having a "guy with a badge and gun working for the government" exception.

"The First Amendment, as incorporated against the states, allows us to criiticize police, even (goodness forbid) in negative language, even (heavens!) to their face. Some states (such as Massachusetts) require police officers to provide identification, including their badge number, to inquiring citizens."

Right, so there is *nothing* a cop can do until you draw your weapon and take a shot that doesn't make him a Nazi. I get it.

But in the real world and in real situations where there is potential threat, things aren't as simple. You'll never believe it, I know, but I've investigated those deaths, and they are real.

Right, so there is *nothing* a cop can do until you draw your weapon and take a shot that doesn't make him a Nazi. I get it.

There's plenty of things between "nothing" and "make an illegal arrest because you exercised your First Amendment rights", including (1) leaving, (2) telling you to calm down, (3) where there is probable cause to arrest, warning you, (4) arresting you if there is no other alternative.

Further, though, remember that you are conflating verbal abuse, which is a sacred right of the citizenry which cops have to put up with whether they like it or not, and violence. We allow lots of leeway for cops when there is even the threat of violence. Absent such threat, they are suposed to take whatever abuse a citizen throws at them, whether or not deserved.

blogger@subpatre.us

Dude, your website is down.

I've already heard the excuses how courtrooms are 'totally different' blah blah. The exchange logic is solid; it's about caste.

Subpatre, you might compare courtrooms to classrooms. A public university student (we'll avoid the issue of how far Tinker extends for high school students) has an absolute First Amendment right to criticize his or her teachers. But he or she cannot do it during class in the form of talking back to the teacher.

Courtroom speech restrictions work because they are time, place, or manner restrictions: the courtroom is a particular place and restrictions on speech therein leave alternative channels of communication open.

You can't use that justify restricting speech anywhere in the country, which is what a broad conception of disorderly conduct would do.

Finally, while class may explain why Gates is so upset, this is not, ultimately, about class. Anyone who's ever listened to an NWA record can tell you that it is just as crappy when a poor black kid gets hit with a contempt of cop arrest-- it's just that the media doesn't give a crap about it.

In other words, this is just as bad whether it's done to a Harvard Professor or a street kid.

"No shots. But all the verbal abuse he wants to heap at the police."

But now you put the cops in an impossible place. If they stop things *before* there are shots, then they are Gestapo. If they stop things *after* there are shots, they are incompetent.

If you are willing to say "no shots," then you have to be willing to allow them to use judgment about when they believe things are getting a little dicey and when to step in to stop that first shot.

This argument seems to imply that people shooting at police is some sort of natural escalation from yelling at police. Now, never having shot at police, perhaps I'm not an expert on the psychology of doing so, but that seems implausible to me.

Johnny Canuck:

This doesn't seem to bother anybody else.

The suitcase/backpack thing has been on my mind since I listened to Crowley's TV interview, even before the 911 tapes came out. As JBG points out, in the interview Crowley says he can't remember if the dispatcher, relaying the 911 info, said 'backpacks' or 'suitcases'. I thought at the time that he probably knew what was on the soon-to-be-released tapes, and was revising his story to conform.

As I've mentioned before, in his report the only information Crowley attributes to the broadcast is the location of the possible break-in.

So "never had a conversation" means never had a conversation beyond saying 'I'm the one who called.' Fair enough.

Of course, if you were still trying to discredit Whalen, you'd have claimed that this was an significant "discrepancy."

I didn't attack Whalen for making me wrong. I've attacked Crowley for making me wrong.

Crowley didn't make you invent this fantasy about her calling her office or not calling her office, about her being some new person who wouldn't recognize Gates, etc.

I'm still puzzling over why Whalen didn't see the driver leave. Did she stay on the scene until Crowley arrived, or leave and return? If she did see the driver leave, why didn't she tell Crowley one of the suspects had left?

I've listened to Crowley's TV interview again. This is what he says about the broadcast:

'The call was for a break in progress at 17 Ware Street and there was a brief description of two people that were trying to force their way through the front door. My recollection was that they had backpacks. It was either backpacks or suitcases. I don't have a clear recollection right now exactly what was broadcast.'

