arrested Prof Gates after observing him displaying
loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose cause citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.
yes.
It’s fair to say that this paragraph outlines what happened and why Prof Gates was arrested?
yes.
You also use language directly from case law and the statute regarding the crime of disorderly conduct?
yes.
Now the rest of report details the events that transpired causing this arrest.
yes
And its fair to say that you are trained to and did not want to leave out important details? That would not be fair to you, the citizens of Cambridge, or Prof Gates?
yes, yes, yes, and yes.
In the second paragraph you state you were assigned to administrative duty in uniform and an unmarked car when you heard the radio call for suspicious activity at the Ware Street address. Although not the assigned officer you responded to the address.
yes.
and that is good police work, fair to say?
yes.
In fact, there had been some recent problems with break ins in that particular neighborhood?
yes.
It’s fair to say you would have been perhaps lazy or negligent if you did not respond.
yes.
When you arrived you met the caller in front of the residence where the suspicious activity was reported.
yes.
The adult woman told you she observed “two adult black males with back packs” on the porch and “her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedge his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to forced entry.”
Yes.
Now, according your police report, you asked her to wait while you investigated further.
Yes
You may have needed her to identify a suspect and/or provide further information. Correct police procedure, correct.
Yes
The next paragraph in your detailed report in which you used your training and experience in preparing describes your initial encounter with Prof. Gates.
Yes.
You turned and faced the door and it was at this time you first saw Prof Gates.
Yes.
he was standing in foyer. Your detailed report states you saw him through the ‘glass pained front door”.
Yes.
Because he was black you could not eliminate him as being none of the persons the witness saw. Plus there was another person and you did not know where he was. Corerct?
Yes.
The next lone of your report states you asked Prof. Gates to “step on to the porch and speak with (you)”
Yes.
Now Sgt. As a police officer you are trained in many areas of the law and the constitution. Is that correct?
Yes
And under our Bill of Rights, constitutional law and court decisions it’s fair to say that a police officer can only enter a private residence (or business) without invitation under three objective situations.
1. An arrest warrant for someone in the residence or reasonably believed to be in the residence;
2. A search warrant issued by the court for that particular residence; and
3. While conducting an investigation of a possible crime occurring or on going which would place persons in danger if not addressed.
Yes.
And you were conducting an investigation which gave you the right to not only question the Prof. but enter his home without his permission if you reasonably believed a crime was occurring or about to occur.
Yes.
According to your report when you first spoke to Prof. Gates you didn’t tell him you were investigating a crime in progress, isn’t that correct?
Yes.
His reply to your request, according to the report, was “No I will not”. There was nothing illegal about that response, correct? Based on the information you had provided him at this time he was well within his rights to say no to your request.
Yes.
According to your report he “demanded to know your name”. Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything illegal about it? Through out your career you have been asked you name while on duty countless times, correct?
Yes, no, no, and yes.
Next, according to your report you stated you were “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “Why, because I am a black man in America?
Yes
So it is true that as soon as you said you were investigating a crime in progress Prof. Gates opened the door and let you in?
Yes.
The according to your report, you asked Gates if there was anyone else in the building and he said “none of your business”. You assured him it was not and you observed him pick up a wireless phone an d make a call. As he was doing this you radioed Channel 1 and reported where you were and that you were “with someone that appeared to be the resident but was uncooperative.”
Yes.
So in between him telling you “none of your business” until Gates picked up the phone what transpired that caused you believe he was probably the homeowner?
Blah blah
And what if anything did you do prior to Gtaes making the phone call to determine the where abouts of the other person(s)?
blah blah blah
You then saw and heard Gates speak on the phone to someone asking the name of the ‘police chief” and saying there was a racist police officer in his home.
Yes.
So it is fair to say that soon after the conversation with Prof Gates began you determined that he was not a threat to harm you or others? Correct?
Not sure what you mean?
Well you were investigating a possible crime, you have a man who is angry and a possible suspect yet you allow him to make phone calls and you take some of your attention off him as you make a radio call. You inform dispatch you believe he is the homeowner. An, by the way, there also may be have been one or two other people in the home that Gates was unaware of.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
So is there anything that Prof Gates said or did that is not in your report that contributed to your determination that Prof. Gates was a lawful resident?
