You have a constitutional right to talk back to a police officer; and whether Skip Gate's account of his arrest or the police version is closer to the truth, it seems clear that Gate's speech rights were violated and his arrest was illegal. Less clear are the officer's motivations for the arrest. Naturally, the prevailing assumption and apparent, primary source of Gates' outrage is the belief that the officer, James M. Crowley, is a racist; but that ignores the equally plausible possibility that he's simply a bad cop, (or maybe a not-so-bad cop having a very bad day,) who would also have arrested a late middle-aged white guy whom he deemed insufficiently deferential. (If you find this scenario implausible, you never met my father.)
I'm not denying the persistence of racism in the criminal justice system, which is apparent to anyone familiar with the abuses of capital punishment, the drug war, or racial profiling. I am simply pointing out another problem, which may account, at least in part, for Gates's arrest: police officers, and other law enforcement agents, can become quite jealous of their authority, (as even a routine airport encounter with a bad TSA agent may demonstrate.) Wearing a badge and uniform and carrying a gun does not always bring out the best in people.
Class resentments, as well as race, may effect an officer's response to challenges. An affluent white guy who responds to questioning from a working class cop by referencing his superior social, intellectual, or political credentials doesn't deserve to be treated abusively but should not be surprised if he is. Even middle class white women (like me) may be taught early on not to be rude to cops.
So I remain agnostic about the role of race in Skip Gates's apparently illegal arrest and find discussions about racism the case has sparked to be generally unenlightening. Officer Crowley seems to think that he can disprove the charge of racism by telling us that, years ago, as a Brandeis police officer, he tried hard to revive the late Reggie Lewis when he collapsed on a basketball court. (Some of my best friends are African-American, he might as well have said.) Others have reflexively accused the police of racial profiling, but police did not stop or question Gates initially simply or primarily on account of his race. He was treated abusively perhaps because he was black, or perhaps because he exercised a right, more often honored in theory than in fact, to offend a police officer.
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic
technology Pac Rat
The fight to save video games from bit rot
china Cyber Warriors
The battle to protect our infrastructure from hackers
column Prison Porn
"Lockup" is exploitative and debasing
VOICES
The Latest From Leon, Ctd 2.9.10 8:41 P.M.
Shoe, Meet the Other Foot, Part II 2.9.10 5:19 P.M.
Procedure-Propism 2.9.10 4:47 P.M.
Live From Death Row 2.9.10 4:00 P.M.
Tonight’s aviation-mishap report 2.9.10 8:49 P.M.
The Middle East Comes to Irvine 2.9.10 4:38 P.M.
Liberal condescension 2.9.10 1:48 P.M.
Wendy Kaminer
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I completely agree with your article. It is not illegal to talk back to authority, bad judgment perhaps, but not illegal. I am a white woman who would likely be polite to any police officer, I would have likely laughed when they came to the door and thanked them for the concern of someone potentially breaking into my home. I would have shown my I.D. and that would have been that. Gates got angry and insulted, somewhere in the beginning of this situation something went very wrong, they each pushed each others buttons perhaps. This is all sounds like a war of egos to me. I agree with President Obama, the officer did act stupidly. One of them had to be the bigger person. How silly to arrest the man for being in his own house. So what, Gates was mad, he was insulted, did he threaten the officer? Assault the officer? What a waste of time to arrest him, bring him in, write-up all the paperwork and the spend all this time defending himself. There are bigger problems. Like too many unemployed people and too many Americans without health insurance.
This is perhaps the best analysis of the Gates episode that I have read and it has in fact changed my perspective. I was heading down a rather negative train of thought. It just was not good or healthy. I am an African American female who is 29 years-old. I have a Masters in English and am working towards my JD/MPA. It sucks to think that you work so hard to stay out of the fray and do the right thing and you can still be made to feel small. I respect the police however, I wish that they did not think it was a part of their job descriptions to act like they are the absolute law.
Does anyone's opinion change after reading the police report?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
Do people think Crowley is lying about what happened?
Reading the police report, and -- for the sake of argument -- taking its factual assertions at face value -- does not change my belief that this was a wrongful arrest. (As I noted in my initial post, even if the officer's account is true, he appears to have arrested Gates without cause.) By the time he was arrested, Gates had been identified; his residence in the Ware Street House verified. I can't imagine that his reported, angry words posed any conceivable threat to public order or safety. (Ware Street in Cambridge, just outside of Harvard Square, is hardly a tinder box; Gates was not urging a handful of onlookers to take immediate unlawful action, in circumstances when they might be expected to do so) (See Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) If you believe the officer's account, you may conclude that Gate's's behavior was obnoxious; but obnoxiousness is not a crime. Disorderly conduct is a catch-all charge, available to police when they want to arrest someone for no good reason.