Crowley then gives an account of meeting Whalen consistent with the police report, although he doesn't mention that he later learned her name. I don't think Whalen's name is ever mentioned in the interview.

Crowley then says that Whalen 'repeated to me that she saw two individuals at the front door.' He recounts how she described the way they seemed to be forcing the door open, but says nothing about Whalen describing the 'individuals', or mentioning backpacks or suitcases. From the interview alone, you wouldn't even know the 'individuals' were male, much less that either or both were believed to be black.

late to the party although I've been following along.

Minor grievances about the nature of claims here aside, I think Volokh distinguishes itself as being the only forum I've seen where the propriety of Crowley's actions OUTSIDE the issue of race has been discussed at all.

I can't claim an exhaustive search of the recent 'literature', but all the other sources I happen to have read are focused on whether the incident was precipitated by Gates race and whether 'the same thing' would have happened to a white person.

The beauty of this, coupled with Obama's inability to refrain from jumping in, put the final nail in the rush to 1001 pages of health care (act. 1008 or something but I'm not claiming this is a fact filled post).

I tend to think a close call the sobering question of whether this is reasonable police behavior and whether it amounts to a 'demand for respect', or is behavioral modification that is distinguishable from gratifying the enforcers.

I have witnessed (was involved in) just such an arrest of a white person (of lower caste for the class interested) and, was tangentially privy to another such arrest in proximity to the campus of a quite wealthy white individual from outside his own home that was instigated by the Brown University Police - kind of the reverse of the Gates situation, racially and adminstratively.

In the first case a [white] tenant who came home drunk to the residential compound where we live and rent out several flats took exception to being asked to drive more considerately and seized upon the opportunity to complain further about our requests for rent upon which he was two months in arrears. He stormed up to our home, came inside and ranted for perhaps 10 minutes in such agitated fashion and that I was edging around the room to get between him and the kitchen knives that were in one of those wood blocks on the counter.

My wife told him if he did not leave she would call the police. This seemed not to phase him in the least and he continued to rant and refusing to leave while she dialed the phone right in front of him (I don't think we had 911 out in the rural climes back then, I can't remember, she might have dialed the operator and asked for the police).

I finally convinced him to return to his own apartment by agreeing to continue the conversation with him there. My wife tried to convince me not to go to his apartment but I felt that I had made asuch a promise and I felt that his willingness to actually desist and go home ought to be respected as a tiny sign of rationality and while not convinced that he was safe to deal with, i don't think he overtly threatened us as I recall.

About 5 minutes after I entered his apartment, the state police arrived (two offices, white for those who care) and my wife directed them to the location of the moving disturbance.

The police came to the door, knocked and I am kind of hazy on whether maybe the guys wife opened the door and he started in on them. So I was off the hook. I think they came just inside the door. He was on the other side of the room about 10 ft. away from them. He started screaming about the same kinds of things that Gates did, e.g. this is my house, you can't come in here, etc.

They were a picture of decorum and non-combative. they didn't advance further. They didn't give orders. They spoke calmly and deliberately but more or less asked what had upset him and if he could shed any light on the reason they were called to resolve a disturbance.

He continued ranting in a derogatory manner unresponsive to the substance of their inquery. They would slightly adjust the tack of their question, rephrase or move onto some different metric of the situation, calmly and quietly.

I was standing to the side such that I viewed the exchange in profile. I remember thinking at the time that all the wanted was for the guy to say to them, I've had a tough day, might have had a little to drink, and I'm not in a good mood to discuss this stuff. You guys coming into my house upsets me, so I'm going to bed and I'll take this up with the landlord in the morning (it was maybe 10:30 or 11 at night).

They let the guy go on for maybe 10 minutes all told with no threats to arrest or to take any action and only quietly asking the source of his agitation or any possible resolution for the immediate moment. He never skipped a beat in is tirade and literally on some kind of silent cue between the officers, one said to the other even as he moved across the room, "I think that's enough of that". They had the guy in cuffs in seconds and took him out.

