9 ms·

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"

53 points by splat 17y ago

credo 17y ago
I agree and I think that too many people have turned this into a "race" issue. My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to Officer Crowley's actions. I also think that the office was wrong in arresting Professor Gates for being rude to him.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jmillikin 17y ago
  My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to Officer Crowley's actions. The responding officer invented conversations which never took place, which contained racial components. For example, it was claimed the 911 caller had said "two black men", that Crowley had spoken to the 911 caller before entering the house, and that Gates had spoken racial insults to Crowley -- all later proven to be fabrications. I can't think of any reason for the officer to lie about such particular things without racial reasons. Furthermore, it's notable that conservatives are largely defending Crowley on racial grounds. While I would expect a "conservative" to be against illegal arrests, many (if not most) are choosing to blame Gates for the events.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    I'm sorry but you're just looking for a reason to make it about race. On your claims what the caller actually said was... "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure" So the officer did transpose the correct race in his memory but the reality is the 911 caller was the one who injected race. In fact, if anything it was race bating on the other end. The reason the story came up in the first place is because the caller felt the need to distance herself from using the term "black" as if "black" is any better or worse than using hispanic. (all this is from here: http://hiphopwired.com/4706/henry-louis-gates-jr-arresting-officer-lied-on-911-caller/ http://hiphopwired.com/4706/henry-louis-gates-jr-arresting-o...) I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims. I did find the "Crowley claims to have talked to Whalen claim" here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/27/141815/821 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/27/141815/821) but again there's no proof the conversation didn't happen. And if anything I believe the officer only because Whalen has shown she refers to people by race (see above). So if someone who referred to a person (on tape) as "kind of hispanic" got a closer look and realized they were african american it stands to reason she would refer to them as "black" Basically I find the whole "crowley lied" scenario dubious since I don't think a lying police officer warrants an invite to the White House. For President Obama to invite both I have to think he sees a misunderstanding and not one side being at fault.
    - jmillikin 17y ago
      The reason the story came up in the first place is because the caller felt the need to distance herself from using the term "black" as if "black" is any better or worse than using hispanic. The problem is not the caller's racial biases or lack thereof, but that the official police report contains fabrications. I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims. From <http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ >, and from your 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.* So that's two confirmed fabrications in the police report. Both are rather large, considering they report words which were not said and events which did not occur.
      - SamAtt 17y ago
        I actually hunted down the report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...) and no where does the officer claim the 911 callers said "two black men" in the call. Again, as far as the conversation taking place its Whalen (the caller) vs Crowley (the Officer) since they were the only ones there. So the only way you can claim that’s a fabrication is if you just decide to believe her over him (which as I point out above isn’t really the logical conclusion given she’s claiming not to use racial identifiers when she clearly does) So again, I see no fabrication here. At least no provable one.
        nollidge 17y ago
        It's on the first page of the report, last paragraph, lines 4-7: "Whalen...told me 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."
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
- mynameishere 17y ago
  Gates made it a race issue; Obama backed him up on the matter; the media agree. The cop was doing what cops always do. The solitary difference is that he came up against a professional racist.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    The argument is that "what cops always do" is wrong, and that race played no part.
    - nanijoe 17y ago
      The real issue here is that race often plays a part in "what cops always do"
lionhearted 17y ago
The article misses two really important points. 1. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a dangerous line of work. Ability to dissent from police is good - abusing police really, really isn't. The vast majority of police are really nice people, and will work with you and help you on a wide range of things. Like in other professions, some cops suck or are incompetent to varying degrees, but most are pretty good sorts. The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. 2. The article did gloss over it, but yes, it is really impractical to get hostile to anyone that has power over you - even including the electric company. People are people - you remember the last time someone was seriously a jerk to you? Remember how you felt? Now, do you remember the last time it happened in relation to your work? Would you say you worked harder to please that person afterwards, or would you say you held at least a bit of an "F you" attitude? That's just a practical point. Police officers are people. They undergo training to react more sensibly and less emotionally, but they're going to react way more friendly and cooperative with people who are friendly and cooperative with them. Yeah, sure, it shouldn't be like that. I guess technically an employee at the electric company should work doubletime to get your power back on even if you're cursing and raising your voice at them and calling them names. But the world doesn't work like that. So many places like to list every police misconduct incident in the last xyz years every time something happens. They don't mark down or just pay lip service to all the lives saved, and all the officers killed in the line of duty doing good work. Police and citizens are fundamentally "on the same team" - less tension and more respect between both groups would be a good thing. Articles that go hard to one side don't promote that.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. The 911 caller has claimed several parts of Crowley's report are false[1]. Given this, I trust Gates' version of the events over Crowley's. According to Gates, he was arrested after following the officer onto the house's porch, when he demanding the officer's name and identification number (which Crowley was legally obliged to provide). Furthermore, as Gates had a bronchial infection at the time[2], he wouldn't have been able to yell / abuse the officers in the way they claim occured. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html [2] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0
jmillikin 17y ago
There were several inconsistencies between the official police report[1], and the original 911 caller, Lucia Whalen's, version of events[2]. Notably: * The police report states that Whalen said "two black men". In reality, Whalen said "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all.". The "black" aspect was entirely invented after-the-fact by the police. * The police report states the responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, spoke to the Whalen at the scene. According to Whalen, this conversation did not occur. * Crowley claims that Gates was belligerent and yelling racial epithets. However, Gates had returned from China with a bronchial infection[3], and was unable to yell or raise his voice. This has been confirmed by his physician. * Gates showed Crowley two forms of identification, his driver's license and Harvard ID. He did not refuse to show identification. * Gates was arrested on his front doorstep, after following Crowley out of the house. Gates claims this is because he demanded to see Crowley's identification, which he is allowed by law. I hope this clears up some of the confusion and misinformation being spread regarding the event. [1] http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_LNOTESMAIL_07202009-153909.PDF http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_L... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ [3] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0