Considering the circumstances (two people, regardless of their race, seemingly breaking into a residence) I think Gates reacted poorly to the officer's predicament. It wouldn't have taken much for him to politely tell the officer that he lived at the residence, and then simply retrieve his identification.
I don't think the officer was wrong to have asked for identification, clearly not knowing that he was speaking with a Harvard professor.
From my perspective, it seems that Gates felt he was being wronged when that was too much of an assumption to make. I'm giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he would have asked a white man for identification in the same manner. While I'm not sure that shouting at a police officer is grounds for arrest, Gates clearly could have diffused the situation by behaving less belligerently.
It's a sad day when Americans think that "belligerence" is a crime. Anyone could be upset with confusing police actions in their own home. Questioning and talking out is normal behavior when we are attempting to right a wrong.
Our founding Father's were belligerent! I sincerely doubt Gates was physically aggressive. This term is consistently applied when minorities question authority. It has been applied in previous posts as some type of rationalization for the use of police force. The tactics employed by Officer Crowley were arrogant and over the top. I refuse to categorize him as a racist, but attitudes of supremacy do not reflect the values I need from any police department.
I find it more telling that officer Crowely refuses to apologize when directed to do so by the Mayor of Cambridge. Should he be punished for his belligerence? Is this a possible sign of how big his ego might be? Are these actions in part what may cause minorities to be more sensitive and have stronger reactions? Please know and understand that it hurts more and the expression of pain gets louder, when you get injured in the same place repeatedly.
guitaroholic, at no point did I describe belligerence as a crime. My point is very simple: I think that Gates made a mistake in assuming that he was being untreated fairly because of his race, and then he simply lost control of himself. I don't think there were really any "confusing police actions" in the home - my impression is that the officer was simply trying to verify Gates' identity.
What would have been racist would be to walk into the home, take one look at Gates, and arrest him.
Do I think it was a mistake for Officer Crowley to arrest him? Yes.
Do I think it was perhaps a bigger mistake for Gates not to simply handle the matter calmly? Yes.
So both men are at fault.
From my perspective, the term belligerence is 100% race-neutral. White people can be belligerent, black people can be belligerent, everybody can be belligerent. Sometimes it makes sense to be belligerent, and sometimes we can be belligerent with no real reason.
guitaroholic, at no point did I describe belligerence as a crime. My point is very simple: I think that Gates made a mistake in assuming that he was being untreated fairly because of his race, and then he simply lost control of himself. I don't think there were really any "confusing police actions" in the home - my impression is that the officer was simply trying to verify Gates' identity.
What would have been racist would be to walk into the home, take one look at Gates, and arrest him.
Do I think it was a mistake for Officer Crowley to arrest him? Yes.
Do I think it was perhaps a bigger mistake for Gates not to simply handle the matter calmly? Yes.
So both men are at fault.
From my perspective, the term belligerence is 100% race-neutral. White people can be belligerent, black people can be belligerent, everybody can be belligerent. Sometimes it makes sense to be belligerent, and sometimes we can be belligerent with no real reason.
Sorry to go off topic, but how does a civil libertarian differ from an ordinary small L libertarian? By also being a social conservative?
A civil libertarian objects to improper (in their view) governmental law enforcement activity.
A libertarian objects to governmental activity outside the proper (in their view) scope of government. Most libertarians believe that law enforcement is within the proper scope of government. Those who don't are anarchists.
As a practical, political matter, what generally divides civil libertarians from libertarians (as the terms are most commonly used) is the libertarian belief in free markets. Generally people who call themselves civil libertarians are also quite supportive of civil right laws, among other forms of market regulations. The ACLU, for example, has civil liberties and civil rights agendas, which sometimes conflict, since (simply put) the preservation of civil liberties requires leashing government power; the expansion of civil rights requires invoking it.
Fictionyesgo, Please accept my apology as I recognize that your use of the term belligerent is OK as a potential description anytime, any color, anywhere. I really did not intend to offend you.
Also, you make several quality points about the term being race neutral. However, I do stand by my assertion that shows like "Cops", nightly news reports, and blog posts have made numerous references to minorities being hauled off because they became belligerent. The statement that I have posted was not meant to specifically target you or your use of the word, as I feel that we both have a relatively consistent view of the Gates incident.