Now, I could have retreated under their cover, and I'm not sure they had grounds to think he was a danger to his own wife. I don't know the disorderly statute in RI and perhaps the fact that they had been called and told by witnesses that he exhibited similar behavior outside his home factored into the legal propriety of the arrest (or not, I'm not sure the precise charge they lodged). But it was pretty clear to me they were willing to give the guy quite a lot of rope. Upon reflection on the incident, it may still have been a technical overstep, it might have been of the variety of not being able to escape the ride -- although I regarded their behavior as calm and professional throughout. I simply did not take the sense that what they required of the gentleman varied or that the bar was raised that much by his continuous ranting. They didn't want an apology but some ultimate indication that he was in control of his faculties. I think their implied sense of what would have resolved the situation at the time was quite reasonable, although I'm not sure I agree they had the grounds to demand such a resolution under penalty of arrest.

I don't allege that the circumstances are precisely identical to the Gates matter, but my point is that race never entered the custodial equation. I'm not trying to say that it is irrational for a black person to suspect that their race is driving some confrontation with the authorites. The question seems to have been, as in this experience of my own, whether the person gains control of themselves even if still upset or alleging racial bias.

I think Gates arrest likely falls on the wrong side of defensible procedure. But his immediate focusing on race and inability to bac ways from making this a racial incident sucked in the President and all the rest of his racialist buddies and has virtually silenced, except in obscure quarters (sorry Eugene), the argument over the use of police custodial power as behavioral modification.

The Police asked us for statements the next day but never called regarding appearance as witnesses so I do not know the distinct dispositon of that case (we evicted this wonders of the species immediately thereafter).

Meanwhile, back in the Ivy League, I also manage apartments around Brown University and one of our very uppercrust tenants had a habit of getting into it with University students and faculty who had a habit of parking in private spaces that didn't belong to the university (the block is mostly university buildings and they tend to imagine that any space there belongs to Brown).

One night this fellow had might have had nightcap before the incident and observed someone blocking his car in the lot and got into a verbal altercation that attracted the Brown University campus police whose office is right around the corner.

He refused to desist in his complaints. They called the Providence Police who arrested him somewhere around the boundary of the private parking lot of his own abode and the public alley by which this offstreet parking is reached.

He was as white as the driven snow and might have been a little younger than Gates at the time, but he was obviously not some street person but a well to do citizen. I'm not sure the extent to which either the Brown or Providence Police went to establish his residence, identity or the nature of his agitation, I only know he got the ride. So go figure. Are these the two exceptions that prove Gates rule.

I think he made a horrible error making this about race and he has done no service to anyone of his race or any other by continuing that line of complaint.

Thanks to those on the thread here who have made a reasonable case for suspecting the officer of overreaching in a technical legal sense, and probably in a practical enforcement perspective as well -- although I think there is probably some point at which I would not have a big problem with the police exercising custodial authority even on a weak disorderly charge. See anecdote #1 above as my not a slam dunk but I don't really fault the police.

Brian

subpatre:

a Harvard University professor was quickly obtained to bellow "Race! This is about Black Men in America*! Race! Black men! " over and over unceasingly into the Sergeant's ear.

Disputed facts.

Gates denies raising his voice, and claims his medical condition made it impossible for him to do so.

No yelling is audible on the radio traffic tapes.

I don't know of any evidence that Gates raised his voice except the two self-serving police reports. (Anonymous statements to reporters aren't evidence.)

David Tomlin says:"Gates denies raising his voice, and claims his medical condition made it impossible for him to do so. No yelling is audible on the radio traffic tapes. I don't know of any evidence that Gates raised his voice except the two self-serving police reports. "

If you reject "self-serving statements", then you really have no evidence anything ever happened. Anywhere; and no cause to post on the non-event that didn't happen. But I'm betting you think something actually did happen, and want to aim your pre-judgement at certain folks and not others.