- SamAtt 17y ago
  (Note: The above comment was at '1' when I made this reply. So at least 4 people simply don't care that the info given above is a flat out lie as is shown by the actual report that I link to below) Just pointing out what I did above. * The police report never says the officer heard the 911 call (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...) * The conversation is one's word against the other and Whalen is clearly trying to distance herself from the whole incident so she has the more reason to lie * That's just silly. I had a bronchial infection and I could still yell (albeit with vastly less capacity) * The report doesn't claim Gates refused to show ID only that he initially did. In fact it says... . I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police. * Your last claim could be right. No one can tell. But it's at the root of the two claims so the only way you can believe it's a proven fabrication is if you believe Gates without question (since he has as little proof as Crowley does as to what happened)
mattmaroon 17y ago
There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced really. Cops have a dangerous job and a lot of bullets are preceded by yelling. They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because who knows where it might go from there. The iPod dancing wierdos getting arrested is a total ad-hominem too.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because who knows where it might go from there. No they shouldn't, preventative arrest is wrong and crosses a line that should not be crossed. If you can't handle angry citizens then you have no business being a cop. The day we can be arrested for merely speaking out against the government is a day we should not allow to ever come. I was a cop, I put up with plenty of verbal abuse from people, it's part of the job. A cops safety is not more important that citizens rights.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    There's a big difference between speaking out against the government and yelling at a cop (or anyone for that matter).
tokenadult 17y ago
"'Contempt of cop,' as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be." I remember the day the professor of criminal law and criminal procedure law in my law school told the second-year students, "In actual practice, contempt of cop is a crime," meaning that if you piss off a police officer, you can expect trouble to follow. After edit: The lesson I take from that in my daily life is what mattmaroon says in his reply, There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced really. Yes. I'm sensible enough not to get into an argument with an armed man who has legal authority to use his weapon. Maybe there is some misunderstanding when a police officer stops me (that happens very rarely in my life), but if there is, I can stay calm and explain my point of view without looking or sounding threatening. I've not had any trouble with police officers, ever.
bmj 17y ago
Here's another perspective (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/ http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-diff...) from a police captain/philosophy student.
rfreytag 17y ago
The "Right to Record" should be a civil right trumping all others.
cmars232 17y ago
The best way to assert your rights to a police officer is to be calm, polite, and firm. Remove emotion from the equation, and you'll come across credible. Get all worked up, and you fit the pattern of an unstable, dangerous individual that will probably need to be subdued. Keep in mind you can also decline a search or ask a questions like "do you have probable cause", "am I being detained", etc without being a jerk. Taking the high road costs nothing, might avoid a lot of trouble, and might even teach a police officer that not everyone who believes in their civil liberties is a ranting-and-raving asshole.
- pmorici 17y ago
  I think this an excellent point that gets lost in all of this. Anyone who is a jerk to the police has to expect to possibly be arrested. If Gates or anyone for that matter has a problem with the way a police office conducts themselves it's imperative that you maintain the moral high ground by above all not being a jack ass and asserting your rights politely. When it comes out after the fact (in this case by Gate's own admission) that you've said some not nice things to the officer you really loose a huge amount of credibility no matter how right you are. Not to say that you should let a police officer who is acting inappropriately trample all over you but there is a right way and a wrong way to assert yourself and yelling and insults is not the right way.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    The point is that you should not have to expect the possibility of arrest for being a jerk. Of course you should act in a respectable way, but failure to do should not result in arrest.
    - pmorici 17y ago
      In a utopian world. I'm not saying that's the way I'd like it to be. I'm saying, as things are, it's something every reasonable person knows is likely to happen if you're belligerent with authorities.
    - drhowarddrfine 17y ago
jacquesm 17y ago
Simply reverse the situation, if two white guys would have been in that building when the police arrived would the situation have turned out the way it did ? If not then race was a factor, either on the part of the police or by mr. Gates himself. Crowley seems dodgy and Gates seems a bit too eager to blow this up using it as a platform. I don't have much respect for either attitude. After all the police was checking up to see if Gates wasn't about to lose a part of his property. Once you start asking police for their badge numbers you are effectively escalating the confrontation, which puts you in the drivers seat. You then also should take part responsibility for the consequences of that. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Aside from the political nature of this article (davidw, where are you?) I thought the author took up the mantle against conservatives a little too easily. I'm a libertarian, and I support that "be nice to the guy with the gun" stance. I know liberals and conservatives both who agree. I think it probably has more to do with having some kind of experience in law enforcement or the military, but I'm just speculating. It's definitely not just a conservative position. No matter who you are -- even without one person having the gun and authority -- being polite is always a good strategy in any discussion. If you're ugly to people, they're most likely going to find a way to be ugly back to you. I think this article misses the difference between political theory and practical human experience. In theory, I should be able to hurl profanities at people I don't like. In practice, they have a tendency to punch me in the nose. I'm all for the theory -- in fact, as far as the photographing of police, it should be a felony to stop someone from videotaping a police officer in the line of duty. But in practice I live in a world where politicians have passed so many laws that are so open to interpretation that if the cops don't like you, they can find some way to mess with you. That's just life. I don't like the current state of affairs, but that doesn't mean I should be blind to reality either. Instead of whining on about how the real issue should be control of police powers, I think a more practical position would be to single out certain areas (like the videotaping) where small changes can have a big effect. This turns a rant into a call for action. But we didn't get that.