Yes/ No (who cares)
You report that after Gates discontinued the phone call, which you did not prevent him from making, he said, you don’t know who you are “messing with.”.
Yes.
So far it is fair to say that Prof. Gates has not done anything against the law?
Yes.
Yet he has called you a racist and implied if not stated directly that he wants to go to your superiors and report as exhibiting racist behavior, is that correct.
Yes.
Then again in your report you state that while you believed Gates was lawfully present in the home you were “quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me.”
Correct
Is the a policy in the Cambridge Police Department about customer satisfaction?
No
This isn’t like Friendly’s Ice Cream where customers fill out satisfaction cards, is it?
No.
When you say “surprised and confused” you do not mean in a way that caused you to suspect criminal activity on Prof. Gates’ part?
No
According to your report you next requested photo I.D. That would be procedure and request made for the safety and security of all, correct?
Yes.
The report says you requested a photo ID., not a Mass drivers license.
Correct.
Prof. Gates provided you a Harvard University photo ID, correct?
Yes.
Was that sufficient?
Yes/no (who cares)
Did you ask for a driver’s license?
No.
Because if you did you would have put that in the report.
Correct.
After receiving the ID you state you radioed for Harvard University Police to respond.
Yes.
You did not request info from Harvard P.D. re Gates. You did not check for warrants.
Yes and yes.
In the next line of the report you say you “prepared to leave”.
Yes.
What does that mean. Did you have to get your coat? Your car keys? Write down some info?
No, no, and no.
But you leaving is that
correct. And, according to your report that was immediately after you radioed for Harvard Police to respond.
Correct.
Sgt. Crowley, what on earth did you want the Harvard Police to do when the responded and why didn’t you wait for them?
Blah blah blah blah blah and I was going to meet them outside the home.
You didn’t know Prof. Gates specific position and salary structure at Harvard? It’s fair to say you did not know if he was a “big shot” or not.
Yes
Isn’t it true Sgat. that your motive for asking the Harvard Police to was embarress Prof. Gates and perhaps cause him trouble with his employment? You knew of course that by asking them to respond, The harvard Police would have to file a written report which would probaly make its way to the Prof’s bosses?
No and No
Your report states that as you prepared to leave Gates again asked for you name which you “began to provide”.
Correct.
However, according to your rep[ort, as you tried to give him your name he yelled over your “spoken words” and accused you of being a racist. And again repeating he was not someone to “mess with”.
Correct.
Is it possible then, because of his yelling he never heard your name well enough to comprehend or remember it.
I don’t know.
And that was second time you stated your name. You identified yourself as Sgt Crowley and why you were there after Prof. Gates refused to “step outside.”
Correct.
Is it possible that Prof Gates did not remember your name and it was more of a ‘what was your name again’ sort of thing.
I do not know Sir.
The next thing in your report is that you became aware of Off. Figueroa eneterd the home.
Yes.
And this was the first person to observe the conversation and interaction of you and Prof. Gates.
Correct.
At this time, according to your report Gates, asked for your name “a third time” and you replied that you would not because you had already provided it twice. Is that correct?
Yes.
And this was the first time in front a witness other than yourself that Prof. Gates requested your name, is that correct?
Yes.
Your report states that you told Gates you were “leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter he would speak to him outside.”
Yes.
As you began walking towards the front door you could hear Gates again demand your name. You “again told Gates that I would speak to him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics in the kitchen and foyer were making it very difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units.”
Correct
So it is fair to say that at this point Gates was asking for your name and you would not answer with your name?
Yes
And it is fair to say that you specifically requested Prof. Gates to step outside if he wanted to speak with you further?
Do you know if you gave him your name at this point he would have stopped following you?
I do not.
You stated you refused to answer because you had done so on two occasions.
Correct
Sgt. Did you ever determine who and where the second person is/was?
Yes
Yet you did not put that in the report? That was important piece of information, wouldn’t you say? (if he says no, then really bad police work)
Yes.
When in the conversation did you learn this?