1a) Gates' medical condition requires a cane.
1b) Gates' "self-serving statement" (your quote) would be easy to corraborate, but never has been. Where's a doctor's statement? A prescription? Anything?
1c) Gates' "self-serving statement" (your quote) has varied as to what he said and how loud he said what.
1d) Gates' has an immense financial and positional interest in the issue; as opposed to cops who routinely charge a misdemeanor a day and routinely lose 5%-10% of the cases in court.
2) Something very-raised-voice-like-yelling covers Crowley's speech —speaking directly into the microphone— at 2:19 on the tape. Dispatch center asks him to repeat. Your 'no yelling' statement simply isn't true.
3a) Police reports are actionable records. Lends credibility.
3bi) 3 to 4 cops and about 7 witnesses, including Gates' neighbors. Not one denied Gates' yelling. Not conclusive but adds credibility.
3bii - At least one witness has publicly come forward via an attorney, correcting police on several point, but does not challenge police allegation of yelling. Not conclusive but adds credibility.
3c) The only photograph shows Gates' mouth wide open in a position as if yelling. Defenders claim (correctly) this is after the arrest. See #1, in which Gates' claims he could not do this.

vemc:

It's hilarious that JBG would comment on other people not being prepared to admit they are wrong.

It's hilarious that you would suggest that I'm not prepared to admit when I'm wrong, since I've already cited proof that I readily admit when I'm wrong.

So this is your chance to admit that you're wrong.

This is someone who repeatedly insisted that an newspaper article could not be an editorial because it was labeled "opinion". Yes, really. JBG is quite the brain.

It's too bad that you didn't have enough of a brain to bother providing links that discussion. You are talking about an exchange I had with someone using the handle "mzeh." That exchange took place here and here. One particular claim I made in that exchange (a claim that was not especially central to my overall argument) was indeed wrong. After mzeh showed proof that the claim was wrong, I agreed that I was wrong, and I thanked him for correcting me. I said this:

I thought they would make such a change across the entire site, even including older items, but you're right, they didn't. Thanks for pointing that out.

And I also said this:

I made the incorrect assumption that NYT would apply the same format across their web site, even for older articles. And I admitted I was wrong as soon as you demonstrated my assumption was incorrect.

So it's wrong for you to suggest that I refused to admit that I was wrong, because I did admit I was wrong. So this is another chance for you to admit that you're wrong.

On the other hand, mzeh made many specious claims, which I demonstrated. And it's clear he wasn't arguing in good faith, because he ducked many fair questions, and slithered away when I reminded him of those questions.

It's interesting that you remember that exchange, and are choosing to mention it months latter, in a thread on a different subject. It's also interesting to notice that your email address is vemc311@pipeline.com, and mzeh's email address is mzeh228@pipeline.com. How odd that two completely different people would have such a similar address. Do you happen to be him? If so, why are you using a new handle?

========================
nieporent:

So "never had a conversation" means never had a conversation beyond saying 'I'm the one who called.' Fair enough.

Of course, if you were still trying to discredit Whalen, you'd have claimed that this was an significant "discrepancy."

Not without more information. As it is, it's a minor discrepancy. It's a stretch to call it a significant discrepancy without more information. "Never had a conversation" is a quote reported by CNN based on a phone call with Murphy. We don't know what Murphy said just before or after the quoted portion. Omitted context would probably tell us that Murphy either did or did not make it clear that she meant 'never had a conversation aside from telling Crowley she was the caller.' It wouldn't be the first time a reporter chose to simplify a story by leaving out some helpful context.

FWIW, here's another account of what Murphy is saying:

Murphy, speaking on Whalen's behalf, says the only interaction between Whalen and Crowley occurred at the scene when she gestured to him and told him she was the 911 caller and he told her to stay where she was. Another officer asked for her identification, but no officer interviewed her at the scene, Murphy says. Whalen stayed about five minutes and then left, Murphy says.

And here's another account:

Whalen’s lawyer, Wendy J. Murphy, said yesterday her client’s only contact with Crowley was fleeting, with Whalen saying “Excuse me, I’m the one who called,” and the Cambridge cop replying, “Stay right there.”

I would hardly call that a "conversation," so the claim "never had a conversation" is not much of a problem.

Crowley didn't make you invent this fantasy about her calling her office or not calling her office, about her being some new person who wouldn't recognize Gates, etc.

According to Crowley, Whalen was close enough to see their skin color. If she was close enough to see their skin color, there's a good chance she would be close enough to see Gates' face, and recognize him. That part didn't make sense to me, especially when I learned that she had worked 100 yards away for 15 years. But where I went wrong was assuming that Crowley's statement quoting Whalen was something other than a falsehood.