53 points by splat 17y ago

credo 17y ago

I agree and I think that too many people have turned this into a "race" issue. My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to Officer Crowley's actions. I also think that the office was wrong in arresting Professor Gates for being rude to him.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jmillikin 17y ago
My sense is that the professor was wrong in attributing racial motives to Officer Crowley's actions. The responding officer invented conversations which never took place, which contained racial components. For example, it was claimed the 911 caller had said "two black men", that Crowley had spoken to the 911 caller before entering the house, and that Gates had spoken racial insults to Crowley -- all later proven to be fabrications. I can't think of any reason for the officer to lie about such particular things without racial reasons. Furthermore, it's notable that conservatives are largely defending Crowley on racial grounds. While I would expect a "conservative" to be against illegal arrests, many (if not most) are choosing to blame Gates for the events.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  I'm sorry but you're just looking for a reason to make it about race. On your claims what the caller actually said was... "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure" So the officer did transpose the correct race in his memory but the reality is the 911 caller was the one who injected race. In fact, if anything it was race bating on the other end. The reason the story came up in the first place is because the caller felt the need to distance herself from using the term "black" as if "black" is any better or worse than using hispanic. (all this is from here: http://hiphopwired.com/4706/henry-louis-gates-jr-arresting-officer-lied-on-911-caller/ http://hiphopwired.com/4706/henry-louis-gates-jr-arresting-o...) I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims. I did find the "Crowley claims to have talked to Whalen claim" here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/27/141815/821 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/27/141815/821) but again there's no proof the conversation didn't happen. And if anything I believe the officer only because Whalen has shown she refers to people by race (see above). So if someone who referred to a person (on tape) as "kind of hispanic" got a closer look and realized they were african american it stands to reason she would refer to them as "black" Basically I find the whole "crowley lied" scenario dubious since I don't think a lying police officer warrants an invite to the White House. For President Obama to invite both I have to think he sees a misunderstanding and not one side being at fault.
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    The reason the story came up in the first place is because the caller felt the need to distance herself from using the term "black" as if "black" is any better or worse than using hispanic. The problem is not the caller's racial biases or lack thereof, but that the official police report contains fabrications. I, for the most part, couldn't find articles that support your other claims. From <http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ >, and from your 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.* So that's two confirmed fabrications in the police report. Both are rather large, considering they report words which were not said and events which did not occur.
    - SamAtt 17y ago
      I actually hunted down the report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...) and no where does the officer claim the 911 callers said "two black men" in the call. Again, as far as the conversation taking place its Whalen (the caller) vs Crowley (the Officer) since they were the only ones there. So the only way you can claim that’s a fabrication is if you just decide to believe her over him (which as I point out above isn’t really the logical conclusion given she’s claiming not to use racial identifiers when she clearly does) So again, I see no fabrication here. At least no provable one.
      - nollidge 17y ago
        It's on the first page of the report, last paragraph, lines 4-7: "Whalen...told me 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."
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
mynameishere 17y ago
Gates made it a race issue; Obama backed him up on the matter; the media agree. The cop was doing what cops always do. The solitary difference is that he came up against a professional racist.
- dantheman 17y ago
  The argument is that "what cops always do" is wrong, and that race played no part.
  - nanijoe 17y ago
    The real issue here is that race often plays a part in "what cops always do"