Blah blah blah
Early on in the conversation, isn’t that correct.
No/yes (who cares?)
This important piece of police investigatory work does not make the report/ How did you know there were not two individuals in the home that Prof Gates did not know were there? Did you do a walk through? According to your report prepared you leave a cliff hanger. You never fully investigated this yet you called Harvard P.D. on Gates? Did you investigate the possibility of individiuals holding members of Prof. Gate’s family hostage in another room while Prof. Gates was told to get rid of you? Why isn’t any of this in the report?
D.A. Objection
Judge: One question at a time Attorney Ernie. But we all get the point.
Attorney Ernie: OK Sgtr. Let’s go the final paragraph of your report. We agree that up until now Prof Gates has not broken any laws. If had interfered in your performance as a police officer in investigating this crime then you would have charged him with that, correct?
Yes.
Yet, based on your observations and information received from Prof. Gates you determined that no crime had occurred and Prof. Gates and the public were not at risk.
Yes.
Your report states that as you “descended the stairs to the sidewalk” Gates continued with the yelling and racist accusations and said you haven’t head the last of him.
Yes.
At this time you observed “several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk and in front of the residence. Additionally there was the caller and at least seven unidentified passers-by looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.”
Yes.
Outside the house were the Cambridge police officers who were called to the scene, the witness you had asked to remain on the scene, the Harvard University Police who you requested to the scene for some reason or other, and some passer-bys.
Correct
Other than the passers by, the rest were all waitng for you, correct?
Correct
And you were coming out the door at the time. ‘The moment they had all been waiting for’
Correct
And of course you are aware what the elements of a disorderly conduct charge are. In fact you paraphrased the case law I your opening paragraph of the report. “These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose cause citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.”
Correct.
Now Gates continued to yell as you walked away and he stood on his porch.
Correct.
This was in front of the many officers who had responded. Correct?
Yes
And you were being yelled at by a civilian and being called racist in front of your fellow officers and civilians.
Correct
According to your report you warned Gates to calm down, he continued to yell and this “drew the attention of the police officers and civilians who appeared surprised and alarmed.”
Is it fair to say that the many police cars parked outside the Prof home, … BTW, parking is tough around Harvard Square and many of the streets are narrow. Did the police park their vehicles in legal spots and walk to prof. Gates home or just pulled up in front of the house double parking a so forth/
They were parked in front of the home in various angles.
Is it fair to say that police cars and police officers standing outside a home causes civilians to gather?
Yes.
And the civilians that stopped to notice Prof Gates yelling were already there as a result of the police activity.
Yes.
And isn’t it an elemnent of the crime that there must be disruption in the ability of civilians to go along with their daily tasks.
More or less
Were there cars beeping their horns because Prof. Gates was causing traffic to back up?
No
Were civilians prevente4d from walking down the street or pursing other legal rights and freedoms because of Prof Gates outbusts?
No.
Now you state you pulled out your handcuffs and asked him to quiet down
Correct.
And it is fair to say that a reasonable person would presume that if you did not obey the command you would place the hand cuffs on him and place him under arrest.
Correct.
Regardless of the arrest being a legal one or an illegal one the handcuffs indicate it was going to happen unless things change.
Correct?
Correct.
He continued to yell so according to your report “It was at this time I informed Gates he under arrest. I then steeped up the stairs, onto the porch, and attempted to mplace hand cuffs on Gates.” It is fair to say Sgat. That Prof Gtaes. Did not follow myou off his porch when you were leaving.?
Correct.
In fact you could have kept walking as civilians and fellow officer
s watched Prof Gates insult and harangue you. Correct?
Correct?
Tell me Sgt. It’s true isn’t it that it is not a crime for a civilian to insult and harangue a police officer when not interfering with the officers ability to perform hid duties?.
Yes
And you were finished with your investigation when the offense for which you arrested him occurred?
Correct.
No crime for being an asshole, right Sgt.
Yes.
We all experience assholes. Correct?
Correct.
Yet very few of us have the power of arrest. Correct?
Correct.
The rawest of all powers. The power a despot needs to if he has any hope of ruling. A power easily abused, especially when we have a complacent if not conspiratorial media.