There was never any reason for you to think she had seen Gates' face.

I just explained why I had a reason to think she had seen Gates' face.

It does not mean that they frequently walk past his house. It does not mean that they ever walk past his house.

Of course not. Why would a Harvard Magazine employee ever walk past Gates' house? After all, it's not as if the nearest Starbucks is only about 200 yards from the magazine. And it's not as if the route from the magazine to Starbucks goes right past Gates' house, on the same side of the street. Anyway, everyone knows that magazine employees never drink coffee.

A google map can be seen here. A is the magazine. B is Gates' house. C is the Starbucks. Pay no attention to the Cambridge Public Library, which is a few steps away from Starbucks. After all, people who work at a magazine are not the kind of people who would ever have an interest in visiting a public library. They never do that, just like they never drink coffee.

And whatever you do, don't zoom out on the map. Because then you might realize that the shortest route to most of the Harvard campus also takes a magazine employee directly past Gates' front porch. But Harvard Magazine employees would most likely never need to visit any part of Harvard University, right? And if they did, there would be no need to walk. It would make a lot more sense to just use something like this.

By the way, why was Whalen in front of Gates' house? Because "she was on her way to lunch." But I'm sure in 15 years working there, she had never headed that way before. In fact, I'm pretty sure she's never had lunch before.

Even if he were home during the day, why would he be wandering in and out of his house so that they could see him?

It's a well-known that fact that Harvard professors who live about 100 yards from a Starbucks are strictly forbidden from "wandering" out of their house to visit the Starbucks. Likewise for the Cambridge Public Library, also about 100 yards from Gates' front door. After all, they might bump into Harvard Magazine employees, and we wouldn't want that to happen. Also, college professors keep very strict 9-5 hours. Gates would not come and go at random times. For example, you would never find him arriving at his house during lunch hour on a weekday, because he just got a ride home from the airport. Never happen.

As a fundraiser, Whelan would be familiar with the contents of the magazine (including stories about Gates).

"I don't attack people for making assumptions. I attack people for making assumptions and dressing them up as if they are proven facts."

Most sentient humans would realize that I was presenting not a proven fact, but merely an opinion. Especially because I explained the basis for the opinion. But if you're saying the sentence could be improved if I added a qualifying prefix like "in my opinion," then consider it done. I'm perfectly happy to explicitly acknowledge what was already implied, that I was presenting nothing more than an opinion.

On the other hand, you regularly make assumptions and dress them up as if they are proven facts. And when this is brought to your attention, what you typically do is duck. Except in certain instances, where you end up being forced to stop ducking.

========================
tomlin:

I'm still puzzling over why Whalen didn't see the driver leave.

I think Whalen did see the driver leave.

Did she stay on the scene until Crowley arrived, or leave and return?

I think she stayed. Her 911 conversation ended as follows:

911 OPERATOR: OK, are you standing outside?
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I'm standing outside, yes.
911 OPERATOR: All right, the police are on the way, you can meet them then they get there. What's your name?
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Yeah, my name is (deleted).
911 OPERATOR: All right, we're on the way.
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Ok. All right, I guess I'll wait. Thanks.

Sounds like she was planning to stay until Crowley got there.

By the way, I think it's possible she saw the driver leave before she made the call.

If she did see the driver leave, why didn't she tell Crowley one of the suspects had left?

Because he didn't ask. According to Murphy, "no officer interviewed her [Whalen] at the scene." And even in Crowley's account of his alleged conversation with Whalen, he didn't seem very interested in talking to her. In that account, the conversation was initiated by her. In that account, she made a few statements and he asked her no questions. In that account, he cut the conversation short because he was alone with his back to the door. (Which doesn't make sense, because if he wanted to continue conversing with her, all he had to do was turn them both around so he could watch her and the door at the same time. From a safe distance at the sidewalk, if necessary.)

========================
subpatre:

a Harvard University professor was quickly obtained to bellow

Still waiting for someone to present an actual witness who actually claims that Gates actually raised his voice, prior to his arrest.

You Canadians are so lucky to have big fruiting imaginations ov