I simply object to this term or any other as an application for non threatening behavioral deviance that subjects an individual to arrest. A loud response, a nervous outcry, an inability to calm down quick enough, even using profanity, IMHO should not be equated necessarily with belligerence. To the degree that belligerence defined can mean an aggressive, hostile, or warlike disposition, I don't believe that Gates made any physical threats. Hence, not warlike, hostile or physically aggresive. Sgt. Crowley likes to use loud and tumultuous. Another woeful categorization...
By "confusing police actions" I would submit that most of us would find it a little confusing facing the possibility of being arrested in our own home. It actually confuses me that the officer never felt it was his duty to provide a badge number or name and omitted this part of Gates verbal exchange from his report? I beleive this entire incident could easily be categorized as an anomaly for most Americans and would be subject to major elements of confusion on that basis alone.
I am a person that strongly agrees with Wendy Kaminer's opening assertion that we as Americans have a Constitional right to talk back or question law enforcement. So, I tend to reject the use of terminology that would by definition incorporate elements of illegal behavior. It just makes it way too easy for these terms to be applied in broad strokes by law enforcement and for society to see these actions as merely deviant behavior.
It has been said that deviance often becomes, not the rule breaking, but lack of respect for the rule enforcement.
All I'm saying here is let's not make belligerence or lack of respect a reason for law enforcement to feel one more rule has been violated. As we all can observe a very experienced cop has already demonstrated that he thought the "tumultuous" rule had been broken.
There are double-standards at times, but the admitted reaction of Gates is indefensible. The Chris Rock skit "How Not To Get Your A** Kicked By The Police" should be required viewing by everyone. Find it on YouTube. If Gates had followed the instructions there, he would have been fine. Police have no reason to tolerate anyone screaming at them, and were completely justified in their actions. You have NO constitutional right to verbally abuse a police officer, as is clear to anyone who understands the historical context of the right to free speech. Spewing filth at an authority figure is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when delineating the right to free speech. Understanding this situation is similar to how one reacts to one's children. If your children start yelling at you when you question their behavior, they are wrong and should be punished. You would then explain to them that even though they were right about the incident, they were disrespectful and childish, and that is why he/she was punished. They must learn to show respect and behave properly. If Gates had acted professionally and discussed the situation like a mature adult, this situation would likely have been a non-event.
----------
In my experience, a person's encounter with the police is often dependent on his appearance and actions, rather than only dependent on skin color.
----------
I have to respectfully disagree with the author's claim that because Ware street is "hardly a tinderbox" that means the police should behave differently toward the residents there. As a lawyer, I would think she would agree that the founding documents of this country do not intimate any preferential treatment for wealthier/calmer areas of a municipality. That sounds like a good basis for a lawsuit itself.
Oh, for heavens sake. In this situation, the police officer is the one with all the authority and power; he needs to be the grownup. Unless he was being threatened with physical violence or great bodily harm, then the arrest was excessive.
Oh, and by the way, you absolutely DO have a right to use abusive language to a police officer. That's the way the law is written, and that's why charges are dropped when people are arrested for doing so.
Actually you do have a constitutional right to insult or "verbally abuse" a police officer - the same right you have to insult or "verbally abuse" a civilian. Your constitutional speech rights are not limited by the sensitivities of the police officer, or anyone else you choose to insult. They are limited by the likelihood that your speech will directly result in imminent and forseeable violence (or other lawlessness), whether you're talking to a cop, a civilian, or a crowd. (Again, see Brandenburg v Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) That's why i pointed out that Ware Street "is not a tinder box;" it's highly likely that there was no good reason to believe that the verbal abuse in which Gates allegedly indulged on Ware Street, during the day, was likely or intended to set off a riot. Circumstances matter in determining whether speech poses an imminent, forseeable risk of unlawful behavior.
Of course, as a practical matter, in encounters with law enforcement agents you often exercise your constitutional rights at your own risk. That is a fact of life -- one in which some are schooled and others learn the hard way. But it's not a fact we should condone in a democratic society that's supposed to value liberty.
January: Interesting that you think a lower middle-class profession such as a police officer should be more "grown-up" than an upper middle class professional such as a Harvard professor.
----------
Wendy: After reviewing the Brandenburg case, it appears that the Ohio "criminal syndicalism" law was improperly written, and would prosecute those whose speech was simply related to a "criminal" group that incited violence, and would end up prosecuting those whose speech did not incite violence as well as those that did, making the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not make a judgment as to whether the individual's actions were constitutionally upheld, but simply judged the law itself to be unconstitutional as written. Regardless, the common view of the public should be that actions such as Gates' are not to be tolerated.