That’s not for me to say.
Next Up. The Cross-Examination if Professor Gates (the civil trial)
Good job, Ernie.
<
p>I can just picture Hamilton Burger jumping to his feet and saying “Your Honor, this line of question is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent.”
<
p>I guess we’re at the noon recess — I can’t wait for the next segment.
<
p>In a more serious vein, it makes it pretty obvious why the charges against Professor Gates were so quickly dropped.
without consulting the police, the “politicians” in the City of Cambridge dropped the charges. Cowards.
<
p>Advice to Ernie… please please please use your “asshole attitude” which you mention in your mock interview the next time you get pulled over by a cop. When he/she asks for your license call them a F’ing A-hole and tell the to “blank your blank”. THAT would make a great diary… when you get out of prison.
wouldn’t prosecute, therefore the police were forced to drop the charges.
<
p>I don’t see where you get the idea that I believe giving a cop shit wouldn’t result in my arrest. It happenes everyday.
<
p>But usually the cop writes a report that covers his ass. In this case the cop writes a report that guarentees a not guilty and $$$ in a civil case.
<
p>Smareten up JohnD and quit reading what you want to read.
I don’t know if you are an attorney nor do I care. People like yourself who are looking for an opening can interpret police reports all day long that look poorly written and open to questioning… and yet the police get convictions with them.
<
p>The DA dropped these charges for political reasons and not procedural reasons and certainly you acknowledge that.
<
p>PS For all the other “smart asses” who have accused the initial caller as “racial profiling” blah blah blah…
<
p>
<
p>This is the problem with people like Ernie, Obama and others who are talking about things without knowing the facts. I’m sure the stubborn bigots here who have labeled this woman a racist will still stick to their guns and wiggle another theory as to why she was a racists (“… just the fact that she reported this shows she was a racist…”
<
p>sigmund freud-esque “sometimes a cucumber perceived break-in is just a cucumber perceived break-in and NOT a racial incident (until the racist “victim” accuses the white cop of being a racist for no apparent reason).
That last paragraph about Ms. Whalen really stands out to me.
<
p>It would be a matter of basic intellectual honesty for the several people on this site who accused her of racism based on zero proof to apologize publicly now.
I will.
<
p>I don’t think I said it, but I am quite sure I thought it.
<
p>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a…
<
p>So either she said it or Crowley thought she did (or he made it up).
<
p>But I do apologize for insinuating she had racial animus behind her call.
She says she didn’t even see one of the men.
<
p>For the record, I never accused her of racism. I do think Sabutai’s postings on this subject have been among the worst I’ve seen, anywhere.
And there was another person with her. Regardless, she comes out looking like a concerned responsible person in the recording.
I do wonder who the neighbor she mentions was. One would think (hope?) that a neighbor would have recognized Mr. Gates. In my part of Cambridge, we know the folks on our block. Strangers get checked out.
Really? So you’re claiming Mr. Crowley’s police report is wrong, now?
You’re welcome to show me where I said Crowley’s report is the truth. I have consistently said that the truth is somewhere in between the two accounts, and it is an exaggeration (to be kind) to say that we know otherwise. People took their personal template of beliefs on a very fuzzy case, and have applied it to the people involved and other commentators on it. I said until I was blue here and elsewhere that there has been a rush to judgment — and given Ms. Whalen does not have a university nor a union backing her, I believe she is the most vulnerable person in all this.
<
p>I mean, if people around here feel no restraint from throwing around racist accusations and then refusing to walk them down when proven wrong, it says a lot about their integrity.
I do think your postings are insulting, borderline hysterical, and incredibly poorly thought out. Racism is a plausible motivation for your reaction, but I said nothing about that.
I’ve read apologies from leading lights here and at the Phoenix have already apologized. You’re the one who jumped on my response to JohnD.
The posts here are my first on the subject. As I said, insulting and poorly thought out.
I’m not sure how this started, but I think you’re reading a tone in sabutai’s comments that isn’t there. Easy to do, I think, once one makes their mind up about someone.
<
p>Of course, I could be missing the tone :-! , but I just thought I’d throw that out there.