lionhearted 17y ago

The article misses two really important points. 1. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a dangerous line of work. Ability to dissent from police is good - abusing police really, really isn't. The vast majority of police are really nice people, and will work with you and help you on a wide range of things. Like in other professions, some cops suck or are incompetent to varying degrees, but most are pretty good sorts. The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. 2. The article did gloss over it, but yes, it is really impractical to get hostile to anyone that has power over you - even including the electric company. People are people - you remember the last time someone was seriously a jerk to you? Remember how you felt? Now, do you remember the last time it happened in relation to your work? Would you say you worked harder to please that person afterwards, or would you say you held at least a bit of an "F you" attitude? That's just a practical point. Police officers are people. They undergo training to react more sensibly and less emotionally, but they're going to react way more friendly and cooperative with people who are friendly and cooperative with them. Yeah, sure, it shouldn't be like that. I guess technically an employee at the electric company should work doubletime to get your power back on even if you're cursing and raising your voice at them and calling them names. But the world doesn't work like that. So many places like to list every police misconduct incident in the last xyz years every time something happens. They don't mark down or just pay lip service to all the lives saved, and all the officers killed in the line of duty doing good work. Police and citizens are fundamentally "on the same team" - less tension and more respect between both groups would be a good thing. Articles that go hard to one side don't promote that.

jmillikin 17y ago
The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. The 911 caller has claimed several parts of Crowley's report are false[1]. Given this, I trust Gates' version of the events over Crowley's. According to Gates, he was arrested after following the officer onto the house's porch, when he demanding the officer's name and identification number (which Crowley was legally obliged to provide). Furthermore, as Gates had a bronchial infection at the time[2], he wouldn't have been able to yell / abuse the officers in the way they claim occured. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html [2] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0

jmillikin 17y ago

There were several inconsistencies between the official police report[1], and the original 911 caller, Lucia Whalen's, version of events[2]. Notably: * The police report states that Whalen said "two black men". In reality, Whalen said "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all.". The "black" aspect was entirely invented after-the-fact by the police. * The police report states the responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, spoke to the Whalen at the scene. According to Whalen, this conversation did not occur. * Crowley claims that Gates was belligerent and yelling racial epithets. However, Gates had returned from China with a bronchial infection[3], and was unable to yell or raise his voice. This has been confirmed by his physician. * Gates showed Crowley two forms of identification, his driver's license and Harvard ID. He did not refuse to show identification. * Gates was arrested on his front doorstep, after following Crowley out of the house. Gates claims this is because he demanded to see Crowley's identification, which he is allowed by law. I hope this clears up some of the confusion and misinformation being spread regarding the event. [1] http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_LNOTESMAIL_07202009-153909.PDF http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/CANON8AA683_L... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/ [3] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0

SamAtt 17y ago
(Note: The above comment was at '1' when I made this reply. So at least 4 people simply don't care that the info given above is a flat out lie as is shown by the actual report that I link to below) Just pointing out what I did above. * The police report never says the officer heard the 911 call (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates...) * The conversation is one's word against the other and Whalen is clearly trying to distance herself from the whole incident so she has the more reason to lie * That's just silly. I had a bronchial infection and I could still yell (albeit with vastly less capacity) * The report doesn't claim Gates refused to show ID only that he initially did. In fact it says... . I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police. * Your last claim could be right. No one can tell. But it's at the root of the two claims so the only way you can believe it's a proven fabrication is if you believe Gates without question (since he has as little proof as Crowley does as to what happened)

mattmaroon 17y ago

There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced really. Cops have a dangerous job and a lot of bullets are preceded by yelling. They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because who knows where it might go from there. The iPod dancing wierdos getting arrested is a total ad-hominem too.