Technical aspects of the Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) case that warrant consideration here:
I would very much like to see how Gates' actions would hold up under the "question of proximity and degree" discussed amid the "substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
----------
Concurring Opinion of Justice Black:
...
The "clear and present danger" test was adumbrated by Mr. Justice Holmes in a case arising during World War I - a war "declared" by the Congress, not by the Chief Executive. The case was Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 , where the defendant was charged with attempts to cause insubordination in the military and obstruction of enlistment. The pamphlets that were distributed urged resistance to the draft, denounced conscription, and impugned the motives of those backing the war effort. The First Amendment was tendered as a defense. Mr. Justice Holmes in rejecting that defense said:
----------
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
----------
The Constitution was founded on individual freedom, but was not intended to be a free pass for anyone to do what they please. This case definitely displays one particular instance of the limitations of individual action when countermanding the system's interests.
UH OH! The audio of the 911 call has finally been released. Now we all can draw a legitimate comparison between Lucia Whalen's verbal/audio description and the "Golden Honest Text" of officer Crowley's official police report.
Here is the link for the Crowley's report: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html
Please take special note of the third paragraph where Crowley states
" She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of 17 Ware street."
Now here is the all important audio link of Whalen clearly stating that she could not tell the race of the individuals that she observed. When pressed by the dispatcher, she says one of them may have been Hispanic!
Audio link:http:
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2009/07/27/AU2009072701389.html?sid=ST2009072703057
I have listened to this enough times and gone over the report to find contradictions that are striking.
I keep reading statements that the mean ol' professor should have been more polite and gracious. Let's see, impolite and loud in your own home. Tricked into going outside to make the case of "disorderly conduct in a public place."
Go directly to jail...
Abuse the public trust with a highly suspect legal document that justifies the trick or treat arrest. Again he never documents what Gates has said that was so out of line.
Priceless.
I think the issue of police honesty is where the majority of change needs to be made. I am willing to bet that millions of Americans will not raise their voices if all cops stop would stop the testalying.
Wake up America IT IS a racial issue if the person (Lucia Whalen) reporting the incident says specifically she could not identify the race (hear her say it in her own words) and the policeman substitutes "Two black men" in his report. Or, in his mind. I am not calling him a racist. However, in light of the contradiction of facts he appears to have some hidden issues with race.
Are we to believe that Whalen contradicted herself with officer Crowley while on the phone with Cambridge P.D. dispatch? The taped report would tell us otherwise.
Might we have some doubts as to the validity Crowely's report? If he is willing to falsify these details what else is he willing to lie about? What else is he willing to do. People, we pay this man to wear a badge and carry a gun. Honestly.
Audio link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2009/07/27/AU2009072701389.html?sid=ST2009072703057
so, what happened to mr. crowley? he's a SARGEANT on the police force, still?
mr. saturday,
who are you to decide - "Regardless, the common view of the public should be that actions such as Gates' are not to be tolerated".
this definition hardly seems cause to arrest someone...
Dictionary
tumultuous |t(y)oōˈməl ch oōəs; tə-|
adjective
making a loud, confused noise; uproarious : tumultuous applause.
• excited, confused, or disorderly : a tumultuous crowd | figurative a tumultuous personal life.
DERIVATIVES
tumultuously adverb
tumultuousness noun
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Old French tumultuous or Latin tumultuosus, from tumultus (see tumult ).
Thesaurus
tumultuous
adjective
1 tumultuous applause loud, deafening, thunderous, uproarious, noisy, clamorous, vociferous, vehement. antonym soft.
2 their tumultuous relationship tempestuous, stormy, turbulent, passionate, intense, explosive, violent, volatile, full of ups and downs, roller-coaster. antonym peaceful, uneventful.
3 a tumultuous crowd disorderly, unruly, rowdy, turbulent, boisterous, excited, agitated, restless, wild, riotous, frenzied. antonym orderly.
further, does mr. gates behaviour fit this definition due to mr. crowley's actions? is there room in the law for 'provocative' actions by police?
Thesaurus
disorderly
adjective
2 disorderly behavior unruly, boisterous, rough, rowdy, wild, riotous; disruptive, troublesome, undisciplined, lawless, unmanageable, uncontrollable, out of hand, out of control. antonym peaceful.