That’ll learn me. OK, I’ll stay out of this.
More importantly, we’ve both moved on.
I’ll tell you when to stop.
I have to say it’s interesting to see someone who describes people as “gay” or “black” participating in a discussion about racism.
<
p>Note to Sabutai: I do have to apologize for lumping you in with RegularJoe and JohnD.
First, it does not logically follow that since the caller did not mention race, that means that race absolutely, positively did not affect her thought process. People keep saying that, but it is a complete non-sequitur to me.
<
p>Second, I am now willing to give a lot more benefit of the doubt to this woman because she was calling 911 on behalf of another elderly woman. The caller even stated that she wouldn’t have even noticed the incident if this other woman hadn’t brought it to her attention.
<
p>The caller’s actions now make a lot more sense to me — I had previously questioned why a borderline incident would have resulted in a 911 call of a possible b&e by a relative stranger to the neighborhood. The caller’s uncertainty is a lot more clear now. I don’t fault the woman for calling, nor do I question why she did it. Her actions are beyond reproach to me.
<
p>However, we don’t know what was on the mind of this elderly woman. I know I could be accused of stereotyping here, but I think it is plausible that an elderly woman sees race differently than someone younger, because 50 years ago this entire country saw race very differently. Therefore it is plausible that to an elderly woman, two Black men on a porch fiddling with a door equates to “potential b & e, call 911”.
<
p>Then again, for all I know, maybe this elderly woman was Black and/or maybe she was just freaked out at recent reports of break-ins.
<
p>We just don’t know, nor can we ever know, what lies in the hearts of anyone. That is why claims of racially-based motivations cannot be proven one way or another. I never called anyone a racist; I said that it is possible that race played a factor in the call, the reason being that the situation just doesn’t appear to have been urgent, threatening, or even plainly a crime.
<
p>Let’s play a game. Pretend you’re driving down a street in a town that you don’t live in. You see one of the following things:
<
p>
<
p>Now consider if you knew that the town you were in was predominately white. Would that affect your level of concern?
<
p>I believe, based on reading many accounts, that in a town that people consider “predominately white”, if a 20 year old black kid was carrying a flat screen TV out of the front door of a house, and was dressed like most 20-year old Black kids dress, a fair amount of white people would suspect that it is a crime, yet would not even think twice about a white kid dressed like most 20-year old white kids dress doing the same thing.
<
p>And that’s a problem.
<
p>I don’t think that calling the police every time you see someone carrying a flat screen TV out of a house is a reasonable solution. I think that people need to stop and think about how race is affecting their perceptions more often, and maybe that will result in the 20-year old Black kid being given the same benefits of the doubt as a 20-year old white kid. That would be true ignorance of race.
<
p>The fact that motivations can’t be known does not mean we should not discuss them, if only to point out to people who do believe that a Black person is “more likely” to be committing a crime that such a belief is racist, and that it has huge repercussions on the Black community when people take something like that for granted in their everyday lives.
In any situation, if after you remove race, there is no other evidence you may be dealing with racial profiling.
<
p>Let’s play a game. A woman calls 911 and reports seeing:
<
p>
<
p>Would that change your perception of what the motivations of the caller may have been? What if you found out the caller was white, would that change your perception of her motivations?
<
p>How is it different to judge her with race as the only factor?
I think I hear what you’re saying — that using the race of the woman who called it in to judge her actions is similar to the caller using the race of the person forcing the door to judge his actions.
<
p>I’m not sure I can agree with the outcome of that reasoning though, because if you take it to its conclusion, that fits in very well with the new conservative theory that basically, if you look for evidence of racism, that makes you a racist yourself.
<
p>That would mean that someone would be a racist for questioning if the white guy with the fire hose spraying a group of Blacks was racist — because if the sprayer was Black, you probably wouldn’t be asking the question.
<
p>I don’t think I can agree with that position. And I suppose it is possible, though less likely, for a Black person to be racist against other Blacks. If a Black person picks a white job candidate over a Black job candidate because he thinks the Black will be “more likely” to be a poor performer, that makes him racist regardless of his skin.