gnaritas 17y ago
> They actually should be able to arrest people who totally lose their cool, because who knows where it might go from there. No they shouldn't, preventative arrest is wrong and crosses a line that should not be crossed. If you can't handle angry citizens then you have no business being a cop. The day we can be arrested for merely speaking out against the government is a day we should not allow to ever come. I was a cop, I put up with plenty of verbal abuse from people, it's part of the job. A cops safety is not more important that citizens rights.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  There's a big difference between speaking out against the government and yelling at a cop (or anyone for that matter).

tokenadult 17y ago

"'Contempt of cop,' as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be." I remember the day the professor of criminal law and criminal procedure law in my law school told the second-year students, "In actual practice, contempt of cop is a crime," meaning that if you piss off a police officer, you can expect trouble to follow. After edit: The lesson I take from that in my daily life is what mattmaroon says in his reply, There's a pretty wide gulf between total submission to "authority" and being verbally abusive to a police officer doing his job. As someone who is generally not a fan of cops, but would like them to show up at my door if someone broke in through it (even if its me) it doesn't seem that nuanced really. Yes. I'm sensible enough not to get into an argument with an armed man who has legal authority to use his weapon. Maybe there is some misunderstanding when a police officer stops me (that happens very rarely in my life), but if there is, I can stay calm and explain my point of view without looking or sounding threatening. I've not had any trouble with police officers, ever.

bmj 17y ago

Here's another perspective (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/ http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-diff...) from a police captain/philosophy student.

rfreytag 17y ago

The "Right to Record" should be a civil right trumping all others.

cmars232 17y ago

The best way to assert your rights to a police officer is to be calm, polite, and firm. Remove emotion from the equation, and you'll come across credible. Get all worked up, and you fit the pattern of an unstable, dangerous individual that will probably need to be subdued. Keep in mind you can also decline a search or ask a questions like "do you have probable cause", "am I being detained", etc without being a jerk. Taking the high road costs nothing, might avoid a lot of trouble, and might even teach a police officer that not everyone who believes in their civil liberties is a ranting-and-raving asshole.

pmorici 17y ago
I think this an excellent point that gets lost in all of this. Anyone who is a jerk to the police has to expect to possibly be arrested. If Gates or anyone for that matter has a problem with the way a police office conducts themselves it's imperative that you maintain the moral high ground by above all not being a jack ass and asserting your rights politely. When it comes out after the fact (in this case by Gate's own admission) that you've said some not nice things to the officer you really loose a huge amount of credibility no matter how right you are. Not to say that you should let a police officer who is acting inappropriately trample all over you but there is a right way and a wrong way to assert yourself and yelling and insults is not the right way.
- dantheman 17y ago
  The point is that you should not have to expect the possibility of arrest for being a jerk. Of course you should act in a respectable way, but failure to do should not result in arrest.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    In a utopian world. I'm not saying that's the way I'd like it to be. I'm saying, as things are, it's something every reasonable person knows is likely to happen if you're belligerent with authorities.
  - drhowarddrfine 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Simply reverse the situation, if two white guys would have been in that building when the police arrived would the situation have turned out the way it did ? If not then race was a factor, either on the part of the police or by mr. Gates himself. Crowley seems dodgy and Gates seems a bit too eager to blow this up using it as a platform. I don't have much respect for either attitude. After all the police was checking up to see if Gates wasn't about to lose a part of his property. Once you start asking police for their badge numbers you are effectively escalating the confrontation, which puts you in the drivers seat. You then also should take part responsibility for the consequences of that. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Aside from the political nature of this article (davidw, where are you?) I thought the author took up the mantle against conservatives a little too easily. I'm a libertarian, and I support that "be nice to the guy with the gun" stance. I know liberals and conservatives both who agree. I think it probably has more to do with having some kind of experience in law enforcement or the military, but I'm just speculating. It's definitely not just a conservative position. No matter who you are -- even without one person having the gun and authority -- being polite is always a good strategy in any discussion. If you're ugly to people, they're most likely going to find a way to be ugly back to you. I think this article misses the difference between political theory and practical human experience. In theory, I should be able to hurl profanities at people I don't like. In practice, they have a tendency to punch me in the nose. I'm all for the theory -- in fact, as far as the photographing of police, it should be a felony to stop someone from videotaping a police officer in the line of duty. But in practice I live in a world where politicians have passed so many laws that are so open to interpretation that if the cops don't like you, they can find some way to mess with you. That's just life. I don't like the current state of affairs, but that doesn't mean I should be blind to reality either. Instead of whining on about how the real issue should be control of police powers, I think a more practical position would be to single out certain areas (like the videotaping) where small changes can have a big effect. This turns a rant into a call for action. But we didn't get that.