<
p>
The DA made the right decision to drop the charges.
Sabutai has taken the high and mighty road throughout, but the only take away so far is he’s kind of a jerk. Clearly there’s a middle ground, which is why many of us (including me) held off on commenting until we had more info. Sabutai clearly thinks he knows better.
My first reaction was here. The only road I’m taking is “don’t accuse people of racism — one of the strongest accusations you can make in modern society — unless you can back it up. If you did accuse and have been proven wrong, apologize.”
<
p>People are apologizing, hopefully having learned not to rush to judgment. What do you find wrong with that?
I can only judge by your nastiness and incoherence on here.
Given that you responded to my honest query with a snide personal attack with no detail or explanation, I can only take it that you’re not interested in discussing this issue, but rather using it as a lever for slander.
When I said nothing of the sort. Also your over the top attacks on other people who expressed differing views in this discussion.
<
p>Your use of the word “slander” is a perfect example.
I was piggybacking on JohnD’s comment, which opened up the case of Ms. Whalen. I never, never tried to put words in your mouth, nor would I. I was seeking to address people who threw around those terms, which doesn’t include you, and never did. I’m sorry if I gave any other impression.
<
p>If you think questioning people who throw the word “racist” around with no proof at private citizens doing the right thing is “over the top”, then we have an honest disagreement.
But enough.
If you’re going throw around words, you should know what they mean.
…is you throwing it against me (and others) who made no such comments. Also your rush to judge the facts of the case before there were any. Bloviating about how right you are does nothing to advance the discussion. It still remains to be seen.
<
p>In the meantime, what is clear is Gates was arrested on his own porch for the crime of mouthing off to a cop. As a Cambridge resident, I’m extremely uncomfortable with it.
“…the several people on this site who accused her of racism”
<
p>Does that include you? If no, you have nothing to worry about. I’m not comfortable with what happened to Gates, but he has a powerful university and intellectual circle to speak up for him, as well as his own notable pulpit. Ms. Whalen doesn’t.
At the merest hint of a break-in, people should call the police. I thought people were wrong to go after her, too, even before the 911 call came out. The blame belongs to the Cambridge cops and Crowley, for abusing the power of arrest, turning this into a national embarrassment.
I question the wisdom of Gates’ media blitz, but it was Crowley’s appearance on Dennis and Callahan that convinced me the CPD brass were asleep at the switch. This should have been defused long before Obama got involved.
It’s not that hard to say “sorry.” It should be doubly so for public employees.
is because she was unable to see them clearly. If she had a better view, she’d forever be that racist.
do you think police should have wide powers to do what they please and people should always defer to them and do what they say… but they should also be able to cover up their abuse with bull shit reports?
<
p>I truly wonder what the heck went wrong with whoever raised you. I’ve never met anyone who wants to live in the world of 1984… until you.
are inadmissible in a court of law as hearsay for all the obvious reasons.
Thanks. This was not a prosecutable charge whatever else it was – or was not.
My .02. Not having a good night were you, JohnD? Trolling along.
Ernie commented in his mock interview…
<
p>
<
p>Here is my post which you reference…
<
p>
<
p>Where did I resort to name calling?????
racist, but I did consider Crowley’s bust as the work of a city cop. I was wrong. It was the action of a frustrated cop whom was treated to an exceptionally hard time by an equally frustrated citizen. I never thought racial profiling was an issue on this.
<
p>The lesson, I think, was more subtle, and for me, hard to completely comprehend: black men view experiences with police much differently. Crowley followed procedure and Gates acted like a jerk. I’m not sure how much a cop can think about what a suspect is thinking, but the rest of us could work harder at trying to put ourselves in their shoes.
<
p>After talking to one of my law enforcement friends, I know that Crowley’s arrest was legal in that there were grounds for it. I also know that instead of arrest, he could have just left and later issued a citation. He also could have just ignored the whole episode.
<
p>It now looks like he may have embellished(?) the racial angle on his arrest report. This may have been inadvertent, unconscious, or conscious protection of racial accusations. Such embellishments are probably not uncommon on arrest reports. It certainly had no bearing on the facts of the case.